“The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King
God no. If I have to explain myself Google is not your friend. That, and no way in hell Bledsoe is going anywhere unless it's a salary dump.
DeRozan could post 30 ppg on 52% shooting with 6rpg and 8apg and people here would still complain about the guy.....Its disgusting.
The fact that Demar has essentially the same defensive rating as Tony Allen is enough to tell me that this stat is completely meaningless.
There are a multiple of problems with a single stat.
1) This stat does not pass the eye test - in other words if you watch the game you know DD is not a great defender.
2) His defensive rating at Basketball-Reference.com is 110. At NBA.com it is 104.3. Neither are good.
3) His net on court/off court is negative.
4) His win share per theNBAgeek.com is still below average but to his credit he has raised it to +3.4 this season after +1.7/+1.7/-1.4 in his 1st/2nd/3rd seasons.
5) The statistic does not factor in who he guards. DeRozan rarely to never guards the other teams best perimeter player.
So when looking at a single stat, yes, awesome, way to go DeMar! But when looking at a bigger picture he is not a good defensive player.
"Championships are what we live for, now lets go win them."Tim Leiweke
Basketball has clear winners every night --except at the draft, which is all homework, politics and chance.
"You never heard of DeMar just google him, the defense don't know what to do wit him"
DD's defense is not my issue.. it's weak but if you had a guy with subpar defense you'd want it to be one of the guard's. My concern is his inconsistency on offense, and how his game relies too much on the mid-range shot. In basketball (especially in the playoffs) you need an easy score. The highest percentage shot in the game is a dunk.
Derozan knows how to dunk, but he rarely ever does it.
Comments like Matt52's are a perfect example of why comments like thead's "This is a perfect example of why I find stats flawed." are moronic.
@Rapstor4Life: How delusional do you have to be to believe that? Statistically, he would be LeBron and I guarantee every single Raptors fan would love for DeRozan to produce like that. What a terrible argument and (I think) you know it.
Last edited by TRX; Tue Apr 23rd, 2013 at 11:35 AM.
There's a reason so many guys at the top (some of them pretty average or even bad defenders) are wings, especially SGs (the weakest position in the league right now). SG especially is one weak-ass position. Basically if your opponent has a bad shooting night, he's not likely to contribute in another way, or at least much less likely to than bigs, PGs, or SF (which is a the stronger of the wing positions).
Any stat alone needs to be taken with a grain of salt, compared to other stats and an objective eye-test of watching games. Relying on blind stats, especially when cherry-picked to support a pre-conceived opinion, is flawed... isn't it???
Nope. Stats aren't flawed. Stats without context are flawed and flawed stats are flawed and stats can be misinterpreted, but I would certainly not say stats are flawed. And that's my point. thead didn't say this stat was flawed; he said stats, plural, are flawed. And I interpreted this to mean thead has a general distrust of stats. If I'm wrong and that's not what he meant, my bad, but to summarily dismiss stats because some don't confirm your preconceived notions is a flawed approach to stats, not a flaw of the stats.
Last edited by TRX; Tue Apr 23rd, 2013 at 11:56 AM.
No, because quite frankly, stats without context are not stats at all. They're just numbers. Unless you don't find there to be a difference between information and data. I guess it depends on what he meant by "stats are flawed", but that's obviously hard to tell with a one liner post.
Also, I guess I edited my post again while you were replying, rofl
That's why I like Matt's post, which showed how a variety of other equally credible/flawed stats could paint an entirely different picture of DeRozan's defense prowess (or lack thereof). Regardless of the stat in question, there's a lot of other qualitative data that needs to be analysed in order to evaluate the credibility of each specific quantitative statistic.
So really, we agree for the most part on the bigger picture. We just interpreted thead's post differently, lol
I guess the other thing too is defensive stats are definitely behind offensive stats and other stats in terms of sophistication and "accuracy", for lack of a better term - and the stats community for the most part agrees on this, I think.
Guys, we all know DeMar isn't a good defender. He showd up on single stat that says otherwise so lets just laugh it off and be happy for him even though we know that the way that single stat is being used in this tread is flawed.
I'm already feeling bad for JV, knowing that everyone is going to rip him to shreds once the franchise status gets put on his shoulders.
Opp PER is useful in context, like many have said. The context being Demar is a SG and it's only fair to compare his numbers to other SG (as some noted, C's have a higher opp PER due to playing more efficient opponents than a SG, that's why you compare by position). It's the same with regular PER, where PG's average a higher PER than any other position due to all the assists they get.
It's pretty easy using the link to drill down a little further into these defensive rankings. When you look at On/Off court +/- you see that Demar being on court doesn't result in a better point differential. Everyone else in the top 10 has a positive point differential, so it's clear something is different about what Demar brings to the table than other guys, especially considering how shitty our bench is, we shouldn't be better with Demar off the court.
See how easy that was? I didn't need to throw the stats in the garbage just because I've seen Demar play and know he isn't a great defender. The stats actually spelled that out quite clearly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)