Mid isn't a bad poster & most of us (even those with more than average knowledge of the stats) can misinterpret them. Harlem just pays for Synergy data so he has more info than us
Mid's an extremely solid poster, even if I disagree with him a lot. He backs up his opinions, and he's willing to give and take. It's just a rare treat to see Harlem go full Detroit on someone like that.Mid isn't a bad poster & most of us (even those with more than average knowledge of the stats) can misinterpret them. Harlem just pays for Synergy data so he has more info than us
Agree with above. Good post by HH.
Though if mid made that identical post, you just know dabom would reply with "got "
I don't think it's possible to play at 100% effectiveness on both ends of the floor, if for no other reason than you can't be in two places at once. When Kawhi is taking an off-balance jumper at/near the shot clock buzzer (which happens way too often) he can't be the first one up the floor on defense. When he's locked up on the best player on defense, he's not as likely to be the one out in front in transition as much.
Add to that the pairings that got talked about in another thread (Kawhi being used to hide Tony/Pau), and it gets harder to measure Kawhi's contribution and value. With Tim defending in the middle, Kawhi was more free to be Kawhi. Any drop-off in Kawhi's defensive stats are, I believe, directly related to Pau in the middle vs. Tim. It has nothing to do with any drop-off in effort or effectiveness by Kawhi.
Here's the "eye test" people should be thinking about: Consider what this team's defense would look like if they didn't have Kawhi.
Consider the source, and wear it with pride. Nothing says you're on the right track quite so much as that.Agree with above. Good post by HH.
Though if mid made that identical post, you just know dabom would reply with "
PassthesaltMid isn't a bad poster & most of us (even those with more than average knowledge of the stats) can misinterpret them. Harlem just pays for Synergy data so he has more info than us
I never said anything about mid, he's my guy and I've been cool with him forever
I think it's evident that he became annoyed with Patty fans using 2 or 3 specific numbers to argue that he's a better option than TP, tbh..I'm not a Patty fan boy and I haven't been a Parker "hater" in 2 years(I've argued that he should have the ball more, this season, actually), but I think it's obvious that he grew tired of those 3-4 posters..
For sure - it was obvious why the thread was started and Mid is a very good poster. But he just took it to the other extreme. But ya, most posters on here are such dummies that it's enough to annoy anyone.I never said anything about mid, he's my guy and I've been cool with him forever
I think it's evident that he became annoyed with Patty fans using 2 or 3 specific numbers to argue that he's a better option than TP, tbh..I'm not a Patty fan boy and I haven't been a Parker "hater" in 2 years(I've argued that he should have the ball more, this season, actually), but I think it's obvious that he grew tired of those 3-4 posters..
My argument had nothing to do with the data I have ,thoughMid isn't a bad poster & most of us (even those with more than average knowledge of the stats) can misinterpret them. Harlem just pays for Synergy data so he has more info than us
I just hate when people use the "this ty player has a higher number than this star player, so this stat must be useless" argument..it's also silly on the other side when somebody argues "X player has a higher number, so he must be better/more valuable"..
There's so much context and perspective that needs to be applied..fortunately, we live in a time where there is a ton of data and access to footage that it's very easy to understand the impact of a player if you take the time to research(whether you do it for work, gambling, just a fan,etc)
It also annoys me when people prematurely judge players based on live viewing(I used to do it, as well)..I forgot which coaches said it, one of them may have actually been Pop, but it's extremely difficult to judge a player without re-watching a game, even when it seemed like a player dominated or struggled..another thing that annoys me about sports fans and media
Last edited by HarlemHeat37; 01-19-2017 at 05:30 PM.
Its because he's only a slightly above average defender this season. Sad but true.
