Someone needs to read your posts…

http://njmg.typepad.com/knickknacks/2008/07/returning-with.html

http://www.knickerblogger.net/index.php/2007/12/28/marbury-in-08/

Turns out, the two of us have had this conversation before :)

It is true that Isiah ran a lot of clear out plays where 4 other guys stood along the sidelines and Crawford effectively went 1 on 5.

The other side of the coin is that due to this you can’t really blame anyone else for not being “willing to take those shots.” Whenever they tried something more creative they’d get a tip in by David Lee or a 3-pointer by Eddy Curry. (Curry was willing to take a 3 for God’s sake, how can you say no one else was willing to take the last shot?)

The clutch stats on 82 games, though, record the last 5 minutes of the 4th Q and overtime when no team is ahead by more than 5 points. So, not just last second plays. You look at the guys who do well in the clutch and they’re mostly the guys you’d expect. Crawford, on the other hand, is among the worst shooters in clutch minutes in the NBA (not a huge suprise because he’s a bad shooter overall). For someone with such a high “aptitude” you’re pretty quick to rush to decisions with absolutely no evidence.

“I have also observed, that very few from either camp seem willing to concede that the other side has a lot to offer. I started out as a numbers guy because that’s where my intellectual aptitude is, but experience has taught me better.”

What you observed can clearly be recorded statistically. You feel Crawford is a “clutch” player, he does not shoot well in the clutch, other players on bad teams did MUCH better statistically in clutch minutes than Crawford. This evidence would lead most people with any “aptitude” to change their opinion (those same people would probably at least look at the stats before rushing to judgement http://www.82games.com/CSORT11.HTM).

It’s like the crap excuse Crawford offered that his shooting % is low because he’s forced to take a lot of shots late in the shot clock: he doesn’t take significantly more shots late in the shot clock than most shooting guards (this also can be seen on 82games.com). I was glad to see that Crawford put together a somewhat respectable season shooting the ball and publically admitted that his shot selection is a problem, but the guy still can’t shoot.

“I think if the almost totally numbers oriented people would suspend their desire that the world be simple enough to measure almost perfectly using numbers, they would realize how obvious it is that some things that are reflected in stats are not isolated well as to cause.”

If some people who weren’t arrogant, selfrighteous pricks would stop making assumptions about everyone else on the board maybe we could have a real discussion. Forgot, you already know because you’ve seen everything and have no interest in discussing it. Unlike billiards, basketball is not an individual sport.

“How else would you get the Clips to eat the 17 million on the last year of the deal. …What is the incentive for the Clips to take back that much more salary?”
Randolph isn’t Jerome James — he can play a little. They might think he’s worth $17 million, even if he isn’t worth $40 million over 3 years. If they whiff in free agency, anyone else they take back in a trade will have some kind of warts..

Thats one hell of a wart, but I’ll keep my fingers crossed that this comes to pass. I just keep asking myself, “If I were the GM of the Clips, would I make that trade?” My answer continues to be “No, unless young, cheap assets come hither.”

And the church says AMEN!!! I have been trying to get people to see the light on this one. Hallelujah!! “Bad Chemistry.” “Ball Hog.” Those are the terms of the Devil! He uses them to confuse the mind of those who have not embraced the righteousness of holy statistical analysis!

“why doesn’t anyone claim that Quentin Richardson had a terrible season because his spirit was broken by sharing a locker room with “Starbury?””

Because we righteous few know that the proximate cause of Brother Richardson’s struggles was the degenerative condition that resulted in the removal of a disc from his back. The righteous few remember that Brother Richardson played very well in his first year with the Knicks. He played D, he grabbed boards, he shot a decent percentage from the floor. He did that while he despised Marbury. But lo the following year, Brother Richardson developed problems with his back. And this caused the drop in his production.

Randolph isn’t Jerome James — he can play a little. They might think he’s worth $17 million, even if he isn’t worth $40 million over 3 years. If they whiff in free agency, anyone else they take back in a trade will have some kind of warts..

I wouldn’t throw in any assets to move Zach, at this point. It’s always an option later.

How else would you get the Clips to eat the 17 million on the last year of the deal. 17 and 10 is nothing to sniff at, as one poster noted, but the 17 million is nothing to sniff at either. What is the incentive for the Clips to take back that much more salary? Particularly when Randolph does not play well with others, holds the ball, plays no D, takes poor shots, has never contributed to a winning team, ect…

Maybe D’antoni can raise Zach’s stock, but otherwise, the Knicks may have to sweeten the deal. Look if the Clips dont ask for it, I would not offer it. But if they do want a future 1st or a Chandler, to clear the cap space for a LBJ or Bosh, you have to do it.

Sure, but so what? Here’s the problem with the “intangible” & add/subtract debate… people who say those factors are important, don’t even bother specifying what they’re trying to argue. If I want to put myself in their shoes, I could say — The statistics/results of the team/players are significantly hurt by the presence of Marbury (or whoever’s being bashed by the Post that day). But “hurt” compared to what?

If a bad chemistry effect exists at all, it’s clearly minimal. In theory, players might shoot a higher percentage paired with a certain PG vs. another PG, but check out the player pairs data at 82games and you will struggle to find any differences.

