PDA

View Full Version : Nick Collison has destroyed the analytic movement



SteveNash
05-27-2014, 10:21 PM
For years people were hyping this guy up as the second coming. The next great white hype who does all the dirty work and makes the Thunder a much better team. For years people have blasted Perkins and Ibaka for this bum. ESPN came out this year hyping "Real Plus-Minus" rating with Collison being 7th in the league. These people were repeatedly begging Brooks to give him more minutes and these people finally got their wish when Ibaka went down.

Collison ended up doing nothing and the Thunder get blown out both games. Hobbled Ibaka returns and they end up blowing out the Spurs.

When it comes to analyzing the game, the eye test is the only valid method. Creating formulas randomly until you get results you kind of like just doesn't cut it.

MrfadeawayJB
05-27-2014, 10:32 PM
Since when is Steve Nash on psd?

GiantsSwaGG
05-27-2014, 10:36 PM
For years people were hyping this guy up as the second coming. The next great white hype who does all the dirty work and makes the Thunder a much better team. For years people have blasted Perkins and Ibaka for this bum. ESPN came out this year hyping "Real Plus-Minus" rating with Collison being 7th in the league. These people were repeatedly begging Brooks to give him more minutes and these people finally got their wish when Ibaka went down.

Collison ended up doing nothing and the Thunder get blown out both games. Hobbled Ibaka returns and they end up blowing out the Spurs.

When it comes to analyzing the game, the eye test is the only valid method. Creating formulas randomly until you get results you kind of like just doesn't cut it.

Did Slick Nick steal ya girl?

Crackadalic
05-27-2014, 10:55 PM
That's why you should never take certain stats as all end and only to look at other ways a player impacts the game

JEDean89
05-27-2014, 10:57 PM
yah espn's real plus minus wasn't really any metric to gauge advanced stats. your title is extremely dramatic.

Hawkeye15
05-27-2014, 11:13 PM
slightly dramatic, but knowing your history, not unexpected.

No worries, there are a couple of Kobephiles that will come in here and +1 you to death (how do you like that +/- stat?)

Deutsch Konig
05-27-2014, 11:14 PM
This is the lamest attempt at a thread I've ever seen on this site....id be surprised if people actually indulged in this garbage

Hawkeye15
05-27-2014, 11:14 PM
by the way, I have not seen a +/- formula that I can side with for measuring an individual. I only accept those numbers for unit based scenarios.

JJ_JKidd
05-27-2014, 11:33 PM
Advanced stats are a joke come on!

P&GRealist
05-27-2014, 11:33 PM
slightly dramatic, but knowing your history, not unexpected.

No worries, there are a couple of Kobephiles that will come in here and +1 you to death (how do you like that +/- stat?)

Nobody even mentioned Kobe's name yet you are here irrelevantly bashing his fans.

You're so insecure dude.

Hawkeye15
05-28-2014, 12:27 AM
Nobody even mentioned Kobe's name yet you are here irrelevantly bashing his fans.

You're so insecure dude.

not his fans, specifically 2 of them.

But, you know I cherish your judgement..

bucketss
05-28-2014, 12:44 AM
so how do you account for peoples biases? the eye test surely told me he was a much better option over perkins,

Chronz
05-28-2014, 12:56 AM
Missed you bro

P&GRealist
05-28-2014, 01:08 AM
slightly dramatic, but knowing your history, not unexpected.

No worries, there are a couple of Kobephiles that will come in here and +1 you to death (how do you like that +/- stat?)


not his fans, specifically 2 of them.

But, you know I cherish your judgement..

Are you being sarcastic?

I know you're taking about amos1er and illusionist. But I assure you, not all
lakers fans are blind Kobe supporters.

Stereotyping is no bueno.

AddiX
05-28-2014, 01:16 AM
Most of the analytic guys on this forum have gone pretty low key over the last few months.

All the dudes dick riding love, harden, heck, in the Knicks forum we even had analytic guys sweating Steve Novak And blaming our downfall on trading him!

Brooklyn and Indy both beat Mia during the regular season, I'm the sure the analytics for those games were greatly on there side, and it meant nothing in the playoffs. NBA season and the games during the regular season, that mean nothing, are a joke, to take those stats seriously, is pointless.

IMO it was the Klove fans here who made so many posters here, analytic crazy. Before him, I never remember it being so prevalent on PSD.

Hawkeye15
05-28-2014, 01:18 AM
Are you being sarcastic?

I know you're taking about amos1er and illusionist. But I assure you, not all
lakers fans are blind Kobe supporters.

Stereotyping is no bueno.

nailed it.

Not stereotyping at all. I specifically referred to 2 of them. And I am not off base in the slightest regarding them.

You seem to have some sort of issue with extremists being called out, when they are fans of your guy.

Hawkeye15
05-28-2014, 01:20 AM
Most of the analytic guys on this forum have gone pretty low key over the last few months.

All the dudes dick riding love, harden, heck, in the Knicks forum we even had analytic guys sweating Steve Novak And blaming our downfall on trading him!

Brooklyn and Indy both beat Mia during the regular season, I'm the sure the analytics for those games were greatly on there side, and it meant nothing in the playoffs. NBA season and the games during the regular season, that mean nothing, are a joke, to take those stats seriously, is pointless.

IMO it was the Klove fans here who made so many posters here, analytic crazy. Before him, I never remember it being so prevalent on PSD.

the season is winding down, of course there has been some cooling of conversation.

If you presume to think that analytics is now getting pushback, well, you won't really dig the next 30 years of basketball

Chronz
05-28-2014, 01:22 AM
Most of the analytic guys on this forum have gone pretty low key over the last few months.

All the dudes dick riding love, harden, heck, in the Knicks forum we even had analytic guys sweating Steve Novak And blaming our downfall on trading him!

Brooklyn and Indy both beat Mia during the regular season, I'm the sure the analytics for those games were greatly on there side, and it meant nothing in the playoffs. NBA season and the games during the regular season, that mean nothing, are a joke, to take those stats seriously, is pointless.

IMO it was the Klove fans here who made so many posters here, analytic crazy. Before him, I never remember it being so prevalent on PSD.
You're all over the place with this one, so nothing done by anyone means anything is what you're saying

I'm pretty sure that's ur point because you offered no statistics and your examples were nonsensical

Sactown
05-28-2014, 01:22 AM
Most of the analytic guys on this forum have gone pretty low key over the last few months.

