Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Nets 96, Knicks 89 (OT)

Brooklyn Nets 96 Final
Recap | Box Score
89 New York Knicks
Carmelo Anthony, SF 51 MIN | 11-25 FG | 10-16 FT | 13 REB | 1 AST | 3 PTS | -6

There’s a great deal to be said about the difference in the type of shots Melo got playing primarily at small forward (no matter how sopping wet his jumper from midrange might have been) and the shot he took with the game tied and time winding down. (Spoiler alert: it was a terrible play call by Woodson. We’ll have words about this later.) But first, I need to get this off my chest…EFF YOU MELO. YOU CANNOT MISS YOUR FOURTH QUARTER FREE THROWS IN A CLOSE GAME. They’re not heavily leveraged, 20% down payment throws. They’re not only available in the Hammacher Schlemmer catalogue throws. They’re not Mitt Romney Car Elevator Throws. They’re FREE THROWS, as in free points. If you don’t make them in the fourth, you deserve to lose. Period. And you probably deserve shoddier marks, too.

Ronnie Brewer, SG 19 MIN | 1-6 FG | 0-0 FT | 5 REB | 2 AST | 3 PTS | +3

OBrewer dislocated his finger on an attempted swipe of Lopez’s pick and roll dive that ended up tying the game. Injury duly added to insult. Well played, cold, cruel hand of fate.

Tyson Chandler, C 45 MIN | 12-13 FG | 4-4 FT | 10 REB | 1 AST | 28 PTS | -6

In the opening few moments, Chandler once seemed to be playing as if one of the Mon-Stars had absorbed his powers. From then on, he was at his Robo-Tysoning, screamy, vocal chord-shredding best. He literally kept the ‘Bockers in the game in the final stanza when the offense was more stagnant than a flea-infested, backwater, brackish, Arkansas bayou. A career-high 28 points and oh-so much superhuman smashing. There’s a great deal to be drink-one’s self-into-a-catatonic-stupor enraged about, but seeing a vintage 2010-11 Tyson Chandler come roaring back to life should keep the most weak-willed among us firmly seated on the wagon.

Kurt Thomas, PF 8 MIN | 1-1 FG | 0-0 FT | 2 REB | 0 AST | 0 PTS | +5

The highlight of Kurt’s evening was a “jump” hook wherein Ol’ Crazy Eyes would have had trouble clearing a sheet of microfiche.

Raymond Felton, PG 41 MIN | 3-1999999 FG | 2-2 FT | 3 REB | 5 AST | 18 PTS | -8

We’ll discuss hipsters in greater detail later, but I’d bet the family farm that somewhere out there, there’s a gaggle of Portlandians who can’t stop giggling in Schadenfreudian glee at tonight’s outing from Ray-Ray. They’d witnessed a marathon session of fucking the canine from Felton all last year, and were as stunned as anyone that he’d been so consistently good. Outings like this are what made them grab artisanal, hand-crafted pitchforks and practically run his bouncy behind out of town on a rail. Oh boy do I get that now. I’d suggest that Felton walk back from the Barclay’s Center, but he’s liable to pass Pies n’ Thighs, Trayfe, Char No. 4 and the entire Williamsburg soul/southern/BBQ restaurant district, so that’s out. I think those of us who’ve followed Raymond’s career beyond the 54-game stint in the gentle, PG-loving bosom of Mike D’Antoni expected a regression to the mean, but even the most bitter, cynical Knickerbacker didn’t expect his bumbling, stumbling hit-every-branch-on-the-way-down, make John Starks look like a responsible gunner in comparison, 3-19 tumble to statistical norms to occur all within one game. At some point, when the Nets’ defense seemed to be entirely geared towards giving him a wide open shot, a less bulldog-y individual might begin to get a Giant Man-sized clue that there’s a reason why. Oh, and he was brutalized by Deron Williams on the other end, too. If ever a performance deserved a grade lower than F, this was it.

Rasheed Wallace, PF 23 MIN | 2-11 FG | 0-0 FT | 8 REB | 1 AST | 6 PTS | -8

Rasheed is kindly and lovable and even recent, trendy, douchebaggy BK Nets converts seem to adore his exploits, but his shot selection and propensity to brick tonight was Felton-esque.

Steve Novak, SF 18 MIN | 1-3 FG | 0-0 FT | 0 REB | 0 AST | 2 PTS | -4

If the Knicks’ Offense (as it were) is going to consist entirely of ISO-Melo and Chandler put-backs off aborted Felton Pick and Roll floaters, there isn’t much chance for those long-lost concepts like “ball movement” to get Stevak an open look or two. Tonight, that “plan” resulted in exactly that, two looks, both of which produced bone-chilling clangs off the iron. Not in any way shape or form is that fun. Not for Steve, not for us. Nobody.

Marcus Camby, C 5 MIN | 0-0 FG | 0-0 FT | 0 REB | 1 AST | 0 PTS | +

Remember when we were all assembled in a top-secret, governmental think tank, downing vats of coffee and smoking our Marlboros to the nub, going on two-hour sleeping shifts, trying to solve the universe’s most persistent, maddening questions, like: “Why the hell isn’t Woodson giving Marcus Camby any burn?” Welp, the answer appears to be, “Reggie Evans is a swell ‘bounder and whatnot, but if the Camby Man’s getting abused on the offensive glass and is providing as much of a defensive presence as Steve Novak, there’s really no point in playing him.” Occam’s Razor, y’all.

Pablo Prigioni, PG 11 MIN | 0-0 FG | 0-0 FT | 2 REB | 1 AST | 0 PTS | +1

Prigs got his usual second quarter burn, with a few scattered minutes of PT to start the fourth. His lone notable contribution was to the coffers of the NBA offices, which are sure to levy another fine for this bit of interpretive, terpsichorian styling from Reggie Evans.

James White, SG 2 MIN | 0-0 FG | 0-0 FT | 0 REB | 0 AST | 0 PTS | -1

Hi James. We may be writing a great deal more than. “Hi James.” In the near future if the Kidd/Brewer injuries are a long-term type deal. None of this bodes well.

J.R. Smith, SG 41 MIN | 2-7 FG | 1-2 FT | 7 REB | 2 AST | 5 PTS | -8

When Earl was taking the ball to the hole with aplomb, I scribbled in my notes, “Oh good. Tonight’s a Good J.R. Night,” as his propensity to drive the lane seems to have a one to correlation with his shot selection and defense (I think he’s still trying to find Jerry Stackhouse at the three point line). Tonight may prove to be an outlier, but any professional basketball player who thinks this is a good shot to take in transition isn’t going to shed his crazy/stupid/selfish/I’ve been spending Sunday Night painting the town crimson and I’m so effing hung over right now that I couldn’t possibly fit the bags under my eyes in the overhead storage of the double-wide, tricked out Greyhound bus that we took to Downtown Brooklyn label.

Jason Kidd, PG DNP – BACK SPASMS

Anyone got a spare ticket to Lourdes?

Five Things We Saw

  1. Let me sum it up as succinctly and crassly as possible – The Knicks played like a shit taco. All of the gorgeous ball-movement and unselfishness on the offensive end completely disintegrated into a cluttered muddle of shoddy spacing that was entirely dependent on Melo hitting the midrange shots that he had for the most part eschewed this season or Tyson Chandler cleaning up someone else’s mess. Want to encapsulate what went wrong in a single play? Kay. well, you don’t have to look very far — it’s the final one of regulation. In case you were lucky enough not to have witnessed this atrocity, here’s the deal. Felton milked about half of the remaining 22 seconds on the game clock and then dished the ball to Melo. Now, if Melo had been coming off a screen or a rub or in motion or anything other than HeroBall, it might have been a swell idea. Alas, that’s not the case. Melo was more or less stationery, posting Gerald Wallace about 18-20 feet from the hoop on the wing (yes, on the same side of the court as Felt.) Melo jab-stepped and pounded the rock for a bit before tossing up a jumper with Wallace still more or less glued to his hip with plenty of time still remaining. Naturally, the Nets got the rebound, and if not for a minor brain-spasm by Deron, who advanced the ball, they would’ve had plenty of time to get a decent look. I’m no head coach or basketball savant or nuttin’ but it seems to me that there was some bit of strategery buried within the playbook that might have led to a better attempt.
  2. And the defense. Look, the Nets are definitely a playoff team and losing to them on the road is no reason for a Scarlett S of shame to be plastered to the Knickerbockers’ collective chests for all the good, Christian townsfolk to see. That said, I’m busting out this avatar tout suite. It’s a holdover from Son of Wood’s Atlanta squads that I’ve loathed since last year. Yes, the Brooklynites had post up opportunities, but there’s no reason to double the likes of Andray Blatche (or even Joe Johnson, when he’s gorting shots left and right) if it means leaving wide open shooters all over the court or backdoor cutters galore. This game shouldn’t have been as close as it was. The final stats may say otherwise, but the rotations down low and speed with which they closed on the perimeter were beyond execrable and if Deron et al. had been even vaguely proficient at converting the looks New York gave them, they would have run our guys out of the building. The Knicks didn’t deserve to win this game, but they should have, if that makes any sense. And that’s the teeth-gnashingly, soul-enervating, frustrating thing that’ll probably keep me tossing and turning in semi-sleep, where my dreams will be haunted by a burly, churlish, jagged-toothed ogre sporting a beard-headband combo that makes him look like the word’s toughest, most badass Imam and said man-thing is constantly ripping the beverages or the bookbag or the viola case or the Ventolin inhaler out of a 12-year old me’s clutches and laughing maniacally while my eyes slowly redden and shrink-wrap with tears.
  3. But, on the bright side (Ha!) both the O and the D would have been greatly helped by the presence of Jason Kidd, who it seems is the lynchpin to this madman’s collection of beyond-seasoned talent functioning as a cohesive whole. If nothing else, he would have prevented a big starting lineup meant to counter the Nets size. Of course, the Knicks still were ravaged on the glass for the majority of the evening, only to recover, ironically enough, when they returned Melo to his rightly place at the 4. I also can’t help but think that he’d have done something, if only because of the overwhelming intelligence his mere aura provides, about the atrocious shot selection that seemed to spring up each and every time they seemed on the verge of building a significant lead. Get well fast, Jay. You’re our only hope. (And I remain totally gobsmacked that the previous sentence makes logical sense and isn’t some sick, twisted form of satire in the year of our Lord, 2012.)
  4. Ugh. I’m depressed. If you are as well, here’s some funny. After Lopez botched an easy layup, K-Hump’s ex twat this

    ?@KimKardashian?: Neither can Kris RT ?@Viva_La_Knicks?: Lopez can’t finish.

