PDA

View Full Version : Statistical feats, present day



HandsOnTheWheel
12-08-2017, 06:17 PM
Culprits:

Westbrook triple double season (stealing rebounds from teammates, obvious padding of stats, historical USG)

Devin Booker 70 point game in loss to Celtics with Earl Watson calling multiple timeouts and intentionally fouling in the 4th quarter so he can achieve it. What gets me is that he was bragging about how "It doesn't happen ver often", and "especially against a really good defensive team like the Celtics" and how he tried to paint it like it was such a historical feat afterwards -.-
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/18997459/devin-booker-phoenix-suns-scores-70-points-loss-boston-celtics

Someone could probably make a case for Harden and his play (USG, BS fouls the past few years, inflated stats, etc.)

So the question is, is how much weight do you put into these guys padding their stats in order to obtain these ridiculously inflated stats? Whats your overall opinion on it historically speaking?

valade16
12-08-2017, 06:26 PM
Obviously statistical feats can be manipulated and it diminishes the accomplishment, but this is not a new phenomenon.

Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game was a result of exactly what Earl Watson and the Suns did, during the end of the game, the Warriors were feeding him the ball and fouling to get Wilt to 100 points.

In 1978, David Thompson scored 72 points to move ahead of George Gervin for the league scoring title and in the last game of the year, Gervin scored 63 points including a record 33 in the 2nd quarter while taking a season high in FGs and FTs so he could get the scoring title. Once he secured the title, he went to the bench for the rest of the game.

FlashBolt
12-08-2017, 06:52 PM
This is the NBA. It's not uncommon for a good player to replicate great numbers and great players to replicate historic numbers when they are on bad teams and under the right circumstances. One thing I hated about our season last year was we just gave up on winning and focused on Russ's triple double. Was it amazing? I mean, it was cool to track it for the season but it was irrelevant for us in terms of making our team better. The way I see it is, the assists and rebounds on a bad team would have gone to someone else so there really isn't a huge change in impact whether Russ gets it or Kanter. It's why you see good or great players put up good numbers and still, you wonder how their team just can't seem to win. We're seeing that with Giannis, unfortunately. Very great player but he doesn't contribute to winning plays as much as he does for his own statistical collection. And then you see guys like Harden and LeBron who just lead teams to wins and you can realistically see them as title contenders. Kawhi is another guy. KD+Curry as well. Stats don't mean a thing if you're not winning. Look at Cousins. Pumps up great numbers but you never get the sense that he's doing it in a winning way.

HandsOnTheWheel
12-08-2017, 06:56 PM
Obviously statistical feats can be manipulated and it diminishes the accomplishment, but this is not a new phenomenon.

Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game was a result of exactly what Earl Watson and the Suns did, during the end of the game, the Warriors were feeding him the ball and fouling to get Wilt to 100 points.

In 1978, David Thompson scored 72 points to move ahead of George Gervin for the league scoring title and in the last game of the year, Gervin scored 63 points including a record 33 in the 2nd quarter while taking a season high in FGs and FTs so he could get the scoring title. Once he secured the title, he went to the bench for the rest of the game.

So are historical accomplishments in general not as impressive as they may suggest?

HandsOnTheWheel
12-08-2017, 07:04 PM
This is the NBA. It's not uncommon for a good player to replicate great numbers and great players to replicate historic numbers when they are on bad teams and under the right circumstances. One thing I hated about our season last year was we just gave up on winning and focused on Russ's triple double. Was it amazing? I mean, it was cool to track it for the season but it was irrelevant for us in terms of making our team better. The way I see it is, the assists and rebounds on a bad team would have gone to someone else so there really isn't a huge change in impact whether Russ gets it or Kanter. It's why you see good or great players put up good numbers and still, you wonder how their team just can't seem to win. We're seeing that with Giannis, unfortunately. Very great player but he doesn't contribute to winning plays as much as he does for his own statistical collection. And then you see guys like Harden and LeBron who just lead teams to wins and you can realistically see them as title contenders. Kawhi is another guy. KD+Curry as well. Stats don't mean a thing if you're not winning. Look at Cousins. Pumps up great numbers but you never get the sense that he's doing it in a winning way.

