PDA

View Full Version : 6th Annual PSD Player Rankings #2 PF In The NBA? (Volume: VI)



Mile High Champ
08-15-2013, 11:04 AM
Hey guys, It is that time of year again! Once again we kick of the PSD NBA Off-Season Player Rankings. This is the 6th year I have done this on PSD and it always brings some great discussion and debate. Please keep things civil and discuss who you feel is most fitting and deserving of being voted in each poll.

A lot has changed since last season. Lebron James and the Miami Heat are back to back NBA champions after an exciting 7 game series win over the Spurs. 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 5 years so everyone can see how much things have changed...Enjoy.

Due to some people complaining that the rule was not written for the PG poll; in order to be eligible for these rankings, players must of played in 10 or more games last season. Thank you.


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


MHC TOP 18 PF COMPARISON (Advanced Statistics)



Player Season Age G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48

L. Aldridge 2012-13 27 74 2790 20.4 .530 .485 7.2 20.9 14.0 13.0 1.2 2.5 8.9 26.5 108 107 4.8 2.3 7.2 .124
Pau Gasol 2012-13 32 49 1655 16.7 .512 .473 7.6 20.1 14.0 19.9 0.7 2.7 13.7 20.5 107 106 2.0 1.7 3.7 .107
Blake Griffin 2012-13 23 80 2598 22.4 .572 .541 8.7 21.5 15.2 19.9 2.0 1.6 12.8 25.4 114 102 6.8 3.9 10.6 .196
Ersan Ilyasova 2012-13 25 73 2012 18.3 .552 .521 7.9 20.3 13.9 9.6 1.7 1.3 7.9 20.5 114 104 4.1 2.5 6.7 .159
Dirk Nowitzki 2012-13 34 53 1661 19.8 .564 .516 2.5 21.5 12.2 13.5 1.2 1.7 7.9 24.2 111 106 3.3 1.8 5.0 .145
Kevin Garnett 2012-13 36 68 2022 19.2 .535 .498 4.5 25.8 15.5 14.4 2.0 2.4 10.5 24.5 104 99 1.8 3.8 5.6 .133
Serge Ibaka 2012-13 23 80 2486 19.4 .612 .586 11.1 17.0 14.2 2.8 0.6 7.4 12.7 18.1 117 101 5.3 4.1 9.4 .181
David Lee 2012-13 29 79 2907 19.2 .561 .519 8.5 24.5 16.8 16.5 1.2 0.6 13.7 23.2 110 104 5.4 3.7 9.1 .150
Zach Randolph 2012-13 31 76 2607 17.9 .506 .461 13.8 25.1 19.3 7.3 1.3 1.0 11.5 23.1 106 99 3.2 4.7 7.9 .145
Josh Smith 2012-13 27 76 2683 17.7 .501 .491 5.8 21.3 13.6 20.9 1.8 3.9 14.6 26.7 97 101 -0.3 4.5 4.2 .075
David West 2012-13 32 73 2435 20.1 .545 .500 6.8 18.8 12.9 16.8 1.6 2.1 12.0 24.4 110 99 4.4 4.7 9.1 .179
Ryan Anderson 2012-13 24 81 2503 18.1 .548 .519 8.9 15.9 12.4 6.9 0.9 1.0 7.5 24.0 114 112 5.7 0.8 6.5 .125
Carlos Boozer 2012-13 31 79 2546 17.1 .510 .477 7.8 27.2 17.4 13.4 1.4 0.8 12.3 25.8 101 100 1.4 4.3 5.7 .108
Anthony Davis 2012-13 19 64 1846 21.7 .559 .516 10.5 23.5 16.8 6.1 2.2 5.1 10.3 21.8 113 104 3.7 2.4 6.1 .159
Kenneth Faried 2012-13 23 80 2248 18.5 .573 .552 13.2 23.2 18.3 5.1 1.8 2.9 12.3 17.7 116 102 4.5 3.4 7.8 .167
Paul Millsap 2012-13 27 78 2375 19.8 .550 .498 8.6 18.8 13.7 14.5 2.3 2.7 11.8 22.4 112 104 4.8 2.9 7.6 .154
Tiago Splitter 2012-13 28 81 1997 18.7 .609 .560 8.8 20.3 14.9 10.0 1.6 2.3 12.7 18.2 118 100 4.7 3.5 8.2 .197
A. Stoudemire 2012-13 30 29 682 22.1 .637 .577 10.0 15.1 12.4 3.6 0.8 2.7 13.4 25.7 118 108 2.1 0.6 2.7 .191





2013 Off-Season PSD PF Rankings

1) Kevin Love
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)


2012 Off-Season PSD PF Rankings

1) Kevin Love
2) Dirk Nowitzki
3) LaMarcus Aldridge
4) Chris Bosh
5) Pau Gasol
6) Blake Griffin
7) Josh Smith
8) Zach Randolph
9) Amare Stoudemire
10) Paul Millsap

2011 Off-Season PF Rankings

1) Dirk Nowitzki
2) Amare Stoudemire
3) Pau Gasol
4) Zach Randolph
5) Chris Bosh
6) LaMarcus Aldridge
7) Kevin Love
8) Blake Griffin
9) Kevin Garnett
10) Josh Smith

2010 Off-Season PF Rankings

1) Pau Gasol
2) Dirk Nowitzki
3) Tim Duncan
4) Chris Bosh
5) Amare Stoudemire
6) Carlos Boozer
7) Kevin Garnett
8) Josh Smith
9) David Lee
10) Zach Randolph

2009 Off-Season PF Rankings

1) Tim Duncan
2) Kevin Garnett
3) Dirk Nowitzki
4) Chris Bosh
5) Amare Stoudemire
6) Pau Gasol
7) Carlos Boozer
8) Antawn Jamison
9) Rashard Lewis
10) David West

2008 Off-Season PF rankings

1) Tim Duncan
2) Kevin Garnett
3) Amare Stoudemire
4) Chris Bosh
5) Dirk Nowitzki
6) Elton Brand
7) Carlos Boozer
8) Pau Gasol
9) Antawn Jamison
10) David West

Mile High Champ
08-15-2013, 11:08 AM
Going to have to give Blake the edge here after the year he just had. Easily had the best offensive year of any PF left on the poll and I have no issue taking him over both Dirk and LMA.

NYKnickFanatic
08-15-2013, 11:29 AM
Lma!

Minimal
08-15-2013, 11:40 AM
Voted for David Lee on previous one, changed my mind, going with Blake here. I hope LMA won't win this one, he became overrated.

D-Leethal
08-15-2013, 11:57 AM
I can't fathom how Aldridge can be considered better than Dirk.

ManRam
08-15-2013, 12:09 PM
The gap between Blake's offense and LMA's offense is greater than the gap between their defense. I'm not even convinced LMA is the superior defender after last season.

Blake here.

I'll have to think hard about Dirk v LMA

Ebbs
08-15-2013, 12:17 PM
Someone explain how Blake is a better offensive PF than Dirk?

Oefarmy2005
08-15-2013, 12:23 PM
Blake is more efficient and has better defensive rating than both Dirk and LMA. Dirk is also 35 coming into this season.

Chronz
08-15-2013, 01:19 PM
I voted Dirk, but that was before I realized that LMA was leading this poll. Can someone change my vote to Blake or is that impossible, cant we just pretend to -1 for Dirk and +1 for Blake. Nothing would be sadder than seeing LMA go #2 (that sounded wrong)

I should have waited before voting.

Chronz
08-15-2013, 01:20 PM
Someone explain how Blake is a better offensive PF than Dirk?

Hes not. At least not when Dirk is right, its just a matter of you believing Dirk is still the same guy he was last year or even 2 years ago. I certainly do.

JasonJohnHorn
08-15-2013, 01:37 PM
BG seems like the obviosu chocie here for me, then Lee. I understand some going with LMA, but Lee and BG are the best on the list in my book. They are both much better rebounders and play makers than LMA.

LMA's averages look better than BG's because he got 5 more minutes a game. If Blake had gotten those minutes, there wouldn't even be a conversation.

And Lee.... so underrated. There is a reason he was on the All-Star team. He is a better rebounder and better passer than LMA and had higher averages in both despite getting fewer minutes than LMA. And he shot at a more efficient rate as well.

LMA should inish no higher thna 4th here in my book.

Bruno
08-15-2013, 01:51 PM
I went Blake here and I think I'll be alone in voting for Davis over the next 3-5 polls until he's selected.

NYKnickFanatic
08-15-2013, 01:57 PM
What's the big deal if LMA gets #2 here? Last year he was voted 3rd, is it that much of a stretch if he is voted #2nd?

Last year BG was voted 6th and people want him 2nd here, but no one is complaining.

ManRam
08-15-2013, 02:00 PM
Lee is not underrated. Hell, you just kinda showed why. You're ignoring half the game: defense. Besides Jefferson and Amare, I'm not sure there's a worse star/high-paid defensive big man in the game. He is remarkably bad. Good offensive player, but the value is almost completely lost because of his defense. He's still a good player because his offensive value can't be denied, but I think it's foolish his name has been brought up in these first two threads here.

Kirk Goldsberry's SLOAN work on interior defense was big news this year and was discussed frequently, much to Lee's dismay. Check it out.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/52811/courtvision-david-lees-interior-defense-a-k-a-the-golden-gate

Read his research paper too. It's a great read.

ManRam
08-15-2013, 02:03 PM
What's the big deal if LMA gets #2 here? Last year he was voted 3rd, is it that much of a stretch if he is voted #2nd?

Last year BG was voted 6th and people want him 2nd here, but no one is complaining.

Griffin made big strides defensively this season. I think some of the stigma that all he can do is dunk and rebound kinda wore off. I know it has on me at least. Aldridge, conversely, did not play better last year. He had one of his weaker seasons...at the very least it was notably worse than the prior two seasons.

Team success I'm sure is in the back of people's heads too.

JasonJohnHorn
08-15-2013, 02:09 PM
Someone explain how Blake is a better offensive PF than Dirk?


Well... BG gets more points per shot than Dirk, so it could be argued that he's more efficient. Also... offense includes assists and BG gets more than Dirk.

His FG% is higher than Dirk. Dirk is a more versatile scorer, has more range (better 3pt shooting and FT shooting).

Now, I'm not saying that BG IS a better scorer than Dirk, but at the same time, they are very close. This poll does not ask who the best offensive powerforward is, merely who the best is.

BG is a better rebounder, get more assists more steals and almost as many blocks and most would agree is a better defender (though neither plays at an All-Defensive level). Also, Dirk missed a huge chuck of the season due to injury, so that plays a role for some voters.

SteBO
08-15-2013, 02:10 PM
Tough between Blake and Dirk......I went with Blake, plus it'll hopefully help prevent LMA winning this. He's easily the most overrated PF on PSD.

sunsfan88
08-15-2013, 02:27 PM
If LMA was playing with Chris Paul, I would imagine that LMA would be easily averaging 25 a game on very good efficiency.

ManRam
08-15-2013, 02:48 PM
If LMA was playing with Chris Paul, I would imagine that LMA would be easily averaging 25 a game on very good efficiency.

Surely he'd be a little better. But what about this?

I Blake's rookie season (without CP3, obviously), he had a TS% of 54.9% and a eFG% of 50.8%. In only one season has LMA bested those two numbers. I mean, that was on a bad team, without CP3 and his FIRST season in the NBA. Not bad.

I think LMA's offensive game is more well-rounded, for sure, but Blake is catching up and in the end it's the results that matter, and he's produced on a very solid level.

sunsfan88
08-15-2013, 02:52 PM
Surely he'd be a little better. But what about this?

I Blake's rookie season (without CP3, obviously), he had a TS% of 54.9% and a eFG% of 50.8%. In only one season has LMA bested those two numbers. I mean, that was on a bad team, without CP3 and his FIRST season in the NBA. Not bad.

I think LMA's offensive game is more well-rounded, for sure, but Blake is catching up and in the end it's the results that matter, and he's produced on a very solid level.
Blake's offensive game revolves around lobs, dunks and put backs. He isn't the type of guy you can give the ball to and say, go score. LMA is and that's why I went with him here.

And Griffin caught the league by surprise when he came into this league but the league adjusted how to guard him even with his out of this world athleticism. But if you look, Blake's numbers have went down every single season since entering the league.

Other than highlight dunks and rebounds, what really does Blake bring?

5ass
08-15-2013, 03:10 PM
Blake's offensive game revolves around lobs, dunks and put backs. He isn't the type of guy you can give the ball to and say, go score. LMA is and that's why I went with him here.

And Griffin caught the league by surprise when he came into this league but the league adjusted how to guard him even with his out of this world athleticism. But if you look, Blake's numbers have went down every single season since entering the league.

Other than highlight dunks and rebounds, what really does Blake bring?

Come on. He can rebound, pass, and handle the ball better than Aldridge. He's also just as good defensively if not better.

ManRam
08-15-2013, 03:22 PM
Blake's offensive game revolves around lobs, dunks and put backs. He isn't the type of guy you can give the ball to and say, go score. LMA is and that's why I went with him here.

And Griffin caught the league by surprise when he came into this league but the league adjusted how to guard him even with his out of this world athleticism. But if you look, Blake's numbers have went down every single season since entering the league.

Other than highlight dunks and rebounds, what really does Blake bring?

He is significantly better at the rim, that is important for a big man. Aldridge's finishing within 3 feet is only average. Blake on the other hand is one of the best in the league. Yes, he does a lot via lobs, dunks and putbacks, but that's because he's ABLE to. Can't knock him for that. If LMA could I'm sure he would too. Why wouldn't you?

I said he's not as skilled, but his athleticism makes up for things. He can't shoot the mid range shot like Aldridge can, at all, but his athleticism consistently finds him very easy looks, and again, why knock him for that.

Aldridge takes 58% of his shots outside of the paint partially because he has the skill to do that and because he's not nearly as good at the rim. That results in hampered efficiency. Blake takes 65% of his shots in the paint, and 62% of that is at the rim. His ability to get those easy looks is a talent and a great asset to have.


LMA can score from more places on the court and is a bit more of a "go-to" scorer, but what Blake brings to the table is very important and impressive too. They're different, but in the end results matter and there's not much separating them in that regard.

Greet
08-15-2013, 03:35 PM
Sorry but the LMA hate is a little ridiculous at this point. I would take him over Blake in most situations. His offensive game is more advanced, he's a better defender. If LMA had Chris Paul, his offensive #s would blow away Blake IMO.

Surround LMA with the talent that Blake has, I think the team would go farther with LMA.

unleashthebeast
08-15-2013, 03:45 PM
Really should be Dirk here, then LMA

tredigs
08-15-2013, 03:47 PM
Blake's offensive game revolves around lobs, dunks and put backs. He isn't the type of guy you can give the ball to and say, go score. LMA is and that's why I went with him here.

And Griffin caught the league by surprise when he came into this league but the league adjusted how to guard him even with his out of this world athleticism. But if you look, Blake's numbers have went down every single season since entering the league.

Other than highlight dunks and rebounds, what really does Blake bring?

Terrible post(er).

naps
08-15-2013, 03:53 PM
I would still go with Dirk.

OP, are you considering Bosh a center this year?

ChiSox219
08-15-2013, 04:04 PM
Terrible post(er).

+1, on my ignore list for a while now

naps
08-15-2013, 04:18 PM
Terrible post(er).

Agreed 100%.

Mile High Champ
08-15-2013, 04:21 PM
I voted Dirk, but that was before I realized that LMA was leading this poll. Can someone change my vote to Blake or is that impossible, cant we just pretend to -1 for Dirk and +1 for Blake. Nothing would be sadder than seeing LMA go #2 (that sounded wrong)

I should have waited before voting.

I will make note of it now. Thanks for the clarification.

Mile High Champ
08-15-2013, 04:23 PM
I went Blake here and I think I'll be alone in voting for Davis over the next 3-5 polls until he's selected.

I mentioned in the last poll that I too would be voting for Davis at some point. He had a great rookie year and in a season with a bunch of average performances, Davis may just crack the top 10.

Mile High Champ
08-15-2013, 04:28 PM
Lee is not underrated. Hell, you just kinda showed why. You're ignoring half the game: defense. Besides Jefferson and Amare, I'm not sure there's a worse star/high-paid defensive big man in the game. He is remarkably bad. Good offensive player, but the value is almost completely lost because of his defense. He's still a good player because his offensive value can't be denied, but I think it's foolish his name has been brought up in these first two threads here.

Kirk Goldsberry's SLOAN work on interior defense was big news this year and was discussed frequently, much to Lee's dismay. Check it out.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/52811/courtvision-david-lees-interior-defense-a-k-a-the-golden-gate

Read his research paper too. It's a great read.

Lee's D is not as bad as everyone claims. It has improved greatly since he left New York. Last year he was terrific against guarding spot up shooters and defending the PNR. Yes he struggles in the post but he is really not that bad on defense anymore. He certainly deserves more credit than he is getting. He only gave up 0.81 PPP last year.

To compare Dirk gave up .8 PPP, Aldridge .86 PPP, Gasol .82 PPP and Griffin gave up .83.

tredigs
08-15-2013, 04:28 PM
Well, Davis is a stud. Once his frame fills out a little more I don't see how he won't be at the very least the best defensive PF, and from what I've seen he's got a solid all around game. That's one team/player I didn't get a chance to watch more than 5 or 6 games last year though. Just off the stat sheet the only thing I don't like is that his assist% is so low. I like bigs with playmaking ability a lot more, but he's still young.


Lee's D is not as bad as everyone claims. It has improved greatly since he left New York. Last year he was terrific against guarding spot up shooters and defending the PNR. Yes he struggles in the post but he is really not that bad on defense anymore. He certainly deserves more credit than he is getting. He only gave up 0.81 PPP last year.

To compare Dirk gave up .8 PPP, Aldridge .86 PPP, Gasol .82 PPP and Griffin gave up .83.

If you go strictly off Synergy's #'s then you have to conclude that Monta Ellis is a better defender than Iggy, Lebron and Tony Allen. I can't do that. I've seen too much. Same goes for D. Lee. Though his D is in fact not quite as bad as the rep from an eye test.

Greet
08-15-2013, 04:55 PM
Also, I think KG should be listed at Center. http://www.82games.com/1213/12BOS17.HTM#bypos

nycericanguy
08-15-2013, 04:59 PM
Blake's offensive game revolves around lobs, dunks and put backs. He isn't the type of guy you can give the ball to and say, go score. LMA is and that's why I went with him here.

And Griffin caught the league by surprise when he came into this league but the league adjusted how to guard him even with his out of this world athleticism. But if you look, Blake's numbers have went down every single season since entering the league.

Other than highlight dunks and rebounds, what really does Blake bring?

Blake also averaged almost 4apg, which is pretty impressive for a PF. I don't get the LMA hype. He's a good offensive player on a bad team that shoots a lot. And for a big man to shoot under 50% and get less than 5 FT's per game despite playing 38mpg is very underwhelming.

Love
Blake
Dirk

Chronz
08-15-2013, 05:57 PM
What's the big deal if LMA gets #2 here? Last year he was voted 3rd, is it that much of a stretch if he is voted #2nd?

Last year BG was voted 6th and people want him 2nd here, but no one is complaining.

It was equally moronic last year and the argument has only gotten weaker.

Chronz
08-15-2013, 05:59 PM
If LMA was playing with Chris Paul, I would imagine that LMA would be easily averaging 25 a game on very good efficiency.
Isnt that a reason to vote against him? Blake doesn't need CP3 to produce at a more impressive rate than LMA

Chronz
08-15-2013, 06:00 PM
Blake's offensive game revolves around lobs, dunks and put backs. He isn't the type of guy you can give the ball to and say, go score. LMA is and that's why I went with him here.

And Griffin caught the league by surprise when he came into this league but the league adjusted how to guard him even with his out of this world athleticism. But if you look, Blake's numbers have went down every single season since entering the league.

Other than highlight dunks and rebounds, what really does Blake bring?

You have a poor grasp of numbers so please stick to subjective arguments, its painful to see statistics misused.

Chronz
08-15-2013, 06:04 PM
Sorry but the LMA hate is a little ridiculous at this point. I would take him over Blake in most situations. His offensive game is more advanced, he's a better defender. If LMA had Chris Paul, his offensive #s would blow away Blake IMO.
Is your statistical opinion rooted in science or emotion? Even if true, doesn't that expose LMA, why cant he produce without that assistance?


Surround LMA with the talent that Blake has, I think the team would go farther with LMA.
I dont think theres enough of a difference between the 2 to say the either way.

Greet
08-15-2013, 06:12 PM
Is your statistical opinion rooted in science or emotion? Even if true, doesn't that expose LMA, why cant he produce without that assistance?


I dont think theres enough of a difference between the 2 to say the either way.

I don't think it's a knock towards LMA at all, I'd be willing to say if given the same talent that LMA can be a #1 option on a championship caliber team. Blake can not.

tredigs
08-15-2013, 06:13 PM
Interesting thing is that neither of these two are noticeably better than David Lee - who has 0 votes. PF position is maxed out with B level production with the decline of Dirk and KG.

sunsfan88
08-15-2013, 06:15 PM
You have a poor grasp of numbers so please stick to subjective arguments, its painful to see statistics misused.

I didn't even give any statistics in the post, how am I misusing it?

I forgot you are a Clippers fan. I guess I struck a nerve. Don't worry, I used to defend Amare too (when in PHX) when people bashed on him.

sunsfan88
08-15-2013, 06:19 PM
He is significantly better at the rim, that is important for a big man. Aldridge's finishing within 3 feet is only average. Blake on the other hand is one of the best in the league. Yes, he does a lot via lobs, dunks and putbacks, but that's because he's ABLE to. Can't knock him for that. If LMA could I'm sure he would too. Why wouldn't you?

I said he's not as skilled, but his athleticism makes up for things. He can't shoot the mid range shot like Aldridge can, at all, but his athleticism consistently finds him very easy looks, and again, why knock him for that.

Aldridge takes 58% of his shots outside of the paint partially because he has the skill to do that and because he's not nearly as good at the rim. That results in hampered efficiency. Blake takes 65% of his shots in the paint, and 62% of that is at the rim. His ability to get those easy looks is a talent and a great asset to have.


LMA can score from more places on the court and is a bit more of a "go-to" scorer, but what Blake brings to the table is very important and impressive too. They're different, but in the end results matter and there's not much separating them in that regard.
Aren't we looking for who the most skilled player is?

I really wonder what Griffin's stats look like against teams with athletic front courts and I wonder how LMA's looks like vs athletic front courts.

Would you agree with me if I said that Griffin is easier to stop than LMA? For example, just leave Griffin wide open outside and just keep a man on him to stop him drivin to the paint.

Kinda like the way Diaw was guarding LeBron in the playoffs. LeBron hit his jumpers...Griffin can't.

I'm not saying Blake is a bad player at all. I just don't think he's better than LMA.

sunsfan88
08-15-2013, 06:21 PM
I don't think it's a knock towards LMA at all, I'd be willing to say if given the same talent that LMA can be a #1 option on a championship caliber team. Blake can not.

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think either can be the #1 option on a championship caliber team. But Griffin has the better chance if he develops an outside game combined with his elite athleticism.

Chronz
08-15-2013, 06:22 PM
I didn't even give any statistics in the post, how am I misusing it?


You made a statistical claim, dont hide from it now:

But if you look, Blake's numbers have went down every single season since entering the league.

This is CLEARLY a result of you focusing on primitive averages. Anyone with any semblance of statistical understanding knows Blake's numbers have actually gotten better, the worst you could say is that his statistical impact has remained the same.

Plz dont stoop so low as to think Im making these accusations because Im a Blake fan. In case you didn't realize, I actually voted for Dirk before I saw that LMA was winning.

tredigs
08-15-2013, 06:27 PM
Aren't we looking for who the most skilled player is?

I really wonder what Griffin's stats look like against teams with athletic front courts and I wonder how LMA's looks like vs athletic front courts.

Would you agree with me if I said that Griffin is easier to stop than LMA? For example, just leave Griffin wide open outside and just keep a man on him to stop him drivin to the paint.

Kinda like the way Diaw was guarding LeBron in the playoffs. LeBron hit his jumpers...Griffin can't.

I'm not saying Blake is a bad player at all. I just don't think he's better than LMA.
"can't". Aldridge is a better mid-range shooter, but Blake isn't Dwight Howard. He's capable. He's also much better at attacking the rim and a better passer than Aldridge, not every team has Splitter and Duncan in the paint.

sunsfan88
08-15-2013, 06:29 PM
You made a statistical claim, dont hide from it now:

But if you look, Blake's numbers have went down every single season since entering the league.

This is CLEARLY a result of you focusing on primitive averages. Anyone with any semblance of statistical understanding knows Blake's numbers have actually gotten better, the worst you could say is that his statistical impact has remained the same.

Plz dont stoop so low as to think Im making these accusations because Im a Blake fan. In case you didn't realize, I actually voted for Dirk before I saw that LMA was winning.
Blake's PPG has went down from 22 to 20 to 18. His rebounds have sent down from 12 to 10 to 8.

I'm sure you can throw out some advanced stats and skew it in a way to make it look like Griffin's improved his numbers but what I'm saying is the basic stats that are showed on NBA.com:

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/blake_griffin/#$/playerfile/blake_griffin/index.html

And Dirk? Your kidding right? I would take LMA and Blake over him easily. But lets have that conversation at the appropriate time.

Chronz
08-15-2013, 06:29 PM
I don't think it's a knock towards LMA at all, I'd be willing to say if given the same talent that LMA can be a #1 option on a championship caliber team. Blake can not.
Winning and losing is based on what you do on both ends, like you can have a very poor offense and still be a championship caliber team if your defense is good enough.

I think you mean to say LMA can be the fulcrom of a great offensive team, its all opinion because neither player is a complete offensive player, but I have more faith in Blake developing a jumper than LMA developing his passing because if you throw double teams at either one of these, its clear that Blake has a much stronger floor game.

I think we can both agree, how a player handles double teams is pretty important for a "#1 option"

sunsfan88
08-15-2013, 06:30 PM
Also I must say I was unaware of Blake being a good passer. After looking it up, I am impressed. The gap between Blake and LMA just got a lot closer for me.

tredigs
08-15-2013, 06:34 PM
Also I must say I was unaware of Blake being a good passer. After looking it up, I am impressed. The gap between Blake and LMA just got a lot closer for me.

He's been in the league for years dude, c'mon. Why argue so vehemently if you don't even know who you're talking about.

Chronz
08-15-2013, 06:36 PM
Blake's PPG has went down from 22 to 20 to 18. His rebounds have sent down from 12 to 10 to 8.

I'm sure you can throw out some advanced stats and skew it in a way to make it look like Griffin's improved his numbers but what I'm saying is the basic stats that are showed on NBA.com:

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/blake_griffin/#$/playerfile/blake_griffin/index.html
If you are sure of it, then why hold the contradictory opinion that his stats have gone down? His rebounding has gone down because hes a better defender and most statistics we have to gauge defensive contributions have agreed. PPG without efficiency is irrelevant.

What do you mean by skew? Are you really trying to tell me that I should trust your opinion on stats above actual statisticians?


And Dirk? Your kidding right? I would take LMA and Blake over him easily. But lets have that conversation at the appropriate time.
The point remains, your stance about biased reasoning was laughable.

Chronz
08-15-2013, 06:38 PM
Also I must say I was unaware of Blake being a good passer. After looking it up, I am impressed. The gap between Blake and LMA just got a lot closer for me.
So basically, you've never seen Blake play? His passing acumen was evident from Y.1

We are now at Y3 and you're just barely realizing his passing game? Not trying to dig at you man but as a fan of objective analysis and as a fan of Blake, your comments are pretty unnerving.

sunsfan88
08-15-2013, 06:48 PM
He's been in the league for years dude, c'mon. Why argue so vehemently if you don't even know who you're talking about.

So "vehemently"?? You are acting as if I just came and said "BLAKE GRIFFIN SUCKS HE CAN'T EVEN HOLD LMA's JOCK LMA IS SOOOOOOO MUCH BETTER THAN HIM"

I thought the point of this thread is to discuss and that's exactly what I'm doing. Did you expect everyone to just agree with each other or something?

Chronz
08-15-2013, 06:55 PM
So "vehemently"?? You are acting as if I just came and said "BLAKE GRIFFIN SUCKS HE CAN'T EVEN HOLD LMA's JOCK LMA IS SOOOOOOO MUCH BETTER THAN HIM"

I thought the point of this thread is to discuss and that's exactly what I'm doing. Did you expect everyone to just agree with each other or something?

Maybe we are being too harsh on you but isn't this kind of like figuring out that Dirk is a good shooter? Maybe not but its feels that way to me and if I heard someone say something like that, I just dont get the idea that they watch them very much. But its not like you said he was a bad passer, you just didn't realize he was that good, I guess theres a difference so for that I apologize.

Greet
08-15-2013, 07:08 PM
Winning and losing is based on what you do on both ends, like you can have a very poor offense and still be a championship caliber team if your defense is good enough.

I think you mean to say LMA can be the fulcrom of a great offensive team, its all opinion because neither player is a complete offensive player, but I have more faith in Blake developing a jumper than LMA developing his passing because if you throw double teams at either one of these, its clear that Blake has a much stronger floor game.

I think we can both agree, how a player handles double teams is pretty important for a "#1 option"

Sure, I can agree.

But would you rather have the guy who has a top notch jumper, or a guy who's the better passer?

DR_1
08-15-2013, 07:24 PM
Someone explain how Blake is a better offensive PF than Dirk?

This

mrblisterdundee
08-15-2013, 07:28 PM
I voted for Zach Randolph again. He's the most consistent player on this list, and he's healthier than Kevin Love. Just because Blake Griffin dunks a lot doesn't make him better. Randolph could match him offensively any day of the week, just with a wider variety of moves. And he's way more rugged than LaMarcus Alrdridge, which I like in a power forward.

Guppyfighter
08-15-2013, 08:07 PM
People who are voting LMA over Blake are dumb.

Guppyfighter
08-15-2013, 08:08 PM
I voted for Zach Randolph again. He's the most consistent player on this list, and he's healthier than Kevin Love. Just because Blake Griffin dunks a lot doesn't make him better. Randolph could match him offensively any day of the week, just with a wider variety of moves. And he's way more rugged than LaMarcus Alrdridge, which I like in a power forward.
If by consistent, you mean the most consistent inconsistent on offense.

tredigs
08-15-2013, 08:11 PM
I don't think we're being harsh enough.

tredigs
08-15-2013, 08:22 PM
Fwiw, because I've seen it brought up a few times, the way I think about these polls is, "if I had to start my team around any 1 of these available options for 1 season right now, who would I take?". Normally the answer for me is Garnett or Dirk, but age and/or injuries are catching up a bit and I can't fully trust them, and of the rest I want to try to win with Blake. He already shored up one weakness (defense), and as soon as he can hit a mid-range with regularity (and get rid of his ****ing stutter shot/hitch), I'll be comfortable with him as the best of the best in the NBA. Stats aside that lean BG, these other guys just are not world class All Time PF's. Blake is close, and probably will be.

D-Leethal
08-15-2013, 09:12 PM
I am a pretty big critic of Blake but he's definitely better than Aldridge. And if Dirk was playing with Chris Paul and the same weapons Blake has all around him, I don't think there would be any question at all who the #2 guy on this poll would be (or #1 for that matter).

Chronz
08-16-2013, 01:55 AM
I am a pretty big critic of Blake but he's definitely better than Aldridge. And if Dirk was playing with Chris Paul and the same weapons Blake has all around him, I don't think there would be any question at all who the #2 guy on this poll would be (or #1 for that matter).

So then why arent you voting for him?

sunsfan88
08-16-2013, 02:39 AM
Maybe we are being too harsh on you but isn't this kind of like figuring out that Dirk is a good shooter? Maybe not but its feels that way to me and if I heard someone say something like that, I just dont get the idea that they watch them very much. But its not like you said he was a bad passer, you just didn't realize he was that good, I guess theres a difference so for that I apologize.
So when you think of Blake Griffin, the first thing that comes to your mind is his passing ability?

Cause for Dirk, shooting is the first thing that comes to my mind. Plus his little one legged shot.

For Blake I think of his dunking ability and athleticism.

So to say that I should know Blake being a good passer in the same way I should know Dirk is a good shooter is a bit extreme.

Apology accepted though.

Guppyfighter
08-16-2013, 02:46 AM
So when you think of Blake Griffin, the first thing that comes to your mind is his passing ability?

Cause for Dirk, shooting is the first thing that comes to my mind. Plus his little one legged shot.

For Blake I think of his dunking ability and athleticism.

So to say that I should know Blake being a good passer in the same way I should know Dirk is a good shooter is a bit extreme.

Apology accepted though.

Uh, you are on a ****ing basketball forum. You aren't some schmuck on the streets who doesn't watch basketball.

If you like basketball, you should know Blake is a great ****ing passer.

naps
08-16-2013, 03:55 AM
So when you think of Blake Griffin, the first thing that comes to your mind is his passing ability?

Cause for Dirk, shooting is the first thing that comes to my mind. Plus his little one legged shot.

For Blake I think of his dunking ability and athleticism.

So to say that I should know Blake being a good passer in the same way I should know Dirk is a good shooter is a bit extreme.

Apology accepted though.

Dude, this whole time you're arguing about a guy and you don't even know one of his finest skills? Do you realize how funny and awful that sounds like? Just stop it. No more excuses.

Iggz53
08-16-2013, 07:29 AM
Defensively LMA is a step above Blake (even after last year), but Blake's all-around production is easily superior. I'd imagine alot of that has to do with CP3 but that's all we have to go by.

Oefarmy2005
08-16-2013, 10:30 AM
Glad to see the better player finally getting the votes he deserves. As a Minny fan, I think Love is the best PF, but if there was one guy I would consider trading him straight up for - it would be Blake. Griffin > Aldridge.

Oefarmy2005
08-16-2013, 10:31 AM
Defensively LMA is a step above Blake (even after last year), but Blake's all-around production is easily superior. I'd imagine alot of that has to do with CP3 but that's all we have to go by.

I don't get it. Based on what is LMA better defensively? Advanced stats say otherwise my friend.

ManRam
08-16-2013, 10:41 AM
I voted for Zach Randolph again. He's the most consistent player on this list, and he's healthier than Kevin Love. Just because Blake Griffin dunks a lot doesn't make him better. Randolph could match him offensively any day of the week, just with a wider variety of moves. And he's way more rugged than LaMarcus Alrdridge, which I like in a power forward.

Consistently inconsistent, sure. Or at least, consistently inefficient...and consistently terrible defensively.

D-Leethal
08-16-2013, 11:01 AM
So then why arent you voting for him?

I voted for Dirk the past two rounds?

D-Leethal
08-16-2013, 11:03 AM
I don't get it. Based on what is LMA better defensively? Advanced stats say otherwise my friend.

Can you explain how using advanced stats to rate a players defense is even close to being an accurate judge? Advanced stats also tell you Steve Novak is a better defender than Shane Battier. Defensive stats for individuals have an ocean to cross before they are even remotely accurate in assessing a players D.

Oefarmy2005
08-16-2013, 11:34 AM
Can you explain how using advanced stats to rate a players defense is even close to being an accurate judge? Advanced stats also tell you Steve Novak is a better defender than Shane Battier. Defensive stats for individuals have an ocean to cross before they are even remotely accurate in assessing a players D.

They are still better than anything out there and definitely better than your or my eye test. Any by the way, Battier had a really bad year last year and both are very inefficient(Battier and Novak). Here we are talking about players that are starters that are getting starter minutes - advanced stats are very good indication for players like that.

ManRam
08-16-2013, 11:38 AM
Can you explain how using advanced stats to rate a players defense is even close to being an accurate judge? Advanced stats also tell you Steve Novak is a better defender than Shane Battier. Defensive stats for individuals have an ocean to cross before they are even remotely accurate in assessing a players D.

Some will say that, some don't. You can't use any of them in a vacuum.

But what's the alternative? Eye test is a great jumping off point, but most of us aren't smart enough to actually grasp defensive impact. There's so much to it. That's why building upon your eye test opinion (which is often chock full of bias) with other tools is never a bad thing. Ever. Using any one stat to make an absolute statement or dismissing stats because they don't say what you WANT them to say is far worse.

D-Leethal
08-16-2013, 11:50 AM
Some will say that, some don't. You can't use any of them in a vacuum.

But what's the alternative? Eye test is a great jumping off point, but most of us aren't smart enough to actually grasp defensive impact. There's so much to it. That's why building upon your eye test opinion (which is often chock full of bias) with other tools is never a bad thing. Ever. Using any one stat to make an absolute statement or dismissing stats because they don't say what you WANT them to say is far worse.

Just because 'thats all we got' doesn't mean you throw them out there and use them solely to form your opinion like the dude I quoted did. Statements like "oh his D is better? Advanced stats say otherwise my friend" are flawed as hell when you can poke a ton of holes in those stats he's using to form his stance, not compliment it, but completely form it.

Just because the eye test doesn't suffice doesn't mean you rely on utterly flawed defensive statistics that have more to do with the team than the individual you are using them to judge. I don't dismiss stats completely, I dismiss the people who never provide context and continuously take them at face value completely, like the majority of posters here you do (yourself and select few others excluded). Baseball is a game where you can take the stats at face value and be confident they are telling you the facts. Like I said before, basketball has an ocean to cross before you can do that, ESPECIALLY on defense. The nature of the game will never allow for individuals to be compared accurately with these stats unless they are in nearly identical situations. If they are not, you need to provide a ton of context to explain why the discrepancies are where they are before making your judgement.

I know I've been ranting about this for a long time now, but I'm not going to stop until the majority of posters using these stats start doing it properly and at least acknowledge the flaws when taking them at face value. Posts like the ones I quoted from the dude above, are the posts I will continue to target.

D-Leethal
08-16-2013, 11:56 AM
They are still better than anything out there and definitely better than your or my eye test. Any by the way, Battier had a really bad year last year and both are very inefficient(Battier and Novak). Here we are talking about players that are starters that are getting starter minutes - advanced stats are very good indication for players like that.

If using DRTG at face value is the best we got out there than we might as well stop using them completely because even theoretically directly on the surface the whole concept is flawed as hell.

Do you think defense is a series of five 1 on 1 matchups? If your guy scores its your fault? Or do you view it as 5 guys on a string helping and rotating in unison to stop the other 5? If you view it as #2, you should have no problem seeing why individual DRTG is as flawed as it gets, and has more to do with the teammates around you than it does with your individual defensive talent.

Case in point: Aldridge is on the 4th worst defensive team in the league, with an undersized C who is probably the worst defensive starting C in the league (Hickson). Blake is on the 8th best defensive team in the league with a 7 foot monster in the paint next to him. Who do you honestly expect to have a better DRTG when the concept is revolved around points allowed and skewed heavily depending on the quality of your team's defense? The guy on the crappy defensive team with a crappy defender next to him, or the guy on a top 10 defensive team with a solid, shotblocking 7 footer next to him?

See the flaws in your analysis there? Look for context and you'll figure out why those discrepancies might be there before taking them at face value and determining the discrepancies are there solely because one guy is a better defender than the other. Once you note the context in those discrepancies, use that to supplement your eye test and form an opinion. Don't just let the stats do all the talking.

ManRam
08-16-2013, 12:04 PM
Just because 'thats all we got' doesn't mean you throw them out there and use them solely to form your opinion like the dude I quoted did. Statements like "oh his D is better? Advanced stats say otherwise my friend" are flawed as hell when you can poke a ton of holes in those stats he's using to form his stance, not compliment it, but completely form it.

Just because the eye test doesn't suffice doesn't mean you rely on utterly flawed defensive statistics that have more to do with the team than the individual you are using them to judge. I don't dismiss stats completely, I dismiss the people who never provide context and continuously take them at face value completely, like the majority of posters here you do (yourself and select few others excluded). Baseball is a game where you can take the stats at face value and be confident they are telling you the facts. Like I said before, basketball has an ocean to cross before you can do that, ESPECIALLY on defense. The nature of the game will never allow for individuals to be compared accurately with these stats unless they are in nearly identical situations. If they are not, you need to provide a ton of context to explain why the discrepancies are where they are before making your judgement.

I know I've been ranting about this for a long time now, but I'm not going to stop until the majority of posters using these stats start doing it properly and at least acknowledge the flaws when taking them at face value. Posts like the ones I quoted from the dude above, are the posts I will continue to target.

I don't disagree with that first sentence at all. As I said, you can't use these stats in a vacuum. The thing is, you dismiss EVERY argument based in stats, not just the poor ones.

And those arguments are far less flawed than "his defense is worse because I saw zero Timberwolves games this year and that's what I think". :shrug: If you truly know what these metrics are telling you they are incredibly valuable. But yeah, if you say "oh, his defensive rating was better than that other guys' therefore he's a better defender" than you're being an idiot. If you use it to help paint a more intricate story and you truly understand what specifically that stat is telling you (individual defensive rating is all but pointless) then there is reason to mention it. You can extrapolate telling info from it.

Advanced stats have a tremendous amount of telling power. To dismiss them completely is more foolish than not trying to learn and understand :shrug:

And you are in no authority to tell the better posters here how they can and can't use those stats. They know FAR more about them than you do, if for no other reason than your refusal to acknowledge that they do have significance. Yeah, there are users who throw them around without knowing what those stats are actually saying (i'll admit I've done it a few times), but whatever. It probably isn't any worse than just letting your bias opinions shape your beliefs. You shoot down every argument whenever it says something you don't want to agree with under the cloak of "OMG advanced stats are dumb".

ManRam
08-16-2013, 12:14 PM
Ultimately defense is infinitely harder to evaluate and quantitate than offense. It isn't even close. And not even the most stat-obsessed person would ever begin to suggest that we can really grasp it strongly and completely accurately with any one stat, or even a combo of metrics. But, there are a lot of ones that can paint a fairly accurate picture...or at least point out obvious differences and discrepancies.

D-Leethal
08-16-2013, 12:20 PM
I don't disagree with that first sentence at all. As I said, you can't use these stats in a vacuum. The thing is, you dismiss EVERY argument based in stats, not just the poor ones.

And those arguments are far less flawed than "his defense is worse because I saw zero Timberwolves games this year and that's what I think". :shrug: If you truly know what these metrics are telling you they are incredibly valuable. But yeah, if you say "oh, his defensive rating was better than that other guys' therefore he's a better defender" than you're being an idiot. If you use it to help paint a more intricate story and you truly understand what specifically that stat is telling you (individual defensive rating is all but pointless) then there is reason to mention it. You can extrapolate telling info from it.

Advanced stats have a tremendous amount of telling power. To dismiss them completely is more foolish than not trying to learn and understand :shrug:

And you are in no authority to tell the better posters here how they can and can't use those stats. They know FAR more about them than you do, if for no other reason than your refusal to acknowledge that they do have significance. Yeah, there are users who throw them around without knowing what those stats are actually saying (i'll admit I've done it a few times), but whatever. It probably isn't any worse than just letting your bias opinions shape your beliefs. You shoot down every argument whenever it says something you don't want to agree with under the cloak of "OMG advanced stats are dumb".

Not really. I provide reasoning for my opinions in every post I make. I provide reasons why I think they are flawed so please don't paint a picture thats not there (reasons you haven't even attempted to refute without childish name calling). You never have a never will hear me same something like 'OMG advanced stats are dumb' without backing it up and providing my reasoning for believing so.

I don't dismiss them completely, but I think they are extremely flawed in the game of basketball and theres tons of credible statisticians and basketball people out there that agree with me, just like I'm sure there are credible statisticians and basketball people out there that agree with you.

All I'm asking is for more context when people throw these stats out there. Your never going to be able to take them at face value in the game of basketball. And when posters continue to do that, I will continue to tell them why their argument is flawed. I never said I'm authority to tell posters who use these stats properly to stop using them, but I will continue to tell posters who are OBVIOUSLY not using them properly why their arguments are flawed.

And once again, for such a quality poster here you have a hard time refuting any of my reasoning for believing these stats are flawed without petty insults and putting words in my mouth that I never once said. Leave out the crap like the bold and refute my stance, chief. If not, please go on your merry way.

And again, this time please refute where my stance is wrong, and not the words you put in my mouth are wrong.

D-Leethal
08-16-2013, 12:28 PM
I might come off as dismissing them completely, but thats probably because 95% of the posters here do nothing but take them at face value, so I find myself telling a lot of posters why their arguments are garbage. You won't see me refuting an argument that is presented properly, but the problem is I don't see too many of those on this forum.

BTW, Chris Herring of the WSJ is my favorite Knicks beat writer, and he uses advanced stats is every single one of his articles. I also really enjoy Zach Lowe. I love statistical analysis (even better when its combined with some video evidence) but its usually when its used to analyze a team or players within a team. I think the problem is when you cross those analyses over the bridge universally, comparing players on one team to players on the next, thats where the flaws kick in, and thats where the context NEEDS to be provided or its not even worth listening to.

D-Leethal
08-16-2013, 12:50 PM
I think this is a good article written by a advanced statistics enthusiast on how to get skeptics such as myself more into the statistical revolution. The solution? Outside of educating the broadcasters (which I agree with) pretty much everything I have been saying on this forum for the past few weeks.


BOSTON -- During All-Star weekend the NBA unveiled a public data page crammed with numbers and statistics, some more familiar than others to the casual user. To the hardcore basketball fans that live on Twitter and League Pass, this was extremely useful. No more multiple browser tabs! All the shot charts, plus/minus data and line-up information in one place, and it's spectacularly easy to navigate.

The NBA didn't do this to help the true believers craft blog posts. What the league is doing, besides capturing page views, is making True Shooting percentage and the like part of the conversation for casual fans. This is roughly analogous to when baseball telecasts began listing OBP alongside batting average, home runs and RBIs when players come up to bat. Welcome to the normalization of advanced metrics.

I was reminded of this over the weekend when the city was overrun with geeks, quants and hustlers for the annual networking orgy known as the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. When gathered in multitudes they may seem like they run the world -- or at least The Fours where the nerds overran mystified Bruins fans at their favorite post-game watering hole.

The reality, of course, is much different. For every analytically inclined member of a team's front office there are several more who aren't interested. For every Hoopdata loving basketball writer (please come back, Hoopdata) there are crusty beat writers who don't care nothing about fancy-boy stats. And for every enlightened fan there are hundreds more who count the ringzzzz first, last and forever.

And that's where this whole thing breaks down in a self-congratulatory echo chamber of smugness and mistrust. The cultural divide is still strong, but it doesn't have to be. As Kirk Goldsberry mentioned in his presentation, we need to get better at communicating what the metrics mean and that's where the media comes into play. With a little more patience and whole lot less hubris, we can start talking with people instead of at them.

Step 1: Educate the broadcasters

There is no more direct link between teams and fans than their local telecasts and it's not as if hometown announcers need much prodding to rally the fanbase to the cause. If they can convince the fans that the refs have it in for them, they can just as easily explain why the mid-range game is deader than the '90s and the corner three is king.

Let's start small. Per-game numbers are more informed when adjusted for pace. Rebounding percentage is more telling than raw totals. If the broadcasters narrated the game with a few of these basic concepts in mind, fans would get a more complete picture of what's actually happening on the court and it wouldn't seem so mysterious.

There's a reason League Pass addicts hold the Orlando crew of David Steele and Matt Guokas with such regard. They are tremendous at filtering out the statistical noise and helping fans understand what they're watching.

This isn't rocket science, after all. Its just basketball and the wonderful thing about advanced metrics is once you get past the awkward acronyms and wonky-sounding labels, they include many of the same concepts that the great coaches of the past and present incorporated with their teams.

Step 2: Eliminate the myth of the magic number

All basketball statistics are context-dependent. Who's on the court, what's the score, how good is the opponent, are they on a back-to-back? ... these are all important variables that need to be taken into account when making judgments about performance. In the rush to quantify everything, every single day, there's often a lack of critical perspective. (See: Rondo, Rajon and the Celtics are better/worse without him).

Hoop nerds understand that John Hollinger's Player Efficiency Rating is a box score mashup that doesn't reward defense as much as offense. They get that plus/minus is dependent on other factors. Context is always far more interesting than naked numbers and it's okay to acknowledge that we don't always know everything definitively.

To many, the lack of an all-encompassing number along the lines of WAR is proof that advanced basketball statistics have failed and the game is too complex to be broken down categorically. Frankly that's part of what makes them so appealing. It's a puzzle that can be broken down, studied and analyized. Every insight sends you scrambling in a half-dozen different directions.

The onus, fellow geeks, is on us to fill in the gaps and provide that context with all the tools at our disposal, which brings me to my final point.

Step 3: Don't forget the human element

Statistics help tell a story. When used correctly they offer a more complete portrait of performance, but too often a fundamental question is left out of the equation: Why? All the fancy shot charts, Synergy clips and intricate numbers only tell part of the story.

Many times I've heard numbers skeptics say something along the lines that this a human game played by people. Despite their dismissive tone, they're absolutely correct. What was the coach's motivation for running out various line-ups? Why did a player react the way he did in a certain situation?

Whether intentional or not, the numbers have a way of dehumanizing the participants. Spend time with any self-aware NBA player and it becomes clear that they understand how the game should be played and their role in the process. Kevin Garnett may not know his PER from his rebounding percentage, but he thinks the game in a way that would make any stat geek swoon and he has valuable insights to share.

Players are not data points and getting five people to work together in concert is an elaborate dance that depends on a whole host of factors not collected in the box score. The Celtics, for example, talk a lot about communication as the key element to their stifling defense. That speaks to trust, intelligence, awareness and so many other things that get glossed over as intangibles because we can't quantify them in the box score but are extremely tangible. All you have to do is ask.

Take this piece by Matt Moore on Andre Iguodala. Combining analysis, access and reporting tools both new and old, Moore took us into Iguodala's world in a revealing, insightful piece that was one of the best of the year.

We need more of that. We need to tell better stories. More than any breakthrough study or insightful quantitative analysis, that will help bring fans into the conversation and continue the revolution.

The "why" part was my personal favorite. Nobody tries to find out 'why' there are discrepancies in these stats before presenting them. Many times theres plenty of reason for it, and the discrepancy doesn't always mean player A > player B.

I think its a good read for both sides of the fence, regardless.

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/3/3/4057036/sloan-sports-analytics-conference-2013-nba-advanced-stats

RonE Coleman
08-16-2013, 01:31 PM
Lmao at people voting Blake griffin. Guy doesnt even see the court come playoff time cause he can't do nothing once teams play defense.

Oefarmy2005
08-16-2013, 01:34 PM
Just because 'thats all we got' doesn't mean you throw them out there and use them solely to form your opinion like the dude I quoted did. Statements like "oh his D is better? Advanced stats say otherwise my friend" are flawed as hell when you can poke a ton of holes in those stats he's using to form his stance, not compliment it, but completely form it.

Just because the eye test doesn't suffice doesn't mean you rely on utterly flawed defensive statistics that have more to do with the team than the individual you are using them to judge. I don't dismiss stats completely, I dismiss the people who never provide context and continuously take them at face value completely, like the majority of posters here you do (yourself and select few others excluded). Baseball is a game where you can take the stats at face value and be confident they are telling you the facts. Like I said before, basketball has an ocean to cross before you can do that, ESPECIALLY on defense. The nature of the game will never allow for individuals to be compared accurately with these stats unless they are in nearly identical situations. If they are not, you need to provide a ton of context to explain why the discrepancies are where they are before making your judgement.

I know I've been ranting about this for a long time now, but I'm not going to stop until the majority of posters using these stats start doing it properly and at least acknowledge the flaws when taking them at face value. Posts like the ones I quoted from the dude above, are the posts I will continue to target.

Let's be clear, in order for me to form any other opinion, I would actually have get payed to watch NBA games and I don't like basing my opinion on 2-3 games the Wolves play against these players - so advanced stats are all I got besides my very-very limited opinion based on game footage.

Oefarmy2005
08-16-2013, 01:37 PM
If using DRTG at face value is the best we got out there than we might as well stop using them completely because even theoretically directly on the surface the whole concept is flawed as hell.

Do you think defense is a series of five 1 on 1 matchups? If your guy scores its your fault? Or do you view it as 5 guys on a string helping and rotating in unison to stop the other 5? If you view it as #2, you should have no problem seeing why individual DRTG is as flawed as it gets, and has more to do with the teammates around you than it does with your individual defensive talent.

Case in point: Aldridge is on the 4th worst defensive team in the league, with an undersized C who is probably the worst defensive starting C in the league (Hickson). Blake is on the 8th best defensive team in the league with a 7 foot monster in the paint next to him. Who do you honestly expect to have a better DRTG when the concept is revolved around points allowed and skewed heavily depending on the quality of your team's defense? The guy on the crappy defensive team with a crappy defender next to him, or the guy on a top 10 defensive team with a solid, shotblocking 7 footer next to him?

See the flaws in your analysis there? Look for context and you'll figure out why those discrepancies might be there before taking them at face value and determining the discrepancies are there solely because one guy is a better defender than the other. Once you note the context in those discrepancies, use that to supplement your eye test and form an opinion. Don't just let the stats do all the talking.

I am not going all out on defensive rating, there are other defensive stats as well. Ok, let me rephrase that, LMA is a worse 1-on-1 defender than Blake. He is a better weak-side shot blocker, but that's not saying much to me either. As far as efficiency and offensive numbers, it's not very close.

Oefarmy2005
08-16-2013, 01:52 PM
For example, NBA.com allows you to do a player-vs-player comparison with basic stats. Griffin is better head-to-head vs LMA. If you look at their numbers say, defending Kevin Love or defending David Lee, or any other top PF in the league, these PF see a dip in production when Blake Griffin is on the floor vs him on the bench and they actually see an increase in production when LMA is on the floor. This is typically based on 3 game samples, but if you look at either player vs the top 10 PFs in the NBA, you start seeing a pattern. I've tried Dirk, Randolph, Duncan and KG as well and I think Duncan was the only one who had better numbers against Griffin than against LMA. If I can't base my opinion on how the competition does with each on and off the floor, what am I supposed to base my opinion on? I am not a scout, so my opinion doesn't matter much, but from my vision test, basic stats and advanced stats together, Blake Griffin is a better defender than LaMarcus Aldridge.

Oefarmy2005
08-16-2013, 01:59 PM
Lmao at people voting Blake griffin. Guy doesnt even see the court come playoff time cause he can't do nothing once teams play defense.

At least he has statistics in playoff time.

Guppyfighter
08-16-2013, 02:04 PM
Can you explain how using advanced stats to rate a players defense is even close to being an accurate judge? Advanced stats also tell you Steve Novak is a better defender than Shane Battier. Defensive stats for individuals have an ocean to cross before they are even remotely accurate in assessing a players D.

No, it says he has a better defensive synergy. That doesn't mean it's saying he is better defensive.y. It's saying he performs better based on what his assignments are compared to Battier.

Guppyfighter
08-16-2013, 02:06 PM
D-leethal gets this way once a month where he just sits and thinks "**** stats. Doesn't stats know I feel. Stats should show everything I think is correct to actually be correct. **** stats."

Kashmir13579
08-16-2013, 04:55 PM
The only reason D-Leethal doesn't like anything stat related is because of Carmelo Anthony. I can tell you firsthand he was not so opposed before the 'Melo trade.

Iggz53
08-16-2013, 06:40 PM
I don't get it. Based on what is LMA better defensively? Advanced stats say otherwise my friend.

********. Show me advanced defensive stats that aren't horrendously influenced by individual players around Player X or overall team defense and then I'll listen. Go ahead, give me some examples. Because I have still yet to see one. LMA is by no means a world class enforcer but he is solid defensively in the post and bothers his man fairly well. Blake still gets lost on rotations and needs to make major strides in his decision-making for when to defend/box-out (though he's gotten better).

Regardless, Blake brings more dynamics to an offense than LMA (scoring, passing out of double teams, screens, etc).

b@llhog24
08-16-2013, 09:57 PM
Just because 'thats all we got' doesn't mean you throw them out there and use them solely to form your opinion like the dude I quoted did. Statements like "oh his D is better? Advanced stats say otherwise my friend" are flawed as hell when you can poke a ton of holes in those stats he's using to form his stance, not compliment it, but completely form it.

Just because the eye test doesn't suffice doesn't mean you rely on utterly flawed defensive statistics that have more to do with the team than the individual you are using them to judge. I don't dismiss stats completely, I dismiss the people who never provide context and continuously take them at face value completely, like the majority of posters here you do (yourself and select few others excluded). Baseball is a game where you can take the stats at face value and be confident they are telling you the facts. Like I said before, basketball has an ocean to cross before you can do that, ESPECIALLY on defense. The nature of the game will never allow for individuals to be compared accurately with these stats unless they are in nearly identical situations. If they are not, you need to provide a ton of context to explain why the discrepancies are where they are before making your judgement.

I know I've been ranting about this for a long time now, but I'm not going to stop until the majority of posters using these stats start doing it properly and at least acknowledge the flaws when taking them at face value. Posts like the ones I quoted from the dude above, are the posts I will continue to target.

Ever heard the term, ethics? Would probably solve a shitload of the problems you have with posters who (you perceive) as providing little contextual value. I'm not as advanced as some of the other posters here with numbers, but when poster "A" says that player B is a better "XYZ" because of "insert stat" if there's no real discrepancy then I generally agree with him. Sort of like how I'm a musician, when a fellow musicians says something then I'll understand where he's coming from based on his jargon. Stats talk kind of functions in the same way, some people walk the talk and some don't.

Chronz
08-16-2013, 10:08 PM
Can we just link to this thread the next time D-Lee has to inform people how to properly apply stats? Call it D-Link to the past

Guppyfighter
08-16-2013, 11:30 PM
Can we just link to this thread the next time D-Lee has to inform people how to properly apply stats? Call it D-Link to the past


That's a fantastic idea.

Clippersfan86
08-18-2013, 02:19 PM
Fwiw, because I've seen it brought up a few times, the way I think about these polls is, "if I had to start my team around any 1 of these available options for 1 season right now, who would I take?". Normally the answer for me is Garnett or Dirk, but age and/or injuries are catching up a bit and I can't fully trust them, and of the rest I want to try to win with Blake. He already shored up one weakness (defense), and as soon as he can hit a mid-range with regularity (and get rid of his ****ing stutter shot/hitch), I'll be comfortable with him as the best of the best in the NBA. Stats aside that lean BG, these other guys just are not world class All Time PF's. Blake is close, and probably will be.

You, Guppy and Chronz really have some awesome posts in here including this one. Blake's hesitation and stutter shot as you said.. things like that really need to be hammered out. I feel like the last two years he's been almost confused if that makes sense. I think a lot of that comes from Vinny and a lot of that insecurity in his game comes from CP3 since he knows how brilliant CP3 is, it puts more pressure on him to make the perfect play.

He needs to understand that all the pausing and over passing hurts the team. In sports you need to make split second decisions or the errors start piling up. As Hakeem always said he knew what move he was going to do BEFORE he caught the ball. Blake needs to read the defense before catching the ball quickly and decide if he's going to attack right away or pass. No more 10 second backdowns, no more holding the ball for 15 seconds then passing.

I think once Blake realizes he needs to ATTACK constantly he's going to become unstoppable physically. There is no reason a guy with his strength, quickness and athleticism should be shooting just 5 free throws per game.