    Tee hee! Kris Humphries former wife just implied that he, Mr. Humphries, was unsatisfactory in his performance of the physical act of love! Funny stuff, funny stuff…

  5. You know, I was all set to write a whole screed about the utter corporate fakery of this so-called rivalry. Just because the Knicks have been able to see the Nets from their house for decades now doth not a titanic battle for local supremacy make. The only time these two teams were evenly matched or displayed any real animosity was when Tim Thomas introduced the term “Fugazi” into our sporting vocabulary. Jimmy C. and I were even joking about the supposed animosity before the game and the preposterous nature of resenting the newfound Nets army by demeaning all that is Brooklyn

    Me: GO TO BROOKLYN

    Jim: YOU GO TO BROOKLYN OH WAIT, YOU’RE ALREADY THERE. GODDAM BENEDICT ARNOLD!

    Me: THERE ARE SO MANY HOT CHIX WITH LOW SELF ESTEEM HERE IN THE BK, THO. A.K,A., BOB’S TIME TO SHINE

    Jim: GOOD YOU AND KRIS HUMPHRIES CAN HAVE THE RUN OF THEM. TAKE THEM TO SUSHI DATES AND FUCKING SCRAPBOOKING CIRCLES

    Me: AFTER THE GAME, ME AND K-HUMP ARE GOING TO UNION POOL, BUYING PBR’S FOR EVERYONE AND SAYING, “WE USED TO LIKE THE MAGNETIC FIELDS, THEIR EARLY STUFF BEFORE THEY GOT ALL CORPORATIZED AND SOLD OUT AND STUFF.”

    Jim: SPEND YOUR TIME COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT AND STUDYING UP ON ARTISINAL CHEESE-MAKING

    Me: ARTISANAL. GAWD JIM, SPELLING COUNTS, EVEN IN SNARKY GCHATS

    Jim: OR COLLECTING CHEESE AND ARTISANAL UNEMPLOYMENT OR WHATEVER. AND CORRECTING PEOPLE’S GRAMMAR. EFFING WALT WHITMAN OVER HERE

    Me: JUST SPELLING (SO FAR)

    Jim: (this should go in the recap)

    Me: (Oh, it totally is). PLUS A WHOLE THING ON JKIDD’S INJURY/THE KNICKS SECRECY/THE STUPIDITY OF GOING BIG LEADING TO A LOSS. I CAN PRACTICALLY WRITE HALF OF IT NOW

    Jim: SHOULDN’T YOU BE GETTING GOING ON STARTING THE RECAP ON YOUR USB TYPEWRITER?…

    Me: I HAVE A SMITH CORONA I BOUGHT ON EBAY. THE GUY SAID IT’S HUNTER THOMPSON’S. YOU CAN TELL BECAUSE IT SMELLS VAGUELY OF METHAMPHETAMINES AND WILD TURKEY SO I’M SURE IT’S LEGIT.

    Jim: …OR DID SOMEONE SEVER YOUR HORNED RIM GLASSES IN HALF WHIPPING YOUR FACE WITH WET SCARF?

    Me: JUST BECAUSE I LOOK LIKE A HIPSTER AND TALK LIKE ONE AND ACT LIKE ONE AND LIVE LIKE ONE DOESN’T MEAN I AM ONE

    Jim: WHO YOU GOT PLAYING THE HALF TIME SHOW? CRYSTAL CASTLES? ANTLERS? IS THE CHICK FROM ALABAMA SHAKES SINGING THE SOVIET NATIONAL ANTHEM?

    Me: I HAVE NO RETORT BECAUSE IT’S TRUE.

    Jim: So, how are you feeling about the game?

    Me: Loss. Close game, but a loss. Get killed on the boards and iso-heavy w/o Kidd

    (Editor’s Note: Yes, I really wrote that at approximately 6:45pm. No. I’m not Nostradamus, I’ve just seen this bit of theater before and I know how the play ends. Badly.)

    In any case, pre-game, I wasn’t particularly amped by this media-hyped rivalry because it feels wholly inorganic and exists only to fatten the wallets and increase the glory of Cable TV hucksters and wild-eyed Russkie Oligarchs. But now…I hate them. I hate Brook Lopez’s goofy mug. I hate Deron Williams’ hobo-ish neck-beard (Dear Deron: A BEARD IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A JAWLINE. I KNOW – I TRY TO PULL OFF THE EXACT SAME MOVE. YOU [AND I] AREN’T FOOLING ANYONE.) I hate Reggie Evans’ inexcusable floppery (though I’d adore him were he a Knickerbocker). I hate Kris Humphries more than his ex-wife. I hate them all.

    Real rivalry officially commenced. Next time these punks come into our turf, I wanna see hipster blood on the tracks.

118 comments on “Nets 96, Knicks 89 (OT)

  1. StatsTeacher

    Great write up. Nice to see the equivocating after the loss and “Those shots usually fall” bs nowhere to be seen in this write up. This roster will always have from 1 to 3 players out on any given night. The danger of having a roster this old is maybe, finally, clear.

  2. Hubert Davis

    Well put in point 5. I went into this game thinking it was kinda neat to have an intracity rival. By the 450th artificial “broooooklyn” noise I wanted Tyson to tear the basket down.

  3. Frank O.

    This is funny.
    Ray Ray became stupid again without J Kidd’s brain.
    Oh, so did Melo. Poor shot selection down the stretch. Hero ball. The grown ups were out.

  4. d-mar

    I didn’t realize that those Broook-lyn chants were piped in. That is beyond cheesy.

    The Nets on D made the decision to stay home on the pick and roll so guys like Novak and Smith wouldn’t get open 3’s. The result was Felton ending up in the paint all by himself and attempting those ugly floaters. But he did need to take a lot of those shots, the Nets were basically daring him to.

    Also, when the 2nd scoring option after Melo is Felton or JR Smith, that’s not a good thing. I echo some prior posts, this was a game where STAT would have made a big difference. Shump, not so much, our D was not the problem.

  5. Frank O.

    And seriously, the Knicks ran the exact same “play” in an earlier game.
    Dump the ball to Melo and have him attack the defender on the left, then pull up for a prayer that misses badly.
    You could see the guys were tired. That was the best chance to steal the W, so why not try a more complex play, rather than do what everyone in the building was expecting…?
    Poorly coached, poorly orchestrated, and poorly executed. Would have been nice to have Amare’s offense tonight.

  6. Frank O.

    d-mar:
    I didn’t realize that those Broook-lyn chants were piped in. That is beyond cheesy.

    The Nets on D made the decision to stay home on the pick and roll so guys like Novak and Smith wouldn’t get open 3?s. The result was Felton ending up in the paint all by himself and attempting those ugly floaters. But he did need to take a lot of those shots, the Nets were basically daring him to.

    Also, when the 2nd scoring option after Melo is Felton or JR Smith, that’s not a good thing. I echo some prior posts, this was a game where STAT would have made a big difference. Shump, not so much, our D was not the problem.

    Stat

  7. Nick C.

    d-mar: I didn’t realize that those Broook-lyn chants were piped in. That is beyond cheesy.The Nets on D made the decision to stay home on the pick and roll so guys like Novak and Smith wouldn’t get open 3?s. The result was Felton ending up in the paint all by himself and attempting those ugly floaters. But he did need to take a lot of those shots, the Nets were basically daring him to.Also, when the 2nd scoring option after Melo is Felton or JR Smith, that’s not a good thing. I echo some prior posts, this was a game where STAT would have made a big difference. Shump, not so much, our D was not the problem.

    Isn’t there a better counter to that? I’m not criticizing you, but it seems kinda lame, “OK they’re guarding the other guys so you fire away Ray”.

    Nice wirte-up, but I have been meaning to ask why the PBR fetish? That was gag/vomit inducingly bad as a college freshman when Genny Cream Ale was considered fine suds and Old Milwaukee was perfectly acceptable cheap beer.

  8. EB

    Kidd’s smarts and passing are so amazing he is the difference between the best offense in the league and whatever that shit was last night.

    He has an amazing ability to read the defense and hit you with a perfect pass basically without touching the ball. Oh and his 50% three point shooting is also missed. Honestly think he alone could have got Novak 3-4 more shots with just how quickly he swings the ball around the perimeter.

  9. flossy

    The really slow “Brooooook-lyn, Brooooook-lyn” chants, piped in or not, make it sound like a taunt, not a cheer. It should be succinct and enthusiastic, no? “Brook! Lyn! Brook! Lyn!”

    It’s the same problem with the “Mellllllllllll-oh, Melllllllll-oh” chants at the Garden. It sounds like fans are taunting him, not lauding him.

  10. Hubert Davis

    Also, as Knicks fans, we need to tone it down with the MVP chants. Besides the fact that Amare’s ego will have enough to deal with, it’s just flat-out stupid to be chanting that 1) in November and 2) in a league that LeBron James plays in.

  11. Hubert Davis

    flossy:
    The really slow “Brooooook-lyn, Brooooook-lyn” chants, piped in or not, make it sound like a taunt, not a cheer.It should be succinct and enthusiastic, no?“Brook! Lyn! Brook! Lyn!”

    It has the unintentional consequence of taunting us. At least that’s how I felt. Of course, I was watching Ray Felton for 3-19 so I could have easily been hypersensitive.

  12. EB

    As for piping in chants I wonder if it was just for this game/ future games against the knicks for fear of being drowned out by Knickerbocker backers. Or maybe it was really Knicks fans actually taunting Brooklyn?!

