What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (2 Viewers)

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion, I just want to point out that per advanced metrics (or any metrics for that matter), Bosh absolutely destroyed Noah yesterday. As someone who loves advanced metrics but is often beaten up on this board for suggesting that they don't always tell the whole story, I find your post interesting, especially since this wasn't even a borderline case.
You're right - it wasn't a borderline case. This is the problem with advanced metrics and is probably why so many people disagree with some of the advanced metrics assertions made here. By the math, Bosh "destroyed" Noah yesterday. But Noah's team was clearly better inside and they won. To that end, it doesn't much matter that Chris Bosh played great yesterday - he was a -15 on the floor to Noah's +15.
The bolded demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of advanced metrics in my opinion.The idea behind most sports metrics is to capture what we don't fully grasp with the untrained eye, not what we see and understand. The idea is to do analysis free of bias, limited awareness and selective retention- things that every single sports fan brings to the table when they watch a game. Saying that the individual or collective perception of something highlights what's wrong with advanced metrics gets it exactly backwards.

I hesitate to use the Bosh/Noah example because most advanced metrics are intended to evaluate over the long term, not one game. But here you wouldn't say that they're wrong because Noah clearly outplayed Bosh, it would be that maybe Bosh played better than was commonly perceived and Noah didn't play as well as commonly perceived, because "hustle" and "effort" and what the announcers tell us about the narrative tend to stick in our heads more than, say, 12-18 vs. 4-14, or getting to the line 6 times and making them all vs. getting there twice and making one. Rebounds and steals and perceived effort and hustle matter, sure, but so does a shot going in vs. not going in.

Not saying Bosh was better than Noah yesterday here, just that your criticism of advanced metrics makes no sense.
I was simply responding to TGunz statement about Bosh "destroying" Bosh yesterday. I don't know much about advanced metrics, and I certainly understand your (bolded) explanation of them. I don't think I'm criticizing the concept of advanced metrics here; I'm responding to the assertion that was made that Bosh outplayed Noah by a wide margin via advanced metrics. In this, specific, case - the conclusion drawn from advanced metrics is 180 degrees incorrect.
My disagreement is that you just can't say whether or not a conclusion drawn from advanced metrics is correct based on subjective perception, because that's the very thing the metrics are intended to improve upon.It would be akin to saying that a set of contacts don't help one's vision because they present a visual world that differs from the one you perceive without them. The whole idea is for the perception to be different. You can argue over whether or not a certain metric really does improve one's "vision," but you can't argue that they're invalid because they're not 100% in accord with your "vision." The whole idea is to change- and hopefully improve upon- your vision.

 
I'm not disagreeing with your opinion, I just want to point out that per advanced metrics (or any metrics for that matter), Bosh absolutely destroyed Noah yesterday. As someone who loves advanced metrics but is often beaten up on this board for suggesting that they don't always tell the whole story, I find your post interesting, especially since this wasn't even a borderline case.
You're right - it wasn't a borderline case. This is the problem with advanced metrics and is probably why so many people disagree with some of the advanced metrics assertions made here. By the math, Bosh "destroyed" Noah yesterday. But Noah's team was clearly better inside and they won. To that end, it doesn't much matter that Chris Bosh played great yesterday - he was a -15 on the floor to Noah's +15.
The bolded demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of advanced metrics in my opinion.The idea behind most sports metrics is to capture what we don't fully grasp with the untrained eye, not what we see and understand. The idea is to do analysis free of bias, limited awareness and selective retention- things that every single sports fan brings to the table when they watch a game. Saying that the individual or collective perception of something highlights what's wrong with advanced metrics gets it exactly backwards.

I hesitate to use the Bosh/Noah example because most advanced metrics are intended to evaluate over the long term, not one game. But here you wouldn't say that they're wrong because Noah clearly outplayed Bosh, it would be that maybe Bosh played better than was commonly perceived and Noah didn't play as well as commonly perceived, because "hustle" and "effort" and what the announcers tell us about the narrative tend to stick in our heads more than, say, 12-18 vs. 4-14, or getting to the line 6 times and making them all vs. getting there twice and making one. Rebounds and steals and perceived effort and hustle matter, sure, but so does a shot going in vs. not going in.

Not saying Bosh was better than Noah yesterday here, just that your criticism of advanced metrics makes no sense.
I agree with this post. W/re to the bold, I think it's the idea that advanced metrics are infallible that most irks me. It's reached the point to where advanced metrics are the trump card, and the lack of context irks me.
I completely agree with that- especially with respect to basketball, where there's not even agreement on the best single metric to evaluate player performance. Of course the flip side, discarding the good ones because they're not perfect in favor of even worse metrics makes even less sense.
 
My disagreement is that you just can't say whether or not a conclusion drawn from advanced metrics is correct based on subjective perception, because that's the very thing the metrics are intended to improve upon.It would be akin to saying that a set of contacts don't help one's vision because they present a visual world that differs from the one you perceive without them. The whole idea is for the perception to be different. You can argue over whether or not a certain metric really does improve one's "vision," but you can't argue that they're invalid because they're not 100% in accord with your "vision." The whole idea is to change- and hopefully improve upon- your vision.
This certainly makes sense. It does leave me wondering, however, how advanced metrics (of any sport, really) are supposed to be appreciated and understood when they are in direct conflict with other measurable things (as in score, +/-, team rebounds, etc.) I know that we're picking apart one game and that isn't the way you're supposed to do it, but wouldn't you agree that for the metrics to have value/hold weight, shouldn't they at least loosely tie-in with or correlate with what we see in front of us?
 
