Chicago Fanatics Message Board
http://chicagofanatics.com/

Okafor to the Bulls
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=105033		 Page 5 of 8
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
To be fair, he asked you to name a stretch 5 who has ever won anything, and you responded by mentioning 5 guys who aren't stretch 5s.


Dirk, Bosh, Pau and Duncan are/were 5s that can stretch the floor.

Dirk and Bosh aren't 5s. They can play the 5 but they are classic stretch fours and always have been. Duncan isn't a stretch player. He just always had a good mid range bank shot. Pau is debatable but at his best he was a 4-5 that shot mid range shots but didn't shoot threes often. Draymond you also mentioned and he's not a 5.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
To be fair, he asked you to name a stretch 5 who has ever won anything, and you responded by mentioning 5 guys who aren't stretch 5s.


Dirk, Bosh, Pau and Duncan are/were 5s that can stretch the floor.

Dirk and Bosh aren't 5s. They can play the 5 but they are classic stretch fours and always have been. Duncan isn't a stretch player. He just always had a good mid range bank shot. Pau is debatable but at his best he was a 4-5 that shot mid range shots but didn't shoot threes often. Draymond you also mentioned and he's not a 5.


How do you define "5" then? Is a guy who plays 100% of his minutes at the 5 not really a 5 because he doesn't start? If you log significant minutes at the 5, you are a 5, that seems like a reasonable definition. You guys seem to want to define it as "not anyone who disproves my assertions". The fact that you can look at 97% of 2400+ minutes played over a season and say "nope, that's not a 5" is ludicrous.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
To be fair, he asked you to name a stretch 5 who has ever won anything, and you responded by mentioning 5 guys who aren't stretch 5s.


Dirk, Bosh, Pau and Duncan are/were 5s that can stretch the floor.

Dirk and Bosh aren't 5s. They can play the 5 but they are classic stretch fours and always have been. Duncan isn't a stretch player. He just always had a good mid range bank shot. Pau is debatable but at his best he was a 4-5 that shot mid range shots but didn't shoot threes often. Draymond you also mentioned and he's not a 5.


How do you define "5" then? Is a guy who plays 100% of his minutes at the 5 not really a 5 because he doesn't start? If you log significant minutes at the 5, you are a 5, that seems like a reasonable definition. You guys seem to want to define it as "not anyone who disproves my assertions". The fact that you can look at 97% of 2400+ minutes played over a season and say "nope, that's not a 5" is ludicrous.

None of the players you mentioned except possibly Pau has played the majority of their minutes at the five so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
To be fair, he asked you to name a stretch 5 who has ever won anything, and you responded by mentioning 5 guys who aren't stretch 5s.


Dirk, Bosh, Pau and Duncan are/were 5s that can stretch the floor.

Dirk and Bosh aren't 5s. They can play the 5 but they are classic stretch fours and always have been. Duncan isn't a stretch player. He just always had a good mid range bank shot. Pau is debatable but at his best he was a 4-5 that shot mid range shots but didn't shoot threes often. Draymond you also mentioned and he's not a 5.


How do you define "5" then? Is a guy who plays 100% of his minutes at the 5 not really a 5 because he doesn't start? If you log significant minutes at the 5, you are a 5, that seems like a reasonable definition. You guys seem to want to define it as "not anyone who disproves my assertions". The fact that you can look at 97% of 2400+ minutes played over a season and say "nope, that's not a 5" is ludicrous.

None of the players you mentioned except possibly Pau has played the majority of their minutes at the five so I'm not sure where you're going with this.


I want you to define what constitutes calling a player a "5". Does a single season not matter? Is it multiple seasons, career? Is it a simple majority or, not to start another civics war, super-majority?

Because I went by "majority of minutes played at which position [5] in a specific season". Which I deem as reasonable, and also jived with the "led anywhere" caveat, as it seems decidedly unreasonable to decide the "true" position of a player based on their career numbers when you only care about what was achieved in a given season.
Author:  Crystal Lake Hoffy [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
My source said be patient
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
To be fair, he asked you to name a stretch 5 who has ever won anything, and you responded by mentioning 5 guys who aren't stretch 5s.


