That's what you and your buddies have been doing for pages on end here.
Did u miss the posts about her "recent play", when her actual resume was on her early games?
The CC Show....
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
Did u miss the posts about her "recent play", when her actual resume was on her early games?
Haven’t ignored it. Just trying to pin down your moving targets.
Early play….. nope
Tryout…. Nope
Assist/turnover ratio…. Nope
League average….. for some
So you just made up something and attributed it to me?
Got it.
While not as egregious as your Staley mischaracterization it is still another ‘throw uninformed, inaccurate lies against the wall’ tactic.
Definitely something beneath how you attempt to project yourself. Be better, lies aren’t good for you.
Her early games were league average(Joe) and better than a player selected.
15/5/5 are league average, must happen all the time.
Did I miss Joe addressing this? Must ignore.
He sure seems to avoid this subject.
So have I. And it did not clearly merit a spot on the team. You could have just said you agreed with me.
Not by much.
And, as has been pointed out to you over and over, her turnovers were worse, by a lot.
Her early game-efficiency scores were below most of the players selected, and nearly the same as the ones you think she should have replaced. That simply does not justify taking a spot away from someone who has proven experience.
Yes; you have.
CCs Game Efficiency score around the cutoff: 10.45 (low, due to turnovers numbers)
First half of the season for:
Arrike: 15.41
Ionescu: 14.27
Copper: 12.43
Taurasi was 10 for the first half of this season.
If Clark wanted to be considered, her Game Efficiencies needed to be higher, because she was as-yet "unproven".
Her Game Efficiency in the last 6 games before the break was >18. That absolutely would have gotten people's attention if she did that in the first 10+ games.
You've been claiming she's "Olympics level" the entire thread here, by asserting she should have been on the team.
I’m surprised that as much as you seem to know about wnba statistics, you don’t seem to grasp the fact that this is a generational talent the likes of which has never been seen before and that she rolled from college season right into the pros. So, using limited stats arguments to justify keeping this kind of marketing engine and talent off the team entirely is disingenuous.
It was a colossally stupid decision. If you truly do not believe there was an expendable name on that roster that Clark could have replaced competently, you’re an absolute fool.
‘Not by much’
So that means better
Below ‘most’
So not all…
Turnovers were worse, assists were more. Still struggling with the ‘assists are at least two points’ ‘turnovers are not a guaranteed two points for the other team’
Now it’s game efficiency…. Back to ‘below most’ so you’re saying there is at least one player lower? Hmmm… wonder how much she contributed during this run?
So this game efficiency number was better than DT as well? Good work giving props where props are due.
Not sure why you listed the other three players. You are like a bad magician in this thread.
I don’t believe I have asserted that she should be on the team. You are getting worse at this. Feel free to share where I said she should be on the team. Try to do it without lying and making stuff up. It’s beneath your normal standards and actually quite amusing you have sunk that low to doing it.
Didn’t want this gem to drop off the page. A fine example of joes work in this thread
Was that the interview where Staley said ‘she could get considered based on her recent play’
And you came up with ‘basically would make the team’?
That interview? Not sure with what you came up with that you should keep bringing that up. It isn’t one of your better moments.
Was that the interview where Staley said ‘she could get considered based on her recent play’
And you came up with ‘basically would make the team’?
That interview? Not sure with what you came up with that you should keep bringing that up. It isn’t one of your better moments.
No; it means basically the same.
Because those stats vary game-to-game, so there's always an error range.
Mike Eruzione was not "the best player" on the 1980 hockey team; he was chosen because he was a leader.
Marginally better, in that if you shift a game or two, they become basically the same.
Not true at all if you look at CCs last 6 games, where her numbers are above most other players. Which is what I've been explaining to you for several pages now.
The tv viewership numbers for the gold medal game are in. Lowest since Beijing in 2008. But the good news is that almost as many people watched this year as Tokyo 2020/21 when the game was played in the middle of the night.
Lol. JP wants to compare peak viewership of a game played on a Sunday morning to average viewership of a game played in the middle of the night.
Because science.
It was 6:30 AM on the West coast for tip-off.
Not a lot of folks are setting their alarms for the start.
Amusing how you cannot admit the numbers are all similar.
One was better than the other.
The US didn't win by much, but guess what.....they won
1980 hockey being introduced into the debate? I will need to fire up the pool again.
Who is in for the 'what random crap will Joe throw out next since the facts don't support his premise and he won't admit it?' pool
Probably need to come up with some prizes.........
"Marginally better, in that if you shift a game or two"
but they didn't shift a game or two. Heck, you have been the one establishing the standards that have undermined your own position.
"Not true at all if you look at CCs last 6 games, where her numbers are above most other players. Which is what I've been explaining to you for several pages now."
But we have been told repeatedly that the last 6 games didn't matter in the selection process. Why do you continue to explain something that you...not the other posters... you...Joe has established didn't matter in the process? Explain BPA's to us as well, it has almost as much relevance as the last 6 games. You told us that repeatedly.
You do not appear to understand the point here.
And if you look at CCs game just after June 10th, she tanked in that Connecticut game, badly.
There are "error bars" attached to anyone's ranking, any place you look at their productivity. When those overlap, the players are effectively "equal", which is what you get when you compare the specific players your buddies are bitching about in this thread.
Amusing how you cannot admit that the numbers are even lower than 2021, when the gold medal game was played in the middle of the night.
Because Dawn Staley being interviewed at the Olympics, weeks after the selection process, is referring to those games.
That was what I'd posted pages ago for you.
CCs productivity did not differ much at all against what other guards selected had done either early season, or in past seasons. Only, she never participated in tryouts, and her WNBA track record was much shorter than her competition for the spots.
That's what the data have looked like for nearly 20 years.
(and do you think the MAGA churchgoers are watching the game on Sunday morning vs. going to church here? Jeebus)
Yes; you have. It's why you're here arguing that point in your last 4 posts
Can you please share specifically what I have posted that asserts that CC should be on the team? Hopefully you aren't thinking that because it has been shown statistically that she was better than DT at selection time(unless you want to move your criteria and number of games, etc) which is hilarious for such a meticulous poster such as you. Feel free to post away.
Maybe it was the missed tryouts, or the fouls, definitely the turnovers......keep trying...........
And always remember that
'might get considered' is the same as 'probably make the team' in your eyes. So keep boosting your credibility with these gems.
Do you think the same MAGA churchgoers were watching women’s basketball in 2021?
No; they were statistically the same. You do not understand what "error bars" are. CC did not differentiate herself from anyone else in the field with her numbers. Period.
When you look at her last games going into the break, they were very different numbers.
"Not a lot of folks are setting their alarms for the start."
If only there was a player that has shown that people will change their habits to watch women's basketball...
According to JP, a lot of people can’t watch a 9:00 basketball game because it’s past their bedtime. I would think those people would be up and going by 6:30am.
FUNFACT: People stay up late to watch games all the time. They do not "get up early" and skip church to watch games.
You're struggling with the fact that the numbers over the period listed are consistent.
So now CC would have changed all of this...
She probably would have played fewer minutes than Taurasi after turning the ball over 10+ times against Belgium. You do remember that she was not "the star" in the WNBA AS game, right?
Similar threads
