E-Balla wrote:liamliam1234 wrote:EDIT: Think I will save some time by putting this at the top.
Before you respond, do you understand what the numbers I posted were? Do you understand they are something different from RAPM? If you do not, say so, and please do not waste either of our time by posting another long response operating under a severe misinterpretation of what you are reading.
I'm not and I don't think I'm misinterpreting you. I think you're operating under some assumption I'm arguing against Nash. I'm not. I was trying to say his +/- numbers (which is what you posted) aren't meaningfully better than anyone else up here so I don't get why you'd post them as if they are. You said that wasn't your intention. It was over when you said that, I just posted why I thought that's what you meant because your post made it seem like you meant to argue Nash has better +/- numbers. IDK why you're still posting as if that part hasn't been cleared up.
Because I do not not see how you can look at "+12.9" and "+6.0" and go, "Yeah, that looks the same to me."
Those numbers explicitly are labeled NBA.com, and you think I took some of them from basketball reference?
Why does every response you make start with a massive fundamental error? What would be the point of that? Why would I mix and match them but say they all came from the same source?
Yeah I'm dropping it here. You didn't read my post. You said the NBA.com numbers and bball ref numbers are the same. I directly quoted that
removing all the other parts of your post prior which was you explaining where you got the numbers to post the difference between them.
How is it a genuine misinterpretation when it happens
every single time. Maybe I could buy that it was an issue other people kept having with my phrasing, but no, it is always you.
I did not say the numbers present on basketball reference and NBA.com were the same. I said, and I quote, "All those numbers are the same." Now, in isolation, is that potentially unclear? Sure. But in the context of a.) basic rationality saying there is no reason I would possibly need to draw from two separate sources if they were the same, b.) me already saying and specifying that all those numbers came from NBA.com (why would I need to specify if it did not matter), and c.) me saying that
immediately after saying this:
Similar to how people should differentiate basketball reference’s “rating” numbers from NBA.com’s, which itself needs to be differentiated from the websites’ respective on/off ratings.
... I would say that pretty clearly should indicate I was not saying basketball reference and NBA.com used the same numbers.
But you never think critically about this. Almost every time, you misinterpret what I am saying and go straight for the least rational interpretation. And you wonder why I have no patience for you?
****, I already wrote this, basically one sentence after you “stopped reading”! Let me
quote myself, my one post ago:
Those numbers explicitly are labeled NBA.com, and you think I took some of them from basketball reference?
Why does every response you make start with a massive fundamental error? What would be the point of that? Why would I mix and match them but say they all came from the same source?
Plus minus and net rating, the two things I gave and compared, are all from NBA.com. All of those go back to like 1997. I considered also going through its on/off numbers, but those only went to 2008. And I could have posted them side by side with basketball reference, but those estimations only go through 2001. Which is why they are absent. And which is why there is nothing saying, “Here are everyone’s on/off numbers!” But thanks for explaining the differences, as if I had not repeatedly referred to basketball reference’s metric as an estimate.
I have never met someone who conducts these debates in worse faith than you. You come to terribly irrational conclusions but claim to
stop reading before I call them out. To how much of this will you respond? I will set the over/under at a generous 15%; oh, wait, since this time I discredited you quickly, you will just let it sit. But you accomplished what you wanted, right? You illegitimately claimed
I was being unreasonable and responded to nothing, as always, but that claim will sit because no one else cares to read this conversations enough to call you on your bull.
I have accused you of gaslighting, but maybe that is giving too much credit. It is not about tricking me on what I said; it is about trying to cast doubt in the eyes of everyone else. It is bloody vile, and you say you are having a good time doing it.
You, since you only post to attack others and can't comprehend someone posting information genuinely trying to clear up a misconception you had, decided this was me saying I thought the numbers came from bball ref?
I just loooooooove the subtle "misconception
you had". Really, I had a misconception about the numbers I took straight off the NBA website? After repeatedly distinguishing NBA.com from basketball reference, I had a misconception about the differences between the two? As always, hilarious how you perpetually accuse me of "trying to win", even though you can
never admit you were wrong, even though every thread I need to tell you outright, "No, you are misreading that and making poor assumptions off that misreading."
