Ruzious wrote:You know you're guilty of this - picking out and focusing on the minuscule stats while ignoring the big ones....
[s]If what you mean is that I treat all the numbers as important -- not just the scoring numbers -- you are right. There are no minuscule stats.
Ruzious wrote:...You're really pointing out the .381 he shot in year 2 and ignoring the .182 in year 1 and the .283 in year 3 - especially when year 3 was the first one that he shot a significant volume of 3's...?
I'm altogether ignoring year 1. He played 359 minutes -- not a meaningful sample size. Especially given 4700 minutes the following 2 years.
Actually, I'm not sure why you want to argue about this, Ruz. If your point depends exclusively on numbers, then look at all the numbers.
Your first claim was that it took several years for Butler to become a good player. When I pointed out the obvious fact that he was a good player right away, your response was that I only like guys who "can't shoot" (Butler being in that group according to you -- i.e. back then not later). All I did in reply to that claim was point out that he was a good player before he was a good shooter, but that he also shot well his 2d year, though he wasn't yet a volume shooter.
Those are simple facts. I didn't claim Jimmy Butler did stuff back then that in fact he didn't do. Again, the framework here is that you said it took Jimmy Butler several years to become a good player -- "player" not "shooter." But, Jimmy was a good player from the get go. As to his shooting, his 359 rookie minutes mean nothing. He shot well but not in volume his 2d year. He shot for sh*t but not in volume his 3d year.
From his 4th year on, Jimmy shot in volume & at a high rate of efficiency. If this is your point, you are absolutely correct. If what you meant to say was that it took Jimmy Butler a few years to become the dominating player he's been throughout his prime, you are absolutely right.
Ruzious wrote:...Why do you make me point these obvious things out?...
I didn't make you point out that Jimmy Butler has been a better shooter through his prime years than he was his first 3 years. But, you are right that this is one of those "obvious things," since it's true for most players who wind up being outstanding scorers.
Ruzious wrote:...Darvin Ham must have been a good shooter because he made more than 50% of his FG's... while averaging 3 points a game... and 2 broken rims per game.
Always good to have a Darvin Ham mention! Still, what's your point? Did Darvin Ham develop as a shooter? In all of his 8 NBA seasons combined, did Darvin take a total of 10 3 point shots. I.e. almost 2 per year. Wait, let me check.... I don't think so. I think it was 8 in total. 1 a year.
At least they didn't fall lower.