Relevant to "development" discussions and presented without comment, the WP48 of all the rookies broken down by month via Arturo's Silly Little Stats I stumbled upon it this morning, but it is a week old.
about 1 year ago
John R
397 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
WP
That’s the silly thing about WP though. Just because he plays with Amare, and not an injury-ridden squad like the Clippers, he’s barely worse than Blake Griffin. Now, don’t get me wrong, I like Fields as much as the next guy, but there’s no way he’s only 1 win worse than Blake Griffin… at least if you switch their teams out.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
That was your takeaway from the chart?
Interesting.
Yes John
That’s the only thing I could possibly take away from the chart. Or maybe I just wanted to hear your opinion on the fact that WP48 is biased toward players that happened to land on good teams. Either way, your response was about as helpful as Randy Foye, and about as insulting as Craig Sager’s shoes. Thanks.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
By the way
The correct response might have been:
Josh Powell playing for the Clippers in 07-08 (23-59), WP48 = 0.042
Josh Powell playing for the Lakers in 08-09 (65-17), WP48 = 0.043
Of course there’s always:
Jamal Crawford playing for NYK / GSW in 08-09 (32-50 / 29-53), WP48 = 0.065
Jamal Crawford playing for ATL in 09-10 (53-29) = 0.143
So whatever. I’m just saying WP48 has its biases.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Of the biases, I think WP48 overvalues the shit out of rebounders in the same philosophy that it brutally punishes ineffiecient shooters.
by Michael White on Mar 3, 2011 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
+1
Overvalues the shit out of rebounders in exactly right. That’s why it values guys like Childress and (to a lesser extent) Moon way more highly than the league does.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
First you have to demonstrate that the league is correct
Only 12 different franchises have won since the merger. Significant evidence on my side that most of the league doesn’t know what they are doing.
Wouldn't you also have to demonstrate that the alternative is correct?
Berri has never won so therefore WP48 is meritless ;-)
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:00 PM PST up reply actions
No need to demonstrate
All I am asking is for open-mindedness to new ideas.
I know its scary for some folks that’s why I never get mad.
Right, but since you want to put the requirement on the league, shouldn't the same requirement apply to the alternative?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
As soon as Berri gets a job we can start to watch
Until then you can try to explain to me what happened with Dumars and how he forgot how to GM.
Wonder why Berri hasn't yet gotten one since he's so brilliant
At least Dumars was good at one time
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:09 PM PST up reply actions
Who cares?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
Your question demonstrates your fundamental lack of understanding
If you can’t repeat it, it was luck.
fundamental lack of understanding of
the genesis for your psychotic behavior on this site
That is true. I’m thinking that you grew up in a home without a father because you are insecure at your core and so clearly feel the need to show everyone how smart, creative and innovative you are. The problem, of course, is that you really are not and everyone can see it.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
Just responding to yours, my man
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:17 PM PST up reply actions
The fact that Berri hasn't gotten a job
furthers the point that the NBA may not know what it is doing.
An even less number of coaches have won titles than franchises, yet the same discarded coaches keep getting recycled around the NBA.
Maybe the “NBA” needs to learn how to think outside of the box.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
LOL
So the fact that you haven’t gotten a job is further evidence of the same thing?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
Rephrase the question, Jax
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
I'm not sure Berri wants a job
I do. Let me have the GM-ship. I couldn’t do any worse.
We’ll prop up some old NBA player as the GM and together we will get things done.
Jax can be my lawyer in case I need half-truths and disinformation spread.
Nah - you do a very good job of that on your own
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
I try
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
Hey did you get around to looking at the splits I provided?
Mon+Tues = 1 months worth of games. I was wondering what your new theory was.
what was my old theory?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:36 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah who knows
You never actually offer up anything affirmative. You just want to talk about me.
I KNOW.
Actually, you're
just putting words in my mouth as usual. Just wanted to try to understand the basis for your theory and you are so afraid to just put it out there. It’s ok to be wrong.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
I didn't put any words in your mouth
You asked me to, and I declined. Then I pointed out your old theory was lacking since you don’t seem to know it.
But that’s not putting words in your mouth.
Um, I'm just trying to figure out what your theory is
As I understand it, you’re saying that all player stats are random and unaffected by other players. Is that the basic theory?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:53 PM PST up reply actions
Why would you ask me what your old theory was
In trying to figure out my theory?
Man you are going about this all wrong.
Just try being a nice guy for a little while
You have something to offer, why not help the board engage in a discussion about it rather than getting side tracked
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 4:46 PM PST up reply actions
Aw, boo hoo
Says the guy flinging all sorts of insults. That’s good hypocrisy.
If you would stop being such a douche
People around here would appreciate you more
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 4:53 PM PST up reply actions
I won’t speak for Berri. But Bill James ultimately accepted a role in the Red Sox front office, but not until after guys who followed his philosophy (like Beane) already had success as MLB GMs.
by Michael White on Mar 3, 2011 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
That may be *your* biggest lie yet
You say all you ask for is open-mindedness to new ideas, but the way you act is far less open-minded than anyone else who regularly contributes to this board. If you engaged in open-minded give and take, instead of by merely insisting that Berri’s theories (and hence you) are always right, you’d probably see a lot more open-mindedness in return. But since you repeatedly dodge reasonable questions that are posed to you, and denigrate anyone who dares to challenge any of your assumptions and/or the rigidity with which you hold them, then people respond to you in kind.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Hey its boltsfan to talk about me again!
What else would he have to talk about?
Deflecting again
Believe it or not, I have plenty of good discussions here with people who engage in give and take. Just not with you, because you never choose to respond straightforwardly to those who question and/or disagree with you.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
I respond to plenty of people straightfowardly
Its kind of cute you see yourself as like some sort of cop around here. What an ego that must take.
That means a lot
From the person with the biggest ego I’ve ever encountered.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
So how is that cop thing working out for you?
Making any progress?
You need some original material
Especially since you play cop all the time with your constant “that’s not what this thread is about” whining, as if conversations don’t naturally evolve.
But thanks for proving that you’re socially stuck at a 4th-grade level. What comes next: “I know you are but what am I?” or “You are rubber I am glue…”?
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
I no rite!
You called me names so I’m the child! It all makes sense!
Teams like the Bulls and Lakers were rated very highly by PER as well.
by Michael White on Mar 3, 2011 3:10 PM PST up reply actions
Sure
Now this is a PER vs WP48 thread?
Em Dub you are better than that.
I guess not?
I was trying to respond to the question of WP/48 vs. the league and I used PER as “the league.” Perhaps that was wrong…
by Michael White on Mar 3, 2011 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
You started it by challenging the alternative
I merely pointed out that the challenge can be made to both sides. So you did it to yourself.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:15 PM PST up reply actions
Ya, but I mean, conversations will evolve and you know that me and some of the others who are stat-inclined to like discussing WP48 vs. PER.
I understand your frustration with people who react against you personally. But guys like Erik O and myself are actually interested in these basketball discussions.
by Michael White on Mar 3, 2011 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
I personally would like to know more about WP
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
The league has won dozens of champtionships since the merger
WP48? Not so much.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:14 PM PST up reply actions
And it has lost 30 times as many?
Wasn’t .400 your arbitrary barrier for satisfactory?
Do you even think before you type?
The point dear boy is that you challenged the alternative
I’m just pointing out that your theory has no track record of success whatsoever, so your suggestion that the alternative may not is really a red herring.
