There are 388 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

NBA Off-season Thread

Originally posted by 4ML:
Jeff Schwartz, Odom's longtime agent, told ESPN.com: "Lamar is not missing. His wife knows exactly where he is."


Originally posted by TheSixthRing:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
TMZ is saying that according to friends and family, Lamar Odom is missing.

Kardashian b***h probably sat on his face and suffocated him.

guess sixth was right
Originally posted by 4ML:
Originally posted by AmpLee:
Originally posted by 4ML:
Originally posted by AmpLee:
Originally posted by 4ML:
Last year, the PER gap between LeBron James and everyone else was 3.3. That's equivalent to the gap between James Harden and J.J. Hickson.


That's a bit misleading. JJ Hickson played really well last year. He was a double double machine.

Not misleading at all.

Harden's PER was ranked at no. 11. JJ Hickson was ranked no. 33.

Lebon's PER was over 31 and Hickson, a double-double machine, had a PER of under 20.

It's misleading because the vast majority of people think Hickson is average at best. If the writer said the difference was between the 11th best in PER VS the 33rd best, then it would make the point without trying to fool people. Hey man, Lebron is great, you don't need to convince us.

My post was meant for avid NBA fans...who post in this thread during the off-season. Not for an average fan....and wasn't trying to convince anyone. I was just surprised myself about the difference Lebron has put between himself and rest of the guys considering couple years ago there was a talk that Durant may be the best player in the league.

And, regardless of how well Hickson played last year...and the difference between no. 11 and no.33 is pretty big.

It doesn't matter whether your reasoning was to not mislead, when the author clearly was cherry picking facts to create a dramatic illusion. The difference between Lebron and Durante was equivalent to Blake Griffin and Marc Gasol. See how it sounds less dramatic?
Originally posted by AmpLee:
It doesn't matter whether your reasoning was to not mislead, when the author clearly was cherry picking facts to create a dramatic illusion. The difference between Lebron and Durante was equivalent to Blake Griffin and Marc Gasol. See how it sounds less dramatic?

But, we're talking strictly PER. Gasol doesn't score very high in PER because it doesn't factor in defensive ability of a player. So, if we're talking PER - then yes - the difference between Griffin and Gasol is just as dramatic.

Your comparison may sound less dramatic to a casual fan...or someone who doesn't pay a lot of attention to PERs or may not exactly know what it represents. It is a statistical contribution of a player...not a rating of a player.

-----
In John Hollinger's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." If you're a fan of this stat and have paid attention to it in past years - then you'll understand that a difference of 3.3 between Lebron and Durant is very high WHEN taking into account the kind of efficient season Durant has put in. This is why it surprised me when it was posted on hoopsworld.
[ Edited by 4ML on Aug 27, 2013 at 2:11 AM ]
PER = a statisticians attempt of creating an algorithm that gives one an aggregate number that quantifies multiple aspects of one's game. It's Hollinger created nonsense, IMO.

You can't put a number on everything...but you can put a number on this, 63 more days till NBA season is back baby!
[ Edited by GameOver on Aug 27, 2013 at 9:12 AM ]
Originally posted by GameOver:
PER = a statisticians attempt of creating an algorithm that gives one an aggregate number that quantifies multiple aspects of one's game. It's Hollinger created nonsense, IMO.

You can't put a number on everything...but you can put a number on this, 63 more days till NBA season is back baby!

It is complicated but it's not nonsense. It is actually one of the better stat out there. It has it's limitations and Hollinger admits to it himself...but it's an excellent stat to compute the statistical contribution of a player.

Statisticians are becoming a huge part of basketball. Smart GMs, coaches and players are studying advanced statistics to become more efficient per possession. This is one of the MAJOR reasons why Miami won the chip (and Spurs made it to the finals) even though they were last in rebounds in the entire league (Spurs were near the bottom in Western Conf).
Originally posted by 4ML:
It is complicated but it's not nonsense. It is actually one of the better stat out there. It has it's limitations and Hollinger admits to it himself...but it's an excellent stat to compute the statistical contribution of a player.

Statisticians are becoming a huge part of basketball. Smart GMs, coaches and players are studying advanced statistics to become more efficient per possession. This is one of the MAJOR reasons why Miami won the chip (and Spurs made it to the finals) even though they were last in rebounds in the entire league (Spurs were near the bottom in Western Conf).

PER and this are two really different things. I spent a decent part of my summer on this topic, as I'm going to be tracking the Laker offense next year from a "points generated" perspective for LakersGround. Larry Coon has been helping me out in terms of informing the discussion and giving me an idea of the types of things that they talk about at the Sloan Conference (which he attends every year), and what kinds of analytics teams are using. He has an interesting quote from Pete D'Allesandro, who was just hired by the Kings, who says, "A lot of teams are using analytics, but few are using them correctly." You're right that Miami & San Antonio are considered to be two of the better teams in terms of their analytical capabilities, but stuff like PER isn't what they're looking at.

One snippet that Larry mentioned from last year's Sloan conference that I thought was interesting...

Some of the stuff presented last year showed exactly how position on the floor during rebounding opportunities affected control of the floor, and how making certain adjustments to the position & spacing of players on the floor during rebounding opportunities results in a higher percentage of controlled rebounds. The better teams are assimilating this information, using it to inform the coaches & players, using it to devise drills, and working those drills so the team's rebounding improves. This has nothing to do with evaluating players, it has to do with better utilizing the players you already have -- and not as individuals, but as units.
[ Edited by LA9erFan on Aug 27, 2013 at 2:20 PM ]
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by 4ML:
It is complicated but it's not nonsense. It is actually one of the better stat out there. It has it's limitations and Hollinger admits to it himself...but it's an excellent stat to compute the statistical contribution of a player.

Statisticians are becoming a huge part of basketball. Smart GMs, coaches and players are studying advanced statistics to become more efficient per possession. This is one of the MAJOR reasons why Miami won the chip (and Spurs made it to the finals) even though they were last in rebounds in the entire league (Spurs were near the bottom in Western Conf).

PER and this are two really different things. I spent a decent part of my summer on this topic, as I'm going to be tracking the Laker offense next year from a "points generated" perspective for LakersGround. Larry Coon has been helping me out in terms of informing the discussion and giving me an idea of the types of things that they talk about at the Sloan Conference (which he attends every year), and what kinds of analytics teams are using. He has an interesting quote from Pete D'Allesandro, who was just hired by the Kings, who says, "A lot of teams are using analytics, but few are using them correctly." You're right that Miami & San Antonio are considered to be two of the better teams in terms of their analytical capabilities, but stuff like PER isn't what they're looking at.

One snippet that Larry mentioned from last year's Sloan conference that I thought was interesting...

Some of the stuff presented last year showed exactly how position on the floor during rebounding opportunities affected control of the floor, and how making certain adjustments to the position & spacing of players on the floor during rebounding opportunities results in a higher percentage of controlled rebounds. The better teams are assimilating this information, using it to inform the coaches & players, using it to devise drills, and working those drills so the team's rebounding improves. This has nothing to do with evaluating players, it has to do with better utilizing the players you already have -- and not as individuals, but as units.

Great post. That last part was so interesting.

To be honest, I meant in very general terms that advanced stats are becoming a huge part of the game and wasn't referring PER as one of those stats. But, I did think PER is used in some capacity by the GMs to put together a roster. I once read that some very well respected GMs do study PER but things are changing fast in NBA, so that maybe dated.

To my point, I do believe PER is a great stat. It has it flaws...just like any other stat - but it is hardly nonsense.
Originally posted by 4ML:
Originally posted by AmpLee:
It doesn't matter whether your reasoning was to not mislead, when the author clearly was cherry picking facts to create a dramatic illusion. The difference between Lebron and Durante was equivalent to Blake Griffin and Marc Gasol. See how it sounds less dramatic?

But, we're talking strictly PER. Gasol doesn't score very high in PER because it doesn't factor in defensive ability of a player. So, if we're talking PER - then yes - the difference between Griffin and Gasol is just as dramatic.

Your comparison may sound less dramatic to a casual fan...or someone who doesn't pay a lot of attention to PERs or may not exactly know what it represents. It is a statistical contribution of a player...not a rating of a player.

-----
In John Hollinger's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." If you're a fan of this stat and have paid attention to it in past years - then you'll understand that a difference of 3.3 between Lebron and Durant is very high WHEN taking into account the kind of efficient season Durant has put in. This is why it surprised me when it was posted on hoopsworld.

C'mon man. How are you not getting my point?

The difference between Lebron and Durant via PER is the same difference and Carmelo and Steph Curry.

I'm not trying to claim that the PER stat is not impressive for Lebron, I'm claiming that the author of the quote is using it in the way he/she sees fit to be dramatic. The way evidence is presented has a bigger effect than the actual evidence itself. Like I said, Lebron's numbers are impressive, but let's not cherry pick comparisons that serve the purpose to make him look even better than he already does. I am done arguing the point that the author of the stats was attempting to dramatize the superiority of Lebron.
[ Edited by AmpLee on Aug 28, 2013 at 12:00 PM ]
lol...calm down. It's the off-season. What is it with ppl, if you don't agree with them - you must be blind.

Anyway, I don't really care what you think the author was trying to do. It's not important to me. I was only interested in the difference between Lebron and Durant as I've said before.

[ Edited by 4ML on Aug 28, 2013 at 4:12 AM ]
Look who was at Luke Walton's wedding
Originally posted by GameOver:
Look who was at Luke Walton's wedding

RJ lookin all jealous
Originally posted by 4ML:
It's not important to me. I was only interested in the difference between Lebron and Durant as I've said before.


Yes, it's the same difference between Carmelo and Curry. Shocking!

I'm not saying you're blind, you just lack objectivity because you are so aligned with Lebron. Nowhere was I trying to diminish his epic season or how good he is, I'm simply stating that the evidence that was presented was misleading. Goodness.
  • FL9er
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 1,939
Nothing about T-Mac retiring?
Originally posted by FL9er:
Nothing about T-Mac retiring?

Originally posted by FL9er:
Nothing about T-Mac retiring?

The goat