This little blurb deserves it's own post....because I am tired of hearing you use it to deflect past stupidity and I finally did decide to go out and shove them down your throat...
Tell me you aren't justifying the benchings based on his shooting PCT in these quotes...
You are ing owned .
By the way...last season...according to this forumla...Shane Heal was also under-rated...he had one of best +/- on the team. Anthony Carter had the worst.
Ask TimVP to dig up the original Hedo>Manu thread and I know the reason you were all over Hedo's jock was because of his 3 shooting for that month...Listen to me for once and maybe you won't be a chokerlover. I have reasons for liking the players I like, beyond shooting %. Unlike you.
Last edited by whottt; 04-11-2005 at 04:21 AM.
And I hate to break it to you but Barry has been getting what you call "welfare" and what I call not being the team behind rookies and NBDL players...because of Devin's injury...that's what ended his slump...if we'd be giving him "welfare" all along we might already have HCA and my ing 65 win prediction would still be possible!
Last edited by whottt; 04-11-2005 at 04:24 AM.
I would have no problem if Dirk > Shaq or Nash for MVP this year but the truth is that Duncan is more valuable period.
I'm not sure about this. The lists don't attempt to contextualize the players by roles or minutes. And they are pretty weird. Besides AK-47 and Manu, would you or I really rather have any of the 'underrated' players over ANY of the 'overrated' players (well, except Walker)? I agree the simple stats on points, rebs, etc., don't capture a players' whole value, but it looks to me like the +/- system is leaving out something pretty important, though I don't know what it is. But come on, Shandon Anderson? I don't buy that.
Don't have a better system myself, I must admit. It's a very intriguing project, though.
Maybe a good idea would be to add a player's +/- 'score' to his ppg, rbg, apg profile, as an additional data point, but not as a replacement.
Hey RVB and Nikos...give me your input on these 82 games +/-(pairs) related threads...
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13316
RVB, I would like you to take a look at the above thread in particular...
Not only do Barry, Horry, and Manu's +/- totals exceed their glory stat contributions...
But when they are on the court together their +/- differentials are even greater than their individual +/- ratings...
What makes it really unfortunate is that it is next to impossible to find many 5 man lineups with Horry, Manu, and Barry together, in spite of the fact that they seem to elevate each others games.....and it's even more rare to find them together with Duncan...
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13313
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13314
Last edited by whottt; 04-11-2005 at 08:15 AM.
I don't think this article is intending to say the under-rated guys are better than the over-rated guys...only that the under-rated guys are better than people realize and the over-rated guys aren't as great as people think they are...
As for which team would win a game if they played....
The team that doesn't have Antoine Walker on it will win IMO. That guy is the worst player in the NBA...the stat that accurately reflects how truly bad a player he is hasn't been invented yet...He's not the least talented, he's very talented...which is what makes him even more dangerous to the teams he plays for...but he is the worst player in the NBA IMO.
trade barry for iverson
Nikos is correct ManuTastic. The list implicitly contextualize based on roles and minutes. What the list shows is the difference between a ranking based on statistical boxscore and adjusted +/- (NOT what you find in 82games.com) for each individual player. The list shows the relative production difference of each individual player using both rankings, and it is not meant for comparison among different players.
For example, using totally ficticious numbers, a player A in the underrated list may have a statistical boxscore production of 10 (ranked 100) and an adjusted +/- of 15, (ranked 70). The difference between his 2 rankings would be equivalent to +4 points per 40 minutes (I made this up). Player B in the overrated list may have a statistical boxscore production 30 (ranked 20) and an adjusted +/- of 20 (ranked 50). The difference between his 2 rankings would be equivalent to -5 points per 40 minutes.
Player B may have both better boxscore production and even adjusted +/-, but his boxscore production may be overrated with respect to what he actually produces to the team in term of +/- points to the team. I hope you understand now.