And yes, I’m interested in a statistical discussion MW, but I will pose tough questions. I’m not reacting to anyone personally. Just to the discussion.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:18 PM PST up reply actions
Not true - you're just so painfully defensive that
it prevents you from engaging in rational discussion.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
Only 12 franchises have won since the merger
Largely because those 12 franchises had one of the league’s top 3 players at the time. And they had those players not because they followed WoW, but because they lucked into drafting them. One of the rare exceptions was the Pistons team of the Wallaces and Chauncey, which does provide some evidence on the WoW side of the ledger. But it also may have simply been an aberration. Certainly far from definitive proof that your preferred method of evaluation is the right one, despite your obstinate insistence that it is.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Good point that they didn't know about a system that didn't exist
But speaking of history, I wonder what Red would say about a system that valued things other than points per game highly.
There's your fallacy right there
Not blindly following WoW ≠ valuing only points. It is possible to both disagree with certain aspects of Berri’s model and believe in forms of statistical measurement other than yay points. But you make comments like this simply to denigrate the other person, rather than engaging in reasonable conversation.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
No, I just like to denigrate you
Again, lets go back to the very first fanshot you posted on this fine site. Why would expect me to treat you personally any other way?
Let's go back to before that first fanshot
You started denigrating me before that, simply because I disagreed with one of your points and dared to ask you a question you didn’t have a good answer for. It was your behavior there that led to my fanshot. So I guess I “earned” it before I “earned” it, simply by having a brain and not mindlessly agreeing with your staggering genius.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Hey if you say so
Keep up the good work officer!
That's funny
You constantly want to show everyone how smart you think you are, ego-boy, and yet you rip someone else for calling you on that by coming up with a theory about them.
You really are a waste
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 4:48 PM PST up reply actions
Its boltsfan's alter ego!
This should be good.
This seems to be your favorite topic
Getting into beefs with everyone else
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 4:51 PM PST up reply actions
It's not that they followed WOW
it’s that the players that they had were high WOW players.
Horace Grant was a major wins producer. Dennis Rodman’s score was HUGE.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
And Jordan would've won without either of them
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
How do you know?
He never won without either of them?
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
I don't
There is no definitive proof for that belief, any more than the fact that Grant was a major “wins producer” by Berri’s formula is definitive proof that he was essential to the Bulls’ success. The only difference is that I keep my mind open to both possibilities, rather than dismissively deriding those who don’t believe the latter.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Man, that's insightful
In a hippie non-committal not having a point at all kind of way.
And yet others have chosen to respond in the spirit of discussion
Rather than in the spirit of unbridled dickishness.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Good one
Apparently that doesn’t stop others. Just someone who hates ever having his opinions questioned.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
I happen to believe that Jordan would have eventually won anyway
but he did have either Grant or Rodman on each of his title teams.
Shaq was a huge WINS producer for the Lakers, Duncan for the Spurs, Hakeem for the Rockets, Bird and McHale, Magic and Kareem.
Teams with high WIN scores do well
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
The question then becomes
Are there high wins-producing-teams that have failed to win repeatedly?
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Good question
Maybe he-who-knows-the-most-about-WoW can weigh in, if he actually wants to engage in a basketball-related discussion.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
See, this is what I'm talking about
Who would not know that over a 7 game series home court advantage and luck are huge factors.
That’s a terrible test lol.
But that wasn't the question
Nobody said anything about a 7 game series. The question was:
Are there high wins-producing-teams that have failed to win repeatedly?
And since it wasn’t actually my question, maybe you would do Erik O the favor of enlightening us?
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
So we are talking about title teams
But its not about title teams?
Man its hard to follow what you demand I talk about.
Blinded by me, apparently
I didn’t ask the question. Erik O did. I thought it was interesting, and was honestly asking if you knew the answer because I, like he, am interested in learning something.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Read the book
I’m not the author.
Then come back with your thoughts.
But are we talking about title teams or not?
I need to know.
I didn't mean repeatedly in the playoffs
Just repeatedly… for example, if the Stockton/Malone Jazz were high-wins-producers, this would not surprise me. If Webber’s Kings were high wins-producers, this would not surprise me. I’m asking if there are any teams that are high-wins-producers that didn’t repeatedly make the playoffs, or had constant early exits.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Overall you are not going to be surprised by the teams that are high wins producers or not
The surprising part can be who is assigned wins on the team.
Hmm I figured as much
Sneaky productive guys, ya?
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
But those players also had high PERs
And were clearly great by any system of measurement. So I can’t say that proves much.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Nor disproves much
Most “great” players have high WIN scores, and occasionally, a player that you wouldn’t expect (Horace Grant) does also. It’s a good metric. Not the be-all, end-all, but it works pretty well.
I think a lot of people here may be decided against WIN because they don’t like John R.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
no
2 people have taken that approach.
2/3rds of this thread is John defending himself against 2 people.
The other third is actual discussion on stats.
Throw in a random quibble here and there (sorry I couldn’t help commenting when I saw the term unbridled dickishness)
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
Defending himself - LOL
For the record, bacek, I am not a fan of WP48, but not because of anything to do with him, but rather because it has some serious flaws that we’ve discussed over the years. So I trust you weren’t referring to me as one of the two who “have taken that approach.”
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 5:03 PM PST up reply actions
LOL
If everyone has the perception you hate me personally, maybe you should think about that.
Oh, John
Don’t worry, I don’t hate you. I just think that you are so defensive that it gets in your way. It must be very painful.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 5:05 PM PST up reply actions
Hey
It wasn’t my opinion. That’s other people’s observations.
Convince them.
Whatever you say
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 5:17 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not one of them
I mean, I don’t like John R., but that doesn’t mean I’m against WIN. I don’t believe any of the metrics are perfect, so I try to look at all of them and use them as guideposts to form a grounded opinion.
The reason for the animosity lies in your “not the be-all, end-all” caveat. If others held that view and acted accordingly, there’d be a lot less animosity.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
why must you play mediator?
look at the other discussions going on, the ones actually about stats and interpreting them.
Without you mediating and causing a stir, I wouldn’t have to sift through so much BS just to find the answers I’m looking for.
Erik O and John have moved on, and got some places in their discussion, but it is hard to tell because you jump into every conversation guns a blazing to make him look bad.
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
Because I honestly want to hear his answers
So that I can learn something. But far too often, when anyone asks a difficult question, he goes on the attack. And I foolishly think that pressing him will yield an answer, when all it ever does is yield more insults.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
If you haven't figured it out
And you haven’t. There is a way to get me to answer.But yeah, you haven’t figured it out. If you REALLY want to engage, prove it sheriff.
Apparently not
Because I’m not talking about questions I’ve asked you. I’m talking about the many questions others ask you that you dodge in the same way. So apparently most people “haven’t figured it out” and only a cherished few (those who kiss your ass) have.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
So I have to answer other peoples questions on your terms. You are sheriff and the prosecutor! Man that sounds exhausting.
so all that stuff about calling him a 4th grader
really shows you want answers
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
You really don't have much credibility, bacek
Since you refuse to engage as well. However, unlike John R, you are not insecure.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 5:20 PM PST up reply actions
Disingenous response
The conversation started way, way, way before that, with him performing his usual evasion techniques rather than answering a perfectly valid question.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Was that your question or someone else's question?
If it wasn’t your question, why do you see fit to be involved? How do you think that advances the goals of the group? Is your plan working?
Here are perfectly valid questions sheriff.
My answers are all either directly stated or implied above
But I’ll gladly answer them again, lest I be accused of the same sort of evasiveness you typically display:
1) No, it wasn’t my question
2) I saw fit to be involved because I was genuinely interested in your answer, and also because I’m constantly annoyed by the way you dodge such questions. The motives behind the first part of that are pure, the motives behind the second part not so much.
3) I think it would advance the goals of the group were someone able to get you to answer, because we’d have more interesting discussions if you, as the the leading expert on WoW, wouldn’t merely avoid the questions that don’t seem to have an easy answer. And we’d also have a more collegial atmosphere if you didn’t snidely dismiss those who disagree with you.
