Does Luka Impact Winning?

[durantbird]

Yes

[Texas Chuck]

So this thread has really had a weird trajectory to my eye. I'm just not seeing why it needed to devolve to this so quickly. Nor are we [mod team] happy about it.

This is my bad. I definitely just answered the topic originally in good faith. Maybe I could have softened it a bit, but I feel like my criticisms of the topic were fair.

But when this poster once again got personal with me out of nowhere, I should have just ignored them instead of laughing at what felt like a needless dig.

I'll do better or simply not engage. I take responsibility here. I knew better.

[OhayoKD]

However, the first person to point out the relatively self-evident answer was promptly needled (old scores?), and accused by the thread's author of not engaging the question that was asked.
.

That is not what was pointed out or what was engaged with...

Oh no?:

I mean this feels like not a serious question. Of course he impacts winning......

.......Edit: And this really isn't a defense of Luka who I would say isn't having a positive impact that approaches what his box score accumulation suggests. But to make a post saying he doesn't impact the results of Dallas Mavericks games just cannot be serious. He is the biggest impact good or bad every single night. He's the best player and he dominates the ball. How is this guy not impacting the results?

It was, in fact, the primary thing spoken to in his post. You chose to ignore that, and instead focus on two side-bar sentences that spoke to his own personal skepticism of on/off data [in general].

I don't get why you are bolding things that were edited in post-hoc. There was a sentence implying "Luka impacts winning was self-evident" and the rest was about impact --as justification for that initial sentence---. I addressed that justification, and was then asked "was this thread made for discussion?" Even if the thread was intended unironically, me pushing back on the impact skepticism would still be addressing his comment. That said

"I am guessing you did not read the thread" was because the thread makes pretty explicit this is asked rhetorically.
"

And yes, that was something someone directly questioned because of that on/off graph(i wonder if there's anything to learn from this...).

Regardless, I think whatever you decide Luka's ability to affect winning is, it's important to look at the whole picture, and not just try and stack-metrics indiscriminately.

I started the post with a graph that was claimed to show Luka had no impact. Then I proceeded to "look at the whole picture". Texas Chuck typed a sentence questioning the premise of the post and I addressed his reasoning for questioning the premise. This was ignored to justify a comment that was as or more personal than any of mine.

[Texas Chuck]

[ This was ignored to justify a comment that was as or more personal than any of mine.

What comment was personal?

Me saying I think your premise was flawed? There is nothing personal about that. I think its silly to even pose a question does a ball dominant player with the talent of Luka Doncic have impact on winning. I stand by that.

My mistake was in letting you bait me again with some of the extras. But even with that, I didn't respond in a personal way. I just laughed at the juvenile "copium", but as you have resolved to stop with those little needles, it shouldn't be an issue moving forward as it sounds like you realize you caused your own derailment with that.

[OhayoKD]

[ This was ignored to justify a comment that was as or more personal than any of mine.

What comment was personal?

Are you here for discussion or just agreement? Seems like every time someone pushes back the slightest you get off into this silliness. But I'm here to please so....

I don't consider it some crossing-of-the-line, but if this is not personal, then I don't see how what I said was either.

And more importantly(to me at least), it is "out of nowhere":

Obviously winning and not winning reflects a player to a degree. Management will generally have a harder time building rosters that replace players who are better: eg, impacting winning.

[/quote]
Discussion was invited. You ignored the invitation. I don't really see what the confusion is. I also was fine moving on after enigma correctly pointed out "copium" didn't make so much sense in the context of this thread but here we are

[Texas Chuck]

[ This was ignored to justify a comment that was as or more personal than any of mine.

What comment was personal?

Are you here for discussion or just agreement? Seems like every time someone pushes back the slightest you get off into this silliness. But I'm here to please so....

I don't consider it some crossing-of-the-line, but if this is not personal, then I don't see how what I said was either.

And more importantly(to me at least), it is "out of nowhere":

Obviously winning and not winning reflects a player to a degree. Management will generally have a harder time building rosters that replace players who are better: eg, impacting winning.

Discussion was invited. You ignored the invitation. I don't really see what the confusion is.

I had already addressed the topic. Yes, Luka impacts winning.

But my apologies for pointing out your history. That was unnecessary and I shouldn't have done it. I take ownership of that. I'll do better in the future of letting each of your posts stand on their own merits.

[OhayoKD]

What comment was personal?

I don't consider it some crossing-of-the-line, but if this is not personal, then I don't see how what I said was either.

And more importantly(to me at least), it is "out of nowhere":

Discussion was invited. You ignored the invitation. I don't really see what the confusion is.

I had already addressed the topic. Yes, Luka impacts winning.

But my apologies for pointing out your history. That was unnecessary and I shouldn't have done it. I take ownership of that. I'll do better in the future of letting each of your posts stand on their own merits.

Great.

[trex_8063]

ffs. Locked.