Kobe vs Lebron: Who is the better player?

[Big Moves03]

First Bolded: Great! You can start by educating me on the statistical principle that says just assuming all superstar players have had the same level of support throughout their careers is a valid statistical inference.

Second Bolded: No idea what dude you're talking about. Perhaps you mean regarding Box Creation rates? I noticed you shut up about Kobe being a better distributor after that (though no doubt you'll conjure some problem with the stats for why we can't use them: you always do).

Third Bolded: I have. I have consistently shown you your assumptions regarding what the statistics are measuring are false. You have made dozens of completely false claims about how the statistics are measured or calculated and I have dispelled them all.

Fourth Bolded: Yeah, I mean, when you use generalities like that what point is there trying to get into specifics?


Your entire premise is based on the idea that we can't measure the specificity of impact with stats and then say that "all players have played on equally as good teams throughout their careers". It would be sad if you weren't so dead serious.


Honestly, I've never seen someone have to convince themselves of so stupid a premise in order to maintain their opinion.

I did actually educate on what principle it was, it was spelled out specifically in the previous post. "Given enough time, unless there is some force working against it, chance will self-correct". It effectively amounts to why we can use random assignment and ignore individual differences when assigning subjects to conditions (there is another principle for you).

Who said Kobe was a better distributor? I said he warps the floor more, which is completely different. We haven't talked about it because I haven't had a chance to look at the formula yet but it does seem to be more about distribution, which is completely different from warping the floor. At any rate, I haven't discussed it because I haven't had a chance to look at the formula (as a side note, you still haven't actually sent over any data, but instead just put out some numbers, who knows if theyre correct or not).

At any rate, I was referring to the guy who wrote the ESPN article who you said you would ask about the issues with his analysis, since you didnt want any sources on the things I was saying (probably cause you had an inclination I was right, but if you still have doubts I'm happy to send you sources).

It's also funny how you completely ignored the whole thing about LBJ having a ton of help his entire career, you have a tendency to avoid answering these sorts of things and you've been called out before on this by other posters no less, specially about you not being able to respond to my posts.

Also, what notion have you dispelled? You literally said yesterday that PER favors shooting, even if you miss, which is false. You just ignored that completely.

I do wonder why you continue to respond to my posts, because at the end of the day I'm simply explaining my method of assessment and it wasn't even to you. Note that the poster who I responded to was perfectly fine with it, as many others on here have been.

It's frankly pretty clear when you feel threatened because you usually avoid responding to the issues and instead deflect by pointing out irrelevant issues that have already been addressed multiple times in previous posts (but you bring them up to go in circles and draw attention from the issue that you aren't able to respond to) and then you'll include multiple insults. You're pretty good at getting others to go along with it, but I find it distasteful, dishonorable, and very petty and juvenile so I won't do that sort of thing nor will I respond to any future posts in which you go into your keyboard warrior act (any such future responses I will consider to be trolling and will ignore them altogether). If you want to respond to me, respond with some dignity or don't bother at all.

[valade16]

I did actually educate on what principle it was, it was spelled out specifically in the previous post. "Given enough time, unless there is some force working against it, chance will self-correct". It effectively amounts to why we can use random assignment and ignore individual differences when assigning subjects to conditions (there is another principle for you).

Who said Kobe was a better distributor? I said he warps the floor more, which is completely different. We haven't talked about it because I haven't had a chance to look at the formula yet but it does seem to be more about distribution, which is completely different from warping the floor. At any rate, I haven't discussed it because I haven't had a chance to look at the formula (as a side note, you still haven't actually sent over any data, but instead just put out some numbers, who knows if theyre correct or not).

At any rate, I was referring to the guy who wrote the ESPN article who you said you would ask about the issues with his analysis, since you didnt want any sources on the things I was saying (probably cause you had an inclination I was right, but if you still have doubts I'm happy to send you sources).

It's also funny how you completely ignored the whole thing about LBJ having a ton of help his entire career, you have a tendency to avoid answering these sorts of things and you've been called out before on this by other posters no less, specially about you not being able to respond to my posts.

Also, what notion have you dispelled? You literally said yesterday that PER favors shooting, even if you miss, which is false. You just ignored that completely.

