Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How is Kyle Lowry different from Jarrett Jack?

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

  • #31
    Nilanka wrote: View Post
    I don't think a general "being on a bad team inflates stats" statement is accurate. I think it's mainly relevant with regards to scoring, and only if the offense is run through a player who it normally wouldn't be run through on a more talented team.

    Due to the Hornets' weak roster, Jack was one of the primary offensive options last season. On most other teams, Jack would be a borderline starter. It seems logical that his scoring benefitted from being on a bad team.

    As for DeMar and Bargnani, they were both considered top scoring options over the past 2 seasons. But I assume their usage would drop on a more talented team (especially for DeMar). Perhaps being on a poor team has inflated their (scoring) stats as well.
    I think thats a good point. I'd mention that there was a list of different stats (%s, assists etc) and not just scoring to base a comparison on. I'd HOPE people aren't comparing Lowry and Jack on just scoring.

    Not necessarily. Jose was 4th in assists in the league last year and he was on a bad team. Ditto with Deron Williams, and he was 5th.
    And couldn't that just mean their assist #s could be even higher on a good or better team?

    How many assists a game would Jose rack up if he had teammates who could consistently score? Could he lead the league?

    Comment


    • #32
      Since we're comparing them two. If I had to bet my money on either of the two, if they played one on one.

      By far I'm betting my money with Lowry. There's no questions individually who's better in my opinion.
      Twitter: @ReubenJRD • NBA, Raptors writer for Daily Hive Vancouver, Toronto.

      Comment


      • #33
        Being on a bad team allows players who would be second or third string guys playing behind better players to move up in the rotation therefore increasing the opportunity for minutes and touches. Sometimes this allows a guy to shine but more often than not it ends up with a second or third string guy getting a starters ego and pay check. Happens with this particular franchise a lot. Basketball is still played in a system whereby someone has to start and get fed the rock, like say joey g, demar hoffa and jack.

        Stats are a useful tool, but being alert and using them to help inform what you see is where they are most useful. Without watching the games and comparing digits in a vacuum is nearly pointless.
        LET'S GO RAP-TORS!!!!!

        Comment


        • #34
          minks77 wrote: View Post
          Being on a bad team allows players who would be second or third string guys playing behind better players to move up in the rotation therefore increasing the opportunity for minutes and touches. Sometimes this allows a guy to shine but more often than not it ends up with a second or third string guy getting a starters ego and pay check. Happens with this particular franchise a lot. Basketball is still played in a system whereby someone has to start and get fed the rock, like say joey g, demar hoffa and jack.

          Stats are a useful tool, but being alert and using them to help inform what you see is where they are most useful. Without watching the games and comparing digits in a vacuum is nearly pointless.
          I'd argue statistics actually do the exact opposite. A player getting more minutes (and therefore more touches etc), gives a more accurate representation because the sample size is larger. If a guy 'shines' I don't think thats anyone fault other than the players and if he gets a starters pay cheque thats the GMs responsibility, not the statistics.

          And if we look at the players you listed and look at their 'stats' we can see (depending on which stats one uses):

          - Hoffa was statistically terrible.
          - Demar, as his minutes and usage increase, is regressing statistically (aside from scoring)
          - Joey Graham was only good a few things (specifically rebounding)
          - Jack comes out as an average or slightly better starting PG.

          The bolded part - How does one inform 'what you see' if you come into an issue thinking that stats have little value? If stats give you little or nothing, they can't inform you of much. On the other hand if they do have value they can help inform you of alot. Which ofcourse would then mean making a comparison using stats is a valid method of judging a player.

          Beyond that, its impossible to watch every minute of ever player in every game, let alone know every detail of the players. How many of Lowry's 359 games have you watched? How many of the 47 games last year? What about Jacks? How much did you know about their competition and their teammates each game? Can you give me a breakdown of what happened through even one of those games, the plays the coach was running, and the plays the opposition was running? Whats Houston's 'system' and what was New Orleans? Did you come into every game you watched with a completely neutral and unobstructed mind?

          What we think we see, what we think we remember and what we think we know is hardly any more or less useful than what stats can give us. Stats may not tell the whole story, but neither do our eyes and brain.

          Comment


          • #35
            Craiger wrote: View Post
            ...What we think we see, what we think we remember and what we think we know is hardly any more or less useful than what stats can give us. Stats may not tell the whole story, but neither do our eyes and brain.
            I will provide a useful example of the comparison of the eyeball test and pure stats.

            Bayless has the ball. He dribbles out the clock and after a fruitless drive into three defenders he makes an awkward pass that gets to another Raptor below the knees with .5 seconds left to shoot. Bayless' team-mate shoots and misses and the other team grabs the rebound and goes down the floor to score.

            Bayless doesn't get credited with what is essentially a turnover on him, and his team-mate gets a miss credited to him, thereby dropping his shooting % stat, and the Raptors, as a whole, are given another number that shows they are bad defensively.

            Obviously I am exaggerating a bit, but I think my point is clear. The pure numbers don't tell the story on this one.

            Comment


            • #36
              Puffer wrote: View Post
              I will provide a useful example of the comparison of the eyeball test and pure stats.

              Bayless has the ball. He dribbles out the clock and after a fruitless drive into three defenders he makes an awkward pass that gets to another Raptor below the knees with .5 seconds left to shoot. Bayless' team-mate shoots and misses and the other team grabs the rebound and goes down the floor to score.

              Bayless doesn't get credited with what is essentially a turnover on him, and his team-mate gets a miss credited to him, thereby dropping his shooting % stat, and the Raptors, as a whole, are given another number that shows they are bad defensively.

              Obviously I am exaggerating a bit, but I think my point is clear. The pure numbers don't tell the story on this one.
              First I'll say that using 1 play vs an entire seasons worth of numbers will ofcourse give a completely different view. Thats why sample is important.

              But, to the exact example... why did Bayless dribble out the clock? For fun? Because the defense was doing a good job on him or his teammates? Were his teammates not getting open? Was that the play call?

              Why did Bayless pass rather than shoot? Poor decision making? Good defense? Did his teammate get open at the last moment?

              What caused the bad pass? Bayless just being a poor passer? The defense forcing him into it? Did his teammate change position unexpectedly?

              Purely watching, or purely using a small snap shot of a much greater picture, doesn't tell the story on that one either. And ofcourse if we remember that one play in particular, without actually knowing all the seemingly small details of it, we may have a negative view of Bayless (or the teammate) without realizing what really went wrong.


              And lets compare that to taking 1000s of occurences that take place, try to average them out to come to the most common result, rationalize them against the 1000s of other occurences that take place by players and teams throughout the league and history. We can now get an idea where 1 occurence has no effect on the overrall picture.

              Comment


              • #37
                Craiger, I respect what you are saying but to use an age old quote " that's why the games are played on hardwood and not on paper". I do value stats and perhaps wasn't clear in my original statement but stats are a tool and taken out of context in a discussion such as this (comparing 2 players in very different systems/situations) is largely a fools errand. Basketball is a team sport that is heavily influenced by coaches systems, teammates and and the competition. Would you disagree that opponents often play down to the level of their competition? How else do you explain why a totally shit team like the Raps can stay close to or even "own" say, LAL, for 3 and a half before getting abused by the same team when it matters?

                As for my quick list of useless raptor starters I think you missed my point. They all started for a crappy raptors team whereas they wouldn't have on a better team. What they are/were used for is irrelevant, after they left Toronto they all had diminished roles and worse numbers. DeMar is different as he has yet to get the boot but he's the starter by default and he wouldn't start on most teams. Hoffa went from starting in Toronto to nailed to the bench in Utah to out of the league and then out of any meaningful role on any team anywhere. His numbers, as they were here, we're inflated by being on a bad team.

                You are obviously a stats guy and that's fine. Please explain to me why stats can't predict anything accurately and I'll bow down to you and hand you a fistful of cash to help me beat Vegas (the biggest stat nerds in the world are the bookies who set the lines). As I said they are a very useful tool. So is my power drill, but I just as often need a simple screwdriver and a hammer. One tool does not a toolbox make.
                LET'S GO RAP-TORS!!!!!

                Comment


                • #38
                  I guess it is my bad for not making it clear that I wasn't suggesting using one isolated play to make some kind of final determination on a players worth, versus 1000's of numbers derived form a stats sheet.

                  Let's get even more hypothetical. A PG consistently gets into time clock problems as he pounds the ball trying to get his own shot off. As the seconds wind down, he consistently makes desperation drives to the hoop, hoping something will open up, or maybe believing he will attract defenders to him and there will be an easy pass available. Of course, his defenders know this will happen, because he does it over and over again so their are staying in front of him (he doesn't have the ability to ball handle around them, or the speed) and they also close off the passing lanes. So our PG winds up making his last second desperation pass anyway, to a wing who is trying to get open for a pass, knowing the PG is going to desperately need someone to pass to, and has just .5 seconds to make the shot. This low percentage shot misses. The PG does not get dinged. The shooter does. If this happens over and over again, the stats are skewed and do not represent a good picture of where the problem lies with the offence when this particular player is on the floor.

                  If you don't see my point, then never mind. Let's talk about something else.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    As for bayless, dude loved to pound the air outta the rock. That was evident in almost every possession he was on the floor. Some refer to it as having limited court vision. Guys see the floor and the plays developing differently in real time, some get it some don't. Maybe there are numbers to explain that. Maybe once you factor in 1000's of occurrences and average it out over thousands of minutes vs 1000s of guys you get an average. Point being, no matter what the average says, JB over dribbled and went one on one far too often and was easily goaded into Mano a Mano battles. So was mike James whose numbers, with the Raps, across the board were close to or better than JJ or KLs. But he's a shit player. Always has been always will.

                    Numbers can be deceiving. Especially out of context
                    Last edited by minks77; Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:28 AM.
                    LET'S GO RAP-TORS!!!!!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      minks77 wrote: View Post
                      Craiger, I respect what you are saying but to use an age old quote " that's why the games are played on hardwood and not on paper". I do value stats and perhaps wasn't clear in my original statement but stats are a tool and taken out of context in a discussion such as this (comparing 2 players in very different systems/situations) is largely a fools errand. Basketball is a team sport that is heavily influenced by coaches systems, teammates and and the competition. Would you disagree that opponents often play down to the level of their competition? How else do you explain why a totally shit team like the Raps can stay close to or even "own" say, LAL, for 3 and a half before getting abused by the same team when it matters?

                      As for my quick list of useless raptor starters I think you missed my point. They all started for a crappy raptors team whereas they wouldn't have on a better team. What they are/were used for is irrelevant, after they left Toronto they all had diminished roles and worse numbers. DeMar is different as he has yet to get the boot but he's the starter by default and he wouldn't start on most teams. Hoffa went from starting in Toronto to nailed to the bench in Utah to out of the league and then out of any meaningful role on any team anywhere. His numbers, as they were here, we're inflated by being on a bad team.

                      You are obviously a stats guy and that's fine. Please explain to me why stats can't predict anything accurately and I'll bow down to you and hand you a fistful of cash to help me beat Vegas (the biggest stat nerds in the world are the bookies who set the lines). As I said they are a very useful tool. So is my power drill, but I just as often need a simple screwdriver and a hammer. One tool does not a toolbox make.
                      I'm actually not really a 'stats guy' atleast in what I think of in the classic sense (although maybe that means I am), but I do belive they hold real value. And moreso, they can hold as much value or more as watching games do. I find the biggest problem (when it comes to stats) is people have preconceived notions of what they believe and then when stats don't tell them that, they want to ignore them or not use them. Rather than actually researching the stats, what they REALLY mean, and how they can be properly used.

                      As to your question, its a rather loaded question. I'd argue Vegas lines (and Vegas in general) actually prove how effect stats are. Why do you think so much money is made by the house? They give themselves a small statistical edge in every game (even something as simple as red/black in roulette pays as if the odds are 50/50, but is actually 49/51.. hence how they always come out and in the long run and the gambler always loses in the long run). The gambler needs to be 'right' to make money, Vegas just needs to be not wrong the majority of the time. That should help you beat Vegas every time - by not going. The stats tell you this.

                      To your examples - I don't think these guys numbers were inflated at all. Hoffa especially. They were terrible. Where are you getting they were 'inflated' from?

                      But again, what I'm trying to understand is how are the numbers listed above 'out of context'? Exactly what, in detail, is Houston's system? New Orleans? Did you watch every game by each team to come to an accurate conclusion? Or is your opinion of their systems based on a limited sample size?

                      Your right, stats are a tool in the toolbox. But so is watching games. Neither matters if one is only guessing at how to use them properly.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Puffer wrote: View Post
                        I guess it is my bad for not making it clear that I wasn't suggesting using one isolated play to make some kind of final determination on a players worth, versus 1000's of numbers derived form a stats sheet.

                        Let's get even more hypothetical. A PG consistently gets into time clock problems as he pounds the ball trying to get his own shot off. As the seconds wind down, he consistently makes desperation drives to the hoop, hoping something will open up, or maybe believing he will attract defenders to him and there will be an easy pass available. Of course, his defenders know this will happen, because he does it over and over again so their are staying in front of him (he doesn't have the ability to ball handle around them, or the speed) and they also close off the passing lanes. So our PG winds up making his last second desperation pass anyway, to a wing who is trying to get open for a pass, knowing the PG is going to desperately need someone to pass to, and has just .5 seconds to make the shot. This low percentage shot misses. The PG does not get dinged. The shooter does. If this happens over and over again, the stats are skewed and do not represent a good picture of where the problem lies with the offence when this particular player is on the floor.

                        If you don't see my point, then never mind. Let's talk about something else.
                        But the PG does get 'dinged' with low scoring and low assist numbers. When you see that you can question just how 'good' of a PG that player really is.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          to me the stat that gets artificially inflated by playing on a bad team is ppg. an average or good shooter on a bad team can easily up his points and touches when surrounded by bad players. the perfect example of this is MJ. mike james was a shot happy chucker who was able to jump 10 points by playing on our team. assist numbers go up when the pg has players who can shoot. fg% goes up when players have a pg who can break down defense and pass out. everyones defence goes up when someone protects the rim consistantly.

                          in this argument i see it very simply jose made jack expendable and lowry is making jose expendable.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            minks77 wrote: View Post
                            As for bayless, dude loved to pound the air outta the rock. That was evident in almost every possession he was on the floor. Some refer to it as having limited court vision. Guys see the floor and the plays developing differently in real time, some get it some don't. Maybe there are numbers to explain that. Maybe once you factor in 1000's of occurrences and average it out over thousands of minutes vs 1000s of guys you get an average. Point being, no matter what the average says, JB over dribbled and went one on one far too often and was easily goaded into Mano a Mano battles. So was mike James whose numbers, with the Raps, across the board were close to or better than JJ or KLs. But he's a shit player. Always has been always will.

                            Numbers can be deceiving. Especially out of context
                            You in no way showed numbers were deceiving in that entire paragraph. You rather only pointed out what you thought was happening and what was true and not what necessarily did.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I pointed out exactly what I saw every game I watched (which is most raps games in any given season, it's a guess but I'd say I see about 70-75 games per season). Are you going to tell me, wi numbers, that he was a better pg than I'm giving him credit for? How about the mike James scenario? If he was as good as the digits say he was in Toronto then why was he never a starting, borderline all star on any other squad?

                              In other news: your second sentence makes zero sense. And in none of your arguments are you proving, with numbers, that what I'm seeing isn't accurate or in any way less valuable than stats. You just want to keep saying what I'm seeing is not worth what your spreadsheet is whispering in your ear. Must be nice being able to look at the matrix all day for your basketball fix 'cuz cable is mad expensive. If you want to believe that imperfect analytics are more important or more valuable than the good ol eye test that's fine but you aren't arguing your point very well. You also keep ignoring the fact that I've stated over n over again that it's the use of stats (especially those presented in the OP) in a vacuum that is pointless and not the stats themselves. Have fun eating your steak with a spoon.
                              LET'S GO RAP-TORS!!!!!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                minks77 wrote: View Post
                                I pointed out exactly what I saw every game I watched (which is most raps games in any given season, it's a guess but I'd say I see about 70-75 games per season). Are you going to tell me, wi numbers, that he was a better pg than I'm giving him credit for? How about the mike James scenario? If he was as good as the digits say he was in Toronto then why was he never a starting, borderline all star on any other squad?

                                In other news: your second sentence makes zero sense. And in none of your arguments are you proving, with numbers, that what I'm seeing isn't accurate or in any way less valuable than stats. You just want to keep saying what I'm seeing is not worth what your spreadsheet is whispering in your ear. Must be nice being able to look at the matrix all day for your basketball fix 'cuz cable is mad expensive. If you want to believe that imperfect analytics are more important or more valuable than the good ol eye test that's fine but you aren't arguing your point very well. You also keep ignoring the fact that I've stated over n over again that it's the use of stats (especially those presented in the OP) in a vacuum that is pointless and not the stats themselves. Have fun eating your steak with a spoon.
                                WHo cares about just the Raptors? This is about Lowry (never played a game for the Raptors) and Jack (only a Raptor for 1 season and a bit). What was different about the two systems from these players respective teams in the years given? How many of there games did you watch to come to the conclusion about them and their systems without stats

                                Why was Mike James not a starter or all-star for another team? I don't know. I don't pretend to know I have all the information about the details of all other teams. Fought with a coach? Teams thought they could turn him into a pass oriented PG rather than a shoot first PG? He got a contract and stopped trying? You tell me, without using stats if you like, exactly why.

                                And I am in NO WAY saying what you see is wrong, or that the 'spreadsheet' is right. I'm telling you the 'facts' you think you know aren't actually 'facts'. And therefore the information presented in the statistics are not even remotely close to being wrong.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X