Which PG's In History Could Win with Steph's Supporting Cast This Year

[dhsilv2]

Why would i troll for days about this, all I'm saying is if they took a couple open shots they could make them that is all there to this.

So can Shaq, but it would be stupid for him to take the shots and even dumber if a team chose to give him the ball to do just that. Basketball isn't this complicated. Look for the best shot the team can get on each play. Those two open for mid range shots is virtually the worst possible shot you could have available and then take.

Can he? care to show me this?

Of course he can....

Watch on YouTube

[Ruma85]

So can Shaq, but it would be stupid for him to take the shots and even dumber if a team chose to give him the ball to do just that. Basketball isn't this complicated. Look for the best shot the team can get on each play. Those two open for mid range shots is virtually the worst possible shot you could have available and then take.

Can he? care to show me this?

Of course he can....

Watch on YouTube

You got anymore?

[dhsilv2]

I limited it to Point Guard because it's clear that there are other non-point guards who could do the same for the exact reason you and others have pointed to. The premise of the thread is regarding which point guards are capable of carrying a similar offensive/scoring load to which I even said that far less efficient players like Iverson and Westbrook might be able to accomplish a similar feat simply due to having a history of being asked to carry high scoring loads on their teams.

Curry's value off ball is equally as important as his shooting/scoring/volume. That's why guys like AI and Westbrook beyond also not having the offensive game needed (they can't shoot) wouldn't be remotely close to Curry. I'm honestly not sure anyone could win with that exact same team. Mind you...a few small fair trades and that changes.

What players do you replace with a player of comparable skill and impact and open this question up to more players?

You have to modify it for each player. You build around stars after all.

[dhsilv2]

Maybe A.I. He got to the finals with a team that had no shooters. Give him two and maybe he wins.

You can fact check me, but there were two teams with two all nba players that year. They played in the finals. AI doesn't have a chance in hell.

[SkyHookFTW]

Maybe A.I. He got to the finals with a team that had no shooters. Give him two and maybe he wins.

You can fact check me, but there were two teams with two all nba players that year. They played in the finals. AI doesn't have a chance in hell.

I’m talking about this year. No one was beating the Lakers that year. AI with a few shooters playing under today’s rules would have a shot.

[dhsilv2]

Maybe A.I. He got to the finals with a team that had no shooters. Give him two and maybe he wins.

You can fact check me, but there were two teams with two all nba players that year. They played in the finals. AI doesn't have a chance in hell.

I’m talking about this year. No one was beating the Lakers that year. AI with a few shooters playing under today’s rules would have a shot.

The warriors aren't a team with shooters. There's Klay but that team was running Looney, Dray, and Wiggins. WIggins can shoot well enough but he's not shooter. Those other two are awful shooters. Throw in you don't have to worry about AI ultimately. He just couldn't score enough to beat a modern nba team. And he's significantly worse on defense than Steph, despite the idiotic 2nd or 3rd place he had one year for DPOY. I guess in this magical world where you could actually put 4 40% 3 point shooters around him, who are also defensive impact guys....maybe you could win with that. But I can't think of a team ever built that way.

[dhsilv2]

Can he? care to show me this?

Of course he can....

Watch on YouTube

You got anymore?

I'm sure I could but I've now shown more proof in this thread that Shaq can shoot mid range jumpers than you've shown of Looney or Draymond.

But here's shaq stroking one on a DPOY, the man was unstoppable! He just didn't shoot them to save the league from his clear dominance! shaq or draymond mid range shooting team could literally score tens of points per 100 possessions!

Watch on YouTube

[Ruma85]

Of course he can....

Watch on YouTube

You got anymore?

I'm sure I could but I've now shown more proof in this thread that Shaq can shoot mid range jumpers than you've shown of Looney or Draymond.

But here's shaq stroking one on a DPOY, the man was unstoppable! He just didn't shoot them to save the league from his clear dominance! shaq or draymond mid range shooting team could literally score tens of points per 100 possessions!

Watch on YouTube

I have had enough debating with you, your points are not valid.

[dhsilv2]

You got anymore?

I'm sure I could but I've now shown more proof in this thread that Shaq can shoot mid range jumpers than you've shown of Looney or Draymond.

But here's shaq stroking one on a DPOY, the man was unstoppable! He just didn't shoot them to save the league from his clear dominance! shaq or draymond mid range shooting team could literally score tens of points per 100 possessions!