I do wonder why you continue to respond to my posts, because at the end of the day I'm simply explaining my method of assessment and it wasn't even to you. Note that the poster who I responded to was perfectly fine with it, as many others on here have been.

It's frankly pretty clear when you feel threatened because you usually avoid responding to the issues and instead deflect by pointing out irrelevant issues that have already been addressed multiple times in previous posts (but you bring them up to go in circles and draw attention from the issue that you aren't able to respond to) and then you'll include multiple insults. You're pretty good at getting others to go along with it, but I find it distasteful, dishonorable, and very petty and juvenile so I won't do that sort of thing nor will I respond to any future posts in which you go into your keyboard warrior act (any such future responses I will consider to be trolling and will ignore them altogether). If you want to respond to me, respond with some dignity or don't bother at all.

First Bolded: The longest superstars play for 20 years, most for 10-15. That is not nearly enough of a data point for random chance to even out and I'm shocked a supposed statistician would even try to make that argument in good faith.

Second Bolded: As long as we're talking about guys we were supposed to email, you emailed any statisticians and asked them if using rings to determine who is more impactful is a good way to measure? I thought not....

Third Bolded: I was not false, I just didn't pursue the point because I was becoming overwhelmed by the mountain of your bull****:

http://www.chicagonow.com/bullsville...ho-live-by-it/

"Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots."

Not to mention the context of bringing up PER was you claiming players could simply pass more to avoid getting worse advanced stats and cited PER, to which I responded by talking about several other stats for which that wouldn't work (and you totally ignored).

Fourth Bolded: Oh, look. Another threat to not respond. Since you failed almost immediately at the last one this is just further proof of your hypocrisy.


Here's the truth: I respond to you with as much dignity as your hypocrisy deserves. Everyone in this thread has seen it (I am certainly not the only one to comment on it here). This forum would be better off if you were not here, and I'm glad you've confined yourself to this singular thread (yet more proof that you're nothing more than a Kobe-stan. You don't care about any other threads except the one talking about whether LeBron is better than Kobe).

Don't respond. Or do. Whichever you choose will have exactly the same amount of substance.

[valade16]

Imagine the guy who determines whose better with "RINGZ" calling someone else Juvenile

[Big Moves03]

First Bolded: The longest superstars play for 20 years, most for 10-15. That is not nearly enough of a data point for random chance to even out and I'm shocked a supposed statistician would even try to make that argument in good faith.

Second Bolded: As long as we're talking about guys we were supposed to email, you emailed any statisticians and asked them if using rings to determine who is more impactful is a good way to measure? I thought not....

Third Bolded: I was not false, I just didn't pursue the point because I was becoming overwhelmed by the mountain of your bull****:

http://www.chicagonow.com/bullsville...ho-live-by-it/

"Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots."

Not to mention the context of bringing up PER was you claiming players could simply pass more to avoid getting worse advanced stats and cited PER, to which I responded by talking about several other stats for which that wouldn't work (and you totally ignored).

Fourth Bolded: Oh, look. Another threat to not respond. Since you failed almost immediately at the last one this is just further proof of your hypocrisy.


Here's the truth: I respond to you with as much dignity as your hypocrisy deserves. Everyone in this thread has seen it (I am certainly not the only one to comment on it here). This forum would be better off if you were not here, and I'm glad you've confined yourself to this singular thread (yet more proof that you're nothing more than a Kobe-stan. You don't care about any other threads except the one talking about whether LeBron is better than Kobe).

Don't respond. Or do. Whichever you choose will have exactly the same amount of substance.

First of all, that's the Hollinger PER, which is why I asked you which PER you were using. Secondly, where exactly does that say that missed shots help PER?? That's basically saying that if you shoot enough at a high enough percentage you can overcome the negative of missed shots...you said missed shots help PER. That is clearly false (and even in the Hollinger PER it is false, because you need to shoot at least 30% to get a net gain, meaning that missed shots hurt PER, which is obvious...you can go ahead and eat your crow when you're ready or not, I dont care but you were wrong so we can move on). That also says absolutely nothing about assists. I also did respond to your posts about those other stats and told you that they dont do what they claim to do because what they claim to do is not possible (you cannot disentangle a player's individual impact). I gave you a bunch of examples showing why that's not possible and you ignored them. That's fine, you can ignore them if you'd like. You do that whenever evidence doesn't fit your narrative.

