Juany8: In fact, the smartest people I’ve met are usually the most open minded about different perspectives, they appreciate someone who can point out a flaw in their work that they can then attempt to correct for.

Absolutely. Academics usually like to discuss and learn. Trolls/bullies insult, then run away when confronted.

Garson:
Twitter reports that Camby will most prob start at PF for Thomas…

Love the move. When he shared the court with Chandler, he seemed to be looking to set up chandler for some easy buckets. However, Pairing him with Brewer gives Spurs the go to double Melo daring Brewer AND Camby to beat them.

I’d much rather see a starting lineup of Kidd, JR, Melo, Camby, and Tyson. Between Prigs, Novak, and Amare on the 2nd unit, there should be enough scoring. As long as there is one of JR and Melo on the floor at a time, there should be enough backcourt scoring to go along with Amare.

Like you, I don’t think you can have both Camby and Brewer on the floor at the same time. We’ll basically be playing 3-on-5 on offense.

Would be a very good defensive team though.

Love the move. When he shared the court with Chandler, he seemed to be looking to set up chandler for some easy buckets. However, Pairing him with Brewer gives Spurs the go to double Melo daring Brewer AND Camby to beat them.

There’s also the little fact that Morris doesn’t act like he’s uncovered some fundemental truth about basketball that all other serfs must bow down to. I have never met anyone who does respectable research and feels the need to directly insult people who argue against their conclusions. In fact, the smartest people I’ve met are usually the most open minded about different perspectives, they appreciate someone who can point out a flaw in their work that they can then attempt to correct for. Berri is a straight up troll, you can literally tear apart the logic in every single step of his model, and he reacts by acting like you’re an idiot. Ad hominem attacks are what insecure people use to hide the fact that they’re not intelligent enough to offer a reasonable response

Anyway – I made it through 2(a)(ii) and here were my thoughts. As usual, there is all kinds of confounding in a simple analysis of TS% vs. USG%. I don’t know the answer to this, but it seems likely that players who are truly inefficient (ie. TS 25%), so the right side of that graph will be artificially raised since those terribly inefficient players won’t really be allowed to shoot that often by their coaches.

The next part of this article that I loved was this:
“But as a minimum outcome, I think the data strongly supports my hypothesis: that many stats—especially rebounds—are exponential predictors. ”

I feel the same way about players – I don’t think that there is any doubt that Lebron is exponentially better than 99% of the other players in the NBA. As we saw in Cleveland, you can literally surround him with a bunch of scrubs (+Varejao) and go the NBA finals. IMHO his actual value is far greater than any other player in the league. Other players, like Durant, CP3, etc. are probably also 3x+ more valuable than league-average SF/PGs, but even that is barely accounted for by most models.

ethsurken:
Here’s what Ben Morris says about TS% vs US% (referring to the graph):

Shot creation is a complex thing: on one hand, teams try to get their better scorers to shoot more and their worse scorers to shoot less. One the other hand low usage players that are only asked to dunk of shoot open threes will have an “artificially” high efficiency, and high usage shot creators will often have an artificially low efficiency as they are asked to do more for the benefit of the team. Context matters. I don’t know of any way to handle this well statistically (yet); in my opinion the current solution to this problem is to take a comprehensive approach to player evaluation. Sometimes, efficiency should be looked at as a descriptor more than an evaluation. This is generally the approach someone like Zach Lowe takes, in addition to watching a lot of film. The win differential method used by Ben Morris is interesting and could provide some insights, but as is requires a larger sample (if I’m remembering correctly).

Great post. I think many of us have articulated that quite a few different ways just since I’ve been here.

Naturally, Owen and THCJ have left the building.

Brian Cronin: Tied for fifth in the loss column! :)

But yeah, the Knicks are extremely lucky that the East is so shitty. They literally could just suck for a few weeks and likely still lead the Atlantic. That’s a real blessing when you’re dealing with a team that is built to win in the playoffs. They’re almost guaranteed a top 4 seed in the playoffs. Which is awesome. Suck it, geography!!

The 1996-97 Knicks won 57 games but that was only good enough for 3rd in the East. The Heat won 61 games and the Bulls 69. Knicks went 5-3 vs them. The Knicks in the 1st round faced the 6th seeded Hornets who won 54 games. The East that season had 6 teams win 54 or more games. The 8th seeded Webber led Bullets won 44 games.

The real funny part?? The Wolves (with a rookie Marbury) were the 6th seed in the West and won only 40 games!! The Top 4 seeds did all win 56 games or more with Utah winning 64. The 8th seed Clippers won 36 games.

So the lesson is the West wasnt always that much superior to the East lol.

If the Knicks were in the West they would be 6th right now. Amazing.

Tied for fifth in the loss column! :)

But yeah, the Knicks are extremely lucky that the East is so shitty. They literally could just suck for a few weeks and likely still lead the Atlantic. That’s a real blessing when you’re dealing with a team that is built to win in the playoffs. They’re almost guaranteed a top 4 seed in the playoffs. Which is awesome. Suck it, geography!!

ethsurken:

I should note one caveat: The mostly flat relationship between usage and shooting may be skewed, in part, by the fact that better shooters are often required to take worse shots, not just more shots—particularly if they are the shooter of last resort. A player that manages to make a mediocre shot out of a bad situation can increase his team’s chances of winning, just as a player that takes a marginally good shot when a slam dunk is available may be hurting his team’s chances. Presently, no well-known shooting metrics account for this (though I am working on it), but to be perfectly clear for the purposes of this post: neither does PER.

Shot creation is a complex thing: on one hand, teams try to get their better scorers to shoot more and their worse scorers to shoot less. One the other hand low usage players that are only asked to dunk of shoot open threes will have an “artificially” high efficiency, and high usage shot creators will often have an artificially low efficiency as they are asked to do more for the benefit of the team. Context matters. I don’t know of any way to handle this well statistically (yet); in my opinion the current solution to this problem is to take a comprehensive approach to player evaluation. Sometimes, efficiency should be looked at as a descriptor more than an evaluation. This is generally the approach someone like Zach Lowe takes, in addition to watching a lot of film. The win differential method used by Ben Morris is interesting and could provide some insights, but as is requires a larger sample (if I’m remembering correctly).