Nothin but Nets

[ITYSL]

Last season, 9 Philadelphia 76ers played 900+ minutes. Their on/off numbers were as follows:

Joel Embiid - +10.4
Wilson Chandler - +6.7
Jimmy Butler - +6.6
J.J. Redick - +5.3
Mike Muscala - +0.2
Ben Simmons - -1.6
Tobias Harris - -2.9
T.J. McConnell - -4.5
Landry Shamet - -4.5

I've bolded the names of the players they kept this offseason. Four of the five who had positive on/off numbers are gone. Two guys they just handed out huge contracts to this offseason had negative on/off numbers last season. Adding Horford and Richardson changes A LOT, but are those additions enough to actually get past the 2nd round in 19-20? Time will tell...

[GeorgeMarcus]

Last season, 9 Philadelphia 76ers played 900+ minutes. Their on/off numbers were as follows:

Joel Embiid - +10.4
Wilson Chandler - +6.7
Jimmy Butler - +6.6
J.J. Redick - +5.3
Mike Muscala - +0.2
Ben Simmons - -1.6
Tobias Harris - -2.9
T.J. McConnell - -4.5
Landry Shamet - -4.5

I've bolded the names of the players they kept this offseason. Four of the five who had positive on/off numbers are gone. Two guys they just handed out huge contracts to this offseason had negative on/off numbers last season. Adding Horford and Richardson changes A LOT, but are those additions enough to actually get past the 2nd round in 19-20? Time will tell...

You don't see the difference? Joel Embiid is the difference. He is the transcendent variable that influences the rest of the data. Ben/Tobias were staggered against his minutes, so those numbers are to be expected. This is how on/off is meant to be interpreted.

The Nets are a different story, unless you believe Ed Davis is the transcendent variable (which would still support my argument in the OP). The "starters weighted against bench players" is the only argument that holds water, but it still tells us that the Nets starting lineup was below average because they have negative on/offs on a team with a -0.1 net differential.

There's so much on/off can show us if we let it

[kamaze]

Vegas has nets at 48 wins this year. i think that would get them in the playoffs in the west. i personally have them at 52 wins, with relative health (65 games from Kytrie, 55 from levert, 70 from harris)

Without Durant? I don't know Prok I'm betting low with room for improvement.

well you are consistently wrong so what you bet is irrelevant

https://media1.tenor.com/images/d22768c3f9487723dde2856687a9210c/tenor.gif?itemid=3532416

[ITYSL]

Last season, 9 Philadelphia 76ers played 900+ minutes. Their on/off numbers were as follows:

Joel Embiid - +10.4
Wilson Chandler - +6.7
Jimmy Butler - +6.6
J.J. Redick - +5.3
Mike Muscala - +0.2
Ben Simmons - -1.6
Tobias Harris - -2.9
T.J. McConnell - -4.5
Landry Shamet - -4.5

I've bolded the names of the players they kept this offseason. Four of the five who had positive on/off numbers are gone. Two guys they just handed out huge contracts to this offseason had negative on/off numbers last season. Adding Horford and Richardson changes A LOT, but are those additions enough to actually get past the 2nd round in 19-20? Time will tell...

You don't see the difference? Joel Embiid is the difference. He is the transcendent variable that influences the rest of the data. Ben/Tobias were staggered against his minutes, so those numbers are to be expected. This is how on/off is meant to be interpreted.

The Nets are a different story, unless you believe Ed Davis is the transcendent variable (which would still support my argument in the OP). The "starters weighted against bench players" is the only argument that holds water, but it still tells us that the Nets starting lineup was below average because they have negative on/offs on a team with a -0.1 net differential.

There's so much on/off can show us if we let it

Oh, I am well aware that Embiid was the biggest difference. And yet Butler's minutes with Embiid were more staggered than Simmons' were, so try again. Only one of those four key starters - Simmons, Redick, Butler, Embiid - had a negative on/off last season.

Out of those four players, can you guess what three-man combination had the best net rating? Yep, you guessed it: Embiid, Butler and Redick, at +14.5. Can you guess which had the lowest? Yep, you guessed it, one with Simmons.

As for Harris, he had a negative on/off for LAC before the trade, and a negative on/off the previous season with the Clippers and Pistons as well. And he wasn't staggering minutes with any transcendent talent in either of those places. What did the Sixers do? They let Butler walk and gave Harris the max contract.

So I agree. On/off and net rating is definitely telling us a lot here. Thank you for showing us the light. And have fun paying those two negative on/off players $65m-$75m for several years starting next season.

[GeorgeMarcus]

You don't see the difference? Joel Embiid is the difference. He is the transcendent variable that influences the rest of the data. Ben/Tobias were staggered against his minutes, so those numbers are to be expected. This is how on/off is meant to be interpreted.

The Nets are a different story, unless you believe Ed Davis is the transcendent variable (which would still support my argument in the OP). The "starters weighted against bench players" is the only argument that holds water, but it still tells us that the Nets starting lineup was below average because they have negative on/offs on a team with a -0.1 net differential.

There's so much on/off can show us if we let it

Oh, I am well aware that Embiid was the biggest difference. And yet Butler's minutes with Embiid were more staggered than Simmons' were, so try again. Only one of those four key starters - Simmons, Redick, Butler, Embiid - had a negative on/off last season.

Out of those four players, can you guess what three-man combination had the best net rating? Yep, you guessed it: Embiid, Butler and Redick, at +14.5. Can you guess which had the lowest? Yep, you guessed it, one with Simmons.

As for Harris, he had a negative on/off for LAC before the trade, and a negative on/off the previous season with the Clippers and Pistons as well. And he wasn't staggering minutes with any transcendent talent in either of those places. What did the Sixers do? They let Butler walk and gave Harris the max contract.

So I agree. On/off and net rating is definitely telling us a lot here. Thank you for showing us the light. And have fun paying those two negative on/off players $65m-$75m for several years starting next season.

Woah boy. Where to begin...

1.) You're wrong about Simmons having a higher correlation of minutes with Embiid than Butler. They were virtually the same, but maybe you didn't calibrate for games played with Embiid and mpg. Actually because Ben played a higher % of games with Embiid, he was negatively impacted more than Butler was.
2.) Butler was our 2nd best player last year, so once again those numbers are to be expected.
3.) Don't say "try again" when presenting information that I never attempted to address. Especially when the information is wrong.
4.) Redick was far and away most correlated with Embiid. His numbers when they didn't share the court were horrendous. We won't miss JJ.
5.) Tobias had a -1.7 on/off on the Clippers- the team with the best bench in the league! Are you seeing how this works? The Clippers' bench was vital in getting to 48 wins and the Nets' bench was vital in getting to 42. As is reflected in the numbers.
6.) More on Tobias: now that Jimmy's gone we should be able to utilize his strengths more effectively. He fills a specific need as an efficient perimeter scorer amidst a lower-usage/better defensive supporting cast. As I'm sure you're aware, impact data cannot be separated from a player's role on the team.

I'm glad we agree about the usefulness of on/off is though. You just need to brush up on your deductions. Rule #1: don't enslave yourself to an agenda.

[ITYSL]

1.) You're wrong about Simmons having a higher correlation of minutes with Embiid than Butler. They were virtually the same, but maybe you didn't calibrate for games played with Embiid and mpg. Actually because Ben played a higher % of games with Embiid, he was negatively impacted more than Butler was.

No, I was right. Simmons played 2700 minutes last season; 1459 of them (54%) were with Embiid. Butler played 1824 minutes with the Sixers last season; 916 of them (50%) were with Embiid. Link: https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2019/lineups/#all_lineups_2-man_

2.) Butler was our 2nd best player last year, so once again those numbers are to be expected.

Doesn't change my point that Simmons had a negative on/off despite the other three key starters having positive on/off numbers.

3.) Don't say "try again" when presenting information that I never attempted to address. Especially when the information is wrong.

You stated that Simmons' minutes with Embiid were staggered as an explanation for why he had a negative on/off compared to Embiid, Butler and Simmons. I countered by saying that Butler's numbers were more staggered, and he still had a positive on/off. My information, as shown above, was correct, and I'll say "try again" if I want, whether you like it or not. Lol.

4.) Redick was far and away most correlated with Embiid. His numbers when they didn't share the court were horrendous. We won't miss JJ.

Yes, I realize Redick was the most correlated with Embiid. We'll see if the Sixers miss one of the team's most important 4th quarter scorers and one of the more prolific 3-point shooters of all-time.

5.) Tobias had a -1.7 on/off on the Clippers- the team with the best bench in the league! Are you seeing how this works? The Clippers' bench was vital in getting to 48 wins and the Nets' bench was vital in getting to 42. As is reflected in the numbers.

