UPDATE: Gay to Raptors agreed in principle MERGED

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

No, I'm not the one changing things at all. That would be the thread's "innocent victim". In fact, I didn't even say that he wasn't a chucker. I simply asked how poor DeRozan or Gay could avoid the label when the 49th and 103rd leading FGA guys in the NBA were. Not that I expect an answer out of you because you'll never give one. You'll just predictably call me stupid, complain that I'm calling you names and change the subject.

It seems a little odd to me that you are now saying a guy at 49th in shooting shouldn't be labeled a chucker if the 17th isn't, yet you made a big argument about how Lebron and Durant couldn't be labeled as chuckers.....


Lets come up with specific values for the EH system.


THE EH MUNRO RULE OF CHUCKING
FGA per Game
1-9 Not chuckers. Superstars
10 Rudy Gay, chucker
11-18 Depends
19 DeMar Derozan, chucker
20-44 Depends
45 Jamal Crawford. Only a chucker if poster is also willing to call Derozan and Gay chuckers, even though they both score at much better efficiency




Oh, and to clarify for you before you try to twist my post with "R-Stawr thinks wittle Webron and Duwant are chuckers!" .... no. I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is that you bring up FGA as damning evidence for 2 players (Gay and Derozan), then go and use it as defense for the guys at the top of the league, and follow that up by saying it shouldn't count for guys lower in the league who don't lead their teams in shots.


I probably should have just stayed out the first time. You do understand that not one person in the whole thread has agreed with your logic, correct? And honestly, answer that question if you decide to post again.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by R-Star

It seems a little odd to me that you are now saying a guy at 49th in shooting shouldn't be labeled a chucker if the 17th isn't, yet you made a big argument about how Lebron and Durant couldn't be labeled as chuckers.....

You may please stop making my arguments for me, because you're terrible at it. I can make my own arguments quite well, thank you very much. And since you failed to address them again I take it you're conceding?

Here's the ultra-simple definition of chucker that I use. High usage rate players that neither shoot nor score efficiently. It's pretty simple, really. Now, are you going to give us a logical reason why those guys aren't chuckers or are you headed back into the R-Star bag of tricks to call me stupid and complain about how badly we treat you?

Because 100 odd posts later and you've yet to make evan a rudimentary argument as to why those sorts of players aren't. You keep saying guys that shoot a lot, but not Durant or LeBron. Why the special pleading for those guys? Well, aside from the fact that it would sound really stupid, I can't think of one. So, again, what we've been able to get from you is that a chucker is sort of like porn, you can't tell us what it is but you know it when you see it. Me? I prefer objective definitions.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

You may please stop making my arguments for me, because you're terrible at it. I can make my own arguments quite well, thank you very much. And since you failed to address them again I take it you're conceding?

I've answered multiple times. I'm surprised you didn't see it when you went back and selected parts of my posts to quote. I'll state them again for you if you're having trouble though.

1) DeMar Derozan shoots at better percentages than Crawford.

2) He does so while facing teams top defenders, instead of coming off the bench for the deepest teams in the league.

I've stated both multiple times. I never seem to get replies.

Oh, and since I brought it up in my last post and you ignored it

3) Not one person in this thread has shared your opinion correct? In fact multiple posters have come out posting replies saying how they disagree. Do you understand that?

[Bogg]

Just......give it a rest. I'm tired of this thread hijacking the entire website.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by Bogg

Just......give it a rest. I'm tired of this thread hijacking the entire website.

Fair enough. You're right, its gone on far too long.


I tend to get angry with the set of posters on here who refuse to ever retract a statement or admit to being wrong. But I've said my peace and having nothing more to add to the argument.

[Bogg]

Cool. Now, getting back to the Rudy Gay trade rumors, word is the Wizards are in early talks with the Grizzlies, but it's unclear what's actually being offered(essentially, if Beal's on the table). If Memphis can get Beal I think it's worth taking back whatever contracts to make the deal work, but I hate that trade for Washington. If it's lesser players and cap relief going Memphis' way the trade still only leaves me lukewarm for Washington. I actually feel like they're in worse shape than Charlotte is right now.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by R-Star

I've answered multiple times. I'm surprised you didn't see it when you went back and selected parts of my posts to quote.

Let me try this again. Why are high usage rate players that neither shoot nor score efficiently not chuckers? There's your challenge. Please do not respond to this thread again until you have an answer.

[MemphisX]

When did Bradley Beal become good?

[Bogg]

Originally Posted by MemphisX

When did Bradley Beal become good?

January 1, essentially.

[E.H. Munro]

But Beal & DeRozan would be such a great scoring duo!

Anyway, hopefully Wall keeps getting healthier. I really like him and want to see him succeed (plus the longsuffering Wizards fans deserve it)

[Bogg]

Cool. So much for getting things back on track.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by Bogg

Cool. So much for getting things back on track.

Just ignore him.


I thought Beal would slow down with Wall back, but it looks like the 2 games since coming back he's had some great games still. Didn't see either games, but if they can keep it up that's an exciting combo.

[Bogg]

The one good thing about the losing season is that they're going to get another crack in the high lottery, and this draft is heavy with big men. If they pick right and get an all-star underneath to pair with Wall and Beal, they might actually have a decent foundation.

[AllRim]

Originally Posted by Bogg

Cool. Now, getting back to the Rudy Gay trade rumors, word is the Wizards are in early talks with the Grizzlies, but it's unclear what's actually being offered(essentially, if Beal's on the table). If Memphis can get Beal I think it's worth taking back whatever contracts to make the deal work, but I hate that trade for Washington. If it's lesser players and cap relief going Memphis' way the trade still only leaves me lukewarm for Washington. I actually feel like they're in worse shape than Charlotte is right now.

A couple quick updates. Beal is not the trade talks, as per his agent.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap...ssions_For_Gay

And Gay is likely to stay in Memphis. My guess would be because of the high asking price.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap...es_This_Season

[Bogg]

Originally Posted by AllRim

A couple quick updates. Beal is not the trade talks, as per his agent.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap...ssions_For_Gay

And Gay is likely to stay in Memphis. My guess would be because of the high asking price.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap...es_This_Season

Makes sense. It'd be tough for Memphis to find a trade that slashes their payroll and makes them better right now, unless you think that "dividing" into multiple guys for depth helps more than it hurts. I really don't know that Memphis has enough offense without him, though. Even if you think that Randolph is a potential #1, I doubt that Gasol or Mike Conley can be a competent 2-3 scoring duo.