Sort by eFG% and tell me what you see at the top, and what you see at the bottom.

I am not very good with advanced stats so id like to ask from the stat freaks in here to show me which stat from the Scottie Pippen Rookie season(22yo) indicates his Hall of Fame career ?

Maybe the Bulls went from 40-42 to 50-32 his first season. 🙂

But seriously his offense was horrid as a rookie but his overall well rounded game on the defensive end (rebounds/blocks/steals) argued he was a real player. His ws/48 was pretty impressive for a guy who couldn’t shoot an ounce.

This is kind of a Cardinal O’Connor “which doesn’t belong and why”:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=1&player_id1_hint=Scottie+Pippen&player_id1_select=Scottie+Pippen&player_id1=pippesc01&y1=1988&player_id2_hint=Frank+Ntilikina&player_id2_select=Frank+Ntilikina&y2=2018&player_id2=ntilila01&idx=players&player_id3_hint=Kevin+Knox&player_id3_select=Kevin+Knox&y3=2019&player_id3=knoxke01&idx=players

Also, guy had a hypothesis, then he tested it. Might not be the best way of testing it, but that’s how you do science.

I think he was disingenuous about it and chose a data set that supported a conclusion he had already made. Pretty sure that isn’t science.

The bigger point I’m making is that the data set he chose is a stupid data set to test his basic point – that the future of each team is related to the current usage of ALL the players under 25 on each team. If you predicted the success of teams based on the usage of all the players who had been on the team the previous year without accounting for new players, trades, and other deltas, it would be obvious how stupid that is. This isn’t that much better, because it’s pretty obvious for every team, not just the Knicks, that it is extremely likely the bad players will no longer be on the team in future years. So they are predicting success/failure on a data set that is certain to change not only because new players will come in (draft, signings like Randle who may be under 25, trades) but because current players won’t be in the team if they continue to suck. Ntilikina is an obvious example, but so is Knox. If he continues to be terrible, he won’t likely be on the team, or at least getting that kind of usage. He was on a tanking team that tolerated him sucking because it helped their larger goal.

So realistically, a better test of a team’s future would focus on the best young players on each team, because those players are more likely to continue to get minutes. In that scenario, the Knicks would do significantly better, but that wouldn’t give them the LOL Knicks they’re looking for.

RJ Barrett is going to be really good at basketball for a long time. His name isn’t Zion Williamson or Brandon Clarke, though, so he’ll never be a favorite on this board.

That’s crazy. If he’s good, we’re going to love him.

If he sucks ass on almost every level but scores a lot of points, he will probably tear this board apart.