4) No, my plan certainly isn’t working. As I put it to Bacek above, “I foolishly think that pressing him will yield an answer, when all it ever does is yield more insults.” I wish this weren’t the case, and on this point I am admittedly far too slow a learner. But much like many of us pathetically continue to hope that DTS will see the light, I pathetically continue to hope that you will, too. Because you certainly contribute plenty of food for thought around here, even if the way you present it is so horribly unpalatable.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Then maybe you should try a different approach instead of acting like an insane person and bumping your head into a wall over and over
Up to you. Don’t care, if you haven’t figured that out by now.
I've tried that
You respond the same way. But as for the “don’t care” part, obviously you do, or else we wouldn’t still be having this discussion.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Well good luck in you endeavor
You are going to need it.
by John R on Mar 3, 2011 10:01 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Also
So I provide food for thought but +1trillion I should be banned?
Are you schizophrenic?
Its tough to figure out what you want.
Didn't say you should be banned
He said “freezed out.” Meaning that we should ignore you until you start acting liking a human instead of a petulant baby.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Plenty of basketball discussion happening downthread
And yet you choose to remain here.
WP48 is biased toward players that happened to land on good teams.
What do you want me to say when your premise isn’t true and is almost exactly backwards?
What kind of sense would it make to cherry pick any one player?
Wait, wait, wait
So all of those adjustments for team defense and team assists/blocks etc. That’s subtracted in the calculation of wins produced? I thought they got added… I need to re-read that wages of wins site again……… (wishing I could delete my asshat comment now)
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Do you know how much of an adjustment that is to the total score?
Compared to having good players making the team good?
I'm guessing it's not much.
And yeah, I’m a jackass.
“MATE48 is incorporated into each player’s value by subtracting MATE48 from each player’s PROD per 48 minutes.”
“DEFTM48 is incorporated into each player’s value by subtracting DEFTM48 from each player’s P48.”
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Yeah those stats confirm that much of the success for most players is dependent
on who they play with and the system they play in
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Ah so if Aminu was a Knick right now he would be a star
Not the dumbest claim you have made I suppose.
by John R on Mar 2, 2011 12:12 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
He was probably saying that the Clippers would still suck if you swapped out Eric Gordon for Fields.
by Michael White on Mar 2, 2011 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
So this theory works in some directions but not all?
Still sounds like a half-baked theory.
by John R on Mar 2, 2011 12:20 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I’m not going to speak for Jax, but you changed the point of discussion. Fields is better than Aminu no matter the metric you choose. . So saying that Aminu would thrive in taking Fields’ spot is already misleading. Nobody would argue that because Aminu sucks no matter the team.
Gordon vs. Fields is where it gets interesting.
by Michael White on Mar 2, 2011 12:24 PM PST up reply actions
Actually he didnt say anything
So I was free to assume his own point. Only you injected Gordon into a discussion about rookies.
It would begin to be possible to take Jax seriously if he ever actually said what he thought instead of hiding behind vagaries.
by John R on Mar 2, 2011 12:33 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Fine.
Consider the above points/questions mine.
by Michael White on Mar 2, 2011 12:35 PM PST up reply actions
So you don't understand the point even after MW telegraphed it?
Why not engage in a rational discussion for once.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 2:23 PM PST up reply actions
This wasn't your point and you know it
And why are you comparing Gordon versus a rookie? Seems like a dumb thing to go in a forum post about developing rookies.
Ya, that was my mistake. You brought up Aminu who is a rookie and I was the one who switched it to Gordon. Aminu makes more sense considering the sampling.
by Michael White on Mar 2, 2011 2:38 PM PST up reply actions
Yes of course it was - stop obsessively arguing about nothing
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 4:13 PM PST up reply actions
So your point was if they swapped Eric Gordon onto the Knicks he would become a good rebounder?
Go ahead and explicitly state your point for us all so there can be no confusion.
Yes, I suppose I could have said that there are differences in ability between players
Seems obvious
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 2:20 PM PST up reply actions
So Kobe's success is due to the Triangle?
How about LeBron? Would he become more/less productive playing D’Antoni ball?
(Actually, LeBron has the same numbers in Miami with Wade and Bosh that he did with the stiffs in Cleveland).
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
I like the general chart of all NBA players
Kevin Love is having a “legendary” season.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
How did you stumble on this John?
Google search
“Clipper failure”…“Bledsoe underperforming”….“Aminu is a scrub”
?
Confirmation Bias
Proud member of Club FTR.
LOL
Do those searches turn up this link?
It seems like there would be too many relevant links at “Clipper failure” to sift through effectively.
I don't refute the information though
it is cold hard statistical facts.
Proud member of Club FTR.
Even if you aren’t completely sold on the Berri model, there is a lot of great stuff here
by Michael White on Mar 2, 2011 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
settle down guys, this is actually a good source of information
Thanks John R
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
Why is it a good source of information?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
because not everybody reads about WP and WP48
take what you will from the information provided.
But, you can’t say it isn’t good information.
See again trying to get in an internet argument with me.
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
So the fact that not everyone reads about it means that it's a good source?
The question is why is it good?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
Not surprised to see BG drop back down to “regular” in February. I had actually asked Andres about this on Twitter. From what I noticed, the usage was up and the efficiency was down (not surprising with Gordon out.)
Re: Development, my working theory is that by year 3 we know what kind of players these guys are. Not sure if they are “developed” in those first years or if it takes until year 3 before they can demonstrate their actual abiliites.
more like defenses seeing Blake for the second and third time this year
Defenses have better learned to defend Blake. It just so happens his counting stats don’t look too different when it comes to points.
But, as you mentioned with Eric Gordon out, Blake is forced to shoot a lot more.
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
This I agree with
Griffin has had a tougher month, and EJ’s absence has something to do with it. So a team context will color performances to some degree.
I also solidly agree with your working theory as stated. The bottom line is we should temper our criticism until a player “gets up to speed” (or whatever euphemism you prefer). For instance, there may be some legitimate data to suggest that EJ was below average last year, but that’s clearly not the case now. I would apply this same wisdom to our current rookies.
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
Ridiculous comment
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
I have to completely disagree with this thought
EJ always had the ability. In fact he showed many times in his rookie season to be a prolific scorer. His second season was showing more of EJ not playing to his strengths, or in essence not playing smart enough.
http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Eric%20Gordon
Take these advanced stats, especially the shot locations.
There are a few things to notice about his jump in performance this season:
1. FTR – EJ is getting to the line much more
2. Shots taken within 10 feet – notice the jump?*
3. TO% and AST Rate – His TO% is down, and surprisingly his assist rate is down too.
*yes I do realize EJ is taking more shots in general, but almost all the added shots are within 10ft
So what can we conclude? Did EJ get better? Not necessarily. EJ jump in points can mainly be attributed to him playing to his strengths more. He is now taking it to the hole with a higher frequency. One big thing to also take from this is that EJ is being a lot less passive. Looking at the assist rate and the raw assists per game may be confusing. The assist rate dropped, this is a sign of EJ realizing he helps the team more by always being in attack mode.
EJ has done nothing in terms of improving his skills, but he has learned how to use his strengths as a player. By relying more on his quick first step, and ability to get to the rim (things he has always had), he looks like a much better player. He didn’t improve, he got smarter.
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
This all makes sense to me.
EJ didn’t develop skills, he just learned how to use his skill set more effectively.
by Michael White on Mar 2, 2011 2:40 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think we don't "completely disagree" at all
Figuring out the game and playing to one’s strength is a big part, maybe even the only part, of what goes on with a lot of guys. I’ll stay agnostic about the skills issue, at least for now. I agree that EJ got smarter, and hence he’s more effective.
I think not having EJ around has made things tougher on Blake, which has slowed his game. I’m curious if you disagree with that.
Meanwhile, we probably can agree that it often takes time for guys to “get smarter.” It may take a season or two. Even JohnR has said in other posts that players sometimes improve (up until they’re 24). So then, we might agree that it’s wise to show patience with the young guys.
