PDA

View Full Version : John wall or Eric Bledsoe



MrfadeawayJB
01-07-2014, 02:38 AM
So I have a buddy who is a huge Kentucky basketball fan and he believes wall is having a better season than Bledsoe. He pointed out ppg, rpg, and apg, while I countered with fg%, 3pt%, mpg, and team records.

Who do you believe is having a better season? I'm the first to admit I don't know much about advanced stats, but what do they have to say about these two?

ManRam
01-07-2014, 02:51 AM
They're having pretty damn similar seasons. I'd imagine advanced stats say that too.

But I'm taking Wall over Bledsoe long term, and still by a decent amount.

Kushed
01-07-2014, 02:58 AM
They're having pretty damn similar seasons. I'd imagine advanced stats say that too.

But I'm taking Wall over Bledsoe long term, and still by a decent amount.

Came here to say this.

The thread title makes it seems like you're asking who I am taking of the two, I go with John Wall.

In terms of what the contents are asking, the better season? It is pretty damn close but I'm still going Wall.

Hawkeye15
01-07-2014, 03:02 AM
Bledsoe by a smidge right now, but he does have better teammates (so far) helping his numbers, but Wall has more ability to add to his game, so if we are talking the next 7 years, give me Wall.

MrfadeawayJB
01-07-2014, 03:06 AM
Yeah I was shocked how close they are statistically. I believe Bledsoe is having a better season, but wall is the better player

BradHolt4CYoung
01-07-2014, 03:06 AM
I love these young PGs. Really exciting for the league.

sunsfan88
01-07-2014, 04:41 AM
Wall. He's having the better season and he will be a way better player.

Duncan = Donkey
01-07-2014, 06:09 AM
Bledsoe isn't even the best PG on his own team. Wall is and will be better.

rhymeratic
01-07-2014, 07:28 AM
John Wall. Bledsoe might end up being the better player overall.

NYKnickFanatic
01-07-2014, 09:31 AM
I'd take Bledsoe over Wall.

That's just me though.

DenButsu
01-07-2014, 10:01 AM
There are a lot of similarities in their seasons, but Bledsoe's shooting much more efficiently from the field (eFG% of .531 to Wall's .438, though Wall does make up for that some with better FT shooting), while Wall has a much better assist rate (41.3% to Bledsoe's 28.7%). Their per game points, rebounds and steals are all in the same ballpark, but the differences in shooting and playmaking are pretty significant.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 10:09 AM
I'm a big supporter of both but as of right now I'd go Wall. Bledsoe for his career has been an inefficient scorer basically the only thing he has on Wall outside of his D which has taken a slight step back this season which is probably a result of him guarding more 2s than before and this sudden turnaround leads me to believe that over time he'll even out. When defenses start to see him and the Suns the 2nd and 3rd times around and adjust to him and their offense then I'd buy into him being a near 60% TS guy. Until then I'm going Wall.

JasonJohnHorn
01-07-2014, 10:13 AM
Well... Wall is getting 4 minutes more per game, so one can expect his averages to be a little higher.

Looking at their per36 states:
EB: 19.3 pts (on 13.9 FGA + 5.7 FTA), 6.3 asts, 4.1 rb, 1.7 sts, 3.5 trn 2.6 pf .485 FG .350 3pt .789 ft .587 TS
JW: 19.1 pts (on 16.1 FGA + 5/1 FTA), 8.5 asts, 4.0 rb, 2/o stls, 3.5 trn, 2.3 pf .424 FG, .304 3pt, .858 FT .521 TS


Bledsoe clearly has the advantage with shooting percentages, though Wall is a better FT shooter. Bledsoe also gets tot he line more, which is actually a strong suit for Wall.

Walls gets more assists, while their turnovers are about the same, so Wall has a better assist-to-turnover ratio and he gets more steals.

This is actually a hard call. I think you and your friend both have a legit argument. Wall takes a hit for FG% and Bledsoe takes a hit for turnovers. Wall has a slight advantage in assists and steals.... I'd give a slight edge to Wall this year, but if you put a lot of weight into team success, then Bledsoe gets it.


My guy says Bledsoe is the better player, but looking at the numbers, it is hard to say that one is clearly better than the other.

MrfadeawayJB
01-07-2014, 12:18 PM
There are a lot of similarities in their seasons, but Bledsoe's shooting much more efficiently from the field (eFG% of .531 to Wall's .438, though Wall does make up for that some with better FT shooting), while Wall has a much better assist rate (41.3% to Bledsoe's 28.7%). Their per game points, rebounds and steals are all in the same ballpark, but the differences in shooting and playmaking are pretty significant.

Bingo. That's why I stated Bledsoe was having a better season IMO, but that's no indication that Bledsoe is better than wall, just having a superior season in my eyes

MrfadeawayJB
01-07-2014, 12:22 PM
Well... Wall is getting 4 minutes more per game, so one can expect his averages to be a little higher.

Looking at their per36 states:
EB: 19.3 pts (on 13.9 FGA + 5.7 FTA), 6.3 asts, 4.1 rb, 1.7 sts, 3.5 trn 2.6 pf .485 FG .350 3pt .789 ft .587 TS
JW: 19.1 pts (on 16.1 FGA + 5/1 FTA), 8.5 asts, 4.0 rb, 2/o stls, 3.5 trn, 2.3 pf .424 FG, .304 3pt, .858 FT .521 TS


Bledsoe clearly has the advantage with shooting percentages, though Wall is a better FT shooter. Bledsoe also gets tot he line more, which is actually a strong suit for Wall.

Walls gets more assists, while their turnovers are about the same, so Wall has a better assist-to-turnover ratio and he gets more steals.

This is actually a hard call. I think you and your friend both have a legit argument. Wall takes a hit for FG% and Bledsoe takes a hit for turnovers. Wall has a slight advantage in assists and steals.... I'd give a slight edge to Wall this year, but if you put a lot of weight into team success, then Bledsoe gets it.


My guy says Bledsoe is the better player, but looking at the numbers, it is hard to say that one is clearly better than the other.

Yeah I had no idea how much they mirror each other until I did some research. Amazing career thus far for Bledsoe considering nobody really considered him to be near wall's level coming out of uk

Chronz
01-07-2014, 12:25 PM
I like Wall more as a player but there is no denying that if you're putting up Bledsoes stats, your team has a better chance of winning. Then you consider his defensive abilities, his teams surprising start, and you cant deny his superior season.

Heediot
01-07-2014, 12:27 PM
Bledsoe. Elite backcourt defender that can guard both spots at a high level. His energy is similar to that of Westbrooks, something that is hard to teach. Just needs to be more consistent from range and he'll be a beast.

Wall also has potential and a good case can be made for him. I'm going with my instincts and Bledsoe's personality because I have followed him for a while being a Clipper fan.

You can put Bledsoe in any backcourt and he can be a complementary player.

EDiT: Above is for future potential. Right now I'll leave that to others.

ibleedetblue
01-07-2014, 12:36 PM
Bledsoe is proving himself to better player not only this year but in future years to come, and this is why. Since theyve been in the league, Wall has been a starter, Bledsoe has sat behind Chris Paul, In his first season stepping out of the so called shadows, hes put up equal numbers, no offense to wall but i dont see his game getting much better, give bledsoe another 2 or 3 years and hell be scoring 23.0 a game. I gotta give it to EB.

Huntey
01-07-2014, 01:19 PM
It might be because I'm a Suns fan but I think I'd rather have Bledsoe. Wall might fill up a box score better than Bledsoe but I don't think he's as efficient or consistent. I think both players ceilings are similar: I could see them being 'third options' on contending teams. I just think, right now, Bledsoe is better suited to that role.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 03:21 PM
I'd rather have Bledsoe now and for the future. I am on that Suns bandwagon.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 03:47 PM
I think Bledsoe has competitive advantages that not many PG's can match - mainly his raw strength and defensive potential. I think that makes him a matchup nightmare for pretty much every single PG in this league. He has the speed to match the speedsters, but the strength and power that nobody can match. Similar to LeBron at his position.

ManRam
01-07-2014, 03:57 PM
Bingo. That's why I stated Bledsoe was having a better season IMO, but that's no indication that Bledsoe is better than wall, just having a superior season in my eyes

Yeah. It's always interesting how some believe "having a better season" and "is the better player" are the same things. I think this is a fitting example.

TrueFan420
01-07-2014, 04:12 PM
Bledsoe by a smidge right now, but he does have better teammates (so far) helping his numbers, but Wall has more ability to add to his game, so if we are talking the next 7 years, give me Wall.

Bledsoe might have better teammates but wall is in a joke of a conference doing it against weaker competition. But if I had to pick I'd prob take wall as well.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:21 PM
Most statistical studies find teammates have very little impact on stats. Bledsoe is far superior this year as many of you have already acknowledged and I don't really see Wall ever becoming the three point threat Bledsoe is and matching his efficiency.

John Wall will always be an average efficiency, high volume guard. Bledoe is high efficiency and average volume. Which is considerably better once you realize they are putting up nearly the same exact Per 36.

Bledsoe for this season and all the other seasons after that.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:22 PM
I think Bledsoe has competitive advantages that not many PG's can match - mainly his raw strength and defensive potential. I think that makes him a matchup nightmare for pretty much every single PG in this league. He has the speed to match the speedsters, but the strength and power that nobody can match. Similar to LeBron at his position.

Nice Sig, DLeethal. It's a great way to flaunt your ignorance and live vicariously through ignorant people.

"Lakers will have a better record than the Rockets." - Leethal

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 04:23 PM
Most statistical studies find teammates have very little impact on stats. Bledsoe is far superior this year as many of you have already acknowledged and I don't really see Wall ever becoming the three point threat Bledsoe is and matching his efficiency.

John Wall will always be an average efficiency, high volume guard. Bledoe is high efficiency and average volume. Which is considerably better once you realize they are putting up nearly the same exact Per 36.

Bledsoe for this season and all the other seasons after that.

I would LOVE for you to post those studies. Its like you really have zero appreciation for the team aspect of the game you follow so closely. Basketball is a hell of a lot closer to football than it is baseball.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 04:26 PM
Nice Sig, DLeethal. It's a great way to flaunt your ignorance and live vicariously through ignorant people.

"Lakers will have a better record than the Rockets." - Leethal

Ignorant people like Dan Rosenbaum and Dean Oliver who agree with nearly everything I preach about the team aspect of basketball making it impossible to turn it into baseball?

It was a bold prediction thread, if your bold predictions are right more than wrong than they weren't very bold.

It also didn't include the entire Laker team getting long term injuries one week into the season.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:27 PM
I would LOVE for you to post those studies. Its like you really have zero appreciation for the team aspect of the game you follow so closely. Basketball is a hell of a lot closer to football than it is baseball.

LOL

It's the least complex of all of them. I follow all three very closely. Basketball is by far the easiest to predict player wise and to bet on. Football being the hardest. Baseball is in the middle.

And I already did post one study. The one that has a .95 correlation to win-loss.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 04:28 PM
How is my belief any more ignorant than the lack of validity of which you place on the intertwined team dynamic of the game of basketball?

Your the same guy who says momentum and "hot hands" don't exist in the game of basketball, yet I am ignorant?

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:28 PM
Ignorant people like Dan Rosenbaum and Dean Oliver who agree with nearly everything I preach about the team aspect of basketball making it impossible to turn it into baseball?

It was a bold prediction thread, if your bold predictions are right more than wrong than they weren't very bold.

It also didn't include the entire Laker team getting long term injuries one week into the season.


Okay, let it be known that Dleethal thinks a healthy Laker team is better than the current Rockets.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:29 PM
How is my belief any more ignorant than the lack of validity of which you place on the intertwined team dynamic of the game of basketball?

Your the same guy who says momentum and "hot hands" don't exist in the game of basketball, yet I am ignorant?

Yes. This is why you are ignorant too.

The only clique and intangible that has been proven through math is that home court helps. This is the one the old cliques got right.

You are letting human emotions shape reality. It's a sad state of affairs when you think your feelings have a better grasp on situations than what is actually happening.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 04:30 PM
LOL

It's the least complex of all of them. I follow all three very closely. Basketball is by far the easiest to predict player wise and to bet on. Football being the hardest. Baseball is in the middle.

And I already did post one study. The one that has a .95 correlation to win-loss.

I don't recall mentioning anything about the ability to predict outcomes. I also don't see how your ability to predict outcomes is relevant whatsoever to the team dynamic of the game. I also don't see how any of this is relevance to you claiming to have studies that say a player's production is not tied to his teammates.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:32 PM
I don't recall mentioning anything about the ability to predict outcomes. I also don't see how your ability to predict outcomes is relevant whatsoever to the team dynamic of the game. I also don't see how any of this is relevance to you claiming to have studies that say a player's production is not tied to his teammates.

Because knowing how well players produce and how much they affect the outcome on average is pivotal to betting and predicting.

It's why I have been betting on the Raptors nonstop since they traded Rudy Gay. As I did with the Grizzlies when they traded Gay.

Knowing how important someone is how much of drain they are important. Gay isn't good for team basketball.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 04:34 PM
Yes. This is why you are ignorant too.

The only clique and intangible that has been proven through math is that home court helps. This is the one the old cliques got right.

You are letting human emotions shape reality. It's a sad state of affairs when you think your feelings have a better grasp on situations than what is actually happening.

Your putting all your eggs into a basket that even those who created the basket openly admit is not meant to hold. At least diversify your baskets bro, even the biggest stat heads on here seem to understand that.

tredigs
01-07-2014, 04:36 PM
Interesting that the only 2 Suns fans that posted said it was clearly Wall.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 04:37 PM
Because knowing how well players produce and how much they affect the outcome on average is pivotal to betting and predicting.

It's why I have been betting on the Raptors nonstop since they traded Rudy Gay. As I did with the Grizzlies when they traded Gay.

Knowing how important someone is how much of drain they are important. Gay isn't good for team basketball.

What does any of this have to do with a players production? You said a player's teammates has zero effect on their individual production and cited unnamed studies. Than you bring up predictive gambling. Nobody is talking about a player having impact on their team success. I am talking about your study which apparently tells us a players efficiency is not impacted whatsoever by his teammates. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I would like you to prove it.

This is not baseball, this is not a series of individual matchups, your teammates have a direct impact on your production.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:38 PM
"It's a lot easier to live in a false reality that you have constructed to confirm your own beliefs than it is to confront those beliefs head-on.

Over a lifetime, these two approaches produce distinctly different kinds of people.

It's not about different levels of intellect, but about how you apply the intellect you have. Do you apply it to find the truth, or do you apply it to protect your own ego? "


Everyone is at risk of letting their feelings shape how they see the world. Including the most mathematically inclined people. That doesn't take away from the math, the results, and what is objectively true. The fact is people believe their memories and emotions are more reliable than they actually are. You are one of those people.

If what you are saying is true about basketball there would be undeniable proof. All you are offering is garbage rhetoric and a weak appeal to authority. You have never said anything in regards to statistics that have any bit of truth in them. It's all laced with hot dumpster fire garbage.

If you ever took the time to go to college and even took the most basic level statistics class perhaps you would see that you really don't know anything. Just like me. Except I know that I don't know anything and you don't.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:39 PM
What does any of this have to do with a players production? You said a player's teammates has zero effect on their individual production and cited unnamed studies. Than you bring up predictive gambling. Nobody is talking about a player having impact on their team success. I am talking about your study which apparently tells us a players efficiency is not impacted whatsoever by his teammates. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I would like you to prove it.

This is not baseball, this is not a series of individual matchups, your teammates have a direct impact on your production.

This is a provable claim that you refuse to post evidence for. I have already posted a thread outlying this very thing for basketball.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:41 PM
For the most part, player performance in the NBA does not depend on the player’s teammates. This can be easily seen when we consider how consistent a player’s P48 is across time. From 1973-74 to 2010-11, about 80% of a player’s P48 in the current season is explained by the player’s P48 in the past season (from a sample of nearly 5,000 player observations; players needed to play in at least 20 games and have at least 12 minutes per game in season to qualify for sample). And as noted in Stumbling on Wins, players in the NBA are much more consistent than what we generally see in the NFL or Major League Baseball.

Although players are consistent, it is the case that we do see some interaction effects in the NBA (as noted in The Wages of Wins and academic articles that were written well before The Wages of Wins appeared). To ascertain these effects, the following model was estimated:

player per minute statistical production (i.e. defensive rebounds per minute) = f(per minute performance in stat the previous season, age, age squared, percentage of games played last two seasons, dummy variable for position played, dummy variable for new coach, dummy variable for new team, dummy variable for year, stability of roster, and the teammates’ per-minute production of statistic).

This model allows us to see how a teammate’s production of a given statistic impacts a player’s per minute performance (after controlling for other factors that explain performance).

From Wages of Win. Basically, the vast majority of players production stays very consistent with their past production. 80 percent of the time not being statistically significant.

The other times can be explained by injuries and improvement from a players own hard work.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 04:48 PM
Most statistical studies find teammates have very little impact on stats. Bledsoe is far superior this year as many of you have already acknowledged and I don't really see Wall ever becoming the three point threat Bledsoe is and matching his efficiency.

John Wall will always be an average efficiency, high volume guard. Bledoe is high efficiency and average volume. Which is considerably better once you realize they are putting up nearly the same exact Per 36.

Bledsoe for this season and all the other seasons after that.

You have it way wrong. It's quite the opposite.

ManRam
01-07-2014, 04:49 PM
Most statistical studies find teammates have very little impact on stats. Bledsoe is far superior this year as many of you have already acknowledged and I don't really see Wall ever becoming the three point threat Bledsoe is and matching his efficiency.

John Wall will always be an average efficiency, high volume guard. Bledoe is high efficiency and average volume. Which is considerably better once you realize they are putting up nearly the same exact Per 36.

Bledsoe for this season and all the other seasons after that.

Do these studies really show that it's not significantly easier to be more efficient with better teammates than lesser ones? Because I don't buy that, at all. Curious to see where you read that. Other stats, sure...I can see how sometimes it's overblown. But scoring efficiency? IDK. And that's really the thing Bledsoe most has on Wall right now.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:49 PM
You have it way wrong. It's quite the opposite.

You can take the time to debunk this than: For the most part, player performance in the NBA does not depend on the player’s teammates. This can be easily seen when we consider how consistent a player’s P48 is across time. From 1973-74 to 2010-11, about 80% of a player’s P48 in the current season is explained by the player’s P48 in the past season (from a sample of nearly 5,000 player observations; players needed to play in at least 20 games and have at least 12 minutes per game in season to qualify for sample). And as noted in Stumbling on Wins, players in the NBA are much more consistent than what we generally see in the NFL or Major League Baseball.


I'd love to see the math behind you proving that I am wrong.

Or do you have no math and just your opinion?

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 04:50 PM
If you honestly need me to post "evidence" that basketball is not 5 guys in their own individual match ups than I have nothing else to say here. Your view of the game is robotic and a damn shame that people on here actually have to read this crap. Your "proof" proves nothing just because you claim its proof.

And your 80% study proves absolutely nothing, especially when its derived from the season before. I would venture to say, more than 80% of the time, the team you played the previous season with, is nearly identical to the team you are playing the current season with, so I wouldn't expect it to be statistically significant more often than not. You got your head stuck so far up your own spreadsheet you can't even see the flaws in the crap you post.

You know where that 20% comes most likely comes from? Those years where you actually play with significantly superior or inferior support casts to the year before.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:51 PM
Do these studies really show that it's not significantly easier to be more efficient with better teammates than lesser ones? Because I don't buy that, at all. Curious to see where you read that. Other stats, sure...I can see how sometimes it's overblown. But scoring efficiency? IDK. And that's really the thing Bledsoe most has on Wall right now.

WP show (since the 1970's) that 80 percent of players current performance can be shown from past performance. So there are the 20 percent. And I think it's far more likely those 20 percent are from players either having injuries hampering them or their own hardwork or laziness. Such as working with Hakeem in the off season.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 04:54 PM
All that does is say more often than not, your stats are damn close to the stats from a year prior. No ****. In a 10 year career, a player probably has significant upgrade or downgrade in supporting cast in back to back years twice. Hey lookey where that 20% came from.

Maybe you should look at your own stats a little deeper next time you want to take them as gospel.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:54 PM
If you honestly need me to post "evidence" that basketball is not 5 guys in their own individual match ups than I have nothing else to say here. Your view of the game is robotic and a damn shame that people on here actually have to read this crap. Your "proof" proves nothing just because you claim its proof.

And your 80% study proves absolutely nothing, especially when its derived from the season before. I would venture to say, more than 80% of the time, the team you played the previous season with, is nearly identical to the team you are playing the current season with, so I wouldn't expect it to be statistically significant more often than not. You got your head stuck so far up your own spreadsheet you can't even see the flaws in the crap you post.

You know where that 20% comes most likely comes from? Those years where you actually play with significantly superior or inferior support casts to the year before.

1.) You are underestimating the turnover in basketball rosters.

2.) "If you honestly need me to post "evidence" that basketball is not 5 guys in their own individual match ups than I have nothing else to say here."

So you have no proof and find it insulting that you have to defend your positions with actual evidence instead of your feelings.

3.) "You know where that 20% comes most likely comes from? Those years where you actually play with significantly superior or inferior support casts to the year before. "

And if you'd like, you can try to prove that. It wouldn't be impossible. You can find the efficiency of past supporting casts and compare them. And just go through a bunch of different players. Choose 30 players randomly with a qualifying basis of ten seasons.

That should be a serviceable sample for you to prove what you think is true. Unless you are too lazy, stupid, or willingly ignorant to actually want to prove your position.

ManRam
01-07-2014, 04:55 PM
WP show (since the 1970's) that 80 percent of players current performance can be shown from past performance. So there are the 20 percent. And I think it's far more likely those 20 percent are from players either having injuries hampering them or their own hardwork or laziness. Such as working with Hakeem in the off season.

Sure. I know how predictive some stats can be.


But I really don't believe that the team around you has no impact on scoring efficiency. I'm talking about something very specific here. And again, since that's really the only obvious leg up Bledsoe has on Wall, I think it's important to be aware of what they're playing with. Wall has a bit more scoring burden and play-making burden placed on him nightly. I think it has to play a role in it, and I haven't seen anything that specifically states otherwise.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 04:57 PM
Sure. I know how predictive some stats can be.


But I really don't believe that the team around you has no impact on scoring efficiency. I'm talking about something very specific here. And again, since that's really the only obvious leg up Bledsoe has on Wall, I think it's important to be aware of what they're playing with. Wall has a bit more scoring burden and play-making burden placed on him nightly. I think it has to play a role in it, and I haven't seen anything that specifically states otherwise.

It's possible and it's certainly provable too. If someone wants to do the math on it I am sure they can find evidence one way or the other.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:00 PM
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/09/07/the-magic-effect-can-you-make-your-team-mates-better/

Here is Magic Johnson and his effect on teammates. Only two seasons however. The conclusion was that all his teammates had equally productive seasons with him as they did with out him.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:01 PM
It's possible and it's certainly provable too. If someone wants to do the math on it I am sure they can find evidence one way or the other.

LOL,

"Until then, I will just continue to toss my pseudo-scientific and glaringly flawed formula around as proof".

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:02 PM
LOL,

"Until then, I will just continue to toss my pseudo-scientific and glaringly flawed formula around as proof".

Math produces the only universal truths. There is nothing fake about it. They are real results that are based on what happened.

And if there is a flaw in the math, then someone can prove that. That's the beauty of math. If it's wrong you can find it.

Do you use sarcasm to avoid posting evidence in your day to day life? And hell, even ignoring evidence from specific cases. Like the great Magic Johnson and his teammates.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:03 PM
1.) You are underestimating the turnover in basketball rosters.

2.) "If you honestly need me to post "evidence" that basketball is not 5 guys in their own individual match ups than I have nothing else to say here."

So you have no proof and find it insulting that you have to defend your positions with actual evidence instead of your feelings.

3.) "You know where that 20% comes most likely comes from? Those years where you actually play with significantly superior or inferior support casts to the year before. "

And if you'd like, you can try to prove that. It wouldn't be impossible. You can find the efficiency of past supporting casts and compare them. And just go through a bunch of different players. Choose 30 players randomly with a qualifying basis of ten seasons.

That should be a serviceable sample for you to prove what you think is true. Unless you are too lazy, stupid, or willingly ignorant to actually want to prove your position.

Your looking for "proof" that doesn't exist and propping up completely flawed formulas that are easily ripped to shreds with nothing more than a minute of thought instead. That is advanced stats in basketball in a nutshell.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:06 PM
You have to realize how full of **** you are after reading that post, don't you?

That was bad. And if the proof doesn't exist, than I rest my case. That's the great thing about making claims. You can prove things. If you can observe it, you can measure it, and if you can measure it, you can interpret the data.

The fact that you have already conceded there is no proof for your side and you continue to argue for it just shows me that you are willingly ignorant and unwilling to accept new ideas.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:07 PM
Math produces the only universal truths. There is nothing fake about it. They are real results that are based on what happened.

And if there is a flaw in the math, then someone can prove that. That's the beauty of math. If it's wrong you can find it.

Do you use sarcasm to avoid posting evidence in your day to day life? And hell, even ignoring evidence from specific cases. Like the great Magic Johnson and his teammates.

Math is math, you are getting a number derived from a formula. There is no proof of anything behind or within that formula.

What exactly is it proving? A misleading and flawed result derived from bogus context that is easily proven to be innaccurate? Bogus context like, assuming the core a player has around him in back to back years is always significantly different? I don't need to bust my *** proving that is false, you need to prove its correct first, your the one with the stupid formula.

You haven't proved anything in this thread yet but have said the word proof about thirty times.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:08 PM
You have to realize how full of **** you are after reading that post, don't you?

That was bad. And if the proof doesn't exist, than I rest my case. That's the great thing about making claims. You can prove things. If you can observe it, you can measure it, and if you can measure it, you can interpret the data.

The fact that you have already conceded there is no proof for your side and you continue to argue for it just shows me that you are willingly ignorant and unwilling to accept new ideas.

You haven't proven one thing in this thread except that your formula that apparently "proves" a players teammates has no effect on his production is flawed on the surface and easily picked apart.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:08 PM
" A misleading and flawed result derived from bogus context that is easily proven to be innaccurate?"


LOL

Then prove it, stupid. Stop saying it and show me.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:12 PM
Stats are easily ripped to shreds and easily disproven by saying they are those things ad nausea without any actual proof or an attempt to argue against them.

"They are wrong because it's obvious they are wrong. DUH."

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 05:15 PM
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/09/07/the-magic-effect-can-you-make-your-team-mates-better/

Here is Magic Johnson and his effect on teammates. Only two seasons however. The conclusion was that all his teammates had equally productive seasons with him as they did with out him.

Care to post the study on Nash's effect on Amar'e or the vast majority of players on his Suns teams?

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:20 PM
Care to post the study on Nash's effect on Amar'e or the vast majority of players on his Suns teams?

During Amare's time on the Knicks he has actually been nearly as good at offense as he was in Phoenix. I think you can argue any drop off was from injuries and you can also argue that he got his points in different ways. But if not for injuries I am sure Knick fans would have fell in love with Amare.


But that being said, it's not hard to do what the article did. If you'd like, you can take the season Nash was on the Suns and then compare it to the season right after he left for the Lakers. I am sure you might even like the results.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:20 PM
Stats are real, they are tangible, but in many instances the conclusions you can draw from them are murky at best and they are affected by many factors. In basketball, those factors are undoubtedly your teammates. You cannot isolate in the individual in basketball like you can in baseball. Too many actions on the court are effected by a teammate. The quality of shots you get are directly impacted by your teammates and the system you run, the amount of assists you rack up are directly impacted by your teammates.

I don't need years of evidence and study to know that LeBron James gets his teammates wide open shots that Luol Deng isn't getting anyone. I know if your playing next to a guy who does a great job boxing his man out that your going to have an easier time grabbing rebounds. I know if your surrounded by 5 Steve Novak's instead of 5 Ronnie Brewer's your gonna have an easier time driving the lane, and your also going to rack up more assists when you kick it out to Novak for a corner 3 instead of Brewer. I understand that when a screen is set on you defensively, its a 2 man game that requires a great defensive possession from the big man to prevent that guard, who is technically your man, from scoring. I understand every time your man scores, due to screens, cuts, switches, and scrambles, its not always the fault of the guy matched up with him to start the possession. This stuff shouldn't need "proof" to understand and you, sir, are the ignorant one of you refuse to acknowledge it.

I mean, do you not even appreciate what spacing does on the court? Do you believe having shooters spread the floor does nothing for players that want to drive the lane or bigs that want to post up? How can you honestly say the guys around you have no effect on what you do on the court? Its like your a freakin' robot.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:21 PM
" A misleading and flawed result derived from bogus context that is easily proven to be innaccurate?"


LOL

Then prove it, stupid. Stop saying it and show me.

You haven't showed my how its accurate yet, so I feel no need to spend 3 hours of my time showing you why its not. Common sense should do that, and it looks like the vast majority agree with me.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 05:23 PM
During Amare's time on the Knicks he has actually been nearly as good at offense as he was in Phoenix. I think you can argue any drop off was from injuries and you can also argue that he got his points in different ways. But if not for injuries I am sure Knick fans would have fell in love with Amare.


But that being said, it's not hard to do what the article did. If you'd like, you can take the season Nash was on the Suns and then compare it to the season right after he left for the Lakers. I am sure you might even like the results.

Exactly what I wanted to hear. Now look at the two seasons in question for Magic effect on players like Worthy and Vlade.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:24 PM
You posted a stupid, flawed formula and heralded it as proof. You haven't said why its proof yet, or why the back-to-back nature of the formula is not flawed to ****. You just threw it out there hoping it would stick, and it doesn't.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 05:24 PM
Simple question Guppy. Can your teammates affect your DRtg?

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:26 PM
Simple question Guppy. Can your teammates affect your DRtg?

Definitely. Defense is far more team oriented. Entire systems can fall apart with bad rotations and it's hard to grade out defense.

On offense everything adds up. It's fairly easy to measure.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:27 PM
You posted a stupid, flawed formula and heralded it as proof. You haven't said why its proof yet, or why the back-to-back nature of the formula is not flawed to ****. You just threw it out there hoping it would stick, and it doesn't.

Prove it's flawed and stupid.

WP has a 95 percent correlation to win-loss record.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:27 PM
That seems to be your biggest problem. You go around all day spouting "proof", yet cannot explain why its proof, and why its not impacted by a myriad of external factors that are rampant in the game of basketball (mainly, teammates, coaches system).

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:28 PM
Definitely. Defense is far more team oriented. Entire systems can fall apart with bad rotations and it's hard to grade out defense.

On offense everything adds up. It's fairly easy to measure.

Then why do you use DRTG all the freakin' time as "proof" of one's defense?

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 05:29 PM
You posted a stupid, flawed formula and heralded it as proof. You haven't said why its proof yet, or why the back-to-back nature of the formula is not flawed to ****. You just threw it out there hoping it would stick, and it doesn't.

Where the flaw lies is in comparing players over the course of different seasons instead of comparing them within the same season with the use of on/off data. We really don't have to go any further than that. Basketball differs from season to season as league averages change, systems change, coaches change, rules change etc. To ignore the vast difference players make on one anothers efficiency when they are on and off the floor is simply ignorant.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:29 PM
Then why do you use DRTG all the freakin' time as "proof" of one's defense?

I don't. I like to use XDRAPM. And sometimes I use on and off DRTG. Which is a teams defense with a player and without.

Still, I mostly rewatch game tape of defensive possessions to grade out defense.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:31 PM
Prove it's flawed and stupid.

WP has a 95 percent correlation to win-loss record.

I did already, in back to back years a major roster turnover, especially to the main core of a team (I don't think anyone is arguing your end of bench guys make monster impacts on your stats - were talking your 2nd, 3rd options if you are option #1), is very unusual and usually only occurs a few times at most during a players career.

If someone wants to name 10 NBA players I will go in and check how often they had a major shakeup to their core in back to back seasons over the course of their career. I don't want you to name them or I to name them because we can easily cherrypick.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 05:32 PM
Definitely. Defense is far more team oriented. Entire systems can fall apart with bad rotations and it's hard to grade out defense.

On offense everything adds up. It's fairly easy to measure.

So why did you say earlier that teammates don't have an impact on your stats.

Also every thing doesn't add up. Look at the on/off data offered a couple years ago by NBA.com/advancedstats and you'd get the answer to your study.

There are of course exceptions to the rule eg when Kobe had his most efficient season while playing with Smush as Lamar as probably his best teammates and having a greater USG% but it has been commonly accepted in the stats community for quite some time that your teammates do have an effect on your statistical production.

ManRam
01-07-2014, 05:32 PM
The problem I have with people writing every stat off as "flawed" is that I'm pretty certain in most cases they have no idea why they're saying that, they just are saying it to discredit everything else. If WP is a "stupid, flawed formula", tell us why.

There all also problems with people using these things as be all end alls. No stat can tell you everything and no stat will ever, on its own, tell you who is superior or what not. But WP is a pretty neat stat that does certainly tell us some telling things. I'd love to hear you explain why it isn't...because I'm pretty sure you're just bunching it in with every other advanced stat and writing it off as a part of your crusade to discredit everything you don't feel comfortable with. It's disingenuous to do so unless you truly know why you are.


I have no idea how I feel about this debate because I agree with what both of you are saying sometimes, and disagree vehemently other times. It's weird. Weird weird weird.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:32 PM
I don't. I like to use XDRAPM. And sometimes I use on and off DRTG. Which is a teams defense with a player and without.

Still, I mostly rewatch game tape of defensive possessions to grade out defense.

Funny, you must not post what you like to use and watch because all I see is your preference of DRTG.

I also recall you saying Novak was a better defender than Shane Battier and cited nothing but DRTG.

hotdalton18
01-07-2014, 05:33 PM
Wall long term

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:33 PM
Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade seems like the perfect argument for this.

I suggest you go back and check their efficiency stats.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 05:33 PM
I don't. I like to use XDRAPM. And sometimes I use on and off DRTG. Which is a teams defense with a player and without.

Still, I mostly rewatch game tape of defensive possessions to grade out defense.

I find that extremely hard to believe when you consider the fact that you thought Emeka Okafor was still a member of the Wizards and was helping John Wall be a better defender (ala helping his stats).

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 05:34 PM
Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade seems like the perfect argument for this.

I suggest you go back and check their efficiency stats.

The same Chris Bosh who is having the most efficient year of his career this season? How about we go back and check LeBron's efficiency stats? Or Beasley's.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:35 PM
Funny, you must not post what you like to use and watch because all I see is your preference of DRTG.

I also recall you saying Novak was a better defender than Shane Battier and cited nothing but DRTG.

I was using XDRAPM. Not defensive rating. Still, I concluded Battier was the better defender, but their value on court was very much similar. You could not have possibly missed that. And do you remember my explanation of Novak and his defensive stats? When guys get the ball against him their eyes light up like a christmas tree. They iso and feel they have to score on him. which often leads to bad shots, such as midrange shots.

Novak is so bad at defense it actually helps force bad shots. This doesn't work on smarter players though.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 05:36 PM
Funny, you must not post what you like to use and watch because all I see is your preference of DRTG.

I also recall you saying Novak was a better defender than Shane Battier and cited nothing but DRTG.

Steve Novak is a better defender than Shane Battier and Carlos Boozer is a better defender than Taj Gibson, Serge Ibaka and LeBron James just to name a few.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:37 PM
The same Chris Bosh who is having the most efficient year of his career this season? How about we go back and check LeBron's efficiency stats? Or Beasley's.

Well, it's within one standard deviation so he's basically the same. In fact, you can see the same fluctuation throughout his career. He had a better year in 09-10 than he did with his first and second year with Lebron James. And than he regressed to the mean I believe.

He's been fairly consistent through out his career.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:41 PM
The problem I have with people writing every stat off as "flawed" is that I'm pretty certain in most cases they have no idea why they're saying that, they just are saying it to discredit everything else. If WP is a "stupid, flawed formula", tell us why.

There all also problems with people using these things as be all end alls. No stat can tell you everything and no stat will ever, on its own, tell you who is superior or what not. But WP is a pretty neat stat that does certainly tell us some telling things. I'd love to hear you explain why it isn't...because I'm pretty sure you're just bunching it in with every other advanced stat and writing it off as a part of your crusade to discredit everything you don't feel comfortable with. It's disingenuous to do so unless you truly know why you are.


I have no idea how I feel about this debate because I agree with what both of you are saying sometimes, and disagree vehemently other times. It's weird. Weird weird weird.

I am talking about the stat he posted that was apparently "proof" that a players production is not impacted by his teammates, because 80% of the time, the change in a players production in back-to-back seasons was insignificant, and 20% of the time it is significant.

I have wrote probably 10x in this thread why I think its flawed. Mainly, because over the course of a players career, there is significant changes to the core of his team in back to back seasons very few times. I think the "back to back seasons" aspect of the formula is flawed because very rarely does the core around a player change from one season to the next. And probably only happens close to 20% of a players career. The formula makes sense, he just doesn't understand what its telling him, and it sure as hell isn't telling him that your teammates have no impact on your production. I don't feel the need to "prove" that with 2 hours of research since he hasn't proved anything yet and he was the one who made the bold claim to begin with.

I don't discredit everything I see about statistics. I do discredit Guppy trying to eliminate the human aspect of the game, the team aspect of the game, and analyze the game like a bunch of robots playing 1v1. I do discredit any stat that claims to be an all-encompassing player ranker because I don't believe the nature of the game will ever allow that to exist, and I don't think we should be using a (yes, I know the word is in my sig, but its awesome) pseudo-scientific formula just because a truly accurate one doesn't exist. I am against any credence given to individual defensive stats, and I am against any stat thats foundation is set around analyzing 1v1 match ups like were talking baseball.

I have never once went on a stats tirade without a lot of support to my arguments, so I don't appreciate being lumped in with the "omgzzz stats suck" guys - I always back what I say with my reasoning and I think most of it is pretty sound.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 05:42 PM
Well, it's within one standard deviation so he's basically the same. In fact, you can see the same fluctuation throughout his career. He had a better year in 09-10 than he did with his first and second year with Lebron James. And than he regressed to the mean I believe.

He's been fairly consistent through out his career.

Because of the changes in which he has made in his game Bosh has begin playing the perimeter much more than ever before thus season a MAJOR decline in his FTR .513 in his time in Toronto and .375 in his time in Miami while drastically improving his eFG%. That directly explains his TS% being where its at still. Had Bosh been in a different role and played the paint a bit more while receiving a FRACTION of the doubles/triples that he saw in TOR its not farfetched to think that he'd be one of the most efficient scorers in the game.

The changes in Bosh's game on the offensive end is what has kept him at or around the same level of efficiency. Not the strength of his teammates.

Stats meet context.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:44 PM
Basketball is still played by people, regardless of how we measure it. There is not replacing anything.

There is nothing pseudo about WP.

"I have never once went on a stats tirade without a lot of support to my arguments, so I don't appreciate being lumped in with the "omgzzz stats suck" guys - I always back what I say with my reasoning and I think most of it is pretty sound. "

Could have fooled me, or you know, everyone.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 05:45 PM
I am talking about the stat he posted that was apparently "proof" that a players production is not impacted by his teammates, because 80% of the time, the change in a players production in back-to-back seasons was insignificant, and 20% of the time it is significant.

I have wrote probably 10x in this thread why I think its flawed. Mainly, because over the course of a players career, there is significant changes to the core of his team in back to back seasons very few times. I think the "back to back seasons" aspect of the formula is flawed because very rarely does the core around a player change from one season to the next. And probably only happens close to 20% of a players career. The formula makes sense, he just doesn't understand what its telling him, and it sure as hell isn't telling him that your teammates have no impact on your production. I don't feel the need to "prove" that with 2 hours of research since he hasn't proved anything yet and he was the one who made the bold claim to begin with.

I don't discredit everything I see about statistics. I do discredit Guppy trying to eliminate the human aspect of the game, the team aspect of the game, and analyze the game like a bunch of robots playing 1v1. I do discredit any stat that claims to be an all-encompassing player ranker because I don't believe the nature of the game will ever allow that to exist, and I don't think we should be using a (yes, I know the word is in my sig, but its awesome) pseudo-scientific formula just because a truly accurate one doesn't exist. I am against any credence given to individual defensive stats, and I am against any stat thats foundation is set around analyzing 1v1 match ups like were talking baseball.

I have never once went on a stats tirade without a lot of support to my arguments, so I don't appreciate being lumped in with the "omgzzz stats suck" guys - I always back what I say with my reasoning and I think most of it is pretty sound.

For a guy who doesn't care too much about stats you sound exactly like the "stats" guys who argued against this theory. You may be more of a stats guy than you think. :laugh2:

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:47 PM
Basketball is still played by people, regardless of how we measure it. There is not replacing anything.

There is nothing pseudo about WP.

"I have never once went on a stats tirade without a lot of support to my arguments, so I don't appreciate being lumped in with the "omgzzz stats suck" guys - I always back what I say with my reasoning and I think most of it is pretty sound. "

Could have fooled me, or you know, everyone.

I go with context, you go with stats. Neither is proof of anything. I like to use logic and reasoning, you like to use math formulas. To each their own.

ManRam
01-07-2014, 05:47 PM
Well, it's within one standard deviation so he's basically the same. In fact, you can see the same fluctuation throughout his career. He had a better year in 09-10 than he did with his first and second year with Lebron James. And than he regressed to the mean I believe.

He's been fairly consistent through out his career.

You are kinda playing into double standards. Let me just phrase it like this. Who do you think is more readily set up to be a more efficient scorer: a player on Team A, or Team B?

Team A:
Mo Williams
Anthony Parker
Antawn Jamison
37 year-old Shaq

Team B:
Chalmers
Wade
Haslem
Bosh


It's significantly easier for a player on a team with a lot of talent to score more efficiently. I've never seen anything suggest otherwise. It's just common sense too. On Team A, LeBron is going to be the entire focus of the opposing team, PLUS he's going to have to carry a much higher scoring burden. On Team B, the defense has a few other pieces to worry about and he doesn't quite have to carry the same burden. It's going to be easier for him to get off better shots and score more efficiently.

We've wandered off topic, but the main difference this year between Bledsoe and Wall has been scoring efficiency. Now, Wall is right at his career marks so maybe that is just who he truly is, but at the same time, he does have to carry a bigger burden and he does have fewer scoring options around him. I don't think you can always just compare two players' scoring efficiency without noting their surroundings. And it's no different here. I think Bledsoe is naturally a slightly more efficient scorer, but I don't think the gap between their actual scoring abilities is as high as it might look.


Also, I don't think LeBron's scoring efficiency is "within one standard deviation" of what it was in Cleveland. We're talking a 66.9 TS% compared to 60.4% in Cleveland (his best year!). We're talking a 58.8 FG% this year compared to 50.3% in Cleveland (again, his best!). That's a huge and very significant change. Suggesting otherwise is foolish.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:49 PM
Logic and math go hand in hand. How you evaluate doesn't. Your memory is more faulty than you think. OUr memory's of the past are often reshaped and remembered wrong.

It's why you can have 12 witnesses to a car accidents and 12 different accounts. It's why logical and reasonable people may think duncan is the best player of his generation or logical and reasonable people think Kobe is best player of the generation. Or Dirk. Or KG.

D-Leethal
01-07-2014, 05:50 PM
For a guy who doesn't care too much about stats you sound exactly like the "stats" guys who argued against this theory. You may be more of a stats guy than you think. :laugh2:

You will never hear me hate on a stat, or usage of a stat that provides context and derives a logical conclusion. I appreciate a sound analysis. I do question the validity of a lot of the stats on here, and I question the player comparisons without any sort of teammate-oriented context involved. I think efficient scoring on this board has become the end-all-be-all to judging players and that irks me a bit - when guys like Rondo gets lambasted because he struggles at the line I have a problem. When fourth option Kawai Leonard is deemed better than first option Paul George because he scores more efficiently I have a problem.

I enjoy thinking. I've always been more a philosophy guy than a math guy. Thats just me I guess.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 05:54 PM
@ ManRam people like to say that LeBron's shot selection is the only reason why his efficiency has gotten so much better (still don't want to give him credit for his improved shooting ability over the course of his career) but just of this of LeBron can only be allowed to have good such selection if he has players like Wade and Bosh of the floor drawing defensive attention towards them. There in lies the impact of your teammates. Common sense.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 05:55 PM
You are kinda playing into double standards. Let me just phrase it like this. Who do you think is more readily set up to be a more efficient scorer: a player on Team A, or Team B?

Team A:
Mo Williams
Anthony Parker
Antawn Jamison
37 year-old Shaq

Team B:
Chalmers
Wade
Haslem
Bosh


It's significantly easier for a player on a team with a lot of talent to score more efficiently. I've never seen anything suggest otherwise. It's just common sense too. On Team A, LeBron is going to be the entire focus of the opposing team, PLUS he's going to have to carry a much higher scoring burden. On Team B, the defense has a few other pieces to worry about and he doesn't quite have to carry the same burden. It's going to be easier for him to get off better shots and score more efficiently.

We've wandered off topic, but the main difference this year between Bledsoe and Wall has been scoring efficiency. Now, Wall is right at his career marks so maybe that is just who he truly is, but at the same time, he does have to carry a bigger burden and he does have fewer scoring options around him. I don't think you can always just compare two players' scoring efficiency without noting their surroundings. And it's no different here. I think Bledsoe is naturally a slightly more efficient scorer, but I don't think the gap between their actual scoring abilities is as high as it might look.


Also, I don't think LeBron's scoring efficiency is "within one standard deviation" of what it was in Cleveland. We're talking a 66.9 TS% compared to 60.4% in Cleveland (his best year!). We're talking a 58.8 FG% this year compared to 50.3% in Cleveland (again, his best!). That's a huge and very significant change. Suggesting otherwise is foolish.



That's fair as well. However, I think his efficiency has to do with two things. Adding the three ball as a legitimate weapon and playing in probably the worst conference of all time at this point.


I think it's easy to see him adding range being the biggest reason why he improved. His first two seasons with Miami were standard Lebron, even compared to Cleveland. They were nearly equal.

The big jump in efficiency came when he improve his three point field goal percentage from 36 percent 40 percent.

I believe that's his own doing and not his teammates.

ManRam
01-07-2014, 05:56 PM
I am talking about the stat he posted that was apparently "proof" that a players production is not impacted by his teammates, because 80% of the time, the change in a players production in back-to-back seasons was insignificant, and 20% of the time it is significant.

I have wrote probably 10x in this thread why I think its flawed. Mainly, because over the course of a players career, there is significant changes to the core of his team in back to back seasons very few times. I think the "back to back seasons" aspect of the formula is flawed because very rarely does the core around a player change from one season to the next. And probably only happens close to 20% of a players career. The formula makes sense, he just doesn't understand what its telling him, and it sure as hell isn't telling him that your teammates have no impact on your production. I don't feel the need to "prove" that with 2 hours of research since he hasn't proved anything yet and he was the one who made the bold claim to begin with.

I don't discredit everything I see about statistics. I do discredit Guppy trying to eliminate the human aspect of the game, the team aspect of the game, and analyze the game like a bunch of robots playing 1v1. I do discredit any stat that claims to be an all-encompassing player ranker because I don't believe the nature of the game will ever allow that to exist, and I don't think we should be using a (yes, I know the word is in my sig, but its awesome) pseudo-scientific formula just because a truly accurate one doesn't exist. I am against any credence given to individual defensive stats, and I am against any stat thats foundation is set around analyzing 1v1 match ups like were talking baseball.

I have never once went on a stats tirade without a lot of support to my arguments, so I don't appreciate being lumped in with the "omgzzz stats suck" guys - I always back what I say with my reasoning and I think most of it is pretty sound.

Fair enough.

Still, do you care to tell me how WP is flawed, or should I just take your word for it ;)


I think you two might be on slightly extreme ends of the spectrum. You admit that neither side is "proof", right? Then why not find that middle ground and take IT ALL into consideration? Some eye-test, some stats, some other people's opinions, etc....and factor it all in together?

I think there are things stats can prove. I think TS% can prove that KD is a better scorer than Melo...where the eye-test and the inherent bias leads some to disagree. But I think that is a black and white thing. I think there is great telling power in the adjusted plus minus stats, these wins produced/win share variations, and so on...and even more simple advanced stats like PER, have meaning. The problem, and I'm sure you agree, is that people sometimes just use it to form their whole argument. Those all-encompassing stats don't simply tell you who is better, but used to paint a part of the picture, they certainly can help...and I think some people here have a hard time being OK with that.

The "stats guys" you are crusading against do tend to fall into the trap of just throwing one stat out there and calling it an entire argument. However, to completely dismiss the value of them is not better IMO.

ManRam
01-07-2014, 06:00 PM
@ ManRam people like to say that LeBron's shot selection is the only reason why his efficiency has gotten so much better (still don't want to give him credit for his improved shooting ability over the course of his career) but just of this of LeBron can only be allowed to have good such selection if he has players like Wade and Bosh of the floor drawing defensive attention towards them. There in lies the impact of your teammates. Common sense.

Exactly. I was waiting for that response.

He couldn't have this wonderful and historic shot selection if he was on the Magic right now. Yes, his individual game has continued to improve, but his team affords him some luxuries other players don't get. And this is coming from a noted LeBron fan.

And guppy, him shooting better from three doesn't at all explain LeBron increase in efficiency overall. That 4% increase from three, or whatever it is, doesn't explain why his FG% has vaulted so high, among other things.


Basketball is a team sport. To insinuate that the 9 other players on the court have no bearing on a player's success is just silly. It might be minimal at times, but it still matters.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 06:01 PM
You will never hear me hate on a stat, or usage of a stat that provides context and derives a logical conclusion. I appreciate a sound analysis. I do question the validity of a lot of the stats on here, and I question the player comparisons without any sort of teammate-oriented context involved. I think efficient scoring on this board has become the end-all-be-all to judging players and that irks me a bit - when guys like Rondo gets lambasted because he struggles at the line I have a problem. When fourth option Kawai Leonard is deemed better than first option Paul George because he scores more efficiently I have a problem.

I enjoy thinking. I've always been more a philosophy guy than a math guy. Thats just me I guess.

That's one of my major issues with these dudes that fly around throwing stats in your face. They seem to forget that basketball is a team sport as well. I'm often chastised for being a stats lover here on PSD but that's not the case I use all the stats that I have gained an understanding of as tools to supplement what my eyes/articles/analysts tell me and what they don't tell me.

I can't see every player and my eyes aren't the same as everyone else so what I may think is a good play someone with more knowledge may actually point out the flaws in said play this is why I try to use stats as well. What's most important with stats IMO is understanding how a player goes about getting them and why they are how they are. When that isn't done what we see are people running around rambling that because one player is better in certain statistical areas than another that player is better. That IMO is wrong. I don't think stats are the problem, context and understanding is or rather the lack thereof.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 06:03 PM
Exactly. I was waiting for that response.

He couldn't have this wonderful and historic shot selection if he was on the Magic right now. Yes, his individual game has continued to improve, but his team affords him some luxuries other players don't get. And this is coming from a noted LeBron fan.

And guppy, him shooting better from three doesn't at all explain LeBron increase in efficiency overall. That 4% increase from three, or whatever it is, doesn't explain why his FG% has vaulted so high, among other things.


Basketball is a team sport. To insinuate that the 9 other players on the court have no bearing on a player's success is just silly. It might be minimal at times, but it still matters.

Lebron's ability to hit the three makes getting lays up easier.

And I do agree that teammates are likely to impact others efficiency, but it's very minimal and isn't really practically important to talk about. Good efficient players will put up good efficient numbers in any given situation.

ManRam
01-07-2014, 06:06 PM
You will never hear me hate on a stat, or usage of a stat that provides context and derives a logical conclusion. I appreciate a sound analysis. I do question the validity of a lot of the stats on here, and I question the player comparisons without any sort of teammate-oriented context involved. I think efficient scoring on this board has become the end-all-be-all to judging players and that irks me a bit - when guys like Rondo gets lambasted because he struggles at the line I have a problem. When fourth option Kawai Leonard is deemed better than first option Paul George because he scores more efficiently I have a problem.

I enjoy thinking. I've always been more a philosophy guy than a math guy. Thats just me I guess.

Some of these adjusted plus minus stats, like the iterations of RAPM, seek to do just that. In their most basic definitions they seek "to account for both the teammates and the opponents on the court." That's why for the past few years they've been my favorite global or all-encompassing stat. Should look into them! I'm never going to say "hey, Birdman's RAPM+ was better than Harden's last year so therefore Harden was better"...but as a means to discover the full picture, it's a great tool to use...even just as a jumping off point. I don't, again, think there's any one stat that can definitively tell you who is better than who and work for every scenario, but I do like to look at them if I'm worried about some bias.

ManRam
01-07-2014, 06:07 PM
Lebron's ability to hit the three makes getting lays up easier.

And I do agree that teammates are likely to impact others efficiency, but it's very minimal and isn't really practically important to talk about. Good efficient players will put up good efficient numbers in any given situation.

OK. You're entitled to that opinion. But don't tell me that the research out there proves that teammates have no impact on scoring efficiency, because that's not true. Your Magic Johnson link was interesting and I've seen it before, but it doesn't at all prove that...or even suggest that.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 06:08 PM
That's fair as well. However, I think his efficiency has to do with two things. Adding the three ball as a legitimate weapon and playing in probably the worst conference of all time at this point.


I think it's easy to see him adding range being the biggest reason why he improved. His first two seasons with Miami were standard Lebron, even compared to Cleveland. They were nearly equal.

The big jump in efficiency came when he improve his three point field goal percentage from 36 percent 40 percent.

I believe that's his own doing and not his teammates.

This right here D-Leethal and Manram is exactly what I was speaking of.

LeBron's 3FG against the East is the same as it is against the West however his TS% against the West 71.4 while its 65.0 against the East he also boasts a 124 ORtg against the West as compared to a 121 against the East.

Last year against the West he shot 45% from three while shooting 37.5% against the East. The same goes for his TS%. Hell for his Career LeBron shoots much better from the field and from distance against the West than he does against the East.

Try again.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 06:09 PM
I agree whole heartedly. It's a complicated subject, and given enough evidence I will change my mind.

It's only a matter of time until someone who is mathematically inclined does a fully fleshed out study with a sample of +100 players and how they do given their rosters.

Guppyfighter
01-07-2014, 06:10 PM
This right here D-Leethal and Manram is exactly what I was speaking of.

LeBron's 3FG against the East is the same as it is against the West however his TS% against the West 71.4 while its 65.0 against the East he also boasts a 124 ORtg against the West as compared to a 121 against the East.

Last year against the West he shot 45% from three while shooting 37.5% against the East. The same goes for his TS%. Hell for his Career LeBron shoots much better from the field and from distance against the West than he does against the East.

Try again.

That's simply sample size for the West. He gets to play the vast majority of his games vs the East and it's more likely to be near the true value, while the West is a considerably smaller sample proned to being away from the true efficiency makr.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 06:12 PM
Lebron's ability to hit the three makes getting lays up easier.

And I do agree that teammates are likely to impact others efficiency, but it's very minimal and isn't really practically important to talk about. Good efficient players will put up good efficient numbers in any given situation.

Like I said before there are exceptions to the rule. I gave Kobe Bryant as an example. Never a pillar of efficiency but was never inefficient however. Teammates have minimal effect on a player of Kobe's calibre. That's not the case for most basketball players.

Swashcuff
01-07-2014, 06:13 PM
That's simply sample size for the West. He gets to play the vast majority of his games vs the East and it's more likely to be near the true value, while the West is a considerably smaller sample proned to being away from the true efficiency makr.

288 career regular season games is a sample size. Interesting.

MrfadeawayJB
01-07-2014, 06:28 PM
WTF have I started? :laugh2:

mdm692
01-07-2014, 08:09 PM
I just wanted to point out something in regards to the Asst for EB. He doesn't have to pass the ball as much as Wall because Dragic shares a lot of minutes in the backcourt with him which allows him to be more of a scorer. Not an excuse but it does affect his assist a bit.

WES KOAST
01-08-2014, 04:54 AM
WTF have I started? :laugh2:

lets just put it this way, john wall is an average pg and Bledsoe will be overpaid in the summer. but neither guys are anyway near steph curry level

Chronz
01-08-2014, 05:09 AM
Interesting that the only 2 Suns fans that posted said it was clearly Wall.

Because they favor the incumbent PG above the new face getting pub. They could be right about Dragic vs Bledsoe tho but that should have nothing to do with EB vs Wall.

bigmac8675
01-08-2014, 05:11 AM
John Wall all day err day

sunsfan88
01-08-2014, 06:58 PM
Eric Bledsoe's Mini-LeBron reputation is warranted if you look at his shooting percentages when he drives to the basket (57.8 percent). Only one renowned slasher beats Bledsoe in this area: LeBron James himself (62.3 percent). - See more at: http://hoopshype.com/articles/hoopshype/stats-porn-what-we-learned-with-player-tracking-tools-this-week-889#sthash.Kh89MJbZ.dpuf

b@llhog24
01-09-2014, 04:55 PM
1) Players stats do remain consistent from year to year regardless of system. Typically its just the USG/Efficiency change that happens. (Although admittedly I've never done any serious analysis on role players so we're mostly talking about top dogs here).

2) I still disagree that your teammates have no effect on your stats.

MonroeFAN
01-09-2014, 04:56 PM
Wall. He's having the better season and he will be a way better player.

The one guy I was almost positive would say Bledsoe (not that I would blame you).

Both are gonna be great players.

b@llhog24
01-09-2014, 05:04 PM
I've gotta say though. One thing about Guppy he creates some interesting discussions on here. :laugh2:

MonroeFAN
01-09-2014, 05:22 PM
Sigh

jimm120
01-09-2014, 05:29 PM
lol. All this talk and then he gets injured a day later and has Knee surgery

MrfadeawayJB
01-09-2014, 07:28 PM
I jinxed him :hide:

NBA_Starter
01-09-2014, 10:16 PM
Well I would certainly take Wall











right now..

sunsfan88
01-10-2014, 02:48 AM
The one guy I was almost positive would say Bledsoe (not that I would blame you).

Both are gonna be great players.
Eh, I feel like Bledsoe gets overrated a bit by NBA fans. I think Dragic deserves more recognition and praise than Bledsoe.

CityofChaos
01-10-2014, 04:55 AM
Kyle Lowry

Duncan = Donkey
01-10-2014, 06:23 AM
Kyle Lowry

would take ish smiths spot on the suns, I agree.