  13. Kurt

    Frank O and d-mar,
    I was thinking the same exact thing during the game as you regarding STAT. As cool as Sheed is, he’s basically late career Antoine Walker on offense. The only reason he’s perceived as a “floor spacer” by some game announcers is that he takes so freaking many 3’s that people assume he’s good at it. Not that I want him to do this, but I’m sure if Stat started taking 3’s I’m sure he’d make many more than Sheed.
    Also, it would have meant all the Thomas/Camby minutes would have gone to STAT as well. As long as Woodson stays on him, I’m sure Stat can play passable enough defense that he’d in the end be much better than the Wallace/Camby/Thomas combo. The offense with STAT vs. those 3 would be night and day. Defenses couldn’t just focus on Melo and make Felton beat them provided someone stays by the basket to prevent Chandler from oooping. At the very least, defenders would have to worry much more about turning their backs on Stat and him cutting to the rim than with regard to the AARP 3.

  14. Kurt

    Also, great write-up Rob as always. I was wondering yesterday whether the Nets dancers would be decked out in American Apparel, especially thigh high white stockings…

  15. JK47

    Yeah, I’m not really feeling Sheed. His early success seems a bit fools gold-ish to me. As a dude who gets 10 minutes a game or a human victory cigar, sure, Sheed is fine, but right now he’s 4th on the team in FGA. He’s throwing up almost 17 shots per 36 minutes. That ain’t gonna work in the long run.

  16. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    Yet another example of why Tyson Chandler is a phenomenal offensive player. To echo a post recently made on TheNBAGeek.com, I DO NOT CARE HOW HE GETS HIS SHOTS. I ONLY CARE THAT HE MAKES A RIDICULOUS NUMBER OF THEM.

    He’s a top-10 player in this league, and no matter what team he’s on, he’s going to put up huge efficiency numbers.

  17. Kurt

    JK47: speaking of fools gold. I was also going to mention one other thing that made Sheed remind me of Antoine Walker. I think it was Jeff Van Gundy who once said that he loved it when Antoine Walker would hit his first 3 pointer, since then he’d keep on shooting even when they didn’t go in…

  18. Hubert Davis

    For all the talk on TNT of our awful rebounding, I was surprised to look in the box score and see an even 50-50 count.

  19. prezs2reprsntme

    @flossy

    the long drawn out brooook-lynnn chants originate from brooklyn rappers and brooklyn hip hop culture. in true brooklyn fashion, it will go from niche to mainstream in no time flat lol

  20. Count Zero

    Two things were readily apparent last night:

    1) J. Kidd is more important to this team than I wanted to admit
    2) Anyone who thought STAT would be an unwanted piece when he returns, needs to rethink that position

    All in all, you can’t be too upset about losing an OT game to the Nets in their building, but man was that 4th Q ugly to watch. As a coach, I think I would have sat Felton down just to send him a message regardless of the outcome. He completely lost control of the offense.

  21. Hubert Davis

    Would anyone have considered going to Prigioni in the 4th? I don’t get the feeling that he’s ready for that role. I also don’t get the feeling Woodson has any interest in preparing him to be ready for that role.

  22. DRed

    Why is Felton’s grade so low? All those misses set up Chandler for his offensive rebounds. Tyson can’t create his own shots, you know.

  23. larrondo

    The Broook-lynnnn chants are piped in? Seems like all the mainstream papers are reporting on them as though they were real, spontaneous chants.

  24. knickterp

    Anyone else think D’Antoni and the Lakers would have jumped at Lin + Amare for Gasol + filler? If only we hadn’t let an asset walk for nothing…

    And am a bit concerned that our new point guard needs to have another point guard in the backcourt with him.

  25. Brian Cronin

    Would anyone have considered going to Prigioni in the 4th? I don’t get the feeling that he’s ready for that role. I also don’t get the feeling Woodson has any interest in preparing him to be ready for that role.

    Agreed on both latter points. He’s likely not ready and Woody definitely is not ready for him to do it.

  26. Brian Cronin

    As for piping in chants I wonder if it was just for this game/ future games against the knicks for fear of being drowned out by Knickerbocker backers. Or maybe it was really Knicks fans actually taunting Brooklyn?!

    Yeah, I hope that’s the case. Either way it is cheesy, but at least it is more understandable when they’re playing the Knicks and afraid of the Knicks drowning them out. I’m going to the next game in Brooklyn between the Knicks and Nets, I’ll try to see if I can hear it.

  27. Hubert Davis

    Re: the piping in,

    At least last night, it began with 1-2 iterations of the chant being played on the PA announcer, which gets the crowd involved, and they normally kept it going on their own for an iteration or two. I’m sure they may have been some times when they started it on their own, but it was definitely being piped in.

    In fairness, I was only watching on TV. It seemed pretty clear to me, though. It was shrill & high pitched when the PA system played it, and low and monotonous when the crowd was doing it on their own.

    Either way, it’s annoying.

  28. max fisher-cohen

    People, the Stoudemire love here is ridiculous. Post Melo trade, this team is 35-45 with STAT, 24-11 without him. Stoudemire is not going to accept playing 12 MPG as the go to scorer while Melo rests. It’s just not happening.

    Instead, he’ll play with Melo and Chandler or Wallace most of the time in lieu of Novak, who for all his struggles, still seems to have a strong effect on the game. The Knicks are now 8-1 when Novak plays 19 or more minutes, 1-3 otherwise.

    It’s like missing that party animal friend of yours who used to always get you out of your shell and in party mode and ignoring the fact that he also slept with your girlfriend and projectile vomited on your mother. You’re choosing to focus on that one good quality he has while ignoring all the bad ones just so you can feel nostalgic and hopeful.

  29. JK47

    People, the Stoudemire love here is ridiculous. Post Melo trade, this team is 35-45 with STAT, 24-11 without him.

    Correlation does not imply causation.

  30. Hubert Davis

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    Great post on Wages of Wins about shot creation and volume scoring today.

    Here’s a fun chart:

    http://wagesofwins.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FGA-Increase-vs-TS-Increase-2002-to-2012.png

    I confess to using statistics mostly in a financial sense and ask for enlightenment. In my experience when an R squared is that low the regression line is useless. What makes it different in this case? (Not being argumentative, I’m just curious.)

  31. d-mar

    Kidd out for Milwaukee game. This is one where we’ll really miss Shump, could use him to slow down Monta. One of their 2 guards will go off on us for sure.

  32. airchibundo507

    max fisher-cohen:
    People, the Stoudemire love here is ridiculous. Post Melo trade, this team is 35-45 with STAT, 24-11 without him. Stoudemire is not going to accept playing 12 MPG as the go to scorer while Melo rests. It’s just not happening.

    Instead, he’ll play with Melo and Chandler or Wallace most of the time in lieu of Novak, who for all his struggles, still seems to have a strong effect on the game. The Knicks are now 8-1 when Novak plays 19 or more minutes, 1-3 otherwise.

    It’s like missing that party animal friend of yours who used to always get you out of your shell and in party mode and ignoring the fact that he also slept with your girlfriend and projectile vomited on your mother. You’re choosing to focus on that one good quality he has while ignoring all the bad ones just so you can feel nostalgic and hopeful.

    STAT hasn’t played much under Woodson, just that 6-1(?) stretch with Melo when Woodson first took over and he actually managed to play some semblance of defense.

    STAT won’t play only 12 minutes a night but his minutes should be reduced to some extent to keep him healthy as long as possible. Melo and Amare will be able to coexist much better once Amare finds the midrange jumper that escaped him last season.

  33. StatsTeacher

    @Hubert Davis:

    Also, why would we want to predict Change in Field Goal Attempts based on True shooting % ? I would have reversed the x/y axis, even though that won’t affect the r value (or r^2 value). This regression says we can attribute 1.5% of the association between the variables to the model. The model is, statistically, worthless. :-)

  34. jon abbey

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    Yet another example of why Tyson Chandler is a phenomenal offensive player. To echo a post recently made on TheNBAGeek.com, I DO NOT CARE HOW HE GETS HIS SHOTS. I ONLY CARE THAT HE MAKES A RIDICULOUS NUMBER OF THEM.

    He’s a top-10 player in this league, and no matter what team he’s on, he’s going to put up huge efficiency numbers.

    haha! pretty much all of this is wrong, of course:

    1) ‘yet another example’=the single highest scoring game of his 737 game career.

    2) despite this career high, NY still only scored 89 points in an OT game, since Brooklyn rightly realized that letting Felton/Chandler do what they want every time does not make a good offense.

    3) he is very good when he’s playing well (like last night), but that has been the exception as opposed to the rule so far this year. last year you had an argument that he was better than Melo, this year so far he’s nowhere near as good as Melo and not even in shouting distance of the top 10 players in the league. did you miss the Houston game? Tyson sure did.

    4) efficiency numbers don’t matter nearly as much as you think, but I guess it’s always nice to have a faith to fall back on.

  35. nicos

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    Great post on Wages of Wins about shot creation and volume scoring today.

    Here’s a fun chart:

    http://wagesofwins.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FGA-Increase-vs-TS-Increase-2002-to-2012.png

    I wonder what that would look like if you eliminated players in their second/third seasons- I’d guess that a of the guys whose TS% rose with their usage were young guys whose playing time increased as their play improved. I’d be more interested in a graph that looked at guys who were established efficient medium volume scorers- say a usage of 13-18% and then had their usage rise above 20%. I’d guess that that slope would look a bit different but I certainly could be wrong.

  36. nicos

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    Yet another example of why Tyson Chandler is a phenomenal offensive player. To echo a post recently made on TheNBAGeek.com, I DO NOT CARE HOW HE GETS HIS SHOTS. I ONLY CARE THAT HE MAKES A RIDICULOUS NUMBER OF THEM.

    He’s a top-10 player in this league, and no matter what team he’s on, he’s going to put up huge efficiency numbers.

    I’d agree that Chandler’s efficiency gets underrated at times but you still have to account for the fact that are trying to do everything they can to get his usage up. He was the primary option for much of the fourth quarter last night- he’s first option on all those pnr’s the Knicks run and he still only managed to get up 13 shots (and 4 or five of those were put backs). A true metric of offensive value would measure how many ppp does a team score on a play where player x is the primary option. Chandler’s TS% is so high that he’s incredibly valuable despite his low usage but it is mitigated somewhat by the fact that the Knicks run a ton of plays for him that don’t result in shots or in turnovers for the guards trying to force the ball into him.

  37. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    jon abbey: haha! pretty much all of this is wrong, of course:

    1) ‘yet another example’=the single highest scoring game of his 737 game career.

    2) despite this career high, NY still only scored 89 points in an OT game, since Brooklyn rightly realized that letting Felton/Chandler do what they want every time does not make a good offense.

    3) he is very good when he’s playing well (like last night), but that has been the exception as opposed to the rule so far this year. last year you had an argument that he was better than Melo, this year so far he’s nowhere near as good as Melo and not even in shouting distance of the top 10 players in the league. did you miss the Houston game? Tyson sure did.

    4) efficiency numbers don’t matter nearly as much as you think, but I guess it’s always nice to have a faith to fall back on.

    1) It’s the efficiency that counts the most. 12-13 is better than 7-9, but at any rate, that kind of efficiency means NO WASTED SHOTS. Do you get that? That means that we don’t have to pull a “jon abbey” and explain that his misses are somehow GOOD for the team. Why? Because he doesn’t miss often. In fact, he’s the best … of all-time … at not missing the shots he takes. Do you get that?

    2) Chandler is the reason that the other players played like shit? Brooklyn LET him shoot the ball 13 times and make it 12 times? What kind of shit is that? If that’s the case, you might want to look into a betting scandal.

    3) This year?

    http://www.thenbageek.com/players/368-tyson-chandler

    More offensive rebounds. Fewer turnovers. 1.86 PPS instead of 1.97 PPS. Still the most efficient shooter in the league.

    4) You have no idea what you are talking about.

  38. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    nicos: I’d agree that Chandler’s efficiency gets underrated at times but you still have to account for the fact that are trying to do everything they can to get his usage up. He was the primary option for much of the fourth quarter last night- he’s first option on all those pnr’s the Knicks run and he still only managed to get up 13 shots (and 4 or five of those were put backs).A true metric of offensive value would measure how many ppp does a team score on a play where player x is the primary option.Chandler’s TS% is so high that he’s incredibly valuable despite his low usage but it is mitigated somewhat by the fact that the Knicks run a ton of plays for him that don’t result in shots or in turnovers for the guards trying to force the ball into him.

    No. We have the outcome of his plays, and he scores (as mentioned above) to the tune of 1.86 PPS. Not per possession. Per shot. We can try to extrapolate all we want, but those numbers are the results of actual events on a basketball court. It would be nice to have that metric, but no amount of explaining is going to erase the fact that he scored 28 points on 13 FGA. Over two PPS last night. That is unbelievably rare from a player, and much more rare from a guy who’s “made his career” off of being a “defensive player.”

  39. jon abbey

    dude, Chandler’s value is mostly on the defensive end, and he has been very inconsistent there this year.

    the rest of that is so fundamentally misguided, it’s amusing.

  40. jon abbey

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: . We can try to extrapolate all we want, but those numbers are the results of actual events on a basketball court.

    no, they’re not. as nicos tried to explain to you, they’re the results of SOME actual events on a basketball court while ignoring some other events.

  41. jon abbey

    shot creation matters. Chandler never creates his own shot, it’s always a function of his teammates creating chances for him, either intentionally or unintentionally, and the opposing defense.

  42. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    nicos: I wonder what that would look like if you eliminated players in their second/third seasons- I’d guess that a of the guys whose TS% rose with their usage were young guys whose playing time increased as their play improved.I’d be more interested in a graph that looked at guys who were established efficient medium volume scorers- say a usage of 13-18% and then had their usage rise above 20%.I’d guess that that slope would look a bit different but I certainly could be wrong.

    How much would we have to cherry pick for this data to be persuasive?

  43. ruruland

    nicos: I’d agree that Chandler’s efficiency gets underrated at times but you still have to account for the fact that are trying to do everything they can to get his usage up. He was the primary option for much of the fourth quarter last night- he’s first option on all those pnr’s the Knicks run and he still only managed to get up 13 shots (and 4 or five of those were put backs). A true metric of offensive value would measure how many ppp does a team score on a play where player x is the primary option. Chandler’s TS% is so high that he’s incredibly valuable despite his low usage but it is mitigated somewhat by the fact that the Knicks run a ton of plays for him that don’t result in shots or in turnovers for the guards trying to force the ball into him.

    I think your idea about primary option is interesting. I’d also be interested in seeing how many of Chandler’s put-backs come off the pnr penetration.

    He is essential to the Knicks offense. No doubt.
    Top 10 player? IDK about that.

    THCJ is only going to repeat what the advanced metrics tell him. Maybe we’ve figured that out by now.

    So Ryan Anderson is better than Dwight Howard. Landry Fields is better Rose blah blah.

    I think Chandler could be a top 20 player in the league if he started playing defense as he did last season.

    But, besides his defensive issues, there are a few guards on the Knicks roster out-rebounding him.

    Offensively, he is key to the pnr attack and does 3 things extremely well- set screens, finish, and offensive rebound. He’s also a good free throw shooter.

    Would he make his teammates better if he could make an elbow jumper? Of course. Would it make his advanced stats look worse? Of course.

    He’s been a great offensive player.

  44. jon abbey

    ruruland:
    I think Chandler could be a top 20 player in the league if he started playing defense as he did last season.

    But, besides his defensive issues, there are a few guards on the Knicks roster out-rebounding him.

    yep, totally agreed on this, and the rebounding is a good point too, although he doesn’t get credit for balls he tips out to the perimeter for someone else to corral. even with this, though, he needs to get decidedly more consistent on the boards to be a top 20 player in the league.

  45. ruruland

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: 1) You have no idea what you are talking about.

    As we’ve learned, there are many concepts that cannot penetrate your thick skull, foremost on that list are the very basic ideas that not all shots are created equal, and that not taking shots results in teammates taking them, which means that low usage always results in lower efficiency for teammates by virtue of redistributed higher usage.

    Remember when we compared Tyson Chandler to other big men across the NBA landscape in terms of their shot distribution?

    Yes, Chandler was more efficient than most near the rim. But not by all that much. There were examples of big men who were more efficient at the basket.

    The key difference is that these big men took shots outside of layups, dunks and putbacks. An occasional low-post move, short jump shot or drive.

    Now, all of these plays were less efficient than dunks and putbacks, but they were still at least middling efficient plays (for the most part). And they were healthy for the offense.

    If you told all of these other big men to stop taking those shots they would have similair efficiency to Chandler.

    None of that tells us who is more important to their offense.

  46. nicos

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: No. We have the outcome of his plays, and he scores (as mentioned above) to the tune of 1.86 PPS. Not per possession. Per shot. We can try to extrapolate all we want, but those numbers are the results of actual events on a basketball court. It would be nice to have that metric, but no amount of explaining is going to erase the fact that he scored 28 points on 13 FGA. Over two PPS last night. That is unbelievably rare from a player, and much more rare from a guy who’s “made his career” off of being a “defensive player.”

    Unfortunately, Chandler doesn’t go 12-13 every night- if he did even Jon Abbey would be calling him the best player in the league. And the outcome of a lot of the plays that the Knicks ran for him actually wound up being misses by Felton (not that that’s on Chandler, just that when the only play you can run for him is a pnr you also have to live with more shots from your point guard). The fact is, Chandler averages only 6.2 shots per game in spite of how often the Knicks look to put him in pnr’s and that does have an impact on his overall offensive value. Usage matters.

  47. DRed

    Shot creation has no value. Almost anyone in the NBA can create a shot. Creating good shots has value.

    It’s interesting you mention Ryan Anderson, ruru. Take a look at how he’s doing on the Hornets now that Dwight Howard isn’t around to get him open looks any more. He’s probably doing much worse this season, right?

    jon abbey:
    shot creation matters. Chandler never creates his own shot, it’s always a function of his teammates creating chances for him, either intentionally or unintentionally, and the opposing defense.

  48. ruruland

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: How much would we have to cherry pick for this data to be persuasive?

    You just posted a chart for some reason, I suppose to bolster the idea that increased field goal attempts lead to increased efficiency, that actually showed ZERO correlation, and now you’re pretending to lecture others on hypothetical uses of statistics.

    How is it possible that you’re a Ph.D.

  49. Brian Cronin

    Anderson is playing worse defense this year than last but yeah, he’s having an excellent offensive season. Nearly 8 threes a game at 46% from behind the arc? Wow.

  50. ruruland

    DRed: Shot creation has no value. Almost anyone in the NBA can create a shot. Creating good shots has value.It’s interesting you mention Ryan Anderson, ruru. Take a look at how he’s doing on the Hornets now that Dwight Howard isn’t around to get him open looks any more. He’s probably doing much worse this season, right?

    He’s doing great. His shooting release is incredible. I didn’t know he could get shots off that quickly, he rarely had to in Orlando.

    Players improve, they show skills they never had to use before in higher usage situations, as Anderson is doing now.

    But the very basic idea that creating defensive attention is good and that a higher burden to create shots demands greater offensive skill, thus value, but almost always diminishes efficiency remains true.

  51. Hubert Davis

    ruruland: You just posted a chart for some reason, I suppose to bolster the idea that increased field goal attempts lead to increased efficiency, that actually showed ZERO correlation, and now you’re pretending to lecture others on hypothetical uses of statistics.

    How is it possible that you’re a Ph.D.

    Well he could have been posting a chart that indicated there is no relationship between FGA & TS%, ergo the often-assumed idea that if we used Chandler more his TS% would go down cannot be assumed. If that was his aim, he succeeded to a degree.

