Lakers @ Suns Tuesday game thread

[Phrazbit]

Let's take these numbers:

FG%:

1-3 / 33.3% / Awful
1-3 / 33.3% / Awful
5-6 / 83.3% / On Fire
2-7 / 28.6% / Awful
1-3 / 33.3% / Awful
2-5 / 40% / Mediocre
6-10 / 60% / On Fire
3-9 / 33.3% / Awful

3 Point FG %:

1-3 / 33% / Poor
1-3 / 33% / Poor
2-3 / 66.7% / On Fire
1-5 / 20% / Awful
0-1 / 0% / Awful
1-2 / 50% / Excellent
3-5 / 60% / On Fire
3-8 / 37.5% / Average

What am I missing here?

Logic.

 

[1Sun]

Logic.

Is my math off? Because if it's not, logic is very much in my favor here, particularly against the ridiculous claim that he is improving every game...

 

[sdscard4]

Cam Johnson wasn't the reason they lost, but outside of two games, he has given them nothing.

Is my math off? Because if it's not, logic is very much in my favor here, particularly against the ridiculous claim that he is improving every game...

Your the one who said he couldnt play with NBA players. Now that youve been proven wrong you just cant help but point out every little thing just to get some of your ' i gotta be right' back. Enjoy the kid and watch him grow cause hes going to be a good one

 

[JCSunsfan]

This game was a really good measuring stick for this Suns team. The Lakers should be title contenders this year. The Suns played right with them through the whole game.

The Lakers do not have much outside shooting but they are so good around the rim. Goes to show that just about the time you think the NBA is changed one way for good, it changes again. It was about big threes (Miami), then about sharpshooting (GS), then about team play (Toronto), now about interior scoring (maybe?).

I would so much love to steal AD away from the Lakers in free agency.

The Lakers are an old team. They are good and should contend as long as they can remain healthy. The Suns really do need DA back. I am not for playing him at C except along side Baynes for stretches. Baynes toughness, D, passing, and outside shooting make it possible. It will be interesting to see.

 

[Chaplin]

No surprise, but the Lakers are indeed sitting Anthony Davis tonight against the Warriors.

 

[JCSunsfan]

No surprise, but the Lakers are indeed sitting Anthony Davis tonight against the Warriors.

They probably think they can beat them without him.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Is my math off? Because if it's not, logic is very much in my favor here, particularly against the ridiculous claim that he is improving every game...

I don't know who said that but it certainly hasn't been a major part of this conversation and I doubt it was meant literally. The only way to improve every game is to retire shortly after you've played a game or two. Not one single player has ever improved "every game" so don't tie up your absurd argument over that one.

And assuming that you have actually watched a basketball game and have at least a general familiarity with the box score and stats, you know very well what you're pulling here. When a player shoots 1 for 3, all from distance, that is NOT "awful", that is not a player that is "unable to hit the broad side of a barn". Just like when a player goes 0 for 1, that's nowhere near my definition of awful (or anyone's IMO). So, unless you're predicting the future, Cameron does not have 6 awful shooting games so far.

 

[1Sun]

I don't know who said that but it certainly hasn't been a major part of this conversation and I doubt it was meant literally. The only way to improve every game is to retire shortly after you've played a game or two. Not one single player has ever improved "every game" so don't tie up your absurd argument over that one.

And assuming that you have actually watched a basketball game and have at least a general familiarity with the box score and stats, you know very well what you're pulling here. When a player shoots 1 for 3, all from distance, that is NOT "awful", that is not a player that is "unable to hit the broad side of a barn". Just like when a player goes 0 for 1, that's nowhere near my definition of awful (or anyone's IMO). So, unless you're predicting the future, Cameron does not have 6 awful shooting games so far.

Outside of his two "on fire" games, he is 10-30 from the field. 33.3%. How is that not a sustained "awful"?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Outside of his two "on fire" games, he is 10-30 from the field. 33.3%. How is that not a sustained "awful"?

Lol. The old “only counting games and stats that you want” argument. So funny.

 

[1Sun]

Lol. The old “only counting games and stats that you want” argument. So funny.

And if he had two bad games and six good games, I would consider the good the norm and the bad the outliers.

Thus far, and last night's numbers fell right in line with this, Cam has shown himself to be...a 33% shooter who can occasionally get hot every 4th or 5th game. Basically the wing version of Alex Len.

 

[Phrazbit]

Is my math off? Because if it's not, logic is very much in my favor here, particularly against the ridiculous claim that he is improving every game...