All the dudes dick riding love, harden, heck, in the Knicks forum we even had analytic guys sweating Steve Novak And blaming our downfall on trading him!

Brooklyn and Indy both beat Mia during the regular season, I'm the sure the analytics for those games were greatly on there side, and it meant nothing in the playoffs. NBA season and the games during the regular season, that mean nothing, are a joke, to take those stats seriously, is pointless.

IMO it was the Klove fans here who made so many posters here, analytic crazy. Before him, I never remember it being so prevalent on PSD.

The problem isn't statistics its the idea of using statistics without context... While statistics showed those teams doing well against Miami in the regular season we knew statistically Miami improves in the playoffs upping the intensity ... Statistics show you numbers based of a certain scenario surrounded but certain veriables ... You need to take all those variables into consideration when making an educated guess..

AddiX
05-28-2014, 01:25 AM
the season is winding down, of course there has been some cooling of conversation.

If you presume to think that analytics is now getting pushback, well, you won't really dig the next 30 years of basketball

Teams like the analytics because they think they'll save lots of $ and still be good. A lot of teams jumped to that style of thinking. Your right, it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

But the same 4 teams are still in the conference finals, and I can promise you the core of those teams were built on what the players can and can't do, and there athletic ability, not based on analytics.

Shlumpledink
05-28-2014, 01:29 AM
Who is what?

AddiX
05-28-2014, 01:41 AM
The problem isn't statistics its the idea of using statistics without context... While statistics showed those teams doing well against Miami in the regular season we knew statistically Miami improves in the playoffs upping the intensity ... Statistics show you numbers based of a certain scenario surrounded but certain veriables ... You need to take all those variables into consideration when making an educated guess..


Which is my whole point, not only did these teams do better statistically vs the heat. They actually won!

And in the playoffs, in games that mattered, it meant absolutely nothing. So when posters try to bring up a players PER or other analytics during a regular season, quite frankly, it means jack **** to me.

P&GRealist
05-28-2014, 01:59 AM
slightly dramatic, but knowing your history, not unexpected.

No worries, there are a couple of Kobephiles that will come in here and +1 you to death (how do you like that +/- stat?)


nailed it.

Not stereotyping at all. I specifically referred to 2 of them. And I am not off base in the slightest regarding them.

You seem to have some sort of issue with extremists being called out, when they are fans of your guy.
My only issue and weakness is zest for tittays. You should know that by now.

Hawkeye15
05-28-2014, 02:35 AM
Teams like the analytics because they think they'll save lots of $ and still be good. A lot of teams jumped to that style of thinking. Your right, it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

But the same 4 teams are still in the conference finals, and I can promise you the core of those teams were built on what the players can and can't do, and there athletic ability, not based on analytics.

Heat- built around the most statistically dominant player since Jordan, along with a cast of players who stats guys love.

Spurs- built around 3 players who stat guys love, along with a cast of players that stat guys love

Thunder- features the most efficient scorer ever by stats, and built from a GM that came from the team above

Pacers- features statistically one of the best defenses we have seen in a decade, but overmatched BECAUSE of its offensive shortcomings analytically



Fall behind all you want. Up to you

Hawkeye15
05-28-2014, 02:35 AM
My only issue and weakness is zest for tittays. You should know that by now.

haha, touche

Tony_Starks
05-28-2014, 02:38 AM
There's a reasonable place for analytics. Like everything else in basketball though its subject to bias, exaggeration, and "if you don't agree with this your stupid" reasoning.

FOBolous
05-28-2014, 02:58 AM
so what happens when someone's "eye test" tells them something completely different from another person's "eye test."

P&GRealist
05-28-2014, 02:59 AM
so what happens when someone's "eye test" tells them something completely different from another person's "eye test."

It means they have astigmatism

JLynn943
05-28-2014, 03:11 AM
slightly dramatic, but knowing your history, not unexpected.


pretty much.

Zefflin
05-28-2014, 04:48 AM
Nobody even mentioned Kobe's name yet you are here irrelevantly bashing his fans.

You're so insecure dude.

+1

arlubas
05-28-2014, 05:49 AM
For years people were hyping this guy up as the second coming. The next great white hype who does all the dirty work and makes the Thunder a much better team. For years people have blasted Perkins and Ibaka for this bum. ESPN came out this year hyping "Real Plus-Minus" rating with Collison being 7th in the league. These people were repeatedly begging Brooks to give him more minutes and these people finally got their wish when Ibaka went down.
I've been following Collison since Kansas and no one has ever said anything even close to him being the second coming. Dude balled in college but everyone knew he was a sub on the next level. And he's a solid sub as well but that's as far as he goes. He shouldn't be starting over any of those guys in the Thunder's frontline. Where do you get all this "hype" especially for a guy like Nick? Seems like no one even mentions him anymore.


When it comes to analyzing the game, the eye test is the only valid method. Creating formulas randomly until you get results you kind of like just doesn't cut it.

We agree on this one. And like Chronz said, I've missed your antics tbt.

IKnowHoops
05-28-2014, 05:52 AM
For years people were hyping this guy up as the second coming. The next great white hype who does all the dirty work and makes the Thunder a much better team. For years people have blasted Perkins and Ibaka for this bum. ESPN came out this year hyping "Real Plus-Minus" rating with Collison being 7th in the league. These people were repeatedly begging Brooks to give him more minutes and these people finally got their wish when Ibaka went down.

Collison ended up doing nothing and the Thunder get blown out both games. Hobbled Ibaka returns and they end up blowing out the Spurs.

When it comes to analyzing the game, the eye test is the only valid method. Creating formulas randomly until you get results you kind of like just doesn't cut it.


Nick Collison 2014 PER 11.8
Serge Ibaka 2014 PER 19.6

There ya go, PER holds true and is accurately showing that Collison is nothing compared to Ibaka so stick with that in conjunction with the eye test and you won't go wrong.

IKnowHoops
05-28-2014, 06:05 AM
Most of the analytic guys on this forum have gone pretty low key over the last few months.

All the dudes dick riding love, harden, heck, in the Knicks forum we even had analytic guys sweating Steve Novak And blaming our downfall on trading him!

Brooklyn and Indy both beat Mia during the regular season, I'm the sure the analytics for those games were greatly on there side, and it meant nothing in the playoffs. NBA season and the games during the regular season, that mean nothing, are a joke, to take those stats seriously, is pointless.

IMO it was the Klove fans here who made so many posters here, analytic crazy. Before him, I never remember it being so prevalent on PSD.

I think Bron is the best player in the league

I think Bron is playing the best basketball in the league

PER and WS say Bron is the best and playing the best basketball in the league

Sorry you thought I was quiet. You must have missed my thread a week ago. Here you go, alive and well and always looking at advanced stats baby.

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?864333-Lebron-destroying-the-field-in-WinShares48-and-PER-in-the-Playoffs-thus-far

Matter of fact, I'll bring it back to the top for y'all.

3Blueforyou
05-28-2014, 10:46 AM
As a number of posters have stated, if you think analytics are going to go away your grosely misinformed. Hawk stated prior, that many of the top teams in the league represent teams that advance stats love (heat,spurs,okc). It can be argued that these teams may of been built prior to the emergence of analytics, but that they are a strong team based on these analytics and this is not contestable.

We are really sitting on the tip of the analytical movement in basketball, new stats some better than others will come along. I don't believe that the NBA will become as immersed with analytics as baseball is per say. However when looking at new technologies like sportsvu by stats inc (http://www.stats.com/sportvu/sportvu.asp), you can really see how far they could possibly take this. These type of systems will allow users in real time, to compile data on every aspect of the game.

The future of the NBA will be controlled by organizations that have a firm knowledge of both the traditional eye test, and analytics.

ManRam
05-28-2014, 10:50 AM
Yup. I think you're right! Time to just throw them in the bin. All because Nick Collison has been benched!

D-Leethal
05-28-2014, 11:29 AM
Most of the analytic guys on this forum have gone pretty low key over the last few months.

All the dudes dick riding love, harden, heck, in the Knicks forum we even had analytic guys sweating Steve Novak And blaming our downfall on trading him!

Brooklyn and Indy both beat Mia during the regular season, I'm the sure the analytics for those games were greatly on there side, and it meant nothing in the playoffs. NBA season and the games during the regular season, that mean nothing, are a joke, to take those stats seriously, is pointless.

IMO it was the Klove fans here who made so many posters here, analytic crazy. Before him, I never remember it being so prevalent on PSD.

I've made it my personal mission to debunk a good chunk of the stupid, stupid use of formulaic stats as a way of ranking players on this forum. Thiago Splitter was "contributing the most to wins" according the almighty WS formula a couple weeks ago.

I do think the mentality has changed a bit on here which is a good thing, we should be talking about what happens on the court, talking about what leads to these stats being accumulated and why it leads to that instead of just taking them at face value like they actually are definitive evidence of anything. I mean we had Guppy on this forum calling advanced stats "proof" for years, which is complete and utter nonsense. LaMarcus the chucker Aldridge and Damien inefficiency Lillard smoking the Houston Analytic Rockets also put a huge smile on my face.

D-Leethal
05-28-2014, 11:34 AM
I think the Knicks of last year were a good case of "evidence against" when the 3rd most efficient and potent offense in the league was spearheaded by two notoriously "inefficient chuckers". Funny thing is guys here gave Tyson Chandler and Steve Novak and there 8 combined FGA per game the freakin' credit. Efficient scoring is not the end-all-be-all like these stat whores suggest. And sometimes "chucking" is a good thing for your team, yea I said it.

ManRam
05-28-2014, 12:00 PM
I've made it my personal mission to debunk a good chunk of the stupid, stupid use of formulaic stats as a way of ranking players on this forum. Thiago Splitter was "contributing the most to wins" according the almighty WS formula a couple weeks ago.

I do think the mentality has changed a bit on here which is a good thing, we should be talking about what happens on the court, talking about what leads to these stats being accumulated and why it leads to that instead of just taking them at face value like they actually are definitive evidence of anything. I mean we had Guppy on this forum calling advanced stats "proof" for years, which is complete and utter nonsense. LaMarcus the chucker Aldridge and Damien inefficiency Lillard smoking the Houston Analytic Rockets also put a huge smile on my face.

I always try to approach things like "Tiago Splitter leading the team in WS" with the mindset of trying to figure out what I might be missing rather than merely trying to "debunk" the stat because it suggests something that I don't want to believe.

Splitter is a hell of a defender, he's 4th on the team in minutes played and the Spurs use a more balanced approach on both ends than most teams. Splitter has been playing REALLY well in the playoffs. Sure, the volume stats aren't there, but again, this is the Spurs; besides Parker really, the volume stats aren't ever going to be there for anyone. And you know what, Parker hasn't been great these playoffs. I don't think it's inconceivable to say he's been the 3rd most impacting player on that team these playoffs :shrug: He fills his role to perfection, and there's a ton of value in that. At the very least, the guy is one of the absolute BEST rim protectors in the league who makes no mistakes on offense. Basketball is dualistic -- there are two sides to the court. Just because he scores under 10 points a game doesn't mean he can't have a tremendous impact on a game.

Look, these stats aren't flawless. They aren't the be-all and end-all. They're just tools to help figure things out better. Win shares is just a broad and general stat...and it's stuck around for a while for some reason. Something completely phony wouldn't have lasted this long if it were just that. But yeah, ESPECIALLY over a tiny sample size there are going to be weird things. It happens.

Again, when something looks out of place, perhaps try to figure out what you might be missing before you go campaigning to refute the stat's credibility entirely. Maybe you're missing something.

BaddNewz
05-28-2014, 12:01 PM
Analytic stats are another way for people to ignore the facts. Stats usually never tell the entire story.

slashsnake
05-28-2014, 12:08 PM
For years people were hyping this guy up as the second coming. The next great white hype who does all the dirty work and makes the Thunder a much better team. For years people have blasted Perkins and Ibaka for this bum. ESPN came out this year hyping "Real Plus-Minus" rating with Collison being 7th in the league. These people were repeatedly begging Brooks to give him more minutes and these people finally got their wish when Ibaka went down.

Collison ended up doing nothing and the Thunder get blown out both games. Hobbled Ibaka returns and they end up blowing out the Spurs.

When it comes to analyzing the game, the eye test is the only valid method. Creating formulas randomly until you get results you kind of like just doesn't cut it.