    But if he was trying to say what you suggest, which is what I also thought he was suggesting (hence why I asked), that chart doesn’t support the point.

  52. jon abbey

    ruruland:

    How is it possible that you’re a Ph.D.

    where does this idea come from? we have no idea who he actually is, he might be Berri’s little brother for all we know.

  53. ruruland

    Hubert Davis: Well he could have been posting a chart that indicated there is no relationship between FGA & TS%, ergo the often-assumed idea that if we used Chandler more his TS% would go down cannot be assumed. If that was his aim, he succeeded to a degree. But if he was trying to say what you suggest, which is what I also thought he was suggesting (hence why I asked), that chart doesn’t support the point.

    I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

    I’ve been doing research on Amar’e Stoudemire for a piece I’m doing for this site.

    I’ve broken down his ts into four usage categories over the last two years:

    15-20 usage, 20-25 usage, 25-30 usage, 30+ usage

    Over the last two seasons, Amar’e’s efficiency plummets at the 30+ usage.

    He’s remained very efficient when he isn’t asked to do too much, which is still a lot.

    I really think 25-30 usage range is a big-time sweet spot for him. Melo’s posted his most efficient seasons when his usage was closest to 30.

    If the Knicks can get him down to the high 20s where Dirk usually plays, I think the two guys will be the third most efficient offensive duo behind Durant/Martin and Lebron/Wade or Bosh.

    I’ve also come across some fascinating lineup data that leads me to believe that while Tyson Chandler certainly poses some issues with Stat’s game as it takes him out of being the primary dive man, his negative numbers have far more to do with point guards and passing in the lineup.

  54. ruruland

    jon abbey: where does this idea come from? we have no idea who he actually is, he might be Berri’s little brother for all we know.

    Didn’t he tell us this or am I confusing it with something else?

  55. nicos

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: How much would we have to cherry pick for this data to be persuasive?

    I’m not trying to cherry pick- I just think that the usage/efficiency argument (at least around here) tends to revolve around relatively well established guys going from medium to high usage and I don’t think that graph tells me anything about that. You’ve got lots of data- young guys getting more playing time as they improve, old guys whose usage declines as part of a natural deterioration of their game- that just obscures that issue.

  56. ruruland

    Brian Cronin: Anderson is playing worse defense this year than last but yeah, he’s having an excellent offensive season. Nearly 8 threes a game at 46% from behind the arc? Wow.

    Have you watched him play this year?

    He has one of the best releases I’ve ever seen.

    He’ll shoot right over the top of a defender who’s definding him with his arms raised at a stand-still. Never sees it coming.

    I’m convinced he’s a really good player, though his 3pt % surely has to drop because many more of his shots are being contested.

  57. iserp

    THCJ…. i think this topic has been beaten to death but …

    Chandler gets his high efficiency out of offensive rebounds, if he manages to go 12-13 is because he gets 7 offensive rebounds and gets assisted in other baskets. In order to do so, you need someone passing the ball (and getting some TO’s) and someone shooting the ball (and missing some shots). Chandler neither passes the ball, neither shoots, so the defense doesn’t have to care about that, and that makes more difficult the work of the rest of his teammates that shoot the ball or try to give him assists. So instead of focusing on the individual numbers, you might consider what is more efficient offensively as a whole. For example, when STAT returns, we could compare lineups with Felton, Anthony and Chandler vs lineups with Felton, Anthony and Stoudemire. And then we can compare Chandler vs Stoudemire offensively (in the context of a team with Anthony and Felton)

    I also want to point out that you should start considering the range of validity of the advanced stats you give. Newtonian gravity works wonderfully, and makes a LOT of sense, but any physicist knows that it is not the proper theory to uses if you want to calculate the orbit of mercury.

  58. thenamestsam

    It seems to me that the idea that there’s one metric that can define the value of all kinds of players on offense (at least with the data currently available) is hopelessly misguided. As I see it there is a huge difference in the NBA between a role player and a focal point on offense that goes something like this:

    For a focal point type of player (like Melo) the relationship between his FGA and his TS% is pretty linear. If you tell Melo to cut his shot attempts in half his TS% will go up somewhat (Olympics), if you tell him to take 5 extra attempts a game it will go down somewhat. But the 5 extra shots a game are not going to be significantly different than the 5 lowest expected TS% shots he shoots now.

    In contrast to that, look at a role player – Chandler for example. Yes he’s extremely efficient with the 6 FGA a game that he gets. But it’s not a coincidence that his FGA has only been above 6.5 once in his career. And it’s not because all the coaches are just too dumb to give the best offensive player in the league more shots. It’s really hard to increase his shots. If you tell Chandler to take 5 extra attempts a game his efficiency is going to fall off a cliff because he can’t get 5 more shots that are similar to the 5 worst shots he’s taking now, because every time the opportunity for that shot prevents itself, he takes it. I mean it’s not like sometimes Chandler catches the ball 6 inches from the hoop and thinks “Nah, maybe next possession”. He takes 100% of the opportunities that present themselves, so if you tell him he has to shoot 5 more times he’s going to have to take 5 running hooks, or 5 turn arounds. And he’s going to miss 4 of them. There’s simply no way to build an offense around him. When you try to run every play for him you end up with your PG taking a lot of pull-ups and floaters when the other team stops the lob.

    cont…

  59. ruruland

    Boom, nice guys.

    And remember what Morey said, a guy who’s actually being paid a handsom sum for his statistical analysis.

  60. thenamestsam

    So when you take a metric that lumps role-players and focal points in together you’re obviously going to get a lot of garbage results. If we take the highest-rated role player at every position by WS/48, say Chandler, Faried, Leonard, Paul George and George Hill, I don’t think even THCJ (if you could get truth serum in him) would say that we’re looking at an offensive juggernaut. What you have is a lot of guys who are excellent in their roles who are going to be forced to act like focal points. The Pacers are getting a really good look at how that works with Hill and George in the early going. Yes, the best players in the league also appear at the top of the WS/48 leaderboard. But they also appear at the top of the PER board, the PPG board, and plenty of other terrible stats.

    This doesn’t mean that role players aren’t good players. I think the best role players are probably significantly more valuable than the worst focal points. But the reality is that with the current information we have that’s pure conjecture. I think the only thing we know for certain is what we don’t know. And one of the things we DEFINITELY don’t know is how to put a single value on an individual player.

  61. Hubert Davis

    Whatever we think of Chandler, I would love for us to run a PnR with him & Melo in final second situations like last night, though, instead of these straight ISO plays Woodson is drawing up.

  62. thenamestsam

    Hubert Davis:
    Whatever we think of Chandler, I would love for us to run a PnR with him & Melo in final second situations like last night, though, instead of these straight ISO plays Woodson is drawing up.

    I’d like to see a more diversified offense in the final seconds as well. I do think that running PnR with Chandler has promise, but I also think it has some timing issues. When you want to go fast it makes perfect sense, but in a situation like last night you want to make absolutely sure you get the last shot. They obviously failed at that (and were lucky to get away with it) but running that type of play makes it very simple to get the shot up with no time left.

    In contrast if you run PnR with Melo and Chandler you want to make sure you run it with at least 7 or 8 seconds left on the clock. That way you give Melo time to attack his man one on one if the lob isn’t there and if they bring a 3rd man or sag the lane to stop the PnR you have time to not only make the first pass but also beat the scrambling defense with an extra pass to find an open shooter. But if you’re starting your action with say 8 seconds left, if the lob opens up immediately, yes we almost definitely get a dunk, but we also leave 5 or 6 seconds left for them at the other end. So there is a tradeoff.

  63. Will the Thrill

    While this is true, JR has been doing his best Landry Fields impression by swooping in and grabbing all of the seemingly meaningless defensive rebounds (on free throws and open rebounds.. etc.)

    ruruland: But, besides his defensive issues, there are a few guards on the Knicks roster out-rebounding him.

  64. ruruland

    Hubert Davis:
    Whatever we think of Chandler, I would love for us to run a PnR with him & Melo in final second situations like last night, though, instead of these straight ISO plays Woodson is drawing up.

    I think that’s a good call.

  65. ruruland

    Will the Thrill:
    While this is true, JR has been doing his best Landry Fields impression by swooping in and grabbing all of the seemingly meaningless defensive rebounds (on free throws and open rebounds.. etc.)

    Yeah, that’s definitely true. Hard to be a great statistical rebounder (which is what Smith has been so far as sg) without taking ‘em from teammates.

    But he’s gotten some big ones. Chandler’s defensie rebounding and boxing out has been absolutely atrocious so far. Melos hasn’t been great at pf, but if the Knicks want to play Melo at 4 Chandler has to rebound a hell of a lot better.

  66. jon abbey

    one other thing I just realized: not only was that the single highest scoring game of Chandler’s 700+ game career, it was the single worst shooting game of Felton’s 547 game career (he had two 3-17 games for CHA). obviously the odds against those two things occurring in the same game are astronomical, unless, you know, um, they’re somehow connected.

    Chandler played great and Felton played poorly, but Felton should get some credit for Chandler’s great game and Chandler in turn should get some blame for Felton’s shitty game (do a better job getting open and maybe Felton doesn’t have to jack up quite so many shots). basketball is complicated, one of the reasons we love it (or at least one of the reasons I love it).

  67. EB

    Juany8:
    http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/06/diminishing-returns-for-scoring-usage-vs-efficiency/

    Here’s some actual statistical research on the topic of usage vs. efficiency. Not two numbers plotted on the same graph. Makes it far more enlightening

    Thanks for posting this I remembered I saw a usage vs. efficiency article somewhere couldn’t remember where though. There is another one on Basketball reference somewhere, but I’m too lazy to find it. Basically every study that actually weighs usage and efficiency says higher usage = lower efficiency.

    I mean really fga? Player has good year gets more attempts, has bad year gets benched. Too much noise.

  68. DRed

    Abbey, last night you wrote that Chandler got 4 baskets off the bevy of bricks that Ray Ray tossed up last night. So how much credit should we give Felton for fucking sucking last night? Maybe bump him up to a D-? You also mentioned that Chandler was the recipient of 3 out of his 5 assists. So, do we dock Ray Ray for that and put him down to an F again? I’m not really sure what your point is.

