Moderators: 7 Footer, Duffman100, HiJiNX, niQ, Morris_Shatford, DG88, Reeko, lebron stopper
causal_fan wrote:I'm enjoying all the teams that didn't want to give up assets for OG and/or Pascal watching from the sidelines while these two have really helped their teams advance.
Chandan wrote:causal_fan wrote:I'm enjoying all the teams that didn't want to give up assets for OG and/or Pascal watching from the sidelines while these two have really helped their teams advance.
Makes you wonder how the Raptors who had both guys in addition to the fabled "championship calibre" Poeltl became such a disaster before the trades.
Scase wrote:pingpongrac wrote:YogurtProducer wrote:“Outright bad”
This guy has no ability to subjective regarding Siakam. Dude he didn’t score 30+ but his team out up 120 in 3 of those games and Siakam played an efficient 2nd/3rd banana role and scored efficiently and gave em 17 assists to 2 turnovers and solid D.
Nice to see you’re at least consistent in your hate
I got a chuckle out of that too. Siakam wrecked the Bucks the first two games then he took a backseat while Milwaukee started to double him much more often which allowed guys like Turner and Nembhard to have some extra space and they stepped up. Indiana didn't need Siakam to take ~25 shots like he did in the first two games when he carried their offence for the most part.
On the series as a whole, Siakam put up 22/9/4 per game on 57 TS% with just 3 turnovers in ~230 total minutes. He was great overall and he'll probably put up similar numbers against the Knicks. His efficiency will likely take a bit of a hit because NYK is a much better defensive team, but Indiana will need to lean on him and Haliburton to continue to drive their high-powered offence.
Yeah it's almost like 2 outlier games will throw off a small sample size or something. 57% TS% for a PF is bad, and if his efficiency takes a hit due to the knicks being much better then, yeah, he's not gonna have a good time.
Siakam averaged 15.3/7.3/4.3 on 46/14/38 48% TS% splits, in 37+ MPG. But yeah I'm the one being unrealistic lol. He had 2 hyper efficient and great games, followed by 3 terrible ones, and a solid one to wrap it up. If he was "taking a step back" to allow other players to have extra space, why did his rebounding and efficiency fall off a cliff?
He got doubled and his stats cratered, against a bucks team that was missing Dame and Giannis, but I'm the one who is unable to be subjective.
Scase wrote:Chandan wrote:causal_fan wrote:I'm enjoying all the teams that didn't want to give up assets for OG and/or Pascal watching from the sidelines while these two have really helped their teams advance.
Makes you wonder how the Raptors who had both guys in addition to the fabled "championship calibre" Poeltl became such a disaster before the trades.
I'm also not sure taking victory laps about the pacers beating the bucks is the smartest "see I told you so" comment. Dame played 4 games, and Giannis played 0.
OG on the knicks on the other hand, they beat an arguably better team while missing Randle, teams that balked at picking him up definitely **** the bed. I don't think anyone is losing sleep over not signing Siakam for 250mil.
C_Money wrote:Scase wrote:Chandan wrote:
Makes you wonder how the Raptors who had both guys in addition to the fabled "championship calibre" Poeltl became such a disaster before the trades.
I'm also not sure taking victory laps about the pacers beating the bucks is the smartest "see I told you so" comment. Dame played 4 games, and Giannis played 0.
OG on the knicks on the other hand, they beat an arguably better team while missing Randle, teams that balked at picking him up definitely **** the bed. I don't think anyone is losing sleep over not signing Siakam for 250mil.
Lol we’ll see how opinions change on OG once he becomes way overpaid next year.
pingpongrac wrote:Scase wrote:pingpongrac wrote:
I got a chuckle out of that too. Siakam wrecked the Bucks the first two games then he took a backseat while Milwaukee started to double him much more often which allowed guys like Turner and Nembhard to have some extra space and they stepped up. Indiana didn't need Siakam to take ~25 shots like he did in the first two games when he carried their offence for the most part.
On the series as a whole, Siakam put up 22/9/4 per game on 57 TS% with just 3 turnovers in ~230 total minutes. He was great overall and he'll probably put up similar numbers against the Knicks. His efficiency will likely take a bit of a hit because NYK is a much better defensive team, but Indiana will need to lean on him and Haliburton to continue to drive their high-powered offence.
Yeah it's almost like 2 outlier games will throw off a small sample size or something. 57% TS% for a PF is bad, and if his efficiency takes a hit due to the knicks being much better then, yeah, he's not gonna have a good time.
Siakam averaged 15.3/7.3/4.3 on 46/14/38 48% TS% splits, in 37+ MPG. But yeah I'm the one being unrealistic lol. He had 2 hyper efficient and great games, followed by 3 terrible ones, and a solid one to wrap it up. If he was "taking a step back" to allow other players to have extra space, why did his rebounding and efficiency fall off a cliff?
He got doubled and his stats cratered, against a bucks team that was missing Dame and Giannis, but I'm the one who is unable to be subjective.
You've made it clear time and time again that you have been unable to be subjective when it comes to Siakam's play. Whenever he had an objectively great game when he was still in Toronto, you'd always be the first one to say something along the lines of "he could have been better" or "he only plays well against bad teams" while also being the first to jump on him for a terrible start to the season when it came to his 3FG% and claiming he was on pace to an historically bad season with absolutely zero chance of him getting his numbers up to his averages by the end of the year...but sure enough, he finished the year at 34.6% which was actually higher than his career average.
Even now, you said he had two hyper efficient games (the first of which was 61 TS%) then downplayed his 19/7/4 on 63 TS% performance in the series clincher as "solid". Just as you're saying two outlier games will throw off a small sample size, so does his 12/4/2 performance in game 5. The point is he was generally good or very good against the Bucks. They didn't need him to be anything more than what he was in the last few games which is why his FGA and USG% went from 24 and 32 respectively in the first two games to 14.5 and 20 in the last four games.
Scase wrote:pingpongrac wrote:Scase wrote:Yeah it's almost like 2 outlier games will throw off a small sample size or something. 57% TS% for a PF is bad, and if his efficiency takes a hit due to the knicks being much better then, yeah, he's not gonna have a good time.
Siakam averaged 15.3/7.3/4.3 on 46/14/38 48% TS% splits, in 37+ MPG. But yeah I'm the one being unrealistic lol. He had 2 hyper efficient and great games, followed by 3 terrible ones, and a solid one to wrap it up. If he was "taking a step back" to allow other players to have extra space, why did his rebounding and efficiency fall off a cliff?
He got doubled and his stats cratered, against a bucks team that was missing Dame and Giannis, but I'm the one who is unable to be subjective.
You've made it clear time and time again that you have been unable to be subjective when it comes to Siakam's play. Whenever he had an objectively great game when he was still in Toronto, you'd always be the first one to say something along the lines of "he could have been better" or "he only plays well against bad teams" while also being the first to jump on him for a terrible start to the season when it came to his 3FG% and claiming he was on pace to an historically bad season with absolutely zero chance of him getting his numbers up to his averages by the end of the year...but sure enough, he finished the year at 34.6% which was actually higher than his career average.
Even now, you said he had two hyper efficient games (the first of which was 61 TS%) then downplayed his 19/7/4 on 63 TS% performance in the series clincher as "solid". Just as you're saying two outlier games will throw off a small sample size, so does his 12/4/2 performance in game 5. The point is he was generally good or very good against the Bucks. They didn't need him to be anything more than what he was in the last few games which is why his FGA and USG% went from 24 and 32 respectively in the first two games to 14.5 and 20 in the last four games.
This is why I find it an utter waste to try and discuss this with people like you. You try and go on and say I'm unable to be objective, and when I claim he had hyper efficient games, you can't even fathom for 2 seconds, that having a 60%+ TS% on 23 or 25 FGA is more impressive than on 15 attempts.
His performance was bad in game 5 for sure, but it was in game 3 and game 4 as well. But because reading is hard and you couldn't grasp what I said before, I'll try to simplify it for you.