I have had enough debating with you, your points are not valid.

Debate? That would require there to be two sides that can be debated. I and others are there explaining facts to you, and of course I threw in some humor for anyone reading this in the future. But I still think you're just trolling...but trolling for some reason in basketball becomes part of future conversations as if it's not trolling. So it's always best to nip it in the bud and prove it factually wrong as this forum has done here on your crazy take that two horrible shooters should shoot more low value shots.

[Ruma85]

I'm sure I could but I've now shown more proof in this thread that Shaq can shoot mid range jumpers than you've shown of Looney or Draymond.

But here's shaq stroking one on a DPOY, the man was unstoppable! He just didn't shoot them to save the league from his clear dominance! shaq or draymond mid range shooting team could literally score tens of points per 100 possessions!

I have had enough debating with you, your points are not valid.

Debate? That would require there to be two sides that can be debated. I and others are there explaining facts to you, and of course I threw in some humor for anyone reading this in the future. But I still think you're just trolling...but trolling for some reason in basketball becomes part of future conversations as if it's not trolling. So it's always best to nip it in the bud and prove it factually wrong as this forum has done here on your crazy take that two horrible shooters should shoot more low value shots.

I didn't say that, i said they shoot open shots.

[dhsilv2]

I have had enough debating with you, your points are not valid.

Debate? That would require there to be two sides that can be debated. I and others are there explaining facts to you, and of course I threw in some humor for anyone reading this in the future. But I still think you're just trolling...but trolling for some reason in basketball becomes part of future conversations as if it's not trolling. So it's always best to nip it in the bud and prove it factually wrong as this forum has done here on your crazy take that two horrible shooters should shoot more low value shots.

I didn't say that, i said they shoot open shots.

Which we've covered. That would yield sub 80 points per 100 returns which is a full 30+ points below a league average offense. That is a crippling bad strategy. You then tried the absurd notion that it would keep the defense "honest", but the entire design of defenses against these guys is to encourage and HOPE they shoot those mid range jumpers. As pointed out by EVERYONE here that their shots are open and they can't make them at even close to league average rates. As pointed out by the fact neither player shoots these shot in general because they KNOW it's a terrible shot, too! And then you went even more crazy and tried to imply the warriors system was against mid range, but the reality is when they were better at them, they took them. They didn't take them this year for a simple reality, this warriors team was a bad mid range shooting team! And it wasn't just KD who they had a green light to shoot mid range, Livingston just a regular old bench guy who got ~1,000 minutes a year was taking upwards of half his shots in the mid range because he was a WELL above average mid range shooter. So no, they weren't some anti mid range shooting team or system. They're anti poor value shots. And Dray and Looney taking mid range shots, OPEN ONES, is nothing but bailing a defense out and hurts the team's offense significantly.

And for the future generations reading this.

1. Mid range shots are not bad shots. They are bad shots when shot by people who aren't highly proficient at taking them.
2. Dray and Looney have open looks all day and when they have taken them, they can't make them. These are two guys who are greatly below average free throw shooters. Looney being down right bad.
3.Basketball isn't played on a spread sheet, but any good player should know good and bad plays. But math does prove if a shot is or isn't a good return on a possession. You can't always get a great shot...but don't EVER bail a team out by taking a horrible one!

[Ruma85]

Debate? That would require there to be two sides that can be debated. I and others are there explaining facts to you, and of course I threw in some humor for anyone reading this in the future. But I still think you're just trolling...but trolling for some reason in basketball becomes part of future conversations as if it's not trolling. So it's always best to nip it in the bud and prove it factually wrong as this forum has done here on your crazy take that two horrible shooters should shoot more low value shots.

I didn't say that, i said they shoot open shots.

Which we've covered. That would yield sub 80 points per 100 returns which is a full 30+ points below a league average offense. That is a crippling bad strategy. You then tried the absurd notion that it would keep the defense "honest", but the entire design of defenses against these guys is to encourage and HOPE they shoot those mid range jumpers. As pointed out by EVERYONE here that their shots are open and they can't make them at even close to league average rates. As pointed out by the fact neither player shoots these shot in general because they KNOW it's a terrible shot, too! And then you went even more crazy and tried to imply the warriors system was against mid range, but the reality is when they were better at them, they took them. They didn't take them this year for a simple reality, this warriors team was a bad mid range shooting team! And it wasn't just KD who they had a green light to shoot mid range, Livingston just a regular old bench guy who got ~1,000 minutes a year was taking upwards of half his shots in the mid range because he was a WELL above average mid range shooter. So no, they weren't some anti mid range shooting team or system. They're anti poor value shots. And Dray and Looney taking mid range shots, OPEN ONES, is nothing but bailing a defense out and hurts the team's offense significantly.

And for the future generations reading this.

1. Mid range shots are not bad shots. They are bad shots when shot by people who aren't highly proficient at taking them.
2. Dray and Looney have open looks all day and when they have taken them, they can't make them. These are two guys who are greatly below average free throw shooters. Looney being down right bad.
3.Basketball isn't played on a spread sheet, but any good player should know good and bad plays. But math does prove if a shot is or isn't a good return on a possession. You can't always get a great shot...but don't EVER bail a team out by taking a horrible one!

The stat yield 80 points is useless per 100 returns, how does it imply in a 48 minute game?. They are not going to average that amount of shots, i didn't imply they were against the mid range, I said they should shoot when open. Your basically saying that i'm telling you they are a good shooters which i'm not saying.

[dhsilv2]

I didn't say that, i said they shoot open shots.

Which we've covered. That would yield sub 80 points per 100 returns which is a full 30+ points below a league average offense. That is a crippling bad strategy. You then tried the absurd notion that it would keep the defense "honest", but the entire design of defenses against these guys is to encourage and HOPE they shoot those mid range jumpers. As pointed out by EVERYONE here that their shots are open and they can't make them at even close to league average rates. As pointed out by the fact neither player shoots these shot in general because they KNOW it's a terrible shot, too! And then you went even more crazy and tried to imply the warriors system was against mid range, but the reality is when they were better at them, they took them. They didn't take them this year for a simple reality, this warriors team was a bad mid range shooting team! And it wasn't just KD who they had a green light to shoot mid range, Livingston just a regular old bench guy who got ~1,000 minutes a year was taking upwards of half his shots in the mid range because he was a WELL above average mid range shooter. So no, they weren't some anti mid range shooting team or system. They're anti poor value shots. And Dray and Looney taking mid range shots, OPEN ONES, is nothing but bailing a defense out and hurts the team's offense significantly.

And for the future generations reading this.

1. Mid range shots are not bad shots. They are bad shots when shot by people who aren't highly proficient at taking them.
2. Dray and Looney have open looks all day and when they have taken them, they can't make them. These are two guys who are greatly below average free throw shooters. Looney being down right bad.
3.Basketball isn't played on a spread sheet, but any good player should know good and bad plays. But math does prove if a shot is or isn't a good return on a possession. You can't always get a great shot...but don't EVER bail a team out by taking a horrible one!

The stat yield 80 points is useless per 100 returns, how does it imply in a 48 minute game?. They are not going to average that amount of shots, i didn't imply they were against the mid range, I said they should shoot when open. Your basically saying that i'm telling you they are a good shooters which i'm not saying.

One more time!

A 40% shot from mid range, league average from 16-3P yields .8 points per attempt on average. The warriors generate 1.112 points per possession. Every one of those open shots, if these guys SHOCKED THE WORLD and shot 40% would generate 0.312 less points per play than the team's mean average shot. If these guys COMBINED for 10 of these shots over a 48 minute game it would reduce the warriors expected points by 3.12 points per game. The league average offense scores 110.6 points per game with the highest scoring team at 115.9 and the lowest at 110.6. We won't even get into an open mid range shot normally means you have less of a chance to get an offensive rebound and that defensive rebounds lead to easier shots on the other end.

Just to hammer this home one more time. The warriors had a net rating of 5.6 this year, the Suns/Celtics were 7.5. You're effectively asking a team to drop their net rating by taking stupid shots by 3 points! That's the difference in the warriors and the twolves!

And let me scream this one more time too! I am NOT implying you're saying they're good shooters. I have given you the numbers for if they were completely AVERAGE, which we both know they are NOT! I'm showing you that if we took the absurd idea that they were AVERAGE, it would be absolutely stupid to have them taking open mid range shots unless it was at the end of the shot clock and that was the only option.

