Overall Thoughts on Anthony Davis' First Year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saintsinNO

Meaning??

---

I thought it was pretty clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOLa.

I don't think AD will put on 20 lbs. in one offseason. He needs to work up to that weight.

---

He could put on 2lbs or he could put on 30. No one can say for certain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

I could put on 2lbs or he could put on 30. No one can say for certain.

---

I'm no physical therapist but if he put a quick 30 lbs on I think it might increase the risk of a knee injury. 82 games is a lot of wear and tear so I always feel athletes try to do too much coming into the league.

Heh I guess you can call me a worrier. Every game I hope nothing serious happens to AD knees because we see it ruin a lot of promising careers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOLa.

I'm no physical therapist but if he put a quick 30 lbs on I think it might increase the risk of a knee injury. 82 games is a lot of wear and tear so I always feel athletes try to do too much coming into the league.

Heh I guess you can call me a worrier. Every game I hope nothing serious happens to AD knees because we see it ruin a lot of promising careers.

---

A quick 30 pounds. Are we talking test or deca?

USA Today article on Davis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bojangles837

A quick 30 pounds. Are we talking test or deca?

---

Some people on here want him to be over 255+ by start of next season. To me that's quick and pushing it, but they don't have to take it from me. He'll be lucky to be steady at 235 by next season unless he puts on serious muscle.

Yeah I think 235 is fair, anything over that is a bonus. 240 and I would be ecstatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 42

I thought it was pretty clear.

---

Saying "[w]hen the season ends, dig into the numbers. I was surprised when I did[.]" isn't clear on anything. I was alluding to what you concluded based on your number crunching. What numbers specifically? What do they tend to show/your conclusions based on them? Why are they surprising?

You know, you don't always have to be an condescending person (substituted word) on here, people will read and listen to you so long as you have something of substance to say. If you found something out that you think is good information and decide to share it then do that, but don't post some generic statement and then be condescending when people ask you to clarify it. I know you fancy yourself some sort of philosopher, but take it easy, it's Hornetsreport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saintsinNO

Saying "[w]hen the season ends, dig into the numbers. I was surprised when I did[.]" isn't clear on anything. I was alluding to what you concluded based on your number crunching. What numbers specifically? What do they tend to show/your conclusions based on them? Why are they surprising?

You know, you don't always have to be an condescending person (substituted word) on here, people will read and listen to you so long as you have something of substance to say. If you found something out that you think is good information and decide to share it then do that, but don't post some generic statement and then be condescending when people ask you to clarify it. I know you fancy yourself some sort of philosopher, but take it easy, it's Hornetsreport.

---

Several things:

1) I think when he said "dig into the numbers. I was surprised when I did," I think he means he was pleasantly surprised with how well Davis was performing. I did several pieces comparing Davis' advanced metrics to guys like Howard and Garnett in their rookie years, and he trumped them both in almost every single category.

2) 42 has a unique posting style that you don't really get unless you know him personally or unless you just read his stuff enough to understand what he is getting at. I am going to assume that you don't know him well, so you probably see it as condescending tone, but he's really just a goof ball. That's his style, and he's harmless (mostly).

3) 42 is also a professor, so he has that natural way about him of, "hey, I'm not going to just give you the answer. If you learn how to look it up, you'll be better off for it." Now, perhaps he could have provided you a link or something, but he isn't trying to be a jerk. That's just who he is.

By the way, here is a link to one of my threads comparing Garnett, Howard, and Davis:

http://www.pelicansreport.com/showth...s-vs-The-Field

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nolaslim213

Several things:

1) I think when he said "dig into the numbers. I was surprised when I did," I think he means he was pleasantly surprised with how well Davis was performing. I did several pieces comparing Davis' advanced metrics to guys like Howard and Garnett in their rookie years, and he trumped them both in almost every single category.

2) 42 has a unique posting style that you don't really get unless you know him personally or unless you just read his stuff enough to understand what he is getting at. I am going to assume that you don't know him well, so you probably see it as condescending tone, but he's really just a goof ball. That's his style, and he's harmless (mostly).

3) 42 is also a professor, so he has that natural way about him of, "hey, I'm not going to just give you the answer. If you learn how to look it up, you'll be better off for it." Now, perhaps he could have provided you a link or something, but he isn't trying to be a jerk. That's just who he is.

By the way, here is a link to one of my threads comparing Garnett, Howard, and Davis:

http://www.pelicansreport.com/showth...s-vs-The-Field

---

Thank you very much, and I would assume then that it's because I don't know how to take him because I have seen quite a few times were I think "jerk" as you put it. But ok, I appologize.

Back on point, I am also very excited and pleased with how he is doing. The only thing I think has to be taken with those numbers at first glance for some perspective (haven't read full reading yet) is that both of those guys were straight out of highschool and there were better big men in the league at that time. But I 100% agree, he is developing very very well.

First, I mean dig into the data. That means work, as slim put it. Or find where I 'hid' the info in plain sight. The former is very clear. The latter is kind of an implication.

Or ask me what surprised me. Or was it pleasant?

Second, I did not type enough to be condescending. Please don't fill my words with bad assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 42

First, I mean dig into the data. That means work, as slim put it. Or find where I 'hid' the info in plain sight. The former is very clear. The latter is kind of an implication.

Or ask me what surprised me. Or was it pleasant?

Second, I did not type enough to be condescending. Please don't fill my words with bad assumptions.

---

42 you sound like my Philosophy teacher I had last semester. lol. You don't happen to teach at UL, do you?

Not meant in a bad way. That class was mind boggling. haha

The daily conflicts of an Internet board.

Never taught there.

I did study a good bit of philosophy.

I take it as a compliment regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 42

First, I mean dig into the data. That means work, as slim put it. Or find where I 'hid' the info in plain sight. The former is very clear. The latter is kind of an implication.

Or ask me what surprised me. Or was it pleasant?

Second, I did not type enough to be condescending. Please don't fill my words with bad assumptions.

---

Like I said, you fancy yourself a philosopher and apparently you are a professor, but let's be simple about it, you like to say things in a short, condescending and 'matter-of-fact' manner. It's not an assumption, I asked you what you meant and you chose to again be short and condescending instead of clarifying or answering. This isn't a classroom or some lesson, you are just a person on here like everyone else (although it's pretty clear from what I've read that you have a high opinion of yourself and thoughts).

No one said you 'hid' anything, but this is a discussion forum, not a classroom. No one needs you to teach us how to crunch numbers. Everyone who posted had either numbers, view points or both. You threw out a short, generic comment that added nothing to the discussion, I asked you to clarify and, instead of doing that, you continued with your self-important tone of voice.

It's adorable that you feel your pseudo-sophisticated grammar in your posts and philosophical quotes make you or what you have to say (or generically allude to) more important than anyone else. If that's just 'who you are,' then so be it, but let's not play innocent, you're a pompous person (again, you know what I mean).

Stephen A., is that you? :hihi:

42 means no harm and perhaps you need to take a step back as you are clearly upset. He said dig into the numbers after the season is over. I thought it was pretty clear, too. You posted his basic stats but there is much more out there and some of the numbers on AD are pretty mind blowing.

Don't get offended simply because you posted the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Haze

Stephen A., is that you? :hihi:

42 means no harm and perhaps you need to take a step back as you are clearly upset. He said dig into the numbers after the season is over. I thought it was pretty clear, too. You posted his basic stats but there is much more out there and some of the numbers on AD are pretty mind blowing.

Don't get offended simply because you posted the thread.

---

I'm not upset at all; I'm calling it how I see it. The dude is pompous.

As someone who has met him and watched a game alongside him, no he is not. :hihi:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Haze

As someone who has met him and watched a game alongside him, no he is not. :hihi:

---

As someone who has read his posts over a period of time and doesn't know him, on Hornetsreport, yes he is. Hence the 'call it how I see it.'

First, the words you use indicate an assumption on my part of some superiority. This is false. If you feel I am superior, thanks, but no thanks.

Second, matter-of-fact is kind of opposite of condescending.

Third, seems like we are discussing me because you didn't get the answer to a question you did not ask. If you had stayed on topic, this all may have been easier. And I never said it was a classroom; again, go read the words just as I read yours and note that you did not ask for what it seems you want.

Fourth, you seem to have a disproportionate curiosity for the analysis dripping in fancy "grammar" that you denigrate.

Fifth, below is the link for which you never asked or were even polite enough to merit anyone giving it to you, but I'll put the best foot forward here.

http://www.hornets247.com/2013/03/24...ut-of-nowhere/

You're welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 42

Never taught there.

I did study a good bit of philosophy.

I take it as a compliment regardless.

---

It was intended as such.

I don't see why, if you don't like that way he post, just skip over it instead of insulting unless you were interested in some sort of a reconciliation? His opinion clearly means something to you since you wanted to know the meaning, and if it does mean something, then you have to play by his rules. If not, skip it and move on. Just my opinion.

The truth is I hate when posts are about me (or any of us) instead of the franchise.

I also HATE posting links in which I have an interest. That is not why I am here and really don't like it appearing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 42

First, the words you use indicate an assumption on my part of some superiority. This is false. If you feel I am superior, thanks, but no thanks.

Second, matter-of-fact is kind of opposite of condescending.

Third, seems like we are discussing me because you didn't get the answer to a question you did not ask. If you had stayed on topic, this all may have been easier. And I never said it was a classroom; again, go read the words just as I read yours and note that you did not ask for what it seems you want.

Fourth, you seem to have a disproportionate curiosity for the analysis dripping in fancy "grammar" that you denigrate.

Fifth, below is the link for which you never asked or were even polite enough to merit anyone giving it to you, but I'll put the best foot forward here.

http://www.hornets247.com/2013/03/24...ut-of-nowhere/

You're welcome.

---

First, I don’t think you are superior. I think you feel you are based on the manner in which you post.

Second, there is no such thing as ‘kind of opposite,’ but even so, matter-of-fact would be kind of opposite being circuitous. Matter-of-fact is short and, in an environment of discussion, it is rude and/or condescending.

Third, when I said “meaning??” it means what was your intended indication (?), as is the definition of ‘meaning.’

Fourth, like I said, playing innocent, I am calling it how it is.

Fifth, you chose to bring it to that level with your “I though it was clear” comment. I’m not going to meet to condescension with politeness. Discuss or clarify, otherwise, yes it’s condescending.

You’re welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 42

The truth is I hate when posts are about me (or any of us) instead of the franchise.

I also HATE posting links in which I have an interest. That is not why I am here and really don't like it appearing so.

---

If you are so intent and focused on discussing the team I'm not sure why a person asking the meaing of your comment about stats and a conclusion based on those stats (which contains neither a stat or a conclusion) is met with "I thought it was pretty clear" instead of discussion about what you meant or found.