Many sports writers or hosts don’t know what they’re talking about. Notice people like Bill Simmons or Colin Herd don’t talk about x’s and o’s but love to criticize and critique. Denzel was talking about boxing. Apparently he’s boxed before.
Understandable but that’s not the point I was making. I was poking fun at the fact that Denzel is criticizing the same thing that he’s guilty of lol
Yea, we know about not being able to stop Derozan. The Rockets getting swept by the Kings was not on my bingo card.
Where did you get that number from? Also as I have always said, everyone’s entitled to their opinion. People can be right or wrong or both. Having played the game and understanding fundamental principles allows you to critique on the basis of technical knowledge and facts rather than assumption or conjecture. And this is particularly ridiculous when those without knowledge heavily criticize, hate, demonize players when they don’t even know what right looks like on the court. But to each his own.
I'm surprised that he made the minimum attempts, even though the Clippers usually start each game by giving him an isolation opportunity. He's always just been a big stiff in my mind until last year, as he never stood out before. I'm not sure if he got more athletic or was just used more. My guess is that turning the offense completely to Harden forced the Clippers to use him more, and they just realized they have been underutilizing him for years.
Harden on nearly 1000 possessions really shows you how much he still commands the ball to make everything work. I'm actually surprised it's so far above and beyond everybody else on the list. Still very impressive he's able to be that effective on WAY more volume than everybody else. I know it's Beard and that's what he does, but still.
I don't watch the Clippers often, but last season I noticed he seemed a lot more aggressive on offense, especially when guarded by a smaller player. After looking at his stats just now, he seriously leveled up and rewarded the Clippers for his extension last summer.
The same can be said for almost every non-all-in-one metric. Volume and efficiency are both essential. Great efficiency on high volume is the best. The question comes down to whether high efficiency, low volume is better than low efficiency, high volume. Personally, I want my high-volume players to be high-efficiency players As such, I typically value high-efficiency, low-usage players over low-efficiency, high-usage players. Even though low-efficiency, high-usage players typically help bad teams (or Eastern Conference teams) more, I prefer high-efficiency, low usage players as when my team is good, I expect the ball in the hands of high efficiency, high usage players. Caveat: This is broad strokes.
I don't disagree with what you say. My complaint was that the list was misleading without showing context. These lists are supposed to show "the best" rim scorers. A player like Gobert clearly doesn't belong because unlike the other guys, he has next to zero ability to get his own scoring opportunities. It's not just about volume. It's also about HOW he got those shots.
There’s always context, but in this case the list is simply showing the most efficient rim scorers—highest FG% at the rim. That’s a valid way to measure efficiency, even if it doesn’t capture how those shots were created. Gobert did exactly what the list says: when he gets looks at the rim, he converts them at a very high rate. The “how” involves other skills—shot creation, spacing, playmaking—that this stat isn’t meant to cover. A list of “best rim scorers” would be a different discussion, but this one is strictly about efficiency at the rim.
I am not sure how many people when looked at the list would say, "Yeah, these guys do what they are supposed to do (score near the basket) very well." That seems kind of meaningless. Rather, most people would want to know which players can put pressure on the defense at the rim. What's interesting is that many of those players are perimeter players.