Your application of math is idiotic... or rather suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You're not applying any logic. You're taking a small sample size, in which the overall result is very good, and breaking it down into even smaller bits and proclaiming a 1-3 game is poor, a 1-2 game is excellent. There is no logic there... it's idiocy.

But, tell me more about how his shot is too slow to even get off in the NBA.

 

[Mainstreet]

For the most part stats are averaged unless one wants to look at game logs for specifics.

BTW, it is way too early to draw any conclusions about Cam but I am impressed by his sweet looking shot and quick release. Once he hits his stride... watch out.

 

[1Sun]

Your application of math is idiotic... or rather suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You're not applying any logic. You're taking a small sample size, in which the overall result is very good, and breaking it down into even smaller bits and proclaiming a 1-3 game is poor, a 1-2 game is excellent. There is no logic there... it's idiocy.

But, tell me more about how his shot is too slow to even get off in the NBA.

The "overall result" is NOT "very good". Shooting wise, he has had two outstanding games and over ALL of the remaining games, he is a 33% shooter...and he has brought nothing else to the table.

This reminds me of Packers fans going nuts over Darrius Shepherd earlier this season because he had one good preseason game. Turns out he really did NOT belong in the NFL.

Just please note that based on similar situations, what the likes of you are saying about Cam Johnson now is exactly what people once said about Zarko Cabarkapa and Casey Jacobsen...oh, and Dragan Bender ("his form looks so smooth...just wait until he comes around").

The fact is, more often than not, players don't just "come around". For example, Casey Jacobsen had one of the sweetest looking shooting forms I have ever seen. The problem is that in NBA games, no matter how pretty his shot looked, he just couldn't get the ball to go in the darn hoop often enough, and like Cam Johnson, he brought nothing else to the table.

I have brought up a number of comparisons, but the more I think about it, the more I conclude that Cam Johnson is a 6'8" Casey Jacobsen.

 

[Phrazbit]

The "overall result" is NOT "very good". Shooting wise, he has had two outstanding games and over ALL of the remaining games, he is a 33% shooter...and he has brought nothing else to the table.

This reminds me of Packers fans going nuts over Darrius Shepherd earlier this season because he had one good preseason game. Turns out he really did NOT belong in the NFL.

Just please note that based on similar situations, what the likes of you are saying about Cam Johnson now is exactly what people once said about Zarko Cabarkapa and Casey Jacobsen.

Under the same idiotic use of numbers we can take out his 2 worst games and he is a 46% 3pt shooter! A better shooter than Klay Thompson in his best seasons!

You've presented some trash arguments... this is the trashiest of the trash.

At least when you said his release was too slow I could just assume you hadn't actually watched a second of him playing and were talking out your ass. This argument on the other hand... wow... just wow. Some real mental gymnastics going on.

 

[1Sun]

Under the same idiotic use of numbers we can take out his 2 worst games and he is a 46% 3pt shooter! A better shooter than Klay Thompson in his best seasons!

You've presented some trash arguments... this is the trashiest of the trash.

At least when you said his release was too slow I could just assume you hadn't actually watched a second of him playing and were talking out your ass. This argument on the other hand... wow... just wow. Some real mental gymnastics going on.

You've never taken a statistics course, have you? Are you at all familiar with the concept of norms and outliers?

As I said before, if he only 2 bad games, with the rest of the games being good, I would write off the bad games. The fact, though, is that the vast majority of his games have been bad, and he has had a couple of aberrations in the form of good games.

 

[Phrazbit]

You've never taken a statistics course, have you? Are you at all familiar with the concept of norms and outliers?

As I said before, if he only 2 bad games, with the rest of the games being good, I would write off the bad games. The fact, though, is that the vast majority of his games have been bad, and he has had a couple of aberrations in the form of good games.

And if you take out his two WORST games instead of his two best he has put up a better percentage than elite players.

This is YOUR pathetic "logic" at play... just being inverted against your ridiculous bias.

Have you taken a statistic course?

 

[1Sun]

And if you take out his two WORST games instead of his two best he has put up a better percentage than elite players.

This is YOUR pathetic "logic" at play... just being inverted against your ridiculous bias.

Have you taken a statistic course?

If the worst games are more in line with the norm, you DO NOT write them off as aberrations.

Plot the games on a graph, take out the obvious aberrations, and you have his projected course.

Turns out it is right at 33.3%...