Another example, of a player affecting others on the court. As you say…
“If one player doesn’t take outside shots even when he’s open because he knows he’s a low probability shooter from 15 feet out and more, but another player who is somewhat better does, the stats won’t relect ability. They will reflect those decisions.”

Sure, but again, so what? We are re-hashing the David Lee saga for the zillionth time, but when you look at the offensive numbers for Lee’s teammates, you’ll see that their shooting numbers aren’t hurt at all by his limited jumpshot — they all perform as well, or even better, when he’s on the court. We could argue the why, but it wouldn’t look this way if the defenders sagging off Lee had more than a miniscule negative effect on everyone else.

As for bad attitude and effort… as you say, it’s already there in the numbers. You don’t have to think about it as some extra, invisible consideration. As far as players affecting each other’s effort, even in the most extreme, dramatic case, like the Knicks last year, it’s hard to argue that it makes a big difference. Here’s what I mean: In 2006-2007, everyone agreed the Knicks played hard and had good chemistry, and the team won 33 games. In 2007-2008 — chemistry aside– they lost the starting PG for 3/4 of the season, cut the best player’s minutes by 20 percent, cut the best defender’s minutes by more than half, and saw the starting small forward go from above average to pretty much worst in the league. The team was 10 games worse. But surely those “non-chemistry” items can be blamed for a good chunk of that? Which leaves what, 3 or 4 games lost to effort and chemistry? In one of the worst train wrecks in history? And what of that is any one player’s share?

p.s. Thought experiment — why doesn’t anyone claim that Quentin Richardson had a terrible season because his spirit was broken by sharing a locker room with “Starbury?”

“82games.com measures this, and it is definitely something that has to be measured. Isiah thought Jamal Crawford was a great clutch player, but if you look at the stats he’s one of the worst in the league”.

I haven’t looked at Crawford’s stats, but I would argue that the stats are but probably flawed (though useful) without even looking at them.

Part of a players stats in the clutch are dependent on the type of shots he gets. The Knicks overall offensive scheme was so bad the Knicks were constantly getting horrible shots in those key spots. So whoever is taking the shots will probably look worse than a player on a more balanced and well coached team that gets good looks in those spots more often even if they are equal.

Second, the reason Isiah gave the ball to Crawford so often in those spots was because he was willing to take the shot. That in itself is an intangible quality – being a player willing to be the hero or goat. Nate has that quality also, but many players on the Knicks do not.

“It’s obvious because I know” is just not a logical argument that’s going to cut it on this board. Discussion is important in moving things forward, as is proving things even if they seem obvious.”

I have observed that there are typically 2 types of people when it comes to subjects like this.

1. numbers oriented people
2. feel, observation, etc.. type people

I have also observed, that very few from either camp seem willing to concede that the other side has a lot to offer.

I started out as a numbers guy because that’s where my intellectual aptitude is, but experience has taught me better. IMO the stats are the most important tool for analysis, but they don’t tell the whole story.

I think if the almost totally numbers oriented people would suspend their desire that the world be simple enough to measure almost perfectly using numbers, they would realize how obvious it is that some things that are reflected in stats are not isolated well as to cause.

It became obvious to me in my 20s both playing high level pool and observing the greatest billards players almost daily. I often knew what was going to happen between players based soley on their personalities, intangible qualities as people etc… The stats would tell everyone that player “A” was clearly better, but player “A” would always find a way to lose under tight pressure. The list of things like that is unending and is applicable to every sport if you just observe it carefully.

“There are things going on that impact results that go beyond the raw abilities of the athletes that I am shocked people need to discuss this kind of thing.”
That’s not what we’re talking about — whether someone has maximized their potential. When people talk about intangibles and addition by subtraction, they’re suggesting that there’s more going on than is reflected in the statistics

Caleb,

The thing that many of you are missing is than even though everything is reflected in the statistics, the statistics are measuring RESULTS not CAUSES!!!!

If several players on a team absolutely hate each other and they aren’t professional enough to play good hard team ball despite that, the poor results will be reflected in the statistics, but not the fact that the reason was the intangible dislike they have for each other.

If a coach is spending 5-10 hours a week preparing for/dealing with a court trial and coping with a very disruptive personality, that’s 5-10 hours a week he’s not watching game films, working on game plans etc… It will be reflected in the results, but the cause will not. Neither wil the fact that it is easily removed.

If a team doesn’t have any really good playmakers and the coach hasn’t worked out a decent offensive scheme for the players he has, some key players are going to be forced to take bad shots with time expiring more often than on a more balanced and well coached team. That will impact their FG% and efficiency rating negatively without it having anything to do with their individual ability.

If one player doesn’t take outside shots even when he’s open because he knows he’s a low probability shooter from 15 feet out and more, but another player who is somewhat better does, the stats won’t relect ability. They will reflect those decisions. Perhaps if the team added a great shooter, the latter player would no longer need to take those mediocre shots and his efficiency stats would roar higher.

There are an endless number of examples related to team and individual stats that are measured, but dependent are things you need to observe (related to ability, personality, chemistry etc…)