Point guard comparison

[H.C.]

I havent looked but I was making a more historical argument from seasons past. you usually needed 44-46 wins to get in right?

If you're making a historical argument then you would have noticed the downtrend in # of wins needed to make the playoffs.
Last year the Rockets made it at 41-41. Year before Pelicans made it with 45. Year previous it was the Mavs with 49.
Trend is downwards. Especially taking the current standings into consideration.

 

[BonesJones]

we werent 6 games over 500 last year and most likely will not be this year.

44-38.

44 - 38 = 6.

 

[chzbrgr]

3 years ago but this is 2017.

Its between us and denver for the 8th spot prolly unless sac pulls something out their collective asses. we did not look good against them and I do not want the 8th seed for any reason this season. ill take my lotto pick please and thank you

 

[chzbrgr]

44-38.

44 - 38 = 6.

wow uh let me walk you through your maths here

41-41=.500

41+3=44

3 games above 500

 

[Denny Crane]

wow uh let me walk you through your maths here

41-41=.500

41+3=44

3 games above 500

Technically it is 6 games over. The calculation is how many wins, or losses, added to the record to be .500.

Yes, it means to be 48-48 96 games, not 41-41 82 games.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

DRose MVP
25pPG, 7.7APG, 4RPG, 1SPG, 23.5 PER

Dame
27PPG, 6.2APG, 4.5RPG, .9SPG, 24.5PER

Yeah, hate to break it to you, given that you were a Bulls fan at the time, but that was a joke. They gave it to an undeserving player because his team had the best record. Same deal with Iverson (whose team didn't even have the best record in the league, just the East, but nobody else on it could score).

But notice, in both cases: GREAT TEAM RECORD.

 

[H.C.]

Yeah, hate to break it to you, given that you were a Bulls fan at the time, but that was a joke. They gave it to an undeserving player because his team had the best record. Same deal with Iverson (whose team didn't even have the best record in the league, just the East, but nobody else on it could score).

But notice, in both cases: GREAT TEAM RECORD.

now you gone too far.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, hate to break it to you, given that you were a Bulls fan at the time, but that was a joke. They gave it to an undeserving player because his team had the best record. Same deal with Iverson (whose team didn't even have the best record in the league, just the East, but nobody else on it could score).

But notice, in both cases: GREAT TEAM RECORD.

Not

Swayed

 

[BonesJones]

wow uh let me walk you through your maths here

41-41=.500

41+3=44

3 games above 500

That's not how it works. When the team is 26-26 it's at .500.

If they win, they move a game above .500.

With your math, being 29-27 means they'd only be a game above .500.

With your math were only 3 games below .500.

So if we lose tomorrow, are we 3 and a half games below .500?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

By this logic you could be making the argument of Beverly over Lillard.

If Beverley was as important to his team as Hill is to his, then yes.

I wonder if Memphis fans are getting restive about Conley given how well the team has played with Harrison, and given how obscenely much Conley is earning. I bet some are, and I bet some of them are just as mad as you are at the the ones who are questioning the team's "superstar".

 

[BonesJones]

If Beverley was as important to his team as Hill is to his, then yes.

I wonder if Memphis fans are getting restive about Conley given how well the team has played with Harrison, and given how obscenely much Conley is earning. I bet some are, and I bet some of them are just as mad as you are at the the ones who are questioning the team's "superstar".

Hill's barely played in a third of their games. He's helped them beat only 2 above-.500 teams...

Lillard lit up George Hill on opening night

 

[Denny Crane]

Hill's barely played in a third of their games. He's helped them beat only 2 above-.500 teams...

Lillard lit up George Hill on opening night

Keep up with the facts.

 

[Boob-No-More]

The startling stat is Dame's only shooting 35% from 3.

That's BAD. For a guy who is universally considered a good shooter, that's an awful percentage. He really is very streaky.

Dude really needs to stop the pull ups from 30+ feet until he's hot. His 35% doesn't give him the license to chuck from that far.

Yep, although I'm a big advocate for trading Crabbe for a defensive big (Nerlens Noel, please), I also realize that doing so would leave us with just one above average 3-point shooter in our rotation. And, that doesn't seem like a great plan for a team whose offense is highly dependent on the 3-point shot (which is why I'd be in favor of getting Kyle Korver as a short term rental, if we don't have to give up much to get him - he only makes $5.2 million and is an expiring contract).

Sure, Dame's .353 3FG% is barely below the league average of .356, but since his hot start, he's REALLY cooled off. Since November 4, he's just 64-189 from 3-point range. That's a 3FG% of .339. Way too low for someone who shoots that many 3s.

I also find it disturbing that for an offense that's highly 3FG dependent and a defense that is supposed to willingly give up long 2-pointers to focus on limiting 3-point opportunities, we actually shoot a significantly lower 3FG% (.360) than our opponents (.380). For a defense that is supposed to limit our opponents 3FG shooting, I find it disturbing that we have the 28th ranked OPP 3FG% in the league.

The good news is that over the last 4 games, we've held our opponents to just .324 3FG%. The sample size is small, but the trend is encouraging. The other thing that's encouraging is that two of those four opponents are the #1 (SAS) and #2 (TOR) 3-point shooting teams in the league. Tomorrow night against GSW will be another test of the effectiveness of our new defensive schemes.

BNM

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Hill's barely played in a third of their games. He's helped them beat only 2 above-.500 teams...

Lillard lit up George Hill on opening night

True. That was when our season still held promise.

Of course, we only just beat Utah and they were without Favors and Hayward, so we should've known that win wasn't as good as it looked.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Sure, Dame's .353 3FG% is barely below the league average of .356, but since his hot start, he's REALLY cooled off. Since November 4, he's just 64-189 from 3-point range. That's a 3FG% of .339. Way too low for someone who shoots that many 3s.

I also find it disturbing that for an offense that's highly 3FG dependent and a defense that is supposed to willingly give up long 2-pointers to focus limiting 3-pointer opportunities, we actually shoot a significantly lower 3FG% (.360) than our opponents (.380). For a defense that is supposed to limit our opponents 3FG shooting, I find it disturbing that we have the 28th ranked OPP 3FG% in the league.

BNM

HATER!!!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

now you gone too far.

Iverson was an incredibly inefficient scorer. Love the guy, though.

 

[BonesJones]

True. That was when our season still held promise.

Of course, we only just beat Utah and they were without Favors and Hayward, so we should've known that win wasn't as good as it looked.

True, but the point is Hill hasn't really helped them at all. They're good enough to best under .500 teams without him, so what if he's played well in helping them beat almost .500 teams?

 

[H.C.]

True. That was when our season still held promise.

Of course, we only just beat Utah and they were without Favors and Hayward, so we should've known that win wasn't as good as it looked.

Nevermind the fact that ISO Joe had a turn-back-the-clock kind of night.
Which I doubt happens if even one of those two plays that night. Especially considering how he's played for the other 34 games he's played this season.

Iverson was an incredibly inefficient scorer. Love the guy, though.

You went too far.

 

[Boob-No-More]

HATER!!!

I find it amusing I get accused of being both a hater and a homer. Yes, I love and support my team, but I try not to let that get in my way of being (at least somewhat) objective.

BNM

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Nevermind the fact that ISO Joe had a turn-back-the-clock kind of night.

Given how he's played recently, so did Lillard.

 

[H.C.]

Given how he's played recently, so did Lillard.

Nice opinion, with how far you've gone with stats I find it interesting you give that now.
When is the last time Lillard averaged 8 points a game?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Nice opinion, with how far you've gone with stats I find it interesting you give that now.
When is the last time Lillard averaged 8 points a game?

Jeez, it was a joke. I'm sure Damian's going to bounce back. He had a great second half last year. He'll lead us to a massive win streak and playoffs! Then I'll happily eat crow. Secretly that's what all us "haters" are doing - it's classic reverse psychology.

 

[H.C.]

Jeez, it was a joke. I'm sure Damian's going to bounce back. He had a great second half last year. He'll lead us to a massive win streak and playoffs! Then I'll happily eat crow. Secretly that's what all us "haters" are doing - it's classic reverse psychology.

Oh I understood it was a joke.
But I take it you didn't like either of my responses.
It's okay most people don't like people using logic against them.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Oh I understood it was a joke.
But I take it you didn't like either of my responses.
It's okay most people don't like people using logic against them.

What logic was that? I must've missed it.

 

[Denny Crane]

I wouldn't want Conley over Dame.

I wouldn't want anything to do with Harden.

At this point, Dame has a much brighter future than Chris Paul.

I take him over Lowry, Thomas, and Irving.

That leaves Westbrook, Giannis, and Curry that maybe are better.

 

[Cippy91]

I wouldn't take anybody over Dame right now and that's mostly because of the loyalty he has shown to the organization. Who was the last player to really show this much loyalty and be a great speaker for the organization and team? Plus he is only gonna get better as he has shown every year. Only complaints I have on Dame is defense and shot selection at times. That's really it.

 

[dviss1]

Don't assume the Dame-bashers speak for the entire forum, or even most of it.

It's literally like 5 posters at the most. 3 of which have more than one account. Lol.

 

[dviss1]

"Let's just pull up advanced stats that are heavily affected by team success and the players around him and just use it to bash Lillard."

"Oh wow, his Win Shares are lower. He's average". Win shares are affected by how much the team fucking wins.

"He's not first in BLK% or REB%" He's a fucking PG.

"His BPM is low" Because the team has played worse than the rest of those teams, and he has had an awful scheme that magnifies the defensive weaknesses he does have.

Haha! Get em Bones!

 

[dviss1]

Agree with you that the sample size is small, but disagree about "mediocre career". He's always been an excellent defender. People discount that way too much.

That's why Lillard

__________

Every time they play.

 

[handiman]

You're suggesting he might not be top 10. Someone suggested is possible he's just an average starter.

When the 'roid rage subsides, re-read what I wrote. I said he may be closer to league average PG than he is to the top of the heap. That was in response to a list that could rank him outside the top-10 PGs, depending on individual preference. That puts him closer to #15 than #1, which is nearing league average territory. It's not rocket science, dude.