I've also posted in other threads, but I only came over here because IKH asked me to post on this thread and if I hadn't the group think in here would've basically ended the thread at about 3 pages or so (because as I and many others have noted) people like you are not open to dissenting opinions. It's a cop out to say "oh I'm open to dissenting opinions just not illogical ones" when every dissenting opinion is illogical to you. You've been called out by multiple posters, but they don't really give you the time of day, because as you are showing you are basically a troll who when you cannot respond (which happens often) you resort to middle school tactics and mockery and insults. Like you have done here once again.

[Big Moves03]

Imagine the guy who determines whose better with "RINGZ" calling someone else Juvenile

Fallacy...every insult or mockery exposes you further.

[valade16]

First of all, that's the Hollinger PER, which is why I asked you which PER you were using. Secondly, where exactly does that say that missed shots help PER?? That's basically saying that if you shoot enough at a high enough percentage you can overcome the negative of missed shots...you said missed shots help PER. That is clearly false (and even in the Hollinger PER it is false, because you need to shoot at least 30% to get a net gain, meaning that missed shots hurt PER, which is obvious...you can go ahead and your crow when you're ready or not, I dont care but you were wrong so we can move on). That also says absolutely nothing about assists. I also did respond to your posts about those stats and told you that they dont do what they claim to do because what they claim to do is not possible (you cannot disentangle a player's individual impact). I gave you a bunch of examples showing why that's not possible and you ignored them. That's fine, you can ignore them if you'd like.

I've also posted in other threads, but I only came over here because IKH asked me to post on this thread and if I hadn't the group think in here would've basically ended the thread at about 3 pages or so (because as I and many others have noted) people like you are not open to dissenting opinions. It's a cop out to say "oh I'm open to dissenting opinions just not illogical ones" when every dissenting opinion is illogical to you. You've been called out by multiple posters, but they don't really give you the time of day, because as you are showing you are basically a troll who when they cannot respond restarts to middle school tactics and mockery and insults. Like you have done once again.

First Bolded: I know you're getting desperate when you're arguing technicalities, and even then you're wrong (and apparently a filthy liar too). What I actually said was:

Actually PER rewards shooting more often (which is one of the many problems with PER)

Shooting more often, not misses. A person who shoots more often, even if they miss a ton is rewarded by PER. you can go ahead and your crow when you're ready or not, I dont care but you were wrong so we can move on

Second Bolded: Not every dissenting opinion is illogical to me. Heck, even saying Kobe over Bron is not illogical. It's not your position that is illogical, it is your methodology of "ringz".

Third Bolded: Name them. Or is this yet another lie?


I can see you're getting upset that I called out your juvenile ranking system and exposed your reasoning for what it is. Perhaps you need a moment to cool off and come up with another way of saying "ringz", which is all you've ever said.

[Big Moves03]

First Bolded: I know you're getting desperate when you're arguing technicalities, and even then you're wrong (and apparently a filthy liar too). What I actually said was:

Actually PER rewards shooting more often (which is one of the many problems with PER)

Shooting more often, not misses. A person who shoots more often, even if they miss a ton is rewarded by PER. you can go ahead and your crow when you're ready or not, I dont care but you were wrong so we can move on

Second Bolded: Not every dissenting opinion is illogical to me. Heck, even saying Kobe over Bron is not illogical. It's not your position that is illogical, it is your methodology of "ringz".

Third Bolded: Name them. Or is this yet another lie?


I can see you're getting upset that I called out your juvenile ranking system and exposed your reasoning for what it is. Perhaps you need a moment to cool off and come up with another way of saying "ringz", which is all you've ever said.

