We already have the perfect SF

[Quirk]

yup

Can we give him his own forum then, so this doesn't pollute every thread.?

[golden]

Frequently the presumption on this forum is that if you can post, you can read and you are expected to have read the previous posts before you leave one of your own.

So let me summarize for you as you seem confused.
1. Fields has been injured.
2. Before his injury Fields was able to show a complete skill set, both offensively and defensively.
3. Even after his injury his defense was very good and the Raptors, in the previous seasons, have used him against the other teams highest scorers, even to the point of putting him, quite successfully, on LeBron, Pierce and Mr. Penis.
4. Dan has dug deep and pulled up numbers to show that, even with a broken shot, Fields makes his team mates better when he is on the floor.
5. The OP suggested that Fields injury issues may be behind him, in which case the Raps get back the Fields they initially signed i.e. the one who had at the very least the ability of Rookie Fields, with the added experience of several years in the NBA.

Now you can easily see why anyone would seriously suggest that Fields is an answer at SF.

You do realize that Casey played John Salmons 20+ minutes a game...and the Raptors had their best season ever...and that Fields was better than Salmons even playing with no shot?

Hope this helps.

Don't want to be helping Brooklyn Baller in any way, Puffer, but I have to disagree with some of those comments. Fields has never demonstrated a 'complete' skill set. I agree, he's probably our best wing defender, but offensively he's a negative.

Even with the Knicks, his ORTG regressed dramatically in year 2 - and that's under D'Antoni, no less. While I applaud DanH's efforts, unfortunately, he's using the equivalent of raw +/- numbers and not adjusted for competition.

And even as Dan pointed out, the sample size is too small to even have statistical significance.

Even so, using adjusted statistical plus/minus (ASPM) and VORP, Fields is a large negative on offense and a slight positive on defense, for an overall net negative impact to the team. I think this correlates with the eye test, IMO. Click the links below (.... there's your evidence, Dan, btw.)

But wholly agree, that anything is better than Salmons, but that's a pretty low bar to compare against.

http://public.tableausoftware.com/pr...ared/HJSP4MWYZ

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/asp...orp/2014-aspm/

[Puffer]

[QUOTE=golden;343198]...But wholly agree, that anything is better than Salmons, but that's a pretty low bar to compare against.../QUOTE]

Not low enough for Casey.

The much dreaded eye test tells me Fields was NOT a net negative, but I won't argue against your stats. (I DO like Dan's better though)

[DanH]

Don't want to be helping Brooklyn Baller in any way, Puffer, but I have to disagree with some of those comments. Fields has never demonstrated a 'complete' skill set. I agree, he's probably our best wing defender, but offensively he's a negative.

Even with the Knicks, his ORTG regressed dramatically in year 2 - and that's under D'Antoni, no less. While I applaud DanH's efforts, unfortunately, he's using the equivalent of raw +/- numbers and not adjusted for competition.

And even as Dan pointed out, the sample size is too small to even have statistical significance.

Even so, using adjusted statistical plus/minus (ASPM) and VORP, Fields is a large negative on offense and a slight positive on defense, for an overall net negative impact to the team. I think this correlates with the eye test, IMO. Click the links below (.... there's your evidence, Dan, btw.)

But wholly agree, that anything is better than Salmons, but that's a pretty low bar to compare against.

http://public.tableausoftware.com/pr...ared/HJSP4MWYZ

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/asp...orp/2014-aspm/

ASPM is a severely flawed stat that varies DRAMATICALLY for players from year to year. It's practically useless for predictions, which makes it a practically useless statistical tool. That's why everyone in the stats community prefers RAPM, which takes the ASPM results and regularizes those fluctuations and normalizes the results, giving a much more reasonable and eye-test-passing result league-wide. Those are the stats I posted earlier that show that Fields is only a slight negative offensively, and has been for the past few years. The ASPM numbers you posted have terrible SSS implications - much more so than my lineup numbers do, since Fields' numbers with each lineup are small, and his time against each opponent in each lineup is miniscule.

As for taking competition into account, if you think he's getting run out against scrubs when he's playing with the starters, I don't know what to tell you.

[golden]

ASPM is a severely flawed stat that varies DRAMATICALLY for players from year to year. It's practically useless for predictions, which makes it a practically useless statistical tool. That's why everyone in the stats community prefers RAPM, which takes the ASPM results and regularizes those fluctuations and normalizes the results, giving a much more reasonable and eye-test-passing result league-wide. Those are the stats I posted earlier that show that Fields is only a slight negative offensively, and has been for the past few years. The ASPM numbers you posted have terrible SSS implications - much more so than my lineup numbers do, since Fields' numbers with each lineup are small, and his time against each opponent in each lineup is miniscule.

As for taking competition into account, if you think he's getting run out against scrubs when he's playing with the starters, I don't know what to tell you.

Player ranking by Pure RAPM
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/2014.html


63. Landry Fields
64. Kobe Bryant
73. Al Horford
74. Eric Bledsoe
76. Joakim Noah
101. Jimmy Butler
107. Serge Ibaka
112. Luol Deng
152. Al Jefferson
167. Kawhi Leonard (Finals MVP)

This is what RAPM tells you.

I mean, seriously, does the stats community truly believe that Landry Fields has a greater impact on his team when he's on the floor than those other guys ranked behind him? This is supposedly after normalization, adjustments and all that other good stuff. Look at where Kawhi Leonard is? I mean, do YOU truly take this stat seriously?

No wonder coaches like Lionel Hollins snicker at this stuff.