Remember these guys are more like 30% mid range shooters. That makes the above math grossly more favorable. 10 shots a game by these two could have legitimately been the difference in making the playoffs or not! And I'll hammer this home one last time! Just 3 additional shots by these two would cost the warriors on average 1.5 points and drop them from a contender to a team that would struggle to make the second round of the playoffs. This is why no team has bad shooter taking mid range jumpers. This is why you'd rather have a bad shooter take a 3 even than a mid range shot.

[Ruma85]

Which we've covered. That would yield sub 80 points per 100 returns which is a full 30+ points below a league average offense. That is a crippling bad strategy. You then tried the absurd notion that it would keep the defense "honest", but the entire design of defenses against these guys is to encourage and HOPE they shoot those mid range jumpers. As pointed out by EVERYONE here that their shots are open and they can't make them at even close to league average rates. As pointed out by the fact neither player shoots these shot in general because they KNOW it's a terrible shot, too! And then you went even more crazy and tried to imply the warriors system was against mid range, but the reality is when they were better at them, they took them. They didn't take them this year for a simple reality, this warriors team was a bad mid range shooting team! And it wasn't just KD who they had a green light to shoot mid range, Livingston just a regular old bench guy who got ~1,000 minutes a year was taking upwards of half his shots in the mid range because he was a WELL above average mid range shooter. So no, they weren't some anti mid range shooting team or system. They're anti poor value shots. And Dray and Looney taking mid range shots, OPEN ONES, is nothing but bailing a defense out and hurts the team's offense significantly.

And for the future generations reading this.

1. Mid range shots are not bad shots. They are bad shots when shot by people who aren't highly proficient at taking them.
2. Dray and Looney have open looks all day and when they have taken them, they can't make them. These are two guys who are greatly below average free throw shooters. Looney being down right bad.
3.Basketball isn't played on a spread sheet, but any good player should know good and bad plays. But math does prove if a shot is or isn't a good return on a possession. You can't always get a great shot...but don't EVER bail a team out by taking a horrible one!

The stat yield 80 points is useless per 100 returns, how does it imply in a 48 minute game?. They are not going to average that amount of shots, i didn't imply they were against the mid range, I said they should shoot when open. Your basically saying that i'm telling you they are a good shooters which i'm not saying.

One more time!

A 40% shot from mid range, league average from 16-3P yields .8 points per attempt on average. The warriors generate 1.112 points per possession. Every one of those open shots, if these guys SHOCKED THE WORLD and shot 40% would generate 0.312 less points per play than the team's mean average shot. If these guys COMBINED for 10 of these shots over a 48 minute game it would reduce the warriors expected points by 3.12 points per game. The league average offense scores 110.6 points per game with the highest scoring team at 115.9 and the lowest at 110.6. We won't even get into an open mid range shot normally means you have less of a chance to get an offensive rebound and that defensive rebounds lead to easier shots on the other end.

Just to hammer this home one more time. The warriors had a net rating of 5.6 this year, the Suns/Celtics were 7.5. You're effectively asking a team to drop their net rating by taking stupid shots by 3 points! That's the difference in the warriors and the twolves!

And let me scream this one more time too! I am NOT implying you're saying they're good shooters. I have given you the numbers for if they were completely AVERAGE, which we both know they are NOT! I'm showing you that if we took the absurd idea that they were AVERAGE, it would be absolutely stupid to have them taking open mid range shots unless it was at the end of the shot clock and that was the only option.

Remember these guys are more like 30% mid range shooters. That makes the above math grossly more favorable. 10 shots a game by these two could have legitimately been the difference in making the playoffs or not! And I'll hammer this home one last time! Just 3 additional shots by these two would cost the warriors on average 1.5 points and drop them from a contender to a team that would struggle to make the second round of the playoffs. This is why no team has bad shooter taking mid range jumpers. This is why you'd rather have a bad shooter take a 3 even than a mid range shot.

Not sure why you seem frustrated about all this, you make valid points, I disagree with the notion a bad shooter should take a 3, if he cannot make 2's.

[dhsilv2]

The stat yield 80 points is useless per 100 returns, how does it imply in a 48 minute game?. They are not going to average that amount of shots, i didn't imply they were against the mid range, I said they should shoot when open. Your basically saying that i'm telling you they are a good shooters which i'm not saying.

One more time!

