PDA

View Full Version : RED94: Its time to drop the Arbitrary (20-5-5) milestones



Chronz
04-14-2010, 02:40 PM
http://www.red94.net/?p=1495



On Steve Francis and 20-6-6
2010 April 13
by rahat huq

Tyreke Evans became just the fourth player in NBA history to average 20 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists during his rookie season.

The achievement conjured memories of Steve Francis who was often lauded for his averages of 20-6-6 over a three year span with the Houston Rockets.

It’s interesting how we trumpet these arbitrarily determined ‘milestones.’ If dissecting the numbers, in Steve’s case, what did 20-6-6 really mean? Pretty much that he was a pretty good scorer, a bad passer, and a damn good rebounder. So all we should really have taken from the statistical body was Steve’s rebounding prowess. But instead, the line was used to justify belief in Francis’ superstardom. Oops…

The sooner we abandon conventional ‘per game’ statistics for use in anything beyond the NBA Live series, the more informed and better off we will be.

Thankfully Im not alone in this, these arent important benchmarks people, they arent meant to be lauded or to put players into certain categories (remember Marbury being compared to Big O for averaging 20+8), they are but bits and pieces of a players contributions. Im not saying its insignificant because they do capture a brief condensed view of a players contributions but lets not make so much of it, acting as if it puts him in any sort of category or that it makes him better than any other player.

What matters is the totality of your contributions, BTW Reke is still my ROY, but the way people have been posting (that guy who wanted people to bump Grant Hills season comes to mind) makes me feel like youve all lost sight of what truly matters.

blams
04-14-2010, 02:41 PM
6 assists per game is not equal to a bad passer. It can just as easily mean he has bad shooters around him.

Chronz
04-14-2010, 02:46 PM
6 assists per game is not equal to a bad passer. It can just as easily mean he has bad shooters around him.


This is besides the point but yet another cliche, shooters never impact your stats to the degree that playing style does. But it wasnt just his 6 assists, it was the kind of shots he created and the overall passing efficiency of his game. For a PG he was a pretty mediocre passer, about the only thing he had was finding Kato for the occasional lob, and waiting for Mobley to come off a pindown. He wasnt very good at creating high% looks for his teammates.

ShockerArt
04-14-2010, 04:36 PM
http://www.red94.net/?p=1495



Thankfully Im not alone in this, these arent important benchmarks people, they arent meant to be lauded or to put players into certain categories (remember Marbury being compared to Big O for averaging 20+8), they are but bits and pieces of a players contributions. Im not saying its insignificant because they do capture a brief condensed view of a players contributions but lets not make so much of it, acting as if it puts him in any sort of category or that it makes him better than any other player.

What matters is the totality of your contributions, BTW Reke is still my ROY, but the way people have been posting (that guy who wanted people to bump Grant Hills season comes to mind) makes me feel like youve all lost sight of what truly matters.

Excellent post. Good luck, though, talking common sense with the NBA Forum posters.

ManRam
04-14-2010, 04:47 PM
I understand all the points you and the author make Chronz, and I do agree to some extent. BTW I love your second post...except you spelled my boy Cato's name wrong :(

But how can you knock a stat, as potentially untelling and underwhelming as it is, when the 3 other guys to ever go 20-5-5 in their rookie season are Oscar, MJ and LeBron? That sounds like a pretty telling milestone to me...

I don't think anyone makes it a bench mark for stardom...we have eyes an can decide that from ourselves, but you can't deny the all around game you have to be a guard and average 20-5-5. No one is crowning Evans the second coming because of a 20-5-5 rookie season. I think the more important thing is not to get caught up in one season, or even a few seasons. Fans are becoming more aware of how points, rebounds and assists are far from the be-all end-all...but like batting average, homers and RBI, they will always be the most convenient barometer, and I don't think that's terrible.

Chronz
04-14-2010, 05:44 PM
I understand all the points you and the author make Chronz, and I do agree to some extent. BTW I love your second post...except you spelled my boy Cato's name wrong :(

But how can you knock a stat, as potentially untelling and underwhelming as it is, when the 3 other guys to ever go 20-5-5 in their rookie season are Oscar, MJ and LeBron? That sounds like a pretty telling milestone to me...
Whats so telling about it? Do you think Marbury having a career average of 20-8 at one point puts him in Big O's class? Why is the cutoff at 20-5-5? Why not 22-5-5 or 24-6-4, or 23-6-6? The reason is because they want to classify a player into a group he doesnt belong, they want to sell you on an irrelevant accomplishment.

Look at those other "20-5-5" seasons (Not counting ABA);
MJ: 28-6.5-5.9 (1.18PPP)
Big O: 25.7-8.5-8.2 (.555TS%)

You really want to put Reke in that class? Whats the point of these arbitrary cutoffs? When I was young I thought it was to see who surpassed his stats (making the benchmark relevant) but there are so many players who didnt meet those #'s to have had MUCH better seasons. Like Grant Hill had a better rookie year and he missed that cutoff by decimal points.

If we change the cutoff to 21PPG Bron and Reke arent on the list. Bron misses it by .9. If we change it to 23-6-4 Mitch Richmond joins the crew along with Kareem, Bird, Baylor and some guy named Sidney Wicks. Change it to 24-5-4 and Earl Monroe joins the club, Harper and Bing were at 21-4-4 What exactly are these suppose to reveal?


I don't think anyone makes it a bench mark for stardom...we have eyes an can decide that from ourselves, but you can't deny the all around game you have to be a guard and average 20-5-5.
Well one guy was practically saddened by the fact that they didnt round up Grant Hills PPG so he could join the club. And I know its not a benchmark for stardom, its not even a benchmark for all-around play, its an arbitrary standard. I really dont know what its a benchmark for other than cool looking stats.


No one is crowning Evans the second coming because of a 20-5-5 rookie season. I think the more important thing is not to get caught up in one season, or even a few seasons. Fans are becoming more aware of how points, rebounds and assists are far from the be-all end-all...but like batting average, homers and RBI, they will always be the most convenient barometer, and I don't think that's terrible.

Amateur barometers are terrible IMO. When you have so many people bringing up the fact that only him and MJ blah blah blah are the ones to reach it, they are using it as an elite barometer when in actuality its not important.

Kings Faithful
04-14-2010, 06:09 PM
This is besides the point but yet another cliche, shooters never impact your stats to the degree that playing style does. But it wasnt just his 6 assists, it was the kind of shots he created and the overall passing efficiency of his game. For a PG he was a pretty mediocre passer, about the only thing he had was finding Kato for the occasional lob, and waiting for Mobley to come off a pindown. He wasnt very good at creating high% looks for his teammates.


Good point... except it doesn't apply to Tyreke whatsoever. In Tyreke's case he DOES have bad shooters around him. He misses at least 3-4 apg solely because the Kings can't seem to hit a wide open shot from 10 feet away. Anybody who watches Tyreke on a consistent basis knows he's special. Even though they are enough to win him ROY IMO, his stats still don't tell the entire story. For instance how great a defender he is, and how many times he does set up his team mates for high FG% shots. In a few years, when the Kings have decent players to surround him, Tyreke will be averaging 20+ppg, 7+apg, and 6+ rpg EASY. Tyreke Evans, your Rookie of the Year 2010... END OF STORY.

Chronz
04-14-2010, 06:12 PM
Good point... except it doesn't apply to Tyreke whatsoever. In Tyreke's case he DOES have bad shooters around him. He misses at least 3-4 apg solely because the Kings can't seem to hit a wide open shot from 10 feet away.
Thats it? Most of the prolific assist men miss out on more than that.


Anybody who watches Tyreke on a consistent basis knows he's special. Even though they are enough to win him ROY IMO, his stats still don't tell the entire story. For instance how great a defender he is, and how many times he does set up his team mates for high FG% shots. In a few years, when the Kings have decent players to surround him, Tyreke will be averaging 20+ppg, 7+apg, and 6+ rpg EASY. Tyreke Evans, your Rookie of the Year 2010... END OF STORY.
Maybe, but as of now putting him in that class of players is a joke. Hes closer to Ron Harper than he is MJ

Kings Faithful
04-14-2010, 06:26 PM
Thats it? Most of the prolific assist men miss out on more than that.