  69. daJudge

    Maybe the Knicks should run more plays for Tyson, given his efficiency and potential to draw fouls. I know this sounds really pedestrian to some, but to me the Knicks chuck (defined as taking crappy shots) too much and THCJ’s is dead on about Tyson’s efficiency. Failing to properly utilize such an efficient player inside is,…. how can I put this, stupid.

  70. Z-man

    jon abbey:
    one other thing I just realized: not only was that the single highest scoring game of Chandler’s 700+ game career, it was the single worst shooting game of Felton’s 547 game career (he had two 3-17 games for CHA). obviously the odds against those two things occurring in the same game are astronomical, unless, you know, um, they’re somehow connected.

    Chandler played great and Felton played poorly, but Felton should get some credit for Chandler’s great game and Chandler in turn should get some blame for Felton’s shitty game (do a better job getting open and maybe Felton doesn’t have to jack up quite so many shots). basketball is complicated, one of the reasons we love it (or at least one of the reasons I love it).

    I have to disagree here, jon. It seems to me that the Nets were letting Felton shoot and trying to cover Chandler on the P&R play. The same thing happened during Felton’s last go-around with the Knicks, and with Duhon and Lee before that. Defenses pick their poison, and covering Chandler was more of a priority. Because Chandler is so good, he is going to erase some of Felton’s misses with ORebs and putbacks or tip-outs, but that is hardly a “strategy.” It’s kinda like when Melo takes a wild low% 3 that hits the top of the backboard and rolls in, he gets big efficiency points for being lucky on that play.

    This underscores the reason I hate that Oliver defined a possession ending when the defense gets the ball back, rather than on a shot attempt. If an offensive rebound started a new possession, then Chandler’s putback would be statistically distinct from Felton’s miss.

  71. jon abbey

    DRed:
    Abbey, last night you wrote that Chandler got 4 baskets off the bevy of bricks that Ray Ray tossed up last night.So how much credit should we give Felton for fucking sucking last night?Maybe bump him up to a D-?You also mentioned that Chandler was the recipient of 3 out of his 5 assists.So, do we dock Ray Ray for that and put him down to an F again?I’m not really sure what your point is.

    that was just data, I’d have to look at the actual plays to make a call on that, but when the defense is intentionally letting you play 2 on 2 and one of those two guys has literally his single best offensive game ever and the other one has literally his single worst game ever, it’s not hard to deduce that some of the results of the plays had at least something to do with the defensive choices of the remaining two players.

  72. jon abbey

    Z-man: I have to disagree here, jon. It seems to me that the Nets were letting Felton shoot and trying to cover Chandler on the P&R play. The same thing happened during Felton’s last go-around with the Knicks, and with Duhon and Lee before that. Defenses pick their poison, and covering Chandler was more of a priority. Because Chandler is so good, he is going to erase some of Felton’s misses with ORebs and putbacks or tip-outs, but that is hardly a “strategy.”It’s kinda like when Melo takes a wild low% 3 that hits the top of the backboard and rolls in, he gets big efficiency points for being lucky on that play.

    ok, but if Chandler really was that good, he would do this more often, and he doesn’t, because he isn’t.

  73. jon abbey

    daJudge:
    Maybe the Knicks should run more plays for Tyson, given his efficiency and potential to draw fouls.I know this sounds really pedestrian to some, but to me the Knicks chuck (defined as taking crappy shots) too much and THCJ’s is dead on about Tyson’s efficiency.Failing to properly utilize such an efficient player inside is,…. how can I put this, stupid.

    they’ve tried, it doesn’t work. Chandler is efficient, as ruru keeps saying, because he mostly sticks to alley oops and follow attempts. NY actually tried what you’re talking about last night, by running the Felton/Chandler pick and roll over and over and over down the stretch, and it wasn’t very successful.

  74. daJudge

    So maybe when the seven foot guy with high, high efficiency, who played his ass off is having his single greatest game in his long career, the ball should find him on the last play when the adversary is over the foul limit. If he misses, worse case scenario, you trusted and rewarded the guy and we have —OT. I hated that last play on so many levels. Last time, I think it was the Mavs, Ruru said the balls got to be in Melo’s hands at that point. Really?

  75. Z-man

    daJudge:
    Maybe the Knicks should run more plays for Tyson, given his efficiency and potential to draw fouls.I know this sounds really pedestrian to some, but to me the Knicks chuck (defined as taking crappy shots) too much and THCJ’s is dead on about Tyson’s efficiency.Failing to properly utilize such an efficient player inside is,…. how can I put this, stupid.

    Getting Chandler the ball in position to score is not as easy as all that. He has zero post game, so the only real options are the PnR and some kind of back door play. You can’t run plays for Chandler to get put-backs, so that rules out probably 25% or more of his high efficienxy shots. If your PnR PG can be defended only at the rim because he shoots poorly from 5-15 feet, that makes it even harder to get the ball to the dive man. As ugly as Felton was last night, he MUST make the defense pay for leaving him open in that 5-15 foot range, or draw fouls, or get to the rim. If he can’t, then the PnR will not workwith any consistency against good defensive teams.

  76. Z-man

    jon abbey: ok, but if Chandler really was that good, he would do this more often, and he doesn’t, because he isn’t.

    I agree that Chandler has limitations to his game, as alluded to in @82. However, he also has phenomenal strengths that make him the most efficiengt offensive player OF ALL TIME, as THCJ is quick (and correct) to point out. The bottlm line here is that Felton should not be credited in any way for missing shots that lead to Chandler points. Most every team misses more than 50% of its shots, so there will always be plenty of misses to go around. As to drawing defenders, I would suggest that FTA is a much better indicator of this ability than teammates’ OReb%, and Felton hardly ever gets to the line.

  77. jon abbey

    daJudge:
    So maybe when the seven foot guy with high, high efficiency, who played his ass off is having his single greatest game in his long career, the ball should find him on the last play when the adversary is over the foul limit.If he misses, worse case scenario, you trusted and rewarded the guy and we have —OT.I hated that last play on so many levels.Last time, I think it was the Mavs, Ruru said the balls got to be in Melo’s hands at that point.Really?

    I don’t think that was a bad play, it was just poorly executed by an exhausted Melo (he barely sat all night, did he play the whole second half and OT?) who could have worked for a better shot for himself or a teammate with a few seconds still left.

    NY lost that game (barely) because of depth, with Amar’e and Shumpert and Kidd out and Brewer leaving hurt and Camby and Thomas not being able to contribute anything, it was hard to keep up with the very deep and totally healthy Nets. they had Stackhouse coming from deep off their bench to make big shots, NY had no one like that. it’s really amazing they were that close to winning with all those guys out, JR being pretty invisible and Felton having one of the worst games of his career.

  78. jon abbey

    Z-man: I agree that Chandler has limitations to his game, as alluded to in @82. However, he also has phenomenal strengths that make him the most efficient offensive player OF ALL TIME, as THCJ is quick (and correct) to point out. The bottom line here is that Felton should not be credited in any way for missing shots that lead to Chandler points.

    but just think logically for a second: NJ chose to let Lopez and Williams play 2 on 2 against Chandler and Felton whenever possible, their focus was on keeping the other three guys out of the play, so NY was often going 2 on 2 on the offensive end. one of those 2 guys had literally the single best offensive game he’s ever had, and the other one had literally the single worst, both have played hundreds of games for numerous teams and with countless teammates. clearly those two extraordinarily extreme results are connected in some way, at least a bit, and it’s not solely on the two players individually. as you said, there are always plenty of chances for offensive rebounds, every game.

  79. nicos

    Z-man: I agree that Chandler has limitations to his game, as alluded to in @82. However, he also has phenomenal strengths that make him the most efficiengt offensive player OF ALL TIME, as THCJ is quick (and correct) to point out. The bottlm line here is that Felton should not be credited in any way for missing shots that lead to Chandler points. Most every team misses more than 50% of its shots, so there will always be plenty of misses to go around. As to drawing defenders, I would suggest that FTA is a much better indicator of this ability than teammates’ OReb%, and Felton hardly ever gets to the line.

    I don’t know- there were several plays where Chandler was by himself for put-backs because of Felton’s penetration (and lay-ups tend to be easier to put back because they don’t bounce so high or long off of the rim) so Felton penetrating and getting the ball up to the rim probably does help Chandler. Should he be congratulated for missing a shot? No, even in those circumstances the odds of successfully converting an offensive rebound off of a miss are probably less than the odds of another, better shot going in in the first place. That said, to act as if Felton’s penetration had nothing to do with Chandler getting a bunch of easy put-backs isn’t right either.

  80. jon abbey

    nicos: I don’t know- there were several plays where Chandler was by himself for put-backs because of Felton’s penetration (and lay-ups tend to be easier to put back because they don’t bounce so high or long off of the rim) so Felton penetrating and getting the ball up to the rim probably does help Chandler.Should he be congratulated for missing a shot? No, even in those circumstances the odds of successfully converting an offensive rebound off of a miss are probably less than the odds of another, better shot going in in the first place.That said, to act as if Felton’s penetration had nothing to do with Chandler getting a bunch of easy put-backs isn’t right either.

    exactly. again, Chandler played great and Felton was terrible, but I don’t think quite as great and terrible respectively as the box score makes it seem.

  81. ruruland

    daJudge:
    So maybe when the seven foot guy with high, high efficiency, who played his ass off is having his single greatest game in his long career, the ball should find him on the last play when the adversary is over the foul limit.If he misses, worse case scenario, you trusted and rewarded the guy and we have —OT.I hated that last play on so many levels.Last time, I think it was the Mavs, Ruru said the balls got to be in Melo’s hands at that point.Really?

    How do you propose the ball gets in Chandler’s hands? Do you honstly think the Nets are going to give him the lane and trap Felton in the pnr?

    There is no other way he can score the basketball with the ball initially in his hands.

