UPDATE: Gay to Raptors agreed in principle MERGED

[R-Star]

I love that Adam thinks he's funny. His rep is probably filled with so many "That's a good one" comments.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by R-Star

I'm sorry, I've asked about 5 times now, are you still calling Derozan a chucker?

Its not a tough question.

I'm sorry that English isn't your first language. What is so that I can go to Google Translator and give you the answer in your native language. Maybe you're a Quebecois, so I'll try French

Est-ce qu'il tire d'amabilité? Non. Est-il un buteur efficace? Non Est-ce qu'il faudra beaucoup de coups de feu? Oui.

Does that help?

Originally Posted by R-Star

And again, have fun with your expanded stats John Hollinger. They're pointless. I'm one of the biggest Paul George fans out there, but he doesn't get special stats to me just because he shoots 3's.

I'm sorry that grade school math is so far beyond your ken. But that's not my fault. Are you equally bad with trig & physics? A ball shot from 24' goes in less often than one from 15'. Of course, that long jumper is worth more.

Let's look at this per 100 shots, maybe this will make you understand

DeRozan throws up 100 two point shots and hits 44 of them, good 88 points

For some reason George throw up 100 consecutive treys, hitting 37 of them, good for 111 points.

Now, I know you think that 88 is more than 111, but it's really not.

Now, let's look at this using their actual ratios, approximately 11% of DeRozan's shots are treys and he shoots them at a 28.3% clip. While he shoots twos at a .458 clip. This means that in DeRozan's 100 shot sample he will shoot approximately 41/89 from two point range and 3/11 from three and will produce around 91 points.

On two point shots Paul George is 154/342 (.450) and approximately 36% of his shots are treys, meaning that in his 100 shot sample he will shoot around 13/36 from three point range and 28/64 from two for 95 points.

Now, you might think 91 is more than 95, but in the real world it's not.

Originally Posted by R-Star

Are Paul Georges 3's magic and even though it doesn't show up in his scoring stats, they mean more?

You understand that 3>2, right? It's not magic.

Originally Posted by R-Star

Since Derozan plays to his strengths and shoots more inside, do those count less than Georges points?

Well, let's see, shall we?

NBA League Average
2FG% .476

DeMar DeRozan
2FG% .458

So apparently, even playing to his strengths and his "otherwordly" ability to score from two point range, DD is still below average. And still one of the NBA leaders in FGA.

Originally Posted by R-Star

I always have to laugh at guys who try to use nerd stats to try to overcomplicate basketball and make themselves feel smart. DeMar scores one more point a game on the same amount of shots as Paul George because he does it more efficiently. Just because Paul shoots a ton more 3 pointers a game doesn't somehow make his points more impressive.

These are actually standard statistics and have been since I was your age. And, you're ignoring the FTA as possessions, because the NBA doesn't count missed shots on fouls as FGA but they're still possessions used by the shooter.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

I'm sorry that English isn't your first language. What is so that I can go to Google Translator and give you the answer in your native language. Maybe you're a Quebecois, so I'll try French



Does that help?



I'm sorry that grade school math is so far beyond your ken. But that's not my fault. Are you equally bad with trig & physics? A ball shot from 24' goes in less often than one from 15'. Of course, that long jumper is worth more.

Let's look at this per 100 shots, maybe this will make you understand

DeRozan throws up 100 two point shots and hits 44 of them, good 88 points

For some reason George throw up 100 consecutive treys, hitting 37 of them, good for 111 points.

Now, I know you think that 88 is more than 111, but it's really not.

Now, let's look at this using their actual ratios, approximately 11% of DeRozan's shots are treys and he shoots them at a 28.3% clip. While he shoots twos at a .458 clip. This means that in DeRozan's 100 shot sample he will shoot approximately 41/89 from two point range and 3/11 from three and will produce around 91 points.

On two point shots Paul George is 154/342 (.450) and approximately 36% of his shots are treys, meaning that in his 100 shot sample he will shoot around 13/36 from three point range and 28/64 from two for 95 points.

Now, you might think 91 is more than 95, but in the real world it's not.



You understand that 3>2, right? It's not magic.



Well, let's see, shall we?

NBA League Average
2FG% .476

DeMar DeRozan
2FG% .458

So apparently, even playing to his strengths and his "otherwordly" ability to score from two point range, DD is still below average. And still one of the NBA leaders in FGA.




These are actually standard statistics and have been since I was your age. And, you're ignoring the FTA as possessions, because the NBA doesn't count missed shots on fouls as FGA but they're still possessions used by the shooter.

Jesus. I just glazed over your post and went to the end as soon as I saw you were trying to be witty again.

Does Paul George score more than Derozan? No? So even though he shoots 3's, DeMar gets more points at a better percentage. If you can't understand that, that's your issue, not mine. 3's count for 3, 2's count or 2, and somehow DeMar Derozan scores more points on a better percentage than Paul George. Not very complicated, unless you're "Look at how smart I am kids!" EH Munro.

And to top if all off you still refuse to say again in an actual post that Derozan is a chucker. You just beat around the bush because once again, you're wrong and know it, but refuse to come to terms with it.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by R-Star

Jesus. I just glazed over your post and went to the end as soon as I saw you were trying to be witty again.

Does Paul George score more than Derozan? No? So even though he shoots 3's, DeMar gets more points at a better percentage...

While taking more possessions to do it. Which is the problem. And I think I speak for everyone when I say it's reassuring to know that oil company engineers glaze over when confronted with basic math.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

While taking more possessions to do it. Which is the problem. And I think I speak for everyone when I say it's reassuring to know that oil company engineers glaze over when confronted with basic math.