'Gr00vus said:
Also I think OKC takes out Dallas. Dallas got a vacation against the Lakers, OKC got a test vs. Memphis.
The Bulls are in kind of the same situation. Atlanta gave them all they could handle, while the Heat got a vacation with a ragged Celtics team.
 
My disagreement is that you just can't say whether or not a conclusion drawn from advanced metrics is correct based on subjective perception, because that's the very thing the metrics are intended to improve upon.It would be akin to saying that a set of contacts don't help one's vision because they present a visual world that differs from the one you perceive without them. The whole idea is for the perception to be different. You can argue over whether or not a certain metric really does improve one's "vision," but you can't argue that they're invalid because they're not 100% in accord with your "vision." The whole idea is to change- and hopefully improve upon- your vision.
This certainly makes sense. It does leave me wondering, however, how advanced metrics (of any sport, really) are supposed to be appreciated and understood when they are in direct conflict with other measurable things (as in score, +/-, team rebounds, etc.) I know that we're picking apart one game and that isn't the way you're supposed to do it, but wouldn't you agree that for the metrics to have value/hold weight, shouldn't they at least loosely tie-in with or correlate with what we see in front of us?
Loosely, sure. I mean there has to be some correlation with game that's being played as we all see it. But the idea is to lend insight you don't get from watching (or in most cases from not watching), not to merely confirm it. Take Tyson Chandler as an example. Our eyes tell us he's very good, a solid contributor to the Mavs, but not a star. But that perception is colored by the fact that he was considered a bust for a few years as a top pick out of high school, and the fact that he's never made an all-star team or gone as far as the third round of the playoffs. In contrast, the advanced stats tell us the guy's an absolute stud, one of the best big men in the league.Like you say, if that perception was totally in contrast to what we see- if Chandler looked lost and useless to us- we'd rightfully question their value. I also wouldn't say that the goal is to argue that Chandler's indisputably one of the best players in the league. The goal, I think, is to make us say that hey, maybe we're all missing something here with this guy. He's pretty darn good, in ways that don't necessarily show up either subjectively or with the "traditional" stats.
 
My disagreement is that you just can't say whether or not a conclusion drawn from advanced metrics is correct based on subjective perception, because that's the very thing the metrics are intended to improve upon.

It would be akin to saying that a set of contacts don't help one's vision because they present a visual world that differs from the one you perceive without them. The whole idea is for the perception to be different. You can argue over whether or not a certain metric really does improve one's "vision," but you can't argue that they're invalid because they're not 100% in accord with your "vision." The whole idea is to change- and hopefully improve upon- your vision.
This certainly makes sense. It does leave me wondering, however, how advanced metrics (of any sport, really) are supposed to be appreciated and understood when they are in direct conflict with other measurable things (as in score, +/-, team rebounds, etc.) I know that we're picking apart one game and that isn't the way you're supposed to do it, but wouldn't you agree that for the metrics to have value/hold weight, shouldn't they at least loosely tie-in with or correlate with what we see in front of us?
This is false because most advance metrics available to the public use the common "box score" stats as the source of data. They use all the box score stats and in their own unique ways try to determine which box score stat impacts winning the most. This is where things get dicey because what we as fans often perceive or are led to believe by the media as being valuable may contradict what advance metrics show. Now which one is right? Who knows.

Also, Bosh will likely destroy Noah in almost any advance metric, because offense is much easier to track (PTS, percentages, and assist). A great performance in these stats generally mean a player is an effective offensive player. However, we all know you can't tell who is a great defender just by looking at rebounds, blks, and stl so someone like Noah who's impact is mostly on defense gets shafted by these metrics at times.

The use of advance metrics and scouting is like anything else in life use both in moderation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My disagreement is that you just can't say whether or not a conclusion drawn from advanced metrics is correct based on subjective perception, because that's the very thing the metrics are intended to improve upon.It would be akin to saying that a set of contacts don't help one's vision because they present a visual world that differs from the one you perceive without them. The whole idea is for the perception to be different. You can argue over whether or not a certain metric really does improve one's "vision," but you can't argue that they're invalid because they're not 100% in accord with your "vision." The whole idea is to change- and hopefully improve upon- your vision.
This certainly makes sense. It does leave me wondering, however, how advanced metrics (of any sport, really) are supposed to be appreciated and understood when they are in direct conflict with other measurable things (as in score, +/-, team rebounds, etc.) I know that we're picking apart one game and that isn't the way you're supposed to do it, but wouldn't you agree that for the metrics to have value/hold weight, shouldn't they at least loosely tie-in with or correlate with what we see in front of us?
Loosely, sure. I mean there has to be some correlation with game that's being played as we all see it. But the idea is to lend insight you don't get from watching (or in most cases from not watching), not to merely confirm it. Take Tyson Chandler as an example. Our eyes tell us he's very good, a solid contributor to the Mavs, but not a star. But that perception is colored by the fact that he was considered a bust for a few years as a top pick out of high school, and the fact that he's never made an all-star team or gone as far as the third round of the playoffs. In contrast, the advanced stats tell us the guy's an absolute stud, one of the best big men in the league.Like you say, if that perception was totally in contrast to what we see- if Chandler looked lost and useless to us- we'd rightfully question their value. I also wouldn't say that the goal is to argue that Chandler's indisputably one of the best players in the league. The goal, I think, is to make us say that hey, maybe we're all missing something here with this guy. He's pretty darn good, in ways that don't necessarily show up either subjectively or with the "traditional" stats.
Tyson Chandler is an interesting example. Subjectively I've always valued him higher than his traditional numbers would suggest, but his advanced stats are almost more misleading.
 
My disagreement is that you just can't say whether or not a conclusion drawn from advanced metrics is correct based on subjective perception, because that's the very thing the metrics are intended to improve upon.It would be akin to saying that a set of contacts don't help one's vision because they present a visual world that differs from the one you perceive without them. The whole idea is for the perception to be different. You can argue over whether or not a certain metric really does improve one's "vision," but you can't argue that they're invalid because they're not 100% in accord with your "vision." The whole idea is to change- and hopefully improve upon- your vision.
This certainly makes sense. It does leave me wondering, however, how advanced metrics (of any sport, really) are supposed to be appreciated and understood when they are in direct conflict with other measurable things (as in score, +/-, team rebounds, etc.) I know that we're picking apart one game and that isn't the way you're supposed to do it, but wouldn't you agree that for the metrics to have value/hold weight, shouldn't they at least loosely tie-in with or correlate with what we see in front of us?
Loosely, sure. I mean there has to be some correlation with game that's being played as we all see it. But the idea is to lend insight you don't get from watching (or in most cases from not watching), not to merely confirm it. Take Tyson Chandler as an example. Our eyes tell us he's very good, a solid contributor to the Mavs, but not a star. But that perception is colored by the fact that he was considered a bust for a few years as a top pick out of high school, and the fact that he's never made an all-star team or gone as far as the third round of the playoffs. In contrast, the advanced stats tell us the guy's an absolute stud, one of the best big men in the league.Like you say, if that perception was totally in contrast to what we see- if Chandler looked lost and useless to us- we'd rightfully question their value. I also wouldn't say that the goal is to argue that Chandler's indisputably one of the best players in the league. The goal, I think, is to make us say that hey, maybe we're all missing something here with this guy. He's pretty darn good, in ways that don't necessarily show up either subjectively or with the "traditional" stats.
Tyson Chandler is an interesting example. Subjectively I've always valued him higher than his traditional numbers would suggest, but his advanced stats are almost more misleading.
I'm not an expert in basketball metrics. I'm more familiar with the baseball ones. But from what I can tell, the basketball metrics put far more emphasis on rebounding than "traditional" analysis. That kinda makes sense to me intuitively- the ultimate stat. for a basketball team is points scored/allowed per possession ... and nothing affects that more than how many shots you take/allow per possession ... and nothing affects that more than rebounding. I assume that plus shooting percentage is how you end up with guys like Chandler and Love up there with the perennial all-stars.
 
'Gr00vus said:
Also I think OKC takes out Dallas. Dallas got a vacation against the Lakers, OKC got a test vs. Memphis.
The Bulls are in kind of the same situation. Atlanta gave them all they could handle, while the Heat got a vacation with a ragged Celtics team.
the average margin of victory for each team in that series was over 13 points. average margin of victory for the bulls was 15 in the series. only one game was decided by less than double digits (8 - game 1). average margin of victory in boston-miami series? 11.

 
Outside of Kobe being overrated on defense, are there any players with surprising AM evaluations?
Like I said I don't claim to be the expert around here, but my personal favorite is Win Shares/48 minutes. It's the last one listed here. I would certainly say that Kevin Martin as #20 is a surprise. I assume it's a function of shooting 38% from three and getting to the line a lot and shooting a high percentage when he's there - he's tenth in "true shooting percentage."
 
'myhousekey said:
'Instinctive said:
We're going to have trouble with Westbrook. Then again, that might mean he jacks up too many jumpers and screws the Thunder - you never know.
Surely Kidd isn't going to be asked to guard WB. I think they'll put Stevenson or Terry on WB and let Kidd guard Sefolosha. Not that WB still won't be tough to defend but he'd torch Kidd.
I don't think Kidd guards him either, but Barea or Terry both get eaten up by him anyway. I personally think we oughta go kinda small against them, but then Chandler's not on the floor.Kidd - Thabo or Harden?Marion - DurantDirk - SergeChandler - PerkinsSo Dallas almost has to put Terry out there as the 5th guy, and put him on Westbrook. Otherwise, I think Brewer needs to be in there - perhaps on Durant, but I would rather have Marion and Brewer to defend KD and Westbrook. Then you can use Dirk for offense, but that's it. You're primary offensive weapons if Brewer is the other guy become Dirk and Brewer, with Kidd spotting up and maybe Chandler getting some O-Boards and putbacks.I think if that is the case, then all the sudden you reaalllllly need to pick and roll with Kidd and Chandler. Have Brewer/Terry waiting for a three and Dirk at the other elbow, and you could do pretty well.
 
Outside of Kobe being overrated on defense, are there any players with surprising AM evaluations?
Like I said I don't claim to be the expert around here, but my personal favorite is Win Shares/48 minutes. It's the last one listed here. I would certainly say that Kevin Martin as #20 is a surprise. I assume it's a function of shooting 38% from three and getting to the line a lot and shooting a high percentage when he's there - he's tenth in "true shooting percentage."
Do you think Kevin Durant is subjectively wildly overrated? No metric will line up perfectly with our subjective views, but any metric that suggests Tyson Chandler, Kevin Love, Nene, and Manu are more valuable than Durant is way off.

 
Adrian Wojnarowski had a nice article today

CHICAGO – The unfolding of the past several days had played out perfectly for a hoarse coach desperate to find a second wind and second act for these Chicago Bulls. They had the NBA’s coach of the year, executive of the year and Most Valuable Player. They had the best record in the NBA, an unbeaten regular season over the Miami Heat, and somehow still Tom Thibodeau had done what should’ve been unthinkable: repackaged and resold his Bulls as the underdogs, the ne’er-do-wells, the formalities on LeBron James’(notes) and Dwyane Wade’s(notes) march to immortality.