    Out of the 30+ high pnr plays, Chandler got the ball, maybe 7-8 times at most, prior to the Nets adjusting their defense?

    If you go for the high pnr with Chandler you’re going to get a Felton jump shot in that situation.

  82. ruruland

    nicos: I don’t know- there were several plays where Chandler was by himself for put-backs because of Felton’s penetration (and lay-ups tend to be easier to put back because they don’t bounce so high or long off of the rim) so Felton penetrating and getting the ball up to the rim probably does help Chandler.Should he be congratulated for missing a shot? No, even in those circumstances the odds of successfully converting an offensive rebound off of a miss are probably less than the odds of another, better shot going in in the first place.That said, to act as if Felton’s penetration had nothing to do with Chandler getting a bunch of easy put-backs isn’t right either.

    See, I think when Felton gets in the lane on that pnr the odds of Chandler getting an offensive rebound on a miss skyrocket. For one, he’s always one the opposite side of the basket which is the most likely place the ball will bounce off, and two, he is always ahead of the screened defender, making him the biggest man in the aint in the best position for a rebound.

    This is a Synergy question.

  83. ruruland

    jon abbey:
    Lakers lose again, to Indiana at home, they’ve played a ton of home games already too.

    Kobe with 28 shots, 13 fta and 10 turnovers with Gasol and Howard on his team in MDA’s system. LMAO this will go down as the worst fitting roster with the worst fitting coach on the most talented team.

  84. jon abbey

    I think you have to reserve judgment until Nash is back, but I don’t really think you’re wrong. terrible FT shooting (besides Kobe) and zero bench scoring (2-15 combined including 0-8 from 3 point range), terrible loss for them.

  85. ruruland

    jon abbey:
    I think you have to reserve judgment until Nash is back, but I don’t really think you’re wrong. terrible FT shooting (besides Kobe) and zero bench scoring (2-15 combined including 0-8 from 3 point range), terrible loss for them.

    Nash obviously makes them better, but they’ll never have an identity. There is no way Kobe is going to allow Steve Nash to handle the ball every play, and there is no way Nash is nearly as effective without consistent pick and rolls.

    Oh yeah, Gasol is already whining about lack of touches ( he does every year with Kobe, never this early).. How long will Howard take being a total afterthought offensively?

    He looks totally disengaged. The diminishing returns on that talent is truly remarkeable.

  86. jon abbey

    right, I know, plus their bench being terrible, D’Antoni’s propensity to overplay his starters, and their core being pretty old is a recipe for disaster also.

    anyway, I’ve been hoping for a while that Howard and Josh Smith and Chris Paul join forces in ATL next year. that wouldn’t be good for NY obviously, but it would be a very entertaining team.

  87. jon abbey

    just noticed that Chandler only had 3 defensive boards in 45 minutes (!!!), while Lopez had 7 offensive boards and Reggie Evans had 6. that is fucking pitiful.

  88. Juany8

    ruruland: Nash obviously makes them better, but they’ll never have an identity. There is no way Kobe is going to allow Steve Nash to handle the ball every play, and there is no way Nash is nearly as effective without consistent pick and rolls.

    Oh yeah, Gasol is already whining about lack of touches ( he does every year with Kobe, never this early).. How long will Howard take being a total afterthought offensively?

    He looks totally disengaged. The diminishing returns on that talent is truly remarkeable.

    Mike D’Antoni is a joke for that team, Phil Jackson would have figured out a way to make the team work together if Jim Buss didn’t have his head up his ass. When you have a team that talented, the X’s and O’s start mattering very little compared to how well you can get each player to buy into a new role, and how well those roles mesh with their pre-existing talents. Mike Brown and Mike D’Antoni are both horrendous choices, neither is good at making adjustments either to their overall philosophy or in individual games.

    As far as the whole “crediting Felton for part of Chandler’s scoring”, I talked about it with Jon Abbey some, but I really think the way to fix the issue in a model is to erase both the offensive rebound and missed shot for the individual players. That way, Felton doesn’t get credit for Chandler’s shots, he just doesn’t get penalized for making a play that still led to points. 3-13 is better than 3-17. As far as Chandler, the offensive rebounding gets counted purely as a type of shot creation instead of as a rebound AND made shot. Chandler would still get solid credit for scoring on the play, and Felton isn’t receiving points for missing a shot, this way both get credit and the model matches up better with what happens in real life. Offensive rebound isn’t much different than saving a sure turnover from going out of…

  89. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    ruruland: Wow. Amazing work. Hard to refute. Jowles, now or never buddy. Anything semi-intelligent to add or rebut with?

    Did you read this comment about the coefficient of determination?

    Hello, I don’t understand the way you are interpretating the r squared value. This term means that the amount of varion explained by the predictor. Based on your r squared terms, this shows there is basically no correlation between the predictor and response. Correct me of I’m wrong, but I think you are mistaking the r squared term with the p value

    Comment by Question — April 2, 2012

    The very reason that the link I posted is valid (that there is NO correlation between usage and efficiency) is the very reason that that entire study is worthless.

    His model’s R^2 suggests NO correlation between values.

  90. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    thenamestsam:
    So when you take a metric that lumps role-players and focal points in together you’re obviously going to get a lot of garbage results. If we take the highest-rated role player at every position by WS/48, say Chandler, Faried, Leonard, Paul George and George Hill, I don’t think even THCJ (if you could get truth serum in him) would say that we’re looking at an offensive juggernaut. What you have is a lot of guys who are excellent in their roles who are going to be forced to act like focal points. The Pacers are getting a really good look at how that works with Hill and George in the early going. Yes, the best players in the league also appear at the top of the WS/48 leaderboard. But they also appear at the top of the PER board, the PPG board, and plenty of other terrible stats.

    This doesn’t mean that role players aren’t good players. I think the best role players are probably significantly more valuable than the worst focal points. But the reality is that with the current information we have that’s pure conjecture. I think the only thing we know for certain is what we don’t know. And one of the things we DEFINITELY don’t know is how to put a single value on an individual player.

    http://www.thenbageek.com/articles/the-value-of-shots-taken

    No one advocates for blind adherence to any statistic, but Chandler, Faried, Leonard, George, and Hill would be a dreamy starting five.

  91. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    EB:
    I mean really fga? Player has good year gets more attempts, has bad year gets benched. Too much noise.

    Really though? They imposed a cutoff for minutes played, so the whole “benching” argument is moot.

    And if players get benched for playing like shit, explain how Ryan Hollins, Antawn Jamison, Al Harrington, Juwan Howard, Corey Maggette, ‘Toine Walker, Andre Blatche, Kareem Rush, Nikoloz Tskitishvili, DeSagana Diop, Terrence Williams, Norris Cole (and dozens of others) not only receive playing time, but veteran contracts when their shitty rookie contract is up.

  92. Juany8

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: http://www.thenbageek.com/articles/the-value-of-shots-taken

    No one advocates for blind adherence to any statistic, but Chandler, Faried, Leonard, George, and Hill would be a dreamy starting five.

    You have to have blind adherence to TS% as a proxy for offensive value to think that lineup would score at all. It’s the only way anyone could conclude any of those players are elite offensively, and you totally ignored the article I posted above that deals with that exact question using the actual scientific process (guess what, most data is useless, and if you don’t filter it out your result is meaningless)

    But hey, I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation for why OKC, Houston, and Denver all stayed the same despite either adding or subtracting “superstars” for “mediocre players”. When Denver and Minnesota lose in the first round (at best) and Houston barely makes it to .500 I’ll come back to listen to you explain how all your biggest predictions failed due to “outliers”

  93. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    Juany8: You have to have blind adherence to TS% as a proxy for offensive value to think that lineup would score at all. It’s the only way anyone could conclude any of those players are elite offensively, and you totally ignored the article I posted above that deals with that exact question using the actual scientific process (guess what, most data is useless, and if you don’t filter it out your result is meaningless)

    But hey, I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation for why OKC, Houston, and Denver all stayed the same despite either adding or subtracting “superstars” for “mediocre players”. When Denver and Minnesota lose in the first round (at best) and Houston barely makes it to .500 I’ll come back to listen to you explain how all your biggest predictions failed due to “outliers”

    HAHA THAT THE LINEUP WOULD SCORE AT ALL

    What do you think, these guys are JV squaders? They’re professional fucking athletes, dude, and if you think that your eyetest has determined that they can’t “get a shot off” against NBA-quality defenders, you might be mistaking your soccer-watching with what we do here, which is watch professional American basketball.

  94. iserp

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: HAHA THAT THE LINEUP WOULD SCORE AT ALL

    What do you think, these guys are JV squaders? They’re professional fucking athletes, dude, and if you think that your eyetest has determined that they can’t “get a shot off” against NBA-quality defenders, you might be mistaking your soccer-watching with what we do here, which is watch professional American basketball.

    But they don’t “get a shot off” in actual games; they get lots of offensive rebounds and assisted buckets; but those aren’t going to magically make 100% of the shots if you combine these guys.

    How do you quantify how well they are gonna fare when they have to “get a shot off” if you don’t have enough data from actual games?

  95. Brian Cronin

    Lin smoked Lowry tonight, Morey must be feeling pretty good right now!

    McHale would probably be the one more pleased about that one. ;)

    Anyone know why McHale and Lowry didn’t like each other? Is it just that McHale is weird? That’s my guess.

  96. Juany8

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: HAHA THAT THE LINEUP WOULD SCORE AT ALL

    What do you think, these guys are JV squaders? They’re professional fucking athletes, dude, and if you think that your eyetest has determined that they can’t “get a shot off” against NBA-quality defenders, you might be mistaking your soccer-watching with what we do here, which is watch professional American basketball.

    Is that soccer quip supposed to be some kind of racist joke? I do enjoy watching soccer but I enjoy watching football and basketball even more, what the hell is that supposed to do with anything? Oh and you really need to get over the fact that I’m better at math than you, and quite likely anyone else on this board. I just don’t pay attention to amateur statistics because someone yells at me to.

    As far as the specific point I made, those guys literally would have trouble getting shots off. They’d get an incredible amount of turnovers or late crappy shots in the shot clock. That’s the real benefit to having a Carmelo Anthony, you can be sure to get a shot off in almost any situation, and any shot is significantly better than a turnover. Discussing shooting efficiency for individual players is stupid when most of the offense is going to be determined by how well the offense can function together. It truly baffles my mind that you accept defense is a 5 man activity but literally can’t see how offense works the same way. In most offensive possessions, especially on really good teams, the guy who took the shot often did the least amount of work to get that shot

  97. milt

    Juany8:
    http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/06/diminishing-returns-for-scoring-usage-vs-efficiency/

    Here’s some actual statistical research on the topic of usage vs. efficiency. Not two numbers plotted on the same graph. Makes it far more enlightening

    I was about to post the exact same thing! Probably the best analysis of the usage vs. efficiency issue I’ve seen so far.

    The analysis THCJ’s plot is part of (source: http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/24/what-would-happen-if-they-shot-more/) is essentially 1000 words on “we don’t believe that usage affects efficiency, so we looked for evidence of an effect in the crudest possible way, and – what do you know! – we didn’t find any”. That’s more than just poor statistical methodology; it’s junk science.

    Seriously, this is why the online basketball analytics community is neatly divided into two camps:

    1) Berri’s echo chamber.
    2) Everyone else.

  98. milt

    The very reason that the link I posted is valid (that there is NO correlation between usage and efficiency) is the very reason that that entire study is worthless.

    His model’s R^2 suggests NO correlation between values.

    I don’t think you’re interpreting this correctly. His model suggests that there is a highly significant relationship between the two variables. Sure, the R^2 statistic is low, but that’s hardly surprising: whether a particular lineup over- or underperforms is dependent on a zillion other factors not included in this analysis.

  99. Juany8

    milt: I was about to post the exact same thing! Probably the best analysis of the usage vs. efficiency issue I’ve seen so far.

    The analysis THCJ’s plot is part of (source: http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/24/what-would-happen-if-they-shot-more/) is essentially 1000 words on “we don’t believe that usage affects efficiency, so we looked for evidence of an effect in the crudest possible way, and – what do you know! – we didn’t find any”. That’s more than just poor statistical methodology; it’s junk science.

    Seriously, this is why the online basketball analytics community is neatly divided into two camps:

    1) Berri’s echo chamber.
    2) Everyone else.

    Thank you Milt, it’s really nice to talk to someone who seems to understand how science actually works. The WoW website doesn’t seem to comprehend how a hypothesis works, what constitutes valid data vs. invalid data, and that linear correlations are what you use when you literally don’t have something better to use.

    The biggest fallacy present in society today is that attaching a number to your opinion somehow makes it more objective. Numbers are the easiest things in the world to manipulate, it is entirely possible, for example, to graph TS% against FGA, against TSA (True Shoot attempts), you can compare PPP vs. Possessions (including turnover ratio) It’s entirely possible to do all these correlations, pick the graph that fits your narrative the best, and just stick it on a website. Doesn’t make your work scientific, it makes it purposely misleading and very subjective

  100. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    Juany8: Thank you Milt, it’s really nice to talk to someone who seems to understand how science actually works. The WoW website doesn’t seem to comprehend how a hypothesis works, what constitutes valid data vs. invalid data, and that linear correlations are what you use when you literally don’t have something better to use.

    The biggest fallacy present in society today is that attaching a number to your opinion somehow makes it more objective. Numbers are the easiest things in the world to manipulate, it is entirely possible, for example, to graph TS% against FGA, against TSA (True Shoot attempts), you can compare PPP vs. Possessions (including turnover ratio) It’s entirely possible to do all these correlations, pick the graph that fits your narrative the best, and just stick it on a website. Doesn’t make your work scientific, it makes it purposely misleading and very subjective

    Wait… what’s the difference, O Math Master, between the linear regression done in the study that supports YOUR hypothesis and the one that supports mine?

  101. jon abbey

    milt:

    Seriously, this is why the online basketball analytics community is neatly divided into two camps:

    1) Berri’s echo chamber.
    2) Everyone else.

    oh my god, I love you. if we had sig files here, this would be my new one.

  102. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    iserp: But they don’t “get a shot off” in actual games; they get lots of offensive rebounds and assisted buckets; but those aren’t going to magically make 100% of the shots if you combine these guys.

    How do you quantify how well they are gonna fare when they have to “get a shot off” if you don’t have enough data from actual games?

    So what you’re saying is that your assumption (that they can’t “create shots”) is more likely than my assumption (which is that a moderate increase in each player’s usage will not yield a significant drop-off in efficiency).

    You’re saying “prove to me that something doesn’t exist” without having evidence that it does. The analyses I’ve cited may be crude, but they are better than a gut assumption that those players fundamentally lack the ability to take shots simply because other players on their teams take more shots than they do.

  103. milt

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: Wait… what’s the difference, O Math Master, between the linear regression done in the study that supports YOUR hypothesis and the one that supports mine?

    Short answer: it’s not the R^2.

    Long answer:

    Okay, let’s assume that the positive slope in your example is statistically significant. Even though the R^2 statistic is small, we would still have evidence of a relationship between two variables: (1) the year-to-year change in a player’s usage and (2) the year-on-year change in a player’s TS%. The problem is not the methodology (although not reporting the standard error for the estimate of the slope is pretty poor form); it’s that the analysis is not asking the right question.

    A player’s usage/TS% can change for several different reasons. Maybe they moved to a much better/worse team. Maybe they’re being used in different lineups. Maybe the new coach has boosted/shattered their confidence. Maybe they’re gunning for a new contract, with amazing/awful results. There are so many confounding variables that it’s virtually impossible to draw a conclusion.

    The clever part of Eli’s analysis is that it breaks down the data by lineup. This way we can eliminate many (though by no means all) of the other variables.

  104. milt

    The Honorable Cock Jowles:
    You’re saying “prove to me that something doesn’t exist” without having evidence that it does.

    I think there’s another point to be made here. Someone much smarter than me (Kevin Pelton? Dan Rosenbaum?) already put it much better than I’m about to, but I couldn’t find their original quote.

    The starting point for statistical analysis in sports has to be conventional wisdom. So: the hot hand exists, defence wins championships, scoring is the most valuable individual skill, there is such a thing as a clutch player/team, you need proven winners to succeed in this league, etc. These are opinions that have been around for ages, and are firmly entrenched in the minds of fans, players, coaches, and general managers.

    I completely agree that many of these opinions are completely and utterly false, but the onus is firmly on the statistician to provide the evidence against them.

  105. Juany8

    The Honorable Cock Jowles: Wait… what’s the difference, O Math Master, between the linear regression done in the study that supports YOUR hypothesis and the one that supports mine?

    To add to what Milt already put extremely well (and the author of that particular study put even better) you’re not actually testing anything. You can’t just throw random numbers up against each other until you find an answer that suits your worldview, there are too many confounding factors to simply test numbers on a macro level. I don’t think the study I showed gives a conclusive answer, I just like the way he approached the topic and that he realized a simple graph of efficiency vs. possessions isn’t going to give you anything meaningful.

    Since the only thing that really matters is how much a player improves the team’s offensive efficiency (not his own) looking at lineups instead of individual players gets rid of many of the confounding factors present in the individual stats. He also breaks it down even further, which won’t necessarily reveal anything but it does help me make my own decisions about the data I’m looking at. That’s pretty important, since for some reason you seem to ignore that the only things scientifically established are things that can be repeatedly proven by anyone who cares to try. You can’t just tell everyone else they are wrong and tell them to shut up, your model has to be able to withstand scrutiny and criticism. Considering your only response to the criticism is to make racist soccer jokes that don’t add to the discussion in any way, I’d say that’s literally all I need to know about WP’s validity

  106. Juany8

    Oh and here’s another interesting study on the subject. The reason I like these articles is because they’re thoughtfully written and seem to be open to exploring the possibility that any answer could be true. They don’t assume an answer and throw up a laughable graph that they use to insult people with. Oh and it concludes that Melo was an All-Star player while he was in Denver!

    http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1412

  107. johnno

    Juany8: Nash obviously makes them better

    A couple weeks ago, I posted that I thought that Nash’s injury was going to have a much bigger impact than originally reported (i.e., that he would be out 7-10 days). A few people disagreed because the bone that he fractured was “not a weight-bearing bone.” It’s been 4 weeks since he got hurt and, as of two days ago, he was still in too much pain to even begin jogging. I have a feeling that we are not going to see vintage Steve Nash this entire season.

  108. The Honorable Cock Jowles

    Juany8: To add to what Milt already put extremely well (and the author of that particular study put even better) you’re not actually testing anything. You can’t just throw random numbers up against each other until you find an answer that suits your worldview, there are too many confounding factors to simply test numbers on a macro level. I don’t think the study I showed gives a conclusive answer, I just like the way he approached the topic and that he realized a simple graph of efficiency vs. possessions isn’t going to give you anything meaningful.

    Since the only thing that really matters is how much a player improves the team’s offensive efficiency (not his own) looking at lineups instead of individual players gets rid of many of the confounding factors present in the individual stats. He also breaks it down even further, which won’t necessarily reveal anything but it does help me make my own decisions about the data I’m looking at. That’s pretty important, since for some reason you seem to ignore that the only things scientifically established are things that can be repeatedly proven by anyone who cares to try. You can’t just tell everyone else they are wrong and tell them to shut up, your model has to be able to withstand scrutiny and criticism. Considering your only response to the criticism is to make racist soccer jokes that don’t add to the discussion in any way, I’d say that’s literally all I need to know about WP’s validity

    I’m not going to argue with someone who thinks that economics is a pseudoscience, but don’t accuse me of racist jokes because I picked “soccer” as my “sport that is not basketball” in the point I was trying to make. Your race (which I do not know — are you an Argentinian of Italian descent? German? Castillian? Oaxacan? Dominican? I have no idea) Would it have been racist had I said “baseball?” Latinos love…

Comments are closed.