Garnett....

[Findog]

wait, lol wut? :lmao

Absolutely not true. :lol

The "doesn't make his teammates better" tag was thrown at him until they finally beat Detroit and the Lakers, but none of those other things.

[mavs>spurs2]

Absolutely not true. :lol

The "doesn't make his teammates better" tag was thrown at him until they finally beat Detroit and the Lakers, but none of those other things.

Oh don't worry I wasn't going to try to have a serious debate with him about that, I just found it absolutely hilarious :lol

[Findog]

Yeah every sports writer was talking about how unclutch Jordan was right after hitting a gamewinner to take the National Championship.

or when he put 63 points on arguably the best team of all time in Boston Garden or hit that shot over Ehlo.

[badfish22]

DAF86,

man you keep saying that KG's career is so much better and that he was considered one of the best whereas Dirk never was.

Than how about some basic facts:
- Dirk has an MVP just as KG does, plus two other top 3 finishes, just like KG
- Dirk has 4 All-NBA First Team nominatons, just like KG, and might have had a chance to overpass him if he hadn't hurt his elbow while enjoying his finest season, as most fans in here were agreeing. Now, LBJ and Durant are locks at the forward position I think. Still he's going to pass KG in Second Team nominations, and all of this while he has played 3 less years in the league

Dirk has been considered for a while as an elite player in this league. And since we are talking about blogs and stuff, KG will never match his 06 playoffs heroics, during which Bill Simmons called him the best forward since Bird, Hollinger called him one of the most efficient players ever, and with Kobe the top two offensive threats in the league by a wide margin. In every player ranking after those playoffs, he was ranked as the top PF, overtaking Duncan and with writers at CBS and CNNSI claiming that this was his moment in the spotlight. Of course, he would end up winning the MVP that season as well. That is some serious praise thrown to a player who is a "soft, jumpshooting, European".

+1. lol that he never responded to this.

[Findog]

Btw, what's the Mavs record since that Hollinger article?

Mavs are 17-5 since the All Star Break and their trade. Only Phoenix has a better winning percentage since then at 16-4.

17-5 comes out to a winning % of 77 percent. Throw out the first game against the Seattle SloppySeconds when they were ironing out the kinks and they're 17-4 in their last 21 for a winning % of 81 percent. Wins over the Lakers, Magic, Hawks, Nuggets, Bobcats and Suns.

32-20 at the time of the trade, so that works out to a winning % of 62 percent. I'm pretty sure Hollinger's thesis is that they only marginally improved with the trade and that there's about 10-12 teams that are better than Dallas, even after the trade.

I'm pretty sure Dallas belongs in that second tier with Boston, Denver, Utah and Atlanta. At worst the Mavs are the eighth-best team in the league, but according to Hollinger, they're 15, behind Charlotte and Miami :rolleyes

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

[mavs>spurs2]

I'm pretty sure Dallas belongs in that second tier with Boston, Denver, Utah and Atlanta. At worst the Mavs are the eighth-best team in the league, but according to Hollinger, they're 15, behind Charlotte and Miami :rolleyes

No way are we the 8th best team in the league. The only teams that you could maybe argue are just "better" than us are Cleveland and LA. Outside of that, teams like Denver, Utah, Atlanta, I believe are a notch below us. No way I see any of those "2nd tier" teams beating us in a 7 game series, except for maybe Denver, who we just spanked after they were getting all fired up and calling it a "playoff game."

I mean can you sit there and tell me with a straight face that Utah and Atlanta are just flat out "better" than us? who are these other 5 teams ahead of us besides CLE and LA?

[Findog]

No way are we the 8th best team in the league. The only teams that you could maybe argue are just "better" than us are Cleveland and LA. Outside of that, teams like Denver, Utah, Atlanta, I believe are a notch below us. No way I see any of those "2nd tier" teams beating us in a 7 game series, except Denver, who we just spanked after they were getting all fired up and calling it a "playoff game."

Right now we're in a dog fight for the two seed with Utah. If Utah gets it and we have to play them in the semifinals without HCA, we're not advancing. I doubt we win a game in SLC.

[Findog]

I mean can you sit there and tell me with a straight face that Utah and Atlanta are just flat out "better" than us?

