John Wall Appreciation Thread - Part III

[CobraCommander]

Read on Twitter

Yeah that's what's up!

[Dat2U]

I didn't make my point clear enough, Dat -- sorry. At the conclusion of a game, the referees don't have to review video to find out who defended the P&R well, etc. in order to declare a winner. All they have to do is look up at the scoreboard. Whoever has the bigger number wins the game.

Those scoreboard numbers are entirely determined by other numbers. That is, how many 2- & 3-pt. shots you got (or gave up if we're looking at defensive numbers) and how many of those shots went in, how many FTAs you got & how many went in: those numbers 100% determine your score. Nothing else has any role. E.g. I read people say how much better Gortat would be if only he dunked more instead of getting layups. But of course, as you and I know, 2 points are 2 points.

Are you saying defense doesn't have a role? So should guys only focus on getting blocks, steals and defensive rebounds on that end of the court because that's all we can clearly measure? You see how silly that sounds. As far as Gortat getting dunks vs layups I couldn't care less. I'm more worried about him rotating quickly enough and force the offense into tougher shots. Apparently since you can't clearly measure this or you can't clearly translate it's importance into wins & losses it's meaningless to you.

What you are talking about is why the numbers are as they are. Essentially, you are saying that certain kinds of players don't produce good numbers (which is obvious of course) and as well that certain kinds of players create conditions which cause their teammates to produce less good numbers than otherwise they would. Or, conversely, that they create conditions which cause teammates to produce better numbers than otherwise they would produce. Yet, all the same, in the end it's those numbers that win/lose a game.

E.g., you write: "some players attract so much attention, their teammates benefit from their presence. See John Wall." Evidence for the truth of your claim ought to be easy to find, at least in some cases. For example, Marcin Gortat has now played almost 3.5 years with John Wall. If his numbers in those years are better than in his past career, & especially if he's gotten better as he's played more with John, that would provide evidence that you're right. He would have benefited from John's presence. But, in fact, his numbers as a Wizard are quite consistent with his numbers everywhere he's played in the league. He's quite a good Center. Here as he was in Phoenix.

Another piece of evidence that you are right would be if Paul Pierce was better as a Wizard than he was as a Net his previous year. If all that attention John attracted made it possible for Pierce, good as we know he was in any case, to be even better. Well... he was good. He was about as good as he had been the previous year when the PG he played with was... I don't remember off the top of my head -- do you?

Another piece of evidence would be if Markieff Morris put up more efficient performances than his career average in his now 1600+ minutes as a Wizard. But he hasn't.

Looking at it another way: what if Trevor Booker went down in production once he left the Wizards. I.e. in his years w/ Utah and the Nets. When John Wall wasn't on the court to benefit him by attracting all that attention. But that hasn't happened.

But, maybe there's evidence in other players' productivity numbers, and I simply haven't hit on them. Let me know which players have benefited from John's presence by putting up better numbers than they did either before or after they played with Wall.

The Wizards are a Hell of a lot better with John Wall than without him; we agree on that. Because of what a good player he is. In fact, the Wizards are as good and as bad as they are because of how good and how bad their players are. Period. Add a better player (say Paul Pierce), and we're a better team. Add a worse player (say Markieff Morris or Andrew Nicholson) and we're a worse team.

Why? Because better players put up better numbers -- that's what it means to be a better player. And better numbers win more games, because that's what decides who wins a game: numbers.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you look for X and don't find it, does that prove that there is no X?

You have this tendency to draw conclusions in cases where there's a lack of evidence, relying solely on the evidence you are presented with or aware of. In this case, the backwards mapping of the WP48 statistic paints a clear picture for you with its 94.9% correlation to wins. And until you are presented with new information to the contrary, any other conclusion is simply not possible.

This ignores all the potential variables. As you frequently do. Trying to get you address the obvious gap in clear measurements of defense is like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. And fine, go ahead and stick JJ Hickson at starting PF and we'd be better off, because the WP48 statistic says he's a decent player so despite his lack of skill and inability to defend at the 4 or 5, there's no doubting he'd help according to you.

This same logic says ball dominant, non-shooters on the perimeter in like Rondo, Wade, Butler can work just fine because they are all good players.

This same logic says Rondo was more valuable than DeMarcus Cousins. Apparently so is Gortat for that matter.