I'm always in the cutting edge regarding Spurs players. People might not see it, but Patty is already a better PG than Parker. Would the Spurs have a negative lineup over the first 40 games? I think not. That's just ing small sample size. In the playoffs, you'd reap the rewards of a Patty lineup over a Porker one. I've seen Porker get thoroughly raped 3 years in a row. He's not gonna be a positive player again against the top ing teams. That's a fact. Patty might have a down year last playoffs( Great 2014/15 though), but coming back from the Olympics, it's clear as day who the better player is. Pop played Manu in 2013 even after he was the entire playoffs. Patty not starting, is not indicative of who the better player is.I never said anything about mid, he's my guy and I've been cool with him forever
I think it's evident that he became annoyed with Patty fans using 2 or 3 specific numbers to argue that he's a better option than TP, tbh..I'm not a Patty fan boy and I haven't been a Parker "hater" in 2 years(I've argued that he should have the ball more, this season, actually), but I think it's obvious that he grew tired of those 3-4 posters..
1. PER is not a ty stat, but it's antiquated and virtually useless for determining the contribution that a player made to the success of his team. It's a summary stat that describes the contributions of a player as an individual, completely ignoring the actual impact a player has on team success.
It's inherently biased against low-usage perimeter players and generally rewards high-usage guys. It's literally meaningless when assessing role players, particularly role players. Somebody like Bruce Bowen is categorized as a D-league caliber player by PER due to his role and usage rate, for example(whereas RPM consistently rated Bowen as an above average player). The reason PER gained recognition and credibility is because it became popular at a time where we didn't have other advanced metrics, nor did we have tracking websites and the massive amount of data we have today.
2. I don't believe 82games actually tracks assigned position data. They simply decide what position a player is playing and evaluate the opposition at the same position IMO. They have been around since 2001(same formula), way before the public ever had access to tracking data or mass access to games, I find it very difficult to believe that they had somebody watching every single game, every single night and assessing assignments
3. RPM, BPM and other on/off numbers are far more accurate than the other advanced metrics IMO. Their accuracy is based on the person using them correctly.
First of all, I don't believe any of them should be used to separate offense and defense. As proven, the results are very skewed when isolating the numbers. In basketball, there is too much action that occurs between a half court offensive possession and a half court defensive possession to separate the numbers between offense and defense. On/off numbers are far more accurate and logical when used as a whole, rather than separating offense vs. defense.
Regarding the actual evaluation of the numbers, I've never interpreted them as X player is more important than Y player because his RPM is higher. Even when adjusted to factor teammates and minutes, it should still be interpreted as X player has been more important at playing his role compared to Y player in his role(Patty Mills is not a better player than Parker, nor does it mean he would fit better with the starters. But Mills has been more valuable in his role at backup PG than TP has been in his role as starter/lead facilitator).
The numbers are falsely interpreted when somebody looks at a list and says "Kyle Anderson is higher than Carmelo Anthony, he must be a better player and more valuable in his role". That isn't how it works.
4. Defense is far easier to measure than in previous eras. Adjusted on/off numbers are flawed, but they're clearly indicative of impact over a large sample size, especially if you're using a multi-season approach. More importantly, it's 2017, NBA.com and Synergy numbers provide us with mass amounts of thoroughly collected, descriptive data. Certain categories like "spotting up" will always be flawed since judging rotations and strategy is subjective, but "isolation", "pick and roll", "post up", etc are pretty black and white IMO.
5. A player can have relatively poor advanced metrics and still be a championship-caliber player in the correct role. Kyrie Irving is an example of this. Most on/off numbers had him as a net negative player for obvious reasons. He's a PG that doesn't make anybody better, horrible playmaker and defender. However, you put him on a team with Lebron, and he can excel at his specialty of 1-on-1 scoring when required, without needing to worry about the rest of the team(although this only works when the chucker is shooting efficiently, as Irving did in the playoffs).
Aldridge is another example, he's widely hated by the metrics community. His numbers are relatively poor for obvious reasons. He doesn't make teammates better or have any notable effect on the other players on the floor.
Both these players have high PERs, though, because they are great individual players.
6. Damn, Patty Mills and Parker have caused a crusade against numbers on ST the past monthMore of this please. Excellent post.
I don't think Mid was saying stats are useless. I think he said they're useless in a vacuum or when they're misapplied, as the above posters were doing. Now they're not even trying to argue for Patty starting, attempting to restate the position as "we just want more minutes for Patty" when that certainly wasn't the initial premise.I never said anything about mid, he's my guy and I've been cool with him forever
I think it's evident that he became annoyed with Patty fans using 2 or 3 specific numbers to argue that he's a better option than TP, tbh..I'm not a Patty fan boy and I haven't been a Parker "hater" in 2 years(I've argued that he should have the ball more, this season, actually), but I think it's obvious that he grew tired of those 3-4 posters..
I stand corrected.
Who's changing their premise, got?
I don't think Mid was saying stats are useless. I think he said they're useless in a vacuum or when they're misapplied, as the above posters were doing. Now they're not even trying to argue for Patty starting, attempting to restate the position as "we just want more minutes for Patty" when that certainly wasn't the initial premise.
We know.I stand corrected.
Just watch how "average" Jimmy Butler looked in two matchups against Kawhi & let me know if he has been a slightly above average defender this season...
Players only have success against Kawhi if they can run PnRs thus are able to get switches or able to shoot coming off screens. Kawhi owns LeBron b/c he can go under the screen on him or the bigs can sag & dare him to shoot. Jimmy Butler is basically a slasher similar to LeBron.
People use it that way, though, which is what I'm arguing against.1. PER is not a ty stat, but it's antiquated and virtually useless for determining the contribution that a player made to the success of his team. It's a summary stat that describes the contributions of a player as an individual, completely ignoring the actual impact a player has on team success.
It's inherently biased against low-usage perimeter players and generally rewards high-usage guys. It's literally meaningless when assessing role players, particularly role players. Somebody like Bruce Bowen is categorized as a D-league caliber player by PER due to his role and usage rate, for example(whereas RPM consistently rated Bowen as an above average player). The reason PER gained recognition and credibility is because it became popular at a time where we didn't have other advanced metrics, nor did we have tracking websites and the massive amount of data we have today.
2. I don't believe 82games actually tracks assigned position data. They simply decide what position a player is playing and evaluate the opposition at the same position IMO. They have been around since 2001(same formula), way before the public ever had access to tracking data or mass access to games, I find it very difficult to believe that they had somebody watching every single game, every single night and assessing assignments
3. RPM, BPM and other on/off numbers are far more accurate than the other advanced metrics IMO. Their accuracy is based on the person using them correctly.
First of all, I don't believe any of them should be used to separate offense and defense. As proven, the results are very skewed when isolating the numbers. In basketball, there is too much action that occurs between a half court offensive possession and a half court defensive possession to separate the numbers between offense and defense. On/off numbers are far more accurate and logical when used as a whole, rather than separating offense vs. defense.
Regarding the actual evaluation of the numbers, I've never interpreted them as X player is more important than Y player because his RPM is higher. Even when adjusted to factor teammates and minutes, it should still be interpreted as X player has been more important at playing his role compared to Y player in his role(Patty Mills is not a better player than Parker, nor does it mean he would fit better with the starters. But Mills has been more valuable in his role at backup PG than TP has been in his role as starter/lead facilitator).
The numbers are falsely interpreted when somebody looks at a list and says "Kyle Anderson is higher than Carmelo Anthony, he must be a better player and more valuable in his role". That isn't how it works.
4. Defense is far easier to measure than in previous eras. Adjusted on/off numbers are flawed, but they're clearly indicative of impact over a large sample size, especially if you're using a multi-season approach. More importantly, it's 2017, NBA.com and Synergy numbers provide us with mass amounts of thoroughly collected, descriptive data. Certain categories like "spotting up" will always be flawed since judging rotations and strategy is subjective, but "isolation", "pick and roll", "post up", etc are pretty black and white IMO.