You need to do better either saying things clearly the first time or not throwing a fit when asked to clarify.
1. Rich, absolutely rich, considering you
immediately pitched a thread-long fit, without any prior provocation, back when I asked you to clarify the numbers in your Ewing/Robinson comparison. But here you baselessly claim I used the wrong numbers and mislabeled them (nope), do not engage with the material at all beyond, again, baselessly dismissing the differences, fail to actually figure it out for yourself even though these numbers are immediately accessible (in contrast to when you basically told me to do the calculations myself with Ewing/Robinson...), push a different and unrelated point, and then complain that metric
you brought up does not work as proof of “my” point, and you want to say
I was unreasonable in my response!? How many more times are you going to outright lie about what I am using and what my intent is before hostility is justified? How many more times do I get to watch you do that, knowing most of the people here immediately tune out and thus only see you accusing me of some nonexistent error.
2. Again, yet again, this is a pattern. How many times have I had to say, "No, you misread that, that was explicitly not my meaning." Yet you keep making assumptions, and you keep derailing threads and derailing my posts because you can never be bothered to simply make sure you understand what you are reading before building a response off that assumption.
Either that or stop being so pissed you aren't able to change anyone's opinions here or get your guy picked higher.
If asking what more people want me to show to help Nash's case is "pissed", I wonder how you think (should you ever take the time to self-reflect) your constant responses throughout this project come across. Or maybe, as with everything else, this is a dishonest accusation made with the expectation that most people have not been following closely enough to bother judging for themselves.
I'm good, I'm doing this for fun and to have documented write-ups on some of my favorite players/reorder my ATL finally. There's been plenty of arguments for and against guys so far that's changed my list and will continue to and apparently I've done that for other people too because there's no way Westbrook is 25th, Moses is 22nd, and Robinson drops to 18th if my posts didn't shift some opinions (along with others that took up the cause). If you can't say the same, maybe you need to take a different approach here because it's telling you keep butting heads with various posters constantly and no one else is butting heads here outside of when HBK dropped in and the injured Curry debate.
Really? Constantly butting heads with other posters? Name them.
It is you and FTD (at a 2 to 1 ratio in frequency, and like a 12:1 ratio in terms of words I need to waste in response). And, as usual, fantastic amount of self-obliviousness considering you have engaged in long disputes with several more people than I have. Plus an even greater amount of self-obliviousness as to how these start. You never go back to read previous posts, and you pretty frequently misremember, but if you did, you would find the past several have been me making a relatively small comment which you expanded into a massive lengthy debate. It happened here. It happened with Harden. It has happened multiple times with Kawhi (although I will claim responsibility for the first time). It happened with Ewing/Robinson when you were furious at me trying to get you to clarify your data. And that is ignoring last thread’s Barkley confusion, which at least was not adversarial but did feature something like six consecutive posts of you reading past my point (and who knows, if Barkley had not been voted in, maybe you would have continued it in this thread).
And
you want to blame
me for butting heads? No, it does not seem to matter whether I am thorough and try to anticipate you, or whether I am curt and try to keep it focused on a specific point, or how precise I am in responding; if I make a comment, I can almost always trust you to twist it and blow it up into a debate spanning pages, dropping or dismissing points as you see fit and expanding other bits as needed to ensure the overall posts grow progressively longer and less likely to be read by anyone else.
And now, to top it all off, you have the gall to accuse me of being impatient and needlessly combative. How many more glass houses do you need to shatter before you figure out the pattern? You used to accuse me of not doing enough work, but now you cannot even do the work to honestly think about what I am saying. It is like you make this snap judgement, go to discredit it (oh, look, yet another thing you have in previous disagreements hypocritically and dishonestly accused me of doing), and then continue making half-assed responses ignoring the bulk of whatever I write after that point. This pattern may not be a “gish gallop”, as you ever wrongly accuse others of committing, but the effect is not far off. And
then you get to claim that I am being needlessly ornery, after you sidetracked the original point completely and wasted cumulative hours of my time. Really wonderful stuff. Truly a mystery why I find this frustrating.
Also, I "'lost" two votes from when I entered spanning to Tracy McGrady (one of which was Robinson). If we are pointing to the scoreboard, I would hardly say you are drowning in success there.