Luol Deng helped force LeBron James into missing 10 of his 15 shots in Game 1.

As the Heat danced on the graves of the Boston Celtics on the shores of Biscayne Bay, declaring the source of ghosts and goblins gone, the Bulls privately bristled and believed something to their core: Nowhere else would the Heat meet a worse matchup, a blurring, blitzing blend of defensive ferocity and scheme. Nowhere else would the Heat’s star find a test like these Chicago Bulls.

Had these Heat come to the Eastern Conference finals expecting a coronation, a victory lap on the resurrection of a jagged season, the Bulls were waiting in the shadows of a dark alley, waiting for the whistling Heat to come strutting around the corner and catch a 2x4 upside their heads. Every day the Bulls are reminded that they were the bargain-bin leftovers in free agency, the holdovers still on the roster because James, Wade and Chris Bosh(notes) declined full scholarships. All that aggression, all the anger, all that belief bottled was delivered in a devastating 103-82 Game 1 victory at the United Center on Sunday night.

Just one game, just a 1-0 series lead, and yet the Bulls’ statement was unmistakable: They hadn’t exorcised demons against the Celtics because the Heat had yet to truly confront them in Chicago. All over the floor, the Bulls hammered the Heat. All over the floor, they were met with body blows, box outs and Thibodeau’s tried-and-true defensive schemes. Thirty-one demoralizing points had from second-chance baskets, offensive rebounds and tips kept alive. It spoke to the Bulls’ brawn and bravado.

Those isolation plays for James and Wade were met with resistance on the ball and on the way to the basket. Feet shuffling, hands probing and muscle waiting in the lane. Together, James and Wade missed 20 of 32 shots and never had a chance to steal Game 1 in the fourth quarter. No rhythm caused them to miss shots they often make, and gang defense made them miss contested shots late in the shot clock.

The Heat’s offense is constructed for Thibodeau’s defense. As one longtime associate said, “When has Tom ever lost a series to a team running delay isolation in the playoffs? Even with the Rockets, they lost to the Utah Jazz. Ball movement can attack the defense, but not isolation. It doesn’t work.”

Wade knew it was true, too. “We need to move the ball and make them work.”

The ball died in James’ hands on Sunday night, and died in Wade’s too. And when it was over, the Bulls ripped more pages out of the coach’s playbook. Boring, bland quotes deflecting praise, promising better.

“We’re going to have to clean some things up,” Thibodeau grumbled.

“We got lucky in some ways,” Kyle Korver(notes) said.

“It’s only one game,” Joakim Noah(notes) said.

This was perfect for Thibodeau: Kick the Heat’s backside and immediately retreat into the preferred role of the humble, unaccomplished underdog. One by one, the rest of the Bulls fell into cliché. This was a classic Thibodeau victory for the Bulls, replete with Derrick Rose(notes) delivering an MVP moment when no one else was watching. At halftime, it was 48-48 and Rose was livid with himself. He had turned the ball over too much, gifting easy fast-break baskets for the Heat, and this inspired a locker room confessional.

Since Tom Thibodeau took over as coach, the Bulls have been able to tap much more of the depth of Deng's do-it-all skills. He also scored 21 points in Game 1.

Rose stood up and declared: This is on me. I apologize. He promised to take care of the ball, and he did. Eventually, he had 28 points and six assists for the Bulls. Eventually, the game belonged to the Bulls. And yet, it was ultimately the teammate with whom Rose expressed such inordinate faith this summer – Luol Deng(notes) – who made the biggest difference. When Rose refused to beg James to join the Bulls, part of his unwillingness to recruit basketball’s most needy free agent was borne from his loyalty to Deng.

Deng guarded James brilliantly, leaving him with a 5-for-15 performance with four turnovers in Game 1. On the other end of the floor, Deng delivered an efficient 21 points. He’s developed into a personification of Thibodeau’s system, infiltrated through body and mind. For Deng, Thibodeau has had transformative powers. For the first time in his career, the Bulls are getting everything out of him, tapping his full promise.

“In the past, a lot of people just looked at the scoring part of the game,” Deng said. “And a lot of the other stuff that I do were kind of ignored or neglected. But with Thibs, he just kept me focused on those little things.”

No one has a bigger burden in this series, because it won’t be enough for Deng to exert himself on James defensively. Rose also needs him to be a strong second scorer. All that Game 1 reminded the Heat – reminded everyone – was that this will be a long series, that the Heat were kidding themselves to compare the Celtics and Bulls. Chicago does something that Boston could no longer do: take things away from the Heat, force them to fight through resistance.

Despite his terrific performance, Bosh was kidding himself when he refused to differentiate between Boston and Chicago’s defense. “It’s all the same,” he said. No, it’s something else here. And the Heat know that, because they’ve lost four straight times to it this season. Only, this one mattered the most. Only, this was the start of the playoffs and Thibodeau, the NBA coach of the year, and Rose, the MVP, had sold the rest of these Bulls – sold themselves – on the notion that they had been disrespected and discarded.

James had ended the conference semifinals bowing down on one knee to honor the beating back of his ghosts against the Celtics. This time, the Bulls are threatening something else, threatening to bring him to both knees. Just one game, yes, but the truth tumbled down onto the floor of the United Center, and it had to leave the Heat wondering how they could’ve ever believed they had left demons in their postseason wake. Boston’s fading, but the Bulls are on the come. The Bulls are the Big Three’s worst nightmare.

