To be fair to Chaostrigger he actually had good arguments in his last post...
Haven't been able to post here since the news and just want to say what a bullshit explanation originally by Stern. Allowing the teams to keep negotiating is at least helping to erase the memory of that dumb move by him to stop the trade after saying Demps had full authority.
On December 10 2011 17:18 Doraemon wrote: I don't think it's overrated at all. knowing that you're trade bait would have profound effect on your game, players are not machines, they have emotions...at the end of the day they are all employess and as an employee, if i knew i was going to get shafted into another company i have no incentive to perform for my incumbent boss. that's my 2cents anyway
I think trade rumors do have an effect but I agree with clutz - the media overblows it. Somehow professional athletes who have been doing this for years crumble because of what a teammate said or his supposed girlfriend situation? I don't ruining locker room chemistry is as easy as it sounds.
but this isn't a rumour per se, it happened and it got vetoed. players deal with getting traded not vetoed trades and back to the old team.
i don't know...i think scola/martin are gone none the less...going to be an interesting season...definitely need to pick up another marquee player with the remaining cap and i hope that isn't nene, need a swingman/2guard to do the scoring. hmm
Rumor or reality, do you see a trade rumor making Kobe go into a funk? I will admit that it seems that professional athletes, particularly in the NBA, are emotionally stunted/immature. Guys like Lebron and Odom are like teenagers, because they have always been so coddled, but I recall in my teenage years only two things really affected the team's "chemistry". The first is a black hole player who isn't good and the second is a coach who doesn't play the best players.
On December 10 2011 17:18 Doraemon wrote: I don't think it's overrated at all. knowing that you're trade bait would have profound effect on your game, players are not machines, they have emotions...at the end of the day they are all employess and as an employee, if i knew i was going to get shafted into another company i have no incentive to perform for my incumbent boss. that's my 2cents anyway
I think trade rumors do have an effect but I agree with clutz - the media overblows it. Somehow professional athletes who have been doing this for years crumble because of what a teammate said or his supposed girlfriend situation? I don't ruining locker room chemistry is as easy as it sounds.
but this isn't a rumour per se, it happened and it got vetoed. players deal with getting traded not vetoed trades and back to the old team.
i don't know...i think scola/martin are gone none the less...going to be an interesting season...definitely need to pick up another marquee player with the remaining cap and i hope that isn't nene, need a swingman/2guard to do the scoring. hmm
Rumor or reality, do you see a trade rumor making Kobe go into a funk? I will admit that it seems that professional athletes, particularly in the NBA, are emotionally stunted/immature. Guys like Lebron and Odom are like teenagers, because they have always been so coddled, but I recall in my teenage years only two things really affected the team's "chemistry". The first is a black hole player who isn't good and the second is a coach who doesn't play the best players.
Can't trust Kobe! Same guy that took one shot in the second half to prove how shit his team was lol
Why do you not get that PER is a terrible stat? Holy shit. It's just completely useless for figuring out anything beyond the regular box score, which makes sense because that's all it is. If the regular box score stats aren't that indicative, why would a conglomeration of them be?
Those articles are awful.
Your argument in the last thread was that "it predicted the Heat would win the championship," except it was predicting the Heat would win the championship when they were barely above 500. It is perfect for players like Lebron and Wade, but it doesn't examine anything beyond the superficial level. All it tells you is who the superstars are, which everyone already knows.
The perfect example is the Shane Battier move. Battier is going to be utterly fantastic for the Heat and may very well be the piece that locks them up a championship, but he's a below average player according to Hollinger. And before you say something like "it's not Hollinger, it's just statistics!" that's not how statistics and quantification work. He created it, it contains his selection biases.
That’s why there was no real need for the New York Knicks to add Paul. Paul value comes from his ability to create easy shots for his teammates, but Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire don’t need anyone creating shots for them. They can do that themselves; that’s why they are both perennial All-Stars.
Are you fucking kidding me?
By leaving Dallas and going to New York City, Chandler swung the balance of power in the NBA, removing the Mavericks from title contention while giving the Knicks a legitimate chance at one.
Umm, I don't pray at the altar of PER, if you recall the NBA thread of last year, my point is that the PG position is overrated. I have always said PG is overrated, and if I was re-drafting the whole NBA I would not take a PG in the top 5. Hollinger himself says PER is imperfect, especially on defense (Battier's strength for instance), and it overrates offensive players who have high usage rates and don't necessarily play efficiently. CP3 has a higher PER than Howard and I would take Howard over CP3 10 out of 10 times.
