• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stopmakingsense

  1. Yep, in roto you have to be very conscious of a players strengths and weaknesses. A guy like Westbrook is great in H2H points due to the popcorn stats, but significantly worse in roto by hurting your percentages and turnovers. I'd try a quick google on all the differences because it's honestly a lot to explain and I don't want to derail this thread. Also just an FYI when people refer to H2H on here they are generally referring to H2H categories, which is a third type of league with a weekly opponent seeing who can win the most categories in a given week. If you see anything about punting it's referring to these leagues generally.
  2. Pretty big difference. H2H points is basically the same as standard fantasy football. Roto looks at which team does the best across 9 categories (typically) over the coarse of the year, so building a team is much more strategic to make sure you aren't overkill/deficient in certain categories.
  3. Something bad enough that he still only works on punt FT builds, maybe 60%.
  4. Not sure how how the discussion started since I jumped in late, but the post I quoted said they would avoid him early 2nd round. I was responding to that.
  5. Good post. I like your logic but I think Westbrook is still a solid pick at the end of the first in H2H. I consider FG and TO to be inherently streaky categories compared to most others. Often in FG the best and worst teams are separated by maybe 4%? That’s sometimes winnable when your guys are on hot streaks in a 7 day matchup. When picking at the end of the first I find it hard to compete with the teams who have elite players, and it’s easy to end up weak in either points or big man stats. Westbrook presents a solution with his elite counting stats, and there are plenty of shooting bigs to pair with him. Side note, I really like getting Cousins or Porzingis too, gives you a chance to be elite in most of the counting cats come playoff time.
  6. Agreed on your main point that he won’t be playing C, but offensively I anticipate him playing in the post often in LA. His post fade is already pretty unstoppable, it’s far less tiring than bull rushing so he can stay fresh late in games, his passing ability complements the post well, and it will extend his dominance as he ages. In CLE last year he seemed to post up more often than any other time in his career, but thats only anecdotal from watching about 2/3rds of their games. Maybe he can even learn a few moves from Magic/Kobe.
  7. Yeah I agree with most of that, and I enjoyed all those moments as well. I guess it just seems a bit contradictory to say you like and believe in competitiveness wholeheartedly, but also don't think it's that serious to have a team so good that the champion is predetermined. I'll still get enjoyment out of watching the best players in the world play basketball, and I'm not trying to say the NBA is ruined or anything that extreme. I just think there are nuanced levels to said enjoyment, and something is lost when inevitability enters into the equation.
  8. Well yeah no one would call out their own team, people are selfish and defensive. That’s just human nature. For me it’s not just about fairness, but about keeping the NBA entertaining. One of the most basic draws of sports is not knowing the outcome, and while in previous years we kinda assumed it would be Cavs/Warriors in the finals, there was at least some drama and unknown involved. This year though, other teams have no chance. Do you guys enjoy watching Team USA blow out teams by 40 points? Like do you really want to watch that for 82 games plus playoffs? In my experience the novelty of seeing the stars play together wears off quickly and I tune out until they get to the medal games where it’s at least semi competitive.
  9. I was about to tip my cap to Gilbert for a classy response until I saw that report that he said "cant wait until he leaves, because I'll get my team back."
  10. I was messing around with Rubio's pass tracking stats, and I found it interesting to look at the frequency of who he passes it to most, and what that player is doing after they receive the pass. This year Rubio has passed it most frequently to Favors (19% of his passes), then Ingles (17%), and Mitchell (13%). All those add up to about 30 passes per game, and they result in only 7 field goal attempts per game by those players. Those were the only players who received over 10% of his passes, and a bunch are in the 6-8% range. For comparison, his pass tracking on the wolves looks wildly different. Last year 30.7% of his passes went to Wiggins and 27% went to Towns. That's a total of 38 passes per game to those two, resulting in attempted 18 shots, or potential assists for Rubio. To me this points to many of the common complaints surrounding Rubio about how the Jazz promote ball movement, but I was still a bit surprised by the actual numbers.
