Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Knicks Morning News (2014.06.28)

  • [New York Times] On Basketball: With Carmelo Anthony’s Future Uncertain, Phil Jackson Makes Bold Strokes (Sat, 28 Jun 2014 00:35:28 GMT)
    Phil Jackson this week turned his focus from wooing Carmelo Anthony to revamping the Knicks’ roster, an act that could prove to be the most effective appeal to Anthony.

  • [New York Daily News] Jose Calderon out to point Carmleo Anthony toward winning (Sat, 28 Jun 2014 02:39:08 GMT)
    Carmelo Anthony’s future is uncertain since he opted out of his contract earlier this week to hit free agency. But the new Knicks point guard believes he can be of help to Anthony if he stays in New York.

  • 43 comments on “Knicks Morning News (2014.06.28)

    1. mokers

      I would take pau for the mini-mle, burning am not sure how much he is worth. Bad knees and I think a bad back. So many people think of him as a stretch four but he prefers to work inside and his offense has been down the last three or four years. He is a smart player though and a good rebounder, but I am not sure how large of a role you want him to have.

    2. Mike Kurylo Post author

      I love the bullshit articles that come out at this time of year. How the heck are the Knicks supposed to sign Gasol? The article just mentions “one source close to the process”, and doesn’t even bother to flesh out how it would occur. The last time Gasol made less than 8 figures is when he was off his rookie contract, so it seems HIGHLY unlikely that he would sign for the MLE. There’s no mention of the possibilities of a sign & trade with L.A., even though I think that would be the only way the Knicks could acquire him, because I can’t see the Lakers wanting anything the Knicks have to offer. The best Knicks prospects (Shumpert & Harju) are both guards, so that seems to be unlikely. Could the new Laker ownership be as dumb to take Bargnani in a deal like this?

      So a splashy headline, with zero facts to support it, and when you think about it doesn’t even seem very possible.

    3. Ted Nelson

      Just last thoughts from yesterday… Got a little sidetracked at times, but I should have clearly stated (as most here probably already realize) that one big reason watching the actual games is almost necessarily part of the best way to scout draft prospects is it allows you to see what’s behind the numbers.

      Easiest example is shooting. Guy’s 3P% improves from one year to the next or during the season… is it just luck/small sample variation or did he improve his mechanics in a meaningful way? You’ll have a much better idea if you actually watch. (Was thinking about this watching footage of Greece Lightning.) Maybe a guy’s TS% is relatively low, but is that because he’s being asked to do something you’ll never ask him to do in his NBA role? Create off the dribble or post-up, for example. Or maybe it’s high because he’s already a role player in college only being asked to do what he’s good at, which is going to be too limiting in the NBA. (Could record that statistically, but I don’t know if it’s available for amateurs or Europe… and to record it, someone has to watch the games.) How will what a guy is doing carry over against NBA level athletes? Pretty hard to say, but even if it’s just to quantitatively break down his performance in various aspects of his game against studs vs. scrubs you’re going to have to watch the games or videos.

      A single statistical metric, on the other hand, is going to lump in plays that might not be too relevant to your analysis: the shots before he made a mechanical adjustment that stuck, the TOs that happened because he was asked to create his own offense, the times he beat 6’3″ SFs with no athleticism to the rim, etc. A single metric can be a good proxy because some of that stuff will wash out a lot of the time. Some of it does not wash out, though, and to make the best possible decision on a consistent basis you’re going to want to look into the details.

    4. Ted Nelson

      I did like the Knicks draft. The strategy seems sound. I think wing is generally the easiest position to fill, so unless it’s a special player it’s great to fill out the rotation with cheap wings. Not that these two are locks, but they look decent. They both have pretty pronounced strengths and weaknesses, and I think their strengths are enough to give them good shots at being NBA role players. While you can find an all-around gem in the 2nd, I generally think it makes sense to take guys with pronounced strengths and hide-able weaknesses later in the draft who can be plugged into roles.

      I think Early has to play the 3 in the NBA. Just don’t see the length or strength to play the 4. Reminds me a bit of Shawn Marion… but he lacks Marion’s insane length, which is where Shawn derives a lot of his value from. It allows him to guard 4s, rebound like a 4 at times, and finish just about all the time. Anyway, Early can finish well enough and hit the NBA 3. He lacks the quickness and length to be a good perimeter defender, but could be decent. I think that it really comes down to whether he’s willing to accept a role and play within himself. He can’t handle the ball or create at all and he needs to stay within the team concept on D. Worst case I think he sticks on the roster a couple of years. Best case he could be a solid rotation player. I do keep thinking “he’s kind of like Player X, but lacks that one really valuable thing Player X had…” so I think he’ll have to work really hard to be a real value add.

      Greece Lightning is pretty exciting. A lot of assets you can’t teach. Insane length + athleticism. Energy. And can double-jump about as quickly as any human. Could really be an outstanding, game-changing defender. Potential to be an efficient low-usage scorer between finishing and outside shot. Floor is obviously too raw to ever contribute, but have to like his chances to develop given the stories about his attitude. Ceiling is one of the best role…

    5. Owen

      “Beane expressed a strong belief in “proven” college players over upside high school picks at the time, but in the last few years they’ve gone largely the other direction.”

      I am not sure who this scores points for but nearly every player on the Athletics was acquired by trade and not through the draft. Excellent article written on that topic recently that I can’t find. Sonny Gray is one of the few and their track record in the draft has actually been terrible.

      I think Beane would probably say that the longer a track record you have the better. But a lot of the guys he has picked up were quite simply busts who somehow found their way back to relevance in the organization and even in some cases superstardom (Josh Donaldson).

      Sabermetricians will definitely tell you that you have to watch a player play and not just look at his numbers. There is no question that it’s helpful in baseball – because defense is very important, but for other reasons too. And I don’t see how it really hurts you in basketball either as long as you appropriately weigh various forms of evidence.

      That said, I don’t think there is much disputing that a lot of gm’s have a hard time finding the right balance between stats and visual evidence.

      To me, the A’s success salvaging players demonstrates that a lot of guys in the minor leagues given enough time and at bats and put in a position to succeed can do so. The same is probably true in the NBA. There are a ton of guys out there who could probably be impact players but won’t ever get the minutes to work it out. Andrew Wiggins is pretty much guaranteed a 10,000 minute runway to work things out that Khem Birch will never get.

    6. Frank O.

      I think Early is a project. Watched his draft highlights. He’s got lots of gaps. Poor handle. Poor defender. Doesn’t move well.
      Feels like he’ll either be traded or sent to D league.
      Also underwhelmed by wing span. 6’9 span. Not a shooter. Not good on the block.
      A project.

    7. Ted Nelson

      not sure who this scores points for but nearly every player on the Athletics was acquired by trade and not through the draft.

      Think it’s more of a valid, but tangential point. Original point was just that Beane moved from all NCAA to all HS players in the 1st of the 2012-13 drafts, talking about any perceived trade-off between production and potential. It’s literally only been since 2012, so those are all guys who are still working their way through the minors at this point. http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?query_type=franch_round&team_ID=OAK&draft_round=1&draft_type=junreg&

      I then tangentially pointed out Moneyball is really about market efficiency.

      Beane would probably say that the longer a track record you have the better.

      I don’t think anyone would disagree that for the same player a larger sample is going to give you a better idea of his talent. The question is how you deal with the developmental differences between a Fr/Sr or HS/NCAA guy. With a Jr, say, you might cite his improvement from year-to-year as a positive. With a Fr, though, you don’t know how he’ll improve. There’s no right answer, but it’s an interesting issue.

      simply busts who somehow found their way back to relevance

      The question is whether that is luck or skill. Skill in IDing fixable player and/or in actually fixing them.

      I don’t think there is much disputing that a lot of gm’s have a hard time finding the right balance between stats and visual evidence.

      I don’t think anyone disputed that

      To me, the A’s success salvaging players demonstrates that a lot of guys in the minor leagues given enough time and at bats and put in a position to succeed can do so.

      Or does it demonstrate that good scouting can identify that he’s undervalued, making fixable mistakes, and/or that by coaching him properly you can help him improve? Tough…

    8. DRed

      If cleanthony were 3 years younger if like him a lot more. You’re going up against grown ass men in the NBA

    9. Ted Nelson

      There are a ton of guys out there who could probably be impact players but won’t ever get the minutes to work it out.

