Dude just quoted an article that said the EXACT same thing i just said.
Self ownage again.
I've already proven to you that Duncan matches and even surpasses Hakeem in your criteria for playoff "big games"..
And if Chandler/Faried have such few responsibilities, why arent other players in the league capable of duplicating their success? Its the "low usage myth". I refer you, again, to the nba geeks article which directly answers your questions on Tyson Chandler and others:
It's known to have a fetish for rebounding and high shooting %s, so naturally it's biased towards limited players like Chandler and Faried, since they can focus all their energy on their individual responsibilities, they don't have to focus on creating offense(because they're unable to)..
Catching and dunking = high FG%
High FG% + good rebounding numbers = high WP numbers
Last edited by HarlemHeat37; 05-01-2013 at 10:52 PM.
So you agree that the Lakers role players were more important than Shaq and Kobe, tbh?..Horry in particular?..
Once again, if its as simple as you make it sound, why can no one else do it? If it was easy, then everyone would have rebounding numbers like Faried or shoot the same percentage as Chandler.
It's known to have a fetish for rebounding and high shooting %s, so naturally it's biased towards limited players like Chandler and Faried, since they can focus all their energy on their individual responsibilities, since they don't have to focus on creating offense(because they're unable to)..
But no one does because they cant.
I've never denied that Faried isn't a great rebounder/finisher or that Chandler isn't great at catching and finishing dunks..
My point is that you're severely undervaluing players that are asked to generate the offense for a team..it's much more difficult to produce when an entire defense is game-planning for you, and your system requires you to create for players like Chandler and Faried to excel on offense..
When you took the SAT, did you fail reading comprehension?
Show me where it says their role players were "more important" than Shaq and Kobe?
In fact, show me where it says "more important" anywhere in the article. YOU implied that.
Last edited by da_suns_fan; 05-01-2013 at 11:03 PM.
Carmelo doesnt miss so many shots because teams are game planning from him. Durant, Lebron, Chris Paul etc all have teams "game planning" for them.
Carmelo misses so many shots because he takes bad shots. This is why his shooting percentage is so far below the likes of Durant, Lebron, Chris Paul etc.
And if Carmelo is "Creating for others" as you so stupidly claim, then why did he just have a career low in ASSISTS?
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/...armelo-anthon]
Game. Set. Match.
Youre really not on par with me. Someone needs to bring Findog back.
Well that was easy.
Anyone else?
You also said goran dragic doesn't belong in the nba
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........you'll never let me forget that one, will you?You also said goran dragic doesn't belong in the nba
I said I was "usually" right. Im not ALWAYS right.
http://forums.realgm.com/boards/view...f=64&t=1239421And all I can say is when we examine the Shaq and Kobe playoffs narrative? Well, the numbers don’t back it up
When you bring me into it as a witness to how awesome your opinions have been, you're asking for it.
I dont know what the realgm link is for but I asked you to show me where the words "more important" were in that article and you failed.
Good night.
I'm not sure why your only example is Carmelo, since I'm not a fan of his, but I'll argue anyways..
Anthony's switch to PF has contributed directly to the success of the Knicks system..he doesn't have to pad his assist totals to prove that, there have been several articles/videos displaying Carmelo's impact on the Knicks system..he's one of only two players on their team that can create a shot or create for others, he's usually forced to initiate their offense, putting himself in tough positions..
As Zach Lowe has written:
Anthony gets the no. 4 spot for playing perhaps the best ball of his career and embracing a power forward role that has allowed him to play with a sort of team-first selfishness as a post-up ball dominator. His passing from the post and elbows has been both more willing and sophisticated than in the past, and his 3-point stroke has been brilliant — almost certainly unsustainably so, even if he's taking mostly very good shots from there. His post defense at power forward has been solid, though his back-line rotations behind Tyson Chandler have been inconsistent and often ineffective; he's not a rim protector, after all, and New York's go-to lineups were hemorrhaging points before Melo's recent knee issues.In a broader sense, Anthony is essential to New York's iden y as a small-ball, spread-the-floor team, and not only because he's shooting 3s better than ever — and more than ever. He can drive to the rim against power forwards and brutalize traditional wings in the post; his inside-out passing from the block has reached a new level of unselfish sophistication. Almost every opponent has to contort its defense in uncomfortable ways in order to deal with Carmelo Anthony, power forward.