  11. Since this comment he's been outside the top 200 and hitting only 50% of his FT's. Dropped from 100 to 165. Here's hoping he becomes Oladipo over the next month+ to bring him into the top 60.
  12. Except you didn't even state facts. They're 4th.
  13. The Lakers are 4th in the league in rebounds per game.
  14. He's a career 36% shooter from deep, that's good enough that it forces someone to guard you out there. Basically the same as percentage as Towns. He doesn't get high volume due to his teammates being better offensively and being under 20 mpg, but that doesn't mean defenses should give him the Tony Allen treatment.
  15. Assuming it's the league settings in your sig of 9 cat plus FGM and FTM, I just typed those settings into BBM and he's ranked 147 per game. If you only punt FG% he jumps to 98.
  16. Yeah it's hard to say since it comes down to roster construction and assists are very top heavy, while everyone shoots 3's. I have him on a punt FT% team where I'm kinda weak in assists, so the low assists are noticeable. I just don't like giving players a free pass in categories they're bad in just because of the position they play. That logic kinda assumes that you have an even number of guards, forwards, centers, an equal number of starting spots available for each, and they in turn balance each others weaknesses. In reality with punt builds, multi position eligibility, and guys producing "out of position" stats, that's obviously not the case. Someone with dual position eligibility could start in about half of your available starting spots (assuming a couple utility spots), and that really gives so much freedom in creating your team's strengths/weaknesses to the point that I just look at a players line relative to everyone, not what's typical for the position. Sorry about the tangent ha. Agreed from a real life perspective, he seems to be legit. Here's hoping he makes the fantasy leap as well to make me less of a cynic.
  17. I do. I choose to count any negative stat as being negative because that's how math works. It might be easier to cover those weaknesses since he's a SG/SF, but it doesn't make them any less real. Yeah if you boost all of his numbers he's a very solid mid round player. I don't disagree on his upside, and the out of position rebounding can be very helpful if it's an area of need. My only point is if you consider 1.8 3's to be a positive, then you also have to include his 1.1 AST as a negative. What's unreasonable about that? Maybe you have players who cover his deficiencies, maybe you punt, or maybe his weaknesses hurt you, who knows. These are roster construction issues that are totally separate from Jaylen Brown's production.
  18. He said 5+ for 1-. If you're counting 15 points, 1.8 3's, 1.2 steals, and 1.5 turnovers as positives when they are all pretty average, you have to count the others as negatives.
  19. Yeah if you take out 5 misses on a sample size of only 66, things are going to look a lot better. Doesn't really change anything. Also while there is a general correlation between 3pt shooting and FT shooting, there are plenty of examples of this not being the case. Waiters, JR Smith, Aaron Gordon, Thad Young, Lebron, Draymond. Some to lesser extents than others of course. Also worth noting that my number was for this season, he could definitely improve into the 70's long term.
  20. Are you really saying csb in relation to his actual ranking on the year? It's fine to be optimistic on his FT%, but you at least have to see that you're being, well, optimistic. Not everyone will agree with you on that since all the data we have on his career point to him being a sub 70% FT shooter. He does absolutely pass the eye test though, and while I'm hoping for the FT improvement, I expect something in the 67-68% range.
  21. Haha this thread has devolved to the point that even his passing ability is being questioned. I thought that was the one thing we all agreed he was pretty good at?
  22. Just a heads up, I think you accidentally used his projections instead of rankings. I happened to be looking at it and he's 131 on my rankings. But I agree with your main point, you can absolutely cover his FG% with other guys or ignore it entirely. Sorry for the CSB, but on the only team I roster him I'm first in FG%.
  23. So this means almost nothing due to the sample, but so far 83% of Lonzo's makes have been unassisted. Will be interesting to track that as the season progresses.