BTW, all this means is that we should temper our criticism. It certainly doesn’t mean, as some might infer, that we should never hold them accountable.
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
*Scratch out that double negative in my title. The point is, we're not really at odds.
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
yea rereading everything we are pretty much on the same side
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
How did having Gordon around slow Griffin's game in the first part of the season?
See we can make (up) all these adjustments and assumptions and rationalizations, or we can just say there is some randomness in performance.
There is a whole page of rookies up there with a huge amount of fluctuation that you need to start explaining.
I mean, couldn’t I also just throw out there that Griffin quit when Gordon went down? Its just as arbitrary as assigning it to anything else. Oh, oh, maybe VDN lost the team when Gordon got hurt. That’s a blast from the past.
Hmmm... Now I'm not sure what we're debating
I was saying that EJ’s absence has made things more difficult on Blake. I can’t tell if you disagree, but in the past you’ve argued that teammates don’t matter, so I suspect we’re on opposite sides there.
Your chart reflects what most of us can see, that Blake’s performance has been muted recently. It happened at the same time EJ went out, so there’s that correlation. Then there’s the eye test, which probably doesn’t hold much weight with you, but to me it’s pretty clear. But what’s the larger issue here? I’m losing track. How do random fluctuations fit into any of this? I was saying above that we shouldn’t be too quick to judge or condemn our rookies; a whole page of fluctuations also suggests that we should wait for a larger sample size.
I’ve never been a real part of the on-going coaching debate. For the record, I think coaching makes a modest difference, but I don’t think Dunleavy was that bad at it. I do think it was probably time for a change, though. Sometimes it’s good to shuffle the deck. I’m undecided on VDN, but if coaches don’t matter, then that probably doesn’t interest you.
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
I asked you to explain why Griffin's Feb WP48 was so similar to his Nov WP48 when Gordon was available
Since you offered an explanation for Feb that opens the question of what happened in Nov?
Ah... I suppose you think that BG's Feb numbers are due to randomness
Is there any statistical way to resolve the true cause? I doubt it (all ears, though), so I’m gonna rely on my observations… Blake was moving through his first month of the NBA back in November. He was good at that point, and in Dec and Jan he got better. But then EJ went out, and suddenly Blake wasn’t quite as effective, and the team started losing. I’m comfortable making a diagnosis, then. Blake is still fine, he’s having a great year, and I bet his WP48 will shoot back up in March, w/ EJ back. But how does one prove causation? Can you prove that it was purely random?
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
I think
the fact he’ll have more home games and he’ll have a good player alongside him will make BG more efficient this month. I think skill development happens more in the off-season when guys can focus on fixing a hole or two in their games (in this case Griffin would need to improve his FT and jumper)
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
I agree with that
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 6:17 PM PST up reply actions
Baron Davis played 1 game in November
That’s what happened. Not that Baron is that great, but Bledsoe was that detrimental.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
I'm not sure what you're getting at...
Yes, he struggled in Nov and Feb. He was worse in Nov, but as people have been saying, that was also his first month playing professional ball. No one comes out of the gate dominating immediately.
Wouldn’t it seem logical that the absence of either Baron or Gordon is negatively affecting Blake’s WP48 (along with the rest of his stats)?
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
+1
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
Its mostly his rebounding that was way down in Feb is the point
Why would losing a poor rebounder at the 2 have such a profound effect on Griffin’s rebounding? In November Griffin had a much higher FG% than in January.
The point is the things everyone is saying don’t match up at all to the differences from one month to the next.
He is also a much worse rebounder on Mondays and Tuesdays. Got a theory for that one?
In November Griffin had a much higher FG% than in January.
Isn’t that what we’re getting at? Higher usage with less efficiency seems easy to attribute to Gordon’s absense.
by Michael White on Mar 3, 2011 2:47 PM PST up reply actions
Griffins usage when down in Feb
He shot less and committed fewer turnovers.
His beef was Baron missed November, so why would he shoot better without the best point guard on the team at the time?
Because EJ was out in Feb
BG’s usage rate may have been less becuase teams were sagging in on him denying him the ball.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 2:53 PM PST up reply actions
Right
So it both went up and down.
The eye test ladies and gentlemen!
I don't have a test and wasn't making a representation
I was merely hypothesizing a reason why the stats looked like they did. I do know that teams were sagging in on him because EJ wasn’t around. Not surprising if he ended up not getting the ball as much.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 2:55 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah
Its super tedious when the reasons and theories and excuses keep changing, but the most obvious one random chance throughout the season is ignored.
So just so I understand it
Your theory is that Blake’s performance is not affected in any way by the players around him?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:01 PM PST up reply actions
Wow you don't understand it yet?
I mean you have been railing against it for how long and you just now admit you don’t understand.
No wonder you grow so sad and hateful.
I keep forgetting what an ass you are
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:03 PM PST up reply actions
From watching the games, what I noticed in Feb was that he wasn't quite as energetic
It’s true that there could be a few explanations, but what I saw was guy who had to disproportionally carry the team. You’re asking for why EJ’s absence would hurt his rebounding, and it’s not hard to see a possible reason.
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
So even though the numbers show he was carrying less
Its because he was carrying more. Alrighty.
Yay Shot Attempts!
EJ absence created holes in the defense, among other things. Blake was working hard, even if didn’t always get a shot off.
Your over-regard for stats is creating its own myopia.
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
So
Griffin was working hard, but was less energetic because Gordon wasn’t creating holes in the defense and this affected Griffin’s offensive rebounding on Mondays and Tuesdays.
Sure.
Sign... I try this one more time
You were asking why EJ’s absence would hurt Blake’s rebounding. I’m providing a natural possibility, which I’ll rephrase in a moment to save it from your crass mischaracterization. To bring Mondays and Tuesdays into this really is a red herring. Just because certain odd things are random doesn’t mean all things are random. I trust you know this.
So here you go: Quite possibly, EJ’s absence forced Griffin to work harder in various ways. Without EJ’s defense, there was more penetration. Without EJ’s offense, there were more double teams. Blake may well have felt the need to pace himself more, which could well have affected his rebounding totals.
As we converse, I implicitly credit you with intelligence, and hope that you’ll return the gesture. I’d like for us to talk on this level.
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
I mean that's all fine
Then you need to go down to each rookie over each month and tell me what caused their performances to swerve over each 14 game block. Why did Bledsoe and Aminu (and others) have their best month their first month when the best PG on the team at the time was at his worst?
Then once all of those stories have been told, and luck works at least equally as an explanation, then I have to weigh the two and apply occam’s razor.
Cool... Tell me again what we're debating?
LOL, I mean, are we to resolve whether random fluctuations are the ultimate end all?
Seriously, I think our topic is whether EJ’s absence affected Griffin’s play, but I suspect there are larger, more philosophical disputes squirming underneath. One of them may be whether statistics subsumes human behavior. Another may be whether all events are all independent of one another. Or Is there such a thing as causality? This could get pretty deep.
I’m not sure what our rookies’ play has to do with all this, but since you bring it up, do you think it was purely random that Bledsoe and Aminu both had their best months when they had to play more minutes? It may not have been what I would have guessed, but looking back on it, it doesn’t seem particularly random. There were circumstances then that don’t pertain now.
If Griffin’s numbers happen to pop back up now that EJ’s back, so that Feb turns into an evident anomaly, will that affect your outlook at all?
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
I'm not even sure we are debating, we are speaking different languages
The topic is rookie performance as the season develops and they supposedly develop as well. I get that Griffin is an important Clippers rookie, but there are three others on that list that no one seems to be at all interested in, so…
I’m not sure what our rookies’ play has to do with all this, but since you bring it up, do you think it was purely random that Bledsoe and Aminu both had their best months when they had to play more minutes?
This is a very good question. My answer is yes, but I would like to point out that I can find a million internet commenters who would say it is obvious that players will tend to play WORSE as they are forced into greater service. This will be presented as “logical”. Hence the frustration with somehow being forced to be somehow against both sides, when I am against neither side.
If Griffin’s numbers happen to pop back up now that EJ’s back, so that Feb turns into an evident anomaly, will that affect your outlook at all?
Not really. The next time that Griffin has a down month with EJ active and starting will that change yours?
EJ active, Blake playing poorly
That’d change my tune significantly, for what it’s worth.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
At some point
Griffin will have another down 14 game stretch for him. Remember, in Feb he was still good, only mortal.
Its just a matter of time.
I would certainly look for other explanations
Sometimes things just happen. EJ’s Nov shooting slump might be an example. But that doesn’t mean that things always just happen. If you want to subsume human behavior with statistical graphs, then it’s convenient to brush away all causal and influential relationships. We’d behave better if we were independent automatons. But that’s implausible. If Occam’s razor would have us do away with our humanity, then that’s a good reason to question its blade.
I don’t think Griffin’s muted production was just random. But more to the heart of things, I’m quite convinced that his and others’ production is not always random fluctuation about various personal means. Sometimes circumstances affect us.
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
it's more important to look for trends
and ignore fluctuations
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
We are getting somewhere
So to take us back to the origins of the discussions of player development and ultimately evaluation.
Once it is recognized that luck can be a big factor, as big or bigger than anything else, then you are free to ignore these fluctuations, whatever their cause because they are going to happen.
Or turning it on its head, if you believe all of these interactions are very, very powerful, how will you possibly determine what team to build? There is no way.
Stated yet another way, if simply not having EJ renders Blake Griffin completely mortal, then Blake Griffin is not very good to begin with and we should be looking to trade high right now.
The question is how much does luck matter. The numbers say a player is who he is regardless of situation is by far the biggest factor, then down in the nooks and crannies is anything else indistinguishable from luck, to the point that they MUST be ignored.
Good. I'm losing my vertigo.
Our differences are looking less daunting. For one, I agree that luck can be a big factor, and hence we often should brush aside fluctuations. It’s also clearly true that the naked eye is fallible, and that common sense often leads us astray. I give a lot of weight to hard numbers, even as I sometimes take up positions against your arguments. My basic beef is that I think you often give too much weight to the numbers, especially when you appear to exclude all else. I don’t agree that everything else is indistinguishable from luck.
You’re right that accounting too much for interactions would make team building very difficult. So let’s not go to such extremes. Certain inferences and deductions are still reasonable; e.g., maybe an isolation guy won’t fit terrifically well in a D’Antoni system. In Griffin’s case, it would be good to find a few spot up shooters to discourage the double team. It’s also nice to make the opposition have to worry about a multi-facited wing. If Griffin benefits somewhat from such help, that’s certainly not a reason to trade him. I think you sometimes look at things in too binary a fashion.
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
We are farther apart than I feared
For example:
While I am interested in what you think, I am not concerned with how you think.
The world is binary; you sign Randy Foye or you do not sign Randy Foye.
You seem concerned with finding common ground and ending with consensus. I am not.
We just approach fandom fundamentally differently, and that’s ok. My basic beef is when people make it about me. About how much I put weight in numbers or if I see the world as having right and wrong answers.
But it does largely come down to how we think
It’s true that I’m generally interested in finding common ground, sometimes to a fault. In this case, though, I’m more interested in our apparent lack of it. I’m alright with irreconcilable differences, as long as I can make out the size and shape of it. It’s helpful to be talking with less animosity.
So never mind the way you think; I just disagree that the world is binary. The next time you say something like “teammates don’t matter,” I’ll likely bring this up again. Sometimes they don’t matter, but sometimes they do… even as it makes team building that much murkier. Is it possible to prove or disprove shades of grey?
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
Well now that you have told me this do you have to?
What’s the point? How do you think adding yes teammates matter adds to the discussion.
Have you explained why Foye sucks regardless of teammates? I just seem to remember him being very popular among the he has potential he was just stuck in Minny crowd.
by John R on Mar 3, 2011 10:07 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
That's a very, very large crowd unfortunately
The one that thinks Foye has hidden potential. That same crowd picked him over Brandon Roy. That same crowd makes easily believable arguments like, “He has the ability to create for himself at will.” Yes, he most certainly does have the ability to get exactly the shot he intends, at almost any time he wants. The downside is that the shots he intends to take are some of the worst shots in the game. Long-range off-balance two-pointers? Gross. Yes, there’s definitely a black-and-white when it comes to Randy Foye (you do NOT sign Randy Foye—-he may score points, but they aren’t the good kind).
But there are shades of grey in other areas. Do you play DJ or Kaman? That’s got to depend on who’s defending on the other team. If it’s Pau Gasol, I’d rather have DJ out there. If it’s Shaq, then we’re probably better with the heavier Kaman.
It also depends on who else you have on the court offensively. If it’s Bledsoe, Foye, Aminu, and Cook, then I’d rather have someone like Kaman who can create his own shot, even if it’s less efficient than DJ’s. With no one to create, a DJ-created-shot would be much lower than his typical shooting percentage, which is based mostly on put-backs and lobs. If it’s Williams, Gordon, Moon, and Griffin, then I’d want DJ in there. We have no use for Kaman’s slightly-low-percentage-shot-creating, and every use for DJ’s high-percentage-non-created-shots.
You’ll concede that in the DJ-Kaman instance, the world isn’t binary, right?
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
*who he's defending on the other team...
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
Re:
Rebounds
Well, in both Nov and Feb, compared to Dec and Jan, his offensive rebounding dropped significantly, which would be consistent with double teams. This might lead to him hustling less for defensive rebounds, or just being tired from fighting through double teams all night. That’s not completely illogical to me.
Higher FG%
Taking less shots, playing less minutes, his small list of post moves still new to teams, no one really expecting a guy his size to jump so quickly… there are plenty of logical reasons for that too.
Is that Mondays & Tuesdays thing true? If so, that’s pretty weird. I definitely can’t explain that.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
So
If the most obvious answer for Monday and Tuesday is luck, why isn’t it the most obvious answer for the other stuff?
Okay, so I looked at BG and EJ and BD's stats comparatively when EJ and BD were out
BG with no EJ:
Shoots +1 times more per game
Shoots -5FG% worse per game
O-Rebounds -1 less per game
D-Rebounds -0.5 less per game
Turns-over +0.5 more per game
All other variances are minor.
BG with no BD:
Shoots -2 times less per game
Shoots +5FG% better per game (offset by unrelated -10% drop in FT% per game)
O-Rebounds -0.4 less per game
D-Rebounds -0.3 less per game
Assists +1 more per game.
Fouls +0.5 more per game (probably unrelated)
All other variances are minor.
EJ with no BD:
Shoots -203P% worse per game (but that was a seemingly unrelated slump…?)
Assists +1 more per game.
All other variances are minor.
BD with no EJ:
Shoots -2 times less shots per game
Shoots -5FG% worse per game
O-Rebounds +0.5 more per game (no change in dreb)
Assists -0.5 less per game
Steals +0.5 more per game
Blocks -0.5 less per game.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
The interesting ones for me:
EJ with no BD:
Shoots -203P% worse per game (but that was a seemingly unrelated slump…?)
I know that was the conventional wisdom at the time. Is it time to re-examine that? Alternately, why was his slump unrelated to the personnel changes, but Griffin’s MUST be related?
BD with no EJ:
Shoots -2 times less shots per game
This would also seem to cut hard against the “logical” test.
BD with no EJ:
Shoots -2 times less shots per game
This would also seem to cut hard against the "logical" test.
Hmmm, I’m guessing everyone’ favorite lil’ chucker has something to do with that.
