Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Knicks Morning News (Tuesday, Jul 31 2012)

  • [New York Times] Women’s Basketball | Preliminary Round: U.S. Women’s Basketball Star Is Mindful of Past and Present (Tue, 31 Jul 2012 05:58:46 GMT)
    Things are looking up for Seimone Augustus, who well remembers the dark moments brought on by the career-threatening tumors found in her abdomen.

  • [New York Times] Sweet Dreams 20-Years Later as U.S. Rolls (Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:46:40 GMT)
    It was 20-years ago that the original Dream Team was introduced to the world with the 116-48 destruction of Angola. The United States women’s basketball team got their shot at the African nation at the London Olympics on Monday, and were no less charitable.

  • [New York Times] U.S. Women Outclass Angola (Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:25:40 GMT)
    The U.S. women’s basketball team, evoking memories of the men’s Dream Team of 1992, put on a hoops masterclass in routing African champions Angola 90-38 at the Olympics on Monday.

  • [New York Post] 1st Lady â??a Melo fan’ (Tue, 31 Jul 2012 01:47:31 -0500)
    LONDON â?? Carmelo Anthony doesn’t think Michelle Obama is a Knicks fan, but the First Lady apparently likes Melo’s style.
    After a photo of the pair hugging appeared on the front page of yesterday’s Post, Anthony revealed Michelle Obama whispered nice words of encouragement to him in the…

  • [New York Daily News] Kobe puts Christmas wrap on Knicks (Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:42:40 GMT)
    Kobe Bryant can’t think of a better way to enjoy Christmas than to be spending it with Carmelo Anthony and the Knicks. “We actually might win on Christmas Day for the first time ever,â? Bryant says.

  • 90 comments on “Knicks Morning News (Tuesday, Jul 31 2012)

    1. Brian Cronin

      Good for Nate Robinson. He turned his career around in Golden State and is being rewarded by being the back-up PG in Chicago while Rose is out.

    2. Brian Cronin

      What is up with the NBA and Carl Landry? What does he have to do to get some love on the free agent market? He ended up signing a two year deal for $8 million with Golden State (but really a one year deal as the second year is a player option, otherwise known as “I have to see if I can beat this shitty deal next season”). That is an interesting big man rotation of Lee/Bogut/Landry. Hell, if Landry could be gotten for $4 million, the Knicks should have tried to trade for him instead of Camby.

    3. Nick C.

      was Carl Landry hurt last year? He seemed to go AWOL from NOs boxscores and then returned mostly from the bench.

    4. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Brian Cronin:
      What is up with the NBA and Carl Landry? What does he have to do to get some love on the free agent market? He ended up signing a two year deal for $8 million with Golden State (but really a one year deal as the second year is a player option, otherwise known as “I have to see if I can beat this shitty deal next season”). That is an interesting big man rotation of Lee/Bogut/Landry. Hell, if Landry could be gotten for $4 million, the Knicks should have tried to trade for him instead of Camby.

      Landry

      999 MP
      0.086 WP48

      Camby

      1352 MP
      0.265 WP48

      Landry’s too old to get better. Even if Camby is half as effective as he was last year, he’d be a much better player. Landry commits THREE TIMES (!!!) the TO that Camby does, ONE-THIRD (!!!) the steals, and is outrebounded by 8.1 RPG!

      Plus, for a team that “doesn’t need offense,” it would appear that Camby is the perfect fit for the Knicks. I honestly would have no problem putting Camby on a taller PF (against the Lakers, maybe?).

    5. Juany8

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Landry 999 MP0.086 WP48Camby 1352 MP0.265 WP48Landry’s too old to get better. Even if Camby is half as effective as he was last year, he’d be a much better player. Landry commits THREE TIMES (!!!) the TO that Camby does, ONE-THIRD (!!!) the steals, and is outrebounded by 8.1 RPG!Plus, for a team that “doesn’t need offense,” it would appear that Camby is the perfect fit for the Knicks. I honestly would have no problem putting Camby on a taller PF (against the Lakers, maybe?).

      Not to mention that this team needed paint defense when Chandler sits more than almost anything else. Camby and Thomas also provide insurance when the inevitable injury to Chandler or Amar’e occurs. Landry is a nice scoring forward off the bench, but he can’t rebound and play defense for shit. Not to mention that his scoring style is entirely based on post ups and isolations, touches he would only get if both Amar’e and Melo were sitting (or injured)

      As a Rockets fan, I loved Landry when he was in Houston, he has a really fun game to watch and he’s easy to root for. A big man who can’t rebound or defend has to be a fantastic scorer to warrant playing time though, big men have too many defensive responsibilites in today’s NBA to play a straight up liabity on that end

    6. ephus

      Landry was out for six weeks last year with a left knee injury. His stats from after he returned were in line with his pre-injury stats, so I do not think NBA teams shied away because of the injury.

      If Biedrins regains his usefulness as a rim protecting center or Festus Ezeli fills that role, Landry makes sense as a back-up 4. But if GSW plays Lee/Landry together, they will be one of the worst defensive pairings in the league.

      I do not think GSW is a playoff team this year, and they still owe Utah a first round pick. Of last year’s playoff teams in the West, only Dallas seems much weaker and would favor the T-Wolves to take that slot.

    7. jon abbey

      Prigioni looks pretty damn quick for a 35 year old, some sweet steals early on against France.

    8. Juany8

      jon abbey: Prigioni looks pretty damn quick for a 35 year old, some sweet steals early on against France.

      Prignioni was a very solid pickup, you can only expect so much from your 3rd string PG anyways. Once Shump comes back, this team will have solid NBA players from 1-12, a huge upgrade from the beginning of last year where that number was closer to 4 (and of course Shump got injured early on in the year). Prignioni alone would have been an upgrade over the Toney Douglas and Mike Bibby apocalypse at the point.

    9. d-mar

      I feel really good about the depth of this squad, but I believe our success (or failure) will hinge on the performances of STAT and Felton. If they can return to some semblance of their form from 2 years ago, we can be damn good. If STAT continues to deteriorate and Felton plays like a below average PG, it could be a real struggle regardless of who comes off of the bench.

    10. Unreason

      d-mar:
      I feel really good about the depth of this squad, but I believe our success (or failure) will hinge on the performances of STAT and Felton. If they can return to some semblance of their form from 2 years ago, we can be damn good. If STAT continues to deteriorate and Felton plays like a below average PG, it could be a real struggle regardless of who comes off of the bench.

      I agree, but I’m glad there’s a couple of alternatives to Felton as a starter if he can’t make it work. I’m not sure why he should start over Kidd, anyway, even if he plays more minutes. I assume Prigioni will probably be given the chance to show where he deserves to be in the depth chart. I hope the competition for minutes keeps them all motivated.

    11. ephus

      As has frequently been pointed out, STAT actually had a strong close to the season, once he dropped the extra weight he had put on expecting to play in the pivot. His 15′ jumper was much less accuate for the entire season, but hopefully he will recover the shooting stroke.

    12. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Aside from that amazing under-the-rim move, Kobe Bryant looks terrible. And why aren’t James Harden and Anthony Davis playing yet? Do people really think Westbrook is better than Harden?

    13. sidestep

      You serious? I’m not a fan of Westbrook’s game, but Harden was a total non-factor in the finals.

    14. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      sidestep:
      You serious? I’m not a fan of Westbrook’s game, but Harden was a total non-factor in the finals.

      Right. He was a non-factor for five games so he’s obviously worse than Westbrook. Did you miss Game 2, where he shot 7-11 for 21 points, or Game 5, where he went 5-11 for 19 points? What about the Spurs series? In Game 2 he had 30 points on 13 shots. Read that again.

      He’s so much more efficient than Westbrook. It’s not even close. Three bad games in a series (2011 Finals) would be enough to say that LeBron James is not the greatest basketball player in the world right now. Would you make that argument?

    15. Z-man

      Now that the dust of the Lin upheaval has settled, it is really encouraging to ponder the magnitude of the changes made around this team’s core of Melo, Amare and Chandler.

      PG: we went from banking on TD,the corpses of Bibby and Baron, and the intriguing but unproven Lin, to a very solid, healthy and experienced 3-deep PG depth chart for the cost of less than $9 mill. Most importantly, these look like the kinds of PGs that can bring out the best in Amare, especially since he ain’t going anywhere.

      SG: We went from an originally promising but ultimately regressing soph who did not fit in with Melo’s style of play to a defensive-minded and efficient player in Brewer for the vet’s min, and managed to hold on to Shump and re-sign the mercurial JR at a bargain basement price. Still a bit thin here, but all things considered, not bad.

      Backup SF: between Novak, Brewer and White, we should be OK here for the 20 minutes that Melo isn’t playing the 3. Total cost: $7 mill?

      Backup PF/C: Camby is significantly better than Jeffries or (probably for now) Jordan. And for less than $4 mill. Not to mention the grizzled but savvy Thomas for peanuts.

      Should be a very formidable team, we might not beat the Heat or even the Celts, but I think we have as good of an answer for them as anyone, unless father time bites Kidd and Camby in the ass. Bravo, Grunwald.

    16. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      BigBlueAL:
      Kobe might be the worst player on Team USA.

      Kawhi Leonard would have been a great choice. Plays like a vet, ultra-efficient, and young.

    17. sidestep

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Right. He was a non-factor for five games so he’s obviously worse than Westbrook. Did you miss Game 2, where he shot 7-11 for 21 points, or Game 5, where he went 5-11 for 19 points? What about the Spurs series? In Game 2 he had 30 points on 13 shots. Read that again.

      He’s so much more efficient than Westbrook. It’s not even close. Three bad games in a series (2011 Finals) would be enough to say that LeBron James is not the greatest basketball player in the world right now. Would you make that argument?

      I’m not going to tout Westbrook’s game, since it’s live or die by his jumper and I thought he was often out of control on his penetrations during the playoffs. If you’re going to cite Harden as being more efficient, I’ll with that, but I think Harden’s numbers wouldn’t look as good if he were a starter and playing against starters instead of coming off the bench against other bench players. (Is there even a stat that accounts for playing against starters instead of bench players?) His inconsistent performance in the playoffs makes me wonder about that even more.

    18. ruruland

      sidestep: I’m not going to tout Westbrook’s game, since it’s live or die by his jumper and I thought he was often out of control on his penetrations during the playoffs. If you’re going to cite Harden as being more efficient, I’ll with that, but I think Harden’s numbers wouldn’t look as good if he were a starter and playing against starters instead of coming off the bench against other bench players. (Is there even a stat that accounts for playing against starters instead of bench players?) His inconsistent performance in the playoffs makes me wonder about that even more.

      harden is a really good player, but obviously he’s not going to be that efficient playing against the opponent’s best wing defender as the team’s primary threat.

      I actually think that Harden has enough passing skills to allow him to be a 1B kind of option on a very good team….

      There are hidden beni’s to Westbrook’s game, but he’s a shooting guard through and through.

    19. ruruland

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Landry

      999 MP
      0.086 WP48

      Camby

      1352 MP
      0.265 WP48

      Landry’s too old to get better. Even if Camby is half as effective as he was last year, he’d be a much better player. Landry commits THREE TIMES (!!!) the TO that Camby does, ONE-THIRD (!!!) the steals, and is outrebounded by 8.1 RPG!

      Plus, for a team that “doesn’t need offense,” it would appear that Camby is the perfect fit for the Knicks. I honestly would have no problem putting Camby on a taller PF (against the Lakers, maybe?).

      Camby is a poor man defender against both C’s and F’s, but he’ll give you those things regardless. he’s best in zone.

    20. ephus

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Kawhi Leonard would have been a great choice. Plays like a vet, ultra-efficient, and young.

      Sometimes I wonder whether THCJ studied under Maria Abramovic. I am finally getting the brilliance of his posts.

    21. Brian Cronin

      Should be a very formidable team, we might not beat the Heat or even the Celts, but I think we have as good of an answer for them as anyone, unless father time bites
      Kidd and Camby in the ass. Bravo, Grunwald.

      They’ll be better than last year, just not nearly as formidable as they would have had they brought back Lin. Which is too bad, but eh, que sera, sera. If he was told he specifically couldn’t have Lin, Grunwald did do as well as he possibly could (I would have preferred Bayless to Kidd, but Bayless was not available until after Kidd signed so I can’t knock Grunwald for that).

    22. ephus

      Although I agree that Bayless has greater physical gifts at this point, Kidd is the better fit for this team because of his ability to command respect in the locker room. On the other hand, I would have loved to see Bayless over Felton.

    23. Brian Cronin

      Oh, obviously Bayless would be better than Felton, but Bayless could only have been obtained as a free agent. Toronto let go of him because of cap issues, so they would not have been willing to do the trade the Blazers did. So it would have had to be Kidd’s spot. But, again, Kidd was signed before Bayless was available, so it is more a matter of me being sad that Bayless signed for $3 million and the Knicks didn’t get him. Bad luck more than anything. What I really like about Bayless is that he is a reasonable 2 on top of a 1.

    24. Brian Cronin

      But yeah, while certainly I think the offseason was not a particularly good one overall because of losing Lin (I’d give the Knicks a C+ for the offseason), if losing Lin was a given, then Grunwald did a wonderful job getting Felton. There was no one else available better than Felton. Getting Felton was a brilliant piece of GMing. Like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

    25. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      sidestep: I’m not going to tout Westbrook’s game, since it’s live or die by his jumper and I thought he was often out of control on his penetrations during the playoffs. If you’re going to cite Harden as being more efficient, I’ll with that, but I think Harden’s numbers wouldn’t look as good if he were a starter and playing against starters instead of coming off the bench against other bench players. (Is there even a stat that accounts for playing against starters instead of bench players?) His inconsistent performance in the playoffs makes me wonder about that even more.

      I think this is a totally fallacious argument. He was third on his team in minutes played at 31.4 MPG. And since Durant plays 38 MPG, you have to imagine he’s also playing “inferior” players for a good chunk.

      And I’ve heard so many arguments about how ultra-efficient starters are often terrible at defense — David Lee, Manu Ginobili, Ken Faried, Steve Nash, to name but a few — that the argument that starters are inherently better defenders is kind of bullshit.

      I think the reality is that aside from a select few truly outstanding players, most players are about equal on defense.

      And beside that, how many open shots do you see NBA players miss? I saw Kobe Bryant, World’s Greatest Shooter, miss a few wide open jumpers today.

      Everyone’s got an explanation for why the stats are wrong, but no one really stops to wonder, “Well, maybe I’m wrong…”

    26. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      ephus: Sometimes I wonder whether THCJ studied under Maria Abramovic. I am finally getting the brilliance of his posts.

      I don’t understand. Are you saying that I will stare down my opposition without flinching for hours? Because if so, yes. I will stand my ground on 2012 Leonard > 2012 Bryant until ruruland’s head explodes.

    27. Z-man

      Brian Cronin: They’ll be better than last year, just not nearly as formidable as they would have had they brought back Lin. Which is too bad, but eh, que sera, sera. If he was told he specifically couldn’t have Lin, Grunwald did do as well as he possibly could (I would have preferred Bayless to Kidd, but Bayless was not available until after Kidd signed so I can’t knock Grunwald for that).

      I can buy the argument that Lin is going to be a very good player some day. However, for this year, I feel better about Felton leading this team than I do about Lin. Felton is in a perfect situation. He’s playing where he wants to play, has been anointed the starter, has 2 great P&R players in Amare and Chandler, and two brilliant veteran PGs to push him/tutor him. He’s tough and durable, and looked to be in very good shape in Vegas. On the other hand, it would not surprise me at all if Lin struggles this year. While JR was out of line with his comments, I am anticipating that he will be getting a lot of attention from opposing players on both ends of the court, and guys will be looking to embarrass him and rough him up due to his contract and fame.

      If the only basis for your C+ grade is Lin, tell me this: if Lin falters and Felton plays well, would that make the off-season an A+ for GG?

    28. formido

      Absolutely. And by the same token, be prepared to admit you were wrong when Lin’s win shares from the last two years are precisely as predictive of future success as research strongly suggests they will be. Good 23 year olds tend to get better not worse.

      Z-man: If the only basis for your C+ grade is Lin, tell me this: if Lin falters and Felton plays well, would that make the off-season an A+ for GG?

    29. Brian Cronin

      I can buy the argument that Lin is going to be a very good player some day. However, for this year, I feel better about Felton leading this team than I do about Lin. Felton is in a perfect situation. He’s playing where he wants to play, has been anointed the starter, has 2 great P&R players in Amare and Chandler, and two brilliant veteran PGs to push him/tutor him. He’s tough and durable, and looked to be in very good shape in Vegas. On the other hand, it would not surprise me at all if Lin struggles this year. While JR was out of line with his comments, I am anticipating that he will be getting a lot of attention from opposing players on both ends of the court, and guys will be looking to embarrass him and rough him up due to his contract and fame.

      See, this is what I don’t buy with your argument.

      Reasonable expectations: Lin is a top-15 PG,

      That’s you before they announced they weren’t re-signing Lin. And I agreed with you.

      So before they don’t re-sign him, you reasonably expected him to be a top-15 pg next year but after they say they are not re-signing him, you now prefer Raymond Felton to him?

      I don’t get that.

      I mean, I get it from a general “I hope that is what happens, since I’m a Knick fan and obviously I want the Knicks’ decisions to work out,” but “I hope” is a lot different from “I think.” I totally respect “I hope,” though. Heck, I hope everything turns out great for the team, as well. I want this team to do really well. And obviously if this is the team, then fine, this is the team. They’re not a bad team. They’re better than they were at the start of the playoffs last year. I don’t think they’re as good as they were when they had Lin/Melo/STAT all healthy, but they’re a better team than they were at the start of the playoffs. So I’m not certainly not all doom and gloom about the team. I’ll enjoy this team. I just don’t think they helped themselves as much as they could (and should) have by letting Lin go. Maybe they helped Dolan’s checkbook, but not the team itself.

      If the only basis for your C+ grade is Lin, tell me this: if Lin falters and Felton plays well, would that make the off-season an A+ for GG?

      No. The C+ is for losing the opportunity of Lin. The reward far outweighed the risk. Lin could get hit by a bus tomorrow and I would still think it was a poor decision not to re-sign him.

    30. sidestep

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: I think this is a totally fallacious argument. He was third on his team in minutes played at 31.4 MPG. And since Durant plays 38 MPG, you have to imagine he’s also playing “inferior” players for a good chunk.

      And I’ve heard so many arguments about how ultra-efficient starters are often terrible at defense — David Lee, Manu Ginobili, Ken Faried, Steve Nash, to name but a few — that the argument that starters are inherently better defenders is kind of bullshit.

      I think the reality is that aside from a select few truly outstanding players, most players are about equal on defense.

      And beside that, how many open shots do you see NBA players miss? I saw Kobe Bryant, World’s Greatest Shooter, miss a few wide open jumpers today.

      Everyone’s got an explanation for why the stats are wrong, but no one really stops to wonder, “Well, maybe I’m wrong…”

      I don’t see how Durant’s minutes are relevant since we aren’t talking about him, but about Westbrook and Harden.

      So what if you can cite starters who play poor defense; there are also bench players bad at that too, like Novak. That’s cherrypicking. Even if you don’t think wing-defender starters are better than bench wing-defenders, there is also help defense on penetrations and rotations such as the 5. You really going to claim that bench centers are equal in defense as starters?

      And even if we suppose that there is a negligible difference between starters and bench players in defensive ability, when a sixth man enters the game, there is a bigger disparity between his fresh legs and those who are on the floor who have already played significant minutes. In general, a sixth man is either seeing a weaker defense from his immediate defender or the help defense or he has an advantage in having fresher legs.

    31. Z-man

      I will be happy (?) to admit it if I am wrong, with the qualifier that I am not saying definitively that Lin will falter, but only that there is too little data (your last 2 years is around 1200 minutes, which corresponds to less than half a year of an NBA season, and btw his stats as a rookie were putrid) to render any stats-based projection of his success nothing more than a wild guess. In other words, I will feel as culpable and foolish as I do when I flip a coin and call heads and it comes up tails.

      Re: good 23 year olds getting better, what about Landry Fields, who was rookie of the month in November and December and was the best rebounding guard in the league for most of his rookie year, and Toney Douglas, who had a .570 TS% as a 23 year old rookie? But I guess you think that Lin is just “different” …hmmm, I wonder why?

    32. sidestep

      The comparison of Lin Landry and TD is ridiculous. Landry and TD are the same players as they were in their previous year but they lost their jump shot. I think that is the most variable thing about a person’s skills, especially if a player, like Landry, is trying to alter his shooting form. But there are skills that don’t go away. In his second year, Landry was still a good cutter and played well off the ball. That’s not a skill you suddenly just lose. You have to admit some skills are more variable than others. The least variable is probably is defense. There is no skilled defender who suddenly sucks at that overnight.

      In the case of Lin, his game wasn’t about centered on whether his jumpers were going in or not, but his consistent ability to break down a defense with penetration, his PnR play and court vision, knack for taking over games in the fourth quarter, and big onions under pressure. Those aren’t skills that suddenly go away. Weaknesses like ball handling and going left (overblown issue IMO) can all be improved with training. Being able to perform under pressure is not just about crunch time in 4th quarter — what could be greater pressure than being on the cusp of losing your job and career? If putting up historic numbers in that situation isn’t clutch, I don’t know what is.

      Anyway, I don’t think this Lin discussion is going to go away any time soon but it’s been talked to death. When the Houston-Knicks games come around, some side with have cause to say “I told you so.” It’s all just talk till then.

    33. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      sidestep: I don’t see how Durant’s minutes are relevant since we aren’t talking about him, but about Westbrook and Harden.

      So what if you can cite starters who play poor defense; there are also bench players bad at that too, like Novak. That’s cherrypicking. Even if you don’t think wing-defender starters are better than bench wing-defenders, there is also help defense on penetrations and rotations such as the 5. You really going to claim that bench centers are equal in defense as starters?

      And even if we suppose that there is a negligible difference between starters and bench players in defensive ability, when a sixth man enters the game, there is a bigger disparity between his fresh legs and those who are on the floor who have already played significant minutes. In general, a sixth man is either seeing a weaker defense from his immediate defender or the help defense or he has an advantage in having fresher legs.

      Why not claim that bench centers are as good as starting centers on defense? Furthermore, it doesn’t even matter: those players get almost NO playing time whatsoever.

      http://arturogalletti.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/regular-season.png

      Players 7 through 15 get a cumulative 30 percent of the playing time.

      And to answer your whole “I’m not talking about Durant” quibble: because you’re saying that Harden plays a significant number of minutes against the second team. Well, if Durant plays 38 mpg, doesn’t he also play against the second team? Or do you think that in the ten minutes Durant is off the floor, the opposing team will put in its scrubs. Yet against Harden, who plays two-thirds of his team’s minutes and shot a fucking ridiculous .66 TS% (second in the league), they’re throwing in the benchwarmers?

      The guy was third on their team in minutes played. Do you really think that teams don’t plan their defense around…

    34. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      sidestep:

      And even if we suppose that there is a negligible difference between starters and bench players in defensive ability, when a sixth man enters the game, there is a bigger disparity between his fresh legs and those who are on the floor who have already played significant minutes. In general, a sixth man is either seeing a weaker defense from his immediate defender or the help defense or he has an advantage in having fresher legs.

      Ah, the fresh legs syndrome. Give me a fucking break, dude. These are NBA players. Even if Harden came into a game at the last possible minute (accounting for his MPG numbers), he’d only be coming in with 4 minutes left in the second quarter. Then, of course, HE would be gassed by the end of the game and playing “at a disadvantage.”

    35. massive

      I personally think James Harden is way better than Russell Westbrook. I also think Russell Westbrook is overrated because he’s a freak athlete. James Harden was probably the best shooting guard in the league last year, and he played 1,946 minutes. He was closing games, and was almost unstoppable on dribble-drive penetration in the 4th quarter. He’s as complete a guard we have in this league. He even tied Durant for the team’s lead in WS/48.

