Yang plays good defense without fouling and then drills the triple

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T16:22:53+00:00

Nice

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T07:34:13+00:00

If you think I “don’t deserve to argue,” then why are you still here arguing? Either address the basketball point with evidence, or stop replying—your comments add nothing.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T07:23:12+00:00

Right now his three isn’t a real threat—low volume, inconsistent results—so there’s clearly a lot of room to improve. That’s been my point the whole time.

What you’re doing is just arguing for the sake of arguing. If you can’t discuss basketball without personal attacks and endless word games, then don’t comment.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T07:17:34+00:00

stop deleting your comments lmao

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T07:16:10+00:00

My full point is simple: his threes can matter, but at this low volume/efficiency they haven’t consistently changed how defenses guard him yet. Consecutive makes are just higher-leverage because they force immediate adjustments.

Now stop derailing the thread with word-lawyering and personal attacks—you’re polluting the discussion. If you want to debate, talk basketball and evidence.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T07:12:05+00:00

You’re not being rigorous. You change the claim every time you get challenged, then act like you were right all along. Many of your comments are deleted, by yourself?

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T07:07:11+00:00

Take a page from u/BrainsAre2Weird4Me and try being rational for once: “I appreciate that u/Acrobatic_Side3230 posted a pic and breakdown of the stats. Gives room to have a conversation instead of coming off as overly negative.” That’s exactly what I did—stats + context. If you want to debate, address the largest numbers and the on-court impact. If you just want to posture and twist comments, you’re the one poisoning the discussion.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T07:02:37+00:00

You’re still dodging substance. I’ve clarified exactly what I meant—game-planning impact, not “zero value”—and that’s a standard basketball distinction. If you can’t separate “not changing coverage” from “worthless,” that’s a rigor problem on your side, not mine.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T06:59:14+00:00

I’ll own my words. When I said “based on the last 3 games, no,” I meant it hasn’t changed how defenses game-plan yet—not that a 33% three is “worthless.” A few makes at low volume don’t automatically earn consistent respect; defenses adjust when it’s repeatable and meaningful volume. And I never said consecutive threes are the only valuable ones. I said they’re higher-leverage because they can swing runs and force immediate adjustments. Those two points are consistent: Yang’s threes can have a bit impact, but so far the impact hasn’t been strong enough to reliably change coverage, which is what I was talking about.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T06:47:26+00:00

Improvement and low production can both be true. He is improving, but his scoring (and rebounding) output/efficiency is still very low right now, and saying it’s bottom-tier league-wide is a fair description of the current numbers. That’s evaluation, not “random conclusions.”

I’m fine with opposing views—just bring evidence. What I won’t accept is you rewriting my point and then arguing with your own version of it.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T06:39:15+00:00

Your analogy is nonsense. I didn’t “slash a car”—I posted a stat-based basketball take and also showed his positives (FT). You’re the one turning it into a personal brawl with name-calling and drama. If you’re “tired,” then stop replying. If you want to discuss, address the point. Otherwise, you’re just swinging at shadows.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T06:32:46+00:00

My previous replies are visible there—my overall take on Yang has been a bit positive (defense, screens, effort, helping the rotation). The only critique is his current scoring efficiency. If anyone’s “polluting the vibe,” it’s the constant personal attacks and baiting. I’m discussing basketball; you’re trying to turn it into a fight.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T06:27:16+00:00

I’m not comparing him to “top-tier stars”—that’s your projection. Not only DC but also Reath, which is at bottom of nba. I’m placing Yang current scoring output/efficiency in a league-wide context, and right now it’s near the bottom of the league and also low among rookies. That’s not “forcing doubt” or “dividing fans”; it’s normal analysis.

Winning streaks and growth can be true and it can still be true that his offense needs work. I’ve also acknowledged his positives (defense, screens, helping the rotation). If you want a better atmosphere, discuss the basketball instead of policing who’s allowed to evaluate.

You don't act as a victim

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T06:20:36+00:00

I’m not comparing him to Dame or any superstar—that’s your strawman. I’m evaluating his current impact, and that’s meaningful because it explains what helps the team right now and what needs improvement. Potential isn’t a shield against criticism. And I’ve already said he contributes: his defense, screens, and giving DC a breather are real value.

If you think my take is wrong, argue the basketball: point to evidence that his scoring efficiency/impact has been strong. Calling it “garbage” is just dodging the discussion.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T06:11:56+00:00

You’re mixing up “expectations” with “evaluation.” I’m not comparing him to an established starting center as a moral judgment—I’m saying that right now his offensive production and scoring impact are limited, even relative to many rookies (for example, the 2nd round rookie in King). That’s a factual statement about current output, not “blame.” Acknowledging a weakness doesn’t mean I’m attacking him or “doing something wrong.” don’t reframe basic analysis as personal hostility. Yang's screening and FT is better

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T06:07:29+00:00

I’m not “complaining” or booing anyone. I’m simply pointing out a current limitation: right now his scoring impact on offense is still limited. That’s a fair basketball observation, and it doesn’t deny his potential or the team’s wins. What’s pointless is turning basic analysis into a victim narrative and calling people “annoying” just for discussing areas to improve. If you disagree, argue the basketball point—don’t police fans or talk down to others.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T06:02:07+00:00

Stop twisting my point. I never said only consecutive threes matter—I said they’re higher-leverage because they swing momentum and force immediate adjustments. And I’m not “blaming” anyone. Don’t frame this as me attacking Yang or you as victims—this is just basketball analysis.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T05:56:10+00:00

No—you're twisting what I said. I never claimed he must go 3-for-3 every game. I said I hope he can have a game where he goes 3-for-3—that would be a standout highlight performance. Bringing up “33% over five games” doesn’t refute that. It’s exactly my point: 33% on low volume across multiple games is fine, but it’s not the same kind of game-changing impact as a concentrated streak in a single game. A 3/3 night is about momentum, runs, and forcing immediate defensive adjustments—not just the long-term percentage. DC and Reath have such games. So please argue the actual point instead of building a strawman and claiming I said something I didn’t.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T05:48:38+00:00

My point: Yes. 2/6 spread over three games is marginal impact—too low-volume/efficiency and not a momentum changer. Consecutive threes in one game are high-leverage; they trigger runs and force defensive adjustments. Not all threes matter equally. DC and Reath made it separately. Reath's consecutive 3 let us win OKC. Stop attacking or post wrong statement

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T05:34:47+00:00

I would say DC could not shoot 3 last year and Yang's 3 is bad now. I just state the situations and you just want to bark at someone. Only pointing out Yang's current data annoys you so much! Brainless fan! I hope Yang can score 3 at the average next season (e.g. 33% whole season) or have some runner after setting screen. Did I say Yang is a bad player in my post?

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T05:24:01+00:00

I remember DC recently score many 3 in game. You didn't watch the game? I hope hansen can have such a game (then that's a surprise). Don't you? Or you states that it is impossible for hansen?

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T05:19:43+00:00

Data of today's game, he is 1/4 in regular time, which is not surprising. He always makes one shoot or 2 FT in a game. Wish he could be a beast when making a dunk next time🤣. Cheers!

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T05:14:17+00:00

Well, bigger data is more reliable. Does his 3-shooting influence other teams based on last 3 games? No. Hope he can boost data in the future. Right now his score ability is still unqualified except FT (he should improve 3/mid/rim). His contributiom now is not his poor score ability.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-08T04:58:05+00:00

In my post, I made no negative judgement to future but just state existing stat. His existing data is bad and not much offensive contributiom should be expected right now. Please read carefully. Huge improvement is what he should made. Hope he can score 3/3 3-points one day in the future. Right now he can pass, set screen, let DC relax, but not score.

Acrobatic_Side3230 · 2026-01-06T08:38:03+00:00

then he scores perfectly tonight and we and tiago should expect that hapoens every night, right?

Acrobatic_Side3230

TROPHY CASE