There's a bit of both involved there, eye method is great, but how many of us sit down and watch 82 games a year of Lebron, Melo, Durant, and the other MVP candidates?

In this case it is the small sample size. He did great in his role. Coming off the bench for about 15 minutes a game (7-10 in the playoffs) vs. the other teams bench and going all out in that time span. Not pacing himself for a rested group of Spurs starters to start both halves. We all saw him at his best in the Seattle days of that team. In his prime, starting, getting minutes and he a 9 and 9 type of guy. Now he's past that prime. I don't know of anyone who was out there saying "Oh his advanced plus minus over 12 minutes a game shows he is elite, so OKC should be just fine without Ibaka"..

You take just about any analytic stat with a grain of salt. Especially one that has been in existance for a couple months and tries to tell you that Birdman is the #2 player on the heat, or Collison and Channing Frye are top 10 players in the league.

But you have to do the same with the eye test. Austin Croshere once passed the eye test for me. So did Tyus Edney his rookie year. Guys like Troy Hudson and Jerome James looked amazing at times in the playoffs.

Leon Powe really reminds me of a guy who passed that test. Not a lot of hype coming off a good college career, came into the NBA and worked his way up, and it seemed like every time Garnett would go down, he'd show up in a huge way, great interior play on both ends of the court. Then just fizzled when he got a bigger role.

SouthSideRookie
05-28-2014, 12:14 PM
I've made it my personal mission to debunk a good chunk of the stupid, stupid use of formulaic stats as a way of ranking players on this forum. Thiago Splitter was "contributing the most to wins" according the almighty WS formula a couple weeks ago.

I do think the mentality has changed a bit on here which is a good thing, we should be talking about what happens on the court, talking about what leads to these stats being accumulated and why it leads to that instead of just taking them at face value like they actually are definitive evidence of anything. I mean we had Guppy on this forum calling advanced stats "proof" for years, which is complete and utter nonsense. LaMarcus the chucker Aldridge and Damien inefficiency Lillard smoking the Houston Analytic Rockets also put a huge smile on my face.

Houston didn't get smoked by Portland, in fact they actually outscored them by two iirc. They lost that series because they have a clueless coach who decided to finally put Asik in the starting lineup after 2 games. Harden was also nowhere to be found for 4 of the games and they still had a chance to win. It also didn't help that the refs came out and apologized, twice, on a potential deciding call vs Houston.

Mark my words, barring injuries, Houston will come closer than Portland to ever winning anything.

Also, I wonder why Morey has been trying to acquire Melo if he's so against the mid range :confused:

You're the same guy who said the lakers would be better than Houston this past season so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

jp611
05-28-2014, 12:23 PM
Heat- built around the most statistically dominant player since Jordan, along with a cast of players who stats guys love.

Spurs- built around 3 players who stat guys love, along with a cast of players that stat guys love

Thunder- features the most efficient scorer ever by stats, and built from a GM that came from the team above

Pacers- features statistically one of the best defenses we have seen in a decade, but overmatched BECAUSE of its offensive shortcomings analytically



Fall behind all you want. Up to you

Nailed it.

jp611
05-28-2014, 12:24 PM
I think the analytic guys left this forum because this forum is full of prepubescents that degrade analytics because they don't understand how to properly apply them.

ManRam
05-28-2014, 12:53 PM
Analytic stats are another way for people to ignore the facts. Stats usually never tell the entire story.

What a strange post.

"Usually never"? "Ignoring facts"?

slashsnake
05-28-2014, 01:07 PM
LaMarcus the chucker Aldridge and Damien inefficiency Lillard smoking the Houston Analytic Rockets also put a huge smile on my face.

Didn't Damien have a 23.4 Player efficiency ranking, which easily beat out James Harden at 18.4 in that series? Him and "Chucker" Aldridge combined for a .60 True shooting %, vs. a .54 for Dwight and Harden. Granted that true shooting dropped to .47 vs. the spurs for those two...

So your proof against advanced stats is they showed a clear difference between what team won and lost?

Use them with a grain of salt. They do show good trends as you can see in your own example there. Lillard played efficiently and him and Aldridge shot well vs. the Rockets and won. They didn't vs. the Spurs and lost.

Win Shares of course is a tough one, especially if you are looking at it just over a couple weeks. That is one that is heavily based on team production around the player.

IndyRealist
05-28-2014, 01:13 PM
The problem isn't statistics its the idea of using statistics without context... While statistics showed those teams doing well against Miami in the regular season we knew statistically Miami improves in the playoffs upping the intensity ... Statistics show you numbers based of a certain scenario surrounded but certain veriables ... You need to take all those variables into consideration when making an educated guess..
Not only context, but to use a statistic intelligently you have to UNDERSTAND the statistic in the first place. The OP obviously does not understand what he's looking at, so he doesn't understand the strengths and weaknesses of any particular stat.

All +/- stats, for instance, suffer from a halo effect. Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant both play a ton of minutes together every game, and pretty much for their entire careers (at least Westbrook's). So how does +/-, which tracks how much a team goes ahead or behind while a player is on the floor, tell them apart? Thing like RAPM and whatnot are doing a decent job of filtering the data but for players with huge amounts of shared minutes, +/- stats still effectively treat them as the same player. The same can be said for the OP's example of Nick Collison. He's always on the floor with RWB and/or KD. They are by all accounts extremely impactful players. So his +/- is going to be very high regardless of what he actually does on the floor, because of the halo effect. (This effect was first cited to my knowledge about Kobe and Derek Fisher, and shows up glaringly with Matt Bonner and the Spurs).

If people aren't trying to understand the stats now, and just burying their heads in the sand, it's only going to get worse for them. The future of sports analytics is "black box" metrics, aka proprietary information. People realize there's a huge vacuum in basketball analytics, and the people paying the most money for it (NBA teams) don't understand in the slightest what they are looking at. So these developers are creating metrics and demonstrating the results with the hopes a team will hire them, without ever actually disclosing how to calculate the metrics. NBA teams don't care because they wouldn't understand anyway. Mark Cuban has a whole team developing draft predictions and targeting free agents, and none of their work has been published. So the likelihood that any of us will ever understand (or be able to critique) their work is next to zero.

ewing
05-28-2014, 01:19 PM
I think the Knicks of last year were a good case of "evidence against" when the 3rd most efficient and potent offense in the league was spearheaded by two notoriously "inefficient chuckers". Funny thing is guys here gave Tyson Chandler and Steve Novak and there 8 combined FGA per game the freakin' credit. Efficient scoring is not the end-all-be-all like these stat whores suggest. And sometimes "chucking" is a good thing for your team, yea I said it.

I was told in seriousness that Tyson was one of the best offensive players in the game and his value as a basketball player would never have been recognized in the per analytics era. Now i have no problem with these stats and do think that they are useful. what is annoying to me is people who seem to think that they are redefining the game. They aren't. they may help people recognize things more easily but Pat Riley is likely to come to the same conclusion with or without them. The fact that they often support that conclusion doesn't impress me really

ManRam
05-28-2014, 01:33 PM
I think the Knicks of last year were a good case of "evidence against" when the 3rd most efficient and potent offense in the league was spearheaded by two notoriously "inefficient chuckers". Funny thing is guys here gave Tyson Chandler and Steve Novak and there 8 combined FGA per game the freakin' credit. Efficient scoring is not the end-all-be-all like these stat whores suggest. And sometimes "chucking" is a good thing for your team, yea I said it.

And the advanced projection models correctly predicted their downfall....

AddiX
05-28-2014, 02:20 PM
I've made it my personal mission to debunk a good chunk of the stupid, stupid use of formulaic stats as a way of ranking players on this forum. Thiago Splitter was "contributing the most to wins" according the almighty WS formula a couple weeks ago.

I do think the mentality has changed a bit on here which is a good thing, we should be talking about what happens on the court, talking about what leads to these stats being accumulated and why it leads to that instead of just taking them at face value like they actually are definitive evidence of anything. I mean we had Guppy on this forum calling advanced stats "proof" for years, which is complete and utter nonsense. LaMarcus the chucker Aldridge and Damien inefficiency Lillard smoking the Houston Analytic Rockets also put a huge smile on my face.


Yep, Hou is the face of pointless and blown up BS regular season stats, and Harden leads the way...

Right into the playoffs, where he constantly gets exposed.

DemarDerozan
05-28-2014, 03:53 PM
Analytics= geeks with too much time on their hands in denial about their losing teams.

ManRam
05-28-2014, 03:57 PM
[/B]

Yep, Hou is the face of pointless and blown up BS regular season stats, and Harden leads the way...

Right into the playoffs, where he constantly gets exposed.

Elaborate.

Which stats do you think paint an unfair picture of him? My guess is you just don't quite get what they're saying about him.

mightybosstone
05-28-2014, 04:12 PM
:laugh: This is so ridiculous. I love how using an insanely small sample size of a role player who performs exceptionally well based on a single statistical formula disproves any and all advanced statistical data. That's absurd. I guess it doesn't matter that we're talking about a 33-year-old veteran who doesn't score who played 17 minutes per game this season playing starters minutes against one of the greatest big men in the history of the NBA. I guess the context of that information is totally irrelevant.

mightybosstone
05-28-2014, 04:14 PM
Analytics= geeks with too much time on their hands in denial about their losing teams.

And yet most successful GMs in the league use analytics to build rosters. So you tell me who's right: half the general managers of the NBA or some dipshit posters on PSD who failed remedial math classes in high school and need calculators to multiply single-digit numbers?

Sadds The Gr8
05-28-2014, 04:17 PM
And yet most successful GMs in the league use analytics to build rosters. So you tell me who's right: half the general managers of the NBA or some dipshit posters on PSD who failed remedial math classes in high school and need calculators to multiple single-digit numbers?

Lol this. Whoever thinks the good teams don't use any analytics whatsoever are morons.

Obviously not EVERYTHING in basketball is predicated off analytics, which is what the ignorant people accuse others of thinking, but it's a big part.

ManRam
05-28-2014, 04:23 PM
:lol: This is so ridiculous. I love how using an insanely small sample size of a role player who performs exceptionally well based on a single statistical formula disproves any and all advanced statistical data. That's absurd. I guess it doesn't matter that we're talking about a 33-year-old veteran who doesn't score who played 17 minutes per game this season playing starters minutes against one of the greatest big man in the history of the NBA. I guess the context of that information is totally irrelevant.

I guess we shouldn't expect people who don't understand sample size to understand "advanced" stats like the ones being discussed. Moreover, I think the real problem is that people don't understand what those stats are really telling us or how to interpret them. Some of the backlash certainly is because there are people that do frequently cite them that also don't know how to do that either, but that's not the stat's fault.

Sadds The Gr8
05-28-2014, 04:40 PM
The great irony in these arguments is that analytics people watch 10x more games and film than the idiots claiming to "drop the stats and use the eye test". I'd bet my house on that.

Using stats AND watching games isn't mutually exclusive

Jamiecballer
05-28-2014, 05:49 PM
For years people were hyping this guy up as the second coming. The next great white hype who does all the dirty work and makes the Thunder a much better team. For years people have blasted Perkins and Ibaka for this bum. ESPN came out this year hyping "Real Plus-Minus" rating with Collison being 7th in the league. These people were repeatedly begging Brooks to give him more minutes and these people finally got their wish when Ibaka went down.

Collison ended up doing nothing and the Thunder get blown out both games. Hobbled Ibaka returns and they end up blowing out the Spurs.

When it comes to analyzing the game, the eye test is the only valid method. Creating formulas randomly until you get results you kind of like just doesn't cut it.

Bahahahahhaha

Jamiecballer
05-28-2014, 05:53 PM
by the way, I have not seen a +/- formula that I can side with for measuring an individual. I only accept those numbers for unit based scenarios.

Really. I'm the opposite. I put little stock in those but plenty in large scale +/-

Crackadalic
05-28-2014, 05:55 PM
And yet most successful GMs in the league use analytics to build rosters. So you tell me who's right: half the general managers of the NBA or some dipshit posters on PSD who failed remedial math classes in high school and need calculators to multiply single-digit numbers?

Lmfao I laugh so hard at this haha. Made my day bro

Jamiecballer
05-28-2014, 06:02 PM
I always try to approach things like "Tiago Splitter leading the team in WS" with the mindset of trying to figure out what I might be missing rather than merely trying to "debunk" the stat because it suggests something that I don't want to believe.

Splitter is a hell of a defender, he's 4th on the team in minutes played and the Spurs use a more balanced approach on both ends than most teams. Splitter has been playing REALLY well in the playoffs. Sure, the volume stats aren't there, but again, this is the Spurs; besides Parker really, the volume stats aren't ever going to be there for anyone. And you know what, Parker hasn't been great these playoffs. I don't think it's inconceivable to say he's been the 3rd most impacting player on that team these playoffs :shrug: He fills his role to perfection, and there's a ton of value in that. At the very least, the guy is one of the absolute BEST rim protectors in the league who makes no mistakes on offense. Basketball is dualistic -- there are two sides to the court. Just because he scores under 10 points a game doesn't mean he can't have a tremendous impact on a game.

Look, these stats aren't flawless. They aren't the be-all and end-all. They're just tools to help figure things out better. Win shares is just a broad and general stat...and it's stuck around for a while for some reason. Something completely phony wouldn't have lasted this long if it were just that. But yeah, ESPECIALLY over a tiny sample size there are going to be weird things. It happens.

Again, when something looks out of place, perhaps try to figure out what you might be missing before you go campaigning to refute the stat's credibility entirely. Maybe you're missing something.

Bingo. Humility isn't in his vocabulary.

PurpleLynch
05-28-2014, 06:12 PM
I disagree with the op,but the title of this thread sound so awesome,dunno why :D

Advanced stats were created for a purpose,that's why people use it. I agree,advanced stats shouldn't be the only parameter to judge a player,but they playa a major role right now and that's because they come close to predict the performaces of players.Also some stats are better than others imo and contestualization of the singular stat is very important too.But essentially they are used because their are operational.


...I just can't forget that title:"Nick Collison has destroyed the analytic movement"...so badass,so manly and yet so essential.Am I losing my mind?

SteveNash
05-28-2014, 08:16 PM
so how do you account for peoples biases? the eye test surely told me he was a much better option over perkins,

If you don't have the knowledge yet, you listen to more knowledgable people such as me.


Heat- built around the most statistically dominant player since Jordan, along with a cast of players who stats guys love.

Spurs- built around 3 players who stat guys love, along with a cast of players that stat guys love

Thunder- features the most efficient scorer ever by stats, and built from a GM that came from the team above

Pacers- features statistically one of the best defenses we have seen in a decade, but overmatched BECAUSE of its offensive shortcomings analytically

Heat - Plenty of analytic guys made the case for Durant being MVP even though LeBron is head and shoulders above Durant.

Spurs - Just on a per minute basis. Spurs are a regular season team that lucked against Dallas.

Thunder - Back to Collison. Analytics can't explain how Durant is soft and disappears too much and how Westbrook has to continually shoot to save him.

Pacers - Analytics can't comprehend the issues that team went through to end the season.

Houston - Analytic team defined, 3s and points in the paint most efficient shots. Expect your team is filled with chokers who can't get it done.


I've been following Collison since Kansas and no one has ever said anything even close to him being the second coming. Dude balled in college but everyone knew he was a sub on the next level. And he's a solid sub as well but that's as far as he goes. He shouldn't be starting over any of those guys in the Thunder's frontline. Where do you get all this "hype" especially for a guy like Nick? Seems like no one even mentions him anymore.

Collison was pretty much the poster child for +/- and he's failed miserably.

Before the start of the series, there was talk about how Durant and Collison were the best duo in the league. That's the biggest problem with analytics, they don't properly figure out players coming off the bench.


Nick Collison 2014 PER 11.8
Serge Ibaka 2014 PER 19.6

Taj Gibson 2014 PER 16.0
Brandan Wright 2014 PER 23.6

Boom, there goes PER.


As a number of posters have stated, if you think analytics are going to go away your grosely misinformed. Hawk stated prior, that many of the top teams in the league represent teams that advance stats love (heat,spurs,okc). It can be argued that these teams may of been built prior to the emergence of analytics, but that they are a strong team based on these analytics and this is not contestable.

We are really sitting on the tip of the analytical movement in basketball, new stats some better than others will come along. I don't believe that the NBA will become as immersed with analytics as baseball is per say. However when looking at new technologies like sportsvu by stats inc (http://www.stats.com/sportvu/sportvu.asp), you can really see how far they could possibly take this. These type of systems will allow users in real time, to compile data on every aspect of the game.

The future of the NBA will be controlled by organizations that have a firm knowledge of both the traditional eye test, and analytics.

I don't think analytics will ever go away and they've existed for quite a while, they just won't be having as much stock as they had in the past. I'm just saying that this is the tipping point for the analytic hype.

Sportsvu, I'm not that familiar with it, but my understanding is that it isn't really about analytics, but about providing more comprehensive stats. Stats are facts, analytics are made up with some imaginary value placed on them.


Splitter is a hell of a defender, he's 4th on the team in minutes played and the Spurs use a more balanced approach on both ends than most teams. Splitter has been playing REALLY well in the playoffs. Sure, the volume stats aren't there, but again, this is the Spurs; besides Parker really, the volume stats aren't ever going to be there for anyone. And you know what, Parker hasn't been great these playoffs. I don't think it's inconceivable to say he's been the 3rd most impacting player on that team these playoffs :shrug: He fills his role to perfection, and there's a ton of value in that. At the very least, the guy is one of the absolute BEST rim protectors in the league who makes no mistakes on offense. Basketball is dualistic -- there are two sides to the court. Just because he scores under 10 points a game doesn't mean he can't have a tremendous impact on a game.

Splitter is a great example. His leading the WS has to do with small sample size and his teammates more than anything. Splitter is a weak defender and WS doesn't even take good defense into account.


And yet most successful GMs in the league use analytics to build rosters. So you tell me who's right: half the general managers of the NBA or some dipshit posters on PSD who failed remedial math classes in high school and need calculators to multiply single-digit numbers?

Point proven right here. SOME use analytics to build rosters. ALL successful GMs in the league use scouts who use the eye test to judge players.


I guess we shouldn't expect people who don't understand sample size to understand "advanced" stats like the ones being discussed. Moreover, I think the real problem is that people don't understand what those stats are really telling us or how to interpret them. Some of the backlash certainly is because there are people that do frequently cite them that also don't know how to do that either, but that's not the stat's fault.