Last edited by HarlemHeat37; 05-01-2013 at 11:31 PM.
And just to top it off, since Da Suns Fan is delusional, proclaiming victory and ignoring all the severe flaws of his favorite numbers, I'll quote the best poster from my RealGm days, mysticbb..
What? No, that is not at all the critism of WP48. The method is inconsistent, that is one issue, the other issue is that things on a team level do not scale down to the individual level. Berri assumes two specific things he NEVER showed are true. First, that each boxscore metric has an intrinsic value which can be determined by regression, and second that each player can be looked at as if he would be a "team". Neither things were shown by Berri nor are those two things true.
Berri's way of "proving" his metric is completely inconsistent and does not show anything. You can basically take the uniform numbers, adjust them by "position" and then make a team adjustment and the result will be a pretty much "perfect" correlation to the overall team wins. The high correlation is controlled by the adjustments not by the initial unadjusted metric. I showed that in another thread by just taking a scoring rate, adjust that with a team defensive adjustment and I get an even better correlation than Berri. I can make the same steps to "prove" that this metric has some value and get the very same result as Berri. Well, Berri is ignoring two very important biases: selection bias and hindsight bias.
The players are pre-selected by scouts and coaches and will in almost all cases be used in a similar way. No coach will try to make his "enforcer" to be his main "scorer" for example. The players will have similar roles and minutes in consecutive seasons. That just a simple fact. And using hindsight data to predict something which already happened is not something which is really impressive. In fact, we have a better method to predict team wins, pythagorean expectation, than the linear relationship Berri is using.
Berri's method is inconsistent, because at the beginning he is proposing that boxscore entries would have intrinsic value which can be determined by regression. Well, Berri is doing one regression and one regression only, he uses linear regression to determine the win% by using offense and defensive efficiency as independent variables. After that Berri is using league average values to determine the marginal values of each boxscore entry. So far, so good. The issue is that now we get a pretty good differentiation between players, bigs are incredible valuable while smalls are not. At that point Berri is doing something which is completely unscientific, he is introducing an adjustment for somewhat arbritrary positions. Well, if Berri would have stayed with his original hypothesis, he would have just taken the results and would have concluded that bigs are in fact more valuable than smalls. By changing that make the assumption that each "position" would be equally valuable, he also changes the marginal values for each different position. In that way 2pt scoresd by a center are less valuable than 2pt scored by a point guard. Makes no sense to everyone except to Berri and his followers.
That step also is very important in regard to the consistency. Because adjusting for position just means that boxscore entries do not have an intrinsic value, thus we can't use regression in order to determine such value. That makes the whole thing complete bogus.
Well, and at the end Berri does also assume that every player on a specific team has the same impact on the overall team defense. He is basically saying that each player is the same in terms of help or weakside defense. That is obviously complete nonsense, but Berri believes that this is true. That adjustment is rather important, because it controls the correlation between WP48 and overall team wins.
Can we show that all what I wrote is actually true? Yes, we can. Two things in which WP48 would need to perform worse are correlations to lineup performance level and in out of sample tests. WP48 can't say anything about the lineup performance, we can use a coin and will have the same ability to predict lineup performances as WP48. Other boxscore metrics such as Win Shares or my SPM are MUCH better regarding this. The other question is the out of sample test. Even when we take the real values in the respective season for rookies into account WP48 is worse than basically everything else except of PER. WP48 as a tool is worthless in terms of predicting outcome of games in the future.Which fellow economists? Seriously, Berri is publishing his stuff in low-impact journals, sometimes Berri himself is in the editorial board or was. Berri is basically publishing his stuff without any kind of serious peer-review. He is not cited by any meaningful people and the only citations you can find are those from people in his staff or those who are critizing the method.
We also talk about a group of people which have not a strong mathematical background. They can use SPSS in order to make a regression, that's basically it. The APBR comunity consists of people with a PhD in math, physics, etc., a much stronger mathematical background than that of those economy people. As a geophysicist I had more math in my first 2 semesters than Berri in his whole life, just to make clear what kind of differences we are talking about.
