PDA

View Full Version : 5th Annual PSD Player Rankings #10 Center In The NBA? (Volume: V)



Mile High Champ
09-03-2012, 10:11 PM
Hey guys, Some of you may remember that for the last four 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. The season is now over and the Heat have been crowned NBA champs which means its time to kick off the off-season player rankings.

A lot has changed since last season. Lebron was labelled by some as Choke Artist in the clutch and now this year had one of the greatest finals performances in recent memory. Let start the 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 4 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


2012 Off-Season PSD C Rankings

1) Dwight Howard
2) Andrew Bynum
3) Kevin Garnett
4) Marc Gasol
5) Tim Duncan
6) Tyson Chandler
7) Al Horford
8) Al Jefferson
9) Roy Hibbert
10) DeMarcus Cousins



2011 Off-Season C Rankings

1) Dwight Howard
2) Andrew Bynum
3) Tim Duncan
4) Andrew Bogut
5) Al Horford
6) Marc Gasol
7) Tyson Chandler
8) Joakim Noah
9) Nene
10) Al Jefferson

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

Mile High Champ
09-03-2012, 10:13 PM
Last poll before the big one starts..

rcxa
09-04-2012, 04:06 AM
Give me joakim he doesn't deserve to drop 3 spots after a full healthy season.. Only one of a few centers with triple double potential

85BearsDefense
09-04-2012, 04:08 AM
Noah

LakersMaster24
09-04-2012, 04:14 AM
I liked Gortat's improvement this year. I know it might be the Nash effect, but still, dude averaged a double double.

Realy close between Noah and him.

Knicks21
09-04-2012, 04:39 AM
the boogie man, case could be made for noah and gortat.

bholly
09-04-2012, 06:08 AM
feels sort of amazing to have bogut fall out of the top 10. really looking forward to seeing how he does this year.

knicksfan42
09-04-2012, 06:50 AM
I voted for Camby as a homer vote. I really think it should be Gortat here though.

Mr.ATLHawks
09-04-2012, 07:39 AM
LOL...Cousins not in the top 9?? Ridiculous...

FraziersKnicks
09-04-2012, 07:40 AM
Cousins, but nearly voted for JaVale on swag alone

DE9394
09-04-2012, 07:57 AM
this voting should only be between greg monroe and demarcus cousins....

Jesse2272
09-04-2012, 08:03 AM
I went with DMC at 10

Overall a good list so far, I don't think Horford should be at 7 due to last season, Al Jeff, Monroe & Hibbs are interchangeable at 7-9 IMO

I would have had Bogut on this list if it weren't for the injuries

Gators123
09-04-2012, 08:17 AM
Greg Monroe

SteBO
09-04-2012, 08:36 AM
What exactly has Noah done this past year to fall out of the top 10? And what has DeMarcus Cousins done to vault into the top 10?

Mishmin
09-04-2012, 08:42 AM
I'm not the one who voted for Nene here, but regardless, I have to feel like he's getting slept on.

nycericanguy
09-04-2012, 08:51 AM
Noah...

DMC put up big numbers late in the year on a horrible team when the games didn't matter anymore.

RIGHT NOW, if you had a team for 1 year, you'd want Noah over DMC hands down.

Now maybe 2-3 years from now that will be different, but right now I have to go Noah, he's a Tyson Chandler type player on defense.

Swashcuff
09-04-2012, 08:58 AM
Just because of the lack of love and utter ignorance in regards to Joakim I'm taking him here.

StarvingKnick22
09-04-2012, 09:23 AM
what happens after this poll?

nbrod
09-04-2012, 09:24 AM
Dmc

koreancabbage
09-04-2012, 09:31 AM
Noah is steady and all, but that doesn't mean Cousins hasn't improved.

I think Cousins is a better player overall, skill set wise. Sure he has attitude problems but he ain't no slouch.

18,11,2, with 1.2 blocks and 2 steals

is pretty beastly for any player.

Cousins is the better player overall and more of a franchise player than Noah is, who looks to be a glue guy.

JasonJohnHorn
09-04-2012, 09:56 AM
I'm surprised there are more votes for Monroe and Gortat. They both had better seasons than Cousins... I think people are voted on Counsins potential and not his actual product.

xxplayerxx23
09-04-2012, 10:01 AM
What exactly has Noah done this past year to fall out of the top 10? And what has DeMarcus Cousins done to vault into the top 10?

Well cousins did have an impressive year last year.

Jesse2272
09-04-2012, 11:15 AM
Noah should definitely be in the conversation

I just see Monroe/DMC has more room for improvement/better overall skillset

subjective opinions I guess

floater
09-04-2012, 11:38 AM
demarcus cousins is leading this poll?!!?!

one of the most inefficient chuckers in the entire league gets voted ahead of a player like Bogut?!?!

voters should be ashamed that cousins is even ahead of noah, gortat, monroe, pekovic...but putting him ahead of bogut is just a travesty.

koreancabbage
09-04-2012, 12:00 PM
demarcus cousins is leading this poll?!!?!

one of the most inefficient chuckers in the entire league gets voted ahead of a player like Bogut?!?!

voters should be ashamed that cousins is even ahead of noah, gortat, monroe, pekovic...but putting him ahead of bogut is just a travesty.

lets get Bogut some games before we start this. that means I do not agree with Horford being in the top 10 as well.

Cousins is a better player than any of the aforementioned names above. Of all the remaining centers, I think Cousins is the only true remaining franchise centers. (other than Bogut and maybe Horford) Sure he shoots a horrible % but that Sac team sucked so taking shots was what he had to do. He's gotten better in his %'s - so whats not to like about him? He's become a better player last year than his first and is a load to handle for any defense.

don't know what the hate is for Cousins other than his attitude and shot selection- he's a fine center otherwise.

85BearsDefense
09-04-2012, 12:19 PM
holy crap Noah is going to lose to Cousins.... lol

Chronz
09-04-2012, 12:42 PM
Noah is steady and all, but that doesn't mean Cousins hasn't improved.

I think Cousins is a better player overall, skill set wise. Sure he has attitude problems but he ain't no slouch.

18,11,2, with 1.2 blocks and 2 steals

is pretty beastly for any player.

Cousins is the better player overall and more of a franchise player than Noah is, who looks to be a glue guy.
Glue guys can still be better players than chuckers. Cousins doesnt deserve to be up here yet.

DR_1
09-04-2012, 01:33 PM
People voting on potential :facepalm:

EDUTEXANS
09-04-2012, 02:22 PM
Bogut. Healthy he is a top-5 Center IMO, he needs to prove a lot this season, but if he stays on the floor he is a top-10 center for sure.

Hawkeye15
09-04-2012, 02:28 PM
Going homer as usual if it allows with the #10 pick. PSD really shat the rankings this year at center btw.

JLynn943
09-04-2012, 02:46 PM
demarcus cousins is leading this poll?!!?!

one of the most inefficient chuckers in the entire league gets voted ahead of a player like Bogut?!?!

voters should be ashamed that cousins is even ahead of noah, gortat, monroe, pekovic...but putting him ahead of bogut is just a travesty.


Glue guys can still be better players than chuckers. Cousins doesnt deserve to be up here yet.

Cousins isn't a chucker at all. He misses around the rim a lot, but he often gets the offensive rebound and gets it in eventually. Sometimes it takes 2 or 3 tries, which is why his FG% is low, but he isn't chucking. They're just high percentage shots that he misses. Plus he can knock down a midrange jumper pretty well, so it's not like he's taking a shot there that he shouldn't (I'd rather him take that than half our players anyway). If you watch him play, you'd know he is not a chucker.

Chronz
09-04-2012, 03:40 PM
Cousins isn't a chucker at all. He misses around the rim a lot, but he often gets the offensive rebound and gets it in eventually. Sometimes it takes 2 or 3 tries, which is why his FG% is low, but he isn't chucking. They're just high percentage shots that he misses. Plus he can knock down a midrange jumper pretty well, so it's not like he's taking a shot there that he shouldn't (I'd rather him take that than half our players anyway). If you watch him play, you'd know he is not a chucker.
I watch him play, your excuse makes no sense because when a player misses a shot but grabs his own rebound that sequence is a neutral play on the efficiency scale. Yet hes still inefficient.

Kashmir13579
09-04-2012, 06:52 PM
Noah for me. I honestly think that guy its underrated on here as much as anybody.

Kashmir13579
09-04-2012, 06:54 PM
I watch him play, your excuse makes no sense because when a player misses a shot but grabs his own rebound that sequence is a neutral play on the efficiency scale. Yet hes still inefficient.
Is that 100% true? How so?

Chronz
09-04-2012, 07:03 PM
Is that 100% true? How so?

Im just talking about the value of a possession, an offensive rebound erases a missed shot because a missed shot costs your team a possession and obviously an offensive rebound gives your team another.

Kashmir13579
09-04-2012, 07:05 PM
Chronz... In what statistical vacuum does a missed FGA and a subsequent rebound negate each other in terms of efficiency?

Kashmir13579
09-04-2012, 07:06 PM
Im just talking about the value of a possession, an offensive rebound erases a missed shot because a missed shot costs your team a possession and obviously an offensive rebound gives your team another.

Oh i get that. I thought this was something from a new formula you were cooking up. lol

JLynn943
09-04-2012, 08:35 PM
I watch him play, your excuse makes no sense because when a player misses a shot but grabs his own rebound that sequence is a neutral play on the efficiency scale. Yet hes still inefficient.

That's assuming he is making it the second time. Often he is missing and rebounding several times in a possession. Regardless, that does not make him a chucker.

Chronz
09-04-2012, 08:57 PM
That's assuming he is making it the second time. Often he is missing and rebounding several times in a possession. Regardless, that does not make him a chucker.
Doesnt matter how often he rebounds his miss, its still a neutral possession. If he misses the final shot then it counts as a failed possession. Which if thats what your telling me then your not exactly helping his cause. I just looked it up, he does shoot a low% on offensive rebounds (46%). What exactly are you trying to sell me on here? That hes a horrible finisher?

If you dont like the term chucker how about inefficient possession waster?

tredigs
09-04-2012, 09:53 PM
I watch him play, your excuse makes no sense because when a player misses a shot but grabs his own rebound that sequence is a neutral play on the efficiency scale. Yet hes still inefficient.


Oh i get that. I thought this was something from a new formula you were cooking up. lol

Not sure if he knows or not but it actually is from a formula. In PER and other formulas. Their coefficients are the inverse of each other. So the negative weight of a missed shot in the formula is exactly equal to the positive weight of an offensive rebound.

But that said, Demarcus has a well above average PER, he's just below average as a scorer. So in the self put-back scenario you guys are talking about that would help to explain why his PER is so solid and fg% is weak. Obviously far from the whole story on it though.

Anyway, Bogut.

Chronz
09-04-2012, 10:04 PM
Not sure if he knows or not but it actually is from a formula. In PER and other formulas. Their coefficients are the inverse of each other. So the negative weight of a missed shot in the formula is exactly equal to the positive weight of an offensive rebound.

But that said, Demarcus has a well above average PER, he's just below average as a scorer. So in the self put-back scenario you guys are talking about that would help to explain why his PER is so solid and fg% is weak. Obviously far from the whole story on it though.

Anyway, Bogut.

His PER is inflated by virtue of his high usage, I like PER but there is a certain efficiency threshold where the output doesnt justify the means.

tredigs
09-04-2012, 10:13 PM
His PER is inflated by virtue of his high usage, I like PER but there is a certain efficiency threshold where the output doesnt justify the means.

Inflated maybe a bit, but guys like Deron Williams, Kyrie, Monta, Melo and Kobe all had roughly the same or higher USG%'s and roughly the same or lower PER's. All had higher TS%'s than him as well. His points scored, offensive rebounding, block+steals and relatively solid turnover rate given his USG% can account for the solid PER (not like it's quite elite, just very solid).

Still, I can think of plenty of reasons why I don't like Cousins for this slot.

JNoel
09-04-2012, 11:23 PM
I voted Noah, I'm surprised he didn't even make it in the top 10...

SeoulBeatz
09-04-2012, 11:51 PM
When healthy, it's clearly Bogut.

JLynn943
09-05-2012, 12:14 AM
Doesnt matter how often he rebounds his miss, its still a neutral possession. If he misses the final shot then it counts as a failed possession. Which if thats what your telling me then your not exactly helping his cause. I just looked it up, he does shoot a low% on offensive rebounds (46%). What exactly are you trying to sell me on here? That hes a horrible finisher?

If you dont like the term chucker how about inefficient possession waster?

But he's neither. A chucker, according to how I've always seen the term used, is someone who frequently takes bad shots - whether they be well-defended or just low-percentage. A possession is also not wasted (at least imo) if it is scored on anyway, so when he's retrieving his own miss and scoring, there's nothing wasted about it.

The point of this was to enlighten people as to the cause of his low FG% and explain that he isn't a chucker just because it's relatively low for a center. Most people don't watch Kings games and just see the stats, so they make (bad) assumptions. Accordingly, I'm surprised you said you watch him play considering you apparently didn't realize his poor shooting off of offensive rebounds and that you accused him of chucking.

IversonIsKrazy
09-05-2012, 01:10 AM
In 2009 we voted Andrea Bargnani as #5 C in the league...

I Rock Shaqs
09-05-2012, 01:39 AM
How did Marc Gasol get 4th hahaha.

Cal827
09-05-2012, 01:57 AM
In 2009 we voted Andrea Bargnani as #5 C in the league...

I see that Crystal Meth was a pandemic in PSD 3 years ago.

SaimuKala
09-05-2012, 11:35 AM
Let's start the big one?

DoMeFavors
09-05-2012, 12:05 PM
Check Cousins fg% , most overated player ive ever seen

Chronz
09-05-2012, 12:58 PM
But he's neither. A chucker, according to how I've always seen the term used, is someone who frequently takes bad shots - whether they be well-defended or just low-percentage. A possession is also not wasted (at least imo) if it is scored on anyway, so when he's retrieving his own miss and scoring, there's nothing wasted about it.
I already explained that rebounding your own miss isnt a possession wasted, rebounding your own miss is a neutral play and that your excuse doesnt make sense because even when accounting for that fact, he is still an inefficient player. I also gave you the exact % he shoots when he puts up a shot off an offensive rebound, its not really impressive. So we have a guy who rebounds his own miss but still doesnt finish them at an elite level and whos offensive rebounds do not exonerate his low efficiency.

So how exactly is he not a possession waster ?


The point of this was to enlighten people as to the cause of his low FG% and explain that he isn't a chucker just because it's relatively low for a center. Most people don't watch Kings games and just see the stats, so they make (bad) assumptions. Accordingly, I'm surprised you said you watch him play considering you apparently didn't realize his poor shooting off of offensive rebounds and that you accused him of chucking.
Its more likely that you dont understand the statistics. Even when you account for his offensive rebounding hes still inefficient. Dont bother with FG%, its a crude barometer for efficiency. I accused him of chucking because thats what I call players with high usage and low efficiency. Your excuses have only strengthened my argument.

Chronz
09-05-2012, 01:00 PM
In 2009 we voted Andrea Bargnani as #5 C in the league...

It was mostly Toronto fans, I remember trying to tell everyone about Bynum but people couldn't get past the injury thing, even though the question being raised was about on court ability, and injuries apparently arent enough of a reason to knock Rose down a few spots this year.

Kashmir13579
09-05-2012, 05:59 PM
Not sure if he knows or not but it actually is from a formula. In PER and other formulas. Their coefficients are the inverse of each other. So the negative weight of a missed shot in the formula is exactly equal to the positive weight of an offensive rebound.


Thanks tre. thats what i was looking for.

Kashmir13579
09-05-2012, 05:59 PM
I would've gone Noah, here, btw.

JLynn943
09-06-2012, 06:00 PM
I already explained that rebounding your own miss isnt a possession wasted, rebounding your own miss is a neutral play and that your excuse doesnt make sense because even when accounting for that fact, he is still an inefficient player. I also gave you the exact % he shoots when he puts up a shot off an offensive rebound, its not really impressive. So we have a guy who rebounds his own miss but still doesnt finish them at an elite level and whos offensive rebounds do not exonerate his low efficiency.

So how exactly is he not a possession waster ?


Its more likely that you dont understand the statistics. Even when you account for his offensive rebounding hes still inefficient. Dont bother with FG%, its a crude barometer for efficiency. I accused him of chucking because thats what I call players with high usage and low efficiency. Your excuses have only strengthened my argument.

When your argument was originally calling him a chucker, no they haven't. Inefficient =/= chucker. All this has been is you claiming that without any substance whatsoever, just picking at what I say. His efficiency isn't even poor, yet you're harping on it.

The only reason I brought up the FG% is because so many people bring that up to criticize him (for proof, just look a few posts above this one). Obviously it's not a great efficiency measure - hence me bringing up his offensive rebounding.

Swashcuff
09-07-2012, 08:05 AM
When your argument was originally calling him a chucker, no they haven't. Inefficient =/= chucker. All this has been is you claiming that without any substance whatsoever, just picking at what I say. His efficiency isn't even poor, yet you're harping on it.

You mean to say that a 49.9 TS% (-3.9% as compared to the league average at the C) and a 43.8 eFG% (-6.8%) isn't poor on a USG% of 29.7 is poor? The only other C who averaged over 9 ppg and were less efficient than Cousins last season was Chris Kaman.

Wow you guys really are amazing. I am one of Allen Iverson's biggest fanboys and in every argument with Chronz about him I admit that he was an inefficient chucker.


The only reason I brought up the FG% is because so many people bring that up to criticize him (for proof, just look a few posts above this one). Obviously it's not a great efficiency measure - hence me bringing up his offensive rebounding.

As poor as a measure as that is even FG% ranks him among the league worst at his position.

Why can't you guys be rational about your player admit his faults and actually try to build an argument on what you believe his strengths to be. He's efficient? Yes admit it and try to explain what can be done and what has been shown to make us believe that its 1. not to the detriment of the team and 2. going to get better.

JLynn943
09-07-2012, 10:20 AM
You mean to say that a 49.9 TS% (-3.9% as compared to the league average at the C) and a 43.8 eFG% (-6.8%) isn't poor on a USG% of 29.7 is poor? The only other C who averaged over 9 ppg and were less efficient than Cousins last season was Chris Kaman.

Wow you guys really are amazing. I am one of Allen Iverson's biggest fanboys and in every argument with Chronz about him I admit that he was an inefficient chucker.



As poor as a measure as that is even FG% ranks him among the league worst at his position.

Why can't you guys be rational about your player admit his faults and actually try to build an argument on what you believe his strengths to be. He's efficient? Yes admit it and try to explain what can be done and what has been shown to make us believe that its 1. not to the detriment of the team and 2. going to get better.

When he's called a chucker and is not a chucker, I'm going to defend him. I'm also a huge Iverson fan, and yes he was an inefficient chucker. I'll happily admit that and follow it up by talking about his role in that offense being that of someone who had no choice but to take bad shots. But, people never accept that argument, despite how true it is, because it has no stats and they've already been biased to criticize Iverson as someone who couldn't shoot.

Cousins has the same type of things going on. He plays in an offense where players try to go iso all the time and in the last second bail out and pass the ball to Cousins who has no choice but to take whatever shot they give him. I have no idea if there's a way to look up FG% or the like for something like when in the shot clock he's taking shots, but I can assure you that he gets forced into tons of bad shots that are obviously going to make him look a lot less efficient than he is.

Beyond that, he also plays with a team that can't shoot at all. We have literally no one to consistently spread the floor. What does this mean? Teams crowd the paint. That stops our players' iso drives from getting any points and it also leaves more people to defend our most versatile offensive player in Cousins in the paint. No matter how skilled an offensive player he is, it's going to be a lot tougher to make shots when the entire team is ready to stop you right where you're standing. Lucky for us, he's very skilled on offense and can still score pretty much anyway, but it doesn't do well for his efficiency stats.

Things that make him worthy of #10? Well, he's one of the best rebounders in the league. On top of that, he's got a very wide offensive arsenal. Despite his assist numbers, he's also a pretty good passer (hard to get assists when your team can't shoot).

But will any of that be considered or taken seriously? No. People are obsessed with efficiency stats and stats in general without considering the story behind them.

Swashcuff
09-07-2012, 10:59 AM
When he's called a chucker and is not a chucker, I'm going to defend him. I'm also a huge Iverson fan, and yes he was an inefficient chucker. I'll happily admit that and follow it up by talking about his role in that offense being that of someone who had no choice but to take bad shots. But, people never accept that argument, despite how true it is, because it has no stats and they've already been biased to criticize Iverson as someone who couldn't shoot.

Cousins has the same type of things going on. He plays in an offense where players try to go iso all the time and in the last second bail out and pass the ball to Cousins who has no choice but to take whatever shot they give him. I have no idea if there's a way to look up FG% or the like for something like when in the shot clock he's taking shots, but I can assure you that he gets forced into tons of bad shots that are obviously going to make him look a lot less efficient than he is.

Beyond that, he also plays with a team that can't shoot at all. We have literally no one to consistently spread the floor. What does this mean? Teams crowd the paint. That stops our players' iso drives from getting any points and it also leaves more people to defend our most versatile offensive player in Cousins in the paint. No matter how skilled an offensive player he is, it's going to be a lot tougher to make shots when the entire team is ready to stop you right where you're standing. Lucky for us, he's very skilled on offense and can still score pretty much anyway, but it doesn't do well for his efficiency stats.

Things that make him worthy of #10? Well, he's one of the best rebounders in the league. On top of that, he's got a very wide offensive arsenal. Despite his assist numbers, he's also a pretty good passer (hard to get assists when your team can't shoot).

But will any of that be considered or taken seriously? No. People are obsessed with efficiency stats and stats in general without considering the story behind them.

I fully understand the points you are trying to convey. I also don't really agree that he is a chucker.

Unlike most people though I like using stats efficiency and all of that in my arguments I try to stay as grounded and look at an argument from every single possible angle and I think Cousins has a solid argument for the top 10 just as about 15 other Cs in the league today.

My simple question to you is, is Cousins inefficient?

b@llhog24
09-07-2012, 11:52 AM
When he's called a chucker and is not a chucker, I'm going to defend him. I'm also a huge Iverson fan, and yes he was an inefficient chucker. I'll happily admit that and follow it up by talking about his role in that offense being that of someone who had no choice but to take bad shots. But, people never accept that argument, despite how true it is, because it has no stats and they've already been biased to criticize Iverson as someone who couldn't shoot.

This is a somewhat legitimate excuse but you never cited this as the reason for Cousins inefficiency. You tried to use his offensive rebounding to justify his horrible shooting percentages but Chronz explain why that excuse doesn't fly. Also being bestowed the title chucker doesn't only mean that he shoots poorly, it means he shoots poorly given his role within his teams offense and the amount of talent around him.


Cousins has the same type of things going on. He plays in an offense where players try to go iso all the time and in the last second bail out and pass the ball to Cousins who has no choice but to take whatever shot they give him. I have no idea if there's a way to look up FG% or the like for something like when in the shot clock he's taking shots, but I can assure you that he gets forced into tons of bad shots that are obviously going to make him look a lot less efficient than he is.

I'm sure that bailouts only account for a small portion of the total amount of shots taken by Dmc, every teams featured option takes a **** ton of them, but most don't shoot as poorly overall as he does, he's just inefficient period bro.


Beyond that, he also plays with a team that can't shoot at all. We have literally no one to consistently spread the floor. What does this mean? Teams crowd the paint. That stops our players' iso drives from getting any points and it also leaves more people to defend our most versatile offensive player in Cousins in the paint. No matter how skilled an offensive player he is, it's going to be a lot tougher to make shots when the entire team is ready to stop you right where you're standing. Lucky for us, he's very skilled on offense and can still score pretty much anyway, but it doesn't do well for his efficiency stats.

Cool.


Things that make him worthy of #10? Well, he's one of the best rebounders in the league. On top of that, he's got a very wide offensive arsenal. Despite his assist numbers, he's also a pretty good passer (hard to get assists when your team can't shoot).

Just because Chronz doesn't think that he has a case doesn't mean that its true. He has one imo but it's just weaker than the others namely Moose.


But will any of that be considered or taken seriously? No. People are obsessed with efficiency stats and stats in general without considering the story behind them.

Actually it is you who doesn't understand the story that stats can tell. They track a whole seasons worth of possessions over a multitude of years, while us as mere mortals simply cannot.

JLynn943
09-07-2012, 11:57 AM
I fully understand the points you are trying to convey. I also don't really agree that he is a chucker.

Unlike most people though I like using stats efficiency and all of that in my arguments I try to stay as grounded and look at an argument from every single possible angle and I think Cousins has a solid argument for the top 10 just as about 15 other Cs in the league today.

My simple question to you is, is Cousins inefficient?

When he has time, I think he is. Obviously players don't always have time though, and he's obviously less efficient than others.

JLynn943
09-07-2012, 12:11 PM
This is a somewhat legitimate excuse but you never cited this as the reason for Cousins inefficiency. You tried to use his offensive rebounding to justify his horrible shooting percentages but Chronz explain why that excuse doesn't fly. Also being bestowed the title chucker doesn't only mean that he shoots poorly, it means he shoots poorly given his role within his teams offense and the amount of talent around him.

Like I said, I brought up the offensive rebounds as a qualifier for his FG% because so many people just look at that and to say that getting an offensive rebound doesn't waste a possession. I've also said that I've always seen the term chucker to describe someone who takes a bunch of bad, ill-advised shots - never someone who just misses shots.



I'm sure that bailouts only account for a small portion of the total amount of shots taken by Dmc, every teams featured option takes a **** ton of them, but most don't shoot as poorly overall as he does, he's just inefficient period bro.
Most teams don't run the amount of iso and have as bad shooters as us. This happens more than you'd expect.




Cool.



Just because Chronz doesn't think that he has a case doesn't mean that its true. He has one imo but it's just weaker than the others namely Moose.
I think they're pretty much even, and I think both should be top 10.



Actually it is you who doesn't understand the story that stats can tell. They track a whole seasons worth of possessions over a multitude of years, while us as mere mortals simply cannot.

Oh please. Yes, in a perfect world, stats could tell us everything. We would have measures for everything and would know every factor that should be accounted for when trying to determine something. The fact of the matter, however, is that statistics are not perfect, and we do not know every factor. If they were perfect and we did know all the variables to be looking for, my job would be a lot easier. They can tell us a tremendous amount, but we have to know what to measure, how to measure it, and how to analyze it to do so.

b@llhog24
09-07-2012, 01:37 PM
Like I said, I brought up the offensive rebounds as a qualifier for his FG% because so many people just look at that and to say that getting an offensive rebound doesn't waste a possession. I've also said that I've always seen the term chucker to describe someone who takes a bunch of bad, ill-advised shots - never someone who just misses shots.

FG% is a crude stat, it doesn't weigh the difference between 3's and regular shots from the field, Cousins still has a subpar TS% percentage so like I said he's inefficient period. I constantly preach the value of offensive rebounding on this board, but like Chronz stated if he rebounds HIS OWN miss, the possession isn't wasted it becomes neutral and has no real effect on his overall efficiency if he doesn't finish the possession with a basket/or a drawn foul, he still doesn't finish them at an elite rate btw.


Most teams don't run the amount of iso and have as bad shooters as us. This happens more than you'd expect.

Just curious, but how do you know that?


I think they're pretty much even, and I think both should be top 10.

If they're in the top 10 I wouldn't care as this is only arbitrary ranking, but its not unreasonable to see them out of the top 10. Agree?



Oh please. Yes, in a perfect world, stats could tell us everything. We would have measures for everything and would know every factor that should be accounted for when trying to determine something. The fact of the matter, however, is that statistics are not perfect, and we do not know every factor. If they were perfect and we did know all the variables to be looking for, my job would be a lot easier. They can tell us a tremendous amount, but we have to know what to measure, how to measure it, and how to analyze it to do so.

I never said that stats could tell us everything, and if that's what you got from my post then sorry for the confusion. What I do know is that they tell us more than the average fans (not accusing you of being one) opinion. For instance, you thinking that Cousin offensive rebounding is a valid excuse for his inefficiency, we can look at the statistical evidence to find out just how far/close your actual claim is. Before I was introduced to advanced stats, Melo was my favorite player in the league, afterwards he's still my favorite player in the league. I just realize that he isn't as good as I thought.

JLynn943
09-07-2012, 02:06 PM
FG% is a crude stat, it doesn't weigh the difference between 3's and regular shots from the field, Cousins still has a subpar TS% percentage so like I said he's inefficient period. I constantly preach the value of offensive rebounding on this board, but like Chronz stated if he rebounds HIS OWN miss, the possession isn't wasted it becomes neutral and has no real effect on his overall efficiency if he doesn't finish the possession with a basket/or a drawn foul, he still doesn't finish them at an elite rate btw.

Yeah, I know his TS% isn't good and am very aware of the limits of FG% (it makes Tyreke look like he can shoot :laugh2:). I was even the one that brought up how surprisingly bad he is at finishing.



Just curious, but how do you know that?

I wish I could tell you I found a statistic for it, lol. Observationally though, with the amount of iso we run and having the highest pace in the league, it's difficult to run it more than we do. When watching other teams, I see many more set plays than we seem to run.



If they're in the top 10 I wouldn't care as this is only arbitrary ranking, but its not unreasonable to see them out of the top 10. Agree?

Of course. Most centers in the league have glaring weaknesses. What weaknesses are worse than others is all opinion. The great things about Cousins and Moose are their youth and potential on top of what they've already done.




I never said that stats could tell us everything, and if that's what you got from my post then sorry for the confusion. What I do know is that they tell us more than the average fans (not accusing you of being one) opinion. For instance, you thinking that Cousin offensive rebounding is a valid excuse for his inefficiency, we can look at the statistical evidence to find out just how far/close your actual claim is. Before I was introduced to advanced stats, Melo was my favorite player in the league, afterwards he's still my favorite player in the league. I just realize that he isn't as good as I thought.
Yeah, I did interpret you incorrectly then. No big deal.
I think there was a lot of confusion with me bringing up his offensive rebounding. I've seen a lot of people in the past bring up his FG% rather than efficiency as a method to put down his game (and I was thinking that people were somehow making that "proof" of him chucking - which as we've determined, I've always defined differently apparently). I was trying to curb that argument before it started by saying that that doesn't take into account the benefit of him being one of the top offensive rebounders in the league.

b@llhog24
09-07-2012, 06:03 PM
Yeah, I know his TS% isn't good and am very aware of the limits of FG% (it makes Tyreke look like he can shoot :laugh2:). I was even the one that brought up how surprisingly bad he is at finishing.


I wish I could tell you I found a statistic for it, lol. Observationally though, with the amount of iso we run and having the highest pace in the league, it's difficult to run it more than we do. When watching other teams, I see many more set plays than we seem to run.


Of course. Most centers in the league have glaring weaknesses. What weaknesses are worse than others is all opinion. The great things about Cousins and Moose are their youth and potential on top of what they've already done.



Yeah, I did interpret you incorrectly then. No big deal.
I think there was a lot of confusion with me bringing up his offensive rebounding. I've seen a lot of people in the past bring up his FG% rather than efficiency as a method to put down his game (and I was thinking that people were somehow making that "proof" of him chucking - which as we've determined, I've always defined differently apparently). I was trying to curb that argument before it started by saying that that doesn't take into account the benefit of him being one of the top offensive rebounders in the league.

We cool homie. :cheers:

Chronz
09-07-2012, 07:50 PM
When your argument was originally calling him a chucker, no they haven't.
I changed the terminology since you disagreed with it. It was a semantic argument so I dropped it to include factual descriptions of the player.



Inefficient =/= chucker.
Inefficient possession waster = inefficient possession waster


All this has been is you claiming that without any substance whatsoever, just picking at what I say. His efficiency isn't even poor, yet you're harping on it.
What makes you think its not poor? All this has been is trying to figure out why your using excuses that dont fly.


The only reason I brought up the FG% is because so many people bring that up to criticize him (for proof, just look a few posts above this one). Obviously it's not a great efficiency measure - hence me bringing up his offensive rebounding.
Yea but your not talking to those people, WE'RE TALKING. And the subject is on his high rate of possessions used and low rate of efficiency.

Chronz
09-07-2012, 08:00 PM
This is a somewhat legitimate excuse but you never cited this as the reason for Cousins inefficiency. You tried to use his offensive rebounding to justify his horrible shooting percentages but Chronz explain why that excuse doesn't fly. Also being bestowed the title chucker doesn't only mean that he shoots poorly, it means he shoots poorly given his role within his teams offense and the amount of talent around him.
Thank you.




I'm sure that bailouts only account for a small portion of the total amount of shots taken by Dmc, every teams featured option takes a **** ton of them, but most don't shoot as poorly overall as he does, he's just inefficient period bro.
He shoots a lower% at every moment in the shotclock than the league at large. Dwight takes a greater% of his FG/A in the final 3 seconds than Cousins but thats Dwight. Per game, Greg Monroe actually scores more in the final seconds than Cousins, as does Duncan/Bynum etc...



Just because Chronz doesn't think that he has a case doesn't mean that its true. He has one imo but it's just weaker than the others namely Moose.

Same here, I dont really care who has a case, just who has the best one.


Actually it is you who doesn't understand the story that stats can tell. They track a whole seasons worth of possessions over a multitude of years, while us as mere mortals simply cannot.
Agreed

Chronz
09-07-2012, 08:02 PM
When he has time, I think he is. Obviously players don't always have time though, and he's obviously less efficient than others.
Generally the earlier a player shoots, the higher his %. That said, Cousins still shoots about 45% with more than half the shot clock left to play.

JLynn943
09-07-2012, 10:42 PM
We cool homie. :cheers:

:up:

JLynn943
09-07-2012, 11:02 PM
I changed the terminology since you disagreed with it. It was a semantic argument so I dropped it to include factual descriptions of the player.

Him being called a chucker is what I took issue with. Seriously, read back through my posts. I never brought up the efficiency argument, nor did I ever call him efficient (I said it wasn't that poor, but only after you were cramming this argument down my throat).



Inefficient possession waster = inefficient possession waster

Whatever makes you feel good about yourself. I won't call him efficient, because obviously he isn't. I don't think he is especially wasteful of possessions considering the alternatives on the team and his ability to get the ball back off of a miss (after which others could shoot, too, thus not wasting the possession).



What makes you think its not poor? All this has been is trying to figure out why your using excuses that dont fly.

No, like I said, I took issue with him being called a chucker. You went into high horse freak-out mode and kept going at me with an efficiency argument I never even started and then pretended like my comments about offensive rebounds and his FG% were me trying to claim he's efficient.



Yea but your not talking to those people, WE'RE TALKING. And the subject is on his high rate of possessions used and low rate of efficiency.

Again, it wasn't an argument I started nor was addressing. What I said was directed at the chucking statements, but then you acted as if I was trying to say that his efficiency was good because of his offensive rebounding (or at least that's what I think you were misconstruing my statements as). Just go back and read my post. You went in a different direction right from the outset and have now gone on a crusade about it.

JLynn943
09-07-2012, 11:11 PM
He shoots a lower% at every moment in the shotclock than the league at large. Dwight takes a greater% of his FG/A in the final 3 seconds than Cousins but thats Dwight. Per game, Greg Monroe actually scores more in the final seconds than Cousins, as does Duncan/Bynum etc...

And?



Agreed

Is that what this is about? You needing to feel superior because of your stat knowledge? I fully understand the power of statistics (it is literally my job to measure and analyze them). However, I know their limits. It is a rare case when every variable is even known, let alone accurately measured or conceived.

What's more (once again) is that I did not bring up efficiency, you did. I did not say he was efficient because of his offensive rebounding. Not once did I bring up the statistic nor make claims about it. I brought up his offensive rebounding and FG% when talking about chucking.

Chronz
09-07-2012, 11:16 PM
Him being called a chucker is what I took issue with. Seriously, read back through my posts. I never brought up the efficiency argument, nor did I ever call him efficient (I said it wasn't that poor, but only after you were cramming this argument down my throat).
False, check out what you said after I offered to change the term to inefficient possession waster:

If you dont like the term chucker how about inefficient possession waster?


But he's neither.


You tried to exonerate his low efficiency by mentioning his offensive rebounding.



Whatever makes you feel good about yourself. I won't call him efficient, because obviously he isn't. I don't think he is especially wasteful of possessions considering the alternatives on the team and his ability to get the ball back off of a miss (after which others could shoot, too, thus not wasting the possession).
Winning debates makes me feel pretty good, and with you going from saying hes neither a chucker nor an inefficient possession waster to now calling him inefficient has tickled my fancy plenty.


No, like I said, I took issue with him being called a chucker. You went into high horse freak-out mode and kept going at me with an efficiency argument I never even started and then pretended like my comments about offensive rebounds and his FG% were me trying to claim he's efficient.
False, when you took offense to the term chucker I offered to change the description, one you still took offense to and foolishly tried to exonerate him of with this classic gem:



A possession is also not wasted (at least imo) if it is scored on anyway, so when he's retrieving his own miss and scoring, there's nothing wasted about it.

Despite me already correcting you on this poor argument.



Again, it wasn't an argument I started nor was addressing. What I said was directed at the chucking statements, but then you acted as if I was trying to say that his efficiency was good because of his offensive rebounding (or at least that's what I think you were misconstruing my statements as). Just go back and read my post. You went in a different direction right from the outset and have now gone on a crusade about it.

LOL crusade is over doing it, Ive clarified my stance plenty, I even altered my original comment so that you knew what I meant by the term chucker, it was you who continued to bring up offensive rebounding as if it changed anything that I was saying. It didn't, then you brought in a whole slew of excuses that simply dont match reality.

Chronz
09-07-2012, 11:21 PM
And?

What? I dont understand what your confused about.


Is that what this is about? You needing to feel superior because of your stat knowledge? I fully understand the power of statistics (it is literally my job to measure and analyze them). However, I know their limits. It is a rare case when every variable is even known, let alone accurately measured or conceived.
This is about Cousins, plz try to stay on topic. And to be fair, you have said nothing in this thread that remotely suggests you know how to evaluate basketball statistics.


What's more (once again) is that I did not bring up efficiency, you did.
I never said you brought it up, you quoted me remember. I brought it up because it plays a role in my definition of the word chucking. When you took offense to it, I decided to change it to one that is clearly defined. You then denied its truth with the same flawed argument.


I did not say he was efficient because of his offensive rebounding. Not once did I bring up the statistic nor make claims about it. I brought up his offensive rebounding and FG% when talking about chucking.
You tried to exonerate his efficiency by mentioning his offensive rebounding as if it wasn't being taken into account in the first place.

JLynn943
09-07-2012, 11:23 PM
False, check out what you said after I offered to change the term to inefficient possession waster:

If you dont like the term chucker how about inefficient possession waster?




You tried to exonerate his low efficiency by mentioning his offensive rebounding.



Winning debates makes me feel pretty good, and with you going from saying hes neither a chucker nor an inefficient possession waster to now calling him inefficient has tickled my fancy plenty.


False, when you took offense to the term chucker I offered to change the description, one you still took offense to and foolishly tried to exonerate him of with this classic gem:



Despite me already correcting you on this poor argument.



LOL crusade is over doing it, Ive clarified my stance plenty, I even altered my original comment so that you knew what I meant by the term chucker, it was you who continued to bring up offensive rebounding as if it changed anything that I was saying. It didn't, then you brought in a whole slew of excuses that simply dont match reality.

...please find where I called him efficient. The quote that you pulled out is pretty obviously me saying he isn't a possession waster. My argument has not switched at all, you just keep trying to misconstrue everything I say into me somehow trying to deny he's inefficient. I did say his efficiency isn't poor (which I was referring to PER on), which maybe is an overstatement, but I don't think it is one. :shrug: If I could find a site that compared all centers then maybe I could be corrected on that?

Chronz
09-07-2012, 11:29 PM
...please find where I called him efficient. The quote that you pulled out is pretty obviously me saying he isn't a possession waster.
Thats what a possession waster is, someone who is inefficient. If he was efficient then those possessions would be optimized.


My argument has not switched at all, you just keep trying to misconstrue everything I say into me somehow trying to deny he's inefficient. I did say his efficiency isn't poor (which I was referring to PER on), which maybe is an overstatement, but I don't think it is one. :shrug: If I could find a site that compared all centers then maybe I could be corrected on that?
Im willing to admit I may not know what the **** your talking about, I have literally never conversed with someone who had such a radically different take on these NBA terms, all I know is you denied what I said he was by bringing up offensive rebounding as if it pertained to the argument at all. The reality is, even when accounting for them, hes still inefficient. And because hes inefficient hes a possession waster.

JLynn943
09-07-2012, 11:30 PM
What? I dont understand what your confused about.

I'm only confused as to why that was supposed to be relevant



This is about Cousins, plz try to stay on topic. And to be fair, you have said nothing in this thread that remotely suggests you know how to evaluate basketball statistics.

On the contrary, I showed that I know the limits of statistics. My very first post in this thread was regarding FG% and offensive rebounds. When you take what I'm saying and are applying it as if I'm talking about a statistic I'm not talking about and making it as if I'm claiming that the statistic is wrong because of it, you've just shown a lack of reading comprehension because you wanted to argue is all.



I never said you brought it up, you quoted me remember. I brought it up because it plays a role in my definition of the word chucking. When you took offense to it, I decided to change it to one that is clearly defined. You then denied its truth with the same flawed argument.

Like I just said in my last post, I was pretty clearly taking issue with the possession wasting part.



You tried to exonerate his efficiency by mentioning his offensive rebounding as if it wasn't being taken into account in the first place.

No, I didn't. Not once did I say anything about his offensive rebounding making his efficiency okay. Seriously, you've made an argument out of nothing.

JLynn943
09-07-2012, 11:35 PM
Thats what a possession waster is, someone who is inefficient. If he was efficient then those possessions would be optimized.


Im willing to admit I may not know what the **** your talking about, I have literally never conversed with someone who had such a radically different take on these NBA terms, all I know is you denied what I said he was by bringing up offensive rebounding as if it pertained to the argument at all. The reality is, even when accounting for them, hes still inefficient. And because hes inefficient hes a possession waster.

Yeah, we clearly do not use terms the same way. You've taken nearly everything I've said to be me talking about something I'm not. I didn't deny the efficiency part that you said by bringing up offensive rebounding. I don't necessarily equate efficiency with possession wasting (which I think is a much more subjective term that would take into account other alternatives for the possession, among other things).

Sorry if I got overly defensive, but it's frustrating being told that you're wrong when you're not even arguing the point you're supposedly wrong about.

Chronz
09-08-2012, 02:05 AM
I'm only confused as to why that was supposed to be relevant
Because the excuse of having to take shots late in the clock does not distinguish Cousins. He shoots a lower% regardless of what time frame your looking at.



On the contrary, I showed that I know the limits of statistics. My very first post in this thread was regarding FG% and offensive rebounds.
No offense but this sounds like a joke to me. When someone is discussing EFFICIENCY, you dont come at them with FG% and rebounding. All you were doing was sidestepping the issue of efficiency by telling me why his FG% (a stat I never mentioned) was low and implied that I didnt know why. There were other arguments you used that made more sense, but when you got into the quantifiable claims, thats when I lost you.



When you take what I'm saying and are applying it as if I'm talking about a statistic I'm not talking about and making it as if I'm claiming that the statistic is wrong because of it, you've just shown a lack of reading comprehension because you wanted to argue is all.
The conversation is about efficiency and possessions, I only took what your saying within the scope of that argument. If you feel Im taking you out of context its not just my doing, its yours as well.

For example when you said;


The only reason I brought up the FG% is because so many people bring that up to criticize him (for proof, just look a few posts above this one). Obviously it's not a great efficiency measure - hence me bringing up his offensive rebounding.
Here you are admitting to bringing up an irrelevant stat that has nothing to do with the conversation (Efficiency) and explaining why its low, despite it already being clear that I was accounting for rebounding in the first place upon coming to my conclusion. Why your talking to other people when your quoting me is beyond me.



Yeah, we clearly do not use terms the same way.
Well look, when discussing efficiency from a statistical perspective, never argue FG% or think of PER. Those are separate stats meant to measure different things. Efficiency with regards to offensive usage is strictly about per possession value.



Sorry if I got overly defensive, but it's frustrating being told that you're wrong when you're not even arguing the point you're supposedly wrong about.

You've given just as much as you've gotten. You have attempted to correct me on several of my claims even though I was being factual. For example;




The point of this was to enlighten people as to the cause of his low FG% and explain that he isn't a chucker just because it's relatively low for a center. Most people don't watch Kings games and just see the stats, so they make (bad) assumptions. Accordingly, I'm surprised you said you watch him play considering you apparently didn't realize his poor shooting off of offensive rebounds and that you accused him of chucking.
When you combat an argument about his efficiency with such crude barometers in such a combative way, your not going to get much respect and its easy to see why we've gone down this path.

You continued it with this,


A possession is also not wasted (at least imo) if it is scored on anyway, so when he's retrieving his own miss and scoring, there's nothing wasted about it.
You said something that was already covered, is it really a mystery why the argument was never on track?



No, I didn't. Not once did I say anything about his offensive rebounding making his efficiency okay. Seriously, you've made an argument out of nothing.
Then explain what this is suppose to mean :

A possession is also not wasted (at least imo) if it is scored on anyway, so when he's retrieving his own miss and scoring, there's nothing wasted about it.

The possessions he uses are low efficiency even when accounting for offensive rebounding (which he finishes at below average BTW), so what exactly is the point of mentioning this? Its already been taken into account before coming to the conclusion that hes wasting possessions by being inefficient. Your better off sticking to your subjective arguments. I found myself agreeing more with them than the stats you mentioned.

JLynn943
09-08-2012, 02:48 AM
No offense but this sounds like a joke to me. When someone is discussing EFFICIENCY, you dont come at them with FG% and rebounding. All you were doing was sidestepping the issue of efficiency by telling me why his FG% (a stat I never mentioned) was low and implied that I didnt know why. There were other arguments you used that made more sense, but when you got into the quantifiable claims, thats when I lost you.

I don't know what you want. The problem that you don't seem to be getting is that I was never arguing about efficiency in the first place. I first took issue with him being called a chucker, and then the possession wasting (which I thought of as separate from efficiency). You brought efficiency up and I guess you thought that that was what I was trying to argue, so you criticized me for it. I tried defending myself with what I had said previously, but it gets confusing when I'm trying to defend something I was never discussing in the first place and that my comments prior to that point were not supposed to be applied to.

You're saying that I was trying to sidestep the efficiency conversation by bringing up FG% and offensive rebounding, but I brought those up before you ever even mentioned efficiency.



The conversation is about efficiency and possessions, I only took what your saying within the scope of that argument. If you feel Im taking you out of context its not just my doing, its yours as well.

For example when you said;

Here you are admitting to bringing up an irrelevant stat that has nothing to do with the conversation (Efficiency) and explaining why its low, despite it already being clear that I was accounting for rebounding in the first place upon coming to my conclusion. Why your talking to other people when your quoting me is beyond me.

What I was talking about when I initially quoted you was chucking, not efficiency. I'm not trying to explain his efficiency with that quote (and never was) - it was what you assumed, but it just wasn't the case. I'm saying that FG% is weak and brought up his offensive rebounds as a preemptive statement before efficiency was ever mentioned. I guess it was confusing that I brought it up, but I clearly wasn't talking about efficiency when I did because we didn't get to that point in the conversation yet when the efficiency argument came up.


Well look, when discussing efficiency from a statistical perspective, never argue FG% or think of PER. Those are separate stats meant to measure different things. Efficiency with regards to offensive usage is strictly about per possession value.
Yep, I know the limitations of FG%. PER had me mixed up.



You've given just as much as you've gotten. You have attempted to correct me on several of my claims even though I was being factual. For example;


When you combat an argument about his efficiency with such crude barometers in such a combative way, your not going to get much respect and its easy to see why we've gone down this path.

Again, none of my statements were about efficiency. Just chucking and (what I thought of as separate from efficiency) wasted possessions. When I brought up FG% and offensive rebounds, it had nothing to do with efficiency.



You continued it with this,


You said something that was already covered, is it really a mystery why the argument was never on track?

I think at this point of the argument I still hadn't realized we were talking about two different things.



Then explain what this is suppose to mean :


The possessions he uses are low efficiency even when accounting for offensive rebounding (which he finishes at below average BTW), so what exactly is the point of mentioning this? Its already been taken into account before coming to the conclusion that hes wasting possessions by being inefficient. Your better off sticking to your subjective arguments. I found myself agreeing more with them than the stats you mentioned.

This is the point where I'm addressing a "wasted possession" as separate from efficiency. I guess I was wrong in doing that, but had I been knowingly addressing efficiency, I would not have brought up offensive rebounds because you clearly already let me know that they're a variable for the efficiency measure.

Also, Cousins offensive rebound rate was 14.2 which is top 5 for centers (so, not below average). If you mean finishes as in at the rim, I know as I'm the one who made that comment.

And my subjective arguments were blown off when I was being accused of not understanding the power of statistics. Stats have context, but no one seemed interested.

Chronz
09-08-2012, 04:11 AM
I don't know what you want. The problem that you don't seem to be getting is that I was never arguing about efficiency in the first place. I first took issue with him being called a chucker, and then the possession wasting (which I thought of as separate from efficiency).
I get what your saying but I honestly dont see why you would think inefficient possession waster would be a separate insult, there is a reason Im stringing those words together, Im making sure you literally know what I mean when I call him a chucker. Because you waste possessions by being inefficient, likewise you optimize possessions by being efficient. Its common sense in my book.


You brought efficiency up and I guess you thought that that was what I was trying to argue, so you criticized me for it.
Yes but I also I criticized the poor excuses you laid down on an argument your admitting not wanting to be a part of. You continued mentioning it after I had already explained.


I tried defending myself with what I had said previously, but it gets confusing when I'm trying to defend something I was never discussing in the first place and that my comments prior to that point were not supposed to be applied to.
Heres what I would do if I were in your situation, dont defend it, particularly not with stats that have already been eliminated from the equation.




You're saying that I was trying to sidestep the efficiency conversation by bringing up FG% and offensive rebounding, but I brought those up before you ever even mentioned efficiency.
Good point, you were making a preemptive response to what you probably thought I meant by chucking. That still doesnt explain why you continued to bring it up when I had clarified I was focusing on efficiency.



What I was talking about when I initially quoted you was chucking, not efficiency. I'm not trying to explain his efficiency with that quote (and never was) - it was what you assumed, but it just wasn't the case. I'm saying that FG% is weak and brought up his offensive rebounds as a preemptive statement before efficiency was ever mentioned. I guess it was confusing that I brought it up, but I clearly wasn't talking about efficiency when I did because we didn't get to that point in the conversation yet when the efficiency argument came up.
I think we finally understand each other.



When I brought up FG% and offensive rebounds, it had nothing to do with efficiency.

Initially yes, but you brought them up again when I called him a possession waster. Citing that grabbing and finishing your own miss (at an inefficient rate mind you) arent a waste of a possession when the fact remained, even when accounting for those, he was still inefficient.


Also, Cousins offensive rebound rate was 14.2 which is top 5 for centers (so, not below average). If you mean finishes as in at the rim, I know as I'm the one who made that comment.

Yea I meant finishing his own offensive rebounding.