freethedevil wrote:This is not how reality works.
This is exactly how reality works. You can't sue someone for what they think.
I forgot that we were in a court of law.
People are not judged on colouring, they are judged on what the colouring leads them to.
This is comically out of touch. People are judged on "colouring" incessently.
It's a shame you don't haven't displayed the "self awareness" to do the same.
Nah, it would be a shame if I overlooked your nonsense for the sake of "debate".
I am not arguing to convince you.
Whether it was for me or yourself or the forum or someone else, you made a point of showcasing inconsistencies in how i apply my criteria. Whether you want to convince me or not, the point stands on showing a contradiction. But since my opinions do not contradict my criteria, they do not prove inconsistency.
The forum/audience can judge whether they take your portability dodges seriously.
That fact you gave yourself an out from the beginning does not disqualify the point. Whenever there is an indication Curry is disadvantaged by an impact metric
The "portability" was brought up in this discussion before you showed "any contradictions", so yeah, baseless claim is baseless.
Addressed previously, but at this point I am accustomed to you glossing over my responses.
I said it was bad as an objective test
You are welcome to quote where i said it was objective. I imagine you won't find the receipt. I wonder why....
If you do not care about it being unobjective, do not a.) whine about me calling it subjective, and b.) force it as a measure down people's throats.
What you said about Steph playing with only Klay as the other major scoring threat can be applied to literally every pre-2017 game
.
No it can't. The 2019 warriors had went all in on their starting 5, of whom, curry's 2 offensive co stars were injured. The pre 17 warriors were a very deep side. Not to mention draymond was a better scorer. Hence the whole "strength in #'s" thing. That you think the pre 2017 warriors were offensively just klay and curry makes me question your capacity to evaluate the team context surrounding the dubs various players.
Ah, yes, the difference between "73 wins" and "adversity" was Harrison Barnes and Maurice Speights. You got me.
This is the type of blatantly twisted framing I would expect WarriorsGM to pull.
And yet Durant and Curry and Draymond all cluster near the top of impact lists together.
Durant's impact #'s went down once he joined the warriors. Why do your points get contradicted by the data you present?
Some of them do. Others do not. Also, more selective responding.
Except Kobe was not less successful. He went to three straight Finals, winning two of them, with a supporting cast worse than the pre-Durant Warriors.
Huh? Curry made 5 straight finals and won 3 rings. And curry's teams were more significantly more dominant in the postseason than any of kobe's. So no, kobe was less successful.
Three appearances and two rings of which were with Durant, as was the bulk of the postseason dominance. Notice how I am not giving Kobe the bulk of the credit for his Shaq titles.
You say he over performed relative to his cast more than curry did. I'm waiting for you to explain what makes you think that.
It starts with winning with a worse team.
Rejecting authority entirely in subjective discussions tends to be to the detriment of understanding.
How do subjective opinions inherently enhance subjective opinions? No, understanding comes from
understanding these opinions. If you understand why they thought the way they did and explain it in a compelling manner, then such opinions can buoy other's understanding. But you didn't. You just said "kobe has a good rep. so he's good"
But gee, none of us are mind-readers, so I guess none of us can understand anyone.
Dismissing actual player experience saying, "He guarded me well." Woof.
What?
Typo, meant to say the celtics.
I figured, but even then it is still an ill-considered comparison to the idea of whether Kobe defended others well.
It goes back to Curry always needing to do less.
^^^^^
Table setting.
An attempt, but you never really engage with it. You have talked about this more in separate posts than you ever did in this chain, and again, when you do talk about it, you do so as dishonestly as possible.
Since we're discussing your criteria now(as we've done for several posts), hopefully you'll stop whining about mine.
I can fit every instance of you legitimately talking about "my criteria" into a post half this length. If I factor out the misinterpretations, it is barely enough to support itself.
Yeah, because when we discuss three-point shooting, most people talk in terms of location.
Ah, so we're clear, you don't actually have an issue with the merit of discussing different skills differently, you just don't like that more nuanced discussions are less popular.
Glad we see eye to eye now.
One-way nuance is not nuance.
Distinct but profoundly related.
Did I say they weren't related? There are still two outcomes here. So curry is offering two, not one, skill for his team.
A.) Basketball is not solved by counting the number of technically distinct skills. B.) See above.
The last two of those were rhetorical.