Uhhhh.....

The .02 more shot attempts Derozan takes? That "is the problem"? That .02 shots a game that gets him an extra 1 point a game, again, at a better shooting percentage.



This is just...... I don't know if its frustrating or just sad. I mean its clear at this point that you know you're wrong, but you keep trying weak attempts like "Don't you get math?" Well yea I do, that's why I explained Derozan gets more points on the same amount of shots (.02? Are you ****ing kidding me?) at a better percentage. So its clear that math, as well as common sense is evading you, not me. I assume you're aware of that as well, which is why you try weak attempts to keep pushing "You're stupid. You don't get the math."


I honestly wish other people didn't just ignore you so they could have a couple laugh posts.



You're just in general a sad person EH. I think the day you finally say something like "You know what, you're right. I misspoke, I really don't see many Raptor games so I was just assuming." the internet will melt down.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by R-Star

Uhhhh.....

The .02 more shot attempts Derozan takes? That "is the problem"? That .02 shots a game that gets him an extra 1 point a game, again, at a better shooting percentage.

Wet me expwain this to you, snookems. I know that basketball is a compwicated game. See, when that guy dwives to the basket and gets fouwed, he's used up a possession. We don't count those as field goal attempts, so they don't show up there, wittle man. But it's still a possession. So, when we want to calculate a scorer's efficiency, we compare the points he's scored to the actual possessions he used. Understand now, snookums?

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

Wet me expwain this to you, snookems. I know that basketball is a compwicated game. See, when that guy dwives to the basket and gets fouwed, he's used up a possession. We don't count those as field goal attempts, so they don't show up there, wittle man. But it's still a possession. So, when we want to calculate a scorer's efficiency, we compare the points he's scored to the actual possessions he used. Understand now, snookums?

So Paul George scores more points on less shot attempts than DeMar Derozan?


Also, I like how you recently got called out for this exact post, and how terribly sad it is, and you still use it...... That's priceless.



Also, are you going to physically write that DeMar Derozan is a chucker in another post? Or just tippy toe and throw insults?

[E.H. Munro]

Look, on pure shots DeRozan produces .916 points/FGA as opposed to George's .98. If you want to add in DeRozan's FTAs then you also need to account for the possessions that he used getting them. And he still doesn't reach league average. There are no ways of looking at the numbers that DeRozan reaches league average as either a shooter or scorer.

[Jace]

If you never re-address the "chucker" remark, this can go on forever.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by Jace

If you never re-address the "chucker" remark, this can go on forever.

Does DeRozan shoot well? Nope. Not by any standard. Does he score efficiently? Not at all. Does he force up a lot of shots and burn up a lot of possessions? Yes. How much ****ing clearer do I need to make it? That is the definition I gave of chucker.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

Does DeRozan shoot well? Nope. Not by any standard. Does he score efficiently? Not at all. Does he force up a lot of shots and burn up a lot of possessions? Yes. How much ****ing clearer do I need to make it? That is the definition I gave of chucker.

No?

Which is a weird accusation coming from the old man questioning how much others have seen him play.

[Bogg]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

Does DeRozan shoot well? Nope. Not by any standard. Does he score efficiently? Not at all. Does he force up a lot of shots and burn up a lot of possessions? Yes. How much ****ing clearer do I need to make it? That is the definition I gave of chucker.

Eh, can't really agree with that definition. Bargnani and Lowry have been in and out of the lineup with injuries and the next guy down from them in terms of scoring on that team is Alan Anderson, a thiry-year old who's never cracked an NBA rotation before. Give him Lowry and Bargnani healthy for a season; Gay starting at small forward instead of whoever happens to be healthy; and Derozan's usage goes down, his efficiency goes up, and suddenly he's magically no longer a chucker.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by Bogg

Eh, can't really agree with that definition. Bargnani and Lowry have been in and out of the lineup with injuries and the next guy down from them in terms of scoring on that team is Alan Anderson, a thiry-year old who's never cracked an NBA rotation before. Give him Lowry and Bargnani healthy for a season; Gay starting at small forward instead of whoever happens to be healthy; and Derozan's usage goes down, his efficiency goes up, and suddenly he's magically no longer a chucker.

At 15 a game he's not a chucker to begin with. He was shooting 50% last night until the wheels fell off the team midway through the 4th last night.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by Bogg

Eh, can't really agree with that definition. Bargnani and Lowry have been in and out of the lineup with injuries and the next guy down from them in terms of scoring on that team is Alan Anderson, a thiry-year old who's never cracked an NBA rotation before. Give him Lowry and Bargnani healthy for a season; Gay starting at small forward instead of whoever happens to be healthy; and Derozan's usage goes down, his efficiency goes up, and suddenly he's magically no longer a chucker.

DeRozan's burned up a quarter of his team's possessions since his second season and hasn't done it efficiently. Maybe there's an alternate universe where DeRozan is a sixth man coming off the bench or a fourth option/roleplayer. Unfortunately in this one he fires up a lot of shots and doesn't do it very efficiently.

R-Star's Grand Canyon sized inferiority complex has kind of derailed the point of the original joke, that Gay is much worse without DeRozan's excuse, and the teaming of the two of them would lead to great hilarity.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by R-Star

At 15 a game he's not a chucker to begin with. He was shooting 50% last night until the wheels fell off the team midway through the 4th last night.

Tony Delk once scored 50+ points in a game. He was almost as good as Jordan! And you're right, Durant and James are chuckers, look at all those FGAs!