Dirk, Bosh, Pau and Duncan are/were 5s that can stretch the floor.

Dirk and Bosh aren't 5s. They can play the 5 but they are classic stretch fours and always have been. Duncan isn't a stretch player. He just always had a good mid range bank shot. Pau is debatable but at his best he was a 4-5 that shot mid range shots but didn't shoot threes often. Draymond you also mentioned and he's not a 5.


How do you define "5" then? Is a guy who plays 100% of his minutes at the 5 not really a 5 because he doesn't start? If you log significant minutes at the 5, you are a 5, that seems like a reasonable definition. You guys seem to want to define it as "not anyone who disproves my assertions". The fact that you can look at 97% of 2400+ minutes played over a season and say "nope, that's not a 5" is ludicrous.

None of the players you mentioned except possibly Pau has played the majority of their minutes at the five so I'm not sure where you're going with this.


I want you to define what constitutes calling a player a "5". Does a single season not matter? Is it multiple seasons, career? Is it a simple majority or, not to start another civics war, super-majority?

Because I went by "majority of minutes played at which position [5] in a specific season". Which I deem as reasonable, and also jived with the "led anywhere" caveat, as it seems decidedly unreasonable to decide the "true" position of a player based on their career numbers when you only care about what was achieved in a given season.

Make it simple. Take their career, and see where they play most of their minutes at. Done.

But then we are gonna argue about what stretch means. In no way is Duncan considered a stretch player. You have to shoot threes to qualify for that label.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
FavreFan wrote:
[
Make it simple. Take their career, and see where they play most of their minutes at. Done.

But then we are gonna argue about what stretch means. In no way is Duncan considered a stretch player. You have to shoot threes to qualify for that label.


If you get to further define "stretch", then I want to further define "led anywhere" as "playoff appearance" fair?
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
[
Make it simple. Take their career, and see where they play most of their minutes at. Done.

But then we are gonna argue about what stretch means. In no way is Duncan considered a stretch player. You have to shoot threes to qualify for that label.


If you get to further define "stretch", then I want to further define "led anywhere" as "playoff appearance" fair?

I guess so. But if we are celebrating making the playoffs in the NBA you can't get upset when people mock the low bar we have set.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
[
Make it simple. Take their career, and see where they play most of their minutes at. Done.

But then we are gonna argue about what stretch means. In no way is Duncan considered a stretch player. You have to shoot threes to qualify for that label.


If you get to further define "stretch", then I want to further define "led anywhere" as "playoff appearance" fair?

I guess so. But if we are celebrating making the playoffs in the NBA you can't get upset when people mock the low bar we have set.


Ok then, we'll define it as "Conference Semis or better":

Al Horford (16-17 BOS; 14-15, 15-16 Hawks)
Channing Frye (09-10 Suns)
Mehmet Okur (03-04 Pistons; 06-07, 07-08, 09-10 Jazz)
Marc Gasol (10-11, 12-13, 14-15 Grizzlies)

Also, Lambieer started shooting a lot of 3's from 88-91', which was during a back-to-back championship run, so throw him on there, too.

Now we can also consider that strictly defining "stretch" strictly as "3-point shooter" is at least a little improper, as it leaves out guys that can open it up from 10+ feet out, which has the similar effect of opening up the floor. We must also consider that a "led anywhere" caveat, applied to any position or even in any way, means that there are a lot of really good players automatically considered "not good". KAT is good, DeMarcus is good, etc.
Author:  Nas [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make. It appears you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. What do you expect to get for any combination of McDermott/Valentine/Mirotic? What about a 20 year old rookie averaging 18 and 7 do you dislike?
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
[
Make it simple. Take their career, and see where they play most of their minutes at. Done.

But then we are gonna argue about what stretch means. In no way is Duncan considered a stretch player. You have to shoot threes to qualify for that label.


If you get to further define "stretch", then I want to further define "led anywhere" as "playoff appearance" fair?

I guess so. But if we are celebrating making the playoffs in the NBA you can't get upset when people mock the low bar we have set.


Ok then, we'll define it as "Conference Semis or better":

Al Horford (16-17 BOS; 14-15, 15-16 Hawks)
Channing Frye (09-10 Suns)
Mehmet Okur (03-04 Pistons; 06-07, 07-08, 09-10 Jazz)
Marc Gasol (10-11, 12-13, 14-15 Grizzlies)

Also, Lambieer started shooting a lot of 3's from 88-91', which was during a back-to-back championship run, so throw him on there, too.

Now we can also consider that strictly defining "stretch" strictly as "3-point shooter" is at least a little improper, as it leaves out guys that can open it up from 10+ feet out, which has the similar effect of opening up the floor. We must also consider that a "led anywhere" caveat, applied to any position or even in any way, means that there are a lot of really good players automatically considered "not good". KAT is good, DeMarcus is good, etc.

Okur was a PF on that Pistons team who averaged 22 mpg. Channing Frye has started less than half the games of his career and averaged 11 ppg in the season you cited. Are you serious with these?

Also, I didn't invent the definition of stretch. It's always meant guys who can shoot threes. And no, a 10 foot jump shooter and a three point shooter do not have a similar floor spacing effect.
Author:  long time guy [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
To be fair, he asked you to name a stretch 5 who has ever won anything, and you responded by mentioning 5 guys who aren't stretch 5s.


Dirk, Bosh, Pau and Duncan are/were 5s that can stretch the floor.

Dirk and Bosh aren't 5s. They can play the 5 but they are classic stretch fours and always have been. Duncan isn't a stretch player. He just always had a good mid range bank shot. Pau is debatable but at his best he was a 4-5 that shot mid range shots but didn't shoot threes often. Draymond you also mentioned and he's not a 5.


How do you define "5" then? Is a guy who plays 100% of his minutes at the 5 not really a 5 because he doesn't start? If you log significant minutes at the 5, you are a 5, that seems like a reasonable definition. You guys seem to want to define it as "not anyone who disproves my assertions". The fact that you can look at 97% of 2400+ minutes played over a season and say "nope, that's not a 5" is ludicrous.

None of the players you mentioned except possibly Pau has played the majority of their minutes at the five so I'm not sure where you're going with this.


I want you to define what constitutes calling a player a "5". Does a single season not matter? Is it multiple seasons, career? Is it a simple majority or, not to start another civics war, super-majority?

Because I went by "majority of minutes played at which position [5] in a specific season". Which I deem as reasonable, and also jived with the "led anywhere" caveat, as it seems decidedly unreasonable to decide the "true" position of a player based on their career numbers when you only care about what was achieved in a given season.



Are they guarding 5's? Show me anywhere during Dirk's career where has guarded legit 5's? Has he ever guarded Shaq as his primary assignment? 4 men guarding other 4 men because there are technically 2 four men in the game for each team doesn't make one a Center. Taj plays a lot at Center. Is he one simply because he is in the game with Mirotic and someone has to be listed as a Center. Same goes for Draemond Green.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Nas wrote:
What do you expect to get for any combination of McDermott/Valentine/Mirotic?


A lot of losses to get into the lottery.

Quote:
What about a 20 year old rookie averaging 18 and 7 do you dislike?


He's slow-footed for a team that has a glaring problem on transition D.

Even in a half-court set, he's rather poor defensively. Not exactly the thing a team with bad half-court defense should be coveting.

His rebounding ability has regressed, even when accounting for playing time differential between this season and last.

He HAS to be close to the basket to score effectively, a place where defenders will already be lurking, because nobody else on the team can shoot, and you'll be trading away shooting talent to get him. The offense will all have to occur within 16 feet of the basket. Considering the 76ers are shooting 40 points better in 3P% as a team than the Bulls, that's probably going to hamper Okafor's scoring ability.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
FavreFan wrote:
Okur was a PF on that Pistons team who averaged 22 mpg. Channing Frye has started less than half the games of his career and averaged 11 ppg in the season you cited.