In order to compare all the players, you could use the adjusted +/- list (ajusted for minutes played as well), which is precisely what Nikos was asking in this thread. Even better would be to use the DanVal metric to compare different players, which uses both the adjusted +/- values and a statistical index derived from the boxscore, and has been shown to be even less noisy.
Whottt,
I agree with most of what you stated in the first thread, specifically the comments on Duncan, Manu, and Horry.
The Parker/Beno, Manu, Barry, Horry and Duncan lineup seems to be the most efficient. No surprises there.
Cheers!
Are these guys, like you know, handicapped or something, so they don't work or have a family life and can stay online all day and all night? I'm seriously curious.Aren't you two tired?
Actually they sound like an old married couple who hate each other but wouldn't know what to do with themselves if one of them died and left the survivor with no one to argue with.
Their arguments get old after about the 5th back and forth post when they start posting arcane quotes from three months (or 3 years) ago to prove a point. Maybe after 5 posts back & forth in any thread you could banish them to their own thread where anyone who cares could go watch them bicker.
All in all that you should take from these lists that certain players who aren't putting up 'glory stats' are still making more of a difference for their respective team then meets the eye. It isn't saying someone is a better player per se, but it says how much of a difference they make for their respective team based on the minutes they play.
If Jermaine O'Neal and Iverson were used for 30-35min on a team loaded with talent, they probably would have more efficient numbers, instead of overshooting. And as a result, you might see more efficient numbers or better +/- rating.
Smart people realize there is an ignore feature...others complain.
Is their any analysis on how these values hold up year to year for players? Does it on average remain reasonably steady and does it hold up when a player, particularly an established one, moves from team to team like say Barry or Horry?
Wrong again. You really don't know anything about this do you?I guess that means no early bird rightsWrong again.which is what I said the Spurs should do something like and you argued against.I said he was worth it several times.He's a ing steal for the vet minimum.No.I sure as canBull . Why did you say it wasn't a minimum deal if it's two years? You say there was only the minimum to offer and that's what was offerred. and accepted. It's not like the Spurs are paying it all anyway; but i'm sure you don't know about that either.I knew you could make it a 2 year dealDoes it not? Is it good?I think .200 shooting for one of the best shooters in the NBA sucks.They weren't. Our record was inflated after playing team after team with injured players. We don't think the Knicks are that good after beating us without Tim do we? Oh yeah, they're tanking -- the OT victory over Indiana proves that.The Spurs aren't as good as you thought.That's not a problem? That's no reason to give Devin, who was playing better and still needs to be developed any time?And now he's hitting 20% and getting killed on D.Yeah, Shane Heal.You like playing shooters who can't shoot because maybe someday they'll shoot again.
I stand behind everything I said. You can't make shots you don't take. You can't deny Barry was playing timid and passing up wide open shots. You admitted that, so why go back on that now? Shooters shoot. You can find that quote too.
You're saying you're satisfied with .200 shooting from Barry. I understand that. Forgive me for thinking he could do better. Now I'm resigned to his shooting poorly on the road from now on and very well at home. I apologize profusely for overestimating Barry's worth as a shooter. I have and will let Barry's overall mediocre road shooting slide from now on for all the excuses you have given him. I have seen the light - Barry is not the shooter I thought he was.
The data used to calculate adjusted +/- (adjusted considering the quality of the teammates and the opponents) is available for the last 2 years only (3 years counting this year), so there isn't much analysis done to study the variability of +/- data. However, I know some studies are under way using the last 3 years of data.
Dan has suggested that the noise levels on pure adjusted +/- data are larger, but this may be solely due to lack of samples. He has suggested that using aggregated +/- data for the last 3 years may be a very stable player performance predictor.
Chump...it doesn't change anything...can't you just admit you've been wrong about Barry(and Horry and Hedo)?
Is it really that hard to just say, "I am a dumbass"...say it...to get better you must first admit you have an illness.
You are doing it already in deed if not word...just admit it.
The list of you chokers you have loved is a long one...learn, live, grow, wisen the up!
Hey mang, you broke da string. Stick to da basics.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
