FuShengTHEGreat wrote:Owly wrote:I'm not sure what you're responding to or why you've quoted me.
Your response addresses none of the arguments I've made and honestly barely relates to them at all.
It seems to be entirely other things.
Yes, Shaquille O'Neal shoots for a very high percentage from the field. That's perhaps his greatest strength (and even just within the limited remit of scoring efficiency, ignores his most notable flaw). Yes I'd imagine he'd do that against the Suns (though I will say this was a superb defense that's greatest strengths were at first glance efg% and forcing turnovers - though the noted absence of Kidd mitigates this, though this is not one of his stronger impact years - so "0 interior presence" and "midget team" seems at best misdirection (Robinson was not a power player) and at worst dismissive of an effective defensive unit with multiple agile and defensively effective forwards (between them packing heft, experience playing center and rim-protection though not into a single player) and wrong (Longley isn't a midget and is part of the team, though his offensive troubles [starting the game, presumably versus Robinson] meant his role was limited). I don't know where you get the impression I think otherwise, nor can I tell how this is supposed to be aggregated into a holistic evaluation of the players or why this particular element requires such emphasis.
You said "Robinson couldn't do anything winning wise" without Duncan. The reality was the team was winning when he played and was awful with him off the court. This is not out of line with a career that - missing early career data (RS until '94, playoffs until '97) consistently showed very large impact wherever data is available (earlier one could point to a huge rookie turnaround, though other roster turnover muddies things in what in general can be noisy measure). For the reasons outlined, I think this was wrong and your response seems to be about something else entirely.
So you quote me first out of the blue and I respond and you have the audacity to ask why I quoted or responded to you?
The audacity to to quote someone first, out of the blue on a discussion forum ... or to ask why your response wasn't regarding what I posted? Or is it the two of them in concert that is the problem?
You'll note that I didn't object to it. I just thought that given you were apparently seeking to continue a notional exchange, you might want to engage with any of the ideas proffered, rather than something else entirely.
FuShengTHEGreat wrote:No I'm not addressing to metrics themed responses which is what your original response mostly consisted of as i dont partake in such discussions when analyzing basketball.
Okay, though ... again ... if there isn't anything for you to engage with the response was ...?
FuShengTHEGreat wrote:I watched the series.
Okay and how many games have you watched over your life. How many of those that are over a decade ago do you recall well enough to evaluate individual player performances? How many amongst those watched over two decades ago?
FuShengTHEGreat wrote:Robinson couldn't be relied on for efficient offense
Per the above box composites seem to like his overall performance and given they (and the boxscore) is offensively tilted they mostly seem to quite like his offense. It would be true to say he couldn't be relied on for efficient scoring from the field,
if one separates turnover economy from shooting and shot generation ... but as above whilst different measures will come to greater disagreements over smaller, more extreme samples (and I'm very open to discussion about the best measures for small samples), the overall offensive package tends to come out quite favorably.
FuShengTHEGreat wrote:vs a team he should've feasted against.
See previous posts regarding Phoenix's defense.
FuShengTHEGreat wrote:Period
It sounds like you're perhaps finished with this exchange, which would be convenient, as I am.
You again don't take into account how incredible Robinson was defensively in that series. Yes, he scored badly - but he was still very impactful. It's not like a better version of Shaq didn't underperform in his first posteason series by the way.
