Why do you think he's a talented talent evaluator? Rupert and Murray look like crap so far. Scoot fell into our laps (and even he isn't looking good, but not like we passed on anyone that looks much better)
I wouldn't take hime #1 either.
You spent all that time doing math when it's painfully obvious to everyone else, I would assume, that isn't looking to dispute EVERY post in here he comes across, that he meant 3 percentage points, and not specifically 3 percent, the way any normal person on here would discuss where someone lies in relation to their percentages. If Ant was shooting 42% from this year, and his career mark was 38%(I didn't look these up, so don't bother well actually-ing another fucking post), most anyone would say he's shooting 4% better. Not everything has to be torn apart and broken down for arguments sake. Good lord, I thought I sometimes have too much time on my hands. The lengths you go to argue everything is astounding.
No. The correct comparison is saying $33.60 is $3 dollars less than $36.60.
That doesn't relate at all. Everyone knows what was meant by his 3% comment.
What exactly were you expecting out of the 43rd pick of the draft?
You get a like for using the word ‘rankle’ on a sports forum!
By whom? I thought the majority opinion was that it was an uninspired "safe" pick.
Not so much Rupert since 2nd rounders rarely amount to anything, but Kris Murray is a 23 year old rookie and he's looking like a wasted pick. What body of work are we looking at that say Mike is a good talent evaluator?
He's already a better rebounder than Grant. Grant is 10% TRB, Kuminga over 14%. He's not good yet, but at least average.
Is that the bar?
