Bruno Almeida: well, I don’t want to be anybody’s advocate, but I’ve never seen THCJ praise Faried for his defense, only for his remarkable efficiency and incredible rebounding, which have both been proven right, albeit still in a short stretch of games.

he’s said that there’s no question that Faried would have been a better fit for this team than Shumpert, which means he presumably believes that Faried and Bibby would be an upgrade on Jeffries and Shumpert. I rest my case.

jon abbey: hahahaha, yeah, why would you? oh wait, because it destroys the argument you’ve been making ad nauseum for months.

when the facts don’t support the WOW numbers, ignore the facts (updated line from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance).:)

well, I don’t want to be anybody’s advocate, but I’ve never seen THCJ praise Faried for his defense, only for his remarkable efficiency and incredible rebounding, which have both been proven right, albeit still in a short stretch of games.

The Honorable Cock Jowles: I really don’t care.

hahahaha, yeah, why would you? oh wait, because it destroys the argument you’ve been making ad nauseum for months.

when the facts don’t support the WOW numbers, ignore the facts (updated line from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance). :)

The Honorable Cock Jowles: Except that he was really good at those small details in 2004, 2006, and 2007, when his teams outperformed their pythag record. Do you see how ridiculous of a causal argument this is?

Dudes are constantly talking about how basketball is multivariate and we can’t assign any value whatsoever to stats because of how complex the system is (and a whole lot of other bullshit reasoning that makes no fucking sense whatsoever), yet you’re saying that because a team underperforms their expected record, we should attribute that variance primarily to the coach? Not that pythagorean records are affected by blowout games in which backups play significant minutes, or injuries, or difficulty of schedule with respect to back-to-backs and travel, or a whole host of other factors that distort our ability to interpret the data “accurately”?

Say all you want about the way that I smugly phrase my arguments, but I’d rather be a prick than be illogical…

Well I was responding to a comment that said they underperformed it every year. I assumed that included Phoenix, and I didn’t check if that was right. 4 years in a row I agree could be noise. If it had been 9 or 10 years, which is what I thought I was responding to, then I think you’d agree that would be a somewhat different story. I don’t think teams not hitting their pythagorean record exactly is all or even primarily about the coach necessarily, but I do think that a coach can factor into it and if you see a pattern in the data there’s a good chance that might mean something. But since I misunderstood the data being quoted here, it’s a moot point.

And since I didn’t take one of the positions you attribute to me in your lengthy rant there at the end (I would never say stats are meaningless) I’m not sure your conclusion that I’m illogical is valid.

Also, while Synergy numbers should be taken with a big grain of salt, those numbers of Faried’s are really awful- I think the average ppp allowed is around .9 so if he’s giving up 1.17 he’d be giving back all of his offensive efficiency by getting torched at the other end.

The Honorable Cock Jowles: I really don’t care.

jon abbey: thank you, bot, nice to see your random sentence generator bring that one up again.

any opinions on Faried’s dreadful defensive numbers as cited by Synergy?

I really don’t care.

thenamestsam:
Dantoni’s teams have largely done worse than you’d expect given their Pythagorean records because he’s bad at the small details that help a team over acheive in close games.

Except that he was really good at those small details in 2004, 2006, and 2007, when his teams outperformed their pythag record. Do you see how ridiculous of a causal argument this is?

Dudes are constantly talking about how basketball is multivariate and we can’t assign any value whatsoever to stats because of how complex the system is (and a whole lot of other bullshit reasoning that makes no fucking sense whatsoever), yet you’re saying that because a team underperforms their expected record, we should attribute that variance primarily to the coach? Not that pythagorean records are affected by blowout games in which backups play significant minutes, or injuries, or difficulty of schedule with respect to back-to-backs and travel, or a whole host of other factors that distort our ability to interpret the data “accurately”?

Say all you want about the way that I smugly phrase my arguments, but I’d rather be a prick than be illogical…

The Honorable Cock Jowles: Correlation does not imply causation, bro.

thank you, bot, nice to see your random sentence generator bring that one up again.

any opinions on Faried’s dreadful defensive numbers as cited by Synergy?