    36. Eric Chen

      sidestep: Anyway, I don’t think this Lin discussion is going to go away any time soon but it’s been talked to death. When the Houston-Knicks games come around, some side with have cause to say “I told you so.” It’s all just talk till then.

      Whether Lin excels or struggles with the Rockets in the regular season, the thing about “I told you so” is that he’ll have a very different role with the Rockets than he would have had as a Knick. The Rockets are looking to Lin to singlehandedly impose order and recreate Linsanity on a torn up roster that may be radically overturned again with a trade. Lin is like a #1 overall draft pick who’s been anointed savior of a bad team.

      As a Knick, I saw Lin’s role next season as like his role with Harvard – a versatile, whatever-the-team-needs guard, including bail-out scoring. The regular-season ‘I told you so’ will be if Woodson struggles to find a working backcourt because every guard combo, with Felton in particular, is missing something Lin would have provided.

    37. Z-man

      sidestep: In the case of Lin, his game wasn’t about centered on whether his jumpers were going in or not

      So if Lin shoots like he did his first year (under 40% from the field, under 30% from 3) you don’t think that would have an impact on his overall game? If he could play D like Rondo, I would agree. However, Linsanity was what it was largely because of Lin’s ability to knock down big 3′s and perimeter shots in big moments. If he shoots at a sub-.520 TS%, he’s a below average PG, and would be an even worse combo guard.

      Eric Chen: As a Knick, I saw Lin’s role next season as like his role with Harvard – a versatile, whatever-the-team-needs guard, including bail-out scoring.

      As long as the team doesn’t need lock-down (or even competent) perimeter D, consistent 3-pt shooting, or ball-handling vs intense pressure.

      The end of NBA benches, not to mention the D-league and Europe, are loaded with PGs who have several skills but can’t shoot, go left, or defend at an NBA level, no matter how much they practiced.

    38. Nick C.

      Z-Man you’re becoming to Lin deriding what Ruru was/is to Melo defending. Give it a rest, it was old two days after the non-signing.

    39. Z-man

      sidestep: Being able to perform under pressure is not just about crunch time in 4th quarter — what could be greater pressure than being on the cusp of losing your job and career? If putting up historic numbers in that situation isn’t clutch, I don’t know what is.

      Except that nobody in the league knew what he was or what he could and couldn’t do, and there were no expectations whatsoever for him, and he was getting paid peanuts. Now, everybody is expecting him to be a star, and he is getting paid like a star. I think the pressure on him now is WAY greater than it was last year, and if he were on the Knicks, it would have been WAY,WAY greater.
      He will have both pressure to perform like he did during Linsanity, and will be a focal point of opponent’s defensive and offensive game plans.

      Of course, he has to worry about losing his job to the great Scott Machado…now, that’s pressure!

      sidestep: Weaknesses like ball handling and going left (overblown issue IMO) can all be improved with training.

      So after 4 years of college and 2 years as a pro, Lin is going to start working on these fundamental guard skills? I guess Morey feels the same way.

    40. jon abbey

      Nick C.:
      Z-Man you’re becoming to Lin deriding what Ruru was/is to Melo defending. Give it a rest, it was old two days after the non-signing.

      both sides are old, no one knows how he will develop and how good of a fit he would have been, and his defenders are overlooking his weaknesses as much as his detractors are ignoring his strengths. I usually agree with Brian on most things Knick-related, but disagree with him on this that this was a definite miss by NY management.

      I also disagree that we’ll have much more of an answer after a month or two in the regular season, I’d say give it two years or so at least (and we still won’t know, since he’ll be in a very different situation as Eric says, but at least we’ll have a lot more info to decide from).

    41. Z-man

      Nick C.: Z-Man you’re becoming to Lin deriding what Ruru was/is to Melo defending. Give it a rest, it was old two days after the non-signing.

      Again, Nick, feel free not to read my posts. If you did bother to read back, I’m basically responding to Brian C. giving Glen Grunwald a C+ on the basis of not signing Lin. And again, I’m not “deriding” Lin, just deriding the notion that 25 games (of which less than 15 were “Linsanity-grade”) is enough to warrant outrage about not matching a $25 mill backloaded deal that would have cost ownership $60 mill. Or am I not allowed to respond to posters like Brian, sidestep and Eric Chen because I’m concerned about offending you?

    42. Z-man

      jon abbey: I also disagree that we’ll have much more of an answer after a month or two in the regular season, I’d say give it two years or so at least (and we still won’t know, since he’ll be in a very different situation as Eric says, but at least we’ll have a lot more info to decide from).

      Actually, jon, I think we’ll know a lot after a couple of months because of the win-now nature of this team. Every decision GG (or Dolan) made seems to have been with that in mind. You could quibble with that strategy, but if you agree (as I do) that the next 2 years are about making the Amare/Melo/Chandler experiment work, and then blowing it up in year 3 if it doesn’t, then you should know pretty early on whether Felton ofer Lin was a good decision. If Lin takes 2 years to develop and Felton plays well during those 2 years, it would be hard to argue that Grunwald made a mistake.

      I mean really, do you sign a guy to a $25 mill contract to wait in the wings? Or for a guy who puts up the same numbers that Felton puts up on O with worse D? Or for a guy who can’t stay on the floor because of the pounding his game subjects him to? Again, thank goodness we didn’t have to make a long-term decision on Fields after his first 30 games, when he was anointed our starting 2-guard for the next decade.

    43. Juany8

      jon abbey: both sides are old, no one knows how he will develop and how good of a fit he would have been, and his defenders are overlooking his weaknesses as much as his detractors are ignoring his strengths. I usually agree with Brian on most things Knick-related, but disagree with him on this that this was a definite miss by NY management.

      I also disagree that we’ll have much more of an answer after a month or two in the regular season, I’d say give it two years or so at least (and we still won’t know, since he’ll be in a very different situation as Eric says, but at least we’ll have a lot more info to decide from).

      I’d say it was a total mistake if the only criteria is having the best team possible for the next few seasons. Signing Lin improved the team’s flexibility going forward, not decreased it, so unless you really think there would be some PG drama in the locker room (or a JR-led drama or whatever) there was no real reason not to make this move.

      I don’t think Lin is going to be all that great (not sure how I’m supposed to be excited as a Rockets fan when Lowry and Dragic are both better), but he was a player with good upside and a lot of fame, I really don’t think it would have been that far fetched for the Knicks to get CP3 for Lin, Shump, and Novak (maybe trade one of those players for a first round pick instead). Lin also has a lot more upside than Felton and Kidd going forward, there’s a chance he really would have been as good as Linsanity suggested he would be.

      On a more trollish note, I can’t wait until Sam Presti decides to value Westbrook more than Harden. I want THCJ to come on here and call the best GM in the league and idiot for not listening to a stat that says Landry Fields is better than Kobe Bryant

    44. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Juany8:
      On a more trollish note, I can’t wait until Sam Presti decides to value Westbrook more than Harden. I want THCJ to come on here and call the best GM in the league and idiot for not listening to a stat that says Landry Fields is better than Kobe Bryant

      There’s a huge difference between skill and efficiency. Kobe Bryant would probably smoke Fields in a game of one-on-one. Overall, he’s a much more talented basketball player — especially in his prime, which has long since passed.

      The problem for you is reconciling the fact that what your eyes tell you is very different from what the numbers tell us about those players’ contribution to team wins. You have not an argument but “because it’s common sense” or “because you can just see it” and you’re riding it as hard as you can. Big deal.

      And Presti will find out what happens when he lets his #2 player go to Phoenix next year. Unless they luck out with a stud rookie (nearly impossible to come by), they’re going to see how valuable the super-athletic-but-average-efficiency Westbrook really is.

    45. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Z-man: Except that nobody in the league knew what he was or what he could and couldn’t do, and there were no expectations whatsoever for him, and he was getting paid peanuts.Now, everybody is expecting him to be a star, and he is getting paid like a star.I think the pressure on him now is WAY greater than it was last year, and if he were on the Knicks, it would have been WAY,WAY greater.

      This is armchair psychology bullshit.

      Have you ever had a job that began on a probation period? Have you ever been offered a position that was, particularly at first, contingent on you being good at whatever it is you were doing?

      The guy was playing on a non-guaranteed contract and had he played poorly, he would have likely been benched again and probably never seen serious playing time before being flushed out of the league.

      I’m not saying that he had MORE pressure while having such an uncertain future in the NBA, but the fact that you are hypothesizing with such certainty is complete and utter horseshit. You have no idea if he had more or less pressure, and how that pressure would affect him. Contract year performance spikes tell us that most professional athletes are really good at performing under stress, if you can even call it that.

      I mean really, your analysis is worthless.

    46. Juany8

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: There’s a huge difference between skill and efficiency. Kobe Bryant would probably smoke Fields in a game of one-on-one. Overall, he’s a much more talented basketball player — especially in his prime, which has long since passed.

      The problem for you is reconciling the fact that what your eyes tell you is very different from what the numbers tell us about those players’ contribution to team wins. You have not an argument but “because it’s common sense” or “because you can just see it” and you’re riding it as hard as you can. Big deal.

      And Presti will find out what happens when he lets his #2 player go to Phoenix next year. Unless they luck out with a stud rookie (nearly impossible to come by), they’re going to see how valuable the super-athletic-but-average-efficiency Westbrook really is.

      Is valuing defense “common sense”? Because James Harden is an average defender at best, while Westbrook is an elite defender. You can pretend all you want that most basketball players are roughly equal defenders, but that’s simply not true, no matter how much more convenient it would be for Wins Produced if it was.

      As far as numerical analysis, I have absolutely no problem understanding, appreciating, and using numerical analysis where it’s appropriate. I don’t have a problem with statistics, I have a problem with the statistics YOU are presenting and with the way you’re using those statistics. It may be possible to quantify the events on a basketball court in such a way that proper analysis could then be done on those numbers, but the box score isn’t the answer. Much worse is the fact that you think a linear metric would tell you anything valuable about basketball. Any real analysis of basketball would be causality based, and causality is not linear across any kind of context

    47. Z-man

      I love this argument, it is so fundamental to the fabric of this site. There is no disputing that WP48 is highly correlated with successful basketball. On the other hand, why do some players have high WP48 despite looking horrible to the eyes of discerning fans and even GMs?

      One possibility is that WP48 is not a great vehicle for comparing players across roles. Fields should not be compared to Kobe even though they are both stretch 2′s. Kobe is expected to take 20 shots a game, dominate his team’s offense down the stretch of tight games, mainly with iso play, and handle the ball against pressure and double-teams. Fields is expected to take 6-8 shots a game, scrap for rebounds and loose balls, get out in transition, play reasonable defense and only handle the ball and shoot in non-essential situations.

      Somehow, winning an NBA game requires a team to get to roughly 100 points. WP48 says that Fields will do his limited job more efficiently than Kobe will do his job. However, if roles were reversed, i.e Kobe took only the 8 best shots per game that were available, focused mainly on defense and rebounding, and only handled the ball in specific situations, he would probably be off the charts WP48-wise. On the other hand, if Fields was put into a role where he had to be a high-volume scorer and crunch-time iso player, he would be a miserable failure.

      WP48 is a very valuable tool for comparing, say, Kobe to Jordan, or Melo to LeBron, or Fields to Brewer…especially when looking at cap implications. It is also useful for pointing out that players like Fields have value that transcends his ugly-ass, flat as a pancake shot.

      With the Knicks, the hope is that our uber-efficient players like Chandler, Camby, and Brewer (and maybe Kidd?) will balance out the higher volume but less efficient players like Melo, Felton, Amare and JR.

    48. Z-man

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: This is armchair psychology bullshit.Have you ever had a job that began on a probation period? Have you ever been offered a position that was, particularly at first, contingent on you being good at whatever it is you were doing?The guy was playing on a non-guaranteed contract and had he played poorly, he would have likely been benched again and probably never seen serious playing time before being flushed out of the league.I’m not saying that he had MORE pressure while having such an uncertain future in the NBA, but the fact that you are hypothesizing with such certainty is complete and utter horseshit. You have no idea if he had more or less pressure, and how that pressure would affect him. Contract year performance spikes tell us that most professional athletes are really good at performing under stress, if you can even call it that.I mean really, your analysis is worthless.

      Back to Landry Fields, wasn’t he under pressure to perform or be out of the league as a rookie? Didn’t he pass that test with flying colors? Yet I never saw a more shell-shocked and totally worthless player on a playoff basketball stage than him vs. Boston, and he has never recovered to what he was. And you continue to suck his dick based on his WP48.

    49. Z-man

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: I’m not saying that he had MORE pressure while having such an uncertain future in the NBA, but the fact that you are hypothesizing with such certainty is complete and utter horseshit.

      By the way, the point of my posts about Lin is that you can’t be certain about ANYTHING based on his track record. I am not saying anything with certainty, just refuting those who seem certain that he has already PROVEN that he can handle any level of pressure and be a quality full-time PG based on his very limited success thus far. I truly don’t get where you get the “with utter certainty” nonsense. Wasn’t it you the other day that said with far more “utter certainty” that Josh Selby will never be an NBA player based on 200 minutes of NBA PT at age 20? In fact, nobody here speaks more often with more “utter certainty” than you.

    50. Juany8

      Z-man let’s be clear about one thing. WP48 isn’t highly correlated with successful basketball. Point differential (or efficiency differential) is what is really correlated with winning basketball, and WP is formulated to correlate with efficiency differential on a team level. The thing is, on a team level Wins Produced is absolutely correct. The best way to maximize wins is to shoot efficiently, get a lot of rebounds, and keep your turnovers low, while forcing your opponent to do the opposite. This is indisputable (and not very insightful, every single basketball coach ever preaches good shots, tough rebounding, and low turnovers) The question is how to assign value for what happens on a team level to an individual level.

      The simple truth about basketball is that every tabulated event (box score numbers) is a function of he skill level of multiple players. When Novak takes an open 3, it means someone had to pass it to him and it means Novak’s defender left him open for some reason (maybe screens, maybe he was doubling someone else, maybe he just sucks). On a team scale, it’s very possible to quantify the value of Novak’s shot, the only 2 possibilities are that the shot missed, or it went in. On an individual scale, the entire team (and the opposing defense) had some role in “creating” that open 3 point shot. Wins produced doesn’t have any kind of mechanism to account for that value. So in a scenario where Felton and Chandler run a pick and roll with the other 3 players spacing the floor (pretty common play in the NBA) A shooter will get open only if an extra defender makes a decision to leave his man to stop the pick and roll, after which Felton, or whoever he passes it to, has to decide to pass it to an open Novak to take the shot. There is no way that Novak was the primary cause of creating that open shot, and in the box score there’s a good chance that neither Felton or Chandler get credit for the score

    51. Juany8

      Z-man: Back to Landry Fields, wasn’t he under pressure to perform or be out of the league as a rookie? Didn’t he pass that test with flying colors? Yet I never saw a more shell-shocked and totally worthless player on a playoff basketball stage than him vs. Boston, and he has never recovered to what he was. And you continue to suck his dick based on his WP48.

      When you arrive at the conclusion that Landry Fields was a top 10 player in the NBA his rookie season, most rational people would question the method that led to that result. Only THCJ (and Berri and co.) would insult other people for not accepting that result without question. PER has very serious problems too, but Hollinger is smart and humble enough to admit to it’s flaws and point out where he might be wrong. Just 2 years ago, he admitted that Kevin Love was probably not the 5th best player in the NBA, regardless of what PER told him, because PER didn’t account for defense. Hollinger actually has a job based on PER working and even he is capable of looking at his work critically and admitting there are serious flaws that prevent the stat from being a simple measurement of NBA value.

    52. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Z-man: By the way, the point of my posts about Lin is that you can’t be certain about ANYTHING based on his track record. I am not saying anything with certainty, just refuting those who seem certain that he has already PROVEN that he can handle any level of pressure and be a quality full-time PG based on his very limited success thus far. I truly don’t get where you get the “with utter certainty” nonsense.Wasn’t it you the other day that said with far more “utter certainty” that Josh Selby will never be an NBA player based on 200 minutes of NBA PT at age 20? In fact, nobody here speaks more often with more “utter certainty” than you.

      I’d say Selby has about a 2% chance of being an NBA starter. I never speak with certainty. Most of my time on this site is verbally bashing those who do. It’s a pastime, what can I say.

      And PER is fucking terrible. You can cry all you want about linear regression but there is nothing redeeming about PER at all. It doesn’t predict wins in the least. And am I supposed to be impressed that Hollinger has a stats-based job? Some ethos-building, that is. ESPN also employs Skip Fucking Bayless. Is he a credible source?

    53. Z-man

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: I’d say Selby has about a 2% chance of being an NBA starter. I never speak with certainty. Most of my time on this site is verbally bashing those who do. It’s a pastime, what can I say.

      None of us are certain about what we say, but you are as cocksure (npi) about your opinions as anyone here. To be fair, you usually provide statistical support for your strong opinions, but frankly, I wonder whether Berri himself would think that you take his methodology too far.

      As an aside, does Popovich go from a genius to an idiot because he has apparently soured on DeJuan Blair?

    54. ruruland

      great post, Juan. I’d have so much more respect for THCJ if he acknowledged that argument.

    55. Brian Cronin

      I’d say it was a total mistake if the only criteria is having the best team possible for the next few seasons. Signing Lin improved the team’s flexibility going forward, not decreased it, so unless you really think there would be some PG drama in the locker room (or a JR-led drama or whatever) there was no real reason not to make this move.

      I don’t think Lin is going to be all that great (not sure how I’m supposed to be excited as a Rockets fan when Lowry and Dragic are both better), but he was a player with good upside and a lot of fame, I really don’t think it would have been that far fetched for the Knicks to get CP3 for Lin, Shump, and Novak (maybe trade one of those players for a first round pick instead). Lin also has a lot more upside than Felton and Kidd going forward, there’s a chance he really would have been as good as Linsanity suggested he would be.

      Yeah, exactly. That’s it in a nutshell. They had a chance to have their best possible team going forward and they chose not to do it. That’a a C+ from me, and it’s only that high because Grunwald did some seriously awesome GM-ing on other spots (like pulling Felton out of a hat and getting Brewer to sign for the minimum).

    56. Juany8

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: I’d say Selby has about a 2% chance of being an NBA starter. I never speak with certainty. Most of my time on this site is verbally bashing those who do. It’s a pastime, what can I say.

      And PER is fucking terrible. You can cry all you want about linear regression but there is nothing redeeming about PER at all. It doesn’t predict wins in the least. And am I supposed to be impressed that Hollinger has a stats-based job? Some ethos-building, that is. ESPN also employs Skip Fucking Bayless. Is he a credible source?

      Can you seriously not read? I said that John Hollinger is willing to admit his stat has flaws (a whole lot of them) even though he specifically gets payed because he made PER. Berri is totally unwilling to admit the problems in his stat, even obvious ones, and bashes anyone who points out the glaring flaws. I could possibly tolerate someone using WP as the starting point for their ideas. People who dogmatically believe in any of the statistics freely available online don’t really have a clear understanding of how statistics work in general.

    57. Brian Cronin

      What I don’t get with Hollinger and PER is if he knows it has an easily identifiable flaw to it, then why not just fix that flaw? It can’t be that hard to fix, can it?

    58. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Juany8: When you arrive at the conclusion that Landry Fields was a top 10 player in the NBA his rookie season, most rational people would question the method that led to that result.

      Right. And what’s the basis of that questioning? Because he’s not a first round pick? Because he’s not “as athletic” as other NBA SGs? The guy shot .598 TS% and was an exceptional rebounder at his position. WP48 found a flaw with their valuation of DREB and adjusted accordingly.

      Again, the only evidence you have for WP48 being incorrect is because there are a few outliers on the “overrated” side and a few on the “underrated” side. Most of the players in the top 10 are inarguable — LBJ, Paul, Howard (for most of his career) — yet some are dismissed for being “system players” or “not athletic” or “role players.” You say “rational people would question this” yet you do not account for the idea that maybe WP48 is a much, much better evaluator — however flawed it is, because surely it is — than your weak-ass memory and your cognitive-bias-prone brain.

      Here’s some reading material on shot creation, which seems to be the lynchpin (along with individual defense) of the anti-WP argument:

      http://wagesofwins.com/2012/03/13/the-numbers-and-myths-of-shot-creation/

    59. Juany8

      Brian Cronin:
      What I don’t get with Hollinger and PER is if he knows it has an easily identifiable flaw to it, then why not just fix that flaw? It can’t be that hard to fix, can it?

      Well it depends on what you think the point of PER is. I like to see it as a more advanced version of fantasy basketball. The people you see at the top of the PER lists are usually the people you’d expect to see at the top of fantasy basketball lists. So as a “pop” statistic that’s going to be seen by the masses, I think it does the job ESPN (and by extension Hollinger) want it to do. Of course, you’re not going to use it as scientific evidence of anything, but to Hollinger’s credit it’s been years since he used PER that way, he’s become much better at actually analyzing what happens on the court and throwing in PER the way people used to throw in total game numbers to enhance their arguments

    60. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Brian Cronin:
      What I don’t get with Hollinger and PER is if he knows it has an easily identifiable flaw to it, then why not just fix that flaw? It can’t be that hard to fix, can it?

      He doesn’t have to. He has a lucrative career as a talking blog head and his statistic has been accepted into national TV broadcast-speak.

      You’ll never hear a single person on ESPN say, “Hey, did you know that a player could take all of his team’s shots, shoot 33% from the field and 25% from the arc, lead the league in PER and scoring, and be on the first team to go 0-82? Maybe we should take a second before ever referencing PER as a meaningful statistic beyond ‘This player shoots a lot.’” It’s not in their — or Hollinger’s — best interest.

    61. Juany8

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Right. And what’s the basis of that questioning? Because he’s not a first round pick? Because he’s not “as athletic” as other NBA SGs? The guy shot .598 TS% and was an exceptional rebounder at his position. WP48 found a flaw with their valuation of DREB and adjusted accordingly.

      Again, the only evidence you have for WP48 being incorrect is because there are a few outliers on the “overrated” side and a few on the “underrated” side. Most of the players in the top 10 are inarguable — LBJ, Paul, Howard (for most of his career) — yet some are dismissed for being “system players” or “not athletic” or “role players.” You say “rational people would question this” yet you do not account for the idea that maybe WP48 is a much, much better evaluator — however flawed it is, because surely it is — than your weak-ass memory and your cognitive-bias-prone brain.

      Here’s some reading material on shot creation, which seems to be the lynchpin (along with individual defense) of the anti-WP argument:

      http://wagesofwins.com/2012/03/13/the-numbers-and-myths-of-shot-creation/

      I don’t need even the slightest bit of memory to be able to tell that the offensive actions Carmelo Anthony has on the court have a much bigger overall impact than the actions of Landry Fields. I see that all the top defenses gear their defense around stopping Carmelo specifically by leaving players like Fields totally open. There is no way you or Berry are better basketball minds than someone like Greg Poppovich, so if he worries more about Anthony offensively than Fields I’m going to assume it’s because a team is supposed to fear Carmelo more than Fields, not because Greg Poppovich is a poor talent evaluator

    62. Juany8

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: He doesn’t have to. He has a lucrative career as a talking blog head and his statistic has been accepted into national TV broadcast-speak.

      You’ll never hear a single person on ESPN say, “Hey, did you know that a player could take all of his team’s shots, shoot 33% from the field and 25% from the arc, lead the league in PER and scoring, and be on the first team to go 0-82? Maybe we should take a second before ever referencing PER as a meaningful statistic beyond ‘This player shoots a lot.’” It’s not in their — or Hollinger’s — best interest.

      “Hey did you know Rodman was a better per minute player than Michael Jordan? Or that Landry Fields and Eric Dampier have been top 10 players in the NBA? Find out how on today’s segment of Wages of Wins!”

    63. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Juany8: I don’t need even the slightest bit of memory to be able to tell that the offensive actions Carmelo Anthony has on the court have a much bigger overall impact than the actions of Landry Fields. I see that all the top defenses gear their defense around stopping Carmelo specifically by leaving players like Fields totally open. There is no way you or Berry are better basketball minds than someone like Greg Poppovich, so if he worries more about Anthony offensively than Fields I’m going to assume it’s because a team is supposed to fear Carmelo more than Fields, not because Greg Poppovich is a poor talent evaluator

      Thank you for admitting that you base your evaluation on intuition. I can leave this here.

    64. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Juany8: “Hey did you know Rodman was a better per minute player than Michael Jordan? Or that Landry Fields and Eric Dampier have been top 10 players in the NBA? Find out how on today’s segment of Wages of Wins!”

      Do you realize that your argument is based solely in an attitude that says “THESE PLAYERS ARE NOT SUPERSTARS I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I CAN SEE OH MY GOD HOW DO YOU THINK THESE PLAYERS ARE GOOD WERE THEY LOTTERY PICKS? NO I DON’T THINK SO THEY CAN’T BE EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE.”

      It’s worthless, dude.

    65. Juany8

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Thank you for admitting that you base your evaluation on intuition. I can leave this here.

      It’s funny that you think anyone else is going to come in an agree with you. I’d much rather “base my evaluation on intuition” than base it on a crackpot number someone pulled out of his ass to troll the internet basketball scene. I know what real statistical analysis is, I know how real science is done, and I know what real objective evaluations are. Wins Produced fails miserably at all 3, as does anyone who parrots Berri (or perhaps even is Berri) when he makes ridiculous claims. It’s honestly sad that you think that just because you’re looking at numbers it means you’re being objective. Statistics are the most subjective field of math out there, anyone who’s even a bit clever with math can manipulate numbers to say whatever they like. Especially numbers taken from an NBA box score.

    66. Juany8

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Do you realize that your argument is based solely in an attitude that says “THESE PLAYERS ARE NOT SUPERSTARS I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I CAN SEE OH MY GOD HOW DO YOU THINK THESE PLAYERS ARE GOOD WERE THEY LOTTERY PICKS? NO I DON’T THINK SO THEY CAN’T BE EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE.”

      It’s worthless, dude.

      Again reading comprehension. I think Rodman was a hall of famer. I’d even take him above Carmelo Anthony if building a team. I do know, however, that Rodman isn’t the best player of all time. You base all your opinions on the total assumption that shot creation doesn’t matter. That’s not an objective claim, that’s an assumption you made when you listened to Wins Produced. Unless you can find me the objective proof that someone like Landry Fields would be equally efficient if he lead the team in Usage, you’re just as guilty of making subjective claims as I am. I just happen to be honest about it, and I admit that no one should be taking what I say as absolute truth, or even close to it.

    67. ruruland

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Do you realize that your argument is based solely in an attitude that says “THESE PLAYERS ARE NOT SUPERSTARS I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I CAN SEE OH MY GOD HOW DO YOU THINK THESE PLAYERS ARE GOOD WERE THEY LOTTERY PICKS? NO I DON’T THINK SO THEY CAN’T BE EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE.”

      It’s worthless, dude.

      Actually, in order for your assumption to be correct, that players like Dampier and Fields are elite, you’d have to believe that the vast majority of basketball knowledge is false, and that virtually every coach, player and personnel evaluator is fundamentally incorrect in their basic understanding of how the game works.

      You’re a fucking quack who isn’t smart or honest enough to engage the counterarguments made against the psuedoscientific claims you parrot.

    68. ruruland

      The Honorable Cock Jowles:

      Again, the only evidence you have for WP48 being incorrect is because there are a few outliers on the “overrated” side and a few on the “underrated” side. Most of the players in the top 10 are inarguable — LBJ, Paul, Howard (for most of his career) — yet some are dismissed for being “system players” or “not athletic” or “role players.”

      So, inarguable by whom and what standard? You’re saying that any player valuation that is not based on WP48 is worthless. Why would you need any other outside support for WP48, like how players are generally perceived by people who spend their lives studying how the game works?

    69. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      ruruland: So, inarguable by whom and what standard? You’re saying that any player valuation that is not based on WP48 is worthless. Why would you need any other outside support for WP48, like how players are generally perceived by people who spend their lives studying how the game works?

      I don’t think you read Moneyball.

    70. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      ruruland: Actually, in order for your assumption to be correct, that players like Dampier and Fields are elite, you’d have to believe that the vast majority of basketball knowledge is false, and that virtually every coach, player and personnel evaluator is fundamentally incorrect in their basic understanding of how the game works.

      You’re a fucking quack who isn’t smart or honest enough to engage the counterarguments made against the psuedoscientific claims you parrot.

      Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball Moneyball

      It happened in baseball. Why can’t it happen in basketball? Because the game is more “fluid?” More “dynamic?”

      lololololol

    71. Z-man

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: It happened in baseball. Why can’t it happen in basketball? Because the game is more “fluid?” More “dynamic?”
      lololololol

      I think the argument is more that it hasn’t happened yet (to the degree that it has in basebal) and less that it can’t happen.

    72. Juany8

      Z-man: I think the argument is more that it hasn’t happened yet (to the degree that it has in basebal) and less that it can’t happen.

      The real argument is that even if it does happen in basketball, WP is not the answer. There is already far more sophisticated analysis being done by basketball teams who are actually willing to invest time and money into it. If Morey, Sam Presti, and Don Nelson still make mistakes with their evaluations, it seems painfully obvious the answer to basketball analysis is not found freely on the internet. Ignoring interaction effects between players in basketball is just dumb, especially when you analysis of defense basically says that since it can’t be measured, every player on a team was an equal defender since defense is a 5 man activity. Anyone who thinks offense is a 1 man activity doesn’t know how to watch basketball

    73. Brian Cronin

      While I definitely agree about not following WP religiously (I personally just never cite it period), I think the impulse to go too far the other way and just shit on Berri is foolish, as well. I guarantee you that all three of those GMs you mentioned think very highly of Berri and the work he has done. They’ve just obviously gone past him with their own, more advanced, stats. But the work Berri has done is well-respected by most basketball GMs.

    74. Juany8

      Brian Cronin:
      While I definitely agree about not following WP religiously (I personally just never cite it period), I think the impulse to go too far the other way and just shit on Berri is foolish, as well. I guarantee you that all three of those GMs you mentioned think very highly of Berri and the work he has done. They’ve just obviously gone past him with their own, more advanced, stats. But the work Berri has done is well-respected by most basketball GMs.

      They might respect his analytic talents, but I doubt they respond well to some economy professor who insults everyone involved with basketball in order to make a point. I doubt Morey and co. would agree with Berri that coaching is worthless, and Morey has gone on record saying he believes players like Allen Iverson (who he specifically mentioned) are underrated by the general basketball statistics community. Considering he also made a huge push to acquire Melo, Berri would probably call Morey an outright idiot. There’s also the fact that Wins Produced rated Dirk and Westbrook as a pretty mediocre players last year (Dirk was considered an average player the year he won the Finals MVP lol), so I doubt Presti and Don Nelson take his work all that seriously, especially since Wages of Wins wrote an article about how the Mavericks would have been better off letting Dirk go instead of Kris Humpries the year they went on to win the championship

    75. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Juany8: The real argument is that even if it does happen in basketball, WP is not the answer. There is already far more sophisticated analysis being done by basketball teams who are actually willing to invest time and money into it. If Morey, Sam Presti, and Don Nelson still make mistakes with their evaluations, it seems painfully obvious the answer to basketball analysis is not found freely on the internet. Ignoring interaction effects between players in basketball is just dumb, especially when you analysis of defense basically says that since it can’t be measured, every player on a team was an equal defender since defense is a 5 man activity. Anyone who thinks offense is a 1 man activity doesn’t know how to watch basketball

      Defense is not calculated evenly. You can find “Opponent WP48 by position” on the Points over Par website.

