PDA

View Full Version : #6 Center In The NBA? (Volume IV)



Mile High Champ
08-13-2011, 05:44 PM
Hey guys, Some of you may remember that for the last three years I have conducted a poll at the end of the season that had PSD users vote for the top 10 players at each position. Its is now that time to vote! I would like to start this up once more considering the NBA season is now over and we can get to this discussion since lots has changed since the start of last season. Please TRY AND VOTE FOR THE BEST PLAYER AND DON'T BE A HOMER. I will leave the poll open for one day and than we can carry on to the next best player at that position. I will add more players after each round. I have also included the results of those last 2 years so everyone can see how much things have changed...Enjoy.

REMEMBER this is based on who is the best player, not the player who has the potential to be the best.

1) Dwight Howard
2) Andrew Bynum
3) Tim Duncan
4) Andrew Bogut
5) Al Horford
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)



2010 Off-Season C Rankings

1) Dwight Howard
2) Yao Ming
3) Andrew Bogut
4) Brook Lopez
5) Andrew Bynum
6) Marc Gasol
7) Joakim Noah
8) Al Horford
9) Al Jefferson
10) Chris Kaman

2009 Off-Season C Rankings

1) Dwight Howard
2) Yao Ming
3) Al Jefferson
4) Shaquille O'Neal
5) Andrea Bargnani
6) Andris Biedrins
7) Emeka Okafor
8) Nene
9) Brook Lopez
10) Andrew Bynum

2008 Off-Season C Rankings:

1) Dwight Howard
2) Yao Ming
3) Al Jefferson
4) Andrew Bynum
5) Chris Kaman
6) Tyson Chandler
7) Shaquille O'Neal
8) Marcus Camby
9) Jermaine O'neal
10) Andrew Bogut

mdm692
08-13-2011, 05:59 PM
Homer vote :d

RZZZA
08-13-2011, 06:06 PM
DeAndre Jordan, duh.

I don't even know who that is, but I'm voting for him

RZZZA
08-13-2011, 06:33 PM
Go for Tyson Chandler, then Noah.

GoPacers33
08-13-2011, 06:34 PM
Roy Hibbert all day

RZZZA
08-13-2011, 06:34 PM
Tyson Chandler is efficient as hell, he averages a double double.

Noah is less efficient, but averages a double double.

Marc Gasol is just as efficient as Noah, but doesn't average a double double.

Sportfan
08-13-2011, 06:40 PM
Tyson Chandler is efficient as hell, he averages a double double.

Noah is less efficient, but averages a double double.

Marc Gasol is just as efficient as Noah, but doesn't average a double double.
2 foot putbacks doesn't make you an efficient player

Khalifa21
08-13-2011, 06:41 PM
Marc Gasol

RZZZA
08-13-2011, 06:41 PM
2 foot putbacks doesn't make you an efficient player



apparently it does, because he's the most efficient center in the entire NBA. That's gotta count for something.

if Marc Gasol wins this, it will invalidate the entire poll

DR_1
08-13-2011, 06:47 PM
Noah. Nobody comes close at this spot.

Ebbs
08-13-2011, 06:57 PM
Tyson
Marc
Noah

RZZZA
08-13-2011, 07:00 PM
Tyson
Marc
Noah

why do you put Marc ahead of Noah?

Noah has a 19 PER, Marc has a 17 PER
Noah averages 12 and 10, Marc averages 12 and 7

that's on similar playing time. Not to mention Noahs defense

ewmania
08-13-2011, 07:42 PM
i can't believe noah's not up there

people must really hate the bulls lol

Sadds The Gr8
08-13-2011, 07:47 PM
i can't believe noah's not up there

people must really hate the bulls lol

Noah stunk in the playoffs.

RZZZA
08-13-2011, 07:51 PM
i can't believe noah's not up there

people must really hate the bulls lol

oh, definitely. It's the PSD NBA forum



Noah stunk in the playoffs.

people only remembering the last thing they've seen is part of the problem. Thats why you got Marc Gasol being over rated right now, and Noah being under rated. Just compare their stats.

RZZZA
08-13-2011, 07:53 PM
I'm really interested in where Brook Lopez ends up. To me, he's an enigma. He's a good shooter with a PER near 20, but he has a bad reputation. He's bad at rebounding and bad at defense and barely plays like a traditional center.

Chronz
08-13-2011, 08:07 PM
Now its Tysons turn

THE GIPPER
08-13-2011, 08:48 PM
DeAndre Jordan, duh.

I don't even know who that is, but I'm voting for him

DJ is sick. Shouldnt be voted in here but i think he's awesome. He plays for the clippers btw.

gilly
08-13-2011, 11:27 PM
Chandler/Noah/Gasol/Hibbert/Nene round out top 10 imo.

RZZZA
08-13-2011, 11:31 PM
Chandler/Noah/Gasol/Hibbert/Nene round out top 10 imo.


yeah...except Nene ahead of Hibbert imo. Hibbert is far too inefficient, he doesn't belong on a top 10 center list.

I'd put Nene ahead of Marc Gasol too. I have no idea why so many people are voting for Marc Gasol this high up on the list.

Gators123
08-14-2011, 12:01 AM
Chandler

MJ-BULLS
08-14-2011, 12:07 AM
I hate noah, so i voted for him.

TO Rapz
08-14-2011, 12:15 AM
I go Bargnani!

Nah serious **** though, Chandler.

VCaintdead17
08-14-2011, 12:20 AM
Chandler

then Nene, then either Noah or Gasol IMO

NBA-GMaster
08-14-2011, 07:47 AM
Gasol!!

LTBaByyy
08-14-2011, 08:05 AM
The Beast Tyson Chandler!!

DR_1
08-14-2011, 08:27 AM
How are Chandler and Gasol beating Noah? He would have been an All-Syar last year had he been healthy.

SteBO
08-14-2011, 08:34 AM
How are Chandler and Gasol beating Noah? He would have been an All-Syar last year had he been healthy.
It's a "what have you done for me lately" society now. That applies to why Gasol is being valued highly. Chandler has had a big impact on Dallas all throughout the year though, so him being #6 isn't crazy. Noah will definitely be #7 though. His case is very similar to Tyson's, but since Tyson has the ring, he's going to be ranked higher. That's just how it is.

LTBaByyy
08-14-2011, 09:51 AM
Brook Lopez with 0 votes

Thank you!

PacersForLife
08-14-2011, 09:58 AM
yeah...except Nene ahead of Hibbert imo. Hibbert is far too inefficient, he doesn't belong on a top 10 center list.

I'd put Nene ahead of Marc Gasol too. I have no idea why so many people are voting for Marc Gasol this high up on the list.

Hibbert is inconsistent, I'll admit it. I believe that he has proven to be a top ten center though. There aren't too many true centers anymore and Roy Hibbert is a true center. He is 7'2", good low post scorer, decent mid-range shooter, and good shot blocker, not an outstanding rebounder, but better than most of the guys left on the list. I still believe he will become a top 5 center because of his work ethic.

RZZZA
08-14-2011, 11:50 AM
It's a "what have you done for me lately" society now. That applies to why Gasol is being valued highly. Chandler has had a big impact on Dallas all throughout the year though, so him being #6 isn't crazy. Noah will definitely be #7 though. His case is very similar to Tyson's, but since Tyson has the ring, he's going to be ranked higher. That's just how it is.

That's why these top 10 lists have absolutely no validity on this site. Most of the people voting don't check stats and don't really have any insight at all.

What PSD should do is gather 15 to 20 learned people, a few representing every major fanbase on the site, and give only them voting power. That way the top 10 lists will have some legitimacy.

Swashcuff
08-14-2011, 12:04 PM
Tyson Chandler here for me

Swashcuff
08-14-2011, 12:06 PM
That's why these top 10 lists have absolutely no validity on this site. Most of the people voting don't check stats and don't really have any insight at all.

What PSD should do is gather 15 to 20 learned people, a few representing every major fanbase on the site, and give only them voting power. That way the top 10 lists will have some legitimacy.

I fully agree with this. Maybe not 15-20 but I fully agree that the votes of the more reputable posters should be the only only counted in polls such as these. Especially the greatest of all time as well.

I mean we have posters voting with no reasoning other than being a blantant homer. There is one guy who has voted Roy Hibbert since #2 and has said nothing more in the thread than Hibbert's name. These polls lose their validity when posters like that take part. For the most part that is what happens.

RZZZA
08-14-2011, 12:17 PM
yep, and I'd vote you in as one of the 15-20 people Swash. I respect your knowledge.

spurs21
08-14-2011, 12:50 PM
i can't believe jefferson has so little votes imo he's should've been 4th or 5th b/c he has great foot work, strong post game, solid offense, gets a good amount of rebs 9.7 and his defense is just as good as horford. Also he actually played the entire 82 games this season

kozelkid
08-14-2011, 01:17 PM
I gotta go with Tyson here.