Small sample size doesn't really come into account when actually watching the game. This isn't a great shooter going through some cold streak. This is a player who just a few years ago was being billed as the Thunders most important player looking like hot garbage on the court. That's not a small sample size, that's a mediocre bench player getting exposed when playing with the big boys.

Hellcrooner
05-28-2014, 08:23 PM
This thread does not pass my eyes test.

Hellcrooner
05-28-2014, 08:52 PM
Btw Stevie

Why are you rooting for ibaka?

He is SPANISH. http://www.kpsport-camera.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DSC_0316.jpg
:D

0nekhmer
05-28-2014, 08:55 PM
I'm happy we(raptors) basically traded him for Kyle Lowry :D

Jamiecballer
05-28-2014, 09:08 PM
If you don't have the knowledge yet, you listen to more knowledgable people such as me.



Heat - Plenty of analytic guys made the case for Durant being MVP even though LeBron is head and shoulders above Durant.

Spurs - Just on a per minute basis. Spurs are a regular season team that lucked against Dallas.

Thunder - Back to Collison. Analytics can't explain how Durant is soft and disappears too much and how Westbrook has to continually shoot to save him.

Pacers - Analytics can't comprehend the issues that team went through to end the season.

Houston - Analytic team defined, 3s and points in the paint most efficient shots. Expect your team is filled with chokers who can't get it done.



Collison was pretty much the poster child for +/- and he's failed miserably.

Before the start of the series, there was talk about how Durant and Collison were the best duo in the league. That's the biggest problem with analytics, they don't properly figure out players coming off the bench.



Taj Gibson 2014 PER 16.0
Brandan Wright 2014 PER 23.6

Boom, there goes PER.



I don't think analytics will ever go away and they've existed for quite a while, they just won't be having as much stock as they had in the past. I'm just saying that this is the tipping point for the analytic hype.

Sportsvu, I'm not that familiar with it, but my understanding is that it isn't really about analytics, but about providing more comprehensive stats. Stats are facts, analytics are made up with some imaginary value placed on them.



Splitter is a great example. His leading the WS has to do with small sample size and his teammates more than anything. Splitter is a weak defender and WS doesn't even take good defense into account.



Point proven right here. SOME use analytics to build rosters. ALL successful GMs in the league use scouts who use the eye test to judge players.



Small sample size doesn't really come into account when actually watching the game. This isn't a great shooter going through some cold streak. This is a player who just a few years ago was being billed as the Thunders most important player looking like hot garbage on the court. That's not a small sample size, that's a mediocre bench player getting exposed when playing with the big boys.

I find your attitude really disturbing. Its one thing to be ignorant, and we all are to a large degree, but you wear your ignorance like its some sort of a badge to be proud of.

bagwell368
05-28-2014, 09:22 PM
For years people were hyping this guy up as the second coming. The next great white hype who does all the dirty work and makes the Thunder a much better team. For years people have blasted Perkins and Ibaka for this bum. ESPN came out this year hyping "Real Plus-Minus" rating with Collison being 7th in the league. These people were repeatedly begging Brooks to give him more minutes and these people finally got their wish when Ibaka went down.

Collison ended up doing nothing and the Thunder get blown out both games. Hobbled Ibaka returns and they end up blowing out the Spurs.

When it comes to analyzing the game, the eye test is the only valid method. Creating formulas randomly until you get results you kind of like just doesn't cut it.

You're going off of two games in the playoffs against the best Coach of his time?

The only thing that's clear here is that you're so hungry to criticize analytics that you'll take very possibly an inferior stat with a two game sample size. P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C.

Also any stat that shows Perkins is useless is onto something. Any stat that says Ibaka isn't head and shoulders over Collison and Perkins is wrong or needs to be presented with other stats to tamper it's obviously biased findings.

All your post proves is that your thoughts and writings are not to be trusted.

koreancabbage
05-28-2014, 09:50 PM
at this point and time, its just stats, not advanced stats.

b@llhog24
05-29-2014, 01:55 PM
Lol two game sample size for the, win!

b@llhog24
05-29-2014, 01:57 PM
Most of the analytic guys on this forum have gone pretty low key over the last few months.



All the dudes dick riding love, harden, heck, in the Knicks forum we even had analytic guys sweating Steve Novak And blaming our downfall on trading him!



Brooklyn and Indy both beat Mia during the regular season, I'm the sure the analytics for those games were greatly on there side, and it meant nothing in the playoffs. NBA season and the games during the regular season, that mean nothing, are a joke, to take those stats seriously, is pointless.



IMO it was the Klove fans here who made so many posters here, analytic crazy. Before him, I never remember it being so prevalent on PSD.


Wtf are you talking about?

slashsnake
05-29-2014, 03:20 PM
If you don't have the knowledge yet, you listen to more knowledgable people such as me.



Heat - Plenty of analytic guys made the case for Durant being MVP even though LeBron is head and shoulders above Durant.

Spurs - Just on a per minute basis. Spurs are a regular season team that lucked against Dallas.

Thunder - Back to Collison. Analytics can't explain how Durant is soft and disappears too much and how Westbrook has to continually shoot to save him.

Pacers - Analytics can't comprehend the issues that team went through to end the season.

Houston - Analytic team defined, 3s and points in the paint most efficient shots. Expect your team is filled with chokers who can't get it done.



Collison was pretty much the poster child for +/- and he's failed miserably.

Before the start of the series, there was talk about how Durant and Collison were the best duo in the league. That's the biggest problem with analytics, they don't properly figure out players coming off the bench.



Taj Gibson 2014 PER 16.0
Brandan Wright 2014 PER 23.6

Boom, there goes PER.



I don't think analytics will ever go away and they've existed for quite a while, they just won't be having as much stock as they had in the past. I'm just saying that this is the tipping point for the analytic hype.

Sportsvu, I'm not that familiar with it, but my understanding is that it isn't really about analytics, but about providing more comprehensive stats. Stats are facts, analytics are made up with some imaginary value placed on them.



Splitter is a great example. His leading the WS has to do with small sample size and his teammates more than anything. Splitter is a weak defender and WS doesn't even take good defense into account.



Point proven right here. SOME use analytics to build rosters. ALL successful GMs in the league use scouts who use the eye test to judge players.



Small sample size doesn't really come into account when actually watching the game. This isn't a great shooter going through some cold streak. This is a player who just a few years ago was being billed as the Thunders most important player looking like hot garbage on the court. That's not a small sample size, that's a mediocre bench player getting exposed when playing with the big boys.

Plenty of everyone said Durant was the MVP of the regular season, but the finals MVP is the one that really matters. Everyone was saying voter fatigue for Lebron, he's pacing himself, etc. ANALYTICS was what said those two were really close during the season. PER, Win Shares, true shooting percentage, Orating, Drating.

And Analytics have shown year in and year out that those Houston type teams can struggle in the post-season (Denver is a prime example under Karl). Eye test says that team was rocking the regular season. Analytics says beware.

I don't know what your bit on Gibson and Wright are about. Two guys with different roles, different positions, different teams, different minutes...

I don't see anyone here JUST relying on analytics. Collison as the poster child for ESPN's 2 month old plus minus system? Really, who was out there touting him as a top 7 player in the NBA for that? Who was saying "see the system works, Collison is an elite NBA player"????

And yes small sample size ABSOLUTELY plays in here. So do matchups. We saw that with Hibbert last year against the heat. He isn't a dominant player though he was in a small sample size.

And please, if you are going to say Collison was billed as the most important player on the Thunder, more than Westbrook, Ibaka, or Durant, please tell me who that was. I'd heard key role player and he was that.

And you say all teams scout. What teams don't use analytics? I know the Heat (Bob Chaikan leads their analytics dept.), the Pacers (Spencer Anderson), the Spurs (Gabe Farkas), and the Thunder (Wynn Sullivan and Jesse Gould) all do. Are you saying those teams are doing it wrong? They should all follow the success of the Utah Jazz and pass on it (Jazz use analytics, one of the few teams without a specialist or dept for it).

Teams without analytics depts or specialized analytics guys or consultants that I can find...

Jazz, Kings, Twolves, Clippers, Hornets and Hawks.

Of course every team uses the eye test too. You can't rely on just one. The eye test also has gotten Darko Milicic drafted at #2, and Kwame Brown at #1 while ESPN's plus minus thingy says Collison is primed to be great. The eye test said Dirk was a project at best and Traylor would be a stud. Doesn't mean abandon both of them. But analytics is another tool to use with the eye test.

ManRam
05-29-2014, 03:27 PM
at this point and time, its just stats, not advanced stats.

I mostly throw the word "advanced" when discussing win shares and PER in quotes...because they truly aren't advanced any more. Bruno I think called them "basic advanced stats" in another thread recently. But regardless, PER, Win Shares, TS% and the likes aren't really basic advanced stats at this point.

TS% is such a simple and intuitive stat. There should be no controversy around it really at all (assuming you, again, understand what it is factoring in). Win shares and PER are such wide sweeping and general stats that, while they do a good job of painting a general picture, don't really tell you anything "advanced" about a player's game. They aren't really in depth, at all. Not "advanced". They're useful, but limited. Just because it requires some math doesn't mean much to me.

Goose17
05-29-2014, 03:42 PM
Creating formulas randomly until you get results you kind of like just doesn't cut it.

LOL... yes, because that's what advanced analytics are.

You should probably research something properly before criticizing it. Otherwise you just seem narrow minded and foolish.

slashsnake
05-29-2014, 04:44 PM
I like Love and not just for his analytics. Mostly because he comes out, plays great basketball, gives his team a 5 point lead, heads to the bench for 5 minutes and they are down 3.

Some fans don't watch and see the box score with a L in the Minnesota column and say he is a loser who can't get his team to the playoffs.

He isn't the greatest player in the NBA but he is a legit star and one of the leagues best bigs. My eye test says that his time on the bench sipping gatoraide really doesn't make him a better or worse player, and that when he is out there, Minnesota is a very good team. Advanced stats or whatever you want to call them agree.

ewing
05-29-2014, 05:16 PM
advanced stats like all stats are useful tools in the hands of people who know what the **** they are talking about. many PSD posters don't meet the qualification

ManRam
05-30-2014, 09:56 AM
Why is Kevin Love being perceived as an advanced stats darling? Just because he plays on a ****** team and some people can't separate individual greatness from team play?

Dude went 26-13-4 this season.

The company he keeps with those most basic of basic stats: link (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&shoot_hand=&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=pts_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=25&c2stat=trb_per_g&c2comp=gt&c2val=12&c3stat=ast_per_g&c3comp=gt&c3val=4&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=ws)

tredigs
05-30-2014, 11:56 AM
Haha I love this thread.

D-Leethal
05-30-2014, 12:26 PM
"The Wannabe Chronz" would love this thread.

D-Leethal
05-30-2014, 12:26 PM
Why is Kevin Love being perceived as an advanced stats darling? Just because he plays on a ****** team and some people can't separate individual greatness from team play?

Dude went 26-13-4 this season.

The company he keeps with those most basic of basic stats: link (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&shoot_hand=&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=pts_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=25&c2stat=trb_per_g&c2comp=gt&c2val=12&c3stat=ast_per_g&c3comp=gt&c3val=4&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=ws)

David Lee came close to that on a ****** team too.

sep11ie
05-30-2014, 01:41 PM
David Lee came close to that on a ****** team too.

No, not even close.

Jamiecballer
05-30-2014, 02:30 PM
David Lee came close to that on a ****** team too.

There is this thing called the internet that makes it pretty easy to check up on that claim. Not even close to true.

Unless you consider 21 and 11 to be "close" to a ridiculous 26 and 13.

ManRam
05-30-2014, 03:09 PM
David Lee came close to that on a ****** team too.

Not really.

Though, I wouldn't ever say David Lee was a bad offensive player at all. It's just, he's clearly not in Love's class.

AddiX
05-30-2014, 04:33 PM
Not really.

Though, I wouldn't ever say David Lee was a bad offensive player at all. It's just, he's clearly not in Love's class.

Lee is 20x the player love is with the ball in his hands, can score a lot of different ways.

Love can't score unless he has a open 3 point shot or unless he has the ball within 2 feet from the hoop. Guy has no offensive moves what so ever. Gets hustle points.

That's why when it matters love disappears. No team is going to give him that easy crap when the game is close.

Defensively there evenly terrible. This talk of love being much better is baseless.