Why not put out a lineup of 5 quality bigs? If WP48 says they'd win games because they are good players than it must be true right? Despite whatever ball-handling, passing and foot speed issues that might occur. They'd sure get a lot of rebounds and that's whats really important.

It's easy to draw ridiculous conclusions when there's a clear lack of awareness. Because your not aware of it doesn't mean you should dismiss it's possibility. The statistical evolution of the NBA is still in its infancy. Likely any evidence showing a correlation between individual defense & wins will be circumstantial. It's likely going to be years before we can clearly and fully explore the different variables that may play a part in wins and losses.

[Illmatic12]

Read on Twitter

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Read on Twitter

Nice write up at Bullets Forever: http://www.bulletsforever.com/2017/1/3/14158494/john-wall-eastern-conference-player-of-the-month-december-2016-nba

[deneem4]

Last year when wall got potm...he was the only person since cp3 in 09...to average 22/10...looking a Westbrook and Harden and how in less than a year they both are averaging more points and assists...show how were still a step behind in modernizing our team.....
They're teams are solely built around them...thr gameplan revolves solely around them...
Brooks need to look at his former players success and figure out how to equate that to wall

[stevemcqueen1]

I don't think Harden and Westbrook are playing with another guy as good as Beal any more. We don't need Wall to have the same level of usage as Harden and Westbrook. Beal and Porter are good enough secondary and tertiary options to create offense too.

[payitforward]

I didn't make my point clear enough, Dat -- sorry. At the conclusion of a game, the referees don't have to review video to find out who defended the P&R well, etc. in order to declare a winner. All they have to do is look up at the scoreboard. Whoever has the bigger number wins the game.

Those scoreboard numbers are entirely determined by other numbers. That is, how many 2- & 3-pt. shots you got (or gave up if we're looking at defensive numbers) and how many of those shots went in, how many FTAs you got & how many went in: those numbers 100% determine your score. Nothing else has any role. E.g. I read people say how much better Gortat would be if only he dunked more instead of getting layups. But of course, as you and I know, 2 points are 2 points.

Are you saying defense doesn't have a role?...

Of course I wouldn't say that! Should I conclude that you are *trying* not to understand a simple thing I'm saying? Wins & losses are produced entirely by numbers. No analysis of any kind is required to learn who won the game. Just look at the score. And the score is produced entirely by other numbers.

As I went on to say:

What you are talking about is why the numbers are as they are.

A perfectly legitimate subject of investigation, of course. About which...

...you are saying ... that certain kinds of players create conditions which cause their teammates to produce less good numbers than otherwise they would. Or, conversely, that they create conditions which cause teammates to produce better numbers than otherwise they would produce. Yet, all the same, in the end it's those numbers that win/lose a game.

E.g. you wrote:

some players attract so much attention, their teammates benefit from their presence. See John Wall.

And I asked for evidence for this. E.g.

Marcin Gortat has now played almost 3.5 years with John Wall. If his numbers in those years are better than in his past career, & especially if he's gotten better as he's played more with John, that would provide evidence that you're right.

I asked about Paul Pierce as well. And Markieff Morris. And, in the other direction, I asked whether Trevor Booker's numbers have gotten worse since he stopped playing with Wall.

Has any of that happened? If it hasn't happened, then why not? I thought John Wall "attracts so much attention, his teammates benefit." Where's the benefit?

Your response is:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence....If you look for X and don't find it, does that prove that there is no X?

So you are agreeing that there is an absence of the benefit you claimed? Guys numbers don't get better playing w/ Wall, or get worse playing w/o him?

This is not a matter of absence of evidence being taken for evidence of absence, dat. This is a case of someone saying "X happens," when in fact X does not happen.

As I said, Wall improves the Wizards because he's a terrific player. Better players add up to a better squad. Which adds up to having better players on the floor than your opponent more of the time. Which means you win more games. It ain't rocket science. Better players get better results.

...the backwards mapping of the WP48 statistic paints a clear picture for you with its 94.9% correlation to wins. And until you are presented with new information to the contrary, any other conclusion is simply not possible.

This ignores all the potential variables. As you frequently do. Trying to get you address the obvious gap in clear measurements of defense is like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.

A metric like WP48 isn't to be judged by comparing it with "the truth," dat. It's to be judged by comparing it to other metrics. All you can do is try and find the most useful one. E.g. WP48 is one hell of a lot better than PER. I.e. correlates better with real-world results.