I understand that he had the fortune of playing on a team where he fit perfectly, but the guy was a top 5 defensive big this year. I can't say the same for Noah who has been very overrated at that end. Noah has him at rebounds and offense, but Chandler's defensive impact is too much for me to ignore.

Noah is next for me though.

Mile High Champ
08-14-2011, 01:28 PM
Chandler should of been in front of Bogut without question.

Gators123
08-14-2011, 01:38 PM
I fully agree with this. Maybe not 15-20 but I fully agree that the votes of the more reputable posters should be the only only counted in polls such as these. Especially the greatest of all time as well.

I mean we have posters voting with no reasoning other than being a blantant homer. There is one guy who has voted Roy Hibbert since #2 and has said nothing more in the thread than Hibbert's name. These polls lose their validity when posters like that take part. For the most part that is what happens.

Your probably talking about GoPacers33. Hes easily one of the biggest homers on this site.

He thinks the Pacers have 6 future All-Stars, and Paul George will be better than prime T-Mac.

Yankee Clipper
08-14-2011, 02:39 PM
Went with Tyson Chandler. Very solid player in the post that will get you double-double's on a regular basis. Plays solid defense and is a tough player in the post position.

Swashcuff
08-14-2011, 02:42 PM
Your probably talking about GoPacers33. Hes easily one of the biggest homers on this site.

He thinks the Pacers have 6 future All-Stars, and Paul George will be better than prime T-Mac.

Its really sad. All of us have some homer in us but at least some of the more solid posters can put some rational and reasoning behind it.

Know what worst than anything else, he'll never defend himself. He states and leaves the thread and when his opinion is questioned he ignores. He knows his reasoning is based solely on his homerism however.

juno10
08-14-2011, 03:29 PM
why do you put Marc ahead of Noah?

Noah has a 19 PER, Marc has a 17 PER
Noah averages 12 and 10, Marc averages 12 and 7

that's on similar playing time. Not to mention Noahs defense

marc would be a much better scorer if he didn't play with so much ball dominant players gay,mayo,randolph,conley there isn't enough BALL to go around.

Hellcrooner
08-14-2011, 03:43 PM
why do you put Marc ahead of Noah?

Noah has a 19 PER, Marc has a 17 PER
Noah averages 12 and 10, Marc averages 12 and 7

that's on similar playing time. Not to mention Noahs defense

care to look at PLAYOFFS stats'?

I THOUGHT SO.

but of course this list is a joke right after dwigt so whatever.

Hellcrooner
08-14-2011, 03:46 PM
i hope marc has the huevos to walk away from memphis and go somwhere where he can get touches.
It will be intersting to see what happens with the poll the next year in that scenario.

Crackadalic
08-14-2011, 04:00 PM
Wow i only voted once and that was for Dwight. After him is just :sigh:

Redbull
08-14-2011, 04:06 PM
Ill take Marc Gasol here, but you can't go wrong here with Noah, Gasol or Chandler.

Avenged
08-14-2011, 04:07 PM
I like Marc because I feel he has a more complete game than Tyson and Noah.. buuut, I can't ignore Tyson's efficiency so I went with him.

SirDJ
08-14-2011, 04:24 PM
noah
tyson
marc

RZZZA
08-14-2011, 04:28 PM
ahh, marc gasol is actually gonna win this!

le travesti

Sadds The Gr8
08-14-2011, 04:43 PM
how is marc winning a travesty? he's clearly a better 2-way player than Noah and Tyson.

RZZZA
08-14-2011, 04:45 PM
worse PER, worse rebounding, worse efficiency than Tyson, worse defense...

Hellcrooner
08-14-2011, 05:09 PM
worse PER, worse rebounding, worse efficiency than Tyson, worse defense...

1 check playoffs

2 check previous seasons

Swashcuff
08-14-2011, 05:10 PM
worse PER, worse rebounding, worse efficiency than Tyson, worse defense...

Based on production Tyson Chandler IS better than both Gasol and Noah. Based on skill and ability however Marc is better than them both. However we voted Kobe #2 among SGs and that wasn't because of a lack of skill but rather a lack of production. This has held through in basically all the voting thus far. IMO Tyson does deserve to be ahead of Gasol.

RZZZA
08-14-2011, 05:14 PM
1 check playoffs

2 check previous seasons

check playoffs, what? Marc Gasol had one play off run, Noah had 3 and Noah was injured during this last one. Check Noahs first 2 playoff runs where he was healthy.

Swashcuff
08-14-2011, 05:17 PM
1 check playoffs

2 check previous seasons

What about the playoffs and previous seasons?

69centers
08-14-2011, 05:40 PM
Al Jefferson consistently doesn't get the love he deserves.

Jefferson 18.6/9.7 - career 15.9/8.8

The 3 other centers leading him in this poll:

Noah 11.7/10.4 - career 8.5/8.4
Gasol 11.7/7.0 - career 12.6/7.8
Chandler 10.1/9.4 - career 8.3/8.8

This isn't even close in my book. Jefferson nearly doubles the scoring output of both Noah and Chandler.

RZZZA
08-14-2011, 05:44 PM
^ and are you looking just at basic stats or advanced stats too?

whats al jeffersons TS%? It's terrible. Below average.

SteBO
08-14-2011, 05:52 PM
This "living in the moment" mentality has to stop......Can't believe Marc is going to win this.

RZZZA
08-14-2011, 05:53 PM
shut it down Steb0, you have the power! use it for good. nuke this thread like it just invaded pearl harbor.

Swashcuff
08-14-2011, 06:27 PM
It's really a shame that Marc Gasol went over Chandler in all honesty. Gasol had a good 11 games in the post season and has really gotten overrated as a result. I mean IMO down the road he's undoubtedly a top 5 C potential, but based on productivity there's no way he's ahead of Tyson.

ewmania
08-15-2011, 10:36 AM
marc gasol is actually going to beat noah

noah averages a double, passes, gets steals and block shots

are u guys kidding me... Noah has more value to his team than gasol does

Chronz
08-15-2011, 11:42 AM
1 check playoffs

2 check previous seasons

Hello mr inconsistent. So you want everyone to ignore paus pathetic playoff run and focus solely on Marcs.

DR_1
08-15-2011, 01:57 PM
marc gasol is actually going to beat noah

noah averages a double, passes, gets steals and block shots

are u guys kidding me... Noah has more value to his team than gasol does

This!!!

juno10
08-15-2011, 02:35 PM
That's why these top 10 lists have absolutely no validity on this site. Most of the people voting don't check stats and don't really have any insight at all.

What PSD should do is gather 15 to 20 learned people, a few representing every major fanbase on the site, and give only them voting power. That way the top 10 lists will have some legitimacy.

according to these stats lebron is the best player in the league but you don't agree, you only like stats when it paints a picture you want.

i just feel marc is the better basketball player and if he wasn't playing with ball hogs (gay,conley,mayo,randolph) he would have put up better numbers.

Hellcrooner
08-15-2011, 03:47 PM
Hello mr inconsistent. So you want everyone to ignore paus pathetic playoff run and focus solely on Marcs.

you truly hate spaniards dont you?

Hellcrooner
08-15-2011, 03:49 PM
It's really a shame that Marc Gasol went over Chandler in all honesty. Gasol had a good 11 games in the post season and has really gotten overrated as a result. I mean IMO down the road he's undoubtedly a top 5 C potential, but based on productivity there's no way he's ahead of Tyson.

welll is not like people telling he is a top 20 player ever due to a playoff run...

Hellcrooner
08-15-2011, 03:51 PM
marc gasol is actually going to beat noah

noah averages a double, passes, gets steals and block shots

are u guys kidding me... Noah has more value to his team than gasol does

i hope marc gasol gets away from teh memphis ballhogers and see how good they do withouth him.
id really love it too since he needs to go via sign and trade that he is sig and traded for a ballhog center like bynum or jefferson and watch the team explode to the bottom of the league.

RZZZA
08-15-2011, 04:16 PM
according to these stats lebron is the best player in the league but you don't agree, you only like stats when it paints a picture you want.

i just feel marc is the better basketball player and if he wasn't playing with ball hogs (gay,conley,mayo,randolph) he would have put up better numbers.

I understand why people would pick Lebron as the best player in the league, I understand and acknowledge that statistical argument. But on the other hand, I've seen him choke in late game situations in the finals too often.

Marc Gasol has no statistical argument to be ahead of guys like Tyson Chandler, or Noah, I don't even think he should be ahead of a guy like Nene. If you disagree, fine, I'm willing to hear your arguments.

I don't find your "I just feel" argument to be very convincing though.

Bravo95
08-15-2011, 04:51 PM
Nene or Chandler.

VCaintdead17
08-15-2011, 05:04 PM
you truly hate spaniards dont you?

No he just isn't blind to homerism like you.

And it doesn't matter. A fair amount of the voters for Marc have less than 100 posts so their votes don't count anyways.

Chronz
08-15-2011, 06:58 PM
you truly hate spaniards dont you?

Why? Because I think Marc is the 7th or 8th best center instead of the 6th? Thats not hate in my book

Swashcuff
08-15-2011, 07:14 PM
Why? Because I think Marc is the 7th or 8th best center instead of the 6th? Thats not hate in my book

How on EARTH could that be hate? :confused:

smith&wesson
08-15-2011, 07:16 PM
who could ever hate on spaniards ?? we love theyre woman. language, culture and some of them are great basket ball players = )

i joke .. but crons is not a hater.. you know better then to pull that card crooner.

smith&wesson
08-15-2011, 07:20 PM
I like Marc because I feel he has a more complete game than Tyson and Noah.. buuut, I can't ignore Tyson's efficiency so I went with him.

ya i went with chandler too. he just effects the game soo much on the defensive end. i beleive marc will be the better OVERALL player .. but right now i would give chandler the edge because he could arguably be the runner up for mvp on the mavricks ship run.

smith&wesson
08-15-2011, 07:23 PM
i hope marc gasol gets away from teh memphis ballhogers and see how good they do withouth him.
id really love it too since he needs to go via sign and trade that he is sig and traded for a ballhog center like bynum or jefferson and watch the team explode to the bottom of the league.

memphis has good team chemistry.. marc would really shine on a crappy team like the raptors. it kinda goes with out saying cuz most good players would look better on crappier teams due to having more touches, and plays called for the.. any how i do agree with you there.

smith&wesson
08-15-2011, 07:24 PM
honestly how can duncan still be that high on the list at this point of his career?? i know he did pretty well in the reg season but compared to other 5's in theyre primes right now ? really duncan cant be that high can he ?

Ben23noN
08-15-2011, 09:16 PM
IMO that's totally crazy and insane, that both Marc and Tyson are higher, then Noah...
Have you ever seen any Bulls game?

Cal827
08-15-2011, 10:37 PM
People, Stop voting for Bargnani! lol

Anyways all jokes aside, I think Al Jefferson is better than everyone on this list... how can a 20-10 center that's able to block 2 shots per game and play decent defense fall so low on this list... He might be on a subpar team, but still.

69centers
08-17-2011, 12:25 AM
^ and are you looking just at basic stats or advanced stats too?

whats al jeffersons TS%? It's terrible. Below average.

I never use advanced stats. They're absolutely worthless to me.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 01:06 AM
I never use advanced stats. They're absolutely worthless to me.

You think TS% is an advanced stat? Wow.

And why? Are you saying you just use your eyes and that you watch every play of every game of every year? Thats quite impressive. Still, I suppose thats better then using flawed stats. I take it you don't use ANY stats right? Or do you use per game averages? In that case, you can't call yourself an educated NBA fan.

PS- Don't come back to me about how I'm some nerd who never watches games or something like that. I do actually watch games for a living, like literally get paid to watch sports.

MackSnackWrap
08-17-2011, 02:26 AM
Chandler pleaseeee! Then Gasol!

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 08:32 AM
You think TS% is an advanced stat? Wow.

And why? Are you saying you just use your eyes and that you watch every play of every game of every year? Thats quite impressive. Still, I suppose thats better then using flawed stats. I take it you don't use ANY stats right? Or do you use per game averages? In that case, you can't call yourself an educated NBA fan.

PS- Don't come back to me about how I'm some nerd who never watches games or something like that. I do actually watch games for a living, like literally get paid to watch sports.

He may not come back about how you don't watch, he'll say how you never played. :laugh2: :rolleyes:

KnicksR4Real
08-17-2011, 09:12 AM
deandre or joakim

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 09:28 AM
deandre or joakim

Why Jordan ahead of Chandler, Gasol, Jefferson and Nene?

mike_noodles
08-17-2011, 09:37 AM
This poll has 0 integrity with Bynum as #2. :facepalm:

Dude hasn't even put in a 70 game season in his career yet, what a joke.

69centers
08-17-2011, 11:08 AM
You think TS% is an advanced stat? Wow.

And why? Are you saying you just use your eyes and that you watch every play of every game of every year? Thats quite impressive. Still, I suppose thats better then using flawed stats. I take it you don't use ANY stats right? Or do you use per game averages? In that case, you can't call yourself an educated NBA fan.

PS- Don't come back to me about how I'm some nerd who never watches games or something like that. I do actually watch games for a living, like literally get paid to watch sports.

No, you're not a nerd who doesn't watch games, rather a nerd who watches games. :D

OK, show me a video clip of the top TS% plays of the day. :laugh:

If it's not a stat quoted during broadcasts of games, it's an advanced stat. It's not a stat the league measures, cares about, or gives out awards for. It's not mentioned on TV, radio broadcasts, or TV highlights. It's not on the back of trading cards. If you polled 100 NBA fans off the street, you'd be lucky if 4 of them knew what this stat is. Go to NBA.com and check out any players stats. Oh, snap, where is the TS%?? It's only a listed as a stat on sites that list advanced NBA stats. Sorry, the general NBA fan will have absolutely no idea of TS%, and rightly so, as it's useless.

But, wait. Do you wanna know the absolute real reason why the TS% stat is absolutely, utter garbage?? Do you really wanna know. How about this:

During the 1997-98 NBA season, Michael Jordan was 137th on the TS% list. Oh, yah, this stat is valid. :facepalm: During his 1990-91 MVP/NBA Finals MVP season, Jordan was only 28th in the league on the TS% list. Guys like Ed Pinckney, Terry Porter, Tony Dawson, Kevin Gamble, and Michael Williams were all better than Jordan that year in TS%. :cool: Yup, this stat is so valid.

If you watched Al Jefferson play, you'd realize his rebounding and scoring skills outweigh his TS% shortcomings. Sorry you feel that his low TS% makes him less of a player than Gasol and Noah.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 11:23 AM
No, you're not a nerd who doesn't watch games, rather a nerd who watches games. :D

OK, show me a video clip of the top TS% plays of the day. :laugh:

If it's not a stat quoted during broadcasts of games, it's an advanced stat. It's not a stat the league measures, cares about, or gives out awards for. It's not mentioned on TV, radio broadcasts, or TV highlights. It's not on the back of trading cards. If you polled 100 NBA fans off the street, you'd be lucky if 4 of them knew what this stat is. Go to NBA.com and check out any players stats. Oh, snap, where is the TS%?? It's only a listed as a stat on sites that list advanced NBA stats. Sorry, the general NBA fan will have absolutely no idea of TS%, and rightly so, as it's useless.

But, wait. Do you wanna know the absolute real reason why the TS% stat is absolutely, utter garbage?? Do you really wanna know. How about this:

During the 1997-98 NBA season, Michael Jordan was 137th on the TS% list. Oh, yah, this stat is valid. :facepalm: During his 1990-91 MVP/NBA Finals MVP season, Jordan was only 28th in the league on the TS% list. Guys like Ed Pinckney, Terry Porter, Tony Dawson, Kevin Gamble, and Michael Williams were all better than Jordan that year in TS%. :cool: Yup, this stat is so valid.

If you watched Al Jefferson play, you'd realize his rebounding and scoring skills outweigh his TS% shortcomings. Sorry you feel that his low TS% makes him less of a player than Gasol and Noah.

How is it not a stat the league recognizes?

http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/option,com_glossary/Itemid,90/catid,44/func,view/term,NBA%20Teams%20That%20Have%20Analytics%20Depar tment/

18 NBA teams use Advanced Statistics.

If you don't take the time to understand a statistic why are you trying to discredit it? I can clearly tell by your references that you don't understand what TS% and how it works.

By your dumb reason FG% is garbage as well right? Absolute garbage as well right because Hakeem finished 94th in the league that same season in FG%. Where was Michael Jordan? 131st.

But when someone doesn't understand how to value statistics and comprehend that there has to be cut off points those are the kind of lists that you get. Tom Chambers played 1 game that season to lead the league is TS% and FG% if there is not cut off. So all I have to do is take and make 1 FG and make 2-2 Free Throws in my NBA career and I'll have the greatest TS% and FG% of all time right?

You guys are a real classic you know. Know nothing about what you're talking about, don't understand how to use it nor can you understand how to put those statistics into context but then you claim that the stat is garbage.

You know what's garbage blatant ignorance. Something you just displayed by your last post, blatant ignorance and lack of knowledge and understanding of the game of basketball.

Never in your life facepalm a poster of the quality of patsSOXknicks. His knowledge of the game far exceeds damn near anyone on this site and because of him this site has gained a lot of wisdom and reasoning.

You well you're just being ignorant to the facts because you lack the basic ability to comprehend what you see and put it into context.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 11:51 AM
No, you're not a nerd who doesn't watch games, rather a nerd who watches games. :D

OK, show me a video clip of the top TS% plays of the day. :laugh:

Do you even know what TS% is? If you knew what it was, there's no way you'd think its an advanced stat. Here it is: it's a complicated name for points per shot attempt. Yes, thats all it is.

I bet your issue probably has more to do with the name of the stat then anything else.



If it's not a stat quoted during broadcasts of games, it's an advanced stat. It's not a stat the league measures, cares about, or gives out awards for. It's not mentioned on TV, radio broadcasts, or TV highlights. It's not on the back of trading cards. If you polled 100 NBA fans off the street, you'd be lucky if 4 of them knew what this stat is. Go to NBA.com and check out any players stats. Oh, snap, where is the TS%?? It's only a listed as a stat on sites that list advanced NBA stats. Sorry, the general NBA fan will have absolutely no idea of TS%, and rightly so, as it's useless.

Why the heck would you poll 100 fans off the street? Those 100 fans are likely to be idiots. Why not poll 100 people in NBA front offices? Want to know how many of them know what TS% is? ALL of them.

Or how about the fact that over 20 teams have stats guys employed (who use stuff like TS%) on their payroll. Do you think it's more important that random NBA cards, radio broadcasts etc. know what TS% is or the fact that PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE NBA use it.

You really think TEAMS sit there and use NBA.com or trading cards? LOL.

PS- For myself, I'd like to say it (knowledge of APBRmetrics I guess) probably helped me get me a job at ESPN. (90,000 applications a year and I'm one of the 90-100 that got a job) Can you say the same? Oooh snap.



But, wait. Do you wanna know the absolute real reason why the TS% stat is absolutely, utter garbage?? Do you really wanna know. How about this:

During the 1997-98 NBA season, Michael Jordan was 137th on the TS% list. Oh, yah, this stat is valid. :facepalm: During his 1990-91 MVP/NBA Finals MVP season, Jordan was only 28th in the league on the TS% list. Guys like Ed Pinckney, Terry Porter, Tony Dawson, Kevin Gamble, and Michael Williams were all better than Jordan that year in TS%. :cool: Yup, this stat is so valid.

Well, in 91-92, Buck Williams led the league in FG%. Over Michael Jordan. Oh yah, this stat is valid. :facepalm: In 02-03, Eddy Curry led the league in FG%, over Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett. Yup, this stat is so valid.

See what I did there? Do you have a problem with FG%?

OR MAYBE, and just MAYBE, the issue you have is the fact that you have no clue how to USE TS%. No one with a brain is going to tell you that a player who had a higher TS% then another player is better only because of the TS%. It's a complete and utter misuse of the stat. Just like the way I misused FG%.



If you watched Al Jefferson play, you'd realize his rebounding and scoring skills outweigh his TS% shortcomings. Sorry you feel that his low TS% makes him less of a player than Gasol and Noah.

You're a fan of Al Jefferson? Didn't he used to play for the Celtics? Oh, that explains quite a bit.

And I have watched Al Jefferson play. You overrate him. But since I can't use any statistics with you, how about looking at the way NBA teams evaluate Jefferson? He's been traded 2 TIMES already in his young career. Gasol has been traded only 1 time and that was after MANY years. He was in Memphis for much longer than Al was in either Boston or Minny.

If you're referring to Marc, well he was traded for his more talented brother and has remained in Memphis and probably WILL remain in Memphis. Still been traded less than Al.

And Noah doesn't score very much but you're underrating his defense. Have you ever even watched him play? He's pretty good defensively and the Bulls just locked him up longterm, obviously a decent indication they're pleased with him and have no intention of trading him.

Even if you ignore the trade where Al went for KG, what about his trade from Minny? Why was that done?

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 11:54 AM
I never use advanced stats. They're absolutely worthless to me.

So let me explain it in a way you would understand:

Which is the better player, the guy who averages 20 PPG on 15 shots or the guy who averages 20 PPG on 75 shots? Figuratively speaking, Al Jefferson is that second guy. He's wasting a lot of touches on shots he's not converting. a 53% TS% is average for a guard, who tend to take a lot of lower percentage shots. For a center, which tend to take a lot of high percentage shots, 53% TS% is pretty darn bad.

I could average 20 PPG too if you gave me 100 field goal attempts, it doesn't mean I'm a good player.

If I'm missing something here then feel free to correct me

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 11:56 AM
Well, in 91-92, Buck Williams led the league in FG%. Over Michael Jordan. Oh yah, this stat is valid. :facepalm: In 02-03, Eddy Curry led the league in FG%, over Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett. Yup, this stat is so valid.

See what I did there? Do you have a problem with FG%?

He isn't talking about the actually league leaders bro. He's talking about the guys who took a single shot on the season. He isn't talking about the guys who made/attempted enough shots to qualify. He used a tool and did not even understand what he did. He saw the leaders and didn't even put it into context or make sense out of it.

His reasoning is absurd to say the least.

Obviously he's going to have a problem with FG% now however. He's going to say he's not a fan of stats period. Smh.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 12:08 PM
So let me explain it in a way you would understand:

Which is the better player, the guy who averages 20 PPG on 15 shots or the guy who averages 20 PPG on 75 shots? Figuratively speaking, Al Jefferson is that second guy. He's wasting a lot of touches on shots he's not converting. a 53% TS% is average for a guard, who tend to take a lot of lower percentage shots. For a center, which tend to take a lot of high percentage shots, 53% TS% is pretty darn bad.

I could average 20 PPG too if you gave me 100 field goal attempts, it doesn't mean I'm a good player.

If I'm missing something here then feel free to correct me

Thats actually a nice example, although exaggerated by a lot (but sometimes you have to do this to make a point).

And to take it one step further, on the 60 or so shots that Jefferson may have missed, someone else may have been able to make some of those shots and get like 20 points. So thats 20 points lost because Jefferson was taking too many shots.

THE GIPPER
08-17-2011, 12:10 PM
He isn't talking about the actually league leaders bro. He's talking about the guys who took a single shot on the season. He isn't talking about the guys who made/attempted enough shots to qualify. He used a tool and did not even understand what he did. He saw the leaders and didn't even put it into context or make sense out of it.

His reasoning is absurd to say the least.

Obviously he's going to have a problem with FG% now however. He's going to say he's not a fan of stats period. Smh.

You cant win this argument haha

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 12:14 PM
He isn't talking about the actually league leaders bro. He's talking about the guys who took a single shot on the season. He isn't talking about the guys who made/attempted enough shots to qualify. He used a tool and did not even understand what he did. He saw the leaders and didn't even put it into context or make sense out of it.

His reasoning is absurd to say the least.

Obviously he's going to have a problem with FG% now however. He's going to say he's not a fan of stats period. Smh.

Well, thats at least better then being a fan of some stats but not others (basically a hypocrite). But you'll never be able to win a debate by just saying "Oh, I watch so and so play, so he's better". Well I could also counter and say the same thing. It'd be an endless cycle with no basis.

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 12:17 PM
I'm surprised to learn that ONLY 18 NBA teams use advanced statistics. I'd think all of them would...

69centers
08-17-2011, 12:19 PM
How is it not a stat the league recognizes?

http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/option,com_glossary/Itemid,90/catid,44/func,view/term,NBA%20Teams%20That%20Have%20Analytics%20Depar tment/

18 NBA teams use Advanced Statistics.


There's a reason it's on nbastuffer.com and not nba.com. While team execs may look at it further depth to analyze potential players they may pay millions of dollars to, no one else cares, including the majority of nba fans. You cannot ever dispute the fact that more people could care less about TS% than those who do.


Never in your life facepalm a poster of the quality of patsSOXknicks.

As long as it's a usable smiley on PSD, I'll use it when I want. You've got a lot of nerve saying otherwise.


Why the heck would you poll 100 fans off the street? Those 100 fans are likely to be idiots. Why not poll 100 people in NBA front offices? Want to know how many of them know what TS% is? ALL of them.

Because the casual fans greatly outnumber any front office execs, internet compiling geeks, or PSD users. It's the majority. Would you poll CD buyers about the best music or the music execs behind the making of the CDs?


For myself, I'd like to say it (knowledge of APBRmetrics I guess) probably helped me get me a job at ESPN. (90,000 applications a year and I'm one of the 90-100 that got a job) Can you say the same? Oooh snap.

Right, because every NBA analyst knows what they're talking about at ESPN (not targeting you specifically). That's why 10 out of 10 of them picked the Lakers over the Celtics in 07/08 Finals. If you worked there, then maybe you know the answer as to why the next day, suddenly one of them changed their pick to the Celtics? Maybe an exec there said we'll look bad if the Celtics win without at least one of our staff picking them. Well, 9 out of 10 wrong is still bad.

That's fine if you want to number crunch things like TS% and get paid to do it, but the majority of people do not care about it.



Well, in 91-92, Buck Williams led the league in FG%. Over Michael Jordan. Oh yah, this stat is valid. :facepalm: In 02-03, Eddy Curry led the league in FG%, over Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett. Yup, this stat is so valid.

The person I was commenting on never said FG%, but said Al Jefferson wasn't as good as the other choices due to his low TS%.

See what I did there? Do you have a problem with FG%?

While I hold it in higher regard than TS%, it isn't a tell all stat. More telling are when the shots are made (4th quarter, game winners) which are not a part of any stat. A guy can go 0/10 in the first half, then go 10/10 in the 2nd half, but only end up with .500 FG% at the end of the game, however he helped his team win, so his FG% of .500 is actually better than any players in the game who had a better FG%. Case and point where these stats can be broken down and proved flawed. You can't ever overlook a 20 point rebound game, ever. There's nothing you can ever say negative about it. However, things like FG%, TS%, and all of the less prominent stats (ie, not rebounds, points, assists) can be picked apart very easily.



So let me explain it in a way you would understand:

Which is the better player, the guy who averages 20 PPG on 15 shots or the guy who averages 20 PPG on 75 shots? Figuratively speaking, Al Jefferson is that second guy. He's wasting a lot of touches on shots he's not converting. a 53% TS% is average for a guard, who tend to take a lot of lower percentage shots. For a center, which tend to take a lot of high percentage shots, 53% TS% is pretty darn bad.

I could average 20 PPG too if you gave me 100 field goal attempts, it doesn't mean I'm a good player.

Unfortunately it does. Averaging 20PPG in this league or 10RPG in this league is a measuring stick. It doesn't matter how you do it, the fact you do it makes you a stronger player in the league than the next guy. It's sort of like the strikeout stat in baseball. It's always overlooked for the big HR hitters. Well, FG% and TS% can be overlooked if a player is still averaging enough of the main stats. It's like you can't fault Jordan for his high scoring games, even though he may have taken a ton of shots to get there. If you're breaking it down like that, you're over thinking the game. You can say all you want about the guy who strikes out a ton, but at the end of the day, the fans, awards, and recognition are still going to the guy who hits the most homers. The people who pick him apart for other stats not being great are in the minority and rarely get heard.


He isn't talking about the actually league leaders bro. He's talking about the guys who took a single shot on the season.

You're absolutely wrong, bro. Actually, I eliminated every player who only played in a small amount of games, used only guys who had played in nearly a full season's games, and also used only forwards and guards as to not taint things with using centers who usually have a higher TS and FG%'s.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 12:23 PM
I'm surprised to learn that ONLY 18 NBA teams use advanced statistics. I'd think all of them would...

I think that number is higher but the site hasn't been updated.

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 12:25 PM
Well, thats at least better then being a fan of some stats but not others (basically a hypocrite). But you'll never be able to win a debate by just saying "Oh, I watch so and so play, so he's better". Well I could also counter and say the same thing. It'd be an endless cycle with no basis.

that's basically how people argue on this site, there's maybe 10 people on this forum who have any idea of what they're talking about, and can prove the things they say.

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 12:27 PM
Unfortunately it does. Averaging 20PPG in this league or 10RPG in this league is a measuring stick. It doesn't matter how you do it, the fact you do it makes you a stronger player in the league than the next guy. It's sort of like the strikeout stat in baseball. It's always overlooked for the big HR hitters. Well, FG% and TS% can be overlooked if a player is still averaging enough of the main stats. It's like you can't fault Jordan for his high scoring games, even though he may have taken a ton of shots to get there. If you're breaking it down like that, you're over thinking the game. You can say all you want about the guy who strikes out a ton, but at the end of the day, the fans, awards, and recognition are still going to the guy who hits the most homers. The people who pick him apart for other stats not being great are in the minority and rarely get heard.

Inefficiency is not overlooked by anyone who knows anything. The fact you think a player who averages 20 PPG on 100 FGA's is a good player is mind boggling to me.


Baseball is no different, they have different stats to measure efficiency, they have batting average. A player who averages .150 batting average for the season is an inefficient player who's not very good, at least offensively.

Chronz
08-17-2011, 12:38 PM
LOL 69 centers has been informed, he will rinse and repeat his same flawed argument, you guys are wasting your time with him.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 12:40 PM
There's a reason it's on nbastuffer.com and not nba.com. While team execs may look at it further depth to analyze potential players they may pay millions of dollars to, no one else cares, including the majority of nba fans. You cannot ever dispute the fact that more people could care less about TS% than those who do.

Is anyone reading this garbage?

So only the stats on NBA.com matter then? That's what you are trying to tell me? Well then why not use their efficiency formula. NBA.com only use those stats but that does not mean its not universally accepted. Tell me something have you ever read one of their player rankings? Well TS% is often used in that.

The is the biggest load of crap I've read in my entire life. So you are going to ask casual fans who don't have a true appreciation and understand for the game of basketball like yourself right. Because a bunch of people who don't know anything agrees on something that makes it right? That makes it STUPID. Be a leader not a follower child.


You're absolutely wrong, bro. Actually, I eliminated every player who only played in a small amount of games, used only guys who had played in nearly a full season's games, and also used only forwards and guards as to not taint things with using centers who usually have a higher TS and FG%'s.

Really?

Could you kindly link me with this please. I know for a FACT that it is a LIE but I'll entertain this lie. Please give me some evidence. If you want my evidence of your lie here it is.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=combined&type=advanced&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=1998&year_max=1998&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=fg_pct&order_by_asc=&offset=100

Chronz
08-17-2011, 12:44 PM
LOL thats my favorite line from 69, If its not on the back of a basketball card and if your average joe blow doesnt know about it then it cant be relevant. Obviously when it comes to stats, what statisticians think doesnt matter. Only the ignorant command respect.


I'm surprised to learn that ONLY 18 NBA teams use advanced statistics. I'd think all of them would...
Its growing every year but some teams are just idiotic. Take my Clippers for example, under the reign of Dumbleavy he would often cite the fact that if you account for Tim Thomas 3pt shooting hes actually an efficient shooter that shoots 50% "who wouldnt want a 50% shooter" and to his credit hes right, unfortunately he doesnt account for the 3pt shooting of everyone else and makes TT out to be better than he really is.

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 01:01 PM
basketball reference is kind of a difficult site to navigate...

If I wanted to find out what the league average TS% amongst only PF's for example, or the league average eFg% amongst only point guards for example, how would I go about finding something like that out?

69centers
08-17-2011, 01:04 PM
The is the biggest load of crap I've read in my entire life. So you are going to ask casual fans who don't have a true appreciation and understand for the game of basketball like yourself right. Because a bunch of people who don't know anything agrees on something that makes it right? That makes it STUPID. Be a leader not a follower child.

You missed my point. It's the casual fans that outweigh you and the NBA execs. In not just basketball, everything is measured by the casual fan. EVERYTHING. Movies are regarded more by ticket sales than by what Siskel and Ebert have to pick apart in the film. Music is measured by the fans who buy it, not by the critics, and it's the same here. If you are going to find out who cares the most about something in the NBA, you would poll the majority, which is the casual NBA fan.

The casual NBA fan, the basketball card collector >>>>> team execs, advanced stat crunchers, ESPN analysts, and PSD stat throwers.

This is fact. You can take 20 pages of PSD and still not be able to prove otherwise. You are in the minority. Why would anyone take your word for it or care about your advanced stats? The majority DO NOT.


Could you kindly link me with this please. I know for a FACT that it is a LIE but I'll entertain this lie. Please give me some evidence. If you want my evidence of your lie here it is.

Calling me a liar? That just got you on my ignore list now. Here's proof that you just slandered me:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1991_advanced_stats.html

Click on TS%, and it ranks it by that. If you notice, all the names I mentioned in my other post played between 70-81 games that year. No wait, I did mention Tony Dawson, and I must have saw his stat wrong, because he didn't play a full year. Sorry, I goofed on that one. But Ed Pinckney (70 games), Terry Porter (81 games), Kevin Gamble (82 games), and Michael Williams (73 games) are all valid. They are all forwards and guards. Notice how I left off guys like Buck Williams, Parish, and Mark West because they are centers. Notice how I left off all the other no names who only played a handful of games (except Dawson).


LOL thats my favorite line from 69, If its not on the back of a basketball card and if your average joe blow doesnt know about it then it cant be relevant.

It's a good thing the basketball card collecting fans far outnumber the Chronz's of the world. You'll just never get this reference, will you. :pity:

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 01:08 PM
There's a reason it's on nbastuffer.com and not nba.com. While team execs may look at it further depth to analyze potential players they may pay millions of dollars to, no one else cares, including the majority of nba fans. You cannot ever dispute the fact that more people could care less about TS% than those who do.

Isn't that more important than a bunch of fans opinions? Or are you basically saying that fans opinions are more important than people who work in the NBA?

Why should how many people care about TS% matter? The TRUE fans of the game will care about in depth analysis like that. Heck, I would be willing to bet that most TRUE fans would love to work for/in the NBA. And its much easier to eventually get a job if you understand stats like this.



Because the casual fans greatly outnumber any front office execs, internet compiling geeks, or PSD users. It's the majority. Would you poll CD buyers about the best music or the music execs behind the making of the CDs?

Poor comparison. The music execs are obviously trying to cater to their customer, it's what they'd get paid to do. NBA teams are trying to win, not cater to the fans. If they were trying to cater to the fans, they'd keep their most popular players and never let them go. So what do you prefer, a team that caters to its fans (and the majority) or a team thats interested in winning?

You think the majority is always right correct? Well, another analogy, in the 1300s, the majority of people thought the world was flat. Did that make them all right?

Another example, for a long time, the majority thought that the Sun orbited the earth. Did that make all of them right?



Right, because every NBA analyst knows what they're talking about at ESPN (not targeting you specifically). That's why 10 out of 10 of them picked the Lakers over the Celtics in 07/08 Finals. If you worked there, then maybe you know the answer as to why the next day, suddenly one of them changed their pick to the Celtics? Maybe an exec there said we'll look bad if the Celtics win without at least one of our staff picking them. Well, 9 out of 10 wrong is still bad.

That's fine if you want to number crunch things like TS% and get paid to do it, but the majority of people do not care about it.

Now it seems you don't understand a large corporation either. Not sure where I said people at ESPN were all knowing or even half knowing but I will say that a lot of people there have worked in the industry, whether it be players, former coaches, etc. Of course, that doesn't necessarily make them any more right then anyone else. But if people were able to predict the future, there'd be a lot of unemployed people.

BTW, the large majority of fans thought the Lakers would beat the Pistons in 03-04. What happened there? Majority was wrong. So I'm not seeing how majority is always right vs. people who are in the industry like execs. To be honest, both are wrong a lot of the time. But I would say the execs are wrong less.

And who said I crunch numbers like TS%? I already said I get paid to watch sports.



While I hold it in higher regard than TS%, it isn't a tell all stat. More telling are when the shots are made (4th quarter, game winners) which are not a part of any stat. A guy can go 0/10 in the first half, then go 10/10 in the 2nd half, but only end up with .500 FG% at the end of the game, however he helped his team win, so his FG% of .500 is actually better than any players in the game who had a better FG%. Case and point where these stats can be broken down and proved flawed. You can't ever overlook a 20 point rebound game, ever. There's nothing you can ever say negative about it. However, things like FG%, TS%, and all of the less prominent stats (ie, not rebounds, points, assists) can be picked apart very easily.

Who said TS% was a tell all stat? And why do you hold FG% in higher regard? Care to explain to me how someone who had 10 points on 5-10 shooting is better then someone who had 15 points on 5-10 shooting? (Well thats actually eFG% but TS% takes it a step further and includes free throws).

But I'll ask again, do you know how TS% is calculated? If not, then how can you claim to know whether its a good stat or not? It's like me claiming that golf is a very easy sport to play without ever having played it. Could I make that claim without sounding like a fool? Of course not.

FYI, again TS% is simply points per shot attempt. 2 free throws are basically counted as 1 shot attempt since you were attacking the basket but got fouled and get a chance to get points.

And yes, obviously all stats can be picked apart rather easily. But so can points/points per game, which you seem to think can't be.

But how about this situation, a guy takes all of his team A's shot attempts and goes 20-80 and the team A scores 50 points. The other team B passes the ball more, distributes the scoring more and they end up scoring 80 points. One guy who led the team B had 40 points but was 20-40. Who had the better game? The guy on team A scored more points and his ppg would be better then the guy on team B. But the guy on team B passed it more obviously and his team won.

See the problem with only looking at ppg or total points? I could do this for rebounds and assists too. Every stat has its flaws but the advanced ones are improvements on the current ones.



Unfortunately it does. Averaging 20PPG in this league or 10RPG in this league is a measuring stick. It doesn't matter how you do it, the fact you do it makes you a stronger player in the league than the next guy. It's sort of like the strikeout stat in baseball. It's always overlooked for the big HR hitters. Well, FG% and TS% can be overlooked if a player is still averaging enough of the main stats. It's like you can't fault Jordan for his high scoring games, even though he may have taken a ton of shots to get there. If you're breaking it down like that, you're over thinking the game. You can say all you want about the guy who strikes out a ton, but at the end of the day, the fans, awards, and recognition are still going to the guy who hits the most homers. The people who pick him apart for other stats not being great are in the minority and rarely get heard.

So the guy that contributes more to winning is irrelevant? Thats the idea of the "over thinking the game". And REAL fans love to over think the game. They love to just spend endless hours thinking about who's better then who and how that player helps a team win etc. More likely those guys end up getting jobs in the NBA vs. someone who's a casual fan who doesn't care.

And you're still misinterpreting TS%, FG%, etc. Guys who take lots of shots are valuable. Jordan's team obviously won a lot. But how about guys like Monta Ellis? Obviously having higher points per game averages then guys like KG, Pierce etc. but does that make him better? Does that mean he helps his team win more? No.



You're absolutely wrong, bro. Actually, I eliminated every player who only played in a small amount of games, used only guys who had played in nearly a full season's games, and also used only forwards and guards as to not taint things with using centers who usually have a higher TS and FG%'s.

Thats why TS% isn't used to determine who the best players are. No one said it is.

69centers
08-17-2011, 01:11 PM
Inefficiency is not overlooked by anyone who knows anything. The fact you think a player who averages 20 PPG on 100 FGA's is a good player is mind boggling to me.

Baseball is no different, they have different stats to measure efficiency, they have batting average. A player who averages .150 batting average for the season is an inefficient player who's not very good, at least offensively.

If the guy who went 20/100 wins game 7 of a playoff series with a game winning shot, no one cares about the FG% for that game.

In baseball, they don't take away your home run title if you bat .266 and rank 32nd in BA that year. Nor are you not considered a good hitter for it. Analysts can pick it apart and say his batting average is low, but for most fans, if they see him hit 48 homers out of the park, that's enough for them.

69centers
08-17-2011, 01:15 PM
Isn't that more important than a bunch of fans opinions? Or are you basically saying that fans opinions are more important than people who work in the NBA?

It's exactly what I am saying. They are the majority and they win out. All the time. Movies, sports, music, everyday life. As much as you want the people who work in the NBA to be the top dogs and everything they do be the complete and total way of life, it's not and never will be. Ignoring the casual fan is the worst thing you can do. It's why if you got paid to be a sports broadcaster, and you started bringing up TS% on the air, you'd get fired, plain and simple. No one (or should I say the majority) wants to hear about it.


And who said I crunch numbers like TS%?

That's funny, because one click to your blog shows a page about WS, which is even worse than TS%.

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 01:16 PM
You missed my point. It's the casual fans that outweigh you and the NBA execs. In not just basketball, everything is measured by the casual fan. EVERYTHING. Movies are regarded more by ticket sales than by what Siskel and Ebert have to pick apart in the film. Music is measured by the fans who buy it, not by the critics, and it's the same here. If you are going to find out who cares the most about something in the NBA, you would poll the majority, which is the casual NBA fan.

I've never seen a bigger case of appeal to majority in my life, it's a logical fallacy bro. Do you know what that is? a flaw in reasoning.

There's a reason the founding fathers wanted a republic instead of a direct democracy, for example. Because they knew that the common man is an imbecile who couldn't be relied upon to make the right decisions most of the time. That's why we vote on people to represent us in government, the idea being that we'd vote for the best and brightest in our society to make decisions for us.

According to polls, most of America believes angels are a real thing, so what? Does that make them right?

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 01:20 PM
LOL 69 centers has been informed, he will rinse and repeat his same flawed argument, you guys are wasting your time with him.

lol good point

69centers
08-17-2011, 01:20 PM
I've never seen a bigger case of appeal to majority in my life, it's a logical fallacy bro. Do you know what that is? a flaw in reasoning.

There's a reason the founding fathers wanted a republic instead of a direct democracy, for example. Because they knew that the common man is an imbecile who couldn't be relied upon to make the right decisions most of the time. That's why we vote on people to represent us in government, the idea being that we'd vote for the best and brightest in our society to make decisions for us.

According to polls, most of America believes angels are a real thing, so what? Does that make them right?

Well now, I didn't say the majority or casual fan were always right. However, no one will ever be able to push advanced stats into the mainstream and expect them to ever be digested or ever accepted.

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 01:23 PM
Well now, I didn't say the majority or casual fan were always right. However, no one will ever be able to push advanced stats into the mainstream and expect them to ever be digested or ever accepted.

Because they have to cater to the lowest common denominator, that's not a good thing, it's a bad thing that most people are dumb and can't understand things.


If the guy who went 20/100 wins game 7 of a playoff series with a game winning shot, no one cares about the FG% for that game.

a guy who's that inefficient would never make it to the playoffs because he'd be wasting most of his teams possessions on shots he was missing. There's only so many field goal attempts to go around for a team in a 48 minute game, if one player is wasting that many shots, it's putting his team in a position to lose...not win.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 01:24 PM
basketball reference is kind of a difficult site to navigate...

If I wanted to find out what the league average TS% amongst only PF's for example, or the league average eFg% amongst only point guards for example, how would I go about finding something like that out?

You'd have to sort by guards or forwards and then maybe change the height to take into account that PGs are smaller. Doesn't work too well though. Just use hoopdata. You can sort by position there.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 01:26 PM
You missed my point. It's the casual fans that outweigh you and the NBA execs. In not just basketball, everything is measured by the casual fan. EVERYTHING. Movies are regarded more by ticket sales than by what Siskel and Ebert have to pick apart in the film. Music is measured by the fans who buy it, not by the critics, and it's the same here. If you are going to find out who cares the most about something in the NBA, you would poll the majority, which is the casual NBA fan.

The casual NBA fan, the basketball card collector >>>>> team execs, advanced stat crunchers, ESPN analysts, and PSD stat throwers.

This is fact. You can take 20 pages of PSD and still not be able to prove otherwise. You are in the minority. Why would anyone take your word for it or care about your advanced stats? The majority DO NOT.

So then because there are more that means they are better?

Let me tell you something. Quality, wisdom and understanding outweighs stupidity. What you are spewing is stupidity. The majority does not rule. The minority are those who make it to the league, the majority are those who sit watch and wish they could have been part of that select few.


Calling me a liar? That just got you on my ignore list now. Here's proof that you just slandered me:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1991_advanced_stats.html

Click on TS%, and it ranks it by that. If you notice, all the names I mentioned in my other post played between 70-81 games that year. No wait, I did mention Tony Dawson, and I must have saw his stat wrong, because he didn't play a full year. Sorry, I goofed on that one. But Ed Pinckney (70 games), Terry Porter (81 games), Kevin Gamble (82 games), and Michael Williams (73 games) are all valid. They are all forwards and guards. Notice how I left off guys like Buck Williams, Parish, and Mark West because they are centers. Notice how I left off all the other no names who only played a handful of games (except Dawson).

Again you are a liar.

You said MJ ranked 137th in the league in TS% in 97-98 then you said you excluded the Bigs. Now you are trying to use 90-91? What are you talking about?

MJ also ranked 131st in the league in FG% that year. Tell me is that a garbage stat too? NBA.com uses it.

Hear what you stay ignorant and remain part of the majority. I will be the smart minority. I feel comfortable being a knowledgeable leader who keeps and open mind you stay being ignorant with the majority.

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 01:27 PM
You'd have to sort by guards or forwards and then maybe change the height to take into account that PGs are smaller. Doesn't work too well though. Just use hoopdata. You can sort by position there.

ahh, thanks. yeah that works really well.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 01:29 PM
In baseball, they don't take away your home run title if you bat .266 and rank 32nd in BA that year. Nor are you not considered a good hitter for it. Analysts can pick it apart and say his batting average is low, but for most fans, if they see him hit 48 homers out of the park, that's enough for them.

Are you a Red Sox fan? Because if you are, I've never seen you post in that forum or the MLB forum for that matter. I can understand why though, you'd get eaten alive in there.


It's exactly what I am saying. They are the majority and they win out. All the time. Movies, sports, music, everyday life. As much as you want the people who work in the NBA to be the top dogs and everything they do be the complete and total way of life, it's not and never will be. Ignoring the casual fan is the worst thing you can do. It's why if you got paid to be a sports broadcaster, and you started bringing up TS% on the air, you'd get fired, plain and simple. No one (or should I say the majority) wants to hear about it.

Jeff Van Gundy has brought up TS% (or its simpler form) a number of times on broadcasts. Has he been fired?

You're getting away from the point of an execs job. Is it to please the fans or is it to have his team win? If it's to please the fans, then your logic is correct. If its to win (which pleases the fans too), then you're wrong.

Also, for a long time, people believe the world was flat. Were they correct? They were the majority. And the people who said the world wasn't flat were laughed at. Who was ultimately correct? And whats the thinking now? The people who were in the MINORITY won that argument.



That's funny, because one click to your blog shows a page about WS, which is even worse than TS%.

Uh, I said I don't get paid to calculate TS%. I never said that I don't like to do that kind of stuff. For my job, I get paid to watch sports.

69centers
08-17-2011, 01:29 PM
Because they have to cater to the lowest common denominator, that's not a good thing, it's a bad thing that most people are dumb and can't understand things.

So you are basically saying all casual NBA fans who do not care about advanced stats are dumb and the "lowest common denominator". Wow. How bogus is this. :facepalm:

Whether anyone in here agrees with me or not, whether I prove that advanced stats are flawed or not, or regardless of whatever I write here, my point has already been proven victorious. There are no advanced stats on the news, broadcasts, back of sports cards, or talked about in post game interviews. They have not and never will be accepted by the majority of NBA observers. The stat crunchers, execs, and PSD advanced stat users will always be the minority. Go ahead, try and prove you're not. The day Kobe says in a post game interview that he didn't like his TS% that night, you can come back in here and claim victory. Other than that, I'll be lighting up a Red victory cigar night after night after night.

69centers
08-17-2011, 01:36 PM
Are you a Red Sox fan? Because if you are, I've never seen you post in that forum or the MLB forum for that matter. I can understand why though, you'd get eaten alive in there.

I know, because baseball advanced stats are sooooo accurate, just as NBA advanced stats. After all, Howard is only the 7th best player on the Phillies. :nod:

Stupid advanced baseball stats link (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/15/ryan-howard-the-phillies-seventh-best-player)

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 01:37 PM
basketball reference is kind of a difficult site to navigate...

If I wanted to find out what the league average TS% amongst only PF's for example, or the league average eFg% amongst only point guards for example, how would I go about finding something like that out?

http://www.hoopdata.com/advancedstats.aspx?team=%&type=pg&posi=PF&yr=2011&gp=0&mins=0

http://www.hoopdata.com/scoringstats.aspx?team=%&type=pg&posi=PG&yr=2011&gp=0&mins=0

Basketball Reference makes it near impossible to find that out because of the fact that they don't differentiate between PGs/SGs or SFs/PFs they just group them by Gs and Fs. If you use height you'll have LeBron, Melo, Gallo, Turk etc among the PFs since guys like Elton Brand, Boris Diaw, Craig Smith, Joey Dorsey etc are 6'8 or there about as well.

Hoopdata is better for searches such as that.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 01:38 PM
Well now, I didn't say the majority or casual fan were always right. However, no one will ever be able to push advanced stats into the mainstream and expect them to ever be digested or ever accepted.

Kind of like OBP and SLG? Oh wait, that shows up everywhere now.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 01:40 PM
I know, because baseball advanced stats are sooooo accurate, just as NBA advanced stats. After all, Howard is only the 7th best player on the Phillies. :nod:

Stupid advanced baseball stats link (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/15/ryan-howard-the-phillies-seventh-best-player)

You didn't answer my question.

But yeah, take that to the Philles/MLB forum and argue with some of them about Howard's value. I'll give it about 5 mins before you leave their forum because you were owned.

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 01:41 PM
So you are basically saying all casual NBA fans who do not care about advanced stats are dumb and the "lowest common denominator". Wow. How bogus is this. :facepalm:

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. People who know less...wait for it....know less.

69centers
08-17-2011, 01:45 PM
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. People who know less...wait for it....know less.

You couldn't possibly know how much info the casual fan knows. You can't automatically assume they know nothing because they ignore other stats.

@patssoxknicks
OBP and SLG are commonly used stats now, they are not considered advanced. Sabermetrics are advanced stats.

RZZZA
08-17-2011, 01:49 PM
I see a lot of casual fans on this forum, most of them don't know their *** from their elbow. Like I said, there's maybe 10 people on this forum who I consider actually...smart.

Listen to Swashcuff, to Chronz, and to PatsSOXknicks...they know what they're talking about.

Chronz
08-17-2011, 01:50 PM
It's a good thing the basketball card collecting fans far outnumber the Chronz's of the world. You'll just never get this reference, will you. :pity:

I could care less what the ignorant think. When it comes to STATS, the statisticians are gods compared to you. Just because the ants outnumber the gods doesnt make them more credible.

Put it this way, regular people outnumber specialist in ANY field, that doesnt mean youd rather go to Joe Blow than a mechanic when it comes to fixing your car.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 01:54 PM
You couldn't possibly know how much info the casual fan knows. You can't automatically assume they know nothing because they ignore other stats.

@patssoxknicks
OBP and SLG are commonly used stats now, they are not considered advanced. Sabermetrics are advanced stats.

OBP and SLG WERE sabermetric stats. In the 60s, 70s, etc., no one used OBP or SLG. Now they are commonly used. I suggest you read up about Bill James, Moneyball, etc.

In the 80s/90s, OBP and SLG were considered advanced stats. OBP and SLG had a lot of resistance initially, now they are as you said commonly used stats.

I'm sure the same will happen to stats like TS% and eFG% because like OBP and SLG, they are very easy to understand, unless you're seriously lacking in brain power.

Chronz
08-17-2011, 01:55 PM
To be honest Id rather APBR stay underground, I actually enjoy being one of the enlightened few

69centers
08-17-2011, 01:57 PM
I could care less what the ignorant think. When it comes to STATS, the statisticians are gods compared to you. Just because the ants outnumber the gods doesnt make them more credible.

No, not always more credible, but more acceptable. Business fail because they don't cater to the majority of the potential market. Whether you believe they are ignorant or not, you can't ignore them when they outnumber you. You also can't automatically assume you're right because you're in the cool little clique. "Yes, we are dominant because we are far more intellectual because we pick apart the game." Yes, that works every time.


Put it this way, regular people outnumber specialist in ANY field, that doesnt mean youd rather go to Joe Blow than a mechanic when it comes to fixing your car.

And yes, I would come to PSD, go to patssoxknicks blog, and check advanced statistics web site everyday if I cared about that. But my point is more people check the normal stats than the advanced ones.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 01:59 PM
To be honest Id rather APBR stay underground, I actually enjoy being one of the enlightened few

I think it probably will. But I could see stats like TS%, eFG%, Ast%, etc. going the way of OBP. I'm not even sure that those should be considered advanced stats anyways.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 02:01 PM
No, not always more credible, but more acceptable. Business fail because they don't cater to the majority of the potential market. Whether you believe they are ignorant or not, you can't ignore them when they outnumber you. You also can't automatically assume you're right because you're in the cool little clique. "Yes, we are dominant because we are far more intellectual because we pick apart the game." Yes, that works every time.



And yes, I would come to PSD, go to patssoxknicks blog, and check advanced statistics web site everyday if I cared about that. But my point is more people check the normal stats than the advanced ones.

The normal stats ranks Jordan horribly in FG% (131st in 97-98 according to your logic) is Jordan THAT bad of a shooter?

also if you were ailing from a severe sickness who would you go to the local mall and ask random strangers to help you get better or to the professionals in the field of medicine?

69centers
08-17-2011, 02:01 PM
OBP and SLG WERE sabermetric stats. In the 60s, 70s, etc., no one used OBP or SLG. Now they are commonly used. I suggest you read up about Bill James, Moneyball, etc.

In the 80s/90s, OBP and SLG were considered advanced stats. OBP and SLG had a lot of resistance initially, now they are as you said commonly used stats.

I'm sure the same will happen to stats like TS% and eFG% because like OBP and SLG, they are very easy to understand, unless you're seriously lacking in brain power.

Not exactly the same path here. You're comparing 40 years later. Everything advances, and they find sound new methods to calculate new things. My argument is OBP and SLG, while initially advanced, were sound enough to become generally accepted. I don't believe any current sabermetrics will be commonplace 10, 20, or 30 years from now, as I don't believe some of these basketball stats will be either. Win shares is prime example. There are too many opponents of it. No one disputes OBP and SLG, however the amount of people who hate and don't care about Bill James is astronomical.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 02:05 PM
No, not always more credible, but more acceptable. Business fail because they don't cater to the majority of the potential market. Whether you believe they are ignorant or not, you can't ignore them when they outnumber you. You also can't automatically assume you're right because you're in the cool little clique. "Yes, we are dominant because we are far more intellectual because we pick apart the game." Yes, that works every time.

Again, whats the point of an NBA team? To win or to cater to the majority?



And yes, I would come to PSD, go to patssoxknicks blog, and check advanced statistics web site everyday if I cared about that. But my point is more people check the normal stats than the advanced ones.

My blog is nowhere to go to check out advanced stats. Don't know why you keep bringing it up either. I haven't posted anything on it since I got my new job and if hopefully things go well, won't be posting on it anymore.

Why does that matter? Basically all you're saying is majority rules right? Is that your philosophy towards everything in life? You probably won't get anywhere with that. Always better to lead then to be a follower.

Swashcuff
08-17-2011, 02:08 PM
Not exactly the same path here. You're comparing 40 years later. Everything advances, and they find sound new methods to calculate new things. My argument is OBP and SLG, while initially advanced, were sound enough to become generally accepted. I don't believe any current sabermetrics will be commonplace 10, 20, or 30 years from now, as I don't believe some of these basketball stats will be either. Win shares is prime example. There are too many opponents of it. No one disputes OBP and SLG, however the amount of people who hate and don't care about Bill James is astronomical.

So if 10 years from now other sabermetrics become generally accepted and start showing up on MLB.com would you then start to accept them too?

69centers
08-17-2011, 02:09 PM
Again, whats the point of an NBA team? To win or to cater to the majority?

My blog is nowhere to go to check out advanced stats. Don't know why you keep bringing it up either. I haven't posted anything on it since I got my new job and if hopefully things go well, won't be posting on it anymore.

Why does that matter? Basically all you're saying is majority rules right? Is that your philosophy towards everything in life? You probably won't get anywhere with that. Always better to lead then to be a follower.

You can't win if fans don't show up or pay to see your team. The teams take the court for them, and not the critics, analysts, or team execs.

I didn't say the majority ruled or were always right, I just said you can't ignore them, or think that your way of thinking (while in the minority) is the only correct way to look at things. Again, my points is more people care about only common stats than advanced ones. Whether it's right or wrong is not what I am debating, although I've strongly made my personal case that I could care less about them.

PatsSoxKnicks
08-17-2011, 02:11 PM
Not exactly the same path here. You're comparing 40 years later. Everything advances, and they find sound new methods to calculate new things. My argument is OBP and SLG, while initially advanced, were sound enough to become generally accepted. I don't believe any current sabermetrics will be commonplace 10, 20, or 30 years from now, as I don't believe some of these basketball stats will be either. Win shares is prime example. There are too many opponents of it. No one disputes OBP and SLG, however the amount of people who hate and don't care about Bill James is astronomical.

None of that changes the fact that OBP and SLG were at their root, saber stats. And if I'm not mistaken, Bill James was one of the leaders of the whole OBP and SLG revolution. He's been passed up in the field though.

And you're right in some regards. Something like Win Shares won't be commonplace but TS% and eFG% etc. are measuring some of the same things that OBP and SLG measure in baseball.

I'm sure if you lived in the 70s, you were saying the same things about OBP and SLG that you are saying about TS%/eFG% now.

All 4 of those stats share one common thing: they're descriptive stats, not evaluation stats.

Chronz
08-17-2011, 02:12 PM
No, not always more credible, but more acceptable. Business fail because they don't cater to the majority of the potential market. Whether you believe they are ignorant or not, you can't ignore them when they outnumber you. You also can't automatically assume you're right because you're in the cool little clique. "Yes, we are dominant because we are far more intellectual because we pick apart the game." Yes, that works every time.

Sadly for you your not part of the market, there is no reason to cater to the insignificant, no matter how large they may be. The teams that use stats, KNOW who to turn to, and it sure as hell isnt average Joe.

You can choose to be an ant if you wish.


And yes, I would come to PSD, go to patssoxknicks blog, and check advanced statistics web site everyday if I cared about that. But my point is more people check the normal stats than the advanced ones.

I dont think anyone has ever argued against that, sadly NOBODY in the business would take you seriously. When it comes to stats you are an insignificant speck in comparison to actual statisticians.

WildcatsPride
08-17-2011, 02:26 PM
I know Tim Duncan can play the center position, but isn't he a power forward? With that being said, I think Andrew Bynum is a top 10 center, but not top 5. Dwight Howard is the golden standard for center in the NBA today. Andrew Bogut imo is 2nd best, then Al Horford, Brook Lopez, and Marc Gasol fifth best.