Demons? Bogeymen? For LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and these Heat, maybe they’re finally facing them now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Today in FFA basketball logic

"Win Shares" is the evolved way of comparing players. Whether or not anybody with any NBA management authority has ever considered it while making roster decisions is not important.

This goes well with last weeks lesson that All NBA teams and All NBA Defensive teams voted upon by the coaches around the league are irrelevant.

:thumbup:

 
Outside of Kobe being overrated on defense, are there any players with surprising AM evaluations?
Like I said I don't claim to be the expert around here, but my personal favorite is Win Shares/48 minutes. It's the last one listed here. I would certainly say that Kevin Martin as #20 is a surprise. I assume it's a function of shooting 38% from three and getting to the line a lot and shooting a high percentage when he's there - he's tenth in "true shooting percentage."
Do you think Kevin Durant is subjectively wildly overrated? No metric will line up perfectly with our subjective views, but any metric that suggests Tyson Chandler, Kevin Love, Nene, and Manu are more valuable than Durant is way off.
Course not- like I suggested with the Chandler example, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. But I do think he's probably a little overrated, and that's the kind of thing advanced metrics can tell us. It's useful stuff, not the be all, end all.

On a completely different subject, I find Durant totally fascinating from a physiological standpoint. It's my understanding that people with really really long arms and fingers have more trouble with shooting because it's essentially a longer process with more room for error. Yet he's decent from three and really good at the line. I'd love to hear a shooting expert explain how the hell he does it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Outside of Kobe being overrated on defense, are there any players with surprising AM evaluations?
Like I said I don't claim to be the expert around here, but my personal favorite is Win Shares/48 minutes. It's the last one listed here. I would certainly say that Kevin Martin as #20 is a surprise. I assume it's a function of shooting 38% from three and getting to the line a lot and shooting a high percentage when he's there - he's tenth in "true shooting percentage."
Do you think Kevin Durant is subjectively wildly overrated? No metric will line up perfectly with our subjective views, but any metric that suggests Tyson Chandler, Kevin Love, Nene, and Manu are more valuable than Durant is way off.
I've always found Durant to be a little overrated, he does one thing well (really really really well) and otherwise is a pretty mediocre player.
 
Also, Bosh will likely destroy Noah in almost any advance metric, because offense is much easier to track (PTS, percentages, and assist). A great performance in these stats generally mean a player is an effective offensive player. However, we all know you can't tell who is a great defender just by looking at rebounds, blks, and stl so someone like Noah who's impact is mostly on defense gets shafted by these metrics at times. The use of advance metrics and scouting is like anything else in life use both in moderation.
Almost all public defensive metrics (counterpoint data, points per possession, defensive rebound rate) are not going to be good without a lot of games.
No metric will line up perfectly with our subjective views, but any metric that suggests Tyson Chandler, Kevin Love, Nene, and Manu are more valuable than Durant is way off.
Some of those guys listed are top 3 in the league at what they do well, there is a chance you overrate what Durant does well and underrate the value of their skills.
On a completely different subject, I find Durant totally fascinating from a physiological standpoint. It's my understanding that people with really really long arms and fingers have more trouble with shooting because it's essentially a longer process with more room for error. Yet he's decent from three and really good at the line. I'd love to hear a shooting expert explain how the hell he does it.
Shooting well is about using your legs to generate almost all of the power for your shot. Your arms, hands, and fingers should be relaxed and only used to guide the ball. I don't think arm length actually matters, just developing a soft, repeatable shooting motion. I would imagine longer fingers actually helps so that he ball does not slip out of your hands as often.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've always found Durant to be a little overrated, he does one thing well (really really really well) and otherwise is a pretty mediocre player.
Wait. You think Durant is overrated but Joe Johnson isn't?
Relatively speaking, yes. Durant is more like the 5th or 6th best player in the league, when some people lump him in with Howard and Lebron, and Joe Johnson is properly rated (but very overpaid).
 
Also, Bosh will likely destroy Noah in almost any advance metric, because offense is much easier to track (PTS, percentages, and assist). A great performance in these stats generally mean a player is an effective offensive player. However, we all know you can't tell who is a great defender just by looking at rebounds, blks, and stl so someone like Noah who's impact is mostly on defense gets shafted by these metrics at times.

The use of advance metrics and scouting is like anything else in life use both in moderation.
Almost all public defensive metrics (counterpoint data, points per possession, defensive rebound rate) are not going to be good without a lot of games.
No metric will line up perfectly with our subjective views, but any metric that suggests Tyson Chandler, Kevin Love, Nene, and Manu are more valuable than Durant is way off.
Some of those guys listed are top 3 in the league at what they do well, there is a chance you overrate what Durant does well and underrate the value of their skills.
On a completely different subject, I find Durant totally fascinating from a physiological standpoint. It's my understanding that people with really really long arms and fingers have more trouble with shooting because it's essentially a longer process with more room for error. Yet he's decent from three and really good at the line. I'd love to hear a shooting expert explain how the hell he does it.
Shooting well is about using your legs to generate almost all of the power for your shot. Your arms, hands, and fingers should be relaxed and only used to guide the ball. I don't think arm length actually matters, just developing a soft, repeatable shooting motion. I would imagine longer fingers actually helps so that he ball does not slip out of your hands as often.
This is where arm length kinda factors in.
 
I've always found Durant to be a little overrated, he does one thing well (really really really well) and otherwise is a pretty mediocre player.
Wait. You think Durant is overrated but Joe Johnson isn't?
Relatively speaking, yes. Durant is more like the 5th or 6th best player in the league, when some people lump him in with Howard and Lebron, and Joe Johnson is properly rated (but very overpaid).
People call Joe Johnson a 'franchise player'. If that isn't overratted then I'm completely shuked.
 