      In a sense I completely agree. There are tons of guys outside the league that are better than guys in the league, even guys in rotations. It’s just the nature of marginal differences in talent, seeing what young guys can do with no real minor league system, and contracts reducing flexibility. Plus some guys can just make more money in Europe than in the NBA.

      I’m not sure it’s so much a matter of getting minutes, though, for players who stay healthy. They may not get the minutes in the NBA initially, but there are plenty of minutes available in the D-League, Summer League, Europe, etc. for someone to prove himself, improve himself, and work his way back into the league or into the league for the first time.

    10. Ted Nelson

      I think Early is a project. Watched his draft highlights. He’s got lots of gaps. Poor handle. Poor defender. Doesn’t move well.

      Are those things that you can fix, though? Not so sure they are. I mean he will definitely have to improve his shooting consistency and probably his handle to be an NBA rotation player. I don’t think he’s ever going to be an adequate ball-handler/play-maker, though, nor do I think he’ll ever be more than an adequate perimeter defender with his mediocre length and quickness. You can stick him in the D-League for a decade and I doubt that those things change.

      He may need some time in the D-League, but I tend to think those are more things you just have to live with and hope he shows enough at the things he is good at to be a solid rotation player.

      Early hit 37% of his 3s taking 5 per game (including, anecdotally, several from NBA 3-pt range), so I don’t think it’s accurate to say he’s not a good shooter. He’s not Kyle Korver and he can’t create for himself at all in the half-court, but I think he can be a good spot-up shooter. Potential to be a solid medium-low-volume, medium-high-efficiency scorer between the outside shot and athleticism finishing.

      I also think he moves quite well going north-to-south, just not east-to-west.

      If cleanthony were 3 years younger if like him a lot more. You’re going up against grown ass men in the NBA

      If any draft prospect were doing the same things 3 years younger they’d be more attractive…

      I don’t think physicality will be an issue for Early on the wing in the NBA. Quickness and skills, sure.

    11. JK47

      Early was quite effective in the post and on jump shots, and has a nice versatile offensive game. He’s a good half-court player on offense, and is very good on the break. The poor passing seems to be a real problem– how do you fit into the triangle if you’re not a good passer? This is the part of his game that I’m guessing Jackson and Fisher think they can fix– perhaps within a structured system like the triangle Early can develop the passing component of his game. He does other triangle-y things well– seems to move well without the ball, can knock down a jump shot, is very efficient as a post-up player.

    12. Frank

      So a splashy headline, with zero facts to support it, and when you think about it doesn’t even seem very possible.

      Well, nothing has actually happened yet so it’s basically impossible for there to be a fact to support it.

      I dunno Mike – it’d be one thing if it was Chris Broussard, Ric Bucher or Peter Vecsey trying to achieve relevancy, or some other hack reporting it. This is Marc Stein and Ramona Shelbourne — solid reporters with good sources, who have too good a reputation just to throw crap out there.

      Remember, Kirilenko opted out of a $10MM salary for 13-14 to join the Nets for the mini-MLE. Plenty of players have taken way less than they could’ve made at the end of their (very lucrative) careers to get into the right situation. Pau’s already made $156MM in this career — maybe he thinks that, just maybe, his family’s future is secure, and he wants to go to a situation in which he’s comfortable — with Phil, Derek Fisher, Calderon, Odom, etc.

    13. Mr. Jowles, who commands your respect

      Re: my “model”

      I’m not going to submit research for your approval, Ted. This is a comments section of a Knicks blog. I’m not asking you to invest money in my services. I’m not looking for a front-office job. I’m taking others’ research and adopting it as the foundation for my own conjecture. At the end of the day, I really don’t give a shit whether you buy into it, or whether it annoys you that I make hyperbolic statements like that I’d draft better than 15 of the GMs in the league (although I don’t think that’s a stretch).

      I’m sitting on my couch, drinking a Sea Hag and watching the World Cup. Later I’m going to take a walk through downtown New Haven and maybe get a burger at Shake Shack. When Lady Jowles comes home, we’ll head to Modern Apizza and get a pie. And then I’ll come on here and make loud-mouthed predictions, as I do. Really, I’m more interested in talking about principles. And my principle is to limit, to a large degree, the weakness of human memory and to buy the NBA lottery scratch-off tickets using a simple statistical method (PAWS40, for instance, plus age and league, which, according to the guys at Box Score Geeks, can be factored into the projections: Euroleague being a more competitive league than, say, NBDL) as the primary determinant of value. Minimize the eye-test. Stop trying to subjectively determine certain factors as an overriding criterion for player value (e.g. “He never shoots corner threes, so if we stick him in the corner, his 3PT% will increase.”)

      Maybe you expect verification because I talk about the value of stats over more-subjective methods of evaluation, but you’re barking up the wrong tree, pal. You’ve been away for awhile, but my predictions, while not particularly radical (to my mind), have been pretty god damn prescient for the last few years. If you’re asking for a retrospective, buzz off. I care as much about your approval as I do ruruland’s armchair psychoanalysis of Carmelo Anthony.

    14. Mr. Jowles, who commands your respect

      Addendum:

      Whenever one of my predictions comes true, a few posters come on and say, “Hey, THCJ was actually right.” The thing is, I don’t think I’m brilliant for doing it. If I say Bargnani is a terrible player, I’m probably playing it because I’ve seen his WP48 and WS48 scores for the last eight years. That doesn’t make me smart, but it may make me less dumb than the myriad commenters on this site who waxed ad infinitum about the ways Bargnani would be molded into a productive stretch-4.

      So there. Dumb? Sure. An idiot. But perhaps for different reasons.

    15. nicos

      If cleanthony were 3 years younger if like him a lot more. You’re going up against grown ass men in the NBA

      On the plus side, he’s only had two years of high-level coaching so he may have a bit more room to improve than your average 23 year old. A lot of the top prospects have been getting coached up for years through AAU ball not to mention going to basketball factories like Oak Hill so I think sometimes their potential for growth skill-wise is exaggerated somewhat compared to a guy like Early. I don’t think he’ll ever be a great ball handler or passer but he could become adequate enough.

    16. Ted Nelson

      What an unpleasant person you are. Why bother to say things that make sense when you can just go online and intentionally annoy people? Cool move, dude!

      What I am asking, and what anyone cares about, is not whether you are sometimes right. It is very hard to never be right, especially when many of the random predictions you are making are in regard to roughly 50/50 propositions. You are one of one million Knicks fans that didn’t think Bargnani was all that good. In fact, I think the mainstream argument came down to whether he’d have some use or no use. You want a pat on the back for that? A high five maybe?

      What I was asking you was to explain what you would do differently from all these stupid GMs. “I would just look at WP48″ is a pretty bad answer, but that seems to be what you’ve taken thousands of characters to say.

      Really, I’m more interested in talking about principles.

      You seem to have no interest at all in talking about principles. I have asked about your “principles” a dozen times and gotten almost no real response.

      limit, to a large degree, the weakness of human memory

      You are not understanding what I am saying, or you are just choosing to ignore it. NO ONE has said anything about using human memory. I have said that by breaking down game tape and recording specific things (not remembering them) you can get far greater insight and quantify more valuable things than raw averages.

      Minimize the eye-test. Stop trying to subjectively determine certain factors as an overriding criterion for player value

      For the hundredth and last time… you are arguing against a strawman. Intelligently watching film is not an “eye test.” It is putting the statistical averages you are looking at into context.

    17. DRed

      If any draft prospect were doing the same things 3 years younger they’d be more attractive…

      Sure. But Cleanthony had one good year in college while he was older than most of the guys he was playing against. To put that into context, it makes it less likely that he’ll be good in the NBA. But hey, he moves well north/south on the intelligent eye test.

    18. Ted Nelson

      Basically… if you’re making hundreds or thousands or millions of decisions, looking at general averages may be sufficient. In the vast majority of cases, though, good analysis requires you to break down averages to gain deeper insights. “De-average everything” is a common refrain in analytical circles, whether you’re talking about stats, finance, or strategy consulting. I will bet you an insane amount of money that RC Buford is not just looking at WP48 or any other single statistical measure in analyzing draft prospects.

      Instead of assuming you know everything, Jowles… especially when your whole argument rests on “I read it on another dude I don’t know’s blog”… try to open your mind and learn something new. Again, you have not even bothered to go back and check the historical accuracy of these models in predicting future outcomes (not in fitting a model to historical outcomes). You cannot claim to be following any sort of advanced analytical method without doing so. Your argument is “I saw it on this blog and didn’t bother to check if it actually works.” That is, at the very best, just as much voodoo as me watching a highlight reel of a player to assess him. (Anecdotally, there are so many misses in the WoW historical draft boards that it is really hard to argue there is no better way to assess draft prospects.)

      This entire waste of time conversation began with me making the point that sitting on your couch, some blog statistical model might be the best you can do. However, it is not the best way to analyze prospects and, therefore, you should be careful making absolute statements about these prospects based on your thoroughly incomplete knowledge about them. We’re right back at the same place now…

    19. Mr. Jowles, who commands your respect

      For the hundredth and last time… you are arguing against a strawman. Intelligently watching film is not an “eye test.” It is putting the statistical averages you are looking at into context.

      Ted, your unpleasantness is just as apparent. Yours was a good riddance when you first left, and I’m looking forward to it again.

      Jesus Christ, Ted. You also fail to see that “intelligently watching film,” “breaking down and watching game tape,” and “recording specific things” are nebulous actions and difficult concepts to standardize in the first place. Intelligently watching film can absolutely be the “eye-test.” That is what game-film is there for. Watching. With your eyes. The difference is that some put more stock into hundreds of shot attempts, rather than to isolate, say, one on a tape and try to describe each action that comprised the attempt. You could even come to a conclusion about that “intelligent tape watching” and figure out that, say, a player often has his shooting fingers off the center of the ball, but you would also have to determine whether that behavior can be remedied in the first place. And I would so go far as to say that eventually you’d have to substantiate your conclusion in either direction, and not through observation or memory but by some kind of controlled study. Ultimately, you reach the point of assumption. My assumptions are different from yours. Can you handle that, or are you going to keep accusing me of lacking reading comprehension?

      I’m pretty relaxed right now. Can I work you up further? I wasn’t trying before, but now you’re asking for it with your vitriolic and petty tone.

      We’ve been talking about principles the whole time, Ted. Mine are different from yours. Deal with it, li’l buddy!

    20. Mr. Jowles, who commands your respect

      However, it is not the best way to analyze prospects and, therefore, you should be careful making absolute statements about these prospects based on your thoroughly incomplete knowledge about them.

      And God said, “Let Ted’s assumptions be right…”

    21. Ted Nelson

      Finally, Jowles, it is not “He never shoots corner threes, so if we stick him in the corner, his 3PT% will increase.” This is an insane strawman argument that fully misses the point of what I was saying.

      What it is, is: “This guy shot really well on spot-up 3s, but his overall shooting numbers look bad because his team asked him to do other things he’s bad at doing. So, we can isolate the one skill he is good at from the other skill he is bad at. If the role we’d like him to play in the NBA emphasizes the skill he is good at and requires next to none of the skill he is bad at… we may have ourselves a player (all else equal).”

      Or, it is: “This other guy has really good scoring efficiency numbers in college, but that’s only because… he was posting up schlubs who will never play a pro game, but the 5 NBA level talents he played against all year just schooled him… or he sat in the corner taking open 3s, but even asking him to take a contested spot-up 3 resulted in a 15% 3P%… or he played on the best passing team in the country, so he got a ton of good looks.”

      Some of those things may be subjective feelings that should only be one small part of the decision, but most can easily be quantified given the resources.

    22. Z-man

      Sorry, Ted, but you’re never going to compete with Jowles in a be-a-dick-athon. He’s never wrong. If you don’t believe me, just ask him. HE COMMANDS YOUR RESPECT! OBEY!!

    23. JK47

      It’s awfully easy to defend an ivory tower position and say you know better than everybody else, because there’s no danger of it ever being put into practice. There are no teams in the NBA that solely pick players based on WP48 just like there are no countries in the world who try installing a Libertarian government. It’s easy to say your way is better when nobody is willing to give your way a chance because it inherently doesn’t make any sense.

    24. Zanzibar

      so it seems HIGHLY unlikely that he would sign for the MLE. There’s no mention of the possibilities of a sign & trade with L.A., even though I think that would be the only way the Knicks could acquire him, because I can’t see the Lakers wanting anything the Knicks have to offer.

