InsideOut wrote:jeremyd236 wrote:emunney wrote:jeremy: Stop getting angry that you don't understand his argument. It's the combination of the two things that's hurting us so badly: 1) he's shooting a very low percentage, and 2) he's taking a lot of shots. If either of those things were not true, he would not be killing us.
No, I understand completely that it was the combination that Redd takes the most shots on our team and that he shoots a bad %. I get that.
But what I also get is the Bucks record this year when Redd plays compared to when he doesn't play. I know we shoot a higher % as a team when Redd plays. I know we shoot a higher 3 pt% when Redd plays. I know we average more PPG.
So, explain that. Yes, I know Redd is shooting poorly. But is it possible that a player can impact a game beyond his direct stats? It must possible, because there's got to be a way the way the Bucks have played this season with and without Redd. Of course it may be coincidence, and I can pretty much guarantee that that's what the Redd haters will say.
And no I won't admit that the Redd is killing the Bucks until they have a better record without him than with him and until we shoot a higher % in games that he doesn't play.
Because I think it's exactly like Skiles says. Even when Redd plays poorly (which he has almost every game this season), he impacts the Bucks in more ways than any direct stat towards him would indicate. Where is the stat that indicates the spacing provided to the Bucks when he simply steps on the court? Where's the stat that shows how many double teams he draws ever single possession?
Now I'm not defending Redd. He has played very badly and if we get a good offer, I want to pull the trigger. But you just can't say he's "killing" the Bucks. He isn't killing the Bucks more than anyone else except probably Bogut. The fact remains that we have a higher win % when he plays. I don't see the killing in that.
You are absolutely hilarious and the biggest flip-flopper ever. A few weeks back I said the Bucks were better off without Redd. I pointed out the Bucks had a better winning percentage without Redd from the start of last season until 20ish games into this season You said my argument was stupid. You said the sample size of 1.25 seasons was way too small. You also said I needed to look at all easy teams we beat without Redd. Now here you are 2 weeks later using the same argument you called stupid only you're using an even smaller sample size. Please explain why you now using the same argument you labeled stupid two weeks ago doesn't make you the biggest flip-flopper here. I'd love to hear your answer to this but my guess is you'll ignore it and hope it goes away. As far as why your point hold no water, emunney and Trwi7 have it covered.
Are you kidding me? When you played the record card, you used LAST YEAR as your sample. 3 out of the last 4 years, the Bucks have had a better record with Redd than without him. That's more telling than using a one year sample that differs from 3 out of the last 4 years.
Why won't you look at this year? This is the year we are playing, not last. You could say that Redd doesn't directly help the Bucks win, but the fact remains that we have a much better record with him the last 4 years than without him the last 4 years. I'm not arguing any point. I'm stating a fact.
So it is for that fact alone that I won't say he is "killing" the Bucks. You could possibly say he isn't helping the Bucks, but I see no way in which you could say he is the reason we lose. As a team, we have a higher FG%, higher 3pt%, and average more PPG. I won't even argue that he's the reason these numbers go up. I'm just saying...the fact remains that he's had a better record than the Bucks as a whole the last 4 years, and this year is no exception.
I don't want to get into an argument that goes 4 pages about this again. I'm not defending anybody. My whole point was just to say that I don't think he's "killing" the Bucks. He just might not be helping them, although team record over the last 4 years doesn't indicate that either.