Now you're changing the definitions we agreed upon. Again. If you can't discuss this without constantly shifting definitions which you agreed to, I see no further use in continuing to indulge you.

For reference, here is the definition of "5" you agreed to:

Quote:
Make it simple. Take their career, and see where they play most of their minutes at. Done.
Author:  long time guy [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
The essence of stupidity. The guy for which the term "stretch four" was created (Dirk Nowitzki) is now being labeled a 5. If that makes me a "basketball mind" then so be it. I will tell you what it doesn't make me and that is a damn fool.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Okur was a PF on that Pistons team who averaged 22 mpg. Channing Frye has started less than half the games of his career and averaged 11 ppg in the season you cited.


Now you're changing the definitions we agreed upon. Again. If you can't discuss this without constantly shifting definitions which you agreed to, I see no further use in continuing to indulge you.

For reference, here is the definition of "5" you agreed to:

Quote:
Make it simple. Take their career, and see where they play most of their minutes at. Done.

I'm not changing anything. But if you're talking about including bench role players and still can only find 5 in the last 30 years that speaks volumes.
Author:  long time guy [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
[
Make it simple. Take their career, and see where they play most of their minutes at. Done.

But then we are gonna argue about what stretch means. In no way is Duncan considered a stretch player. You have to shoot threes to qualify for that label.


If you get to further define "stretch", then I want to further define "led anywhere" as "playoff appearance" fair?

I guess so. But if we are celebrating making the playoffs in the NBA you can't get upset when people mock the low bar we have set.


Ok then, we'll define it as "Conference Semis or better":

Al Horford (16-17 BOS; 14-15, 15-16 Hawks)
Channing Frye (09-10 Suns)
Mehmet Okur (03-04 Pistons; 06-07, 07-08, 09-10 Jazz)
Marc Gasol (10-11, 12-13, 14-15 Grizzlies)

Also, Lambieer started shooting a lot of 3's from 88-91', which was during a back-to-back championship run, so throw him on there, too.

Now we can also consider that strictly defining "stretch" strictly as "3-point shooter" is at least a little improper, as it leaves out guys that can open it up from 10+ feet out, which has the similar effect of opening up the floor. We must also consider that a "led anywhere" caveat, applied to any position or even in any way, means that there are a lot of really good players automatically considered "not good". KAT is good, DeMarcus is good, etc.



Laimbeer was a stretch center but he wasn't leading the Pistons anywhere. Probably the 4th or 5th most impactful player on their team. He was a Center because he guarded Centers. That is what defines it. Guys that play against other backup 4 men aren't Centers. Tristan Thompson is about the closest you'd get these days. He guards Centers. Horford is another guy that fits the profile too. He guarded Centers in Atlanta. That made him a Center. He wanted out so that he didn't have to do that any more. Didn't lead them anywhere either. Conf. finals.

I don't why you need guys to spell this out though. Your computer compilations aren't really reliable on this one. Watch the game.
Author:  long time guy [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Nas wrote:
Bagels wrote:
Nas wrote:
Expecting a 21 year old kid with 1 year of experience to be a good/great shooter is ridiculous. Most players develop that. He's already proven to be excellent from 10 feet in and with his back to the basket. I'm more concerned with defense and rebounding than the need to develop a 15 foot jump shot.


i think you also have to consider the fact that he's being jerked around in regard to playing time...1 night he's starting and playing 30 minutes, then the next 2 games he's a DNP-CD. I don't see how you can expect a young player to grow and improve under those circumstances


Exactly! A kid that averages 18 and 7 in his first year doesn't usually get jerked around like this.


Okafor was in the rookie of the year discussion with Towns early on last season. Once the off the court stuff happened Philly sort of washed their hands of him. He put up those numbers without the benefit of a competent point guard too. I know people hate the dreaded "eye test" but he dominated Towns the first time they matched up last season. Absolutely dogged him.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Okur was a PF on that Pistons team who averaged 22 mpg. Channing Frye has started less than half the games of his career and averaged 11 ppg in the season you cited.