      Mike, I agree that 3.2m mmle is a pipe dream. Why would Pau sign a 1 year deal for that amount when he most likely could sign a Hawks/Suns/Bulls 1 year deal for 10-15m and then join the Knicks in summer of 2015? The 5.5m mle makes it more interesting but still probably too low. I raised the possibility of a S&T; if they are able take an incoming S&T, they would be governed by 150% matching. So Larkin/Ellington for Pau (8m/year on a 3 year deal) would work. Or Larkin/Early/Ellington. What is downside for Lakers? Larkin could be cut at end of season at no cost (team option) and Early as well I believe if not earlier (no pun intended). Ellington’s contract makes it easy to dump him at any time. If Pau just walks, Lakers receive nothing.

    25. Ted Nelson

      The difference is that some put more stock into hundreds of shot attempts, rather than to isolate, say, one on a tape and try to describe each action that comprised the attempt.

      I am extremely calm right now. This is not even an argument. You are rambling about nothing, and I am trying to teach you something. It’s kind of pathetic, really.

      Again, you either do not understand what I am saying or you are ignoring it. This is not hard to understand.

      I am not talking about analyzing one shot. This is a total and ridiculous strawman.

      The idea of watching tape IS NOT to watch one shot. If you think that, you have a lot to learn about scouting. The purpose is to watch those hundreds of shots to put them into context. Often quantitatively.

      Listen, this has to stop at some point. You clearly have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Please stop pretending you do. It is not a matter of different assumptions.

      You could even come to a conclusion about that “intelligent tape watching” and figure out that, say, a player often has his shooting fingers off the center of the ball, but you would also have to determine whether that behavior can be remedied in the first place.

      Again, cherry picking examples to create a strawman argument. I have never once used this example. It has very little to do with what I am saying. Sure, sometimes you see a mechanical flaw and take an educated guess on how easy it is to fix. I have given several other examples, though, about how film can be broken down to reveal actual, realized improvement or to isolate various skills or to account for level of competition.

      Do you enjoy getting your ass handed to you? You can keep coming at me, and I will keep showing you why you are wrong. Or, instead, you can defer to people who are much smarter than you. I did not come up with “de-average everything.” It’s common knowledge among well trained analysts.

    26. Ted Nelson

      Sorry, Ted, but you’re never going to compete with Jowles in a be-a-dick-athon. He’s never wrong. If you don’t believe me, just ask him. HE COMMANDS YOUR RESPECT! OBEY!!

      I am really enjoying showing him, everyone else, and myself exactly how wrong he is. Guy is clearly a nit-wit, but what are you going to do?

      It’s awfully easy to defend an ivory tower position and say you know better than everybody else, because there’s no danger of it ever being put into practice.

      Kind of disagree in terms of draft prospects specifically. We can really, really easily go back and look at historical draft rankings according to WP48 or an econometric model that adjusts WP48. I haven’t done so scientifically, but A. anecdotally looking back it looks pretty obvious that this is not the sole way to judge draft prospects & B. if it was a significantly better way to do things, everyone would probably know about it by now. Studies would be all over the internet showing us how much better it is.

      It’s easy to say your way is better when nobody is willing to give your way a chance because it inherently doesn’t make any sense.

      Here I fully agree.

      Can we call a ceasefire here?

      At some point I will stop addressing Jowles, but I really see no need for a ceasefire. After thousands of characters in both directions, it seems pretty obvious to me that Jowles doesn’t understand what I am talking about. I talk about intelligently analyzing film to isolate various skill sets, and he paraphrases me saying “watching one jump shot.” Guy hasn’t got a clue what he’s talking about. I think that’s painfully obvious to everyone but him.

    27. DRed

      Ted, if you’re intelligently analyzing film to isolate a certain skill set, shouldn’t you be aware that the guy you’re watching is much older than the guys he’s playing against? If you just say “well, every player would be better if he were 3 years younger”, you’re not doing it intelligently, because you’re ignoring something that helps explain what you’re intelligently watching. Which is kinda dumb.

    28. Ted Nelson

      Cleanthony had one good year in college while he was older than most of the guys he was playing against. To put that into context, it makes it less likely that he’ll be good in the NBA. But hey, he moves well north/south on the intelligent eye test.

