Actually you did not. Your argument is that the eye test is best and maybe it is for some people, but it certainly is not for most of us regular fans, so I will take your word as questionable when comparing it against data.
Next, you railed against the advanced defensive stats, which is fair enough as they are complicated and I for one am not a data scientist (I do work with one closely so I an very comfortable with data) so I am willing to accept that there might be a bias in these formulas .
But, the argument made about DRTG is absolutely not the same. DRTG is the number of points scored on you per 100 possessions, it is as simple a stat as one can get. It is true that you can hide a bad defender on a team with many good defenders and his DRTG will be good, but you expect all or most other defenders on that team (being players on the court with him) to have as good or better DRTG in this case (simple math). If the Nuggets have an elite DRTG when Jokic plays and he has the best DRTG on the team, he is, by definition, not the weak link that is hidden on that team - so there is no argument to be made that his simple defensive stats are masked by good defenders around him - it is just impossible in this case. Another argument that can be made about DRTG is that the sample size is small. It is not in Jokic's case, he played 34 minutes pe game for 74 regular season games last year, that's over 2400 minutes, if we look at a simple binomial distribution 300 is the magic number usually used for comfortable margin of error - his minutes are way above that.
There is no question, what so ever about these very simple stats. The Nuggets were a very good defensive unit with Jokic on the floor last year, and there was no player on the roster better than him given these very basic stats. Once you have these 2 basic statistics - there is no argument that he is a defensive liability, he just can't be, that's just basic math. You can argue that he is not the best defender in the league or even close to it, but a defensive liability, that's impossible given the facts.
Then, you add the words of people that did call him a defensive liability in the past and tell you that he no longer is, and I prefer to believe the simple math (it is irrefutable here), what people that know about defense say and what my eye tells me over what your eye tells you.
There is nothing hypocritical about what I said. It was cynicism about you telling me not to believe anyone and telling me to believe you because you watched the game.
You really must feel belittled because someone doesn't take your absolute on RAPTOR as an absolute. Yeesh.
You really need to go back and read what I wrote, because the moment I disagreed with you, you fell off the deep end.
Where did I say the eye test is best? I think you're undervaluing it. I think I made clear, whether you want to see it or not, that metrics are only part of the picture and need to be viewed in context. Actually seeing what the Nuggets do defensively and how good Jokic is when he gets isolated against a quicker player or has to close out on a corner 3 are part of the equation, TOO. Never said they were the only thing, but they aren't nothing.
And you keep wanting to come back to metrics which is such a waste of your time because I am never going to be the all-metrics guy you are and apparently want everyone to be.
There are a lot of different metrics that measure the same thing in different ways. They all have their biases built into them and none of them, so far as I can see, adequately measure a player in a vacuum because, guess what, THEY DON'T PLAY THIS GAME IN A VACUUM. But the point still stands that when you choose to pick one metric that's going to be your Bible, you choose to ignore the value and validity of other systems that I guess in analogy would be the Koran or Torah or Tao.
I've already effectively refuted the rest of your post more than once earlier and explained why. You can like it or not like it, but doubling down on the same weak sauce doesn't make your stuff taste any better.
My advice to you is if you want to disagree with someone, first, don't act like your opinion is irrefutable and absolute. Second, don't repeatedly follow them around because they think the opinion you say comes from other people but which you advocate doggedly (although not Sly Poker Doggedly) isn't very well reasoned.
Now, can you just take your pie charts and spreadsheets and talk about them to some who thinks they are as infallible as you? Because I don't, and, for the foreseeable future, I'm not going to. All the stuff you've posted has built-in flaws that I pointed out in like my second or third reply to you, and it's stupid that you're following me around for a second day trying to gain some validation that's not coming.