Maybe, but as of now putting him in that class of players is a joke. Hes closer to Ron Harper than he is MJ

When I say he misses 3-4 apg because of missed shots...i mean that those missed assists should be guaranteed. If the Kings were good he'd be averaging 7,8, apg right now with the way we play. But the Kings can't hit anything so he doesn't get them. Either way, I'm not calling Tyreke one of the most prolific assist men... he isn't Steve Nash or John Stockton, not even close. But he is a good passer, alot better than people give him credit for.

There is not one sane Kings fan who honestly thinks Tyreke is as good as Big O, MJ, and Lebron... Thats the way you are interpreting this whole 20-5-5 thing. The impressive part is that he put up 20-5-5 as a rookie, and pretty much without a reliable jumpshot and without good teammates. Tyreke has potential to be an MVP and top 5 player in this league, but no one is saying he is Lebron.

montazingmvp
04-14-2010, 06:31 PM
6 assists per game is not equal to a bad passer. It can just as easily mean he has bad shooters around him.

a pg who only avg's 6ast per game and over 3 to's is not a particularly good passer...

and to the thread...

i've been saying exactly what chronz states here for days...its impressive but at the same time, it tells us very little about the player

JayAllDay
04-14-2010, 06:55 PM
Even 20-6-6 is not impressive because Francis did it is what this author is saying.

*****ings of a butt hurt rockets fan.

20-5-5 is impressive. Just because some questionable characters did it, does not make it any less impressive. Oh Chronz you want to change the numbers? Half the names you dropped are hall of famers. It is arbitrary, but you are putting meaning into non-written words by assuming.

Statistcal evaluation is stupid (ex. Clarence Weatherspoon averaged 20-10 one year too) but you have to respect the stat itself. 20-5-5 as a rookie IS impressive and Kings fans should get excited about. When I saw Earl Monroe's name come up I almost got mad.

montazingmvp
04-14-2010, 07:05 PM
Even 20-6-6 is not impressive because Francis did it is what this author is saying.

*****ings of a butt hurt rockets fan.

20-5-5 is impressive. Just because some questionable characters did it, does not make it any less impressive. Oh Chronz you want to change the numbers? Half the names you dropped are hall of famers. It is arbitrary, but you are putting meaning into non-written words by assuming.

Statistcal evaluation is stupid (ex. Clarence Weatherspoon averaged 20-10 one year too) but you have to respect the stat itself. 20-5-5 as a rookie IS impressive and Kings fans should get excited about. When I saw Earl Monroe's name come up I almost got mad.

lol dude...you just don't get it...

you look at fantasy stats, which tell part of the story...we look at advanced stats which tell the entire story...

and we've all agreed on the bolded part...its just not as impressive as some are making it out to be...and like we've been saying it only paints a small picture of the game...three things he does at a high rate (not necessarily well)...

and the fact that marbury and francis had these avg's explains this perfectly...because those guys couldn't even last a decade in the nba...

average players...who were given more playing time then they deserved, who had big numbers because they played a lot of minutes and had high usage rates.

billy17
04-14-2010, 07:28 PM
Just say it, Stephen Curry for ROY !!

Chronz
04-14-2010, 07:29 PM
Even 20-6-6 is not impressive because Francis did it is what this author is saying.

*****ings of a butt hurt rockets fan.

20-5-5 is impressive. Just because some questionable characters did it, does not make it any less impressive. Oh Chronz you want to change the numbers? Half the names you dropped are hall of famers. It is arbitrary, but you are putting meaning into non-written words by assuming.

Statistcal evaluation is stupid (ex. Clarence Weatherspoon averaged 20-10 one year too) but you have to respect the stat itself. 20-5-5 as a rookie IS impressive and Kings fans should get excited about. When I saw Earl Monroe's name come up I almost got mad.
20-5-5 is impressive, but its not necessarily any more impressive than 20-4-4, or 19-5-6 is my point. Again theres so much more to look at than 3 #'s that classifying players by these arbitrary standards is doing a disservice to players who did not need to meet those marks to have better seasons. When the gap between all the 20-5-5 seasons can be so huge, its basically the equivalent of saying a 60% FT shooter is on the same level as a 90% FT shooter. No joke thats how different MJ was from Reke in his "20-5-5" year.

Can you explain what your Weatherspoon example was suppose to get at? I can go 2 ways with this argument but wont until I know what you were trying to prove, if anything it proves WHY statistical analysis is so important. Whats so maddening about Earl Monroe?

NBAfan4life
04-14-2010, 07:56 PM
I think it is something interesting to keep track of, that being said I think out of the 4 Evans will not live up to the other 3 on that list even if he has a great career

KnicksorBust
04-14-2010, 08:05 PM
Whats so telling about it? Do you think Marbury having a career average of 20-8 at one point puts him in Big O's class? Why is the cutoff at 20-5-5? Why not 22-5-5 or 24-6-4, or 23-6-6? The reason is because they want to classify a player into a group he doesnt belong, they want to sell you on an irrelevant accomplishment.

Look at those other "20-5-5" seasons (Not counting ABA);
MJ: 28-6.5-5.9 (1.18PPP)
Big O: 25.7-8.5-8.2 (.555TS%)

You really want to put Reke in that class? Whats the point of these arbitrary cutoffs? When I was young I thought it was to see who surpassed his stats (making the benchmark relevant) but there are so many players who didnt meet those #'s to have had MUCH better seasons. Like Grant Hill had a better rookie year and he missed that cutoff by decimal points.

If we change the cutoff to 21PPG Bron and Reke arent on the list. Bron misses it by .9. If we change it to 23-6-4 Mitch Richmond joins the crew along with Kareem, Bird, Baylor and some guy named Sidney Wicks. Change it to 24-5-4 and Earl Monroe joins the club, Harper and Bing were at 21-4-4 What exactly are these suppose to reveal?

Well one guy was practically saddened by the fact that they didnt round up Grant Hills PPG so he could join the club. And I know its not a benchmark for stardom, its not even a benchmark for all-around play, its an arbitrary standard. I really dont know what its a benchmark for other than cool looking stats.


Amateur barometers are terrible IMO. When you have so many people bringing up the fact that only him and MJ blah blah blah are the ones to reach it, they are using it as an elite barometer when in actuality its not important.

Did you read that somewhere or look it up? This was a great post. Personally I'm in love with Tyreke from afar and I'm wondering two things: How could they have possibly played better (statistically) with him on the bench? And what type of player would be ideal for him as a 2nd option? Low post big? Athletic big? Shooting PG?

td0tsfinest
04-14-2010, 08:08 PM
20-5-5 is an impressive feat but look at some of the guys that were close to achieving that ,like Damon Stoudamire (19 9 and 4). There careers did not sky rocket from their.

Though the guys that have averaged 20 5 5 in the rookie campaign have become some of the greatest players to play the game, I don't think its the numbers should be used to identify what type of player the rook will become.

B-Ray
04-14-2010, 08:16 PM
the fact that only four players in league history have averaged 20-5-5 in their rookie season is what is significant here

montazingmvp
04-14-2010, 09:39 PM
the fact that only four players in league history have averaged 20-5-5 in their rookie season is what is significant here

:facepalm:

you people just aren't getting it...the point of this post is, whats the difference between 20 5 5 and 20 4 6...or 19 6 6?...

you can rearrange numbers any way you want to come up with only 4 other players ever reaching the same feat...

get it?

JayAllDay
04-14-2010, 10:32 PM
20-5-5 is impressive, but its not necessarily any more impressive than 20-4-4, or 19-5-6 is my point. Again theres so much more to look at than 3 #'s that classifying players by these arbitrary standards is doing a disservice to players who did not need to meet those marks to have better seasons. When the gap between all the 20-5-5 seasons can be so huge, its basically the equivalent of saying a 60% FT shooter is on the same level as a 90% FT shooter. No joke thats how different MJ was from Reke in his "20-5-5" year.
- I'm saying it's an impressive stat. I never compared him to anybody. That would be idiotic.