So? Whether the question is asked rhetorically or non-rhetorically, it is directed at my criteria. You should reasonably respect my answer to be relevant to my criteria. And yet, you whined about me answering in a manner relevant to the question you asked. Why?
You took issue with me saying I have not been looking for
clarification. I did not deny that I have challenged your criteria. They are not the same act.
Not for education.
It doesn't matter what it was for, a question related to my criteria could logically prompt a response related to my criteria. What aren't you getting here?
I get that you like to shift the subject of the quotation. Again, this entire discussion has me saying, "I am not using these," and you responding, "Here are more ways to use these."
I respond to the metrics point in an attempt to show that impact metrics are not this universal standard which can possibly be upheld at all costs.
Yes, and I asked what you do put value in.
And then ignored the bulk of it and misinterpreted the rest.
This is how we got to "curry does not do as much" and "kobe is closer to a 3 and d player than curry is" and me disigenously breaking down both kobe and curry's weaknesses. You set the table, I dined. And unlike you, i posted the receipts that show that.
This strained metaphor falls apart when it relies on you inventing a new argument and attributing it to me. Disingenuous framing by you aside, I never said I picked Kobe because if we put a list of their nominal skills together, his would be longer.
Another example:
Yet again, you showcase Curry's advantage in impact metrics, and continue to work to dismiss Draymond's comparable excellence.
You bring up draymond asking a hypothetical question, I explain that I don't view draymond as portable and gave you specifc reasons why.
Both of which focus on
your metrics.
Whether you accept the reasons or not, you set the table, and i dined. You asking a rtheroical question and me responding to said question is not me "fixating on my criteria". It is you choosing to focus on my criteria and me making a relevant response.
Oh, I was right, you actually do think every response is an implicit endorsement of your criteria.
As I've quoted, i asked multiple times, what you value since you explicitly did not value curry's portability + impact as "the whole story."
Again, multiple requests which were answered and then either ignored and misinterpreted. It was fun going back to the start and seeing how quickly I gave reasons which have still never been addressed. The opportunity was there immediately if that was what you cared about, but it was not. It was always about the "superiority" of
your method, from the very beginning, even as time and time again I said I thought your methods were half a step above bunk.
If you had then focused your post on that and given pargraphs of explanation on your criteria, you would have been responded to with paragraphs looking at your criteria.
Why would I focus my post on that when the entire point of this discussion has been about how Curry is clearly better because impact and portability, such that it is wrong to rank anyone above him because he is so impactful and portable.
Once again, this has never been about me trying to convince you to use my methodology. I do not care if you do. This is about you wanting me to use yours. Everything else is, to use one of your favourite words, tangential.
Instead you gave throw away lines here and there which I quoted and responded to in greater detail.
Throw away lines because you clearly did not care about them. I gave a couple of paragraphs early on that were ignored, so why would I need to go beyond that. You quoted in part, took the wrong meaning from them, and created your own argument. Bravo. Even now, you do not actually have an interest in addressing them. They are just an abstract prop. Is the plan to slowly add a new "analysis" of a misinterpreted sentence every eight posts and then claim, "Yep, this is all about your methods"? Cannot say it is an especially clever or subtle one, but if you keep trying maybe you will accidentally start a real response.
Not only did i dine at your table, I've also made lemonade of your lemons. In response you've repeatedly called me egotistical. I could try and psychoanalyze what would motivate you to respond like that, but unlike you, I prefer not to make baseless assumptions about the character of strangers on the internet.
I do not think people this deluded tend to be adept as psychoanalysis. They are pretty adept at framing everything the way they see fit, though.
What is there to bring the discussion "back" to. This discussion has been about almost nothing other than the metrics you like. How deeply self-absorbed does someone have to be to know that a.) they started the conversation by talking about their preferred metrics, b.) the entire conversation has focused on those preferred metrics, and c.) the other person has repeatedly said they do not agree with those metrics... and then conclude, "Wow, I cannot believe this person thinks this discussion revolves around me." Or do you just think "control" of the conversation shifts with every post, as if the fact I respond to your comments about impact metrics means each time I am going, "Golly, I sure cannot wait to talk more about impact metrics." When only one party is trying to convince the other that they have the perfect means of assessment, who exactly do you think is driving the conversation? Ah, whoops, I forgot, I need to be careful about using rhetorical questions, because otherwise you might think it is because I am in need of actual "clarification".
"I cannot deny this so I am just going to try to condescendingly dismiss it and hope no one notices."
