Everything Derozan

[Snooch]

I think I'd probably say it was worth a shot trying him there. But I'd probably have zero confidence whatsoever that it would work, because that sample size is quite simply meaningless. Just like with Carroll, sure play him primarily at the SF, that's where he has played. But if you avoid playing him at the 4, it is because of his size, ability to defend and rebound on the wing, fit within our system, and just the fact that he has played at the 3 for 99% of his past couple years. Not because of some tiny sample of a few possessions he played at the 4 scattered across two seasons.

again, the stats are not the only reason why, just an additive to the other reasons.

[DanH]

again, the stats are not the only reason why, just an additive to the other reasons.

Yeah, but why bring it up? It's such a dramatically flawed reason that it weakens the position rather than strengthens it.

[Axel]

Why exactly are you arguing about how you reached the same conclusion?

Carroll is a SF; how you get to that conclusion is irrelevant, as long as Casey figures it out.

[Snooch]

Yeah, but why bring it up? It's such a dramatically flawed reason that it weakens the position rather than strengthens it.

It doesn't weaken it. that is your opinion on the matter. it is a backup of a statement, that is beyond contest, you can debate the weight of the material, but you cannot deny that it supports the claim

[Snooch]

Why exactly are you arguing about how you reached the same conclusion?

Carroll is a SF; how you get to that conclusion is irrelevant, as long as Casey figures it out.

because debate is fun.

[S.R.]

29 man?

He did miss more than a quarter of the season.

Woulda been 30 if he didn't miss that 360 dunk ... Haha

You beat me to it!

[DanH]

It doesn't weaken it. that is your opinion on the matter. it is a backup of a statement, that is beyond contest, you can debate the weight of the material, but you cannot deny that it supports the claim

If an argument relies on weak evidence, it is implied that the argument is weak. Better to present only real evidence (such as his lack of minutes there, and his effectiveness at the 3) than to present flimsy evidence that will be interpreted as key to the point.

[DanH]

Why exactly are you arguing about how you reached the same conclusion?

Carroll is a SF; how you get to that conclusion is irrelevant, as long as Casey figures it out.

That's like saying if DeMar takes terrible contested jumpers all game and we manage to squeak out a win on a game winner from him that it is a long term good strategy. Process over results.

That said, yes, the Casey rotation dartboard is ultimately what matters.

[Dwane Casey]

Carroll is a SF

Not anymore!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Snooch]

If an argument relies on weak evidence, it is implied that the argument is weak. Better to present only real evidence (such as his lack of minutes there, and his effectiveness at the 3) than to present flimsy evidence that will be interpreted as key to the point.

I did present the other earlier, this was added later, you have only taken the later as the basis of our debate.

[DanH]

I did present the other earlier, this was added later, you have only taken the later as the basis of our debate.

Not at all. I'm simply saying that by adding this later, you weakened your position, as you clearly felt that you were lacking evidence before, and the only evidence you could find to add has practically zero value.

[Snooch]

Not at all. I'm simply saying that by adding this later, you weakened your position, as you clearly felt that you were lacking evidence before, and the only evidence you could find to add has practically zero value.

so sayeth you

[Axel]

I did present the other earlier, this was added later, you have only taken the later as the basis of our debate.

Not at all. I'm simply saying that by adding this later, you weakened your position, as you clearly felt that you were lacking evidence before, and the only evidence you could find to add has practically zero value.

Both of you, time to move on. Literally, zero point in this argument.

[e_wheazhy_]

In a perfect world (i.e. one with no cap) I'd be perfectly fine rewarding his work ethic, loyalty and leadership with $25mil a year...

[SkywalkerAC]

In a perfect world (i.e. one with no cap) I'd be perfectly fine rewarding his work ethic, loyalty and leadership with $25mil a year...

Well, it is a soft cap that is exploding upwards, so it's not so dissimilar from a non-cap world.