Now you're changing the definitions we agreed upon. Again. If you can't discuss this without constantly shifting definitions which you agreed to, I see no further use in continuing to indulge you.

For reference, here is the definition of "5" you agreed to:

Quote:
Make it simple. Take their career, and see where they play most of their minutes at. Done.

I'm not changing anything.


You agreed to call someone a "5" by the distribution of minutes at the center position over their career. All of the guys on that list played the vast majority of their career minutes at the center position. You then quibbled with players on the list because of the specific distribution of their minutes in that season. That's...changing the definition. What would you call it?

Quote:
But if you're talking about including bench role players


Frye started 72 games for the Phoenix team. Okur started 33 for the champion Pistons, and was a started for all those Jazz playoff teams.

Quote:
and still can only find 5 in the last 30 years that speaks volumes.


Stretching the floor with big men is a recent occurrence in the NBA, is it not? Let's set the cut-off at the year 2000, just to make things simple. Only 8 teams per year make it to the Conference Semi's, which means in the 17 seasons since our cut-off, that means there are 136 distinct "chances". There are 11 instances of teams with a 3-shooting center making it to that level (12 if you count Brad Miller's 03-04 campaign), for a resultant 8% chance. But really, the earliest season, not counting Lambieer, is 03-04, or rather 13 intervening seasons, which makes the observed incidence 11%. Both numbers are not insignificant.
Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
long time guy wrote:
The essence of stupidity. The guy for which the term "stretch four" was created (Dirk Nowitzki) is now being labeled a 5. If that makes me a "basketball mind" then so be it. I will tell you what it doesn't make me and that is a damn fool.


I labeled him a "5" in the season which he played the majority of his minutes at the position. I was then told that this was improper, that it's the career distribution of minutes that matters, I was then told that it is the distribution of minutes in a season that matters.

You've moved the goalposts so much I no longer care to play because I don't know where they are.
Author:  long time guy [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The essence of stupidity. The guy for which the term "stretch four" was created (Dirk Nowitzki) is now being labeled a 5. If that makes me a "basketball mind" then so be it. I will tell you what it doesn't make me and that is a damn fool.


I labeled him a "5" in the season which he played the majority of his minutes at the position. I was then told that this was improper, that it's the career distribution of minutes that matters, I was then told that it is the distribution of minutes in a season that matters.

You've moved the goalposts so much I no longer care to play because I don't know where they are.


I haven't. I define that by whom he guards. You found one season to demonstrate what exactly? I can remember when Jordan played a stretch of games at point. Dirk is a stretch four. The term was invented for him. If he played 5 during a particular season it doesn't make him a 5. Stretch Centers don't win in the NBA and for all of this emphasis on "3" point shooting you'd be hard pressed to find championship teams where the best player was a "pure shooter". Too easy to guard. It is debatable if Curry gets that first one if Love and Irving play.


The easiest guy to guard is a stand still shooter. Plus once their legs go they are shot. Did you see all of the airballs that the "greatest shooter in the history of the league" shot during the last 2 rounds of the playoffs last season? Cleveland switched screen roll and he was dead. COuldn't beat Love or Thompson off the bounce. He became real ordinary when they actually put a real game plan on him.


I don't think the game has changed that much. I just think that the league doesn't have as many real centers (skill wise) so they have adjusted. A guy that poses matchup problems on the block is still a commodity if you can find it.
Author:  Bagels [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Quote:
I know people hate the dreaded "eye test" but he dominated Towns the first time they matched up last season. Absolutely dogged him.


yea, you should probably retire the eye test bit
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The essence of stupidity. The guy for which the term "stretch four" was created (Dirk Nowitzki) is now being labeled a 5. If that makes me a "basketball mind" then so be it. I will tell you what it doesn't make me and that is a damn fool.