While I see what you're getting at I don't think I'd ever draft Dwight Howard before Chris Paul. Too many things Chris Paul can do vs what Dwight Howard can do. I could sign Chris Paul and be an instant contender, not the same with Dwight. Has he had even one memorable playoff series where you sat down and thought he is unstoppable?
Imo a better example would be what would happen if you had to draft Chris Paul or Chris Webber pre-injury (sorry Kings fans, I know it hurts).
On December 10 2011 17:18 Doraemon wrote: fck. what have you done to my rockets stern....even if it was a bad trade, imagine the locker room with not 1, or 2, but three freaken starters knowing they were/are on the chopping blocks. how can you even practice property. no synergy and harmony...sigh.
I think for most players that sort of rumor is overrated. Good players are regularly on the trading block in baseball and it has no effect on their play. Trades in basketball and football of elite player are more rare. I don't buy there being long term "psychological effects" on the players. Honestly, I think things like chemistry etc are constantly overrated by "experts" because they need to say something other than what is obvious to everyone.
For example, Sanchez when the Jets are winning has "swagger" losing? no swagger. Lakers win a title, they have chemistry, lose to the Mavs because of obvious problems at the PG and SF positions? Pau Gasol has GF problems and Phil Jackson's message that somehow worked for 6 + seasons in Chicago and 6+ seasons in LA has magically worn out.
I don't think it's overrated at all. knowing that you're trade bait would have profound effect on your game, players are not machines, they have emotions...at the end of the day they are all employess and as an employee, if i knew i was going to get shafted into another company i have no incentive to perform for my incumbent boss. that's my 2cents anyway
I think trade rumors do have an effect but I agree with clutz - the media overblows it. Somehow professional athletes who have been doing this for years crumble because of what a teammate said or his supposed girlfriend situation? I don't ruining locker room chemistry is as easy as it sounds.
Last year Dwight averaged 27ppg and 15.5 rpg. If that's not domination then idk what is
Why do you not get that PER is a terrible stat? Holy shit. It's just completely useless for figuring out anything beyond the regular box score, which makes sense because that's all it is. If the regular box score stats aren't that indicative, why would a conglomeration of them be?
Those articles are awful.
Your argument in the last thread was that "it predicted the Heat would win the championship," except it was predicting the Heat would win the championship when they were barely above 500. It is perfect for players like Lebron and Wade, but it doesn't examine anything beyond the superficial level. All it tells you is who the superstars are, which everyone already knows.
The perfect example is the Shane Battier move. Battier is going to be utterly fantastic for the Heat and may very well be the piece that locks them up a championship, but he's a below average player according to Hollinger. And before you say something like "it's not Hollinger, it's just statistics!" that's not how statistics and quantification work. He created it, it contains his selection biases.
That’s why there was no real need for the New York Knicks to add Paul. Paul value comes from his ability to create easy shots for his teammates, but Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire don’t need anyone creating shots for them. They can do that themselves; that’s why they are both perennial All-Stars.
Are you fucking kidding me?
By leaving Dallas and going to New York City, Chandler swung the balance of power in the NBA, removing the Mavericks from title contention while giving the Knicks a legitimate chance at one.
Umm, I don't pray at the altar of PER, if you recall the NBA thread of last year, my point is that the PG position is overrated. I have always said PG is overrated, and if I was re-drafting the whole NBA I would not take a PG in the top 5. Hollinger himself says PER is imperfect, especially on defense (Battier's strength for instance), and it overrates offensive players who have high usage rates and don't necessarily play efficiently. CP3 has a higher PER than Howard and I would take Howard over CP3 10 out of 10 times.
While I see what you're getting at I don't think I'd ever draft Dwight Howard before Chris Paul. Too many things Chris Paul can do vs what Dwight Howard can do. I could sign Chris Paul and be an instant contender, not the same with Dwight. Has he had even one memorable playoff series where you sat down and thought he is unstoppable?
Imo a better example would be what would happen if you had to draft Chris Paul or Chris Webber pre-injury (sorry Kings fans, I know it hurts).
On December 10 2011 17:18 Doraemon wrote: fck. what have you done to my rockets stern....even if it was a bad trade, imagine the locker room with not 1, or 2, but three freaken starters knowing they were/are on the chopping blocks. how can you even practice property. no synergy and harmony...sigh.
I think for most players that sort of rumor is overrated. Good players are regularly on the trading block in baseball and it has no effect on their play. Trades in basketball and football of elite player are more rare. I don't buy there being long term "psychological effects" on the players. Honestly, I think things like chemistry etc are constantly overrated by "experts" because they need to say something other than what is obvious to everyone.