Game 1 very good
Game 2 very good
Game 3 bad
Game 4 bad
Game 5 very bad
Game 6 good
Is that easier for you?
He had a below average (efficiency) series and was worse than his regular season numbers for 4 of 6 games, his averages were grossly inflated by those 2. Here I am claiming he played very well for 2 games, and all you can recognize is 1 of 3 of his bad games. And I'm the one who is biased.
pingpongrac wrote:Scase wrote:pingpongrac wrote:
You've made it clear time and time again that you have been unable to be subjective when it comes to Siakam's play. Whenever he had an objectively great game when he was still in Toronto, you'd always be the first one to say something along the lines of "he could have been better" or "he only plays well against bad teams" while also being the first to jump on him for a terrible start to the season when it came to his 3FG% and claiming he was on pace to an historically bad season with absolutely zero chance of him getting his numbers up to his averages by the end of the year...but sure enough, he finished the year at 34.6% which was actually higher than his career average.
Even now, you said he had two hyper efficient games (the first of which was 61 TS%) then downplayed his 19/7/4 on 63 TS% performance in the series clincher as "solid". Just as you're saying two outlier games will throw off a small sample size, so does his 12/4/2 performance in game 5. The point is he was generally good or very good against the Bucks. They didn't need him to be anything more than what he was in the last few games which is why his FGA and USG% went from 24 and 32 respectively in the first two games to 14.5 and 20 in the last four games.
This is why I find it an utter waste to try and discuss this with people like you. You try and go on and say I'm unable to be objective, and when I claim he had hyper efficient games, you can't even fathom for 2 seconds, that having a 60%+ TS% on 23 or 25 FGA is more impressive than on 15 attempts.
His performance was bad in game 5 for sure, but it was in game 3 and game 4 as well. But because reading is hard and you couldn't grasp what I said before, I'll try to simplify it for you.
Game 1 very good
Game 2 very good
Game 3 bad
Game 4 bad
Game 5 very bad
Game 6 good
Is that easier for you?
He had a below average (efficiency) series and was worse than his regular season numbers for 4 of 6 games, his averages were grossly inflated by those 2. Here I am claiming he played very well for 2 games, and all you can recognize is 1 of 3 of his bad games. And I'm the one who is biased.
Siakam had 17/9/4 in G3 then he had 13/9/7 in G4. He didn't turn the ball over a single time in ~80 minutes and was a combined +16 in those two games (where the Pacers won by 1 and 15) while he also racked up 3 steals and 2 blocks. Do you think he was "outright bad" simply because he didn't score a lot of points on high efficiency in those games? Do you think he was bad tonight too simply because he didn't score a lot and wasn't very efficient? Or can you acknowledge that he was solid tonight (just as he was in G3 and G4 against the Bucks) and he played a complete game despite not having a great scoring night?
Indiana should have won that game if not for some ref shenanigans, but Haliburton also just isn't playing near as well as he was prior to his injury halfway through the season. He looked completely checked out of the game just as he did in the first game against the Bucks.
Chandan wrote:causal_fan wrote:I'm enjoying all the teams that didn't want to give up assets for OG and/or Pascal watching from the sidelines while these two have really helped their teams advance.
Makes you wonder how the Raptors who had both guys in addition to the fabled "championship calibre" Poeltl became such a disaster before the trades.
Scase wrote:pingpongrac wrote:Scase wrote:This is why I find it an utter waste to try and discuss this with people like you. You try and go on and say I'm unable to be objective, and when I claim he had hyper efficient games, you can't even fathom for 2 seconds, that having a 60%+ TS% on 23 or 25 FGA is more impressive than on 15 attempts.
His performance was bad in game 5 for sure, but it was in game 3 and game 4 as well. But because reading is hard and you couldn't grasp what I said before, I'll try to simplify it for you.
Game 1 very good
Game 2 very good
Game 3 bad
Game 4 bad
Game 5 very bad
Game 6 good
Is that easier for you?