Flat out better? No. In the same class as us? I think so. I honestly believe any series between us and the Jazz will come down to HCA. Salt Lake City is a brutal place to try and win a game.

[mogrovejo]

What makes you think I am looking at raw numbers to base my opinion?

What do you or Hollinger think are the cutoff %s for weak-average-good-great rebounding?

LOL @ people who equate "using stats besides ppg/rpg/apg" to "Hollinger".

Basketball coaches were analysing the game in terms of possessions and using rebounding rates decades before Hollinger became popular. Dean Smith, for example.

A 15%RR is average for a big man.

Elite rebounders - 19%RR or higher
Above average - 17%
Average - 15%
Bellow average - 13%
Poor - 11%

(these numbers are simply indicative, use with caution).

An example of an advanced stat that is collected by Sinergy when it comes to rebounding is bellow/above the rim rebounds. Bellow the rim rebounders, guys who only rebound their area, are less valuable in the NBA that . Another one is boxing out - the ability to execute the "find, pivot, protect" trilogy. Or if a player holds the ball high after the rebounding - the value of a rebounder can be greatly diminished if he fails in the aftermath.

For example, Shelden Williams is an overrated rebounder if you just look at his numbers. Ditto for Dirk.

[mavs>spurs2]

I never could figure out why people knob slob Utah so hard every single year and they never do shit, yet the next year they win a couple games and all the sudden they're legit again.

[mogrovejo]

You called him a weak rebounder.

Being a bellow average rebounder, or even an average one, is a weakness for a player like Dirk.


Iverson always wanted to win on his terms - by shooting 11-35 from the floor. If he didn't get to shoot the ball on every single possession, then he mentally checked out. You can't say that about Jordan. Iverson was unfairly maligned in some ways, but I have a hard time believing that Jordan was ever considered to be essentially the same kind of problem player as Iverson.

BS. Even Iverson's reputation now is different than the reputation he had when he was carrying a bunch of role-players to the NBA finals.

Again, had Shaq got injured in 2001, Iverson's reputation would be entirely different - even though he'd have played and behave the exact same way.

And Jordan was a selfish shot-hog for the first part of his career.

[Blake]

LOL @ people who equate "using stats besides ppg/rpg/apg" to "Hollinger".

Basketball coaches were analysing the game in terms of possessions and using rebounding rates decades before Hollinger became popular. Dean Smith, for example.

A 15%RR is average for a big man.

Elite rebounders - 19%RR or higher
Above average - 17%
Average - 15%
Bellow average - 13%
Poor - 11%

(these numbers are simply indicative, use with caution).

An example of an advanced stat that is collected by Sinergy when it comes to rebounding is bellow/above the rim rebounds. Bellow the rim rebounders, guys who only rebound their area, are less valuable in the NBA that . Another one is boxing out - the ability to execute the "find, pivot, protect" trilogy. Or if a player holds the ball high after the rebounding - the value of a rebounder can be greatly diminished if he fails in the aftermath.

For example, Shelden Williams is an overrated rebounder if you just look at his numbers. Ditto for Dirk.

so for you, 4% is the difference between above and below average?

where do you get your rebounding rate stats from?

[21_Blessings]

BS. Even Iverson's reputation now is different than the reputation he had when he was carrying a bunch of role-players to the NBA finals.

Again, had Shaq got injured in 2001, Iverson's reputation would be entirely different - even though he'd have played and behave the exact same way.

And Jordan was a selfish shot-hog for the first part of his career.

Shaq did get injured in 2001 and that's only reason Iverson even won the MVP. Not to mention Kobe was already better than his overrated ass and shut him down in the 4thquarter of game 2.

Jordan was a selfish shot-hog in his later career in the exact same way Kobe is.

[mogrovejo]

so for you, a 4% rebounding rate is the difference between above and below average?

Dude, 2.5% is the difference between Bargnani and Nowitzki. If you think that 4 rebounds out of 100 is a small thing you're absolutely clueless. It's pretty much the difference between a top rebounding team in the league and a poor one.

Again, go learn some books. I mean no offense but that kind of question/doubt only exists if you're clueless about these issues.

