Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We already have the perfect SF

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    DanH wrote: View Post
    It can be argued by presenting evidence of a low-usage/low-efficiency guy who does not hurt the offense. And your reasoning appears to apply to low usage players in general, not just low efficiency ones - whether the low usage player is efficient or not, his teammates end up using the same amount of possessions since he isn't using them. And yet I doubt you'd expect a negative impact from low usage, high efficiency players like Battier or even our own Amir Johnson. Your expectations are valid (although ultimately I would argue incorrect), but your reasoning appears to be flawed.



    I can do that! Here is how the team played for each of the starters when they played with and without Fields.

    With Fields / Without Fields [Fields Impact]

    DeMar: 110 ORTG 103.3 DRTG / 108.9 ORTG 106.5 DRTG [+1.1 ORTG, -3.2 DRTG, +4.3 RTG]
    Lowry: 110.9 ORTG 100.7 DRTG / 110.9 ORTG 106.5 DRTG [0.0 ORTG, -5.8 DRTG, +5.8 RTG]
    Amir: 111.9 ORTG 97.7 DRTG / 109.1 ORTG 106.8 DRTG [+2.8 ORTG, -9.1 DRTG, +11.9 RTG]

    Jonas and Ross both had very small samples playing with Fields so I excluded them*. Note the tremendous defensive impact, and the overall positive though close to neutral offensive impact. This support the APM data I quoted above - any negative impact is probably due to the crap lineups he tends to play with, as his individual impact is generally very positive overall and close to break-even on offense.

    * Full disclosure, JV and Ross both had negative impacts from playing with Fields (very large ones actually) but I really do attribute that to them playing a very small sample size together. Thought it best to add this note nonetheless to be transparent. Don't want to hide data to prove a point.
    LOL. I knew you'd come through with some data - but we're still sort of mis-communicating here. I want an example not just where we are swapping Fields in and out of the lineup, but where he is being swapped out for higher efficiency / higher usage player. As I mentioned, in many cases, he's the alternative to Salmons, who is pretty much identical and equally horrific on offense (12.6 USG / 100 ORTG). So, you wouldn't expect to see much difference there, as both guys hurt the offense just as bad - which doesn't mean Fields is a positive, as you are arguing.

    And to the first statement that low usage players generally hurt the offense - absolutely not! High efficiency, low usage guys like Tyson Chandler, Shane Battier (in his prime), Amir etc..., are great compliments to high usage (average to above average efficiency players, like Melo, or Kobe, for instance). Low efficiency is never good in any circumstance for any offense and doubly bad when it's coupled with low usage.

    Comment


    • #47
      golden wrote: View Post
      LOL. I knew you'd come through with some data - but we're still sort of mis-communicating here. I want an example not just where we are swapping Fields in and out of the lineup, but where he is being swapped out for higher efficiency / higher usage player. As I mentioned, in many cases, he's the alternative to Salmons, who is pretty much identical and equally horrific on offense (12.6 USG / 100 ORTG). So, you wouldn't expect to see much difference there, as both guys hurt the offense just as bad - which doesn't mean Fields is a positive, as you are arguing.
      OK. Except that each of those players actually plays mostly with the other starters, so Fields playing beside DD would mostly be in place of Ross, for example. Or in place of either Ross or DD when playing with Amir or Lowry. But sure, I'll go deeper. Here is Fields' top lineup this season in terms of minutes played (this is really the only one of decent sample size due to Casey benching him for no reason).

      DD-Fields-Amir-Lowry-JV: 45 MP, 114.6 ORTG

      And the lineup with various players subbed in for Fields:
      Ross: 110.6
      Gay: 100.9
      Salmons: 105.3
      Vasquez: 118.6
      Novak: 88.9 (SSS)

      So you can see that the group performed better with Fields than with Ross (his polar opposite in terms of spreading the floor), Gay (no surprise there), or Salmons (by a long shot), and was just a little worse than with Vasquez. There was no other player that slotted into that lineup. Of the 5 significant lineups based on DD-Lowry-Amir-Valansiunas, the one involving Fields had the 2nd highest scoring rate.

      The only other lineup with a decent sample size was including Gay, so it may not be applicable to the team's current construction, but here's the same results for that comparison (these sample sizes are smaller and less reliable).

      DD-Fields-Amir-Lowry-Gay: 38 MP, 122.4 ORTG

      And the lineup with various players subbed in for Fields:
      JV: 100.9
      Novak: 94.3
      Hansbrough: 80.5
      Ross: 94.6

      The sample is smaller which is why the results seem extreme, but it is interesting that during the debacle of the Gay era, when the offence was a complete mess, somehow Fields being in the lineup made everything better. You'd think to see the opposite impact, even in a small sample, if his negative impact on the offence were so extreme.

      And to the first statement that low usage players generally hurt the offense - absolutely not! High efficiency, low usage guys like Tyson Chandler, Shane Battier (in his prime), Amir etc..., are great compliments to high usage (average to above average efficiency players, like Melo, or Kobe, for instance). Low efficiency is never good in any circumstance for any offense and doubly bad when it's coupled with low usage.
      Uh, I agree. I was just saying all the descriptors you were using to explain why low-usage low-efficiency guys are bad for an offence would apply to high efficiency guys as well, as you really just addressed the usage impacts. My point was not that they were actually bad for an offence, but that you were not really presenting an argument for why low-efficiency low-usage players are bad for an offence. And you still aren't - you just keep saying that they are, and I'm not inclined to take your word for it.
      twitter.com/dhackett1565

      Comment


      • #48
        DanH wrote: View Post

        Uh, I agree. I was just saying all the descriptors you were using to explain why low-usage low-efficiency guys are bad for an offence would apply to high efficiency guys as well, as you really just addressed the usage impacts. My point was not that they were actually bad for an offence, but that you were not really presenting an argument for why low-efficiency low-usage players are bad for an offence. And you still aren't - you just keep saying that they are, and I'm not inclined to take your word for it.
        Actually I did present the argument in the post before the last one - the DD/GV usage example. It is pretty obvious, and I mentioned it already: low usage players force the 'other guys' to carry a higher usage. As Dean Oliver and other showed, when you force players to carry a higher usage than their 'skill level', their offensive efficiency drops off rapidly - and hence, the total efficiency of the unit drops off. With low usage, high efficiency players (like Tyson Chandler, ORTG > 120, typically), that's no problem because they make up for the other guys ORTG drop with their own high ORTG, so the overall efficiency remains high.

        But guys like Fields are a negative, because they drag down the collective ORTG doubly - with their own inefficiency (ORTG = 98 vs. league average = 105) and at the same time cause other players to lower theirs by forcing them above their normally efficient usage levels. This fact seems pretty obvious to me, but don't take my word for it. It comes from Dean Oliver, who is one of the godfathers of advanced analytics for basketball, and who has all the data and analysis to back it up.

        Comment


        • #49
          golden wrote: View Post
          Actually I did present the argument in the post before the last one - the DD/GV usage example. It is pretty obvious, and I mentioned it already: low usage players force the 'other guys' to carry a higher usage. As Dean Oliver and other showed, when you force players to carry a higher usage than their 'skill level', their offensive efficiency drops off rapidly - and hence, the total efficiency of the unit drops off. With low usage, high efficiency players (like Tyson Chandler, ORTG > 120, typically), that's no problem because they make up for the other guys ORTG drop with their own high ORTG, so the overall efficiency remains high.

          But guys like Fields are a negative, because they drag down the collective ORTG doubly - with their own inefficiency (ORTG = 98 vs. league average = 105) and at the same time cause other players to lower theirs by forcing them above their normally efficient usage levels. This fact seems pretty obvious to me, but don't take my word for it. It comes from Dean Oliver, who is one of the godfathers of advanced analytics for basketball, and who has all the data and analysis to back it up.
          So... No response to my evidence that a) Fields is not dragging down the offence and b) Fields is a low usage, low efficiency player and therefore c) low usage low efficiency players do not necessarily drag down an offence, if they provide other things to said offence (ball handling, offensive rebounding, cutting, screen setting).
          twitter.com/dhackett1565

          Comment


          • #50
            golden wrote: View Post
            Actually I did present the argument in the post before the last one - the DD/GV usage example. It is pretty obvious, and I mentioned it already: low usage players force the 'other guys' to carry a higher usage. As Dean Oliver and other showed, when you force players to carry a higher usage than their 'skill level', their offensive efficiency drops off rapidly - and hence, the total efficiency of the unit drops off. With low usage, high efficiency players (like Tyson Chandler, ORTG > 120, typically), that's no problem because they make up for the other guys ORTG drop with their own high ORTG, so the overall efficiency remains high.

            But guys like Fields are a negative, because they drag down the collective ORTG doubly - with their own inefficiency (ORTG = 98 vs. league average = 105) and at the same time cause other players to lower theirs by forcing them above their normally efficient usage levels. This fact seems pretty obvious to me, but don't take my word for it. It comes from Dean Oliver, who is one of the godfathers of advanced analytics for basketball, and who has all the data and analysis to back it up.
            Oh, and Oliver's suggestion is not that low usage and low efficiency players always do anything. It is an observed pattern that generally, higher usage and higher efficiency is better - as a trend. Obviously there are exceptions, and Oliver (nor any other stats guy) would never argue otherwise. ORTG and Usage do NOT capture the effectiveness of an offensive player entirely, nor are they meant to. As such, Fields CAN be a positive contributor offensively in spite of those two metrics, as I've shown.

            If you still insist Fields is a drag on an offence, I think maybe it is time for you to present some evidence that supports that, because I can't find any myself.
            twitter.com/dhackett1565

            Comment


            • #51
              mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
              If he could return to his rookie season form, that would be amazing.

              I'm not holding out much hope though.

              Even at his best I think he is best suited off the bench if we're talking about building a championship contending team.
              I'm inclined to believe you, but if Diaw can start for the Spurs in the Finals, (and have the largest plus/minus of both teams), I makes me rethink that position a little bit. Diaw is a unique player, not sure if you watched game four (and a lot of game three) but the Spurs are running their offense through Diaw more than any other player. Yes Diaw can shoot, but last night he only took 6 shots, which is a very small amount considering how much the ball was in his hands. Not saying that Fields=Diaw, just that the more playoff games I watch, the more valuable players with complete skillsets seem to be. Even if Fields is a bench player most of the season (like Diaw) depending on matchups and other players, Fields could be a difference maker (basically Garbo version 2).
              "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

              "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

              "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

              Comment


              • #52
                Fields only played 322 minutes this year, and I have to think a lot of that was in garbage time, so I'm not sure how useful his stats necessarily are.
                "Bruno?
                Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
                He's terrible."

                -Superjudge, 7/23

                Hope you're wrong.

                Comment


                • #53
                  stooley wrote: View Post
                  Fields only played 322 minutes this year, and I have to think a lot of that was in garbage time, so I'm not sure how useful his stats necessarily are.
                  Fair enough. I could use previous years' stats, which as I quoted before, show an identical pattern when looking at RAPM and other metrics (he's very consistent year to year in impact stats), so I would expect the same results. Do people really want me to go through it again for previous years?
                  twitter.com/dhackett1565

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    stooley wrote: View Post
                    Fields only played 322 minutes this year, and I have to think a lot of that was in garbage time, so I'm not sure how useful his stats necessarily are.
                    Oh, and my lineup substitution comparison only compared how effective the starters (DD, Lowry, JV, Amir) were with him and with other players. Sound like garbage time minutes to you? It's a small sample (as mentioned in my post), but if a player were having an extreme impact on the offense (playing 4 on 5), you'd see that even in a small sample.
                    twitter.com/dhackett1565