It's not desperate to argue over how something it computed and how it favors guys who pass a lot. I said missed shots hurt your PER and you said even if you miss it helps your PER. Maybe you meant something else, but that explicitly states that missed shots helps PER. Also, the point was that PER favors passers. What you showed there is that if you shoot a high enough percentage you can overcome the negative of missed shots, it says nothing to the point of shooting leading to better PER than racking up a ton of assists just by passing, which was the entire point (guys who pass a ton can end up with inflated PER because there's no penalty in passing...and the risk of a turnover is super low in comparison to missing a shot).

To your second point, that is again a blatant mischaracterization of what I said.

Bro, you've been called out by most of the posters who you've argued with here. NYKalltheway has called you out multiple times for doing this sort of thing and I believe Romeo Naes has also commented on this sort of thing (but I could be wrong about him). Even Chronz has noted your love for authority and your appeal to the authority fallacy (i.e., you have a hard time with ideas that go against the norm; for whatever reason they seem to get your blood boiling, it's really an authoritarian sort of thing if I'm being honest).

And I've yet to see you honestly engage with someone who had a dissenting opinion on here. You start off civil and then as soon as they push on your logic you dissent into this juvenile sort of thing. I really don't get it.
And I'm not upset at all...notice how you're the one who continues with the name calling and the mockery?

We clearly have different opinions. I disagree with you but there's not need for me to belittle or disrespect your position. I've continued to actually show respect despite your unprovoked and constant attacks and insults.

[Big Moves03]

lebron continues to prove he will let the other star on the team shine if they Rise up to the challenge.

You're right he absolutely has and it's a great credit to him. I'm very happy to see LBJ being able to work alongside AD so effectively. I knew he could do it, my point before was simply that he hadn't done it. If he can win a title this year it would be huge and he would deserve a ton of credit.

[ldawg]

You're right he absolutely has and it's a great credit to him. I'm very happy to see LBJ being able to work alongside AD so effectively. I knew he could do it, my point before was simply that he hadn't done it. If he can win a title this year it would be huge and he would deserve a ton of credit.

This is where your wrong he always did. He did for Wade, Kyrie and now Davis. If you even go back to his not so great teams BigZ/Williams he did. They all had their chance to shine. Some even said he shink in clutch because he give up the ball to others. Thing is you build your team araound stars and Lebron strength has always been his drives and the open floor. Guys like Love/Bosh would have to take shots when they are not posting up to open the lane for Lebron/Wade Lebron/Kyrie. Now that he is older he plays on top the key alot more and he is now the primary ball handler. He was never the one to keep shooting. He does many other things on the floor besides shoot. You call them inflated. Example he did not put the team on his back last night or did he shoot that well buts his defense timely blocks, controlling the game at times, May i add no turnovers, he just played team ball. He will not be the best Shooting guard or even the best point guard but the dude can fill in anywhere. While you think this is the best Lebron its actully the declining Lebron.

Denver is using the same strategy as Spurs did. Build a wall deny the drives to the basket. Like before hes not forcing or taking difficult contested shots hes trusting his teammates.

I do however wish he quit the long 3s you dont get extra points no use shooting them right now.

[Big Moves03]

This is where your wrong he always did. He did for Wade, Kyrie and now Davis. If you even go back to his not so great teams BigZ/Williams he did. They all had their chance to shine. Some even said he shink in clutch because he give up the ball to others. Thing is you build your team araound stars and Lebron strength has always been his drives and the open floor. Guys like Love/Bosh would have to take shots when they are not posting up to open the lane for Lebron/Wade Lebron/Kyrie. Now that he is older he plays on top the key alot more and he is now the primary ball handler. He was never the one to keep shooting. He does many other things on the floor besides shoot. You call them inflated. Example he did not put the team on his back last night or did he shoot that well buts his defense timely blocks, controlling the game at times, May i add no turnovers, he just played team ball. He will not be the best Shooting guard or even the best point guard but the dude can fill in anywhere. While you think this is the best Lebron its actully the declining Lebron.

Denver is using the same strategy as Spurs did. Build a wall deny the drives to the basket. Like before hes not forcing or taking difficult contested shots hes trusting his teammates.

I do however wish he quit the long 3s you dont get extra points no use shooting them right now.