[mavs>spurs2]

Back to Utah, I mean every year in recent memory they've been billed as some major powerhouse darkhorse who is a legitimate threat to whatever team happens to be the favorite that year. But they've done nothing but get curbstomped in 5 games in the first round EVERY SINGLE YEAR, except for the one time it took them 7 games to beat an average Houston team and then went on to face a weak GS team who matched up with them terribly after the mavericks first round debacle. And where did that easy route get them? An absolute bitch smacking at the hands of the eventual champion San Antonio Spurs.

Findog I just don't see what pipe you and ESPN seem to be smoking

[Blake]

Dude, 2.5% is the difference between Bargnani and Nowitzki. If you think that 4 rebounds out of 100 is a small thing you're absolutely clueless. It's pretty much the difference between a top rebounding team in the league and a poor one.

Generally speaking, I think 4 rebounds out of 100 is a small thing.

I also think rebounding is generally an overrated stat at times, but that's a different topic.

Where did you get your stats?


Again, go learn some books. I mean no offense but that kind of question/doubt only exists if you're clueless about these issues.

You should learn some books about English language.

Clue me in as to what books I should be a-learnin' about rebounding rates and how it shows Dirk to be a weak rebounder.

[Findog]

Being a bellow average rebounder, or even an average one, is a weakness for a player like Dirk.

Pulling in 9-11 boards playing next to a rebounder like Dampier is a weakness for Dirk? Really? You must think Josh Howard and Jason Terry are perennial All Stars for them to have had the success they've enjoyed the past few years, since apparently Dirk is nothing more than a white Bob McAdoo.

Do you honestly think Kevin Garnett would maintain such an awesome rebounding rate if Moses Malone hopped in a time machine and joined the Minnesota Timberwolves?

I also like how you point to Garnett being a better passer as another reason to call him a better overall player than Dirk - being a good passer means being at the mercy of your teammates and whether or not they can finish the play. Being a more efficient and better scorer that can create your own shot is not so dependent on your supporting cast. What is more valuable? Being a good passer (not like Dirk is a slouch in that dept) or being able to start and finish the play yourself?


BS. Even Iverson's reputation now is different than the reputation he had when he was carrying a bunch of role-players to the NBA finals.

People who don't follow the NBA saw Iverson's tats and cornrows and looked at him as some sort of thug. But it's pure BS revisionist history to say that he and Jordan were evaluated the same way by coaches, scouts and front-office execs in the early stages of their careers.

[nkdlunch]

Back to Utah, I mean every year in recent memory they've been billed as some major powerhouse darkhorse who is a legitimate threat to whatever team happens to be the favorite that year. But they've done nothing but get curbstomped in 5 games in the first round EVERY SINGLE YEAR, except for the one time it took them 7 games to beat an average Houston team and then went on to face a weak GS team who matched up with them terribly after the mavericks first round debacle. And where did that easy route get them? An absolute bitch smacking at the hands of the eventual champion San Antonio Spurs.

Findog I just don't see what pipe you and ESPN seem to be smoking

well if you go by that rule then by logic, you must also go by the rule that Mavs will eventually choke.

which leaves the lakers and nuggs to fight for the scraps. And 99 times out of 100 will have Lakers going to WCF. Nothing to see here folks... move along

[bostonguy]

I never could figure out why people knob slob Utah so hard every single year and they never do shit, yet the next year they win a couple games and all the sudden they're legit again.

This

[mogrovejo]

Generally speaking, I think 4 rebounds out of 100 is a small thing.

Yeah, but you're wrong. What else do you want me to say? Four rebounds in 100 possessions is the difference between the Cavs this season (best rebounding team in the NBA) and the NOH this season (26th best rebounding team); 4 rebounds out of 100 change the outcome of dozens of games in a NBA season. You just can't translate the abstractness of the number to the practical impact it has in a game.

Read Dean Oliver's book or something. Dirk is an average/slightly bellow average rebounder; I wouldn't call him "weak".