 

[Phrazbit]

If the worst games are more in line with the norm, you DO NOT write them off as aberrations.

Plot the games on a graph, take out the obvious aberrations, and you have his projected course.

Turns out it is right at 33.3%...

lol, run the exact same chart and remove the two worst instead of the two best...

...

HOLY SMOKES! The theory crumbles! Damn logic!

Again... tell me more about his painfully slow shot that he can't even get off in the NBA.

I love you trying to throw deep stat crunching in a sample size so small that you yourself conclude "1-2 is excellent! 1-3 awful!"

Honestly, I am cracking up at the contortions.

 

[Mainstreet]

So what does Cam playing 8 games out of an 82 game schedule or over the course of a career tell you... not much.

I must say it is absurd to formulate an opinion on a very small sample size. Even so Cams number are quite decent over this period.

https://www.espn.com/nba/player/_/id/3138196/cameron-johnson

 

[1Sun]

So what does Cam playing 8 games out of an 82 game schedule or over the course of a career tell you... not much.

I must say it is absurd to formulate an opinion on a very small sample size. Even so Cams number are quite decent over this period.

https://www.espn.com/nba/player/_/id/3138196/cameron-johnson

Until you take out the two outliers and focus on the norm.

But some other genius poster would have you believe it is more logical and statistically sound just to take two random games, or better yet the two games that happen to fit his narrative, to arrive at the norm...

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

If the worst games are more in line with the norm, you DO NOT write them off as aberrations.

Plot the games on a graph, take out the obvious aberrations, and you have his projected course.

Turns out it is right at 33.3%...

I have a few issues with your argument.

First off you are trying to use a small sample size of 8 games to try and draw some sort of conclusion which is very flawed, but on top of that you want to narrow that down to an even smaller 6 game sample to try and prove your point.

Secondly you are talking almost exclusively about games where he had very few minutes and very few shot attempts and are trying to draw a major conclusion from that. A small sample size within a small sample size.

You could argue that we could remove any game where he took very few shots due to not getting enough minutes to take more and if we for instance only use games with at least 5 shots attempted than we are looking at a total of 18/37 (10/23 from 3) in 5 games. Though that would also be flawed by the fact that we are talking about a small sample of games.

Ultimately we need more games to make any sort of conclusion of what type of shooter/scorer he will be at the NBA level, but IMO the games where he has actually gotten a decent amount of shots up he has looked quite good.

 

[1Sun]

I have a few issues with your argument.

First off you are trying to use a small sample size of 8 games to try and draw some sort of conclusion which is very flawed, but on top of that you want to narrow that down to an even smaller 6 game sample to try and prove your point.

Secondly you are talking almost exclusively about games where he had very few minutes and very few shot attempts and are trying to draw a major conclusion from that. A small sample size within a small sample size.

You could argue that we could remove any game where he took very few shots due to not getting enough minutes to take more and if we for instance only use games with at least 5 shots attempted than we are looking at a total of 18/37 (10/23 from 3) in 5 games. Though that would also be flawed by the fact that we are talking about a small sample of games.

Ultimately we need more games to make any sort of conclusion of what type of shooter/scorer he will be at the NBA level, but IMO the games where he has actually gotten a decent amount of shots up he has looked quite good.

Like yesterday, when he shot 3 for 9 (there's that 33% number again)?

 

[Phrazbit]

Until you take out the two outliers and focus on the norm.

But some other genius poster would have you believe it is more logical and statistically sound just to take two random games, or better yet the two games that happen to fit his narrative, to arrive at the norm...

lol... a guy averaging 40% shooting, the "outliers" are games when he shot 60% and not when he shot 0%. But I am supposedly the one forcing a narrative... not the guy who thinks Cam Johnson has a shooting motion too slow to even get a shot off.

You... are... a... riot...

You know... in actual statistics you'd take the top and bottom outlier out. It is still absurd to do so with such a small sample size, but at least your trolling wouldn't be so blatant.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Like yesterday, when he shot 3 for 9 (there's that 33% number again)?

It's almost like you completely ignore everything anyone says in order to stick with your completely ridiculous point. I think there is a term for that...

 

[1Sun]

It's almost like you completely ignore everything anyone says in order to stick with your completely ridiculous point. I think there is a term for that...

YOU are the one who concluded that you thought "the games where he has actually gotten a decent amount of shots up he has looked quite good".

Yesterday he got a decent amount of shots up (the second most this season). Did he "look quite good" or was he right in his 33% norm?