I have no beef with Blake Griffin whatsoever, and in fact like him quite a bit. But suggesting -- or, in this case, blindly but vehemently arguing -- that Blake Griffin is better at the game of basketball than Kevin Love is just abject nonsense of the highest order. According to Hoyle foolishness. It is an argument so dumb that it actually offends my sensibilities. And I'm not even sure what it means for sensibilities to be offended. But surely they are. "Oh, so Kevin Love doesn't play the game of basketball like a power forward is supposed to play the game of basketball, sayeth ye? Well then define for me -- for us -- the metes and bounds of the power forward position, wise squire. Please pretty please enlighten all of us as to when a power forward is supposed to shoot the basketball and when it is deemed inappropriate under the clearly printed and plainly worded power forward job description listed on page 11 of the handbook that you received during orientation." I mean, jesus tity-[uck fay]ing christ.
It's funny, because Dirk won a championship by doing exactly what I suggested Love do and working the midrange game (where he shoots 52% to Love's 31%) instead of threes (where he attempted 2.3 to Love's 4.6). Thanks for proving my point...
Right now: Griffin: 1.0 blocks per game Love: 0.5 blocks per game And that's trending upward. If you've been paying attention, Griffin has been at like 1.6 over the last month or so. In steals + blocks + charges, Griffin is 30th while Love is 50th. And that's not even taking into account the non-statistical aspects, such as Love often completely ignoring his man to camp out and wait for a rebound.
eFG%: Griffin: 54.3% Aldridge: 51.5% Love: 50.0% (tied with Brian Scalabrine, just behind Josh McRoberts) Anything else you want to make up?
A guy who suggested that Emeka Okafor and Derrick Williams should be taken over Dwight Howard and Kyrie Irving is "above reproach?" The Wolves would like to avoid a David Lee situation where they lock themselves in with someone who can't defend.
He was also the only sportswriter to go on a limb and say that Kevin Durant should have been taken number 1. But let the record reflect that in looking to his opinions on draft selections to put Simmons "in his place" when it comes to the subject of the NBA, your're really reaching. Everybody who read your post just rolled their eyes and quickly did a quick jerk-off motion with their free hand.
I'm actually stunned by the stupidity of this post. To suggest that Dirk Nowitzki's game more closely resembles that of Lamarcus Aldridge and Blake Griffin than that of Kevin Love is to reach the Mount Rushmore of stupidity. They're not laughing with you. They're laughing at you. And to suggest that anything about Dirk Nowitzki's game does anything other than completely undermine every single dumbass word you've written throughout this thread means that you are in deep deep denial, or you actually are a full blown retard. How about I pull up your post where you ramble on mindlessly about how 37% from three point range is terrible. Dirk Nowitzki shoots 37% from the three point line over a 14 year career, dipshit. A fourteen year career that is a first-ballot hall of fame career, smart guy. And where he averages 3.2 three point shots per game. And in some years -- and in all of these years he was a better basketball player than Griffin or Aldridge will ever dream of being -- he was shooting 5 a game. Shouldn't Dirk be banging down low? This what Power Forwards do. To everybody: I want you to read VKAman's post and make note that he is attributing the Dallas Maverick's championship to Dirk Nowitzki's reduction in three point shots. Take that in for a few moments. Just drink it in. Think about whether it might be true. Or whether it might be just another dumbass conclusion -- completely unsupported by actual numbers, which in actuality show an increase in three point attempts last year as compared to the two previous years -- from our resident dumbass concluder guy.
You'll have to "explain" again, professor non-sequitur. How again is their scoring "about the same"? How again is their rebounding "about the same"? Do some of Love's points count less than Griffin's or Aldridge's because his feet are further from the rim when the ball passes through the hoop after he shoots it? Has there been a rule change? This is big news everybody! Hey, VKAman: since you're obviously really smart, can you "explain" to us how these new rules work? Gosh, I'm so glad we have a resident explainer guy on the board. Where would we be without him?
How about I make up a story where people aren't laughing at you, they're laughing with you? That would sure be some compelling fiction. The numbers were pulled from 82games.com. I'm happy to look at another site that uses smaller sentences if that helps you out. Just whatever site you prefer. In fact, I should apologize to the entire board for presenting less than the best information last night. To be fair, it was nearly 4 in the morning, and so I guess I can be forgiven for providing you with less than the most useful basketball metrics. Effective field goal percentage is a more telling metric than mere field goal percentage, but true shooting percentage is the most telling metric of the bunch. Here is an explanation that uses pretty small sentences. This will help VKAman. The short bus is sometimes bumpy and it can make it much tougher to read longer sentences. So what does this metric tell us about our main characters? Oh man, the suspense is killing me. I'm like a kid on christmas morning...I just can't wait to look in my stocking. Love: .578 Griffin: .548 Aldridge: .560 Numbers from basketball-reference.com VKAman: do you like the taste of nuts draped on your tonsils? I'm just kidding, everybody. Nobody is draping their nuts on anybody else's tonsils. I totally prefer the Arabian Goggles maneuver. Let the record reflect that looking to this metric was actually an unnecessary exercise in the context of showing that Kevin Love is a better basketball player than both Griffin and Aldridge. Nobody is buying your argument strategy of "define a good PF as somebody who makes a higher percentage of shots between 11 and 15 feet and then stick to your guns." You'll note that you're the only person who agrees with yourself. The statistics viewed in their totality are impossible to refute, but the above metrics are helpful in that they make you look retarded. Which is fitting, since you are in fact a full ruhtard. To everybody: I have to dip out for the evening. If anybody wants to fill in for me, the role of "guy who makes VKAman look ridiculous" is actually not terribly difficult. You'll figure it out as you go.
Want to tell me when he was shooting 5 a game, and how many he shot last year? How about the trajectory of his midrange shooting throughout his career?
Their scoring in the paint is not about the same. Griffin scores 75% of the time, Love is at 60%. Griffin is getting twice as many blocks right now, and he's an exceptional rebounder as well. My post wasn't that hard to read, was it?
Apparently the one using the special kids' site is you, dumbass. 82games is wrong and anyone who knows basic math could see that. Use the formula you pasted yourself and you will too. Love is the least efficient shooter from the field, but the best at free throws. I believe I said that about 20 posts ago.
You act like those were tough decisions. Anyone with eyes would take Howard and Irving, and the same would happen with Griffin over Love if both were free agents right now.
Are you now arguing that TS% isn't a better metric? Or did you not read the numbers? What's your next argument? That points aren't important? That rebounds are overrated?