[Findog]

Back to Utah, I mean every year in recent memory they've been billed as some major powerhouse darkhorse who is a legitimate threat to whatever team happens to be the favorite that year. But they've done nothing but get curbstomped in 5 games in the first round EVERY SINGLE YEAR, except for the one time it took them 7 games to beat an average Houston team and then went on to face a weak GS team who matched up with them terribly after the mavericks first round debacle. And where did that easy route get them? An absolute bitch smacking at the hands of the eventual champion San Antonio Spurs.

Findog I just don't see what pipe you and ESPN seem to be smoking

I'm just saying that if they get the 2 seed and we have to play them in the second round without HCA, I don't like our chances. That strikes me as a home team winning every game type of series.

[Findog]

Read Dean Oliver's book or something. Dirk is an average/slightly bellow average rebounder; I wouldn't call him "weak".


Being a bellow average rebounder, or even an average one, is a weakness for a player like Dirk.

Pick a lane, please.

[bostonguy]

I'm just saying that if they get the 2 seed and we have to play them in the second round without HCA, I don't like our chances. That strikes me as a home team winning every game type of series.

SLC is a tough place to win at but LA/CLE are much much tougher. If we want at least a decent WCF against LA....it has to be the Mavs. Utah will be lucky to win 2 games against LA.

[mogrovejo]

I also think rebounding is generally an overrated stat at times, but that's a different topic.

RPG is a misleading stat.

Rebounding is extremely underrated by basketball fans (especially if under rebounding one puts all those things I mentioned before - above the ring, protection, team rebounding, contest rebounding - for example, few pay attention to the importance of contesting a rebound, even if one doesn't get it).

[mogrovejo]

Pick a lane, please.

Again? Dirk is an average/slightly bellow average rebounder and being that is a weakness in his overall game. Already explained this. Make more intelligent questions, please.

[Findog]

Again? Dirk is an average/slightly bellow average rebounder and being that is a weakness in his overall game. Already explained this. Make more intelligent questions, please.

So, in other words, you don't think it matters who you're on the floor with when it comes to rebounding rates? You think Dirk would maintain the same rebound rate if Dampier were to be replaced with a poor rebounder? Do you think Garnett would maintain the same rebound rate if paired with a Rodman-type player?

[Blake]

Yeah, but you're wrong. What else do you want me to say? Four rebounds in 100 possessions is the difference between the Cavs this season (best rebounding team in the NBA) and the NOH this season (26th best rebounding team); 4 rebounds out of 100 change the outcome of dozens of games in a NBA season. You just can't translate the abstractness of the number to the practical impact it has in a game.

Read Dean Oliver's book or something. Dirk is an average/slightly bellow average rebounder; I wouldn't call him "weak".

And again, I think rebounding is an overrated stat at times.

4 out 100 rebounds is a misleading stat for an individual because you ar not taking into account how many of those 4 rebounds are pulled down by a teammate.

So you have read Dean Oliver's book yourself? Does Dean Oliver call Dirk a below average rebounder?

According to your % ranks, Dirk is not "slightly" below average. He is solidly below average. If you say it's a weakness for him, then you are calling him a weak rebounder. There's really no way around it.



Where do you get your rebounding rate stats from?

[mogrovejo]

So you have read Dean Oliver's book yourself?

Yes.


Does Dean Oliver call Dirk a below average rebounder?

I don't know, I've never asked. Probably.




According to your % ranks, Dirk is not "slightly" below average. He is solidly below average.

As I said, the numbers were indicative - you have to ponder the other factors I enumerated and adjust for teammates, for example. It's unfortunate you were unable to comprehend such a simple statement.



If you say it's a weakness for him, then you are calling him a weak rebounder.

That's semantics, but whatever. I don't see it that way because players' overall quality is very different. There are guys who are paid to play basketball basically because they rebound as well as Dirk. For them, their bellow average rebounding is a strength. If you don't want to say that Dirk's rebounding is a weakness, don't. You can say it's his weaker strength, I suppose.

[mogrovejo]

And again, I think rebounding is an overrated stat at times.

Really? that's great.


4 out 100 rebounds is a misleading stat for an individual because you ar not taking into account how many of those 4 rebounds are pulled down by a teammate.


Again, the difference between Bargnani and Dirk this season is 2.5%. There are lots of guys rebounding at 16%. At 20%? 3 guys in the entire league this season. Not sure what else to say. You want to think that the difference is small, you do.

And yes, I'm aware that the law of diminishing returns applies to rebounding. You're still wrong.

[Blake]

RPG is a misleading stat.

Rebounding is extremely underrated by basketball fans (especially if under rebounding one puts all those things I mentioned before - above the ring, protection, team rebounding, contest rebounding - for example, few pay attention to the importance of contesting a rebound, even if one doesn't get it).

na. I still think it's slightly overrated.

You lump in the lame free throw rebounds with the contested box out rebounds. Separate the two somehow and I think it's a better defensive stat.

[Blake]

Really? that's great.

It is what it is.


Again, the difference between Bargnani and Dirk this season is 2.5%. There are lots of guys rebounding at 16%. At 20%? 3 guys in the entire league this season. Not sure what else to say. You want to think that the difference is small, you do.

You said Dirk's rebound is weak.

What does 3 guys rebounding at 20% have to do with Dirk's rebounding?


And yes, I'm aware that the law of diminishing returns applies to rebounding. You're still wrong.

you are trying to LOL at people who use raw rebounding numbers, but you yourself are using incomplete stats if you can't tell me how many of those 4 rebounds out of 100 get pulled down by his teammates. LOL.

Where do you get your rebounding rate stats from?

[mogrovejo]

What does 3 guys rebounding at 20% have to do with Dirk's rebounding?

It's the same 4% difference that you somehow consider small and insignificant. I can't keep explaining this forever. If you're still unable to understand it now, there's good chances you'll never get it.



you are trying to LOL at people who use raw rebounding numbers, but you yourself are using incomplete stats if you can't tell me how many of those 4 rebounds out of 100 get pulled down by his teammates.

Not everything is quantifiable. Doesn't mean that everything is equally good or bad. Doubt you can process this kind of reasoning, if you still can't understand how the same level of rebounding can be a weakness for player X and an asset for player Y.

In any case, that impact can - and is - measured.


Where do you get your rebounding rate stats from?

Various places. You can get yours from ESPN or basketball-reference.

[Blake]

It's the same 4% difference that you somehow consider small and insignificant. I can't keep explaining this forever. If you're still unable to understand it now, there's good chances you'll never get it.

Obviously you aren't getting it.

You say Dirk's rebounding has always been a weakness.

Now you are saying it's a weakness because he is 4% lower than someone else.

Why is it weak because it's lower than someone else?

LOL


Not everything is quantifiable. Doesn't mean that everything is equally good or bad. Doubt you can process this kind of reasoning, if you still can't understand how the same level of rebounding can be a weakness for player X and an asset for player Y.

In any case, that impact can - and is - measured.

Exactly. so why are you trying to quantify Dirk's rebounding by comparing it with Player Y?

Where is it stated that 13% is a weakness, even if it's 8 or 9 a game?


Various places. You can get yours from ESPN or basketball-reference.

Why is it so hard for you to give me a link to where you get your rebounding rate stats?

[DAF86]

+1. lol that he never responded to this.

Why would I respond to that? That's all true but that doesn't disprove the fact that KG > Dirk, which is all I'm arguing about.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Dirk's a really weak offensive rebounder, but defensive rebound wise he's average-above average. His career DR% is 22.1, top 50 of all time career wise, ahead of several big names like Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Kevin McHale.

[mogrovejo]

Obviously you aren't getting it.

You say Dirk's rebounding has always been a weakness.

Now you are saying it's a weakness because he is 4% lower than someone else.

Why is it weak because it's lower than someone else?

LOL


Nah, you're confused. I never said it's a weakness because he is 4% lower than someone else. Lots of excellent rebounders are/were 4% lower than someone else.



Exactly. so why are you trying to quantify Dirk's rebounding by comparing it with Player Y?

Where is it stated that 13% is a weakness, even if it's 8 or 9 a game?

I have little patient for trolling. If you think that a 13% rebounding rate isn't bellow average, then I don't know what to say. I really don't care. Call a very good rebounder to every guy who gets a 13% RR for all I care.


Why is it so hard for you to give me a link to where you get your rebounding rate stats?

I never thought you didn't even know where you could consult them. I've already told you the stats. You need a link to ESPN? Are you mentally retarded or something?

[JamStone]

This is what this thread reminds me of, emphasis on the music.

IDi83T4wEf8

[badfish22]

:lmao same. Had that song playing in my head before I played the vid.

[Findog]

According to advanced stats, Kevin Garnett at his peak was a better rebounder, passer, defender and took care of the ball better on offense than Tim Duncan.

Who would you take in their prime, Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett?

When it comes to advanced stats, or what teams like Houston are doing, I think as a franchise you'd be doing your roster a disservice if you didn't utilize that information, but they have to be used in tandem with traditional scouting methods and film study.

[mogrovejo]

According to advanced stats, Kevin Garnett at his peak was a better rebounder, passer, defender and took care of the ball better on offense than Tim Duncan.

Who would you take in their prime, Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett?

When it comes to advanced stats, or what teams like Houston are doing, I think as a franchise you'd be doing your roster a disservice if you didn't utilize that information, but they have to be used in tandem with traditional scouting methods and film study.

I'd take Duncan but mostly because he was a much easier player to build around. I never thought that the difference between them was that big. I doubt Duncan would have won a title with the Wolves (in fact, I'm positively sure he wouldn't) and I think with Garnett the Spurs wouldn't have the 2003 championship and would probably have another finals presence.

And stop calling that stuff advanced stats. Assist rate an advanced stat? It's the same basic stat but per possession. THe game is easier to understand from a quantitative perspective in a possession basis.

Those cautionary words about over-reliance on stats could have served Cuban well a few years ago; I'm not that big on stats.

[Findog]

And stop calling that stuff advanced stats. Assist rate an advanced stat? It's the same basic stat but per possession. THe game is easier to understand from a quantitative perspective in a possession basis.



I'm talking about the privileged stuff that front offices don't share with the general public - what kind of information they collect, what they do with it, how they analyze it, what sort of conclusions they reach with it, etc. Do you know what's on Daryl Morey's laptop? Can you find the post where I said assist rate is an "advanced stat?"


Those cautionary words about over-reliance on stats could have served Cuban well a few years ago; I'm not that big on stats.

This after using them exhaustively to try and make the case that KG >>>> Dirk. Now it's "going with the gut."

[mogrovejo]

I'm talking about the privileged stuff that front offices don't share with the general public - what kind of information they collect, what they do with it, how they analyze it, what sort of conclusions they reach with it, etc. Do you know what's on Daryl Morey's laptop?"

I have an idea; apparently you know for sure - you even know that "according to advanced stats bla bla bla".

[mogrovejo]

This after using them exhaustively to try and make the case that KG >>>> Dirk. Now it's "going with the gut."

It must be sad to have no other reasoning process except a dilemma-based one.

[mogrovejo]

I can't do it all the time, but there are posts of mine in this forum where I've used the kind of stats that teams collect. It's basically a question about how much detailed you want the charting to be. You guys could get advanced stats for every Mavs game if you were willing to put up the time/work necessary to collect the info. All you need is the game in a DVR device, paper and a pen.

[Findog]

I have an idea; apparently you know - you even know that "according to advanced stats bla bla bla".

It's just semantics. Basketball-Reference groups things like PER, Win Shares, Total Rebound %, Offensive Rating, Defensive Rating, True Shooting %, Turnover %, Assist Rate in the same category of "Advanced." Whatever. If that makes you blanche, then fine.

If you want something more pedantic, according to Total Rebound %, Assist Rate, Turnover %, Defensive Rating, Garnett was a better rebounder, passer, defender and had better handles than Duncan.

[Findog]

I can't do it all the time, but there are posts of mine in this forum where I've used the kind of stats that teams collect. It's basically a question about how much detailed you want the charting to be. You guys could get advanced stats for every Mavs game if you were willing to put up the time/work necessary to collect the info. All you need is the game in a DVR device, paper and a pen.

Honest question: What kind of stats do teams collect? If I wanted to chart a game the same way a scout or front-office type would, what would I track? Just a broad general overview.

[mogrovejo]

It's just semantics. Basketball-Reference groups things like PER, Win Shares, Total Rebound %, Offensive Rating, Defensive Rating, True Shooting %, Turnover %, Assist Rate in the same category of "Advanced." Whatever. If that makes you blanche, then fine.