Tobias had a negative on/off for two seasons with three different teams - the Pistons, the Clippers and the Sixers. It seems like you have excuses for all of that. If the Clippers' bench was so good that the team was worse with Tobias on the court, then maybe Tobias isn't worthy of a starter position and max salary player? Just a thought. By the way, two of Harris' fellow starters, Beverley and Gallinari, had positive on/off, as did starters Zubac and Shamet following Harris' trade to the Sixers. Hmmm.

I'm glad we agree about the usefulness on/off is though. You just need to brush up on your deductions. Rule #1: don't enslave yourself to an agenda.

This is hilarious. I've said in multiple threads this offseason that the Sixers, along with the Bucks, are the favorite for coming out of the East (link #1 and link #2). Agenda? OK.

The only reason I replied is to tease you for your enslavement to on/off numbers. Your OP gave on/off numbers without any context. When Nets fans tried to present context to you, you objected. So now, when I jokingly present on/off numbers for Sixers' players to you without context, you protest and present context. You don't realize the double standard, but that's OK. Pretty much everyone else in this thread does. Cheers.

[Prokorov]

The only reason I replied is to tease you for your enslavement to on/off numbers. Your OP gave on/off numbers without any context. When Nets fans tried to present context to you, you objected. So now, when I jokingly present on/off numbers for Sixers' players to you without context, you protest and present context. You don't realize the double standard, but that's OK. Pretty much everyone else in this thread does. Cheers.

this. it was clear from the first post that even if this wasnt a complete troll-job of a thread that the OP was completely ignorant to last years nets team, who the heavy lifters were, who contributed, and who was 3rd string garbage time bench fodder. All attempts ot enlighten were met with ridicule.

[GeorgeMarcus]

1.) You're wrong about Simmons having a higher correlation of minutes with Embiid than Butler. They were virtually the same, but maybe you didn't calibrate for games played with Embiid and mpg. Actually because Ben played a higher % of games with Embiid, he was negatively impacted more than Butler was.

No, I was right. Simmons played 2700 minutes last season; 1459 of them (54%) were with Embiid. Butler played 1824 minutes with the Sixers last season; 916 of them (50%) were with Embiid. Link: https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2019/lineups/#all_lineups_2-man_

I figured that's the equation you used, but it's wrong. Embiid played 57.3% of Ben's off minutes and 40.7% of Jimmy's off minutes. You can't just do % of minutes played with Embiid because you're only addressing one side of the on/off spectrum. Pretty basic stuff.

2.) Butler was our 2nd best player last year, so once again those numbers are to be expected.

Doesn't change my point that Simmons had a negative on/off despite the other three key starters having positive on/off numbers.

Yes, he did, which again is unsurprising given the context of being weighed against Butler and Embiid.

3.) Don't say "try again" when presenting information that I never attempted to address. Especially when the information is wrong.

You stated that Simmons' minutes with Embiid were staggered as an explanation for why he had a negative on/off compared to Embiid, Butler and Simmons. I countered by saying that Butler's numbers were more staggered, and he still had a positive on/off. My information, as shown above, was correct, and I'll say "try again" if I want, whether you like it or not. Lol.

I demonstrated how you were wrong with my 1st point. You shouldn't speak confidently about things you fundamentally misunderstand.

4.) Redick was far and away most correlated with Embiid. His numbers when they didn't share the court were horrendous. We won't miss JJ.

Yes, I realize Redick was the most correlated with Embiid. We'll see if the Sixers miss one of the team's most important 4th quarter scorers and one of the more prolific 3-point shooters of all-time.

Yep, we will see, and you will see I'm right.

5.) Tobias had a -1.7 on/off on the Clippers- the team with the best bench in the league! Are you seeing how this works? The Clippers' bench was vital in getting to 48 wins and the Nets' bench was vital in getting to 42. As is reflected in the numbers.

Tobias had a negative on/off for two seasons with three different teams - the Pistons, the Clippers and the Sixers. It seems like you have excuses for all of that. If the Clippers' bench was so good that the team was worse with Tobias on the court, then maybe Tobias isn't worthy of a starter position and max salary player? Just a thought. By the way, two of Harris' fellow starters, Beverley and Gallinari, had positive on/off, as did starters Zubac and Shamet following Harris' trade to the Sixers. Hmmm.

I'm glad we agree about the usefulness on/off is though. You just need to brush up on your deductions. Rule #1: don't enslave yourself to an agenda.

This is hilarious. I've said in multiple threads this offseason that the Sixers, along with the Bucks, are the favorite for coming out of the East (link #1 and link #2). Agenda? OK.

