Who still thinks CHI should have traded Deng & Noah & a pick for Carmelo Anthony?

Would you have traded Deng & Noah & a pick for Carmelo Anthony?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 19.0%
  • No

    Votes: 34 81.0%

  • Total voters
    42
Status
Not open for further replies.

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
He "somehow" ends up at that "measley" percentage because that percentage accounts for how efficient he is shooting his three-point attempts, which you are conveniently ignoring altogether.
I'm not ignoring how well he shotos threes. What you seem to be ignoring is that you are somehow calling a player that shoots 42% from the field an effiecient scorer and had the idiocy to bring him up in discussing Carmelo fucking Anthony.
 

RamiTheBullsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2010
Posts:
9,505
Liked Posts:
1,733
I'm not ignoring how well he shotos threes. What you seem to be ignoring is that you are somehow calling a player that shoots 42% from the field an effiecient scorer and had the idiocy to bring him up in discussing Carmelo fucking Anthony.

38% from three is VERY efficient.

45% from two is sufficient (and very good as a SG)

88% from the line is VERY efficient.

You are ignoring clear facts.
 

RamiTheBullsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2010
Posts:
9,505
Liked Posts:
1,733
No, but your subsequent "argument" does.

Your line of arguing is intolerable. Having someone constantly say "Thats not what I said" when they are being direct-quoted is ridiculous. To claim someone is misinterpreting your comments when there can only be one interpretation is asinine. I gave up having an actual discussion with you long ago, because that wasn't YOUR intent.

Here is what actually occurs:

I make a blanket statement, and instead of being asked to further explain my comments... FT automatically assumes he knows exactly what I am saying and exactly what I believe.

Subsequently, I am forced to dismiss his allegations about what I believe, and at the same time, attempt to say what I really believe. And that is usually responded to by FT with more presumptions and (most likely) insults.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
38% from three is VERY efficient.

45% from two is sufficient (and very good as a SG)

88% from the line is VERY efficient.

You are ignoring clear facts.

41-43%

Not effiecient.

You are ignoring clear stats
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
Here is what actually occurs:

I make a blanket statement, and instead of being asked to further explain my comments... FT automatically assumes he knows exactly what I am saying and exactly what I believe.

Subsequently, I am forced to dismiss his allegations about what I believe, and at the same time, attempt to say what I really believe. And that is usually responded to by FT with more presumptions and (most likely) insults.

Basically you say "generally Special person" things..then end up breaking it down into more "specifically Special person" things.
 

RamiTheBullsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2010
Posts:
9,505
Liked Posts:
1,733
41-43%

Not effiecient.

You are ignoring clear stats

Let's go by your own logic for a second and ignore that points are scored in different ways.

The league average FG% is about 45%. A player who averages 42-ish% is not that far below the league average. Especially considering that

PGs shoot the lowest typical %,
SGs- the second lowest %
SFs- in the middle
PFs- second highest
Cs- highest

And when a player shoots 42% and still manages to put up enough pt-attempts that he averages 23 points... that pretty much proves that player is a very good or better scorer.
 

RamiTheBullsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2010
Posts:
9,505
Liked Posts:
1,733
Basically you say "generally Special person" things..then end up breaking it down into more "specifically Special person" things.

Nope. Actually what happens is that when I explain, you either go onto a completely seperate argument to nit-pick upon. When I explain the original argument, you usually dismiss that as "Special person" and continue on with the next insult-fest with the ensuing argument you started.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
that pretty much proves that player is a very good or better scorer.

You're being blatently Special person now.

I never said Martin was a "bad scorer". I said he's inefficient at doing it. Martin gets his points. Yes. He's a "good scorer" but he's inefficient at the practice.

Allen Iverson was a tremendous scorer..but ridiculously ineffiecient at it. Being a good scorer and being efficient aren't mutually exclusive.

Quit being a pud
 

RamiTheBullsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2010
Posts:
9,505
Liked Posts:
1,733
You're being blatently Special person now.

I never said Martin was a "bad scorer". I said he's inefficient at doing it. Martin gets his points. Yes. He's a "good scorer" but he's inefficient at the practice.

Allen Iverson was a tremendous scorer..but ridiculously ineffiecient at it. Being a good scorer and being efficient aren't mutually exclusive.

Quit being a pud

You are flat-out wrong when you say he is inefficient. Just because your net FG% is somewhat below the NBA average doesn't mean that you are an "inefficient scorer."

And I have already shown why.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
Just because your net FG% is somewhat below the NBA average doesn't mean that you are an "inefficient scorer."
Yes it does.



You wouldn't multi-quote me on everything else I said in that post because you know I am right.
No.

I disagreed with your initial assertion. The rest was just you repeating yourself.

I was being effiecient like Carmelo Anthony.

Multi quoting is more Kevin Martin-ish ineffcient.
 

RamiTheBullsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2010
Posts:
9,505
Liked Posts:
1,733
Saying "yes it does" does not prove your point, nor does it change that you are wrong.

Having a lower than average FG% does not automatically make you an inefficient scorer because it completely ignores the scoring that is done at the FT line.

And FG% is a term that combines 3P% and 2P%.

If you are shooting 38% from three then that means you are being efficient when it comes to shooting three's.

Now, we can look at how Kevin Martin does when he is only shooting two's.

Answer: He is at the NBA average and better than NBA average for his position.
 

Rush

**** it, Go Deep
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Apr 16, 2010
Posts:
13,285
Liked Posts:
7,400
Location:
North Carolina
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Carolina Hurricanes
  1. Duke Blue Devils
Just remember that you're both grown men discussing sports. Reporting each others posts constantly blows up my email. I get notifications sent to my phone, so **** both of you :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top