You can't actually cite any advanced stats, though, can you? You're just parroting Granath. Stats are meaningless without the context attached to them, and unless you can display an understanding of that context it's not worth having a discussion.
Again, I have given you a link plenty of reading material that will help you understand where I am coming from if you have any interest in actually addressing the topic at hand, rather than simply being obstinate about phraseology.
No hard feelings, I just thought Jayman provided you with stats that make it pretty tough to say this player sucks. You'd have to totally wipe out his stat record to say he sucks, because it couldn't be more farther from the truth.
It's pretty darn far fetched to say that, to be honest. It's going to lose credibility and people will think you haven't ever seen him play.
If you think the traditional box score is a good way to measure the ability of a player than I'm sure you would think David Lee is great.
I would also suggest that you apply for a job with either the front office in New York or the one in Sacramento.
So because some self-proclaimed expert told you he's bad, you'll believe them despite all statistical evidence (simple and advanced metrics) to the contrary. Got it.
Adorable. If you want to talk about the validity of numbers and metrics we're already doing it in the other thread, by the way.
Why should he have to cite advanced statistics that I just cited in my post? That's not parroting, that's simply agreement. Also, comprehensive statistics are not context-free. By their very definition they are contextual as they try to engross the whole of a player's contribution.
To summarize, you're insisting something that you have no way of proving and that all statistical evidence points to the contrary. You can try to poke holes in the statistics, but without offering any of your own you have nothing beyond a subjective evaluation based on isolated cases. Which of course is the most flawed type of evaluation someone can make.
And if you somehow come to the conclusion that every statistic doesn't tell the proper story, the onus is on you to come up with a true statistical evaluation and justify it. After all, the stats offered are by far the most common ones used to evaluate players, have been widely accepted and are designed to be comprehensive. But generally trying to toss every stat out the window when making an argument is a sure sign of someone making a unsupportable argument.
By the way, even if that evaluation were correct (which it's statistically not) it's still not contextual. The real question is how David Lee can fit into the
Celtics rotation to contribute and not what he did on a prior team. Given the paucity of true scorers and a lack of decent rebounders (beyond Sullinger), Lee brings something to the team that it simply doesn't have much of. With good defenders in the back court and a solid defensive big man in Amir Johnson, it's quite possible that Lee's deficiencies in defense can be covered to some extent while he brings to bear the offensive and rebounding gifts the team needs so desperately.
To conclude, you got nothing.