For example, Sanchez when the Jets are winning has "swagger" losing? no swagger. Lakers win a title, they have chemistry, lose to the Mavs because of obvious problems at the PG and SF positions? Pau Gasol has GF problems and Phil Jackson's message that somehow worked for 6 + seasons in Chicago and 6+ seasons in LA has magically worn out.
I don't think it's overrated at all. knowing that you're trade bait would have profound effect on your game, players are not machines, they have emotions...at the end of the day they are all employess and as an employee, if i knew i was going to get shafted into another company i have no incentive to perform for my incumbent boss. that's my 2cents anyway
I think trade rumors do have an effect but I agree with clutz - the media overblows it. Somehow professional athletes who have been doing this for years crumble because of what a teammate said or his supposed girlfriend situation? I don't ruining locker room chemistry is as easy as it sounds.
Has CP3 ever dominated a playoff series? I am seriously asking. I can't recall. I would definitely pick dwight before CP3. Dwight is so far ahead of all the other centers while good PGs seem to be growin on trees these days. There is no other C who is so dominant at both ends. Not even close. In the meantime CP3 has to fight fight for his spot in every Top5 PG ranking, especially with him being injured a lot compared to other top PGs.
Why do you not get that PER is a terrible stat? Holy shit. It's just completely useless for figuring out anything beyond the regular box score, which makes sense because that's all it is. If the regular box score stats aren't that indicative, why would a conglomeration of them be?
Those articles are awful.
Your argument in the last thread was that "it predicted the Heat would win the championship," except it was predicting the Heat would win the championship when they were barely above 500. It is perfect for players like Lebron and Wade, but it doesn't examine anything beyond the superficial level. All it tells you is who the superstars are, which everyone already knows.
The perfect example is the Shane Battier move. Battier is going to be utterly fantastic for the Heat and may very well be the piece that locks them up a championship, but he's a below average player according to Hollinger. And before you say something like "it's not Hollinger, it's just statistics!" that's not how statistics and quantification work. He created it, it contains his selection biases.
That’s why there was no real need for the New York Knicks to add Paul. Paul value comes from his ability to create easy shots for his teammates, but Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire don’t need anyone creating shots for them. They can do that themselves; that’s why they are both perennial All-Stars.
Are you fucking kidding me?
By leaving Dallas and going to New York City, Chandler swung the balance of power in the NBA, removing the Mavericks from title contention while giving the Knicks a legitimate chance at one.
Umm, I don't pray at the altar of PER, if you recall the NBA thread of last year, my point is that the PG position is overrated. I have always said PG is overrated, and if I was re-drafting the whole NBA I would not take a PG in the top 5. Hollinger himself says PER is imperfect, especially on defense (Battier's strength for instance), and it overrates offensive players who have high usage rates and don't necessarily play efficiently. CP3 has a higher PER than Howard and I would take Howard over CP3 10 out of 10 times.
The success rate of drafting guards is infinitely higher than drafting big men. If they both command the same max money, why would you risk it on a big man in the modern era of free agency? Just like we're seeing now, everyone is tradeable but it's much easier to score a commodity with a top pick guard, whereas most high pick big men are complete flops.
PER doesn't just overrate inefficient shooters, it completely ignores the team aspect of basketball. That's why it's worthless.
On December 10 2011 17:18 Doraemon wrote: I don't think it's overrated at all. knowing that you're trade bait would have profound effect on your game, players are not machines, they have emotions...at the end of the day they are all employess and as an employee, if i knew i was going to get shafted into another company i have no incentive to perform for my incumbent boss. that's my 2cents anyway
I think trade rumors do have an effect but I agree with clutz - the media overblows it. Somehow professional athletes who have been doing this for years crumble because of what a teammate said or his supposed girlfriend situation? I don't ruining locker room chemistry is as easy as it sounds.
but this isn't a rumour per se, it happened and it got vetoed. players deal with getting traded not vetoed trades and back to the old team.
i don't know...i think scola/martin are gone none the less...going to be an interesting season...definitely need to pick up another marquee player with the remaining cap and i hope that isn't nene, need a swingman/2guard to do the scoring. hmm
It can motivate players too, though.
It's really just on a case by case basis, but ultimately what Kobe said is true and he's been on the end of more rumors than anyone else in the league. You have to be mentally tough to play in the NBA and to contribute on a championship team. Players like that have to get over it.
Why do you not get that PER is a terrible stat? Holy shit. It's just completely useless for figuring out anything beyond the regular box score, which makes sense because that's all it is. If the regular box score stats aren't that indicative, why would a conglomeration of them be?
Those articles are awful.