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      DanH wrote: View Post
                      Fair enough. I could use previous years' stats, which as I quoted before, show an identical pattern when looking at RAPM and other metrics (he's very consistent year to year in impact stats), so I would expect the same results. Do people really want me to go through it again for previous years?
                      I wouldn't waste your time. At the end of the day, Fields is gonna have to get consistent playing time and contribute meaningfully in order for most to be convinced he can still play. Regardless of his previous stats, he will have to earn the chance and prove he is a useful player to this team. Hopefully, his nerve issue has improved and he gets that opportunity.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Alrighty, let's see how Fields's 2012-13 season holds up using the same lineup substitution approach. I've already shown the raw RAPM data before that shows he held his own offensively.

                        Fields' top 4 lineups that season:

                        Jose - ED - DD - Fields - Amir : 113.5 ORTG
                        DD - Fields - Gay - Lowry - JV : 105.1 ORTG
                        Bargs - DD - Fields - Lowry - JV : 105.6 ORTG
                        Jose - ED - DD - Fields - Gray : 121.4 ORTG

                        And each lineup with other players subbed in:

                        Jose - ED - DD - Fields - Amir : 113.5 ORTG
                        Subbed for Fields:
                        Pietrus: 98 ORTG
                        Ross: 100 ORTG

                        DD - Fields - Gay - Lowry - JV : 105.1 ORTG
                        Subbed for Fields:
                        Amir: 109.4 ORTG
                        Bargs: 112.6 ORTG

                        Anderson: 75.5 ORTG

                        Bargs - DD - Fields - Lowry - JV : 105.6 ORTG
                        Subbed for Fields:
                        McGuire: 97.5 ORTG
                        Gay: 112.6 ORTG
                        Pietrus: 101.2 ORTG
                        Kleiza: 105.3 ORTG
                        Jose: 85.9 ORTG
                        Ross: 86.0 ORTG
                        Anderson: 96.6 ORTG

                        Jose - ED - DD - Fields - Gray : 121.4 ORTG
                        Subbed for Fields:
                        Pietrus: 104.4 ORTG
                        Anderson: 81.3 ORTG
                        Ross: 90.5 ORTG

                        Note how I've highlighted the 3 slots where the substitute makes the lineup better without Fields. Note that two of those are actually the same substituted lineup. So although the quality of teammates is low, most of the players substituting for Fields are floor-spreading types who would impact the offense entirely different from Fields. Note that several of those players have a similar individual ORTG to Fields, and similar low usage, and yet when Fields is substituted in the lineup, the team overall performs much better offensively.
                        twitter.com/dhackett1565

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Are you guys really debating how a SF who can't shoot, and has barely played is an answer to your problems?

                          LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Brooklyn Baller wrote: View Post
                            Are you guys really debating how a SF who can't shoot, and has barely played is an answer to your problems?

                            LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
                            He shut down joe penis didnt he? That id our problem. Stopping other small forwards that have big asses

                            Sent from my GT-S7560M using Tapatalk
                            I'm back. I no longer worship joe johnson

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Yabadabayolo wrote: View Post
                              He shut down joe penis didnt he? That id our problem. Stopping other small forwards that have big asses

                              Sent from my GT-S7560M using Tapatalk
                              Yeah, shut him down, which is why we won the series and Johnson was one of the biggest reasons why.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Brooklyn Baller wrote: View Post
                                Yeah, shut him down, which is why we won the series and Johnson was one of the biggest reasons why.
                                I guess you didn't watch then. Fields sat the last 3 games (the deciding 3 wherein the Nets won 2 of 3 to take the series) because Casey is an idiot, and Johnson had some of his most effective games of the series. Shock of all shocks.
                                twitter.com/dhackett1565

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X