      Z-man: I think the argument is more that it hasn’t happened yet (to the degree that it has in basebal) and less that it can’t happen.

      Of course it hasn’t happened to the degree that it has in baseball. But we see these high volume scorers getting big contracts still. My contention has been to find undervalued players through WP48 and sign them to contracts rather than signing max players like Amar’e and Carmelo and hoping that they transform into the superstars they’ve never been.

      You know, two years ago I called Amar’e's contract a terrible one, and that he was a waste of $20M a year that we’d eventually be pining to ship out for peanuts. I said this because the WP48 projections were not very good for him, and the injuries and the cost, and all that. Well, are we there yet?

    76. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Juany8: They might respect his analytic talents, but I doubt they respond well to some economy professor who insults everyone involved with basketball in order to make a point. I doubt Morey and co. would agree with Berri that coaching is worthless, and Morey has gone on record saying he believes players like Allen Iverson (who he specifically mentioned) are underrated by the general basketball statistics community. Considering he also sidered an average player the year he won the Finals MVP lol), so I doubt Presti and Don Nelson take his work all that seriously, especially since Wages of Wins wrote an article about how the Mavericks would have been better off letting Dirk go instead of Kris Humpries the year they went on to win the championship

      Nowitzki was amazing in the Finals. They had a pythag. win estimate of 53 that year; that’s not an “elite” team, most years. You’d be hard pressed to find many champions with that low a total. Again, not saying they were bad, but you act like they won 68 games and Dirk was responsible for it. You also forget that they had one of the most efficient centers of all-time on that team, plus a still-efficient Jason Kidd and Shawn Marion. That team was loaded and were firing on all cylinders in the playoffs.

      And this happens over and over on this board, but you’re essentially saying that because WP48 does not mesh with your subjective analysis, we should discredit and other “important” people have discredited it.

      You “lol” because they made a suggestion based on efficiency and it turned out that they didn’t have to and won the championship anyway. Do you take that as some kind of legitimate evidence for your position?

    77. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      And Berri does not posit at ALL that coaching is worthless. His argument hinges on the idea that players who change teams do not typically see significant deviation in their predicted WP48 change. The exceptions are like, Phil Jackson and Gregg Popovich and a few others who appear to have some kind of significant positive value on player efficiency.

      This is NOT an argument that coaching doesn’t matter. What it says is in that the output of their function, coaching seems to be pretty consistent AMONG COACHES WHO ARE EMPLOYED BY THE LEAGUE.

      This does not mean that anyone can coach. It just suggests that most coaches are about equal in value. You may disagree with the distribution of wins among individuals on the teams, but it’s pretty fucking hard to argue that coaches have a significant impact on a box-score-regressed statistic when the data clearly suggest that they don’t. And yeah, I know: anecdote anecdote anecdote, blah blah blah. That’s what the numbers say. That coaching is not a factor that significantly impacts player value, according to WP48.

      I could not be a good NBA coach. Almost all of the coaches in the league are “good” in that they are not “bad.” Average is okay, in the NBA.

      Where coaches seem to fuck up is in the distribution of minutes. Jeff Green, Nick Young, Brook Lopez — those are some bad fucking players getting serious minutes.

      I mean, look what happened to the Nuggets when George Karl wised up and started playing Faried like a starter.

    78. Juany8

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Nowitzki was amazing in the Finals. They had a pythag. win estimate of 53 that year; that’s not an “elite” team, most years.

      And this happens over and over on this board, but you’re essentially saying that because WP48 does not mesh with your subjective analysis, we should discredit and other “important” people have discredited it.

      You “lol” because they made a suggestion based on efficiency and it turned out that they didn’t have to and won the championship anyway. Do you take that as some kind of legitimate evidence for your position?

      No what I’m saying is that Dirk is objectively a better basketball player than Kris Humpries. That’s not a subjective opinion, I bet I could ask every single general manager/coach/scout for every single basketball team ever made and they’d probably give you the same response. If you are the ONLY person saying different, it’s more likely that your model is wrong than that of every single intelligent basketball mind in the world. Especially when other analytical models all agree that Dirk is an incredible player.

      Your “scientific” model consistently spits out that random role players who constantly bounce around teams are somehow better than established hall of famers. Guess what, if I have to decide between trusting Berri or trusting Gregg Poppovich/Phil Jackson, I’m going with the person who’s proven he knows basketball. This isn’t a case of a stat saying Kobe is worse than players like Wade and Lebron while I argue that he’s better “because he shots tough shots that go in”. This is a case of a stat saying Matt Barnes was a super star last year while Kobe was the worst player on his team (Dirk was also the worst rotation player on his team by the playoffs, just one year after winning Finals MVP).

    79. Juany8

      As far as the coaching argument, I’ll actually agree with you that the difference between most NBA caliber coaches is small, and perhaps negligible, but there is still a sliding scale of value. Gregg Poppovich/Phil Jackson are a LOT better than someone like Kurt Rambis or Vinny Del Negro. Yet Wins Produced doesn’t even attempt to account for this difference. At the very least you could add some kind of coefficient for coaches (most coaches would have a value of 1, AKA totally average and normal) but of course that would be difficult to account for, which linear regression doesn’t do well with lol

    80. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Juany8: No what I’m saying is that Dirk is objectively a better basketball player than Kris Humpries. That’s not a subjective opinion, I be

      Your “scientific” model consistently spits out that random role players who constantler on his team by the playoffs, just one year after winning Finals MVP).

      But again, that’s putting serious pressure on those “decision makers” and “talent evaluators” to be right. And Moneyball pretty conclusively showed us that those very people in the baseball world were wrong. Wrong about a whole lot of things, from stolen base success rate to bunting to OBP and OPS and BA and ERA and wins and losses.

      The thing is, the principles of the first wave of “advanced” baseball statistics were common sense shit. OBP is much, much more important than BA, for instance. Or that wins are essentially meaningless when talking pitcher value. Yet for years — decades — they were held as the standard by layman and expert alike.

      My point is that if “experts” can be wrong about such a static game as baseball, where the math is easy and the parts easily isolated, why shouldn’t we be totally and unwaveringly suspicious of the “experts” of a game that is much more difficult to evaluate?

      These “role players” bounce around teams EXACTLY like the role players bounced around in baseball — this is the exact fucking essence of Billy Beane’s competitive strategy. The argument that WP48 is wrong because it flies in the face of “common sense” is exactly why sabermetrics were so hostilely received in the baseball world. Juwan Howard is, like, a 20 year vet. Manu Ginobili was a 2nd rounder. 30 teams passed on taking him, and he’s arguably the best SG of the Aughts. “Experts” can be and often are wrong.

    81. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Juany8:
      As far as the coaching argument, I’ll actually agree with you that the difference between most NBA caliber coaches is small, and perhaps negligible, but there is still a sliding scale of value. Gregg Poppovich/Phil Jackson are a LOT better than someone like Kurt Rambis or Vinny Del Negro. Yet Wins Produced doesn’t even attempt to account for this difference. At the very least you could add some kind of coefficient for coaches (most coaches would have a value of 1, AKA totally average and normal) but of course that would be difficult to account for, which linear regression doesn’t do well with lol

      They don’t have a coefficient because not every player benefits from the coaching. On average, though, players outperform their projected WP48 by a sizable margin under Jax. The whole article is in one of the WP books.

    82. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Again, my point is that we have much more to be suspicious about when it comes to “experts” than we do when it comes to statistics. WP is not perfect, not even close — those reasons have been hammered home time and time again. But it’s a fuckload better than PER (which is worthless beyond volume scoring) and WS48 (overvalues volume scoring, doesn’t correlate with wins).

      And we have to remember that we’re fighting a 24/7 newscycle of ill-conceived narratives, distortions, and conjecture WHILE we fight our own cognitive biases that tell us that Kobe Bryant MUST be a great basketball player if he can even get that crazy fadeaway 3-pointer anywhere NEAR the rim.

      I just choose to reconcile my preconceptions with numbers rather than selectively attacking the instances in which the numbers don’t jive with my preconceptions.

    Comments are closed.