daJudge:
This may not be interesting or relevant, but it is kind of a response to the exclusive use of metrics in predicting future behavior or, as stated by CJ’s, explaining truth with a Capital T. I said this before and I will repeat it for comments.Metrics are used to predict future behavior in many contexts, often more serious than a b-ball game.For example, risk assessment tools are commonly used to predict recidivism for sexual offenders. I as well as others accept these tools as valid statistically, but not infallible.In fact, a jury really can not accept them as infallible.In my view, we properly assimilate and utilize common sense, experience, sub-conscious reasoning, logic and other faculties when we make judgments as to future behavior.To simply abstract a portion of an event and try to formulate a model to predict future behavior eliminates the above human characteristics and is therefore incomplete.Simply stated, such systems miss what is not measurable and often fail to properly measure factors contributing toparticular effect.CJ, I think Bellow would concur that slavish adherence to a statistical formula is not a proper way to evaluate truth.

This is perfect. I also don’t see how it’s different from what me and Ruru are doing. I’ve shown plenty of studies, one by the guy who freaking runs WS, that shows players like Melo have value the box score doesn’t capture. What does it say when you point to Melo’s WS and the guy who runs it is explicitly telling you it is several wins too low. How can you then use that model to say Melo isn’t that good?

Both me and Ruru have shown evidence of shot creation being important, often using legitimate statistical analysis. It’s not my fault THCJ and Owen instinctively dismiss any number that doesn’t fit with their chosen narrative

Owen:
Ray Allen was great in Milwaukee. Great in Seattle, And great in Boston.

Not really sure how his statistics are an argument against player performance being relatively constistent across different contexts.

Another strawman.

The 6 most efficient seasons for Garnett were the 6th lowest in usage, four of which occurred after 31 when players are supposed to decline.

Five of Pierce’s most efficient seasons came in five of his lowest usage seasons, four coming after the age of 30.

Five of Allen’s most efficient seasons came in five of his lowest usage season. The only four times he eclipsed 600 TS was when his usage dipped below 21 and he was 33 years or older.

jon abbey:
looks like Melo is playing, hope that’s prudent but also yay.

Don’t want that ankle to linger…. This has been a major issue throughout his career as he’s alluded to recently.

Not really sure how his statistics are an argument against player performance being relatively constistent across different contexts.

ruruland: What?

Those three guys had their most efficient seasons ear the end of the age curve when their usage went down from their primes.

If Chandler’s efficiency wouldn’t change as his usage increases, why can’t the Knicks increase his usage?