As to your "clear measurements of defense" -- I have no argument that defense is just as important as offense. How could it not be? But you rely on "measurements" that you admit not understanding. Their make-up isn't shared. How do you know they are communicating something accurate? No.. better say: you don't know that -- you can't make any judgement of that.

And fine, go ahead and stick JJ Hickson at starting PF and we'd be better off, because the WP48 statistic says he's a decent player so despite his lack of skill and inability to defend at the 4 or 5, there's no doubting he'd help according to you.

What I said about Hickson was: a) he's better than Markieff Morris, not much to ask of someone! b) he's certainly better than Nicholson! & c) he would have been available for very little $$ hence would have been a better signing this year than Nicholson. What does any of that have to do with WP48, I wonder?

This same logic says ball dominant, non-shooters on the perimeter in like Rondo, Wade, Butler can work just fine because they are all good players.

This same logic says Rondo was more valuable than DeMarcus Cousins.

Rondo's gone, Cousins is still there. The Kings record right now is 15-19. Please explain.

The Bulls with their all-wrong roster are 17-18. Please explain why they're better than the Kings.

Oh, and there's no John Wall on the Bulls roster to make everyone so much better. Yet, they are .5 games better than we are, even though we've played more home games. Please explain.

The statistical evolution of the NBA is still in its infancy. Likely any evidence showing a correlation between individual defense & wins will be circumstantial. It's likely going to be years before we can clearly and fully explore the different variables that may play a part in wins and losses.

No disagreement. The question "why" is complicated. Why were the numbers what they were in a particular game -- it's not simple. Still, there's plenty of evidence that one big reason is how well the players performed, wouldn't you say? Better players usually perform better, as I'm sure you'll also agree is true. And that better performance leads to more wins.

That's why it's a good idea to get more good players. Better players. Otherwise you're stuck hoping "the Wall effect" will make Markieff Morris a better player. And when it doesn't... well then you're stuck again. Like the Wizards are.

[nate33]

Wins & losses are produced entirely by numbers. No analysis of any kind is required to learn who won the game. Just look at the score.

Entirely true. From a team perspective, points scored and points allowed are the only numbers that matter. Nobody disputes this. The question is, how do you best assess how individual players contribute to those two team metrics.

And the score is produced entirely by other numbers.

This is where you lose me. The score of the game is produced entirely by the actions of the players, but not all of those actions are represented in box score statistics.

A metric like WP48 isn't to be judged by comparing it with "the truth," dat. It's to be judged by comparing it to other metrics. All you can do is try and find the most useful one. E.g. WP48 is one hell of a lot better than PER. I.e. correlates better with real-world results.

I can even buy that WP48 is superior than other summary stats like PER, but that doesn't mean it's all-knowing. Most summary stats suffer from the same blind spot: an inability to measure good plays that don't show in box score stats. Box score stats don't measure things like competently hedging a pick-and-roll, or swinging the ball quickly to force the defense to keep moving, or boxing out to allow teammates to grab rebounds, or having a quick release on your shot to force your defender to remain close to you and play less help defense.

I would hope that even you understand that just blindly looking at WP48 is not going to give you an accurate representation of player performance. Or do you honestly want to argue that Kenneth Faried, Nikola Jokic and Joakim Noah are all considerably better than Stephen Curry, John Wall, Isaiah Thomas and Kemba Walker?

The Bulls with their all-wrong roster are 17-18. Please explain why they're better than the Kings.

Since you bring up the Bulls, I think they're a good example to make my point. The Bulls are essentially an All-Star WS48 roster. They should be one of the best teams in the league. Going by last year's WP48 numbers, Rondo is the 4th best PG in the league, Wade is the 21st best starting SG in the league, Butler is the 5th best SF in the league (and 8th best overall player in the league), Taj Gibson is the 8th best PF in the league (6th best if you only count starters), and Robin Lopez ranks 20th among starting centers. That's 2 All-NBA players and a possible All Star, plus a relatively ordinary shooting guard and center. How could they not be a 55-win team? Heck, Wade and Butler are playing even better this year than last year (by WP48 and other metrics) but the team is barely .500 despite playing the 6th easiest schedule.

I suppose you might argue that they would be a top team except for the decline from Rondo, Gibson and Lopez. But therein lies the weakness of WP48 as a prediction tool. It relies heavily on rebounds but it doesn't account for the difficulty of getting each additional marginal rebound in a team context. When you put two or more good rebounders from different teams onto the same team, you can expect their rebounding averages to drop because there are only so many rebounds available. Likewise, WP48's preference for ball-dominant slashers who get to the FT, like Butler and Wade, fails to properly account for the benefit of spacing created by catch-and-shoot snipers who don't touch the ball as much. On a roster with Jimmy Butler, I'd much rather have a wing like Klay Thompson (WP of .060 this year) over Dwayne Wade (WP of .089).

[tontoz]

Box score stats don't measure things like competently hedging a pick-and-roll, or swinging the ball quickly to force the defense to keep moving, or boxing out to allow teammates to grab rebounds, or having a quick release on your shot to force your defender to remain close to you and play less help defense.

or deflections, something teams keep track of but we don't have access to.

[payitforward]

Wins & losses are produced entirely by numbers. No analysis of any kind is required to learn who won the game. Just look at the score.

Entirely true. From a team perspective, points scored and points allowed are the only numbers that matter. Nobody disputes this. The question is, how do you best assess how individual players contribute to those two team metrics.

And the score is produced entirely by other numbers.

This is where you lose me....

I'm not saying something complicated enough to lose you, nate. Obviously the score number is a product of other numbers. That's true by definition. Yet, of course it's also true, as you write, that

The score of the game is produced entirely by the actions of the players, but not all of those actions are represented in box score statistics.

The score number, and all the numbers, are produced by actions of the players, you bet! & the box score doesn't capture all those actions; all the box score captures is the results of those actions.

E.g. it doesn't capture whether a guy made a great move to get an open shot, or hit a tough shot, or just had a ball bounce into his hands under the rim giving him an easy layup. Ditto across the rest of those "actions." Some rebounds are tough, some are easy. Etc.

And that's exactly why I said that you don't judge a metric (like PER or WP48 or Win Shares or EFF or any other such) by comparing it to the truth of what actually happens second to second in a basketball game. That's asking way too much! Instead, you have to compare these metrics to one another to find out how well they correlate with, as I wrote above, the results of those actions by players.

For example, if look every team in the NBA, and you total up the PER of all their players -- adjusting of course for how many minutes they play -- and then you list the team starting with the team that has the largest number down to the team with the smallest number, that list correlates @88% with a list of the teams by their win-loss record.

That's pretty good. It's much better than EFF, for example, and it's better than Win Shares as well I believe. But, if you do the same with WP48, the resulting list correlates at 94%+ (dat wrote 94.9%, but i don't think it's quite that high).

All that means is that WP48 is a more useful metric than PER. It doesn't mean it's a religion, a belief system with a hold on the truth. Find a metric that has even a .001% better correlation, and WP48 goes on the junk heap!

Now... the problem with all these metrics is that the only real way to "test" them is against results, as above, right? But, those results are at the team level, not the level of individual players on the team. Yet the metric is used to rate the individual players!

This problem, quite rightly, raises the question whether some guys' good play is actually being counted in other guys' good results instead of his own. It's a legitimate question, and in part it's reflected in statements like Dat's that John Wall makes other guys better.

Still, it's not like you can't do some things to address this area of uncertainty. For example, in the NBA guys move from team to team. If a guy's results don't change much over several team changes, each with a totally different set of fellow-players, that should give you some confidence that what you are measuring really does have more to do with that guy's play than anything else. There are other ways to address the uncertainty as well.

But... you can't make that area of fuzziness go away altogether. And that's why a metric is only more or less useful than another metric -- rather than being as it were a substitute for a messy reality.

I've written at length and I hope in a way that clarifies my point and contributes to understanding as well. It's also important to keep in mind that basketball is two very different things: it's competition, but it's also entertainment. And there's "greatness" in both those human experiences.

Some guys are equally great in both -- Michael Jordan being the most obvious case. But the most entertaining basketball player I've ever seen was Allen Iverson. Yet, unbelievably great as he was to watch, however, no metric based in competition (as they all are: PER, WP48, all of them) places him nearly as high in competitive effectiveness.

[Meliorus]

Read on Twitter

Holy crap these numbers are embarrassing. I thought the Wall Twitter campaign was going well...ultimately this is expected

[keynote]

Read on Twitter

"7th place!? Yo Maverick. *7th* place!?

