The question wasn't necessary. Look at his shot charts. Check his shooting stats. Do some research on your own instead of peppering everyone with questions for once. It's like you are a freaking chatbot sometimes - unable to look up anything on your own.
I found KATs shot charts with a simple google search. Try it yourself if you are that interested in seeing how his shooting patterns have changed over the years. We aren't your personal librarians or researchers.
And my last comment wasn't snarky. This one is a bit more snarky. It's kind of a sliding scale.
Grizz looking like one of the weakest 2 seeds, I know they are missing two of their big men but Lakers are taking it to them
Okay.then your reasoning behind KATs dislike remains unsolved
Maybe. But here's the thing: only one of us in interested in having a "good conversation" about Karl-Anthony Towns (hint: it's not me). Therefore, I'm not going to be doing any more of your homework for you. I don't really care if you can't "figure out" why I don't like Towns. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a riddle for you to solve. If you want to try and solve it, anyway, you're going to have to do so without my cooperation.It was absolutely necessary. A good conversation entails asking many questions to get to the root of the issue or reasoning.
It's a lot of trying to "toe the line" when you should just define yourself as one or the other.Maybe. But here's the thing: only one of us in interested in having a "good conversation" about Karl-Anthony Towns (hint: it's not me). Therefore, I'm not going to be doing any more of your homework for you. I don't really care if you can't "figure out" why I don't like Towns. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a riddle for you to solve. If you want to try and solve it, anyway, you're going to have to do so without my cooperation.
I wish the Kings had Vanderbilt - such a disruptive player.
I think him and Sabonis would be a hard fit but yeah I remember you pushing him and Heirstein (Knicks C) a lot you were right on both counts. I think Denver royally F'ed up letting VB go he's way better than Gordon imo.Sigh. Wanted him 2 years ago before the breakout, now he's probably a 50 mil player once he hits FA after next year.
Maybe. But here's the thing: only one of us in interested in having a "good conversation" about Karl-Anthony Towns (hint: it's not me). Therefore, I'm not going to be doing any more of your homework for you. I don't really care if you can't "figure out" why I don't like Towns. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a riddle for you to solve. If you want to try and solve it, anyway, you're going to have to do so without my cooperation.
My original point if not well stated was that big men who are drafted high are still expected to play defense or they are widely regarded as busts. Which is why when 2018 gets redrafted, the year of "the return of the big man" only JJJ and maybe Ayton crack the top 10. Either way Ayton is in the bottom five of that list not in the top 4, which now seems to be set at Luka, Shai, Brunson and JJJ (and sometimes Trae).What do you consider to be the cutoff for the "modern" NBA? It's true that you can look back at a great big man like Bill Russell and say he was primarily a defensive player, but he was drafted way back in 1956. I'm not a big expert in the NBA pre-1990 or so, but the two big men that immediately come to mind (Wilt 1959; Kareem, 1969) were obviously superstars on the offensive end.
I went back through the 1990 draft (so, 33 years, 99 top-3 picks) and the only big men - not strictly looking at height - that seem to me to have been selected top-3 without any hope that they would be dominant offensive players on top of whatever defense they bring were Hasheem Thabeet, Tyson Chandler, and Shawn Bradley. You might suggest some others (Emeka Okafor? Had great college defensive numbers but was probably expected to be a good offensive player too?) but it seems to me that we're at least 30 years into the era where it's uncommon for a purely defensive big man to go high in the draft.
It wasn't a conversation on opinions, it was a question of fact. When did KAT change his approach to shooting (more 3's, or whatever). It isn't something to be "reasoned", it is like asking when was the last lunar eclipse in the US. You keep asking people to look up factual information that you are just too lazy to look up yourself. And folks are getting more and more tired of it.It was absolutely necessary. A good conversation entails asking many questions to get to the root of the issue or reasoning. You may not like it but I assure you, it will continue on my part and you can continue to comment and make your comments like you have the other two times and we'll continue to move on.
It wasn't a conversation on opinions, it was a question of fact. When did KAT change his approach to shooting (more 3's, or whatever). It isn't something to be "reasoned", it is like asking when was the last lunar eclipse in the US. You keep asking people to look up factual information that you are just too lazy to look up yourself. And folks are getting more and more tired of it.
Peppering people with constant questions isn’t a conversation. It’s grilling them. Especially when the info is easy to find and you are too lazy to even try to contribute.you may be getting tired of it, which is unfortunate. you seem to want to control how people go about having their conversations.
Peppering people with constant questions isn’t a conversation. It’s grilling them. Especially when the info is easy to find and you are too lazy to even try to contribute.
A better “conversation” with Slim on this would be something like: I noticed what you said about KAT’s shot selection. It looks like around 20xx he really started shooting more 3’s (or whatever) and then include some info on what the data shows, then follow up with any question on interpretation of that data you think Slim might be able to answer.
I don’t know if he would, but at least you are trying to participate in a meaningful way in the conversation.
Get it yet?
You are like the kid in the back seat of the car that keeps repeating the same question over and over again, ad nauseum, that doesn’t actually contribute most of the time.
There’s a give and take to conversion. You often dip into the “all take” without providing anything of substance (the “give” portion).
I feel this way often when I have conversations with @kingsboi. I appreciate maybe he doesn't know and is sincere asking questions but after 3 or 4 rounds I have to bow out.@kingsboi fwiw it seems like you are trying to bait him and catch him in some "gothca" moment.
Thats how I see the conversation. Its not one i would engage in personally.
Dillon Brooks was talking cash noise, to come out and play like this... At least Draymond has a tendency to back his mouth up.Dillon Brooks sucks, bah gawd
@kingsboi fwiw it seems like you are trying to bait him and catch him in some "gothca" moment.
Thats how I see the conversation. Its not one i would engage in personally.
I feel this way often when I have conversations with @kingsboi. I appreciate maybe he doesn't know and is sincere asking questions but after 3 or 4 rounds I have to bow out.
I don't want to discourage someone from having a sincere conversation but some self awareness wouldn't hurt. If someone says your conversation style is fatiguing ask yourself if they have a point and see if you can adapt.