Go ahead and find more scholarly research and argue against that, too. I'm going to name that smiley : mags :
Funny how you bounce around with your arguments, and now discrediting the scholastic research. Wasn't it you that tried using the "Graduated College" argument? But yeah you should change the smiley to me, cause thats all I do when you use hyperbole.
The article you posted agreed with me. Didn't you even read what you blindly pasted as your money quote? : mags : It is soooo gonna happen.
Did you not read when I said that "certain players can handle the pressure of the nba"? And do you not agree that non-lotto high schoolers turn out as busts mores than seniors?
Yeah. It was so absurd it's funny. It's in direct contrast to your money quote. You almost got it right earlier. With only ~80 guys in history drafted as hardships and 20,000 as 4-year graduates, duh! The vast majority of journeyman NBA players are college guys. And since there are only about 450 players in the whole NBA, the vast majority of those who play basketball, period, don't make it. Heck, I wasn't drafted, so I'm a bust, too. And that's what your money quote says.
You should read what you just wrote. You thought you were arguing a point that I never made. You've agreed with me because you thought I said something else. Then you used my "way more seniors than high schoolers" metric to now come back at me? You called that a strawman and now used it?! Lmao at you brother. It seems you argued with yourself! Haha
I've really been trying to be nice to you, mags. By no measurement does college prepare a player better, nor does going from HS to pros give you a better chance to be a bust. You made both those claims by pulling them out of your ass. When you actually did a little bit of intellectual work to google for that article you didn't read, it refutes both those statements. The end.
25 high schoolers compared to 7 seniors bust in the nba, next. Seniors still have better offensive ratings than high schoolers in the nba, next. The end.
Yep mags. The best 400 out of a pool of 20,000 will put up slightly better advanced stats than the best 20 out of a pool of 80. See, you made a strawman and got me to argue it. Your logic hurts to read that bad.
Strawman. Guess it's okay when you use it, but oh man if I use it, you get bent. Is it the time of the month again Denny?
"It" was not better than Lillards. It = rookie season. The subject was rookie season. The subject was not rookie STATS.
If it was "it" you would have no argument from me. But that wasn't what you said. You said Lillard was better in stats that matter. That "is" wrong.
So, let me get this straight. You think that Lillard is better than Damon and had a better rookie season. BUT, you think that Damon's "stats that matter" were better. If the "stats that matter" mean anything, then you have a problem reconciling your conflicting opinions.
I had huge hopes for Damon before he joined the Blazers and then ended up hating his game while he was here.