"I'm going to use this as fuel. It's tough: we're not on national TV, so the fans don't get to see me play. All the guards ahead of me are great players; no disrespect. But they also play in bigger markets. Never mind the fact that their teams all have better records than ours. It's disrespectful. But it's good, though. I'm gonna keep playing my game, working hard on defense, and trying to lead my team. WallWay. #5Deep.

"Isaiah's having a great year. He's making 6.587 million a year pre-tax. No signature shoe; he's got some rotation player-level deal with Nike. He's doing his thing. I'm not watching his money, tho'. He signed his deal when he signed it.

"Lowry and DeMar; they got a whole country riding for them. I'm proud of them boys. Kyle's making 12 million. That's 15,881,160 in loonies. Adidas gave him some player edition shoes, but they're not paying him Harden money, so I'm cool with that. Just 'cause you stitch your initials on the tongue of a shoe don't make it a signature. Kristen Ledlow could rock Lowry's shoes on Inside Stuff and you'd think they're hers.

"I don't know what DeMar makes; he never plays point guard so it doesn't matter.

"D Rose and D Wade are like my little brothers, feel me? They get that veteran respect. Rose has worked hard. 21.3 million, and he's earned it. I thought I'd get his slot as the number one guy at Three Stripes, but then he moved to New York, and they signed Harden. But hey; I'm glad he's eating. I heard a rumor that he signed a $500 million deal with Armani Exchange back in 2014; now he's as washed as Armani Exchange is. LOL. Nah, I'm just playing. Brothers mess with each other. Rose is my man hundred grand. Hundred grand pre-tax, that is (DC takes too much of my check as it is).

"Wade's making that Li-Ning money -- he makes $15 million on off-court deals alone. He gets microfiber cooling wipes from Mission Athlete Care. He's basically making my on-court salary off-court. And his wife is making that Being Mary Jane money, too -- not a bad come up from Star Jones. No jealousy here, though. Wade put in that work. He's a legend. I mean, sure, he won his rings with LeBron and Shaq and cashed in with a non-name sneaker company, but I don't hand out asterisks. Nothing but love for Wade.

Eff Kyrie."

[AFM]

Derrick Rose hahahahahahaha....

dat list be a joke doe right?

[Meliorus]

Kemba Walker deserves to be more angry. Wall needs to remember that the time he got voted in as a starter, the Wizards were the 2 seed.

[ClutchDJ]

Melo, Wade, Zaza, Rose, Iggy, & Lin needs to be off this list.

[Ruzious]

Melo, Wade, Zaza, Rose, Iggy, & Lin needs to be off this list.

Zaza is second among frontcourt players in the West... I understand that Lin gets the Asian vote, but what group votes for Zaza? No, I doubt it's from the Golden State division of the Gabor sisters fanclub.

[keynote]

Melo, Wade, Zaza, Rose, Iggy, & Lin needs to be off this list.

Zaza is second among frontcourt players in the West... I understand that Lin gets the Asian vote, but what group votes for Zaza? No, I doubt it's from the Golden State division of the Gabor sisters fanclub.

Same thing happened with Zaza last year. Apparently, he gets a bump from a) Georgians/Georgian nationals, and b) fans of social media star Hayes Grier (3.64M followers on Twitter).

[Dat2U]

E.g. it doesn't capture whether a guy made a great move to get an open shot, or hit a tough shot, or just had a ball bounce into his hands under the rim giving him an easy layup. Ditto across the rest of those "actions." Some rebounds are tough, some are easy. Etc.

Ugh, no one is questioning this. That's not what this discussion is about. Were addressing whether do you give consideration to tasks that help teams win games that our not caught by the WP48 measurement. This includes defense (outside of defensive rebounding, steals & blocks). This includes screening/pick-setting, blocking out, drawing attention from defenses to free up others etc...

You never really address this. You constantly beat around the bush. Like I said, without hardcore evidence it doesn't seem to matter or exist to you.

And that's exactly why I said that you don't judge a metric (like PER or WP48 or Win Shares or EFF or any other such) by comparing it to the truth of what actually happens second to second in a basketball game. That's asking way too much! Instead, you have to compare these metrics to one another to find out how well they correlate with, as I wrote above, the results of those actions by players.

For example, if look every team in the NBA, and you total up the PER of all their players -- adjusting of course for how many minutes they play -- and then you list the team starting with the team that has the largest number down to the team with the smallest number, that list correlates @88% with a list of the teams by their win-loss record.

That's pretty good. It's much better than EFF, for example, and it's better than Win Shares as well I believe. But, if you do the same with WP48, the resulting list correlates at 94%+ (dat wrote 94.9%, but i don't think it's quite that high).

All that means is that WP48 is a more useful metric than PER. It doesn't mean it's a religion, a belief system with a hold on the truth. Find a metric that has even a .001% better correlation, and WP48 goes on the junk heap!

Again, no one is waging a debate regarding WP48 against PER. PER is fine as a production measurement tool. Nothing more. I don't use PER to singularly judge players. The concern is the over-reliance on WP48 as a determining factor of a players worth. Using any one stat allows a person to come to some wacky, nonsensical conclusions. I really like RPM, Plus/Minus & BPM. However I don't use any of them to exclusively make decisions regarding whether one player is better than another.

Now... the problem with all these metrics is that the only real way to "test" them is against results, as above, right? But, those results are at the team level, not the level of individual players on the team. Yet the metric is used to rate the individual players!

This problem, quite rightly, raises the question whether some guys' good play is actually being counted in other guys' good results instead of his own. It's a legitimate question, and in part it's reflected in statements like Dat's that John Wall makes other guys better.

I should have reworded the statement. Elite play makers make guys around them better. That includes John Wall. That includes guys like Steve Nash (in Phoenix with Gortat). That includes James Harden in Houston. These type of players keep coaches up all night as they try to figure a way to game plan their defenses for them. Basically its to make a clear cut difference b/w high usage shot creators like Wall and low usage guys like Patrick Beverley or off-the-bench gunners like Patty Mills as you suggest these guys are somehow, someway more effective or have outplayed Wall this season. You take Wall off the Wizards, we'd lose more than whatever the equivalent wins that WP48 says Wall has. It would likely have a negative cascading effect as more is put on the rest roster on both sides of the court. I'm sure Beal or Porter could step up for a game or so if Wall is out. However over the course of a season, their performance likely suffers. Same with Gortat, especially considering how dependent he's been on Wall for scoring opportunities.

[doclinkin]

Read on Twitter

"7th place!? Yo Maverick. *7th* place!?

"I'm going to use this as fuel. It's tough: we're not on national TV, so the fans don't get to see me play. All the guards ahead of me are great players; no disrespect. But they also play in bigger markets. Never mind the fact that their teams all have better records than ours. It's disrespectful. But it's good, though. I'm gonna keep playing my game, working hard on defense, and trying to lead my team. WallWay. #5Deep.

"Isaiah's having a great year. He's making 6.587 million a year pre-tax. No signature shoe; he's got some rotation player-level deal with Nike. He's doing his thing. I'm not watching his money, tho'. He signed his deal when he signed it.

"Lowry and DeMar; they got a whole country riding for them. I'm proud of them boys. Kyle's making 12 million. That's 15,881,160 in loonies. Adidas gave him some player edition shoes, but they're not paying him Harden money, so I'm cool with that. Just 'cause you stitch your initials on the tongue of a shoe don't make it a signature. Kristen Ledlow could rock Lowry's shoes on Inside Stuff and you'd think they're hers.

"I don't know what DeMar makes; he never plays point guard so it doesn't matter.

"D Rose and D Wade are like my little brothers, feel me? They get that veteran respect. Rose has worked hard. 21.3 million, and he's earned it. I thought I'd get his slot as the number one guy at Three Stripes, but then he moved to New York, and they signed Harden. But hey; I'm glad he's eating. I heard a rumor that he signed a $500 million deal with Armani Exchange back in 2014; now he's as washed as Armani Exchange is. LOL. Nah, I'm just playing. Brothers mess with each other. Rose is my man hundred grand. Hundred grand pre-tax, that is (DC takes too much of my check as it is).

"Wade's making that Li-Ning money -- he makes $15 million on off-court deals alone. He gets microfiber cooling wipes from Mission Athlete Care. He's basically making my on-court salary off-court. And his wife is making that Being Mary Jane money, too -- not a bad come up from Star Jones. No jealousy here, though. Wade put in that work. He's a legend. I mean, sure, he won his rings with LeBron and Shaq and cashed in with a non-name sneaker company, but I don't hand out asterisks. Nothing but love for Wade.

Eff Kyrie."

Still laughing at this.

[deneem4]

Wall need some celebrity backup...this is ridiculous