Can you explain what your Weatherspoon example was suppose to get at?
-If you looked at other threads 20-10 has been discussed as that "arbitrary" number for productive pivots. Spoon did it. Ewing did it. So Spoon=Ewing.

I can go 2 ways with this argument but wont until I know what you were trying to prove, if anything it proves WHY statistical analysis is so important.
-Statistical analysis is important when evaluating talent not predicting talent. That's my stance. You can evaluate his season but you can't make predictions on his career.
Whats so maddening about Earl Monroe?


Ok your argument and your supporters arguments seem to differ greatly.
Honestly who is saying that he's up there with MJ and Big O? I certainly didn't.

Because I think 20-5-5 is impressive does not mean that I consider Tyreke to be next great thing. It is a very impressive stat nonetheless. I am saying the stat is what it is. Just like you said there are so many factors than those 3 numbers. Comparing him to MJ or Big O is as stupid as comparing him to Marbury or Francis. Those two guys could have been one of the best ever, and it is definitely not their skill set that prevented them from being great. It is even dumber to compare a rookie stat to two finished washouts.

You can slide the arbitrary numbers up and down all you want. I understand if the number is set like 10ppg and 2agp and 2rpg then we'll have **** ton of people on that list. 20-5-5 is impressive because not that many people did it. Just because you commend it does not mean he's up there with MJ or Big O, and just because you condemn it does not mean he's like Francis or Marbury. You see? I'm agreeing with you, but I'm saying you can't condemn his performance either like the author of that "article" seems to.

Clarence Weatherspoon is the prime example of arbitrary numbers. He did put up 20-10 which seems to be the consensus "arbitrary" number for a productive pivot but that's dumb. Like you said and how I agreed, there's more to a player than a few stats. And Spoon was not even good enough to start.

The author clearly tried to advocate that Evans' #s are not that impressive because Steve Francis did it too. I'm saying that he simply put up 20-5-5 stats and none of us can say he's better than so and so but not better than so and so. I guess you can say that your otherwise well thought out argument was tainted by you using a rather poorly written blog.

This is not a pro vs. con argument and I'm giving my opinion.The article is pure **** that you can do without to convey your thoughts Chronz.

JayAllDay
04-14-2010, 10:40 PM
:facepalm:

You people just aren't getting it...the point of this post is, whats the difference between 20 5 5 and 20 4 6...or 19 6 6?...
- no it's not. The quoted text does not convey that thought at all. That's what the poster (chronz) wanted to say, but the author of the quoted article does not convey that thought one bit.

You can rearrange numbers any way you want to come up with only 4 other players ever reaching the same feat...
- honestly did you read the quoted article? Red94 is not conveying the exact thought as you.

Get it?

1

D1JM
04-14-2010, 11:02 PM
When I say he misses 3-4 apg because of missed shots...i mean that those missed assists should be guaranteed. If the Kings were good he'd be averaging 7,8, apg right now with the way we play. But the Kings can't hit anything so he doesn't get them. Either way, I'm not calling Tyreke one of the most prolific assist men... he isn't Steve Nash or John Stockton, not even close. But he is a good passer, alot better than people give him credit for.

There is not one sane Kings fan who honestly thinks Tyreke is as good as Big O, MJ, and Lebron... Thats the way you are interpreting this whole 20-5-5 thing. The impressive part is that he put up 20-5-5 as a rookie, and pretty much without a reliable jumpshot and without good teammates. Tyreke has potential to be an MVP and top 5 player in this league, but no one is saying he is Lebron.

Bulls fan argue this about rose. He would get at least 4 more assist a game if he had clutch shooters, but that theory gets thrown out the window.

Chronz
04-14-2010, 11:09 PM
Did you read that somewhere or look it up? This was a great post. Personally I'm in love with Tyreke from afar and I'm wondering two things: How could they have possibly played better (statistically) with him on the bench? And what type of player would be ideal for him as a 2nd option? Low post big? Athletic big? Shooting PG?
Its random noise bro, the Kings have used so many different lineups I dont really trust any of them, the standard error for all of them is above 11. It does say he needs to work on a few things but not as bad as it seems.

Chronz
04-14-2010, 11:10 PM
the fact that only four players in league history have averaged 20-5-5 in their rookie season is what is significant here

Why, whats significant about it? Plenty of players have far exceeded 20-5-5, hell 20-4-4 can be better.

D1JM
04-14-2010, 11:14 PM
Why, whats significant about it? Plenty of players have far exceeded 20-5-5, hell 20-4-4 can be better.

cuz lebron has to be included in this phenomenon. If you did 21 5 5 or 21 6 6 lebron is not included

D1JM
04-14-2010, 11:15 PM
stern is all over lebron's balls

Chronz
04-14-2010, 11:19 PM
Ok your argument and your supporters arguments seem to differ greatly.
Honestly who is saying that he's up there with MJ and Big O? I certainly didn't.
Heres my point, as you just admitted, hes part of a club that NOBODY puts him on. Basically eliminating any sort of relevancy to that club. I dont know about you but when I see a player hit a milestone, I want it to mean something and for him to be more than comparable with the players hes joined.


Because I think 20-5-5 is impressive does not mean that I consider Tyreke to be next great thing.
It not any more impressive than 20-4-4 or 19-6-6 or any other arbitrary mark you want to set is what Im saying.


It is a very impressive stat nonetheless. I am saying the stat is what it is. Just like you said there are so many factors than those 3 numbers.
Then why is it so impressive if its not very telling?


Comparing him to MJ or Big O is as stupid as comparing him to Marbury or Francis. Those two guys could have been one of the best ever, and it is definitely not their skill set that prevented them from being great. It is even dumber to compare a rookie stat to two finished washouts.
Not sure what this comment is directed towards.


You can slide the arbitrary numbers up and down all you want. I understand if the number is set like 10ppg and 2agp and 2rpg then we'll have **** ton of people on that list. 20-5-5 is impressive because not that many people did it.
Not many people needed to do it to surpass it.


Just because you commend it does not mean he's up there with MJ or Big O, and just because you condemn it does not mean he's like Francis or Marbury. You see? I'm agreeing with you, but I'm saying you can't condemn his performance either like the author of that "article" seems to.
Hes using an example of people trying to bolster a players value by suggesting hes part of an exclusive club when in reality that exclusive club wasnt very important.


Clarence Weatherspoon is the prime example of arbitrary numbers. He did put up 20-10 which seems to be the consensus "arbitrary" number for a productive pivot but that's dumb.
First of all he never put up 20-10 but yes I agree, thats another idiotic club.


Like you said and how I agreed, there's more to a player than a few stats. And Spoon was not even good enough to start.
Spoons stats were actually better when he wasnt averaging close to 20-10


The author clearly tried to advocate that Evans' #s are not that impressive because Steve Francis did it too. I'm saying that he simply put up 20-5-5 stats and none of us can say he's better than so and so but not better than so and so. I guess you can say that your otherwise well thought out argument was tainted by you using a rather poorly written blog.

This is not a pro vs. con argument and I'm giving my opinion.The article is pure **** that you can do without to convey your thoughts Chronz.

Thats not the message I got from it, but I have been saying this for awhile now, its just this is coming from a source I respect.

Hustla23
04-14-2010, 11:24 PM
Great thread.

Although Reke is a special player, assigning a random benchmark to somehow justify an elite classification is nonsensical.

Chronz
04-14-2010, 11:25 PM
Bulls fan argue this about rose. He would get at least 4 more assist a game if he had clutch shooters, but that theory gets thrown out the window.
Like I told him, thats a low #, if your saying hed average 4 more assists if he had shooters then hes not very good. The top assist men miss out on more than just 4 assists a game.

montazingmvp
04-14-2010, 11:55 PM
1

i was replying to chronz not the article...clearly

Raoul Duke
04-15-2010, 12:16 AM
I completely agree that people are blowing it way out of proportion. I'm too lazy to go back and quote them, but whoever said it's basically a lot of fuss over "a pretty looking number" was dead on.

zn23
12-28-2016, 07:42 PM
Worthy bump

ewing
12-28-2016, 07:47 PM
Awww.... I remember when I told you all that evens sucked


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk