Put it this way, rebounds might correlate with wins, but that’s in large because they are correlated with defense. An elite defensive team will cause more misses, creating more rebound opportunities. This means part of the high team correlation with wins and rebounds is because there is a high correlation between defense and wins.

On an individual level, it means that the player causing the other team to miss is just as important as the player collecting the rebound. WP, however, doesn’t adjust for individual defense in any way, which means the player getting the rebound is also getting some credit for the miss (the whole team gets credit at once) This means that players like Faried or Love, who are terrible defenders, get the same credit as someone like Dwight Howard, someone who gets stops and rebounds in the same possession. By not accounting for defense at an individual level, you are giving terrible defenders credit for the good defensive play of others. That’s why it’s not the same when Faried and Chandler put up a similar TS% and Rebounds per minute. Chandler is dominating the defensive end, Faried is screwing his team over, and they both get the same rating lol

ruruland:
Stsam: Good post, but no, I definitely don’t believe he can play full-time MDA pnr.

Youre right on about his shot attempts. He can’t finish anymore and rarely tries. But he moves ALOT in the offense . All over the place to help keep the offense working. He also penetrates to find shooters a lot more then quite a few pgs in the league. He doesn’t use PnR to score unless he has to, and he doesn’t use it much above 3pt line, but he uses it and still very effective in it.

Okay, I think we mostly agree then. I don’t think he’s useless in half court O, just quoted Hollinger as part of trying to make my initial point. I agree with you that he’s valuable keeping an offense moving. I just think if Woodson really wants to run Dantoni concepts he’s going to have to do it primarily with someone other than Kidd at the point. I think Kidd can still do a lot of the things he does well playing primarily off the ball. His instincts for finding pockets of space, for quickly choosing and throwing the right pass to keep the ball moving, and his ability to knock down open jumpers will all serve him well on the weak side while Felton and Amare/Chandler run PnR.

Youre right on about his shot attempts. He can’t finish anymore and rarely tries. But he moves ALOT in the offense . All over the place to help keep the offense working. He also penetrates to find shooters a lot more then quite a few pgs in the league. He doesn’t use PnR to score unless he has to, and he doesn’t use it much above 3pt line, but he uses it and still very effective in it.

njasdjdh: The quote was that he’s a non-factor in the half-court offense, which is different than being a non-factor on offense. I know you like to turn around what people said in an effort to further your agenda, since you already did it to me in this thread, but try to be honest.

My personal agenda? Lol, being a Knicks fan.

Let me ask both of you guys this question.

Somehow you acknowledge that Jason Kidd has value in the “full-court”, yet you (presumably) both believe Kidd is a “non-factor” in the half court because he can’t move, correct?

If he can’t move, why is he good in the full court?

(hoping Socratic method comes off less caustic)

ruruland: not trying to be condescending at all. Nice job with Hollinger stats. We both know Kidd is not a big time penetrator in the traditional way at this point. But to say he’s a non-factor on offense?

If you’re not trying then you’re bad at not sounding condescending. The majority of your posts sound like you think you’re a professor talking to his students, but getting back to the topic at hand:

The original discussion was not whether he’s a non-factor on offense, or in half-court. I said that he was the farthest thing from a Dantoni style PG. You responded:

ruruland: Not necessarily true. He ran a lot of PnR last season. He’s not a great penetrator but he’s far from a stationary spot-up shooter.

My point is that you’re giving him far too much credit with this: “We both know Kidd is not a big time penetrator in the traditional way at this point.” The only players in the league who had a higher percentage of their shots as 3s were Novak and Deshawn Stevenson. The other guys rounding out the top 5? Daequan Cook and James Jones. He took 28 fta all year and had 10 (10!!!) shots at the rim. That’s almost 50 games, 30 minutes a game. 10 shots at the rim. One every 5 games. Can he still pass the rock? Absolutely. But if you’re still arguing that he’s capable of playing the Dantoni PG role you are out of your freaking mind.

The Honorable Cock Jowles: This is a ridiculous argument. While WP48 has limitations and does not account for defense in a way that seems helpful, the PoP ratings correlate EXTREMELY well with individual wins and the WP numbers correlate similarly well over the course of the last thirty years.

Your skepticism does not invalidate the model.

It does correlate, but there are more sources of correlation than being a good model. And that model is swarmed by static points (players who don’t change teams / systems). If you want to check the stability of the model, you should allow for more freedom. But coaches usually just use their players in the way they think they are most suited.

So the subjective view of coaches biases the results of your fits. Are they right? I don’t know, but most of them don’t take role players and give them much more responsibility (read %USG). And only they do that when they see that it doesn’t affect other areas. So, %TS and %USG aren’t tied one to the other because basketball is that way, or because coaches only let outlier players to make a shift in %USG?

So, in WP48, you are including the subjectivity of coaches; and so, fails to account for system / player roles / coaching changes.

ruruland: stsa

The quote was that he’s a non-factor in the half-court offense, which is different than being a non-factor on offense. I know you like to turn around what people said in an effort to further your agenda, since you already did it to me in this thread, but try to be honest.

thenamestsam: Right dude. You spout some bullshit, I come back with statistical and scouting evidence, and your response is “You’ll see”. You’re not the only one who watches basketball. Step off with your condescending bullshit.

not trying to be condescending at all. Nice job with Hollinger stats. We both know Kidd is not a big time penetrator in the traditional way at this point. But to say he’s a non-factor on offense?

jon abbey: I love that you refuse to acknowledge that Faried is one of the worst defensive players in the league.

I think Russell Westbrook is a better player than Kenneth Faried. That said, this is a weird point to make because Westbrook is not a good defender.

iserp:

THCJ, WP48 is a joke. It is hard to discuss with you if you don’t accept that it is a joke. Trying to determine from a single number the win totals added or taken is absolutely laughable, because it so far from the range of validity of a single number. It’s statistical significance is totally correlated to the stability of rosters. If you shuffled the teams from season to season, WP48 would fluctuate wildly. It has hailed bad players like Landry Fields to the point of stardom. It has so many question marks, that i don’t know why people don’t try to improve it.

I mean, PER is bad. But Hollinger doesn’t try to justify everything from it; he uses it as a measure to compare players, usually on the offensive end, and usually too, he compares similar players. He acknowledges its limitations and would point out when PER is not working.

This is a ridiculous argument. While WP48 has limitations and does not account for defense in a way that seems helpful, the PoP ratings correlate EXTREMELY well with individual wins and the WP numbers correlate similarly well over the course of the last thirty years.

Your skepticism does not invalidate the model.