Hollinger does not claim that his method is scientific, but his methods are all open. No idea how you can say otherwise. Rosenbaum has also described his method in great detail and the work by others is influenced by that. The difference between those +/- based people and Berri is: A lot of them are actually really working for teams and thus do not publish their results openly. But with enough math knowledge we can easily reproduce such things. Well, Aaron Barzilai is even kind enough to provide the results for all teams but the Grizzlies, because he works for the Grizzlies.
Berri is by far the most criticized "statistician" by the numbers community..he's known as a fascist that would ban posters that opposed his views from his forums..
NBA GMs openly based his formulas and beliefs, tbh
Anybody that knows anything about advanced stats bashes WoW advocates and labels them as complete idiots, tbh
And that is the reason I think Berri is the one with the least amount of basketball knowledge. The guy just has no clue. It is not about creating a shot, every shot attempt even a bad shot gives a team a better chance for a basket (and winning) than a turnover. What is the point? Not shooting means a shotclock violation, the result will be a turnover for a team. Even bad shots have a higher probability to went in than every turnover. Not accounting for that is either complete ignorant or just blantant stupid. Berri is both in my eyes.
On another note: The variable in the boxscore are not competetly independent, which makes a regression analysis a tough job. That the amount on rebounds depends on the amount of missed shots is a very important thing. Taking into account what I wrote before, it becomes rather clear why his marginal values overrate rebounding.
It also happens that the boxscore is biased towards offense. Any boxscore tells you more about individual offense than defense. He runs into the same problem as Hollinger. Well, Hollinger's PER shows a better correlation towards winning than WP, if you take out the postional adjustment and the team factor for WP. What is the point? Berri is cheating to get a better correllation to winning. That might work on a team basis, but if you go down on the player basis your results become flawed.
There is no way to adjust correctly for positions in basketball, because nearly every player (except of some point guards and centers) don't play an explicit position anymore.
@Doctor MJ
It is not that easy to give credits for assists correctly. I choosed a way to do it on a player-by-player basis on each team. That means every assists gets 1/2 of the value a team usually scores with a field goal. On the other side I subtract those points from the scorer via team ast%.
To show the effect:
PER has Amare Stoudemire with 22.6 ranked 12th right now and Steve Nash with 21.7 is 16th. My PRA (just simple player rating, nothing fancy at all) has Steve Nash at 7th with 16.7 (league average is 10) and Stoudemire with 14.8 at 17th. Comparing those things with the +/- numbers my boxscore rating seems to make a better job. Of course the rating has the same flaws, underrate individual defenders who are not producing blocked shots, steals or rebounds.
Btw: Good example with Marcus Camby. When a boxscore rating is so way off in comparison to +/- numbers, it should definitely be reviewed.
... because Berri sets the threshold efficiency for scoring at league average, the sum of Wins Produced by scoring in the league is zero. Thats right, Berri's metric says that throughout the entire league scoring did not contribute to any wins, that all 1230 wins in the league were created acquiring possession of the ball.So, unless players are shooting better than the league average -- fewer than half of all players do this -- their scoring effort actually counts negatively in their WP totals.
Rebounds are all good, however. There's nothing subtracted for the boards you didn't secure. You might think everything below 1/10 of available rebounds -- average by definition -- would be subtracted. But no. Because everything must revolve around the mantra, Points are Overvalued, rebounding by default rises to the top of the heap.
In this scenario, guards have almost no value. They only get boosted by their 'positional adjustment'. If you are a G-F who doesn't rebound much, you better hope he calls you a G.
Harlem went Armageddon ITT.
Da Suns Fan believes that Robert Horry was more important than Kobe and Shaq in 2002..
I hope that he has been enlightened by the information I just provided for him, maybe now he will understand the severe flaws of WoW, the foundation of all his arguments
Following Dave Berri is equivalent to following Alex Jones, tbh..it's for delusional fanboys that want to feel special by having theories and opinions that differ from the logical person's perception
Last edited by HarlemHeat37; 05-01-2013 at 11:33 PM.
Damn Harlem went ham on that got.
Dudley>Melo
What the does that even mean?
Here's another awesome prediction where DSF says the 2008 Suns will win a championship (
EDIT: and another one
so this is a real take? are you saying this because of salary cap issues?
I skimmed through the tldrs but I still didn't see any legit reasons the Spurs would take Dudley over Melo.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