A 40% shot from mid range, league average from 16-3P yields .8 points per attempt on average. The warriors generate 1.112 points per possession. Every one of those open shots, if these guys SHOCKED THE WORLD and shot 40% would generate 0.312 less points per play than the team's mean average shot. If these guys COMBINED for 10 of these shots over a 48 minute game it would reduce the warriors expected points by 3.12 points per game. The league average offense scores 110.6 points per game with the highest scoring team at 115.9 and the lowest at 110.6. We won't even get into an open mid range shot normally means you have less of a chance to get an offensive rebound and that defensive rebounds lead to easier shots on the other end.

Just to hammer this home one more time. The warriors had a net rating of 5.6 this year, the Suns/Celtics were 7.5. You're effectively asking a team to drop their net rating by taking stupid shots by 3 points! That's the difference in the warriors and the twolves!

And let me scream this one more time too! I am NOT implying you're saying they're good shooters. I have given you the numbers for if they were completely AVERAGE, which we both know they are NOT! I'm showing you that if we took the absurd idea that they were AVERAGE, it would be absolutely stupid to have them taking open mid range shots unless it was at the end of the shot clock and that was the only option.

Remember these guys are more like 30% mid range shooters. That makes the above math grossly more favorable. 10 shots a game by these two could have legitimately been the difference in making the playoffs or not! And I'll hammer this home one last time! Just 3 additional shots by these two would cost the warriors on average 1.5 points and drop them from a contender to a team that would struggle to make the second round of the playoffs. This is why no team has bad shooter taking mid range jumpers. This is why you'd rather have a bad shooter take a 3 even than a mid range shot.

Not sure why you seem frustrated about all this, you make valid points, I disagree with the notion a bad shooter should take a 3, if he cannot make 2's.

3's are worth 50% more points. It's better to make 25% of them than to make 30% of long 2's. That's just common sense. Throw in it helps spacing if nothing else at least you have one less of your own teammates inside the arch if you're attacking the rim (the first goal of any offensive set obviously is to get a layup). Mind you...you don't want bad shooters shooting. But you sure as heck would rather have a Dray or a Ben Simmons shooting 3's than shooting 20 footers. Almost zero difference in their accuracy and one is at least worth an extra point.

[Ruma85]

One more time!

A 40% shot from mid range, league average from 16-3P yields .8 points per attempt on average. The warriors generate 1.112 points per possession. Every one of those open shots, if these guys SHOCKED THE WORLD and shot 40% would generate 0.312 less points per play than the team's mean average shot. If these guys COMBINED for 10 of these shots over a 48 minute game it would reduce the warriors expected points by 3.12 points per game. The league average offense scores 110.6 points per game with the highest scoring team at 115.9 and the lowest at 110.6. We won't even get into an open mid range shot normally means you have less of a chance to get an offensive rebound and that defensive rebounds lead to easier shots on the other end.

Just to hammer this home one more time. The warriors had a net rating of 5.6 this year, the Suns/Celtics were 7.5. You're effectively asking a team to drop their net rating by taking stupid shots by 3 points! That's the difference in the warriors and the twolves!

And let me scream this one more time too! I am NOT implying you're saying they're good shooters. I have given you the numbers for if they were completely AVERAGE, which we both know they are NOT! I'm showing you that if we took the absurd idea that they were AVERAGE, it would be absolutely stupid to have them taking open mid range shots unless it was at the end of the shot clock and that was the only option.

Remember these guys are more like 30% mid range shooters. That makes the above math grossly more favorable. 10 shots a game by these two could have legitimately been the difference in making the playoffs or not! And I'll hammer this home one last time! Just 3 additional shots by these two would cost the warriors on average 1.5 points and drop them from a contender to a team that would struggle to make the second round of the playoffs. This is why no team has bad shooter taking mid range jumpers. This is why you'd rather have a bad shooter take a 3 even than a mid range shot.

Not sure why you seem frustrated about all this, you make valid points, I disagree with the notion a bad shooter should take a 3, if he cannot make 2's.

3's are worth 50% more points. It's better to make 25% of them than to make 30% of long 2's. That's just common sense. Throw in it helps spacing if nothing else at least you have one less of your own teammates inside the arch if you're attacking the rim (the first goal of any offensive set obviously is to get a layup). Mind you...you don't want bad shooters shooting. But you sure as heck would rather have a Dray or a Ben Simmons shooting 3's than shooting 20 footers. Almost zero difference in their accuracy and one is at least worth an extra point.

