I'm sorry, but you are speaking completely like someone who has never played/coached basketball at a high level.
eyes as to whether or not a guy has "it" without looking at any stats. Numbers like per 36 and per 48 because it is making an assumption that someone could keep up the exact performance level for an even longer period of time than they actually showed. I'm not saying Dlo can't become great, but to say he is even at this point in time with porzingis or Booker is silly. If you watched any games of all 3 you would see that isn't the case just on the eye test. Dlo shows flashes but the other 2 have done it on a more consistent basis especially this year. Porzingis is killing it right while having to share the ball with melo AND D rose on his team.
Didn't know I was speaking to Tex Winter. I apologize.
Again as you're railing about eye test and this and that. You're missing the point.
All things can be broken down into numbers. Like your precious DLo is lazy on defense, that has a negative impact on the defense, and that is QUANTIFIABLE. What's so hard for you to get about that.
On another note, eye test is worthless without something to back it up. If you make all decisions by eye test, and never take into account past success, then you're doomed to fail. Because law of averages, regression to the mean are real and actual things. (Similar to the hot hand fallacy. Sure someone can have a hot hand, and make everything, but that number eventually come back to where it was always meant to be).
Does that mean numbers are always correct? No. Because someone could buck the trend, and all of a sudden figure out the proper form for a shot, or where to stand on defense in a P&R, whether to attack to ball handler, stick to the roll man, or lay back and force a shot. And even though those typically are fixes you can make optically, there's numbers to find for it.
Sure can you make feel decisions? yes of course. And it's fine too. Because not everything is quantifiable in the moment.
But over stretches of games of games should you make eye test judgement without the data to back it? No. Because the data will show the better decision over time. Eye test is a short term data set, whereas numbers are your long term, standard deviation tool. The later is far more reliable.
Think of the quote from Moneyball...Something along these lines "Look at his girlfriend. He's no good because she's ugly. It means he doesn't have good eyes."
It's similar to the same nonsense of look at Russell, he's dogging it because I don't think he's running fast enough. He LOOKS like he doesn't care.
Again, all the things that you hate about Russell and how he plays or whatever we're talking about defense. He's still at worst the same defender as Booker. That means something. Especially if Russell has no confidence and doesn't care, and Booker does care and is confident.
It's like saying Porzingis & Booker are playing lights out, and are "setting the league on fire." And are more consistent. When you look at how you measure consistency, success, -and skill..... They're not.
DLo has the ball on the team more than anybody. Porzingis 2nd most on his team. Each team has the same Offensive Efficiency 104.2.
BUT hell of course what am I talking about? It feels like it, so it must be true.
. Is there any reason DLo wasnt in down the stretch?