So its a factor of Foye?
Interesting. So EJ is out, but its not his personal lack of performance that affects Davis, but his replacement’s performance. So the fact that is EJ is out actually doesn’t matter, only who his replacement is?
I am slightly more inclined to be sympathetic to this sort of thinking, but I still think luck will trump.
Man, this stuff is hard.
I guess I shouldn't look at those numbers I pulled as "BG with no EJ" or "BG with no BD"
But rather “BG with Foye” or “BG with Bledsoe”. Bledsoe and Foye being bad at basketball might be a better reason to explain Blake struggling during those time periods. I imagine him forcing shots because he can’t trust Bledsoe not to pass the ball to Vinnie.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
I still go to random fluctuations
The big drop was rebounding.
But the model can’t be expected to work perfectly when you have a non-NBA player like Foye thrown in the mix. You have to assume a GM who will succeed in building a reasonable team.
Hahaha "non-NBA player like Foye"
Yeah, the rebounding thing is weird, but with only 2 samples to pull from in BD’s and EJ’s absences, I can’t definitively say that a couple rebounds worse for a month has anything to do with them. Small sample sizes suck.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
The weird thing is
If the knock is that WP48 values rebounds too highly, why didn’t everyone check there first instead of inventing a bunch of theories that may or may not have anything to do with underlying stats that did or did not change?
But yeah, small sample sizes suck.
Re:
Lower usage
Probably because he was shooting a much lower percentage in February, he was getting fed the ball less. Plenty of his shots were forced in the post. That seems reasonable to me. I wasn’t thinking his usage would go up because Gordon or Baron were out, but rather that he would be the recipient of more double teams.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
What is the Mon/Tues statistical difference?
Is it significant? Not every day will be exactly the same.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
It is nearly the exact same difference as Nov/Feb vs Dec/Jan
In fact, a little bit greater.
Is the M/T sample alot smaller?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
I linked the website
Look at it yourself and come back when you have your brand new theory that conflicts with your old theory but its what you actually thought all along anyway and even though both are mutually exclusive they are both correct.
You raised this as a basis for your theory that it's all luck
I’m simply asking you about it. Apparently you don’t know.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:22 PM PST up reply actions
You don't need to do anything - I thought you might know the answer off the top of your head - apparenlty not
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:31 PM PST up reply actions
Brandon Jennings
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
The really weird thing
Is Blake Griffin is by far the least interesting case on that chart and its what everyone is obsessing on, who isn’t obsessing on EJ.
If people were paying attention
its clear that BG had a off-month by his lofty standards. The road trip, the workload of all-star weekend, the loss in supporting cast, rookie wall have limited his game. Overall he’ll still have a excellent rookie year.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
Well I mean
I could probably cherry pick two games out of the good months and switch them to the bad months and even him out at star across the board, maybe even superstar. Each month is a sample of only like 14 games so two big or bad games can make a big difference.
The question is supposed to be, if development is real, where is it? Shouldn’t there at least be a hint of a trend?
Dunno
probably have to look at all the rookie years ever to make that kind of decision. I would have guessed it would end up more like a bell curve to start. Rookie gets used to the speed, strength, schemes the first month, the middle months he’s starting to get it and then the last part of the season he slows down due to fatigue coupled with opposing teams having better scouting reports. Throw in bad teams like the Clippers start tanking and the “injuries” hold out some of the better veterans and it all goes downhill even faster.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
Brandon Jennings had a fascinating rookie year last year
He actually developed in reverse. Still is.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
That, plus his weird FG%<3P% as a ball-handler is so, so strange
Note to self: If my kid is a basketball star, tell him not to play in Europe instead of the NCAA.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
not for me (although I loved all the sorostitutes)
play in europe and get paid.
If he can make it in the NBA, he will make it in the NBA
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
Hey John R
Since you’re well into WP48 school of thought, I figured to ask you: it’s always mentioned that historical stock prices are not indicative of future performance yadda yadda – what work is there of taking advanced stats such as WP48 and making extrapolations for future performance? Or at least seeing an expected range of performance (say interquartile range).
You have frequently mentioned age as big factor and I’m sure there’s enough player data to build a regression model. What other factors (that can be measured/quantified) would you say need to be part of this prediction model?
They wrote two books about it
That’s probably the way to go.
There are two
Wages of Wins and Stumbling on Wins.
This from the guy that brings you EJ is a below average guard!
Any questions? If you don’t have something positive to bring to this blog why come up
with theses silly tables and thoses % stats maybe those are good for betting but for
the eye test we will believe what we want to believe. You are always trying to put a
dent in Club O. One word for you PESSIMIST.
Hey I'm an optimist right now
March can’t possibly be worst than February. Things are looking up!
Seperate issue.
But in the Chaning Venues Fan Shot you responded to me saying EJ is “pretty replaceable”. I countered with a 24.1 PPG scorer on a rookie contract isn’t “pretty replaceable”. Are you going to back up that claim or what?
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 2, 2011 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
What's there to back up?
Your comment may be full of flawed assumptions. Is it necessary for Gordon or the player who replaces him to score those 24.1PPG?
Why don't you just admit that he's got a point and move on?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 4:18 PM PST up reply actions
Oh noes, its Jax!
What point?
Tell us Jax, to replace Eric Gordon would it be absolutely necessary for one single player to then score 24.1PPG?
Are you really then saying let's grab two players who average 12 each and we're set?
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 2, 2011 4:22 PM PST up reply actions
Are those the only two choices?
If so, why?
And why are we even talking about points per game?
And why are we restricted to players on rookie contracts?
The fundamental problem with the question is you have created a bunch of arbitrary restrictions which don’t actually have anything to do with winning basketball games.
You can win a game 105-100 or 85-80 and a win is still a win.
You simply said EJ is replaceable.
I’d like to see how you effectively replace him on this team. And I mean staying in reality where salary structures matter. Go for it. Give me on viable alternative where we can replace EJ’s productivity.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 2, 2011 4:26 PM PST up reply actions
I am going to assume we are stuck on very different definitions of productivity since you led with points per game
Since you are asking me to do what you will never accept, how about this line of questioning instead:
Why are you absolutely certain it is impossible to replace his productivity? Is Gordon some sort of unique talent?
Who said I would never accept? I never argue JUST to argue...
On this team, our leading scorer and closer IS a unqiue talent. I understand your penchant for throwing out “Yay points!”, but I’ll also point out EJ is averaging nearly 5 assists.
I posit you snidely counter people’s points with short little quips and when they call you on it, you double talk your way out of it.
Are you going to answer the question or not? What is your plan for replacing EJ, if he’s “pretty replaceable”.
Maybe another of my points if you make your point so confidently, like it’s a matter of fact.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 2, 2011 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Let's also not forget the potent Blake-EJ PnR that was becoming nearly unstoppable...
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 2, 2011 4:35 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah
Its tough to imagine any other guard in the league running a successful pick and roll with Griffin.
I find it difficult to understand your hatred for EJ
Clearly he’s good enough to play for the US National Team. Think he could be easily replaced there?
Maybe you should go try your “theory” on Coach K and get back to us.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 4:54 PM PST up reply actions
I don't hate him
I just don’t think he is a god.
You could try a little honesty some time. It might help people take you seriously.
He seems to be a pretty good player
Go ask Coach K what he thinks of him and get back to us. I’m sure you’ll concede that he knows more than you do.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
Coach K?
I’m not sure we he knows about evaluating NBA players. Has he ever done it professionally?
You're right - you so smart
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 4:58 PM PST up reply actions
re: USA National Team
Think he could be easily replaced there?
Well, ya. I’m pretty sure I could be the SG on that team and they’d still win the gold.
by Michael White on Mar 2, 2011 4:58 PM PST up reply actions
Ok - we can agree to disagree
Dumb conversation about nothing
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 4:59 PM PST up reply actions
Steph Curry couldn't beat EJ out. That doesn't say anything?
