EastonBlues22
Registered User
No, it's not the same, because the answer is much more nuanced than that. Variance plays a role, and that's what I assumed you were getting at earlier when you were talking about pixie dust or whatever. Usage plays a role. Health plays a role. Who he plays with and how they're playing factors in, as does who he plays against and how they're playing. A whole lot of things undoubtedly matter, and nobody can precisely determine which of them affects the outcome by how much. The mix is different every year, and each ingredient likely affects him a different amount every year.How do you explain his SH% if it's so high and unsustainable? How did it happen? You called it random.... did he just have two full seasons where random actions fell in his favor? Wouldn't that be the same as calling him lucky?
Two full seasons, which equate to more than half the games he's played.
A large number of those things are beyond his control,...the variance, how the coach uses him, who he's playing with and how well they are playing, his health, etc. It's just as incorrect to imply that his improvement the last two years is all because of him, and thus perfectly sustainable, as it is to imply that it is not sustainable because it's completely due to "luck."
Why is it unlikely to be sustainable then? The short answer is that because it's really, really hard to sustain a shooting percentage that high. Nobody else is doing it right now, and it's been difficult to do historically. If nobody else is doing it, either playing his style or not, and it has been difficult to do historically, then it's unlikely that Lee will sustain it. Not impossible. Just unlikely.
I've presented much more nuanced and complete versions of that argument previously in here, but that's the simplified gist. Much of the rest of the discussion taking place is tangential.
As I've said before, maybe he's the one that does it when no one else (currently) can. I'm not saying that sarcastically. I really mean that.
Last edited: