UPDATE: Gay to Raptors agreed in principle MERGED

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

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!

The classic EH degrade into stories. That happened quick.


Delk is as good as Jordan? That's almost as ridiculous as when I called Lebron and Durant chuckers. Oh wait..... I never did that, did I? In fact last time you brought it up I stated the opposite.


What I did do, was call you out for calling DeRozan a chucker when its clear you've hardly ever seen him play.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

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.

Forth option role player?


Wow.


It becomes apparent most of the time that you don't watch any basketball games outside of whatever Boston ones you watch. I mean you never post in game threads, and you say just the stupidest shit that isn't even close to reality.

Keep it up though. Hopefully you'll get through to my inferiority complex and the fact I've never seen DeRozan play.

[Bogg]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

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.

It doesn't need to be some fairytale scenario where Derozan comes off the bench for an all-star team for him to shoot less. Stick him in a lineup with Lowry, Gay, Bargs(or whoever they get for Bargs), and a more developed Valanciunas a year or two down the line and it's an ensemble cast without a single guy dominating the ball.

My point is that "anyone with below-average efficiency" is a pretty poor definition of the term "chucker", as it doesn't take into account what role the guy has been cast (or miscast, or forced) into. Even if you want to go back two seasons to when Derozan started taking on a large offensive load, the pattern from this year holds true.

2010-2011 was Derozan's second season and doubled as the year after Bosh left. Bargnani, Barbosa, Klieza, and Calderon (the top-four non-Derozan scorers on that squad) were all dinged up and missed varying chunks of the season, leaving Derozan as the only competent offensive player who was regularly in the lineup (he was the only guy who played all 82 games that year).

2011-2012 was more of the same, with Bargnani and Jerryd Bayless missing about half the season each, Barbosa being shipped out at the trade deadline, and Calderon and Kleiza missing some time as well.

"Well, Derozan shoots more than average and his efficiency isn't good" isn't a very meaningful statement when he hasn't played with much in the way of offensive talent and he's the only guy who's been reliably healthy for three years now.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by Bogg

It doesn't need to be some fairytale scenario where Derozan comes off the bench for an all-star team for him to shoot less. Stick him in a lineup with Lowry, Gay, Bargs(or whoever they get for Bargs), and a more developed Valanciunas a year or two down the line and it's an ensemble cast without a single guy dominating the ball.

My point is that "anyone with below-average efficiency" is a pretty poor definition of the term "chucker", as it doesn't take into account what role the guy has been cast (or miscast, or forced) into. Even if you want to go back two seasons to when Derozan started taking on a large offensive load, the pattern from this year holds true.

2010-2011 was Derozan's second season and doubled as the year after Bosh left. Bargnani, Barbosa, Klieza, and Calderon (the top-four non-Derozan scorers on that squad) were all dinged up and missed varying chunks of the season, leaving Derozan as the only competent offensive player who was regularly in the lineup (he was the only guy who played all 82 games that year).

2011-2012 was more of the same, with Bargnani and Jerryd Bayless missing about half the season each, Barbosa being shipped out at the trade deadline, and Calderon and Kleiza missing some time as well.

"Well, Derozan shoots more than average and his efficiency isn't good" isn't a very meaningful statement when he hasn't played with much in the way of offensive talent and he's the only guy who's been reliably healthy for three years now.

Exactly. But EH knows this, he's seen a ton of Raptor games.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by R-Star

Delk is as good as Jordan?

This was a commentary on your hilarious attempt to justify your loony claims that DeRozan is a good shooter on the grounds that he was shooting almost 50% from the floor for almost a whole game. Until, you know, he reverted to being DeMar DeRozan and began bricking all those 15'-20' jumpers.

Originally Posted by R-Star

That's almost as ridiculous as when I called Lebron and Durant chuckers.

I think it's increasingly clear that your definition of chucker is similar to the definition of porn, you can't define you just know it when you see it. Because you keep claiming that guys that put up only 15 FGA/g can't be chuckers (even though they are on the top 25 list in the NBA in FGA), which implies that there's some magic number above 15 that they suddenly become "chuckers". You just can't tell us when that line's reached. For example, you did label James Harden a chucker, even though he scores efficiently, and provides offensive skills besides scoring.

Me? I have a pretty objective definition and which you've yet to offer a convincing counter-argument for. And I suspect it's because your opinion is based on being the opposite of mine so that you can waive your pecker about to prove that you're still the King of the Interwebz. You needn't fear, little R-Star, I have no interest in your self-proclaimed title. You can have it.

Originally Posted by R-Star

It becomes apparent most of the time that you don't watch any basketball games outside of whatever Boston ones you watch. I mean you never post in game threads, and you say just the stupidest shit that isn't even close to reality.

I have this disadvantage when it comes to game threads, while I'm watching the games I'm usually too focused on what's happening on the screen in front of me to look away and start interacting with people in web fora. The guys that just watch the ESPN online sports ticker and then jump into game threads to find an opinion to agree with and say "Yeah man, nice play" have a much easier time of it, don't you?

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

This was a commentary on your hilarious attempt to justify your loony claims that DeRozan is a good shooter on the grounds that he was shooting almost 50% from the floor for almost a whole game. Until, you know, he reverted to being DeMar DeRozan and began bricking all those 15'-20' jumpers.



I think it's increasingly clear that your definition of chucker is similar to the definition of porn, you can't define you just know it when you see it. Because you keep claiming that guys that put up only 15 FGA/g can't be chuckers (even though they are on the top 25 list in the NBA in FGA), which implies that there's some magic number above 15 that they suddenly become "chuckers". You just can't tell us when that line's reached. For example, you did label James Harden a chucker, even though he scores efficiently, and provides offensive skills besides scoring.

Me? I have a pretty objective definition and which you've yet to offer a convincing counter-argument for. And I suspect it's because your opinion is based on being the opposite of mine so that you can waive your pecker about to prove that you're still the King of the Interwebz. You needn't fear, little R-Star, I have no interest in your self-proclaimed title. You can have it.



I have this disadvantage when it comes to game threads, while I'm watching the games I'm usually too focused on what's happening on the screen in front of me to look away and start interacting with people in web fora. The guys that just watch the ESPN online sports ticker and then jump into game threads to find an opinion to agree with and say "Yeah man, nice play" have a much easier time of it, don't you?

A) Where did I call DeMar Derozan a good shooter? Feel free to quote where I wrote that.

B) DeMar Derozan is the leading scorer on his team. Shooting 15 shots per game as your teams #1 option is pretty reserved, as most people who understand basketball find as common sense.

C)You seem to post in playoffs threads, when I actually assume you watch basketball. The rest of the year you troll around talking about players, yet never reference actual games (since you haven't seen any)


Feel free to touch on those 3, or don't. I'm only posting because the internet makes me feel like a man. It has nothing to do with you yet again stating something completely wrong, then refusing to admit being wrong, and becoming further and further belligerent when pressed.

We should make a thread chronicling threads where you say something stupid, then yell at everyone telling them they're wrong. How's your "I guarantee Kevin Martin will get injured 20 games into the season and anyone who disagrees is an idiot! I saw every Rockets game last year!" prediction going anyways?

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by Bogg

It doesn't need to be some fairytale scenario where Derozan comes off the bench for an all-star team for him to shoot less. Stick him in a lineup with Lowry, Gay, Bargs(or whoever they get for Bargs), and a more developed Valanciunas a year or two down the line and it's an ensemble cast without a single guy dominating the ball.

My point is that "anyone with below-average efficiency" is a pretty poor definition of the term "chucker", as it doesn't take into account what role the guy has been cast (or miscast, or forced) into. Even if you want to go back two seasons to when Derozan started taking on a large offensive load, the pattern from this year holds true.

I'm not a sports psychologist, and with all due respect, neither are you. You can theorise that he'd suddenly change into a low usage rate player in some ideal scenario, all I can go on is what I see and what's reflected in the numbers. Honestly, as he doesn't bring much offensive value to the table aside from the volume scoring I just don't see how any of this would work.

And I didn't say that "anyone with below average efficiency" because I did state that they had to be high usage rate players. That's kind of the crucial part. High usage rate players that neither shoot nor score efficiently are chuckers. Guys that ain't shooting the rock ain't chuckers. Tony Allen wasn't a chucker during his time in Boston despite his inability to shoot straight because he just didn't take a lot of shots (unless he and his buddies were out cruising).

Originally Posted by Bogg

"Well, Derozan shoots more than average and his efficiency isn't good" isn't a very meaningful statement when he hasn't played with much in the way of offensive talent and he's the only guy who's been reliably healthy for three years now.

DD doesn't "shoot more than average" he's 17th in the entire NBA in FGA. That's considerably more than average. (However I will grant the funniest part of your post is that you're agreeing with me that DeRozan is a shitty #1,#2 or even possibly #3 option while R-Star has, more predictably than a curried goat bowel movement, chimed in with a "Yeah! That EH is such an idiot, doesn't he know that I'm R-Star, King of the Interwebz!!!!!")

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

I'm not a sports psychologist, and with all due respect, neither are you. You can theorise that he'd suddenly change into a low usage rate player in some ideal scenario, all I can go on is what I see and what's reflected in the numbers. Honestly, as he doesn't bring much offensive value to the table aside from the volume scoring I just don't see how any of this would work.

And I didn't say that "anyone with below average efficiency" because I did state that they had to be high usage rate players. That's kind of the crucial part. High usage rate players that neither shoot nor score efficiently are chuckers. Guys that ain't shooting the rock ain't chuckers. Tony Allen wasn't a chucker during his time in Boston despite his inability to shoot straight because he just didn't take a lot of shots (unless he and his buddies were out cruising).



DD doesn't "shoot more than average" he's 17th in the entire NBA in FGA. That's considerably more than average. (However I will grant the funniest part of your post is that you're agreeing with me that DeRozan is a shitty #1,#2 or even possibly #3 option while R-Star has, more predictably than a curried goat bowel movement, chimed in with a "Yeah! That EH is such an idiot, doesn't he know that I'm R-Star, King of the Interwebz!!!!!")

Huh?

Yea.... the questions, facts and numbers I've posted seem to agree with that.

Your responses and flailing keep getting weaker and weaker. This is pretty sad.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by R-Star

A) Where did I call DeMar Derozan a good shooter? Feel free to quote where I wrote that.

So you've finally given up on this lunacy and are admitting that his ability to bury the ball in the hole will likely prevent him from being either a scratch golfer or a father?

Originally Posted by R-Star

B) DeMar Derozan is the leading scorer on his team. Shooting 15 shots per game as your teams #1 option is pretty reserved, as most people who understand basketball find as common sense.

17th in the entire NBA in FGA. Again, are you saying that guys that shoot a lot, but some magic number above 15, are chuckers and that their utter inability to to either convert shots or score efficiently has nothing to do with the matter?

Originally Posted by R-Star

C)You seem to post in playoffs threads, when I actually assume you watch basketball. The rest of the year you troll around talking about players, yet never reference actual games (since you haven't seen any)

Not really, no. We're supposed to, as staff members. It's part of our job description. But I cheat by posting during half times or quarter breaks. In other words, not very often.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

So you've finally given up on this lunacy and are admitting that his ability to bury the ball in the hole will likely prevent him from being either a scratch golfer or a father?



17th in the entire NBA in FGA. Again, are you saying that guys that shoot a lot, but some magic number above 15, are chuckers and that their utter inability to to either convert shots or score efficiently has nothing to do with the matter?



Not really, no. We're supposed to, as staff members. It's part of our job description. But I cheat by posting during half times or quarter breaks. In other words, not very often.

Scratch golfer or........ No, what I'm saying, and what I've always said in this thread is DeRozan is not a chucker. I see in your books you're either a "good shooter" or "Chucker" which explains your laughable posts.

17th is all of the sudden a high volume chucker? 7 of the players above him on that list shoot at a lower FG%. You know that correct? I mean, I'm sure you do, with all the games you watch.


And no EH, I've posted with you in playoff threads. I won't push the fact that its obvious you don't watch regular season games, nor the fact that I guaran****ingtee not one person pushed you of all people to post in playoff threads, but facts are facts and its pretty damn clear.

[Bogg]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

I'm not a sports psychologist, and with all due respect, neither are you. You can theorise that he'd suddenly change into a low usage rate player in some ideal scenario, all I can go on is what I see and what's reflected in the numbers. Honestly, as he doesn't bring much offensive value to the table aside from the volume scoring I just don't see how any of this would work.

Derozan's a perfectly fine slasher and can hit from mid-range(I know, I know, least efficient shot in basketball), so I don't see a reason he can't settle into being a nice two-way player that doesn't dominate on either end of the floor. If all we're arguing is what he'd do in a theoretical scenario then we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I don't see a reason to believe that because he plays one way on a very poor team he'll play that way on any team. Every year we see a guy (often a volume scorer, btw) accept a lesser role one some team and excel in it.

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

And I didn't say that "anyone with below average efficiency" because I did state that they had to be high usage rate players. That's kind of the crucial part. High usage rate players that neither shoot nor score efficiently are chuckers. Guys that ain't shooting the rock ain't chuckers. Tony Allen wasn't a chucker during his time in Boston despite his inability to shoot straight because he just didn't take a lot of shots (unless he and his buddies were out cruising).

Unfortunately for Derozen, he's easily the best offensive player on the floor for Toronto most nights. You're the first guy to defend Philadelphia-era Iverson whenever accusations of being a selfish ballhog come up by pointing out that the Sixers had no other viable offensive options. Same thing with Derozan, but on a smaller scale.

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

DD doesn't "shoot more than average" he's 17th in the entire NBA in FGA. That's considerably more than average. (However I will grant the funniest part of your post is that you're agreeing with me that DeRozan is a shitty #1,#2 or even possibly #3 option while R-Star has, more predictably than a curried goat bowel movement, chimed in with a "Yeah! That EH is such an idiot, doesn't he know that I'm R-Star, King of the Interwebz!!!!!")

Toronto's currently starting Ed Davis, Amir Johnson, and Landry Fields. They're relying on Alan Anderson (getting his first regular burn as a thiry-year-old) for offensive production from the bench. There just isn't much in the way of guys you actually want shooting the ball on that team. So, Derozan becomes a volume shooter and his efficiency suffers. I'm very confident in your ability to tell me what has happened, but it's not hard to see why it's happened, either.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by R-Star

Scratch golfer or........ No, what I'm saying, and what I've always said in this thread is DeRozan is not a chucker. I see in your books you're either a "good shooter" or "Chucker" which explains your laughable posts.

What? Could you point out where I ever called, say, Ben Wallace a chucker? Low usage rate guys aren't chuckers regardless of how well they shoot or how efficiently they score. Because they aren't shooting. High usage rate guys that neither shoot nor score efficiently? Chuckers.

Originally Posted by R-Star

17th is all of the sudden a high volume chucker?

17th out of some 430? Yeah, that's pretty high. He's in the top 5%.

Originally Posted by R-Star

7 of the players above him on that list shoot at a lower FG%.

Including Rudy Gay, hence my original joke. Which, in turn, led you to stomp in in your ongoing quest to be the King of the Interwebz. Do you not understand that no one cares? It's your title. You can have it.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

What? Could you point out where I ever called, say, Ben Wallace a chucker? Low usage rate guys aren't chuckers regardless of how well they shoot or how efficiently they score. Because they aren't shooting. High usage rate guys that neither shoot nor score efficiently? Chuckers.



17th out of some 430? Yeah, that's pretty high. He's in the top 5%.



Including Rudy Gay, hence my original joke. Which, in turn, led you to stomp in in your ongoing quest to be the King of the Interwebz. Do you not understand that no one cares? It's your title. You can have it.

So there's 7 players above him with worse shooting, and your answer is "Yea, Rudy Gay sucks!" Yea, we've never seen that from you before have we? Someone posts something and you waive it off in hopes of not having to answer to it.

Anyways, its pretty obvious no one but yourself considers Derozan a chucker. I guess we can chalk this up to yet again another opinion you have that no one else shares.

Its also getting pretty sad that you keep trying to push a joke in about 5 consecutive posts, and to anyone reading it you're the one coming off as the spoiled little brat who's throwing a fit.

Keep up the good work.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by Bogg

Derozan's a perfectly fine slasher and can hit from mid-range(I know, I know, least efficient shot in basketball), so I don't see a reason he can't settle into being a nice two-way player that doesn't dominate on either end of the floor. If all we're arguing is what he'd do in a theoretical scenario then we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I don't see a reason to believe that because he plays one way on a very poor team he'll play that way on any team. Every year we see a guy (often a volume scorer, btw) accept a lesser role one some team and excel in it.

Actually, he can't shoot from mid-range. And that's the problem. Inside 15' he's meh. After that he's pretty bad. You could live with that game in a PF or C. Not in a SG.

Originally Posted by Bogg

Unfortunately for Derozen, he's easily the best offensive player on the floor for Toronto most nights. You're the first guy to defend Philadelphia-era Iverson whenever accusations of being a selfish ballhog come up by pointing out that the Sixers had no other viable offensive options. Same thing with Derozan, but on a smaller scale.

Well, I've made it clear for years that in my experience the operating definition of "ballhog" is "guy that I don't like that fires up a lot of shots". And I've also defended Mr. Bean when this comes up. But I've never said that Iverson wasn't prone to forcing up a lot of bad shots.

As for theories that DeRozan will change his game after better scoring options come along, I think we all agreed that the same thing was true of Rudy Gay three years ago. Only even after the Grizz found better scoring options Gay's still out there forcing up bad shots. And, again this is what amused me, the thought of teaming up two guys like that. It's going to go south sooner or later. I mean, christ, it went south quickly for Denver and they had more talented chuckers.

[Cinco de Mayo]

Boring argument. Bring back OZZY.