NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Judging someone off more than half a season is a selective sample size?
What NBA are you watching, I want to know the world in which you live where guys make clear and obvious progress and then it's dismissed, especially when production stays consistent as minutes increase.
He has been a positive impact with us, but that is dismissed, you tried to say his +/- was a result of Derrick Rose, even though Rose missed 56 games which coincidentally is more than the "selective sample size" of games in which Obi was a average 3 point shooter.
It's hedging, you and I will not agree on it.
I think half a season is too small of a sample size to draw the conclusion that something will necessarily sustain. RJ's second half of last season for instance was brought up as evidence that he was getting more efficient at scoring the ball, and that his newfound efficiency was going to sustain. It didn't.
I don't dismiss Obi's progress throughout the season as a 3-point shooter. It's encouraging. I don't think it's enough to confidently project him as an adequate floor spacer/3-point shooter as a starter.
I never said Obi's impact was a result of Derrick Rose. I said Rose was the driving force of the bench, which drove the Knicks success. The bench was still largely good after he got hurt, and Obi played a big part in that, though the impact stats suggest that Quickley played a bigger part in that.
You're now getting lost in making false accusations, because you're so obsessed with the idea of finding an inconsistency in my position, which, sorry, there isn't, that you have lost your own decency.
Let me simplify for you:
- Production can translate from bench player to starter.
- Impact doesn't necessarily translate from bench player to starter.
- Obi has been productive and impactful as a bench player.
- Obi can be productive as a starter, but it doesn't necessarily mean he can be impactful as a starter.
It's not hedging. I'm just waiting to see more.
It's not too small, he was productive even without hitting the three for the first month of the season. RJ has nothing to do with Obi, you can track Obi's improvements as a player through his minutes, the more he played the better and more comfortable he looked. The more minutes he got, the better his shot looked because he wasn't afraid of getting yanked on misses or every little mistake.
Rose wasn't the driving force of the bench this year, he missed 56 games, without him Obi and IQ were fine. On one hand, a 45 game sample size is too small, on the other hand a 26 game sample size gets the a-okay.
I don't need to find inconsistency, you literally said two different things within the course of 1 day, you just forgot you said you thought Obi could be a productive starter yesterday. That's all there is to it, it's classic hedging.
I'm not comparing Obi to RJ. I'm giving you an example of a half-a-season sample size not sustaining over a longer period of time. The interpretation for RJ was predominantly that his progress in scoring efficiency was linear, gradual, and therefore sustainable, when it turns out he reverted the next season. Again, I'm not making the prediction that Obi's progress will not sustain. I'm not making any prediction actually. I would just be careful about reading into this sample size. I agree with your suggestion that Obi was micromanaged by Thibs and that it wasn't positive for his confidence.
I was referring to the 2020-21 season plus the 26 games in 2021-22 to say that Rose led the bench. It is statistically provable, if not undeniable. And it's not a projection. It's describing the reality of the largest available sample size.
I don't know why you seem to get worked up over this. I'm not denying that Obi has had a positive impact on the bench (with or without Rose), and on the team at large in his minutes as (largely) a bench player. He has played a major part in the success of the bench. I just think Rose and IQ have been more impactful than him, and the impact metrics I personally look at would tend to corroborate that assessment, in addition to some more basic stats.
You're making baseless accusations and it's dishonest, and annoying. I think you're better than this.
I think Obi can be a productive starter, but I'm less confident he can be an impactful starter, thus somebody I would want as a starter. I held the same belief yesterday. And these are not mutually exclusive concepts. It's really not that complicated.
Production doesn't equal impact, but I think your confusion about my position stems from the fact that you struggle to or just refuse to separate the two concepts. And that's where basing projections on articles written in 2007 is hurting your analysis.