That begs another question, that being can these 'stars' put up good stats and still have their team win a lot of games and comete for championships like they have in the past? Last year players in the top 10 scoring included guys like: WB, Harden (55 wins, 2nd round ouster), Anothy Davis (34 wins, missed playoffs), Lillard (1st round exit), Cousins (self-explanatory, never even made a playoffs in his career), but you get the point its becoming a trend

So far so good this year, but I'd reserve judgement until the end of the year when things balance out

ewing
12-08-2017, 09:31 PM
Culprits:

Westbrook triple double season (stealing rebounds from teammates, obvious padding of stats, historical USG)

Devin Booker 70 point game in loss to Celtics with Earl Watson calling multiple timeouts and intentionally fouling in the 4th quarter so he can achieve it. What gets me is that he was bragging about how "It doesn't happen ver often", and "especially against a really good defensive team like the Celtics" and how he tried to paint it like it was such a historical feat afterwards -.-
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/18997459/devin-booker-phoenix-suns-scores-70-points-loss-boston-celtics

Someone could probably make a case for Harden and his play (USG, BS fouls the past few years, inflated stats, etc.)

So the question is, is how much weight do you put into these guys padding their stats in order to obtain these ridiculously inflated stats? Whats your overall opinion on it historically speaking?

Its always happened.

ewing
12-08-2017, 09:35 PM
This is the NBA. It's not uncommon for a good player to replicate great numbers and great players to replicate historic numbers when they are on bad teams and under the right circumstances. One thing I hated about our season last year was we just gave up on winning and focused on Russ's triple double. Was it amazing? I mean, it was cool to track it for the season but it was irrelevant for us in terms of making our team better. The way I see it is, the assists and rebounds on a bad team would have gone to someone else so there really isn't a huge change in impact whether Russ gets it or Kanter. It's why you see good or great players put up good numbers and still, you wonder how their team just can't seem to win. We're seeing that with Giannis, unfortunately. Very great player but he doesn't contribute to winning plays as much as he does for his own statistical collection. And then you see guys like Harden and LeBron who just lead teams to wins and you can realistically see them as title contenders. Kawhi is another guy. KD+Curry as well. Stats don't mean a thing if you're not winning. Look at Cousins. Pumps up great numbers but you never get the sense that he's doing it in a winning way.

Good post. In my opinion #s aren't always equal. A guy like Cousins as great talent and clearly could be a big factor on a winning team as a total focal points his numbers aren't equal to his impact

ewing
12-08-2017, 09:45 PM
the Pistons would been a great team to watch in another era(not that they aren't now). A lot of guys with very unual skill sets

ewing
12-08-2017, 09:45 PM
sorry wrong thread

valade16
12-08-2017, 09:51 PM
So are historical accomplishments in general not as impressive as they may suggest?

Many aren't. At least the ones we know about, but I do wonder what other incredible feats had some sort of diminishing context that has been forgotten to time.

Like when people look back at say Harden's insane efficiency, will people remember it was because of flopped his arms out to draw an excessive amount of foul calls or will that be forgotten?

ewing
12-08-2017, 09:55 PM
Many aren't. At least the ones we know about, but I do wonder what other incredible feats had some sort of diminishing context that has been forgotten to time.

Like when people look back at say Harden's insane efficiency, will people remember it was because of flopped his arms out to draw an excessive amount of foul calls or will that be forgotten?

It won't be forgotten but I think like Reggie Miller his offensive accomplishments will be underrated b/c he wasn't a palatable player. Winning titles changes everything though- even if you do it as a supporting player that hit some big shots as a ring chaser. What would people think about Shawn Marion is he won 3 rings?

ewing
12-08-2017, 10:01 PM
.