I don’t think EJ is the Second Coming of Christ, but c’mon.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 2, 2011 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
pointless argument
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 5:01 PM PST up reply actions
Look, I’m just saying that replacing a SG on a national team that won the gold by playing Turkey (without Okur and Turkoglu no less) is a pretty easy thing. Bledsoe could have been your starting SG without changing the outcome.
by Michael White on Mar 2, 2011 5:01 PM PST up reply actions
But that's not what we are talking about
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
MW
Did we watch the same World Championships?? Hedo was Turkey’s best player, and they won the Gold IN Istanbul. Every sportswriter kept saying we could possibly lose Young squad, sizeable homecourt advantage.
TEAM USA didn’t face that easy of a route to the Gold, and EJ was an effective FIBA Zone Buster.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 2, 2011 5:06 PM PST up reply actions
Ya, we watched the same one. I guess I forgot that Hedo played.
Look, EJ is by far my favorite player on the Clippers. I’m not looking to bash him. I just think there are roughly 50 American guards in the NBA (and a dozen or so in college) who you could have swapped in for Gordon and the result would have been the same.
by Michael White on Mar 2, 2011 6:11 PM PST up reply actions
I would get a better SG
They exist. Or I would get a roughly equal SG and a much better SF. They also exist. Or I could get a roughly equal SG and roughly equal depth at guard and forward.
When I say you won’t accept it it means you won’t accept it. That you believe EJ is a unique talent is exactly what I am talking about.
If you believe he is a unique talent, how could I ever possibly convince you otherwise. We are just starting from fundamentally different positions.
And, equally, there's no way to convince your vague statements aren't really answers.
I can also replace KOBE by getting a “roughly equal SG”, but I doubt MIA would give me Dwyane Wade.
No point in further argument. If I press you further, you’ll no doubt say bring in Josh Childress and we won’t miss a beat.
I honestly don’t know why Jax needles you so much, Jax for your own health ignore this guy.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 2, 2011 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
I told you they aren't answers
If you think Gordon is the next MJ, how could I possibly replace MJ?
You don’t need to convince me that it isn’t an answer. I explicitly said so myself there is no way I can successfully respond to that challenge.
Because it's so fun and so easy to make this loser look bad
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 4:58 PM PST up reply actions
But it makes you look bad too, brother.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 2, 2011 4:59 PM PST up reply actions
Don't care how I look - but I suppose
if I don’t continually show him up he’ll have no reason to come back here
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
Jax
Tell us how moving Gordon to the Knicks would make him a good rebounder. I need to know the mechanics of this.
I agree, his lack of rebounding makes him a horrible player
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 5:01 PM PST up reply actions
Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge
It was your claim. Just explain it to me.
Trust me, my dude, people like this thrive on it.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 2, 2011 5:01 PM PST up reply actions
Point well taken
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
Every damn time
I posit you snidely counter people’s points with short little quips and when they call you on it, you double talk your way out of it.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
God, you'll argue anything
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 4:53 PM PST up reply actions
Hey you didn't answer the question!
Lot’s of questions have been posed to you in this thread and you have ignore them all.
How are we supposed to take you seriously as a member of the community?
I understand - EJ is the worst player in the history of the game
All you need to do is just say “yeah, he’s not a bad player” and we’ll move on.
But I guess from your basement you’ve got nothing else to do except sit around in a wifebeater and push out lame ass posts about nothing.
Cool story bro.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 4:57 PM PST up reply actions
Well, if you can't back up a single one of your claims
I guess this is where you have to go, as usual.
It is what it is.
What claims are you talking about?
The fact that the team went 14-7 with EJ in Jan and then tanked when he went out?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine EJ’s importance to the team. No he cannot easily be replaced. How many players in the league seriously replicate his stats and inspire confidence and leadership like he is increasingly doing?
Why would you even want to argue against that proposition? What’s the point? .
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 7:44 PM PST up reply actions
Well
Would moving EJ over to the Knicks make him a good rebounder?
Cmon. Still waiting.
As soon as you answer my questions, I'll respond to your irrelevant red herring queries
But not before.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Actually it wasn't
And realistically these things go nowhere since you’re incapable of a rational discussion.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 2:23 PM PST up reply actions
Second question
So then without any improvement to the roster you are predicting 55 wins next season?
I didn't realize that we were talking about predictions for next year
Oh yeah, we weren’t.
I actually have to go do something interesting. Let me know when you’ve answered my questions, which are directly on point, and then I will consider whether I want to resopond to your irrelevant red herring queries.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
Well if you admit the record for Jan doesn't mean anything
What was the point in bringing it up?
It is a waste of time to engage in any discussion with you
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
If you really believe that
why do you insist on doing it? You are a strange man indeed.
I'm an eternal optimist
that you’ll change. Unfortunately, it’s just not gonna happen.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 2:33 PM PST up reply actions
Wow, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black
Lots of questions were posed to you too, and you have ignored them as well. As you almost always do when you don’t have a reasonable answer. GfP asked you this:
I’d like to see how you effectively replace him on this team. And I mean staying in reality where salary structures matter. Go for it. Give me on viable alternative where we can replace EJ’s productivity.
and in response you bobbed and weaved and turned it back on him, and the closest you came was same vague BS answer about “better” or “roughly equal” players, without actually talking about how one does this in reality, given the players available on the market and the realities of the NBA salary structure.
You are a bully and a hypocrite, and not nearly so smart as you think you are.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
He's just trying to show that they should have had better backups
An attack on the FO. But the reality is that like the Lakers without Kobe, the Clippers without EJ floundered. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The sad part is that this idiot won’t just come out and say it. He wants to make nonsensical arguments that really lead nowhere and denigrate anyone that dares call him on his BS
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 7:46 PM PST up reply actions
So, seriously
You want to me try to convince someone named Gordon For President to consider replacing Eric Gordon?
This seems like an unreasonable request.
What's truly unreasonable ...
is you continually trying to hold others to a standard that you never come close to meeting yourself.
You are a bully and a hypocrite, and not nearly so smart as you think you are.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
How many times do I have to say Gordon for President is JUST a name.
I picked it because I joined during the election craze of Nov. 2008 and EJ was about the only bright spot on the roster.
I am not an EJ hype man, but you, John R, use every excuse in the book NOT to back up your ridiculous rhetoric.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 3, 2011 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
Jesus for president
Hey dude maybe there is no such thing as jesus.
There is only one way for conversations such as these to go.
True
Given the fact that you always respond with these sorts of answers rather than honestly conversing and attempting to back up your opinions when you are asked a legitimate question. These conversations could, on the other hand, go in different directions were you not such an arrogant, dismissive, hypocritical jagwagon.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Right
And if you were here to talk about basketball instead of me, maybe we could talk about the Clippers.
Question: why are we talking about Eric Gordon and yours truly in a fanshot about rookie performance and development?
I can only get the feeling its not myself who takes discussions off track here.
What a crock
If you were here to talk about basketball instead of yourself, you’d respond with basketball-related answers to challenges posed to your opinions. Instead, you attack anyone who disagrees with you.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
That's simply not true
I respond to lots of different people lots of different ways. I respond to you and Jax a certain way because you have earned it.
And GfP
And Erik O when he deigned to disagree with you. And SilverClip on more than one occasion. And many, many, many others.
As far as I can tell, the way I “earned” it was by disagreeing with you and asking you to back up your assertions the very first time we conversed, because that’s when you started responding with snide retorts and dodging my questions. Then, instead of being intimidated by your inflated opinion your own intellect and kowtowing to you as others do, I began responding to you the way you do to others. If that “earns” me your animus, so be it. You “earned” mine in that first exchange.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Right, its boltsfan the cop
Hey man, keep up the good work.