I labeled him a "5" in the season which he played the majority of his minutes at the position. I was then told that this was improper, that it's the career distribution of minutes that matters, I was then told that it is the distribution of minutes in a season that matters.

You've moved the goalposts so much I no longer care to play because I don't know where they are.

It's hilarious that you're the one who keeps accusing us of moving the goalposts. Go back and read the last two pages. You went from saying Pkafor literally doesn't have a place in the NBA because he can't stretch the floor to now agreeing that 85-90% of the centers on successful teams over the last fifteen years don't stretch the floor :lol:
Author:  Nas [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Bagels wrote:
Quote:
I know people hate the dreaded "eye test" but he dominated Towns the first time they matched up last season. Absolutely dogged him.


yea, you should probably retire the eye test bit


There are MANY things you can't measure by looking at stats. It's the reason the Rockets haven't won a title.
Author:  long time guy [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Nas wrote:
Bagels wrote:
Quote:
I know people hate the dreaded "eye test" but he dominated Towns the first time they matched up last season. Absolutely dogged him.


yea, you should probably retire the eye test bit


There are MANY things you can't measure by looking at stats. It's the reason the Rockets haven't won a title.




Yep. With all of their 3 point shooting and advanced stats i'd be shocked if they make it out of the first round. They are slowing down now and teams are catching up with them. Lack of overall talent may have something to do with it but their philosophy needs to change too.
Author:  long time guy [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
Bagels wrote:
Quote:
I know people hate the dreaded "eye test" but he dominated Towns the first time they matched up last season. Absolutely dogged him.


yea, you should probably retire the eye test bit



Why Kyrie/Steph worked out perfectly for me.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
long time guy wrote:
Nas wrote:
Bagels wrote:
Quote:
I know people hate the dreaded "eye test" but he dominated Towns the first time they matched up last season. Absolutely dogged him.


yea, you should probably retire the eye test bit


There are MANY things you can't measure by looking at stats. It's the reason the Rockets haven't won a title.




Yep. With all of their 3 point shooting and advanced stats i'd be shocked if they make it out of the first round. They are slowing down now and teams are catching up with them. Lack of overall talent may have something to do with it but their philosophy needs to change too.

You'll be shocked? I guess we have to see what it looks like in April but I'd go the other way and say id be shocked if they lost to Memphis, Utah, or OKC in the playoffs.
Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
long time guy wrote:
Bagels wrote:
Quote:
I know people hate the dreaded "eye test" but he dominated Towns the first time they matched up last season. Absolutely dogged him.


yea, you should probably retire the eye test bit



Why Kyrie/Steph worked out perfectly for me.

Except Steph is still better and having a better season than him for the third year in a row.
Author:  long time guy [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
FavreFan wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Nas wrote:
Bagels wrote:
Quote:
I know people hate the dreaded "eye test" but he dominated Towns the first time they matched up last season. Absolutely dogged him.


yea, you should probably retire the eye test bit


There are MANY things you can't measure by looking at stats. It's the reason the Rockets haven't won a title.




Yep. With all of their 3 point shooting and advanced stats i'd be shocked if they make it out of the first round. They are slowing down now and teams are catching up with them. Lack of overall talent may have something to do with it but their philosophy needs to change too.

You'll be shocked? I guess we have to see what it looks like in April but I'd go the other way and say id be shocked if they lost to Memphis, Utah, or OKC in the playoffs.



Yeah I remember you are a Morey guy. I will be interested to see if that style works in the playoffs. They don't have a lot of talent so it will be hard to judge. My guy Patrick is still with them so I will have some rooting interest in them but I don't think they make it out of the first round. They have been fading a little lately. At least it seems that way.
Author:  Bagels [ Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Okafor to the Bulls
long time guy wrote:
Bagels wrote:
Quote:
I know people hate the dreaded "eye test" but he dominated Towns the first time they matched up last season. Absolutely dogged him.


yea, you should probably retire the eye test bit



Why Kyrie/Steph worked out perfectly for me.


so you feel Okafor is better than Towns ?
Page 5 of 8 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/