He had a below average (efficiency) series and was worse than his regular season numbers for 4 of 6 games, his averages were grossly inflated by those 2. Here I am claiming he played very well for 2 games, and all you can recognize is 1 of 3 of his bad games. And I'm the one who is biased.
Siakam had 17/9/4 in G3 then he had 13/9/7 in G4. He didn't turn the ball over a single time in ~80 minutes and was a combined +16 in those two games (where the Pacers won by 1 and 15) while he also racked up 3 steals and 2 blocks. Do you think he was "outright bad" simply because he didn't score a lot of points on high efficiency in those games? Do you think he was bad tonight too simply because he didn't score a lot and wasn't very efficient? Or can you acknowledge that he was solid tonight (just as he was in G3 and G4 against the Bucks) and he played a complete game despite not having a great scoring night?
Indiana should have won that game if not for some ref shenanigans, but Haliburton also just isn't playing near as well as he was prior to his injury halfway through the season. He looked completely checked out of the game just as he did in the first game against the Bucks.
He was below average today, like is it just that your standards for good are so low? 53% TS%, and he was basically matched performance wise, by TJ mcconnel in 15min less. Like jesus, no he wasn't particularly good, he wasn't awful but 19 points on bad efficiency by your first option scorer is horrible.
But I wouldn't expect anything less, while you blame the loss on the refs. Must've been the refs that let the knicks shoot 48% from 3.
Again, I'm capable of admitting when he plays well, yet you are incapable of admitting 13 points on 14 shots is bad because he didn't turn the ball over. But yup, I'm biased, checks out. You keep trudging along man, I'm done debating someone incapable of being remotely objective.
ItsDanger wrote:Chandan wrote:causal_fan wrote:I'm enjoying all the teams that didn't want to give up assets for OG and/or Pascal watching from the sidelines while these two have really helped their teams advance.
Makes you wonder how the Raptors who had both guys in addition to the fabled "championship calibre" Poeltl became such a disaster before the trades.
Let's be honest, they both probably wanted out to get better contracts/better contending situations.
pingpongrac wrote:Scase wrote:pingpongrac wrote:
Siakam had 17/9/4 in G3 then he had 13/9/7 in G4. He didn't turn the ball over a single time in ~80 minutes and was a combined +16 in those two games (where the Pacers won by 1 and 15) while he also racked up 3 steals and 2 blocks. Do you think he was "outright bad" simply because he didn't score a lot of points on high efficiency in those games? Do you think he was bad tonight too simply because he didn't score a lot and wasn't very efficient? Or can you acknowledge that he was solid tonight (just as he was in G3 and G4 against the Bucks) and he played a complete game despite not having a great scoring night?
Indiana should have won that game if not for some ref shenanigans, but Haliburton also just isn't playing near as well as he was prior to his injury halfway through the season. He looked completely checked out of the game just as he did in the first game against the Bucks.
He was below average today, like is it just that your standards for good are so low? 53% TS%, and he was basically matched performance wise, by TJ mcconnel in 15min less. Like jesus, no he wasn't particularly good, he wasn't awful but 19 points on bad efficiency by your first option scorer is horrible.
But I wouldn't expect anything less, while you blame the loss on the refs. Must've been the refs that let the knicks shoot 48% from 3.
Again, I'm capable of admitting when he plays well, yet you are incapable of admitting 13 points on 14 shots is bad because he didn't turn the ball over. But yup, I'm biased, checks out. You keep trudging along man, I'm done debating someone incapable of being remotely objective.
What is a bad game to you? It seems like you are strictly basing Siakam's play on his scoring/efficiency and nothing else which is ridiculous considering he has never been one of the top 10 (or even 20) scorers in the league but has always been a guy that contributes in other ways. He's still getting on the glass and creating opportunities for his teammates either directly from passes or from the attention he is garnering while his defence has been good too. You are so hung up on his scoring and efficiency the last 5 games in particular, but you're failing to acknowledge that everything else is in line with his averages (which is actually pretty good for most others) while not turning the ball over at all. Ball control in the playoff is nearly just as important as efficiency and Siakam's 2.5 TOV% and 7.5 AST/TO ratio through 7 games is absolutely absurd for someone that is averaging 22 PPG with a 23 USG% in 38 MPG. That absolutely counts for something.
