Laxation wrote:Its like argueing with a retard
Hmm. I feel Jae might find that ironic.
Im being defensive because it really shits me that you keep going back to your own assumption back in the ben wallace thread, even though it is out of context, and isnt even true in the first place, which is why I tell you to learn to put senteces together. (Im talking about reading here, not writing to clear it up)
Hmm. Reading isn't "putting sentences together" that's writing. Reading is "reading comprehension."
From 2000 to 2001, Wallace only improved the defense from 105.7 to 102.5, 19th to 9th. (From +1.6 to -1.3 compared to the league.)
thats a load of crap. you cant measure this stuff with stats.
...
maybe without ben, they would have given up 120ppg... maybe they would have given up 80... its just a story stats cant tell
My statement: Historical data shows Wallace's arrival in 2001 to possibly impact the Pistons defense to be around 3-3.5 points. Much less than the ten points advocated by some forumers.
Your statement: Wallace's impact being 3-3.5 points is a "load of crap", that you can't measure changes in a teams defense "with stats", in this case the stat being opposing teams points.
Your secondary statement: That something that didn't happen cannot be measured by the results of what did happen.
Your statements are not being removed from context but instead applied to the overall discussional context. Thatwhich being the discussion of how much impact on defense Ben Wallace truly had, indications from the historical record being that Wallace's impact was lower than people were stating. The only logical assumption one can draw from you calling it a "load of crap" was that you were contending that the historical record was infact incorrect, and with your diatribe against the facts one can only conclude you were calling the facts wrong. In order to call the facts wrong you must believe that defense is not best measured by opponents points. If you are not contending this, and accept the conventional and logical wisdom that defense is best measured by opponent points, then it cannot be a load of crap otherwise you are arguing contrary to your own beliefs as well as reality. This is a judgement that was made plausable when you responded to my statement of:
Offense wins more regular season games, but only having good offense and good defense wins championships.
with
your just talking shit benji
all defence obviously wont win, and all offence wont win either.
what you need is a mix, but having more offence than defence is better than vice versa.
Thus into my head entered doubts of your reading comprehension capabilities.
You have done nothing to dispell these doubts and used undirected comments from myself as a launching pad for an irate series of insults belying your immaturity.