I mean, if your point is to change the tone of discourse around here
How would you rate your performance so far?
How dare you. Zach freaking Randolph was on that team!
by Michael White on Mar 3, 2011 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
Loved Z-Bo.
Highlight of the year, him decking Amundson when he tried to kiss Zach “in” his mouth,.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 3, 2011 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
People here were fairly outraged at the time (stupid Zbo type comments) until everybody was made aware that Randolph heard earlier in the day that his father was terminal. Then everybody gave him a pass.
I’m more surprised he actually landed the punch. That never happens.
by Michael White on Mar 3, 2011 3:34 PM PST up reply actions
But hey
If you think the front office did a perfect job this season, just come out and say so.
Typical evasive response
You’re so transparent it’s pathetic. You accuse others of avoiding answering direct questions and misrepresenting your positions, and then you do exactly that over and over and over again.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
You didn't ask me a question
So calling me names is just calling me names.
I did ask you a question thought. Go ahead.
Wait, what question did you ask me?
That’s not a question, that’s trying to put words in my mouth, and evades my point about you dodging GfP’s direct question, as you always do when someone asks you a question you can’t reasonably answer.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
What was the difference in your mind between Jan and Feb?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 4:16 PM PST up reply actions
Probably VDN forgot how to coach I'd guess
Same as last year.
You don’t expect me to answer you seriously do you? I’d have to have an ounce of respect for you for that.
You are afraid. We can see it.
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 4:57 PM PST up reply actions
LOL
Ah, Jax tries to make another thread about me.
All your threads are about you and your insecure ego
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 2, 2011 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
Amusing or annoying?
A few of us on here just love to argue about anything. It reminds me of my middle school students, but with a better command of the English vocabulary. And, like my middle schoolers, sometimes it is amusing but more often it’s just annoying.
John R, what was the highest level of bball you ever played?
Not trying to be an internet tough guy, I am just curious.
If you check out his photo, the answer would be obvious
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
I know you don’t want me fanning the flames.
But I think this comment is out of line.
by Michael White on Mar 3, 2011 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
Hey if he is a sad hateful man, let him say what he had to say
Cause 6’4 dudes with beards never play basketball or have in the past. Its not his worst logical fallacy, but it does show a lot about his character.
sweet I love beards
and mustaches as well
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
I never said I didn't like beards
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
Beards
increase your vertical leap by 18 inches. I don’t need any case studies to back that up.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
Um, it was a joke
Sometimes you take things too seriously
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
You are a good model
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
let's see your picture Jax
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
Division III
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 3, 2011 9:28 AM PST up reply actions
Didn't realize John R (aka caveman) was a coach
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not trying to insinuate that you can't be a good bball analyst w/o playing at a high level
My assumption is that people who are able to distance themselves from the “eye test” tend to have little playing experience.
Don't buy it
His BS is far too transparent for it to be worthy of a title.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Dude, I won 6 championships then was GM of the Wizards
Being good at basketball clearly has everything to do with evaluating basketball.
pretty sure it predates the Jack Black movie
should be a pretty old idiom.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
Woody Allen
Was the first time I heard it, from Annie Hall in the mid-70s
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Of course
I should have known I would never get a serious answer out of John R. I won’t judge you if you say you were cut from your 7th grade team and never played again; I don’t think that has any bearing on one’s ability to evaluate talent.
You asked a question, then said you won't judge based on the answer to it
Why should I give a straight answer to a question you alleged is pointless to begin with?
Why are you so afraid to answer?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
Oh noes!
You rhetoric has become increasingly hateful today. Why are you so sad?
What level - come on, you can do it
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
Reply to a sad hateful man like yourself?
Apologize.
For what? Trying to get you to directly answer a question?
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
This blog would be much better off if we freeze this clown out.
Seriously, people, do a Control-F search and see how many times John R has written, “Why should I give an answer”.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 3, 2011 3:04 PM PST reply actions
+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Steve won't do it - he makes too much money off the page hits
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
I know Steve personally
He’s not doing this for money. He is a man of good character and didn’t deserve that comment from you.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
exactly
and just as many people would like to freeze Jax off this page as well.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
That was a joke mikey - I think Steve is a man of good character as well
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 3:54 PM PST up reply actions
Ok
try using smiley faces :) or something so that we know when you are joking.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
It's generally inaccurate anyways
not even sure how many people read all the comments but the fact that the page auto-updates means a lot fewer ads are displayed.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
I know - my sense of humor is pretty dry
I will try to do so in the future
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 3, 2011 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
Its very easy to freeze me out
If what I am saying isn’t interesting, ignore me.
It said my name right on the fan post. If you wanted no part, you didn’t have to come.
Enjoy the fanshots and fanposts about how Griffin is on steroids and we should trade for Prince. We should be on number 947 of those about now.
I enjoy your fanposts
keep them coming. Especially the ones on WP. I am not that in tune with wow metrics
Blake Griffin is coming, hide your MBengas
Nothing would make me happier than to talk basketball with the basketball-minded folks
And boltsfan and Jax can go off to JohnRnation.com and talk about me. Both sides would likely achieve peace.
actually
Boltsfan doesn’t even like Jax either (or you or me for that matter). He’s a self-declared asshole which is cool with me.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
Fair minded of you, Chuck
Respecting and liking are 2 different things. I certainly respect you.
Proudly enduring the pain since the days of Bill Walton's foot.
Word
While sometimes I butt heads with John’s brand of humor, there’s no doubt in my mind that he, as the resident WOW expert, absolutely brings plenty of interesting things to this blog. Looking through the archives from before I was even here, John’s been contributing for years. Love him or hate him, gotta show respect for the work.
"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be." - John Wooden
I am against freezing John R. out
he makes contributions to this site. He is never vulgar. It is very rare that someone is banned from this site, unless they are vulgar and inappropriate.
You don’t have to visit this site if you don’t want to, but you shouldn’t argue for someone to be banned unless there is a good reason. Your dislike of a person is not a good reason.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
What is EJ's WP 48 this year? I tried looking it up, but can only find last year's number.
Or even better yet is there a site I can look up all WP48 per player?
I noticed that Derrek Rose’s is .053 or something, which is low…and lower than EJ’s last year which was .085. Does that mean Derrek Rose is horrible and way below average?
Proud member of Club FTR.
Derrick Rose is at .204
But this article suggests the Bulls could be better if he shot less. His MVP campaign is hurting the team.
Ah I see, his WP48 this year is .204...
…his WP48 last year was .096 and early on it was .053.
So he’s improving and will probably get even better if he learns to shoot less.
I’m not sure what I am supposed to use WP48, from what I can gather it is a good statistical measure on how someone is/has performed, but is it a good inference tool on how they will perform in the future?
Like EJ for example, he was below average in WP48 last year, but I can’t imagine that being the case this year or going forward.
Proud member of Club FTR.
I think it is
If simple stats are, then something that weights simple stats should be. If you don’t think simple stats are useful for predicting future performance than you should not find wins produced useful.
I looked this up on 1/29
So the data is old, but for reference:
FYI: Above average players on the Clippers (3) Griffin, Jordan and Gordon (hurt)
On the teams between LAC and a playoff spot
Portland: (5) Camby, Miller, Batum, Pryzbilla, Rudy (notably NOT LaMarcus Aldridge)
Memphis: (5) Randolph, Gay, Conley, Gasol, Tony Allen
Phoenix: (6) Nash, Gortat, Richardson, Dudley, Hill, Childress
Houston*: (7) Hayes, Patterson, Battier, Budinger, Martin, Lowry, Miller
Golden State: (5) Curry, Biedrins, Wright, Lee, Adrien
*On Houston I did not count Yao and Williams who have a WP/48 over 0.1 but have played less than 100 minutes.
by Michael White on Mar 3, 2011 5:12 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