The only reason I replied is to tease you for your enslavement to on/off numbers. Your OP gave on/off numbers without any context. When Nets fans tried to present context to you, you objected. So now, when I jokingly present on/off numbers for Sixers' players to you without context, you protest and present context. You don't realize the double standard, but that's OK. Pretty much everyone else in this thread does. Cheers.

You mic dropped after being objectively wrong Post your argument on the statistical analysis board and see what they tell you. "Everyone in this thread" does not realize the double standard because there is none, not to mention that everyone outside of a couple Nets fans have agreed with me. I've explicitly said multiple times that on/off is not a player ranking; it provides insight on relative player contributions to team success. The Sixers' on/off data validates everything I know and love about on/off, and why it's such a useful tool. You are proving the opposite of what you think you're proving.

[ITYSL]

You specifically said "correlation of minutes," so no, I was correct. You've repeatedly made statistical claims on this site only to be shot down again and again, and not just by me.

I also noticed you didn't address Harris' on/off across two seasons and three different teams. Must be some contextual reasons for all of those, according to you, right?

Not going to keep going back and forth with you, because your double standard is clear. Present on/off without context for other teams and protest when other posters provide context, then turn around and protest on/off without context for your own team.

[GeorgeMarcus]

No, I was right. Simmons played 2700 minutes last season; 1459 of them (54%) were with Embiid. Butler played 1824 minutes with the Sixers last season; 916 of them (50%) were with Embiid. Link: https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2019/lineups/#all_lineups_2-man_

I figured that's the equation you used, but it's wrong. Embiid played 57.3% of Ben's off minutes and 40.7% of Jimmy's off minutes. You can't just do % of minutes played with Embiid because you're only addressing one side of the on/off spectrum. Pretty basic stuff.

Nah, I am correct. You specifically said "correlation of minutes." Try again.

Not going to keep going back and forth with you, because your double standard is clear. Present on/off without context for other teams and protest when other posters provide context, then turn around and protest on/off without context for your own team.

Again, the correlation of minutes applies to both on and off. You attempted to present hypocrisy in my argument (ie the “agenda” that I referred to) and you were wrong. You demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the stat and how to interpret it. It’s better we don’t go back and forth because there’s really nothing left to be said.

[ITYSL]

I figured that's the equation you used, but it's wrong. Embiid played 57.3% of Ben's off minutes and 40.7% of Jimmy's off minutes. You can't just do % of minutes played with Embiid because you're only addressing one side of the on/off spectrum. Pretty basic stuff.

Nah, I am correct. You specifically said "correlation of minutes." Try again.

Not going to keep going back and forth with you, because your double standard is clear. Present on/off without context for other teams and protest when other posters provide context, then turn around and protest on/off without context for your own team.

Again, the correlation of minutes applies to both on and off. You attempted to present hypocrisy in my argument (ie the “agenda” that I referred to) and you were wrong. You demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the stat and how to interpret it. It’s better we don’t go back and forth because there’s really nothing left to be said.

Yeah. You've been repeatedly shot down by educated statisticians on this site over and over again. Maybe don't post stats anymore, and watch games instead. Cheers.

You need to engage in discussion in a more civil manner.- Ken

[GeorgeMarcus]

Nah, I am correct. You specifically said "correlation of minutes." Try again.

Not going to keep going back and forth with you, because your double standard is clear. Present on/off without context for other teams and protest when other posters provide context, then turn around and protest on/off without context for your own team.

Again, the correlation of minutes applies to both on and off. You attempted to present hypocrisy in my argument (ie the “agenda” that I referred to) and you were wrong. You demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the stat and how to interpret it. It’s better we don’t go back and forth because there’s really nothing left to be said.

Yeah. You've been repeatedly shot down by educated statisticians on this site over and over again. Maybe don't post stats anymore, and watch games instead. Cheers.

Who, you and Prokorov? Sorry to embarrass you on a public forum but don’t worry, nobody knows who you are

[ITYSL]

Who, you and Prokorov? Sorry to embarrass you on a public forum but don’t worry, nobody knows who you are

Haha, ok. You lean on on/off without context on small sample sizes. When someone calls you on it, you say, "Well I didn't mean anything by it!" You've been repeatedly told on this forum by multiple people educated in statistics that you lean too much on noisy on/off stats.

For example, there were a few gems in this thread, where you posted Kyrie's on/off stats after about 15 games as if that would indicate anything (lol), but here were a few of my favorites:

Its unfortunate that those who most poorly understand statistics fetishize them the most.

Your understanding and application of the stats is flawed, if you need it spelled out more clearly. The stats are fine, you just don't know what they are showing. (with the caveat that several people have corrected the stats at this point and I don't know which ones are even true)

I used to teach stats in my hometown college. I would have a student like superdario every few semesters. It was always a male student and they never were in the top of the class except once (really sharp kid) as far as grades. The sharp kid now is in politics and was running for state senate.

And that was just one thread. Talk about embarrassed.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Who, you and Prokorov? Sorry to embarrass you on a public forum but don’t worry, nobody knows who you are

Haha, ok. You lean on on/off without context on small sample sizes. When someone calls you on it, you say, "Well I didn't mean anything by it!" You've been repeatedly told on this forum by multiple people educated in statistics that you lean too much on noisy on/off stats.

For example, there were a few gems in this thread, where you posted Kyrie's on/off stats after about 15 games as if that would indicate anything (lol), but here were a few of my favorites:

Its unfortunate that those who most poorly understand statistics fetishize them the most.

Your understanding and application of the stats is flawed, if you need it spelled out more clearly. The stats are fine, you just don't know what they are showing. (with the caveat that several people have corrected the stats at this point and I don't know which ones are even true)

I used to teach stats in my hometown college. I would have a student like superdario every few semesters. It was always a male student and they never were in the top of the class except once (really sharp kid) as far as grades. The sharp kid now is in politics and was running for state senate.

And that was just one thread. Talk about embarrassed.

You had to go into an entirely different thread posted almost a year ago to find what you’re looking for! You can’t make this stuff up. Too good. I can go back and quote the people who agreed with me in that thread but I’m not that desperate to defend myself from such a baseless and desperate plea to discredit my knowledge of statistics. Especially after you put your own statistical shortcomings on full display in the same day.

[ITYSL]

You had to go into an entirely different thread posted almost a year ago to find what you’re looking for! You can’t make this stuff up. Too good. I can go back and quote the people who agreed with me in that thread but I’m not that desperate to defend myself from such a baseless and desperate plea to discredit my knowledge of statistics. Especially after you put your own statistical shortcomings on full display in the same day.

I didn't have to do that. I just wanted to show a history of you posting these silly on/off threads and repeatedly getting called out on it. There are plenty of posters other than me in this very thread saying you're using on/off incorrectly, and not all of them are Nets fans. Here are a couple mocking you:

When they lost Dudley to the lakers, it was clear their reign was over before it even began.

So RHJ was +0.7 when the Nets were up by 20 and no one played defense. The dynasty ends before it even began.

A few months from now you'll bury yourself in bbref again and post another ridiculous thread based entirely on on/off numbers. Until then, cheers.

[MrDollarBills]

Last season, 9 Philadelphia 76ers played 900+ minutes. Their on/off numbers were as follows:

Joel Embiid - +10.4
Wilson Chandler - +6.7
Jimmy Butler - +6.6
J.J. Redick - +5.3
Mike Muscala - +0.2
Ben Simmons - -1.6
Tobias Harris - -2.9
T.J. McConnell - -4.5
Landry Shamet - -4.5

I've bolded the names of the players they kept this offseason. Four of the five who had positive on/off numbers are gone. Two guys they just handed out huge contracts to this offseason had negative on/off numbers last season. Adding Horford and Richardson changes A LOT, but are those additions enough to actually get past the 2nd round in 19-20? Time will tell...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GeorgeMarcus]

You had to go into an entirely different thread posted almost a year ago to find what you’re looking for! You can’t make this stuff up. Too good. I can go back and quote the people who agreed with me in that thread but I’m not that desperate to defend myself from such a baseless and desperate plea to discredit my knowledge of statistics. Especially after you put your own statistical shortcomings on full display in the same day.

I didn't have to do that. I just wanted to show a history of you posting these silly on/off threads and repeatedly getting called out on it. There are plenty of posters other than me in this very thread saying you're using on/off incorrectly, and not all of them are Nets fans. Here are a couple mocking you:

When they lost Dudley to the lakers, it was clear their reign was over before it even began.

So RHJ was +0.7 when the Nets were up by 20 and no one played defense. The dynasty ends before it even began.

A few months from now you'll bury yourself in bbref again and post another ridiculous thread based entirely on on/off numbers. Until then, cheers.

2 posters made harmless jokes about 2 of the least significant players in the OP, and you believe they are mocking me/the data presented? You don't even believe that considering you resorted to quoting an entirely different thread on your first attempt. The best part is, even if those posters were mocking me (I know Winsome and doubt that's the case), it changes NOTHING about my argument which you have continuously failed to rebut. Not only because you can't seem to digest or interpret on/off data but because you are projecting conclusions that I've never made. Strawman and ad hominem tactics 101; that's when you know you've lost.

The greatest irony here is that, in the Kyrie thread you referenced, I warned Celtics fans that Kyrie would not make the Celtics much better. You got your panties in a bunch and tried to mock my posts out of outrage and insecurity, only to realize that I was demonstrably right the whole time. Bisme, the poster you quoted multiple times, posted just this week about how wrong he was about Kyrie and that posters like myself tried to warn him. Many Celtics fans have done the same, which is why I've neglected to rub salt in the wound by saying "I told you so". No sense beating a dead horse and I'm not that desperate for an ego boost. Thank you though for resurrecting one of my many RealGM victories

[dorkestra]

You had to go into an entirely different thread posted almost a year ago to find what you’re looking for! You can’t make this stuff up. Too good. I can go back and quote the people who agreed with me in that thread but I’m not that desperate to defend myself from such a baseless and desperate plea to discredit my knowledge of statistics. Especially after you put your own statistical shortcomings on full display in the same day.

I didn't have to do that. I just wanted to show a history of you posting these silly on/off threads and repeatedly getting called out on it. There are plenty of posters other than me in this very thread saying you're using on/off incorrectly, and not all of them are Nets fans. Here are a couple mocking you:

When they lost Dudley to the lakers, it was clear their reign was over before it even began.

So RHJ was +0.7 when the Nets were up by 20 and no one played defense. The dynasty ends before it even began.

A few months from now you'll bury yourself in bbref again and post another ridiculous thread based entirely on on/off numbers. Until then, cheers.

2 posters made harmless jokes about 2 of the least significant players in the OP, and you believe they are mocking me/the data presented? You don't even believe that considering you resorted to quoting an entirely different thread on your first attempt. The best part is, even if those posters were mocking me (I know Winsome and doubt that's the case), it changes NOTHING about my argument which you have continuously failed to rebut. Not only because you can't seem to digest or interpret on/off data but because you are projecting conclusions that I've never made. Strawman and ad hominem tactics 101; that's when you know you've lost.

The greatest irony here is that, in the Kyrie thread you referenced, I warned Celtics fans that Kyrie would not make the Celtics much better. You got your panties in a bunch and tried to mock my posts out of outrage and insecurity, only to realize that I was demonstrably right the whole time. Bisme, the poster you quoted multiple times, posted just this week about how wrong he was about Kyrie and that posters like myself tried to warn him. Many Celtics fans have done the same, which is why I've neglected to rub salt in the wound by saying "I told you so". No sense beating a dead horse and I'm not that desperate for an ego boost. Thank you though for resurrecting one of my many RealGM victories

You have more patience than me to even respond to this nonsense

Multiple posts in a row that were absolute garbage. I would have ignored or humiliated him in dramatic fashion, but your calm dismissal is admirable.

[GeorgeMarcus]

You have more patience than me to even respond to this nonsense

Multiple posts in a row that were absolute garbage. I would have ignored or humiliated him in dramatic fashion, but your calm dismissal is admirable.

Thanks but you give me too much credit, as I was just about to hit send on the following post:

[GeorgeMarcus]

I shouldn't but I can't help myself. I would have argued the topic at hand if you didn't make it so blatantly personal. Since you care so much about public opinion, let's recall when you completely embarrassed yourself not long ago...

I do. Lol @ you for driving a poverty ass American pickup truck

Seeing as you have the attitude of a teenager I call bull or your parents got it for you. Either way I own mine paid free and clear and it’s a 35,000 dollar 2017 super crew F150.

Also I drive around 3 kids which is why I said it feels safer then a tiny car.

I'm an M&A investment banker and clear 35k every two weeks. Get on my level. Congrats on raising your kids in some Rust Belt abandoned city driving them around in some rinky dink pickup. Ooh, big pickup driver. Your jealousy is showing bud. Curry don't care about you and what you drive. No one does.

User warned

It's a fun thread for those who care to read: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1770560&hilit=car&start=40

Now I'm going to holster my gun and get back to some real basketball analysis.