5. A player can have relatively poor advanced metrics and still be a championship-caliber player in the correct role. Kyrie Irving is an example of this. Most on/off numbers had him as a net negative player for obvious reasons. He's a PG that doesn't make anybody better, horrible playmaker and defender. However, you put him on a team with Lebron, and he can excel at his specialty of 1-on-1 scoring when required, without needing to worry about the rest of the team(although this only works when the chucker is shooting efficiently, as Irving did in the playoffs).
Aldridge is another example, he's widely hated by the metrics community. His numbers are relatively poor for obvious reasons. He doesn't make teammates better or have any notable effect on the other players on the floor.
Both these players have high PERs, though, because they are great individual players.
6. Damn, Patty Mills and Parker have caused a crusade against numbers on ST the past month
I'll take credit for this crusade, because I'm tired of people quoting numbers at me to "support" their position without understanding what the numbers actually illustrate.
?
He echoed my primary point in his post:
And this is what fanboys of certain players do all the time on here.Regarding the actual evaluation of the numbers, I've never interpreted them as X player is more important than Y player because his RPM is higher. Even when adjusted to factor teammates and minutes, it should still be interpreted as X player has been more important at playing his role compared to Y player in his role(Patty Mills is not a better player than Parker, nor does it mean he would fit better with the starters. But Mills has been more valuable in his role at backup PG than TP has been in his role as starter/lead facilitator).
"He's a better option wholesale because, um, his RPM is higher!"
My central argument isn't that RPM is a useless stat, but it's useless when making player comparisons between players in different roles and on different teams. I have no problem with the stat if its sole function is to evaluate player impact vis a vis his specific role on his specific team, but I find it HIGHLY flawed when it's used to evaluate players in a vacuum and then attempts to quantify absolute player value.
Example: Danny Green had a superstar level RPM one season. Anyone with a brain can see Danny Green isn't a superstar, but for that specific season in his specific role, he had such an impact for the Spurs (I think RPM is too kind to players like Green, Korver, Battier, etc). And even then, NBA front offices took his metrics with a grain of salt. GMs weren't exactly knocking down his door with 20 mil per year contracts, which, if evaluating in a vacuum, an RPM like his should've demanded.
Why?
He posted RPMs of +5 and +4 in the two years prior to joining the Spurs.
Indeed his RPM has tanked since joining the Spurs, which actually highlights the problem with RPM when it's used to evaluate players absolutely. So much of a player's "individual impact" is based on lineup compatibility.
Yep.
I don't think Mid was saying stats are useless. I think he said they're useless in a vacuum or when they're misapplied, as the above posters were doing. Now they're not even trying to argue for Patty starting, attempting to restate the position as "we just want more minutes for Patty" when that certainly wasn't the initial premise.
LMA isn't liked because he's a traditional center in frame but doesn't have the traditional back to the basket game, but isn't a new age 3 point shooter. He's a bit like a slower DRob who's much worse on defense.
Lets see how the game goes on Saturday. Lebron has been shooting very well this year.Just watch how "average" Jimmy Butler looked in two matchups against Kawhi & let me know if he has been a slightly above average defender this season...
Players only have success against Kawhi if they can run PnRs thus are able to get switches or able to shoot coming off screens. Kawhi owns LeBron b/c he can go under the screen on him or the bigs can sag & dare him to shoot. Jimmy Butler is basically a slasher similar to LeBron.
Dedmon can get his Biyombo on & protect the rim but what actually concerns me is D-League Danny's defense against Kyrie.
All the metrics-based analysts and writers on ESPN, True Hoop, etc have always detested Aldridge
I think it was mostly based on his efficiency numbers IIRC..
"I said Kawhi's a slightly above average defender...But he's not. I lied and put a misleading le. Why do you not understand that I made this thread to prove that some metrics are poop...Don't use them on Parker."
Jesus christ. All this thread has done is reminded me how much of an insufferable **** Dabom is.
Far and away the biggest waste of Oxygen of any poster on the site, and that saying alot with rejects like Avante here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