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. He always took turns with his star teammates, where one did their thing and the other one kind of didnt do much. We're not seeing as much of that this time around. He's formed a synergy with AD wherein they are playing well together as opposed to taking turns (this still happens, but it's more of a team thing now). This is the first time where LBJ might win a title without two stars. That's what he hasn't done before. The heat and the cavs were basically different levels of super teams, but this laker team is not a super team. I wanted to see LBJ actually lead a championship team without having a team overflowing with talent, because that's how most superstars have done it in the past. He's looking great and rising to the challenge and so I commend him for it.

[ewing]

Fallacy...every insult or mockery exposes you further.

he called fallacy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ldawg]

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. He always took turns with his star teammates, where one did their thing and the other one kind of didnt do much. We're not seeing as much of that this time around. He's formed a synergy with AD wherein they are playing well together as opposed to taking turns (this still happens, but it's more of a team thing now). This is the first time where LBJ might win a title without two stars. That's what he hasn't done before. The heat and the cavs were basically different levels of super teams, but this laker team is not a super team. I wanted to see LBJ actually lead a championship team without having a team overflowing with talent, because that's how most superstars have done it in the past. He's looking great and rising to the challenge and so I commend him for it.

I dont think he take turns more than any other star. Only a handful of teams did that over the last few years. besides the not so good teams only Detroit, Spurs, Boston, Miami, Mavs i can truly say took that full team approach. Most of the teams did that two stars taking majority of the shots taken turns. LOL he had synergy with Wade and Kyrie. its just that the game is played with one ball. If you team Kobe and Chis paul how you think that would have gone? would it be any better synergy than Harden and Westbrook? Who gets the Ball Kobe or Chris?

[Big Moves03]

I dont think he take turns more than any other star. Only a handful of teams did that over the last few years. besides the not so good teams only Detroit, Spurs, Boston, Miami, Mavs i can truly say took that full team approach. Most of the teams did that two stars taking majority of the shots taken turns. LOL he had synergy with Wade and Kyrie. its just that the game is played with one ball. If you team Kobe and Chis paul how you think that would have gone? would it be any better synergy than Harden and Westbrook?

I definitely didnt think he had a synergy with those guys. It's one of the reasons why I think Kyrie asked for a trade. To be clear, I don't think LBJ and AD are taking turns right now. They do from time to time, but they are playing well off of each other. That's what I'm saying was missing before.

If kobe played with CP3, it absolutely would've gone a million times better than Harden and Westbrook. Harden and Westbrook were fortunate to get out of the first round and would've likely lost to Utah in the first round, which is who they should've played. Kobe was an excellent player off the ball (a lot better than Harden and Westbrook) and he knew how to play alongside his star teammates where they didnt take turns. Kobe was the ultimate winner, especially once he matured a little. Harden and Westbrook frankly don't know the meaning of the phrase. CP3 would've gotten the ball and Kobe would've played off the ball and in the post. It wouldve likely extended Kobe's career by a few years.

[ldawg]

I definitely didnt think he had a synergy with those guys. It's one of the reasons why I think Kyrie asked for a trade. To be clear, I don't think LBJ and AD are taking turns right now. They do from time to time, but they are playing well off of each other. That's what I'm saying was missing before.

If kobe played with CP3, it absolutely would've gone a million times better than Harden and Westbrook. Harden and Westbrook were fortunate to get out of the first round and would've likely lost to Utah in the first round, which is who they should've played. Kobe was an excellent player off the ball (a lot better than Harden and Westbrook) and he knew how to play alongside his star teammates where they didnt take turns. Kobe was the ultimate winner, especially once he matured a little. Harden and Westbrook frankly don't know the meaning of the phrase. CP3 would've gotten the ball and Kobe would've played off the ball and in the post. It wouldve likely extended Kobe's career by a few years.

Kyrie ask for a trade because hes wack. Kobe wanted to win on his own or be the lead man as well. It dont seem like they take turns since hes not a guard thats why i pointed out how you think Kobe would have played with another star who also rely on having the ball?

I am not asking if CP3 and Kobe would have won to that of Harden and Westbrook. I am asking how you think they would have played together. Both players like the ball and its played with only 1.

[valade16]

It's not desperate to argue over how something it computed and how it favors guys who pass a lot. I said missed shots hurt your PER and you said even if you miss it helps your PER. Maybe you meant something else, but that explicitly states that missed shots helps PER. Also, the point was that PER favors passers. What you showed there is that if you shoot a high enough percentage you can overcome the negative of missed shots, it says nothing to the point of shooting leading to better PER than racking up a ton of assists just by passing, which was the entire point (guys who pass a ton can end up with inflated PER because there's no penalty in passing...and the risk of a turnover is super low in comparison to missing a shot).

To your second point, that is again a blatant mischaracterization of what I said.

Bro, you've been called out by most of the posters who you've argued with here. NYKalltheway has called you out multiple times for doing this sort of thing and I believe Romeo Naes has also commented on this sort of thing (but I could be wrong about him). Even Chronz has noted your love for authority and your appeal to the authority fallacy (i.e., you have a hard time with ideas that go against the norm; for whatever reason they seem to get your blood boiling, it's really an authoritarian sort of thing if I'm being honest).

And I've yet to see you honestly engage with someone who had a dissenting opinion on here. You start off civil and then as soon as they push on your logic you dissent into this juvenile sort of thing. I really don't get it.

And I'm not upset at all...notice how you're the one who continues with the name calling and the mockery?

We clearly have different opinions. I disagree with you but there's not need for me to belittle or disrespect your position. I've continued to actually show respect despite your unprovoked and constant attacks and insults.

Here is what I actually said:

First Bolded: Except nobody who knows what they're doing would look at the stats and say that because you put up great regular seasons stats you can win titles. It's recognized that your performance in the playoffs is the more important piece. It's why David Robinson and Karl Malone are ranked so low on statistical lists despite putting up incredible regular season numbers.

Second Bolded: It's far more accurate than "rings", which is your go to.

Third Bolded: This again shows your complete ignorance of the statistics. Actually PER rewards shooting more often (which is one of the many problems with PER). On a fundamental level, you are simply wrong with your notion that there is no possible negative for passing the ball because the pass could result in a turnover, a clear negative. But beyond that:

Fourth Bolded: It is painfully obvious you don't have any clue about the stats you're commenting on. PIPM uses Your on court impact as measured by +/- (i.e. how many more points your team scores or gets outscored while you're on the floor). So if you continually pass up wide open shots to improve your numbers and your teammate ends up missing the shot and your team falls behind as a result, you'll actually look very bad in those stats because you won't have any impact.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. But the overarching point that you can improve your stats by passing all the time is just wrong. Rajon Rondo didn't score and passed to KG, Pierce, and Ray all the time in Boston. He does not come out looking good at all in box creation because it accounts for how difficult your passes are, whether they are good or bad decisions, etc.

In summary, everything you just wrote was incorrect.

What I meant/wrote is that PER actually rewards people for shooting a ton because the threshold to get a positive rating is very low (30%). It does not reward passing nearly as much as it rewards shooting a ton (and the fact you'd even argue this shows how little you know about PER). Here are the

PER's of top passers all-time:

Magic: 24.1
Stockton: 21.8
Nash: 20.0
Isiah: 18.1
Kidd: 17.9

Now here are the PER's of high volume scorers:

Baylor: 22.7
Nique: 21.6
Dantley: 21.5
Gervin 21.4
AI: 20.9
Melo: 19.9
English: 19.9

Outside Magic (who scored 20+ PPG himself), the high volume scorers have higher PER's than most of the top passers who didn't score. And I'm not even using high volume scorers who were all around players (like Jordan, T-Mac, Kobe, etc.) because their PER's are vastly higher than the passers.


NYKalltheway? Everyone acknowledges he has bizarre and ridiculous takes on basketball post 2006. As for Chronz, I doubt he thinks as negatively of me as you're making out (but Chronz can speak for himself). I also think he'd have some choice things to say about your arguments.


I don't have a hard time with opinions that go against the norm. There are plenty of basketball opinions I'm fine with that go against the norm, so long as the underlying reasoning is sound (even if I disagree). You have failed to demonstrate your underlying reasoning is sound and further, you are completely ignorant of the stats you dismiss (claiming PER rewards passing over shooting is one such example).