Scoots
12-08-2017, 10:48 PM
Obviously statistical feats can be manipulated and it diminishes the accomplishment, but this is not a new phenomenon.

Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game was a result of exactly what Earl Watson and the Suns did, during the end of the game, the Warriors were feeding him the ball and fouling to get Wilt to 100 points.

In 1978, David Thompson scored 72 points to move ahead of George Gervin for the league scoring title and in the last game of the year, Gervin scored 63 points including a record 33 in the 2nd quarter while taking a season high in FGs and FTs so he could get the scoring title. Once he secured the title, he went to the bench for the rest of the game.

Those were 2 of the examples I was going to use. I think David Robinson did it too to win the scoring title one year.

Jeffy25
12-09-2017, 01:24 AM
This is the NBA. It's not uncommon for a good player to replicate great numbers and great players to replicate historic numbers when they are on bad teams and under the right circumstances. One thing I hated about our season last year was we just gave up on winning and focused on Russ's triple double. Was it amazing? I mean, it was cool to track it for the season but it was irrelevant for us in terms of making our team better. The way I see it is, the assists and rebounds on a bad team would have gone to someone else so there really isn't a huge change in impact whether Russ gets it or Kanter. It's why you see good or great players put up good numbers and still, you wonder how their team just can't seem to win. We're seeing that with Giannis, unfortunately. Very great player but he doesn't contribute to winning plays as much as he does for his own statistical collection. And then you see guys like Harden and LeBron who just lead teams to wins and you can realistically see them as title contenders. Kawhi is another guy. KD+Curry as well. Stats don't mean a thing if you're not winning. Look at Cousins. Pumps up great numbers but you never get the sense that he's doing it in a winning way.

This.


Basketball is one of those sports where it can be manipulated so much, it's crazy.

IndyRealist
12-09-2017, 01:30 AM
Those were 2 of the examples I was going to use. I think David Robinson did it too to win the scoring title one year.

To beat out Shaq. I think he scored 71 or 72.

Heediot
12-09-2017, 11:49 AM
the Pistons would been a great team to watch in another era(not that they aren't now). A lot of guys with very unual skill sets

Pistons, Wolves and Raptors could all be nice throw back teams.

Pelicans too.

Chronz
12-09-2017, 02:43 PM
Obviously statistical feats can be manipulated and it diminishes the accomplishment, but this is not a new phenomenon.

Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game was a result of exactly what Earl Watson and the Suns did, during the end of the game, the Warriors were feeding him the ball and fouling to get Wilt to 100 points.

In 1978, David Thompson scored 72 points to move ahead of George Gervin for the league scoring title and in the last game of the year, Gervin scored 63 points including a record 33 in the 2nd quarter while taking a season high in FGs and FTs so he could get the scoring title. Once he secured the title, he went to the bench for the rest of the game.

Idk bout the similarities between Wilt and booker. The Knicks were also fouling and stalling to prevent normal play

valade16
12-09-2017, 03:30 PM
Idk bout the similarities between Wilt and booker. The Knicks were also fouling and stalling to prevent normal play

They were fouling to get anyone else besides Wilt to shoot free throws and score the ball. Both the Warriors and Suns went out of their way to stuff Booker/Wiltís point totals

Bostonjorge
12-09-2017, 03:43 PM
Rebounds are hustle plays. Your canít fake hustle plays. Westbrook just wanted them more. I donít see any other 6í3 player getting these rebounds even if they wanted to ďsteal themĒ.

IndyRealist
12-09-2017, 06:03 PM
Rebounds are hustle plays. Your canít fake hustle plays. Westbrook just wanted them more. I donít see any other 6í3 player getting these rebounds even if they wanted to ďsteal themĒ.

That's utterly ridiculous. Of course you can get fake rebounds. A good portion of defensive rebounds are uncontested by the opponent, meaning all you have to do is be under the basket and the rest of your team be instructed to let you get the rebounds.

The reason you don't see 6'3" players getting double digit rebounds often is because their responsibility is generally to be on the perimeter, guarding their man. Defensive schemes determine where players are when the rebound happens, and by having their PG at the rim they are giving up the fast break. It doesn't matter how fast Westbrook is with the ball, he's starting 30ft back when the opponent's already jogging to the other end.

Who is going to tell him no? They are terrified he is going to leave. He gets to chase all the stats he wants, no matter what it does to their win record.

Statistics do not accurately represent situations like these. EVERY model works under certain assumptions, one of which is that players and coaches are working optimally to win games. They ignore all other motivations, like stat chasing.

Chronz
12-09-2017, 07:45 PM
They were fouling to get anyone else besides Wilt to shoot free throws and score the ball. Both the Warriors and Suns went out of their way to stuff Booker/Wiltís point totals

But only the Knicks went out of there way to prevent the tally. Hence my post explaining the differences. What Philly(were they in sf by then? ) did was fair game imo as the opposition was perverting the game too. Celtics had class

valade16
12-09-2017, 07:50 PM
But only the Knicks went out of there way to prevent the tally. Hence my post explaining the differences. What Philly(were they in sf by then? ) did was fair game imo as the opposition was perverting the game too. Celtics had class

The opposition was only perverting the game in response to the Warriorís intentionally trying to get Wilt the scoring record (and then 100). There may be a difference in how the Celtics and Knicks handled their end, but Iím not seeing much of a difference in how the Warriors and Suns handled theirs.

Chronz
12-09-2017, 07:51 PM
That's utterly ridiculous. Of course you can get fake rebounds. A good portion of defensive rebounds are uncontested by the opponent, meaning all you have to do is be under the basket and the rest of your team be instructed to let you get the rebounds.

The reason you don't see 6'3" players getting double digit rebounds often is because their responsibility is generally to be on the perimeter, guarding their man. Defensive schemes determine where players are when the rebound happens, and by having their PG at the rim they are giving up the fast break. It doesn't matter how fast Westbrook is with the ball, he's starting 30ft back when the opponent's already jogging to the other end.

Who is going to tell him no? They are terrified he is going to leave. He gets to chase all the stats he wants, no matter what it does to their win record.

Statistics do not accurately represent situations like these. EVERY model works under certain assumptions, one of which is that players and coaches are working optimally to win games. They ignore all other motivations, like stat chasing.

I would agree, it's why I've always told you I felt rebounds were overrated except for one stat, the thunder scored or shot (I forget which) more quickly when rwb grabbed the rebound. Its not just that he's fast, it's his aggression

Chronz
12-09-2017, 07:51 PM
The opposition was only perverting the game in response to the Warriorís intentionally trying to get Wilt the scoring record (and then 100). There may be a difference in how the Celtics and Knicks handled their end, but Iím not seeing much of a difference in how the Warriors and Suns handled theirs.
Who fouled who first?

IndyRealist
12-09-2017, 08:01 PM
I would agree, it's why I've always told you I felt rebounds were overrated except for one stat, the thunder scored or shot (I forget which) more quickly when rwb grabbed the rebound. Its not just that he's fast, it's his aggression

I wouldn't say that rebounds are overrated, it's just that a certain number of them happen no matter what. RWB can be ultra aggressive against a set defense, but that's still not the same thing as a fast break.

valade16
12-09-2017, 08:07 PM
Who fouled who first?

Is this the chicken or the egg lol?

I know that the Warriors coached benched his entire starting lineup except for Wilt when the game got out of hand. Why else would you leave Wilt in there except to chase 100? Pretty sure he had already surpassed his previous high of 78 pts.

Jamiecballer
12-09-2017, 09:49 PM
Rebounds are hustle plays. Your canít fake hustle plays. Westbrook just wanted them more. I donít see any other 6í3 player getting these rebounds even if they wanted to ďsteal themĒ.Lmao sure thing grandpa

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk