(05-28-2020 01:52 PM)Joprior23 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 01:33 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:34 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:19 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 12:07 PM)pesik Wrote:  but we are talking basketball ..not percentages...wins and losses is all that matters in this convo

ive said this before,i think you care more about random stats than you do about winning...

I posted those numbers as well earlier after Flight pointed out how bad Mills offensive rating was on the team. It's not like he was driving your efficient offense. He and Jarreau were the worst at about every aspect of actually winning.

Again. Here who was actually impacting your WINNING. These are your + numbers for how many points Houston was ahead while they were on the court per 100 possessions.

Guys like Mills and Grimes were basically the worst on your team, hey but no big deal losing Hinton or Harris.

Net Rating per 100 possessions they were on the court

+38.8 Harris
+33.5 Greasham
+32.3 Hinton

+15.7 White
+14.5 Sasser
+13.2 Gorham
+10.3 Grimes

+8.4 Mills
+3.5 Jarreau

Hey but make your lame excuses. This is what it is just like his crappy inefficient offense. It shows up in how little they were impacting the winning on your team as well.

obscure stat this , obscure stat that...i dont care about your out of context stat..i would explain to you why that stats is out of context... like when you used net rating to define who was good on defense, im tired of trying to understand how you badly intrepet this or that stat ..

outside of yetna---mills, grimes or dejon will likely be the favorites to win POY next year..
mills wasnt even a starter and named 2nd team all conference, 2nd in FOY vote

Obscure like when you talk about "winning" as some abstract and I post the team differentials when each player was on the court with how much winning was actually happening? There is nothing to interpret in the teams point differential when they were on the court especially when when they are the worst with in the team.

As far as True shooting percentage it is exactly how many points in actual correct mathematical value the guy scored per shot. It is exactly what it is and Mills was well below average even among the worst on your own team and sucks by comparison nationally. That's just the facts. We know how many he made and missed and the value.

It's just amazing that the numbers never back up a single thing you say. Never. You have to post some highlight video where he makes every shot like that tells you anything when we know he missed WAY more than even average efficient players. or you dig up old ass high school rankings or some coach speak or crappy writers opinion as evidence or gospel. One day wouldn't it feel nice to actually have the actual tangible numbers on your side and not have to defend turds like a .490 true shooting as a "good" scoring year.

I’ll wait for Jon Rothstein’s advice to buy stock in Newton. It’s probably never going to happen, but I will be waiting, nonetheless.

Who dafuc cares what he thinks. You act like what he "thinks" actually wins games or has more weight than things like true shooting or point differential where we are actually measuring what happened on the court. It's insane actually. The stats are the ACTUAL value not some interpretation or in that case a complete opinion.

Instead you offer up that and other classics like this player was ranked this in high school 3 years ago or look at this highlight video where it never shows him missing a shot even though we know for a fact he misses more than most players etc etc. This is really your evidence compared to actual tangible things of value measured on the court especially the most cut and dry things like True shooting. Yet you guys will still double down on it and try to prop a .490 season as "good".