      In reality, his two seasons at Wichita State were almost identical outside of his shooting. Not sure how dependent on age vs. competition 3P%s is.

      http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/cleanthony-early-1.html

      Cherry picking north/south movement out of all the quantitative and subjective reasons to like Early is a ridiculous strawman. There are also plenty of reasons not to like him. I am not saying he’s a slam dunk by any means, all I am saying is that any prospect would be much better if he had the exact same game and was 3 years younger. Age is one of many variables to consider.

    29. Brian Cronin

      I mean, I certainly do believe that if the Knicks resign Melo, that they will try to get Gasol to take the mini-MLE, so I think that that much is true. I would just agree that it seems unlikely that he’d agree to take that deal.

    30. Ted Nelson

      Ted, if you’re intelligently analyzing film to isolate a certain skill set, shouldn’t you be aware that the guy you’re watching is much older than the guys he’s playing against?

      Yes, and I never said otherwise. I said that the first part of your comment was sort of common sense. I then said if you were referring to physicality, I wasn’t sure you had a point.

      If you just say “well, every player would be better if he were 3 years younger”, you’re not doing it intelligently, because you’re ignoring something that helps explain what you’re intelligently watching. Which is kinda dumb.

      You are misunderstanding what I am saying. Clearly, I am not saying that you should look at Early’s performance at 23 the same as at 20. In fact, I have said exactly the opposite several times.

      You are mixing apples and oranges together… or, more so, mixing an apple and seed together to say you have two apples. One thing you’re talking about, every player being better if they had the same game but were 3 years younger, is a high-level, general average thing. It’s almost indisputable when you’re talking about kids younger than 24. The other is breaking the average down into its constituent parts. You would expect more from a 23 year old than a 20 year old, no doubt. Did Early give you enough to account for that difference? I don’t know. That’s the million dollar question. He certainly gave you a whole lot at 22 and 23. And guys certainly do enter the NBA at 23, 24 and excel. This is a 2nd round pick. Granted an early one. Still, any contribution is probably going to be a bonus compared to all but one or two guys they passed on.

      By the way, I believe WoW didn’t like Early in large part because they rated him as a 4. Doubt he’s a 4 in the NBA.

    31. Z-man

      Sorry, Owen, I couldn’t resist. FWIW, you and I disagree quite often, but within reasonable limits of decorum. Why is that so hard for some people to do? I think Jowles tried it for a couple of months last year, but reverted back to form as predictably as a career terrible shooter after a brief hot streak.

      In Jowles’s narrow little world, anything that contradicts his reverence of WoW-based analytics is heresy. Chandler and Birdman MUST be better at basketball than Melo because WP48 says he is. There’s no argument to be had, it’s an absolute.

    32. Farfa

      Everyone opting out in Miami. Strange thing is that there seems to be some sort of rumor that LeBron is trying to get a maximum contract. This rumor makes no sense to me. Where is he going to get it? In Philadelphia? And why now a maximum? It really seems a Riley rumor.

    33. Farfa

      I am genuinely curious, Jowles. What do you think about the World Cup, and soccer in general? I had no idea you were even marginally keen on watching “the beautiful game”.

    34. Ted Nelson

      One last thing and then I will seriously stop:

      That is what game-film is there for. Watching. With your eyes. The difference is that some put more stock into hundreds of shot attempts, rather than to isolate

      You are creating a distinction that doesn’t actually exist. The raw boxscore stats you are looking at did not magically put themselves on a piece of paper or a website. Someone actually watched a basketball game and recorded what happened. What we are actually discussing is what should be recorded.

      Obviously you do not want infinite complexity. You can cut the data just a couple of times, though, to get numbers that tell you far more than simply “he made a basket from some point within the 3 pt line against some team in some situation.”

    35. lavor postell

      Seriously Ted this is some great stuff. I started posting while you were on hiatus, but good to have you on here.

      If only jon abbey were back too. Then I would just sit back and watch the board explode.

    36. Mr. Jowles, who commands your respect

      Ted is essentially saying, over and over, that where he places the balance between “intelligent tape watching” and “box score analysis” is superior. His reasoning is correct because it’s correct.

      He lays out an argument for augmenting box score analysis with subjective analysis and says, QED. I know it sounds smart but his assumptions rest on “common sense” about as much as mine do.

      He says, “You don’t understand what I’m saying,” and pinches the bridge of his nose. His reasoning makes sense to him, so mine does not make sense to him. This. Over. And over. And over.

    Comments are closed.