12/31 | G36: Dallas Mavericks at Oklahoma City Thunder - 7PM CST

[getrichordie]

This is a meaningless statement.

How is it meaningless?

Are you saying it is meaningless because it doesn’t fit your narrative about me being hypocritical?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I'm saying it's meaningless because it has no meaning. It's throwing a phrase together because it sounds like 'basketball talk' and you don't have to back it up.

Oh, the irony.

I am ready to back up my points and concede when I’m wrong... What do you take issue with?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[slick_watts]

getrichordie in this thread:

Gfycat Video - Click to Play

[getrichordie]

I’d rather a Dennis floater or contested layup than a Patterson 3PA at this point.

bruh

Okay. Maybe that was a bit extreme.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[getrichordie]

getrichordie in this thread:

Gfycat Video - Click to Play

Haha. I’m so glad you are apart of this board, slick. This is downright hilarious.

I’m not saying Schroder is perfect lol.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[ThunderBolt]

getrichordie in this thread:

Gfycat Video - Click to Play

Pretty sure when that happened I notice how bad the result was but not how pathetic his running hook lob attempt looked.

[spearsy23]

How is it meaningless?

Are you saying it is meaningless because it doesn’t fit your narrative about me being hypocritical?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I'm saying it's meaningless because it has no meaning. It's throwing a phrase together because it sounds like 'basketball talk' and you don't have to back it up.

Oh, the irony.

I am ready to back up my points and concede when I’m wrong... What do you take issue with?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

The entire idea of Schroder not 'leaving efficiency on the floor.' it's a nonsensical statement. Dennis Schroder is not and has never been an efficient player, he's never hit above average ts%, never been above mediocre volume, is a mediocre to awful passer/defender depending on the night, and has only been on a team with a good offense once in his career and the offense was 5 points per 100 better without him that year. The idea that he is an example of what point guards should look like is based on absolute fantasy land.

[getrichordie]

I'm saying it's meaningless because it has no meaning. It's throwing a phrase together because it sounds like 'basketball talk' and you don't have to back it up.

Oh, the irony.

I am ready to back up my points and concede when I’m wrong... What do you take issue with?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

The entire idea of Schroder not 'leaving efficiency on the floor.' it's a nonsensical statement. Dennis Schroder is not and has never been an efficient player, he's never hit above average ts%, never been above mediocre volume, is a mediocre to awful passer/defender depending on the night, and has only been on a team with a good offense once in his career and the offense was 5 points per 100 better without him that year. The idea that he is an example of what point guards should look like is based on absolute fantasy land.

This is a class example of missing the forest for the trees.

Question. This time that he was on a good offense “for once in his career,” which year in Schroder’s career are you referring to?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[spearsy23]

Oh, the irony.

I am ready to back up my points and concede when I’m wrong... What do you take issue with?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

The entire idea of Schroder not 'leaving efficiency on the floor.' it's a nonsensical statement. Dennis Schroder is not and has never been an efficient player, he's never hit above average ts%, never been above mediocre volume, is a mediocre to awful passer/defender depending on the night, and has only been on a team with a good offense once in his career and the offense was 5 points per 100 better without him that year. The idea that he is an example of what point guards should look like is based on absolute fantasy land.

This is a class example of missing the forest for the trees.

Question. This time that he was on a good offense “for once in his career,” which year in Schroder’s career are you referring to?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

A) if you can't figure that out then it's a lost cause.
B) If the forest is made up of pine trees guess what type of forest it is.

[getrichordie]

The entire idea of Schroder not 'leaving efficiency on the floor.' it's a nonsensical statement. Dennis Schroder is not and has never been an efficient player, he's never hit above average ts%, never been above mediocre volume, is a mediocre to awful passer/defender depending on the night, and has only been on a team with a good offense once in his career and the offense was 5 points per 100 better without him that year. The idea that he is an example of what point guards should look like is based on absolute fantasy land.

This is a class example of missing the forest for the trees.

Question. This time that he was on a good offense “for once in his career,” which year in Schroder’s career are you referring to?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

A) if you can't figure that out then it's a lost cause.
B) If the forest is made up of pine trees guess what type of forest it is.

You’re a snarky type. I like it. (EDIT: I should say this post and your responses are quite snarky.)

I’m definitely capable enough to figure it out for myself, but I figured you’d already done your research and since you brought that point up, I thought it easier to ask you, you know, for the sake of a speedy and thorough discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[spearsy23]

This is a class example of missing the forest for the trees.

Question. This time that he was on a good offense “for once in his career,” which year in Schroder’s career are you referring to?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

A) if you can't figure that out then it's a lost cause.
B) If the forest is made up of pine trees guess what type of forest it is.

You’re a snarky type. I like it.

I’m definitely capable enough to figure it out for myself, but I figured you’d already done your research and since you brought that point up, I thought it easier to ask you, you know, for the sake of a speedy and thorough discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

This is another post with no substance, so I'm out.

[getrichordie]

A) if you can't figure that out then it's a lost cause.
B) If the forest is made up of pine trees guess what type of forest it is.

You’re a snarky type. I like it.

I’m definitely capable enough to figure it out for myself, but I figured you’d already done your research and since you brought that point up, I thought it easier to ask you, you know, for the sake of a speedy and thorough discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

This is another post with no substance, so I'm out.

Isn’t this an example of bait/trolling?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[spearsy23]

You’re a snarky type. I like it.

I’m definitely capable enough to figure it out for myself, but I figured you’d already done your research and since you brought that point up, I thought it easier to ask you, you know, for the sake of a speedy and thorough discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

This is another post with no substance, so I'm out.

Isn’t this an example of bait/trolling?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

If you took it that way I'm sorry, but I'm actually telling you I'm bowing out of the conversation because you aren't engaging. That was three consecutive posts without any substance, I'm not interested in talking to platitudes, I was looking for you to actually make the point you said you believed.

[getrichordie]

This is another post with no substance, so I'm out.

Isn’t this an example of bait/trolling?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

If you took it that way I'm sorry, but I'm actually telling you I'm bowing out of the conversation because you aren't engaging. That was three consecutive posts without any substance, I'm not interested in talking to platitudes, I was looking for you to actually make the point you said you believed.

I was trying to make my point by asking you a simple question which you refused to answer and then proceeded to tell me that I was a “lost cause” if I couldn’t figure it out...


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Andre Roberstan]

You’re a snarky type. I like it.

I’m definitely capable enough to figure it out for myself, but I figured you’d already done your research and since you brought that point up, I thought it easier to ask you, you know, for the sake of a speedy and thorough discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

This is another post with no substance, so I'm out.

Isn’t this an example of bait/trolling?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

It is not.

spearsy's original point is fair. If you're going to say that Westbrook "leaves more efficiency on the floor" than Schröder—which runs counter to just about every point of accepted wisdom, as well as anything observable statistically—you should be prepared to back it up. Then you guys are just going back and forth about...I don't know what.

spearsy is being a little thin-skinned about the one year in a good offense thing (it's the one year the Hawks were excellent, btw, and he's right that they were better without Schröder...with Jeff Freaking Teague running things.). But, like him, I fail to see why you'd single out that one point from his whole post as "not seeing the forest for the trees".

Baiting and trolling are posting things just to get a rise out of someone. You guys are going back and forth and so far the worst thing that's happened is spearsy refusing to engage a bit snarkily.

[Dadouv47]

Lately this forum is more depressing than having Melo on your team...

[getrichordie]

This is another post with no substance, so I'm out.

Isn’t this an example of bait/trolling?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

It is not.

spearsy's original point is fair. If you're going to say that Westbrook "leaves more efficiency on the floor" than Schröder—which runs counter to just about every point of accepted wisdom, as well as anything observable statistically—you should be prepared to back it up. Then you guys are just going back and forth about...I don't know what.

spearsy is being a little thin-skinned about the one year in a good offense thing (it's the one year the Hawks were excellent, btw, and he's right that they were better without Schröder...with Jeff Freaking Teague running things.). But, like him, I fail to see why you'd single out that one point from his whole post as "not seeing the forest for the trees".

Baiting and trolling are posting things just to get a rise out of someone. You guys are going back and forth and so far the worst thing that's happened is spearsy refusing to engage a bit snarkily.

I feel like this is a fair question to ask.

How can you be so sure of the intent to troll/bait? I’ve posted things before that ran counter to conventional wisdom only to be called a troll when I had no intention to troll. So what’s the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Andre Roberstan]

Isn’t this an example of bait/trolling?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

It is not.

spearsy's original point is fair. If you're going to say that Westbrook "leaves more efficiency on the floor" than Schröder—which runs counter to just about every point of accepted wisdom, as well as anything observable statistically—you should be prepared to back it up. Then you guys are just going back and forth about...I don't know what.

spearsy is being a little thin-skinned about the one year in a good offense thing (it's the one year the Hawks were excellent, btw, and he's right that they were better without Schröder...with Jeff Freaking Teague running things.). But, like him, I fail to see why you'd single out that one point from his whole post as "not seeing the forest for the trees".

Baiting and trolling are posting things just to get a rise out of someone. You guys are going back and forth and so far the worst thing that's happened is spearsy refusing to engage a bit snarkily.

I feel like this is a fair question to ask.

How can you be so sure of the intent to troll/bait? I’ve posted things before that ran counter to conventional wisdom only to be called a troll when I had no intention to troll. So what’s the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

It's a judgment call, and I'm gonna be wrong sometimes. I generally feel more confident judging intent with the guys I've known for years.

[getrichordie]

It is not.

spearsy's original point is fair. If you're going to say that Westbrook "leaves more efficiency on the floor" than Schröder—which runs counter to just about every point of accepted wisdom, as well as anything observable statistically—you should be prepared to back it up. Then you guys are just going back and forth about...I don't know what.

spearsy is being a little thin-skinned about the one year in a good offense thing (it's the one year the Hawks were excellent, btw, and he's right that they were better without Schröder...with Jeff Freaking Teague running things.). But, like him, I fail to see why you'd single out that one point from his whole post as "not seeing the forest for the trees".

Baiting and trolling are posting things just to get a rise out of someone. You guys are going back and forth and so far the worst thing that's happened is spearsy refusing to engage a bit snarkily.

I feel like this is a fair question to ask.

How can you be so sure of the intent to troll/bait? I’ve posted things before that ran counter to conventional wisdom only to be called a troll when I had no intention to troll. So what’s the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

It's a judgment call, and I'm gonna be wrong sometimes. I generally feel more confident judging intent with the guys I've known for years.

That’s fair.

In regards to the discussion, I simply feel like it wasn’t conducive to the discussion for Spearsy to dismiss my question.

Discussions involve questions, but I also understand the onus is on me to show evidence for a contrary opinion. I was trying to show evidence to Spearsy in the form of that question, which he dismissed. I suspect he doesn’t want to help me further my point, but that seems unimportant to you, Andre, it seems. Thus I will have to find another way to prove my point which will take more time and energy which is a bit annoying because this could be resolved if Spearsy would’ve answered the question.

Conventional wisdom can be wrong, so I think it also puts the onus on the one’s who believe in this conventional wisdom to prove their point.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app