I wouldn't but it's ok to disagree with each other.

[rtiff68]

One more time!

A 40% shot from mid range, league average from 16-3P yields .8 points per attempt on average. The warriors generate 1.112 points per possession. Every one of those open shots, if these guys SHOCKED THE WORLD and shot 40% would generate 0.312 less points per play than the team's mean average shot. If these guys COMBINED for 10 of these shots over a 48 minute game it would reduce the warriors expected points by 3.12 points per game. The league average offense scores 110.6 points per game with the highest scoring team at 115.9 and the lowest at 110.6. We won't even get into an open mid range shot normally means you have less of a chance to get an offensive rebound and that defensive rebounds lead to easier shots on the other end.

Just to hammer this home one more time. The warriors had a net rating of 5.6 this year, the Suns/Celtics were 7.5. You're effectively asking a team to drop their net rating by taking stupid shots by 3 points! That's the difference in the warriors and the twolves!

And let me scream this one more time too! I am NOT implying you're saying they're good shooters. I have given you the numbers for if they were completely AVERAGE, which we both know they are NOT! I'm showing you that if we took the absurd idea that they were AVERAGE, it would be absolutely stupid to have them taking open mid range shots unless it was at the end of the shot clock and that was the only option.

Remember these guys are more like 30% mid range shooters. That makes the above math grossly more favorable. 10 shots a game by these two could have legitimately been the difference in making the playoffs or not! And I'll hammer this home one last time! Just 3 additional shots by these two would cost the warriors on average 1.5 points and drop them from a contender to a team that would struggle to make the second round of the playoffs. This is why no team has bad shooter taking mid range jumpers. This is why you'd rather have a bad shooter take a 3 even than a mid range shot.

Not sure why you seem frustrated about all this, you make valid points, I disagree with the notion a bad shooter should take a 3, if he cannot make 2's.

3's are worth 50% more points. It's better to make 25% of them than to make 30% of long 2's. That's just common sense. Throw in it helps spacing if nothing else at least you have one less of your own teammates inside the arch if you're attacking the rim (the first goal of any offensive set obviously is to get a layup). Mind you...you don't want bad shooters shooting. But you sure as heck would rather have a Dray or a Ben Simmons shooting 3's than shooting 20 footers. Almost zero difference in their accuracy and one is at least worth an extra point.

I gave up. I suggest you do the same.

No matter what evidence you present, his answer will be “we just disagree, I believe I’m right because I seen it.”

He’s nice, but either stubborn or deliberately obtuse.

[dhsilv2]

Not sure why you seem frustrated about all this, you make valid points, I disagree with the notion a bad shooter should take a 3, if he cannot make 2's.

3's are worth 50% more points. It's better to make 25% of them than to make 30% of long 2's. That's just common sense. Throw in it helps spacing if nothing else at least you have one less of your own teammates inside the arch if you're attacking the rim (the first goal of any offensive set obviously is to get a layup). Mind you...you don't want bad shooters shooting. But you sure as heck would rather have a Dray or a Ben Simmons shooting 3's than shooting 20 footers. Almost zero difference in their accuracy and one is at least worth an extra point.

I gave up. I suggest you do the same.

No matter what evidence you present, his answer will be “we just disagree, I believe I’m right because I seen it.”

He’s nice, but either stubborn or deliberately obtuse.

Yeah, he now disagrees that 3 pointers are worth more than 2's. Just like talking to a wall.

[Ruma85]

3's are worth 50% more points. It's better to make 25% of them than to make 30% of long 2's. That's just common sense. Throw in it helps spacing if nothing else at least you have one less of your own teammates inside the arch if you're attacking the rim (the first goal of any offensive set obviously is to get a layup). Mind you...you don't want bad shooters shooting. But you sure as heck would rather have a Dray or a Ben Simmons shooting 3's than shooting 20 footers. Almost zero difference in their accuracy and one is at least worth an extra point.

I gave up. I suggest you do the same.

No matter what evidence you present, his answer will be “we just disagree, I believe I’m right because I seen it.”

He’s nice, but either stubborn or deliberately obtuse.

Yeah, he now disagrees that 3 pointers are worth more than 2's. Just like talking to a wall.

When did i say that?