Comments on: NYTIMES: How the Knicks’ Offense Beat Expectations

By: jon abbey

jon abbey — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:27:51 +0000

Felton was pretty dreadful last night, 5 turnovers too (including some really ugly ones), but he had a hand, directly or indirectly, in 7 of Chandler’s 12 baskets (3 assists, 4 misses that Chandler followed).

it is pretty silly that Felton’s line reads 3-19 and Chandler’s 12-13 for a career high 28, but that’s a great example of the holes in the way stats are recorded.

By: Nick C.

Nick C. — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:19:02 +0000

Jon, it just struck me as ironic that you, correctly, point out that taking it to the hole and missing often results in an easy putback yet go out of your way, or so it seems, to ridicule articles and sites that place a high value on rebounds. Also it seemed that, not really you that I recall, but the game thread had a lot of pooh poohing of Felton’s 3-19, which may have put a temporary bug up my ass.

By: jon abbey

jon abbey — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:03:09 +0000

presumably that’s aimed at me, and all of that is a real simplification of statements I’ve made, also out of context. there can be huge offensive rebounds (Reggie Evans seems to be full of these, Tyson too last night), and most misses are not good misses.

also, I never really praised missing, I merely stated the incredibly obvious to most fact that a driving shot that draws two defenders and leaves a teammate open for an easy putback is the exact same end result as a made shot. I was ridiculed by THCJ and someone else for this, which still makes me smile.

my overall thesis is very simple: most basketball stats are not nuanced enough, and there often ends up being so much noise in them that they’re not nearly as reliable as some people seem to think. they should be looked at for context, but merely listing TS% of different players devoid of context and trying to draw conclusions from that is generally pretty meaningless (as one example).

By: Nick C.

Nick C. — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:34:50 +0000

But if offensive rebounding is not all that important then why are there good misses??? Good misses=potential offensive rebounds for easy putbacks but offensive rebounds=irrelevant. It seems logically inconsistent to deride rebounding but praise “missing”.

By: jon abbey

jon abbey — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:25:26 +0000

here’s an article from a site that hasn’t based their brand around a formula that wildly overvalues rebounding, it’s like reading Karl Rove on Romney’s chances in Ohio:

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=954

By: jon abbey

jon abbey — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:02:55 +0000

Thomas B.: http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/10/is-there-a-cost-to-offensive-rebounds/

the URL makes it clear that the article doesn't need to be clicked on, worthless site.

By: yellowboy90

yellowboy90 — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:46:35 +0000

Felton, Brewer, Anthony, Thomas, & Chandler are the starting 5 for tonight?

By: mokers

mokers — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:40:58 +0000

I think it is just the Thursday games with the exceptions being the All Star Game:

http://www.nba.com/nbaontnt/

SJK:
Does anyone know if you can stream tonight’s can online via TNT, or is that just for Thursday night games?

By: mokers

mokers — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:34:32 +0000

I think much of the discussion here settled on one point not present in the WoW article, “prevent your opponent from turning possessions into points (ie hinder shooting efficiency)” The thought that one of the ways you limit the other team from scoring easy baskets is to get back on defense. For a team without a lot of elite athleticism, crashing the offensive boards might not make as much sense as getting back on defense. The Celtics were used as a prime example.

By: SJK

SJK — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:30:14 +0000

Does anyone know if you can stream tonight’s can online via TNT, or is that just for Thursday night games?