I've always found Durant to be a little overrated, he does one thing well (really really really well) and otherwise is a pretty mediocre player.
Wait. You think Durant is overrated but Joe Johnson isn't?
Relatively speaking, yes. Durant is more like the 5th or 6th best player in the league, when some people lump him in with Howard and Lebron, and Joe Johnson is properly rated (but very overpaid).
People call Joe Johnson a 'franchise player'. If that isn't overratted then I'm completely shuked.
That would be overrating Joe Johnson. Like I said a week or two ago, I think hes something in the 20s, better than his PER would lead you to believe. Maybe if I started ranking players he would be lower than I originally thought, and he definitely didn't have a good season.
 
'Gr00vus said:
Also I think OKC takes out Dallas. Dallas got a vacation against the Lakers, OKC got a test vs. Memphis.
The Bulls are in kind of the same situation. Atlanta gave them all they could handle, while the Heat got a vacation with a ragged Celtics team.
If there was any time in the NBA that benefited from a 10 day lay off I think it would be Dallas. For some reason, and they might very well lose this series against OKC, I think this is a different Mavs team. I think them blowing that 23 point sparked something in them. They just seem to have a different attitude and Dirk is being more aggressive, both on and off the court. OKC is a great team and will be the team to beat for many years if they keep their group in place. I think they're still a year or two away from getting where they want to be. Dallas didn't get a vacation from the Lakers, they were simply the better team all four games. I don't think Memphis was better than the Lakers. Anyway, under normal circumstances I would say the long lay off would hurt a team, but with a team with so many 30 year olds as Dallas has, that rest was exactly what they needed. Should be a great series.
 
'Cliff Clavin said:
I'm guessing the Bulls don't care very much what Bosh does on the offensive end. They are keying in on taking away LeBron and Wade. A whole lot of Bosh's baskets were wide open layups (or 15-18 foot jumpers) when whom ever was guarding him had rotated over to help on Wade/LeBron. When Bosh scores almost as much as Wade and LeBron combined, the Bulls will be very happy.
Spot on Clavin - Bosh is going to get his all series at the expense of shutting down Wade/LeBron.
 
'timschochet said:
Re Dallas vs. Oklahoma City: I think the key to the series is Russell Westbrook. He is such an unpredictable talent. If he plays like he did yesterday with any consistency, the Thunder will win the series because Dallas has no one that can defend him. When Westbrook penetrates and dishes, that offense is simply excellent. On the other hand, if Westbrook plays like he did on other occasions, in which he takes way too many shots, is careless with ball handling, and seems to have no clue on offense, then the Thunder will lose the series. It all depends which guy shows up.
He will be key but the bigger key is Harden. As Harden goes, so go the Thunder. Harden has been really coming on. Youth, speed, and energy win out in this series. These guys are young, the rest Dallas has had will not be much of a factor. Collison, Perkins, Muhammed, and Ibaka inside will provide the decisive advantage for OKC. Guard play looks even to me. Bench advantage to Thunder. Maynor becoming a solid PG and there isn't a huge dropoff when Westbrook is getting a rest. Thunder in 6.
 
'timschochet said:
Re Dallas vs. Oklahoma City: I think the key to the series is Russell Westbrook. He is such an unpredictable talent. If he plays like he did yesterday with any consistency, the Thunder will win the series because Dallas has no one that can defend him. When Westbrook penetrates and dishes, that offense is simply excellent. On the other hand, if Westbrook plays like he did on other occasions, in which he takes way too many shots, is careless with ball handling, and seems to have no clue on offense, then the Thunder will lose the series. It all depends which guy shows up.
Bench advantage to Thunder.
You're kidding right? Tell me you are. Have you not paid attention to the Mavs this season?
 
Westbrook can't run the offense to save his life. He should be at SG and the Thunder need a real PG.
No doubt. Those triple doubles are not getting it done.
I honestly have no idea, but how many triple doubles does he have in the playoffs? I'm assuming your an OKC fan and you have to admit he is erratic at times and sometimes forgets who the star and leader is on this team.
Well here is my take. Yes I am a Thunder fan. A lot of people say a point guard isn't doing is job if he isn't distributing all of the time. There is a new breed of PG in the NBA with Westbrook and Rose being examples. Westbrook had 1 bad game in the series and a lot of people get on Westbrook because of what they hear on SC without watching the games. If Durant is being doubled and Harden is not on the floor, Westbrook's options are very limited. The big men for OKC specialize in defending. They are not post up options. The big guys specialize in setting screens for the most part. Westbrook is the 2nd best offensive weapon on the court so why get on him for looking for his shot? Should he look to pass more? Sure, but this style of offense has taken OKC to the conf finals. Westbrook's ability to penetrate opens things up for Durant. Durant is the NBA scoring champ, so Westbrook can't be doing that bad of a job.
 
'timschochet said:
Re Dallas vs. Oklahoma City: I think the key to the series is Russell Westbrook. He is such an unpredictable talent. If he plays like he did yesterday with any consistency, the Thunder will win the series because Dallas has no one that can defend him. When Westbrook penetrates and dishes, that offense is simply excellent. On the other hand, if Westbrook plays like he did on other occasions, in which he takes way too many shots, is careless with ball handling, and seems to have no clue on offense, then the Thunder will lose the series. It all depends which guy shows up.
Bench advantage to Thunder.
You're kidding right? Tell me you are. Have you not paid attention to the Mavs this season?
Harden, Maynor, Collison, Cook coming off the bench vs. Jason Terry, J.J. Barea and Peja Stojakovic? Did I miss anyone. Yep I think advantage Thunder. The Dallas bench play was awesome vs the Lakers. I am not saying it is cut and dry.
 
'timschochet said:
Re Dallas vs. Oklahoma City: I think the key to the series is Russell Westbrook. He is such an unpredictable talent. If he plays like he did yesterday with any consistency, the Thunder will win the series because Dallas has no one that can defend him. When Westbrook penetrates and dishes, that offense is simply excellent. On the other hand, if Westbrook plays like he did on other occasions, in which he takes way too many shots, is careless with ball handling, and seems to have no clue on offense, then the Thunder will lose the series. It all depends which guy shows up.
Bench advantage to Thunder.
You're kidding right? Tell me you are. Have you not paid attention to the Mavs this season?
Harden, Maynor, Collison, Cook coming off the bench vs. Jason Terry, J.J. Barea and Peja Stojakovic? Did I miss anyone. Yep I think advantage Thunder. The Dallas bench play was awesome vs the Lakers. I am not saying it is cut and dry.
Fair enough. I think the Dallas bench is one of their bigger strengths and is better than the OKC bench. Their bench was not only awesome against the Lakers, I think it was pretty good against the Blazers as well. OKC has youth on their sound and are an up and coming team like I mentioned earlier. If they can keep their core players they are going to be the team to beat for many years in the West. That being said, I disagree with you about the rest not helping the Mavs. They are one of the oldest teams in the league and if you don't think that rest didn't help them, you're mistaken. Kidd, I believe, had several days off before the Portland series and it paid huge dividends. I think he's going to probably lose the PG mstchup overall against Westbrook, but if he plays like he did against Portland I don't think it will matter. He doesn't need to be better than Westbrook, just play a very good series. Should be a great series and I disagree with you on a few of your points and the outcome of the series, but good luck to your team. They are a fun team to watch.
 
I think he's going to probably lose the PG mstchup overall against Westbrook, but if he plays like he did against Portland I don't think it will matter. He doesn't need to be better than Westbrook, just play a very good series.
If Westbrook keeps his head together he should not only destroy Kidd, he should blow up the whole Dallas D with his penetration, getting Chandler/Haywood into foul trouble. OKC will need Ibaka to knock down open Js cause he'll get a few on drives and kicks.The Lakers put literally no pressure on Dallas at either end of the court (apart from the few times they remembered to get it inside to Bynum). Playing OKC is going to be a rude awakening from what Dallas has seen so far from Portland and Los Angeles.And 11 days off is too much downtime for anybody - I expect some rust on Dallas game one.
 
'timschochet said:
Re Dallas vs. Oklahoma City: I think the key to the series is Russell Westbrook. He is such an unpredictable talent. If he plays like he did yesterday with any consistency, the Thunder will win the series because Dallas has no one that can defend him. When Westbrook penetrates and dishes, that offense is simply excellent. On the other hand, if Westbrook plays like he did on other occasions, in which he takes way too many shots, is careless with ball handling, and seems to have no clue on offense, then the Thunder will lose the series. It all depends which guy shows up.
Bench advantage to Thunder.
You're kidding right? Tell me you are. Have you not paid attention to the Mavs this season?
Harden, Maynor, Collison, Cook coming off the bench vs. Jason Terry, J.J. Barea and Peja Stojakovic? Did I miss anyone. Yep I think advantage Thunder. The Dallas bench play was awesome vs the Lakers. I am not saying it is cut and dry.
Fair enough. I think the Dallas bench is one of their bigger strengths and is better than the OKC bench. Their bench was not only awesome against the Lakers, I think it was pretty good against the Blazers as well. OKC has youth on their sound and are an up and coming team like I mentioned earlier. If they can keep their core players they are going to be the team to beat for many years in the West. That being said, I disagree with you about the rest not helping the Mavs. They are one of the oldest teams in the league and if you don't think that rest didn't help them, you're mistaken. Kidd, I believe, had several days off before the Portland series and it paid huge dividends. I think he's going to probably lose the PG mstchup overall against Westbrook, but if he plays like he did against Portland I don't think it will matter. He doesn't need to be better than Westbrook, just play a very good series. Should be a great series and I disagree with you on a few of your points and the outcome of the series, but good luck to your team. They are a fun team to watch.
Great points. I will be curious to see if the rest factor comes into play. Will Dallas come out looking rusty or not? If they are firing on all cylinders like they did vs Dallas with that rest then OKC will have a tough time in Dallas for sure. Should be a fun series to watch indeed. My Thunder in 6 pick is a bit of a homer pick but I tried weighing things equally as best I could. ha! Should be a great series. Enjoy.
 
'timschochet said:
Re Dallas vs. Oklahoma City: I think the key to the series is Russell Westbrook. He is such an unpredictable talent. If he plays like he did yesterday with any consistency, the Thunder will win the series because Dallas has no one that can defend him. When Westbrook penetrates and dishes, that offense is simply excellent. On the other hand, if Westbrook plays like he did on other occasions, in which he takes way too many shots, is careless with ball handling, and seems to have no clue on offense, then the Thunder will lose the series. It all depends which guy shows up.
Bench advantage to Thunder.
You're kidding right? Tell me you are. Have you not paid attention to the Mavs this season?
Harden, Maynor, Collison, Cook coming off the bench vs. Jason Terry, J.J. Barea and Peja Stojakovic? Did I miss anyone. Yep I think advantage Thunder. The Dallas bench play was awesome vs the Lakers. I am not saying it is cut and dry.
Fair enough. I think the Dallas bench is one of their bigger strengths and is better than the OKC bench. Their bench was not only awesome against the Lakers, I think it was pretty good against the Blazers as well. OKC has youth on their sound and are an up and coming team like I mentioned earlier. If they can keep their core players they are going to be the team to beat for many years in the West. That being said, I disagree with you about the rest not helping the Mavs. They are one of the oldest teams in the league and if you don't think that rest didn't help them, you're mistaken. Kidd, I believe, had several days off before the Portland series and it paid huge dividends. I think he's going to probably lose the PG mstchup overall against Westbrook, but if he plays like he did against Portland I don't think it will matter. He doesn't need to be better than Westbrook, just play a very good series. Should be a great series and I disagree with you on a few of your points and the outcome of the series, but good luck to your team. They are a fun team to watch.
Great points. I will be curious to see if the rest factor comes into play. Will Dallas come out looking rusty or not? If they are firing on all cylinders like they did vs Dallas with that rest then OKC will have a tough time in Dallas for sure. Should be a fun series to watch indeed. My Thunder in 6 pick is a bit of a homer pick but I tried weighing things equally as best I could. ha! Should be a great series. Enjoy.
Yeah, I'm really looking forward to the series. I don't think any Mavs fan can realistically expect them to come out and play like they did against the Lakers, especially in Game 4. That was just a series in which they were clicking on all cylinders. This series is definitely new guard vs. old guard and I think it's going to go 6 or 7 games with the Mavs winning. Could be wrong and certainly wouldn't be the first time. ;)
 
Noah played out of his mind and wade/lebron played crappy. Anyone who thinks this is going to be a cake walk for the bulls is out of their minds.
How did Noah play out of his mind?
9 and 14?
Dude scored 9 pts by going 4/14, when he shoots over 50% for the season.He grabbed 14 rebounds, but he averages 10 a season playing against teams with better rebounding frontcourts than the Heat.Noah did what he always does, play excellent defense and crash the boards. Good luck if you're a Heat fan counting on Noah playing WORSE. He can actually play better.
His boxing out, tips, hustle plays and boards >>> than his scoring. If he plays like last night the Heat are in trouble because they have one to counter that intensity and hustle.
2nd best center in the NBA. I'm leading this bandwagon.
 
Also, Bosh will likely destroy Noah in almost any advance metric, because offense is much easier to track (PTS, percentages, and assist). A great performance in these stats generally mean a player is an effective offensive player. However, we all know you can't tell who is a great defender just by looking at rebounds, blks, and stl so someone like Noah who's impact is mostly on defense gets shafted by these metrics at times.

The use of advance metrics and scouting is like anything else in life use both in moderation.
Almost all public defensive metrics (counterpoint data, points per possession, defensive rebound rate) are not going to be good without a lot of games.
No metric will line up perfectly with our subjective views, but any metric that suggests Tyson Chandler, Kevin Love, Nene, and Manu are more valuable than Durant is way off.
Some of those guys listed are top 3 in the league at what they do well, there is a chance you overrate what Durant does well and underrate the value of their skills.
On a completely different subject, I find Durant totally fascinating from a physiological standpoint. It's my understanding that people with really really long arms and fingers have more trouble with shooting because it's essentially a longer process with more room for error. Yet he's decent from three and really good at the line. I'd love to hear a shooting expert explain how the hell he does it.
Shooting well is about using your legs to generate almost all of the power for your shot. Your arms, hands, and fingers should be relaxed and only used to guide the ball. I don't think arm length actually matters, just developing a soft, repeatable shooting motion. I would imagine longer fingers actually helps so that he ball does not slip out of your hands as often.
This is where arm length kinda factors in.
Didn't think there was a strong correlation between coordination and relative arm length.
 
Also, Bosh will likely destroy Noah in almost any advance metric, because offense is much easier to track (PTS, percentages, and assist). A great performance in these stats generally mean a player is an effective offensive player. However, we all know you can't tell who is a great defender just by looking at rebounds, blks, and stl so someone like Noah who's impact is mostly on defense gets shafted by these metrics at times.

The use of advance metrics and scouting is like anything else in life use both in moderation.
Almost all public defensive metrics (counterpoint data, points per possession, defensive rebound rate) are not going to be good without a lot of games.
No metric will line up perfectly with our subjective views, but any metric that suggests Tyson Chandler, Kevin Love, Nene, and Manu are more valuable than Durant is way off.
Some of those guys listed are top 3 in the league at what they do well, there is a chance you overrate what Durant does well and underrate the value of their skills.
On a completely different subject, I find Durant totally fascinating from a physiological standpoint. It's my understanding that people with really really long arms and fingers have more trouble with shooting because it's essentially a longer process with more room for error. Yet he's decent from three and really good at the line. I'd love to hear a shooting expert explain how the hell he does it.
Shooting well is about using your legs to generate almost all of the power for your shot. Your arms, hands, and fingers should be relaxed and only used to guide the ball. I don't think arm length actually matters, just developing a soft, repeatable shooting motion. I would imagine longer fingers actually helps so that he ball does not slip out of your hands as often.
This is where arm length kinda factors in.
Didn't think there was a strong correlation between coordination and relative arm length.
Durant's arms connect right below his ears, so it's a more compact motion.
 
LOL, The Clips traded away a top 3 pick just to get rid of Baron Davis.

Irving and Blake......damn.

Jazz trade for Williams looks a lot better. Top 3 pick in 2010,2011 and Devin Harris.

 
Woody Paige was completely accurate on Around the Horn today. Except for the kid, this IS a group of men who look like they are waiting for a colonoscopy.

 
The good news: Williams goes to the TWolves which I believe is a good spot for him.

The bad news: The Cavs are rewarded for their toolishness.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top