Me too. But you said, "Picks would be good. Scola or Odom would have been pointless." I agree on Scola. There is value in Odom's contract either through trade or keeping it to create cap space to acquire salary via trade or free agency.Tim W. wrote:
Nothing is good enough when it comes to Bargnani? No, not so far. It's been five years and so far the fact that he he's barely improved in two absolutely key areas means that's not good enough. Nor should it be for anyone else.
Do WORDS coming out of camp impress me? No. As I said, I've heard this sort of thing before. I've heard it about Bargnani and I've heard it about other players, too. LOTS of other players. And most of the time it turns out to be nothing. Or at least temporary.
And how exactly am I "tossing the guy under the bus"? Because I'm not buying into the hype, just yet? You're criticizing me because I'm skeptical about a guy whose defense and rebounding have been flatlining for five years?
And if it's true that he has finally "got it" and that all he really needed to to is work harder to become a decent rebounder and defender, it doesn't trouble you that it has taken him until he was 26 something I figured out when I was a teenager?
If Bargnani WASN'T a Raptor, but played for another team, would any of you be buying into it right now? It seems that, because he's a Raptor, a lot of people here seem to have more faith in him than they would any other player. I remember hearing GREAT things about Charlie Villanueva last year during preseason. How he had been working out all summer and that he was going to focus on defense. And he had pretty much the same season he's always had.
I remember hearing in the preseason before Stephon Marbury's last season in the NBA, that he was at camp in the best shape in years and had a completely new attitude. And that even though people had heard this sort of thing before that this year was different because they were actually seeing the results. By the end of the year he was the NBA
's biggest trainwreck.
And those are just two very different examples.
And you are criticizing me for not automatically buying into it? Are you frigging joking?
Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
Follow me on Twitter.
no you are trying to discredit the individuals opinion instead
You want a metric for Bargnani to reach? Sure. How about a wins produced number of 0.150 per game?
I don't care if he gets there by becoming a more efficient shooter, by upping his rebounding or what. I just want him to be a better than average (0.100) contributor, rather than someone who actively detracts from the team by stepping on the court. If he hits 0.200 - the allstar level his supporters think he deserves - or even 0.180, I won't just shut up, I will actively praise him and become a fan.
And yes, WP doesn't measure defense as well as it could, but if he turns around his wins produced he will be putting in so much effort that his defense is bound to be better.
The flip side is if Bargnani continues to be paid a higher than average salary for a lower than average production (less than 0.100 wins produced per game), I would like to see his defenders acknowledge his offensive weaknesses (inefficient shooting) as well as his well publicized defensive and rebounding weaknesses.
Deal?
Wins produced, love it. A great metric that once and for all proved that the 76ers might have done much better in 2001 if only they would have dropped the mvp from their rotation because he was the 9th best player on the team.
http://wagesofwins.com/wins-produced...produced-2001/
have you ever done any reading on WP and why and how its modelled? Its not a 'player ranking' per se, but rather a measure of production.
The irony in your statement is that the book was written (if I'm not mistaken), pretty much based on the statement you just made. Everyone applauded Allen Iverson for what he did and called him an MVP, yet his team went very much overlooked. The idea behind WP is looking beyond, and within, scoring.... which history shows us is the most common value people use (and get paid for) to base the 'worth' of a player, while ignoring the multiple other areas players help, or hurt, to 'produce wins' for a team.
Any time you are dealing with statistics there is a degree of subjectivity especially when dealing with basketball statistics. I compare it to technical analysis in the stock market. Bollinger bands or Stochastics can often be great to determine a trend change in an index. However if you use them cut and dry, black and white you can get quite burned. A perfect example was in early August. From July 26 to August 3rd the majority of indices had dropped substantially - about 10%. Stochastics was showing a clear crossover and buying opportunity in many indices. However if you looked from a classical charting perspective there was a textbook head and shoulders set up and the close on August 3rd brought it back to the neckline (i.e. back to the breaking point). Anyone who went long got smoked for another 15% loss over the next 4 days (assuming they sold of course) and would not have been back in positive territory for nearly three months - and that would have only lasted for a couple of days and if they are still holding they are still in the red. Anyone who stayed short on August 3rd would have exited 4 days later when the target of the H&S was reached and made a killing.
How does this apply to the 76ers? Well if someone says, "Yeah but AI is 9th best based on WP" (think Stochastics) and he is benched because of this, then the 76ers don't go to the finals despite the fact he is one of the most dominant players in the league at that time (think classical charting).
It might not be the best example but it popped in to my head regarding this discussion of WP. Basically stats and formulas are great but they need to be looked at in the larger picture.
I remember watching his 50 point games against us and being overjoyed, thinking "oh boy, they just don't get how much he is hurting that otherwise great team. I hope they never take him out; we'll coast to victory. Woohoo!"
I'm not saying that statistics can or do value every possibility or are a perfect representation of all things basketball (or sports for that matter). They only value what 'did' happen within a certain framework. But they are an unbiased representation that can value to the 'best of our ability'. The unknown is always a possibility (whether good or bad), but as long as the numbers are used right they give us our 'best guess' (so to speak), give us evidence of what was or wasn't 'true' and, over time, and can give us an indication of what will be the most likely possibility.
Absolutely but basketball is not a science and there is much subjectivity that goes in to evaluating a team and its players.
For what its worth, I think we are on the same page.
thats right because one game out of an 82 game season and 16-28 playoff games is a fair representation of all things Allen Iverson.
Why look at the body of work when a single game says so much more about a player. Brandon Jennings almost triple doubled in his first game and followed that by a 55 pt performance in his 2nd.... best player ever!
No doubt. My point to soft euro is that stats shouldn't be ignored or assumed in err just because they aren't perfect. And more so, that they shouldn't be called 'wrong' because they don't fit into what one believes should be true. They are a tool.
That said, using more science, and less subjectivity, has been greatly helping teams improve, pick players etc. When you look at most of the top teams in the league they are known for making use of advanced metrics. Although I will say I highly doubt teams use WP or PER or WS as their metrics, and I'm sure they each have their own models that aren't free on the internet
GT, if I felt so strongly about someone I would no doubt be confident enough to express my expectations and in the case of rebounding, be able to quantify a level that I would deem acceptable along with other factors(check).
To me, if he could get to eight rebounds per game I think that would bring him in acceptable range. I think most of his rebounds are always going to come on defense but he should get more opportunities this season on the offensive glass as well if Casey follows through and runs some plays through Bargnani in the post. If he were grabbing eight per game he would have to be doing the right thing on the glass more times than not.
You are right. In the year that the sixers went to the finals and he became mvp him being 9th on his team in wins produced was a much better representation of his body of work.
Btw, I'm not against stats which.you conclude, but wp and similar "stats" are something quite different. They are at least controversial to say it mildly.
Exactly what does MVP have to do with his 'production'?
Did you look at other MVP candidate and their WP?
Exactly what does making an NBA finals have to do with your production?
Derek Fischer has won 5 titles. Does WP innacurately represent him then?
Iverson has always been a bit of a stastical outlier. Advanced metrics don't like him because he was such an extreme volume scorer. He played so many minutes and was such a dominant part of his teams in those years, that his teammates (who benefited from playing with him, but who were generally more 'efficient') have over-inflated advanced metrics...at least compared to AI.
TRUE LOVE - Sometimes you know it the instant you see it across the bar.
Well, apparently there were a lot of people thinking he was the most valuable player. Wins produced intends to calculate each individual player's contribution to winning... and the model concluded that he was only the 9th most productive player on his team; in other words the 9th most valuable player on his own team.
Last edited by Soft Euro; Sun Dec 18th, 2011 at 02:27 PM.
Derek Fisher didn't lead his team to the titles. I highly doubt the 76ers would have gone as far as they did without AI. Stats were never his forte as he played heavy minutes. Very few high volume and high minute players have good "Advanced Stats". And the comparison between AI and Fisher is just.. bad. It's like saying Amir is a better player than Carmelo Anthony because Amir has better "Advanced Stats". Statistics can be referred to, but stats can only be looked upon to a certain extent and for small comparisons. And this proves it, because only someone who has never watched AI carry his team into the playoffs would rely on "WS" to rate him and go on to compare him to Fisher.
I don't know if you did watch AI or not, but that's irrelevant. And whilst WS can be a useful stat, mentioning AI wasn't exactly a point in your favor in your argument. And just so you know, I'm not against what you're saying or anything. Actually, I stopped reading the large "debate" you were having with Tim and Arse after the first page, but this is written based off of what you wrote on this last page.
But of course it's normal to twist stats and informations in the favor of your argument, unfortunately you picked something which doesn't really support it.
well if you would have actually read the conversation you'll realize I didn't bring up AI at all.
What you see as a terrible example I see as a perfectly fine one. His scoring and exciting play got him alot of attention. Fans tend to be drawn to that. Yet the year he's getting recognition for (00-01), his team was excellent (best defense in the league that year if I'm not mistaken) which often goes completely overlooked.
Like I said earlier, advanced stats try to look beyond the obvious (ie. a players ability to score) That year Iverson averaged 42 minutes, 25.5 shots a game, shot 42%, while giving up 3.5 turnovers a game on 36% usage.
Sorry for not reading through, but well there was a lot and it was a bit tedious to read. I apologize for that.
As for the example, it still doesn't support your point. You are saying that WS shows that AI was over applauded and that the team was a lot better than most remember. But that is quite irrelevant, because WS "shows" that AI was 9th best player on his team and he wasn't, he was the best and most influential player on the team. Take away Allen Iverson and that team doesn't even make the playoffs. Who's going to lead them there? The 9 "better" players? From what I remember that 2001 team had: Ratliff, Mutombo, Eric Snow, McKie? The team was pretty "modest" without Allen Iverson, so it is a pretty bad example to support what you are saying.
I agree with your point to a certain extent, not fully but I do understand why you say it, but this just doesn't support it.
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote