Personally, I think it's when the opinions come out with things that are unsubstantiated, that you get the more visceral reaction (from some). For instance, I understand what you mean with the "undersized backcourt" argument, but one could (rightly) say: "Dame Lillard is the same size (6'3", 195) as Russell Westbrook (6'3", 200 who has
never been called undersized) and Kyrie Irving, bigger than CP3, Kyle Lowry, Steph and Derrick Rose, and among elite PGs is only smaller than Wall (by 1 inch). Average PG height is 6'2. STFU with the 'Dame is undersized' agenda." One could also just post a link and say "Dame isn't undersized, see list below." Or post articles from
NBC,
CBS, ESPN and
RipCityProject about how Dame's defense is much better than last year and (varying degrees).
As an aside, I'd say that my experience of being contrarian is that you usually need to have your "proof"/explanations more dialed in when contrarian, to not be considered a "h8er/troll". For instance,
@Mediocre Man gets a lot of shit for his take on Syracuse players. However, if you (as I've done) bring up a list of Orangemen and their metrics against draft slot, they consistently and heavily underperform. If that was brought up and pointed out, rather than the blanket "Syracuse players suck, don't draft them" it would almost immediately a) validate the contrarian opinion and b) shut down those saying it's just agenda hatred. Maybe.