It really seems like you haven't been watching these games when you make comments like he was "basically matched performance-wise by TJ McConnell" on a night where McConnell was actually brilliant and singlehandedly picking apart New York's defence whenever he was on the floor while also pointing to New York's 3FG% as the real reason the Pacers lost and ignoring the late-game ref shenanigans that several other neutral parties have also been talking about. Indiana would have had an opportunity for a 3-on-1 in a tie game with less than 1 minute left when Nesmith deflected a pass with his hand, but it was whistled dead due to a kicked ball violation and New York retained possession then hit a three. And less than 40 seconds after that 5-point swing, Turner was called for an offensive foul where DiVincenzo embellished the contact on a screen that gets called maybe 10% of the time in the playoffs let alone on what would have been the final possession.
- Raptors RealGM Forum re: Masai Ujiri - June 2023What an absolute failure and disaster this franchise is, ran by one of the most incompetent front offices in the league.
WaltFrazier wrote:OG with two crucial steals, a dunk and a three in the fourth. One rebound short of a double double
YogurtProducer wrote:pingpongrac wrote:Scase wrote:He was below average today, like is it just that your standards for good are so low? 53% TS%, and he was basically matched performance wise, by TJ mcconnel in 15min less. Like jesus, no he wasn't particularly good, he wasn't awful but 19 points on bad efficiency by your first option scorer is horrible.
But I wouldn't expect anything less, while you blame the loss on the refs. Must've been the refs that let the knicks shoot 48% from 3.
Again, I'm capable of admitting when he plays well, yet you are incapable of admitting 13 points on 14 shots is bad because he didn't turn the ball over. But yup, I'm biased, checks out. You keep trudging along man, I'm done debating someone incapable of being remotely objective.
What is a bad game to you? It seems like you are strictly basing Siakam's play on his scoring/efficiency and nothing else which is ridiculous considering he has never been one of the top 10 (or even 20) scorers in the league but has always been a guy that contributes in other ways. He's still getting on the glass and creating opportunities for his teammates either directly from passes or from the attention he is garnering while his defence has been good too. You are so hung up on his scoring and efficiency the last 5 games in particular, but you're failing to acknowledge that everything else is in line with his averages (which is actually pretty good for most others) while not turning the ball over at all. Ball control in the playoff is nearly just as important as efficiency and Siakam's 2.5 TOV% and 7.5 AST/TO ratio through 7 games is absolutely absurd for someone that is averaging 22 PPG with a 23 USG% in 38 MPG. That absolutely counts for something.
It really seems like you haven't been watching these games when you make comments like he was "basically matched performance-wise by TJ McConnell" on a night where McConnell was actually brilliant and singlehandedly picking apart New York's defence whenever he was on the floor while also pointing to New York's 3FG% as the real reason the Pacers lost and ignoring the late-game ref shenanigans that several other neutral parties have also been talking about. Indiana would have had an opportunity for a 3-on-1 in a tie game with less than 1 minute left when Nesmith deflected a pass with his hand, but it was whistled dead due to a kicked ball violation and New York retained possession then hit a three. And less than 40 seconds after that 5-point swing, Turner was called for an offensive foul where DiVincenzo embellished the contact on a screen that gets called maybe 10% of the time in the playoffs let alone on what would have been the final possession.
We both know what you are doing here is a waste of time.
Casuals like Scase would rather see 25ppg (and 6 turnovers) than 19ppg and 1 turnover.
TorontoBarneys wrote:Siakam has been mad overrated on here for a while now
Harold_and_Kumar wrote:What if the 10 incher was overrated and the 4 incher was too small for any playing time, but the 7 incher was a perfect fit for our roster and the 5 incher was good for specific situations, like backdoor cuts?
artsncrafts wrote:TorontoBarneys wrote:Siakam has been mad overrated on here for a while now
fam, he is in the playoffs, Raptors are arguably the worst team in the league