[DanH]

Player ranking by Pure RAPM
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/2014.html


63. Landry Fields
64. Kobe Bryant
73. Al Horford
74. Eric Bledsoe
76. Joakim Noah
101. Jimmy Butler
107. Serge Ibaka
112. Luol Deng
152. Al Jefferson
167. Kawhi Leonard (Finals MVP)

This is what RAPM tells you.

I mean, seriously, does the stats community truly believe that Landry Fields has a greater impact on his team when he's on the floor than those other guys ranked behind him? This is supposedly after normalization, adjustments and all that other good stuff. Look at where Kawhi Leonard is? I mean, do YOU truly take this stat seriously?

No wonder coaches like Lionel Hollins snicker at this stuff.

Leonard plays in a perfect system where every player is effective - as such, his personal impact on the team will be damped, obviously. Note that a lot of the players who seem ranked low are also in amazing systems - lots of CHI players like that as well.

Context, dude. No one is saying to take these stats as the be all, end all. They are just pieces of the puzzle. You asked for some evidence that Fields is not a huge negative contributor on offense, and I gave several pieces of evidence. Then you complained about small sample size, which is inevitable when the coach refuses to play the player, so I'm confused about you asking for evidence in the first place - small sample size isn't exactly a shock here. Then I referenced RAPM, the most universally accepted impact stat, which deals with that small sample and gives reasonable results, and you change the discussion by trying to frame it as a catch-all stat, which it has never been (no matter what the ESPN bloggers tell you). But it doesn't need to be in order for it to be a piece of evidence that Fields is not a huge negative impact player.

I could use ANY stat, and build a list like yours. Note how you cherry picked 9 players across a range of 100+ rankings? I could do that for PER, WS, ASPM, points, rebounds, etc and debunk each and every one of those stats by saying "but these guys are ranked worse lol."

[golden]

Leonard plays in a perfect system where every player is effective - as such, his personal impact on the team will be damped, obviously. Note that a lot of the players who seem ranked low are also in amazing systems - lots of CHI players like that as well.

Context, dude. No one is saying to take these stats as the be all, end all. They are just pieces of the puzzle. You asked for some evidence that Fields is not a huge negative contributor on offense, and I gave several pieces of evidence. Then you complained about small sample size, which is inevitable when the coach refuses to play the player, so I'm confused about you asking for evidence in the first place - small sample size isn't exactly a shock here. Then I referenced RAPM, the most universally accepted impact stat, which deals with that small sample and gives reasonable results, and you change the discussion by trying to frame it as a catch-all stat, which it has never been (no matter what the ESPN bloggers tell you). But it doesn't need to be in order for it to be a piece of evidence that Fields is not a huge negative impact player.

I could use ANY stat, and build a list like yours. Note how you cherry picked 9 players across a range of 100+ rankings? I could do that for PER, WS, ASPM, points, rebounds, etc and debunk each and every one of those stats by saying "but these guys are ranked worse lol."

It wasn't cherry picking 9 players whatsoever. Just go through the list yourself and you can easily choose at least another 30+ guys that are universally considered more valuable than Fields. Brook/Robin Lopez, Klay Thompson, David West, Isiah Thomas, Greg Monroe, Andre Drummond, Zach Randolph, Reggie Jackson, Chandler Parsons, Ryan Anderson, DeMarcus Cousins, Nick Vucevic, Lance Stephenson, DD, Jeff Teague, Jared Sullinger, Rajon Rondo, Jeff Green, Thad Young,.... I'm getting tired typing....

I totally agree that all stats are flawed in some way. And this whole excercise with Fields is flawed because of sample size. But RAPM seems so far removed from what we see, that I don't understand how it can be used to justify anything. I never said that RAPM was the catch-all stat, either. That makes no sense. Why would I? You are the one who said that "everyone in the stats community recognizes RAPM..."

[DanH]

It wasn't cherry picking 9 players whatsoever. Just go through the list yourself and you can easily choose at least another 30+ guys that are universally considered more valuable than Fields. Brook/Robin Lopez, Klay Thompson, David West, Isiah Thomas, Greg Monroe, Andre Drummond, Zach Randolph, Reggie Jackson, Chandler Parsons, Ryan Anderson, DeMarcus Cousins, Nick Vucevic, Lance Stephenson, DD, Jeff Teague, Jared Sullinger, Rajon Rondo, Jeff Green, Thad Young,.... I'm getting tired typing....

I totally agree that all stats are flawed in some way. And this whole excercise with Fields is flawed because of sample size. But RAPM seems so far removed from what we see, that I don't understand how it can be used to justify anything. I never said that RAPM was the catch-all stat, either. That makes no sense. Why would I? You are the one who said that "everyone in the stats community recognizes RAPM..."

Well, I'd argue that perhaps RAPM does not measure what you think it does, or perhaps that Fields is more valuable than you think. I certainly believe Fields has a better overall impact than a bunch of players on that list, who are undeniably more talented but many of them simply do not play smart and can be negative or limited impact players.

In any case, you asked for:

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.

When you asked for this, I provided exactly that. And then, once it didn't give you the results you wanted, you complained about small sample size (whereupon I did the same thing for the year prior where there was a much larger sample size and came to the same conclusion). RAPM was just one step further to help with that small sample concern. If you want to disregard it due to your issues with RAPM (I'm astonished you have these issues with RAPM and not ASPM, which is even more volatile and nonsensical in it's rankings from year to year), then fine. But RAPM is one piece of several I have provided, the most important of which you basically hand picked and I provided for you.

[thead]

all right enough of the stats bullshit. I watch the games, I say Landry Fields is net plus on the floor. His ball movement, rebounding, and defense along with cuts, compensate for the broken shot. He passes my eye test. I can't believe this is even a debate. He doesn't hurt the Raptors.