If you want something more pedantic, according to Total Rebound %, Assist Rate, Turnover %, Defensive Rating, Garnett was a better rebounder, passer, defender and had better handles than Duncan.

I really don't care about the semantics - as long as it's clear one is talking about per possession stats, APMs, eff. per shot location and that kind of stuff (including PERs, WSs, etc). or the kind of info that, say, Sinergy collects -
but why the heck were you asking "Can you find the post where I said assist rate is an advanced stat?" then?

[FeZZy]

so..... manu ginobili...crazy block

[mogrovejo]

Honest question: What kind of stats do teams collect? If I wanted to chart a game the same way a scout or front-office type would, what would I track? Just a broad general overview.

Level of shot contestedness. Then it's broken down: in post isos, the Spurs contesting mid-range shots, with Gasol turning left in the right block, Rondo closing out on shooters at the top of the key.

Pick'n'roll defense - say, in the high ballscreen between Nash and Stoudemire, what happens when you hedge on, trap, drop down to zone and containe penetration, switch - does it result in a score by the ballhandler, pass, turnover, reset. How do team A defends the side pick'n'roll.

Initial set offenses - Is Ray Felton's offense left or right handed - meaning, does he initiate the offense on the right side of the floor or the left side of the floor more? Is there a tendency? PGs who are one-side dominants are easier to defend. What about the first pass to the wing? Is there a pattern?

Off-the-ball action - same stuff, identify patterns. When cross-screens in the midpost lead consistently to a corner 3 probably you can stop that play.

Shooting - Brandon Rush is a 41% 3pt shooter. But what if he's a 50% 3pt shooter coming off screens, a 36% shooter on spot up situations and a 6% one pulling up?

Rebounding - who boxes out, who contest rebounds, who rebounds bellow or above the rim. For example, one of the leading rebounders in the league hasn't got a rebound above the rim in the last 2 years.

ISOs - how does CHase Budinger defends isolations? What % of his defensive poss. in isolations result in a score when compared to the rest of the league? (It's a pretty dire picture for him, btw).


Every play can be tagged with multiple tags - style of play, players involved, outcome, etc. From there, you can build a virtually unlimited collection of stats.

[Shaolin-Style]

According to advanced stats, Kevin Garnett at his peak was a better rebounder, passer, defender and took care of the ball better on offense than Tim Duncan.

Who would you take in their prime, Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett?

When it comes to advanced stats, or what teams like Houston are doing, I think as a franchise you'd be doing your roster a disservice if you didn't utilize that information, but they have to be used in tandem with traditional scouting methods and film study.

Watching them both in their prime, I would say Duncan was better on defending his position and rotations, and demanded more attention on offense. But you'd have to have seen them in their time to know that kind of stuff, or take someones word for it. Stats can't describe that.

[picc84]

Duncan was a better position defender and interior help defender. Garnett was a better perimeter help defender.

[mogrovejo]

Garnett was a fairly superior pick'n'roll defender. His advantage there was more important than Duncan's advantage as an individual defender in the low block.

[endrity]

Garnett was a fairly superior pick'n'roll defender. His advantage there was more important than Duncan's advantage as an individual defender in the low block.

nahhhh

Duncan was a curtain over the basket, one of the best low post defenders I have seen.

[mogrovejo]

nahhhh

Duncan was a curtain over the basket, one of the best low post defenders I have seen.

I agree.

But I've never seen a pick'n'roll defender as good as Garnett + he was much better on perimeter oriented guys and closing out. And that's more important in today's game. If they were playing 10 years earlier, I'd probably take Duncan as a defender.

[monosylab1k]

Final comments on this thread: It's hilarious how mogrovejo talks down to people, acts like he has some superior intelligence, and overall behaves like a pretentious douchebag, yet he got completely owned in every argument against every guy he tried to debate, and for the grand finale, he has no fuckin clue how to spell "below". Or maybe he was trying to tell us that Dirk was average at yelling in a deep voice while rebounding.

Not since the last time Allanon tried to get into it has anybody been owned this hard. The end.

[mogrovejo]

Final comments on this thread: It's hilarious how mogrovejo talks down to people, acts like he has some superior intelligence, and overall behaves like a pretentious douchebag, yet he got completely owned in every argument against every guy he tried to debate, and for the grand finale, he has no fuckin clue how to spell "below". Or maybe he was trying to tell us that Dirk was average at yelling in a deep voice while rebounding.

Not since the last time Allanon tried to get into it has anybody been owned this hard. The end.

Oh boy, someone is seriously butthurt.

[Findog]

No way are we the 8th best team in the league. The only teams that you could maybe argue are just "better" than us are Cleveland and LA. Outside of that, teams like Denver, Utah, Atlanta, I believe are a notch below us. No way I see any of those "2nd tier" teams beating us in a 7 game series, except for maybe Denver, who we just spanked after they were getting all fired up and calling it a "playoff game."

I mean can you sit there and tell me with a straight face that Utah and Atlanta are just flat out "better" than us? who are these other 5 teams ahead of us besides CLE and LA?

Better than us: LA, Cleveland, Orlando

Same plane as us: Denver, Utah, Atlanta, Boston, Phoenix

You could rank Dallas at best #4, or at worst #9. We belong in that 4-9 group of teams. He's got us behind Miami and Charlotte, which is just absurd. Not that I think Hollinger and his formula merits much debate. If your formula ranks the Mavs behind the Heat and Bobcats, then it needs work. Power Rankings Formulas are really just gist for angry arguing during the season anyway. He's just another asshole with a keyboard.

[JamStone]

Good. I just ran out of popcorn.

[mogrovejo]

I had an idea to raise the collective BBIQ of this forum. In the next pre-season I'll post the lay-out of the scouting reports of a top professional team - what their scouts are looking for when they're scouting another team, what questions they have to find answers to, the diagrams they have to fill, etc - and Mavs fans can do it for the Mavs, Spurs fans for the Spurs, etc. I think if we do it for a few games we can get a pretty good idea about some different traits teams have.

[Ghazi]

Better than us: LA, Cleveland, Orlando

Same plane as us: Denver, Utah, Atlanta, Boston, Phoenix

You could rank Dallas at best #4, or at worst #9. We belong in that 4-9 group of teams. He's got us behind Miami and Charlotte, which is just absurd. Not that I think Hollinger and his formula merits much debate. If your formula ranks the Mavs behind the Heat and Bobcats, then it needs work. Power Rankings Formulas are really just gist for angry arguing during the season anyway. He's just another asshole with a keyboard.

I think obviously what holds the guys in blue back in the Power Rankings is the +2.1 margin of victory, which IS closer to Charlotte/Milwaukee/Miami than it is to some of those teams "in the same plane". Mavs have the 12th best margin of victory in the league.

I think the Mavs margin of victory this year is some sort of bizarre aberration. I agree based on the eyeball test they're far superior to the Bobcats/Bucks/Heat... but the margin of victory isn't.

[Findog]

I had an idea to raise the collective BBIQ of this forum. In the next pre-season I'll post the lay-out of the scouting reports of a top professional team - what their scouts are looking for when they're scouting another team, what questions they have to find answers to, the diagrams they have to fill, etc - and Mavs fans can do it for the Mavs, Spurs fans for the Spurs, etc. I think if we do it for a few games we can get a pretty good idea about some different traits teams have.

:tu

[Findog]

I think obviously what holds the guys in blue back in the Power Rankings is the +2.1 margin of victory, which IS closer to Charlotte/Milwaukee/Miami than it is to some of those teams "in the same plane". Mavs have the 12th best margin of victory in the league.

I think the Mavs margin of victory this year is some sort of bizarre aberration. I agree based on the eyeball test they're far superior to the Bobcats/Bucks/Heat... but the margin of victory isn't.

Mavs have a veteran core of 30+ guys - pattern has been for them to get big leads and then struggle to maintain them. I'm guessing it's not being "mentally soft" or "lacking determination" but simply not having those young legs in the second half of games.

[monosylab1k]

Oh boy, someone is seriously butthurt.

tbh you're too far "bellow" me to ever be anything more than a jizz mopper in my eyes.