Your argument in the last thread was that "it predicted the Heat would win the championship," except it was predicting the Heat would win the championship when they were barely above 500. It is perfect for players like Lebron and Wade, but it doesn't examine anything beyond the superficial level. All it tells you is who the superstars are, which everyone already knows.
The perfect example is the Shane Battier move. Battier is going to be utterly fantastic for the Heat and may very well be the piece that locks them up a championship, but he's a below average player according to Hollinger. And before you say something like "it's not Hollinger, it's just statistics!" that's not how statistics and quantification work. He created it, it contains his selection biases.
That’s why there was no real need for the New York Knicks to add Paul. Paul value comes from his ability to create easy shots for his teammates, but Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire don’t need anyone creating shots for them. They can do that themselves; that’s why they are both perennial All-Stars.
Are you fucking kidding me?
By leaving Dallas and going to New York City, Chandler swung the balance of power in the NBA, removing the Mavericks from title contention while giving the Knicks a legitimate chance at one.
Umm, I don't pray at the altar of PER, if you recall the NBA thread of last year, my point is that the PG position is overrated. I have always said PG is overrated, and if I was re-drafting the whole NBA I would not take a PG in the top 5. Hollinger himself says PER is imperfect, especially on defense (Battier's strength for instance), and it overrates offensive players who have high usage rates and don't necessarily play efficiently. CP3 has a higher PER than Howard and I would take Howard over CP3 10 out of 10 times.
While I see what you're getting at I don't think I'd ever draft Dwight Howard before Chris Paul. Too many things Chris Paul can do vs what Dwight Howard can do. I could sign Chris Paul and be an instant contender, not the same with Dwight. Has he had even one memorable playoff series where you sat down and thought he is unstoppable?
Imo a better example would be what would happen if you had to draft Chris Paul or Chris Webber pre-injury (sorry Kings fans, I know it hurts).
On December 10 2011 17:40 Doraemon wrote:
On December 10 2011 17:32 cLutZ wrote:
On December 10 2011 17:18 Doraemon wrote: fck. what have you done to my rockets stern....even if it was a bad trade, imagine the locker room with not 1, or 2, but three freaken starters knowing they were/are on the chopping blocks. how can you even practice property. no synergy and harmony...sigh.
I think for most players that sort of rumor is overrated. Good players are regularly on the trading block in baseball and it has no effect on their play. Trades in basketball and football of elite player are more rare. I don't buy there being long term "psychological effects" on the players. Honestly, I think things like chemistry etc are constantly overrated by "experts" because they need to say something other than what is obvious to everyone.
For example, Sanchez when the Jets are winning has "swagger" losing? no swagger. Lakers win a title, they have chemistry, lose to the Mavs because of obvious problems at the PG and SF positions? Pau Gasol has GF problems and Phil Jackson's message that somehow worked for 6 + seasons in Chicago and 6+ seasons in LA has magically worn out.
I don't think it's overrated at all. knowing that you're trade bait would have profound effect on your game, players are not machines, they have emotions...at the end of the day they are all employess and as an employee, if i knew i was going to get shafted into another company i have no incentive to perform for my incumbent boss. that's my 2cents anyway
I think trade rumors do have an effect but I agree with clutz - the media overblows it. Somehow professional athletes who have been doing this for years crumble because of what a teammate said or his supposed girlfriend situation? I don't ruining locker room chemistry is as easy as it sounds.
Has CP3 ever dominated a playoff series? I am seriously asking. I can't recall. I would definitely pick dwight before CP3. Dwight is so far ahead of all the other centers while good PGs seem to be growin on trees these days. There is no other C who is so dominant at both ends. Not even close. In the meantime CP3 has to fight fight for his spot in every Top5 PG ranking, especially with him being injured a lot compared to other top PGs.
Most people would consider his first playoff series against the Mavs pretty dominant. Sure Howard's numbers looked good last year, but they still lost to the Hawks. And before last year, D12's playoff average was usually 20/15. Fantastic numbers for most players, but not at all dominant for a superstar big man. The Pistons used to handle him easily with Maxiel (6'6") and McDyess (6'9). The Lakers shut him down and even though he had a few great games against Boston and Cleveland, he also laid quite a few eggs.
And keep in mind who the Hornets have to play in the early rounds of the playoffs. Spurs, Mavs, Lakers, Nuggets. Howard's 24/24 looks nice, but ultimately it's against the 76ers and no one should care.
Parity has only reached the top of the East/West. #4 and below in the East is still terrible.
Why do you not get that PER is a terrible stat? Holy shit. It's just completely useless for figuring out anything beyond the regular box score, which makes sense because that's all it is. If the regular box score stats aren't that indicative, why would a conglomeration of them be?
Those articles are awful.
Your argument in the last thread was that "it predicted the Heat would win the championship," except it was predicting the Heat would win the championship when they were barely above 500. It is perfect for players like Lebron and Wade, but it doesn't examine anything beyond the superficial level. All it tells you is who the superstars are, which everyone already knows.
The perfect example is the Shane Battier move. Battier is going to be utterly fantastic for the Heat and may very well be the piece that locks them up a championship, but he's a below average player according to Hollinger. And before you say something like "it's not Hollinger, it's just statistics!" that's not how statistics and quantification work. He created it, it contains his selection biases.
That’s why there was no real need for the New York Knicks to add Paul. Paul value comes from his ability to create easy shots for his teammates, but Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire don’t need anyone creating shots for them. They can do that themselves; that’s why they are both perennial All-Stars.
Are you fucking kidding me?
By leaving Dallas and going to New York City, Chandler swung the balance of power in the NBA, removing the Mavericks from title contention while giving the Knicks a legitimate chance at one.
Umm, I don't pray at the altar of PER, if you recall the NBA thread of last year, my point is that the PG position is overrated. I have always said PG is overrated, and if I was re-drafting the whole NBA I would not take a PG in the top 5. Hollinger himself says PER is imperfect, especially on defense (Battier's strength for instance), and it overrates offensive players who have high usage rates and don't necessarily play efficiently. CP3 has a higher PER than Howard and I would take Howard over CP3 10 out of 10 times.
The success rate of drafting guards is infinitely higher than drafting big men. If they both command the same max money, why would you risk it on a big man in the modern era of free agency? Just like we're seeing now, everyone is tradeable but it's much easier to score a commodity with a top pick guard, whereas most high pick big men are complete flops.
PER doesn't just overrate inefficient shooters, it completely ignores the team aspect of basketball. That's why it's worthless.
The sketchy record of drafting big men high in the NBA draft is not related to what I was talking about and has a simple explanation.
First, what I was talking about was putting every current NBA player in a pool and re-drafting every 15 man roster for a season. In no particular order my top 5 would be: Lebron, Durant, Howard, Wade, Nowitzki.
Second, the reason that big men are so often flops in the NBA after being drafted high is because GMs reach for big men that don't have skills. Skilled big men are rare, which is why they are so valuable. Taking a big man high is a calculated risk. A perfect example of the big man "flop" is the 1998 draft. Olowokandi went 1st, Bibby 2nd. Bibby was a "sure thing" and he did fine but never has been great, the same if going to be true for last years #1 pick Kyrie Irving, he will not suck, but hes not going to transform Cleveland. Olowokandi was a bust, but he could have been a Pau Gasol or Tyson Chandler, Mike Bibby is...bleh. Another perfect example: 2001 Bulls draft. Chandler and Curry were both huge reaches for the Bulls. If Chandler had matured more quickly and Curry had been motivated they could have been Duncan/Robinson take 2. Instead they were immature and/or fat.
I really wonder if he will join Nets or whether that was just smoke and he is heading to Cali
You mean is all that california talk smoke and is he headed toward brooklyn?
The Nets deal is monumentally better: brook lopez and two first rounders (probably a higher pick than what the lakers will get), which according to ace are much more important than the free agent. And they're willing to take on Rashard Lewis.
The only reason he'd go anywhere else is if Dwight refused to sign with them. And it would kind of be strange to ask to be traded to some teams then refuse to sign with them.
Why do you not get that PER is a terrible stat? Holy shit. It's just completely useless for figuring out anything beyond the regular box score, which makes sense because that's all it is. If the regular box score stats aren't that indicative, why would a conglomeration of them be?
Those articles are awful.
Your argument in the last thread was that "it predicted the Heat would win the championship," except it was predicting the Heat would win the championship when they were barely above 500. It is perfect for players like Lebron and Wade, but it doesn't examine anything beyond the superficial level. All it tells you is who the superstars are, which everyone already knows.
The perfect example is the Shane Battier move. Battier is going to be utterly fantastic for the Heat and may very well be the piece that locks them up a championship, but he's a below average player according to Hollinger. And before you say something like "it's not Hollinger, it's just statistics!" that's not how statistics and quantification work. He created it, it contains his selection biases.
That’s why there was no real need for the New York Knicks to add Paul. Paul value comes from his ability to create easy shots for his teammates, but Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire don’t need anyone creating shots for them. They can do that themselves; that’s why they are both perennial All-Stars.
Are you fucking kidding me?
By leaving Dallas and going to New York City, Chandler swung the balance of power in the NBA, removing the Mavericks from title contention while giving the Knicks a legitimate chance at one.
Umm, I don't pray at the altar of PER, if you recall the NBA thread of last year, my point is that the PG position is overrated. I have always said PG is overrated, and if I was re-drafting the whole NBA I would not take a PG in the top 5. Hollinger himself says PER is imperfect, especially on defense (Battier's strength for instance), and it overrates offensive players who have high usage rates and don't necessarily play efficiently. CP3 has a higher PER than Howard and I would take Howard over CP3 10 out of 10 times.
While I see what you're getting at I don't think I'd ever draft Dwight Howard before Chris Paul. Too many things Chris Paul can do vs what Dwight Howard can do. I could sign Chris Paul and be an instant contender, not the same with Dwight. Has he had even one memorable playoff series where you sat down and thought he is unstoppable?
Imo a better example would be what would happen if you had to draft Chris Paul or Chris Webber pre-injury (sorry Kings fans, I know it hurts).
On December 10 2011 17:40 Doraemon wrote:
On December 10 2011 17:32 cLutZ wrote:
On December 10 2011 17:18 Doraemon wrote: fck. what have you done to my rockets stern....even if it was a bad trade, imagine the locker room with not 1, or 2, but three freaken starters knowing they were/are on the chopping blocks. how can you even practice property. no synergy and harmony...sigh.
I think for most players that sort of rumor is overrated. Good players are regularly on the trading block in baseball and it has no effect on their play. Trades in basketball and football of elite player are more rare. I don't buy there being long term "psychological effects" on the players. Honestly, I think things like chemistry etc are constantly overrated by "experts" because they need to say something other than what is obvious to everyone.
For example, Sanchez when the Jets are winning has "swagger" losing? no swagger. Lakers win a title, they have chemistry, lose to the Mavs because of obvious problems at the PG and SF positions? Pau Gasol has GF problems and Phil Jackson's message that somehow worked for 6 + seasons in Chicago and 6+ seasons in LA has magically worn out.
I don't think it's overrated at all. knowing that you're trade bait would have profound effect on your game, players are not machines, they have emotions...at the end of the day they are all employess and as an employee, if i knew i was going to get shafted into another company i have no incentive to perform for my incumbent boss. that's my 2cents anyway
I think trade rumors do have an effect but I agree with clutz - the media overblows it. Somehow professional athletes who have been doing this for years crumble because of what a teammate said or his supposed girlfriend situation? I don't ruining locker room chemistry is as easy as it sounds.
Has CP3 ever dominated a playoff series? I am seriously asking. I can't recall. I would definitely pick dwight before CP3. Dwight is so far ahead of all the other centers while good PGs seem to be growin on trees these days. There is no other C who is so dominant at both ends. Not even close. In the meantime CP3 has to fight fight for his spot in every Top5 PG ranking, especially with him being injured a lot compared to other top PGs.
In addition to what Jibba wrote, look at the teams Chris Paul has had. Elite Point Guards can take a terrible team FAR. There are only a handful of big men that can and Dwight Howard has his moments but he isn't one of them.
This isn't the 80s and 90s anymore of sloppy, fast break basketball with terrible defenses and inefficient scorers. Back then bigs were far more valuable because the skill levels compared to today were absolute garbage. Coaching wasn't even the same. Defenses hadn't evolved to the current level especially because of the hand-checking allowed.
Today there are too many multi-talented do it all perimeter players in the league. Dwight Howard may be rare but that doesn't make him better than Chris Paul. We can rag on Orlando's roster all we want but that team was one of the top perimeter defenses in the league which isn't all on Dwight, You can't run the offense through him, you dump the ball down to him. Last year was his FIRST year where he showed he had "it" offensively. Guys like Webber, Duncan and Garnett came into the league already levels above him offensively. Wade, Kobe, Lebron, Paul - all of them have shown that no matter what kind of team they are on they will do a lot of damage even when not at 100% vs any team.
The "get a big man over a guard" mantra has been dead for years now. If you put Dwight Howard on the New Orleans Hornets and place Jameer Nelson into Chris Paul's spot guess what? The team goes no where. Making marginal teams better has always been the mark of dominance and Dwight Howard hasn't even been close to that level yet.
And no he is not the most dominant defensive big in the league. That award goes to Kevin Garnett or Andrew Bogut.
Why do you not get that PER is a terrible stat? Holy shit. It's just completely useless for figuring out anything beyond the regular box score, which makes sense because that's all it is. If the regular box score stats aren't that indicative, why would a conglomeration of them be?
Those articles are awful.
Your argument in the last thread was that "it predicted the Heat would win the championship," except it was predicting the Heat would win the championship when they were barely above 500. It is perfect for players like Lebron and Wade, but it doesn't examine anything beyond the superficial level. All it tells you is who the superstars are, which everyone already knows.
The perfect example is the Shane Battier move. Battier is going to be utterly fantastic for the Heat and may very well be the piece that locks them up a championship, but he's a below average player according to Hollinger. And before you say something like "it's not Hollinger, it's just statistics!" that's not how statistics and quantification work. He created it, it contains his selection biases.
That’s why there was no real need for the New York Knicks to add Paul. Paul value comes from his ability to create easy shots for his teammates, but Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire don’t need anyone creating shots for them. They can do that themselves; that’s why they are both perennial All-Stars.
Are you fucking kidding me?
By leaving Dallas and going to New York City, Chandler swung the balance of power in the NBA, removing the Mavericks from title contention while giving the Knicks a legitimate chance at one.
Umm, I don't pray at the altar of PER, if you recall the NBA thread of last year, my point is that the PG position is overrated. I have always said PG is overrated, and if I was re-drafting the whole NBA I would not take a PG in the top 5. Hollinger himself says PER is imperfect, especially on defense (Battier's strength for instance), and it overrates offensive players who have high usage rates and don't necessarily play efficiently. CP3 has a higher PER than Howard and I would take Howard over CP3 10 out of 10 times.
The success rate of drafting guards is infinitely higher than drafting big men. If they both command the same max money, why would you risk it on a big man in the modern era of free agency? Just like we're seeing now, everyone is tradeable but it's much easier to score a commodity with a top pick guard, whereas most high pick big men are complete flops.
PER doesn't just overrate inefficient shooters, it completely ignores the team aspect of basketball. That's why it's worthless.
The sketchy record of drafting big men high in the NBA draft is not related to what I was talking about and has a simple explanation.
First, what I was talking about was putting every current NBA player in a pool and re-drafting every 15 man roster for a season. In no particular order my top 5 would be: Lebron, Durant, Howard, Wade, Nowitzki.
Second, the reason that big men are so often flops in the NBA after being drafted high is because GMs reach for big men that don't have skills. Skilled big men are rare, which is why they are so valuable. Taking a big man high is a calculated risk. A perfect example of the big man "flop" is the 1998 draft. Olowokandi went 1st, Bibby 2nd. Bibby was a "sure thing" and he did fine but never has been great, the same if going to be true for last years #1 pick Kyrie Irving, he will not suck, but hes not going to transform Cleveland. Olowokandi was a bust, but he could have been a Pau Gasol or Tyson Chandler, Mike Bibby is...bleh. Another perfect example: 2001 Bulls draft. Chandler and Curry were both huge reaches for the Bulls. If Chandler had matured more quickly and Curry had been motivated they could have been Duncan/Robinson take 2. Instead they were immature and/or fat.
He had a lot more skill and finesse, even as a highschooler. Maybe not more than Howard now, but certainly Howard's first few years in the league. Obviously Howard was leaps and bounds ahead of him physically, but Garnett came in as a great all around player. Especially things like passing.
Also, looking up old Garnett videos brought me to this:
Why do you not get that PER is a terrible stat? Holy shit. It's just completely useless for figuring out anything beyond the regular box score, which makes sense because that's all it is. If the regular box score stats aren't that indicative, why would a conglomeration of them be?
Those articles are awful.
Your argument in the last thread was that "it predicted the Heat would win the championship," except it was predicting the Heat would win the championship when they were barely above 500. It is perfect for players like Lebron and Wade, but it doesn't examine anything beyond the superficial level. All it tells you is who the superstars are, which everyone already knows.
The perfect example is the Shane Battier move. Battier is going to be utterly fantastic for the Heat and may very well be the piece that locks them up a championship, but he's a below average player according to Hollinger. And before you say something like "it's not Hollinger, it's just statistics!" that's not how statistics and quantification work. He created it, it contains his selection biases.
That’s why there was no real need for the New York Knicks to add Paul. Paul value comes from his ability to create easy shots for his teammates, but Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire don’t need anyone creating shots for them. They can do that themselves; that’s why they are both perennial All-Stars.
Are you fucking kidding me?
By leaving Dallas and going to New York City, Chandler swung the balance of power in the NBA, removing the Mavericks from title contention while giving the Knicks a legitimate chance at one.
Umm, I don't pray at the altar of PER, if you recall the NBA thread of last year, my point is that the PG position is overrated. I have always said PG is overrated, and if I was re-drafting the whole NBA I would not take a PG in the top 5. Hollinger himself says PER is imperfect, especially on defense (Battier's strength for instance), and it overrates offensive players who have high usage rates and don't necessarily play efficiently. CP3 has a higher PER than Howard and I would take Howard over CP3 10 out of 10 times.
While I see what you're getting at I don't think I'd ever draft Dwight Howard before Chris Paul. Too many things Chris Paul can do vs what Dwight Howard can do. I could sign Chris Paul and be an instant contender, not the same with Dwight. Has he had even one memorable playoff series where you sat down and thought he is unstoppable?
Imo a better example would be what would happen if you had to draft Chris Paul or Chris Webber pre-injury (sorry Kings fans, I know it hurts).
On December 10 2011 17:40 Doraemon wrote:
On December 10 2011 17:32 cLutZ wrote:
On December 10 2011 17:18 Doraemon wrote: fck. what have you done to my rockets stern....even if it was a bad trade, imagine the locker room with not 1, or 2, but three freaken starters knowing they were/are on the chopping blocks. how can you even practice property. no synergy and harmony...sigh.
I think for most players that sort of rumor is overrated. Good players are regularly on the trading block in baseball and it has no effect on their play. Trades in basketball and football of elite player are more rare. I don't buy there being long term "psychological effects" on the players. Honestly, I think things like chemistry etc are constantly overrated by "experts" because they need to say something other than what is obvious to everyone.
For example, Sanchez when the Jets are winning has "swagger" losing? no swagger. Lakers win a title, they have chemistry, lose to the Mavs because of obvious problems at the PG and SF positions? Pau Gasol has GF problems and Phil Jackson's message that somehow worked for 6 + seasons in Chicago and 6+ seasons in LA has magically worn out.
I don't think it's overrated at all. knowing that you're trade bait would have profound effect on your game, players are not machines, they have emotions...at the end of the day they are all employess and as an employee, if i knew i was going to get shafted into another company i have no incentive to perform for my incumbent boss. that's my 2cents anyway
I think trade rumors do have an effect but I agree with clutz - the media overblows it. Somehow professional athletes who have been doing this for years crumble because of what a teammate said or his supposed girlfriend situation? I don't ruining locker room chemistry is as easy as it sounds.
Has CP3 ever dominated a playoff series? I am seriously asking. I can't recall. I would definitely pick dwight before CP3. Dwight is so far ahead of all the other centers while good PGs seem to be growin on trees these days. There is no other C who is so dominant at both ends. Not even close. In the meantime CP3 has to fight fight for his spot in every Top5 PG ranking, especially with him being injured a lot compared to other top PGs.
In addition to what Jibba wrote, look at the teams Chris Paul has had. Elite Point Guards can take a terrible team FAR. There are only a handful of big men that can and Dwight Howard has his moments but he isn't one of them.
This isn't the 80s and 90s anymore of sloppy, fast break basketball with terrible defenses and inefficient scorers. Back then bigs were far more valuable because the skill levels compared to today were absolute garbage. Coaching wasn't even the same. Defenses hadn't evolved to the current level especially because of the hand-checking allowed.
Today there are too many multi-talented do it all perimeter players in the league. Dwight Howard may be rare but that doesn't make him better than Chris Paul. We can rag on Orlando's roster all we want but that team was one of the top perimeter defenses in the league which isn't all on Dwight, You can't run the offense through him, you dump the ball down to him. Last year was his FIRST year where he showed he had "it" offensively. Guys like Webber, Duncan and Garnett came into the league already levels above him offensively. Wade, Kobe, Lebron, Paul - all of them have shown that no matter what kind of team they are on they will do a lot of damage even when not at 100% vs any team.
The "get a big man over a guard" mantra has been dead for years now. If you put Dwight Howard on the New Orleans Hornets and place Jameer Nelson into Chris Paul's spot guess what? The team goes no where. Making marginal teams better has always been the mark of dominance and Dwight Howard hasn't even been close to that level yet.
And no he is not the most dominant defensive big in the league. That award goes to Kevin Garnett or Andrew Bogut.
Why do you not get that PER is a terrible stat? Holy shit. It's just completely useless for figuring out anything beyond the regular box score, which makes sense because that's all it is. If the regular box score stats aren't that indicative, why would a conglomeration of them be?
Those articles are awful.
Your argument in the last thread was that "it predicted the Heat would win the championship," except it was predicting the Heat would win the championship when they were barely above 500. It is perfect for players like Lebron and Wade, but it doesn't examine anything beyond the superficial level. All it tells you is who the superstars are, which everyone already knows.
The perfect example is the Shane Battier move. Battier is going to be utterly fantastic for the Heat and may very well be the piece that locks them up a championship, but he's a below average player according to Hollinger. And before you say something like "it's not Hollinger, it's just statistics!" that's not how statistics and quantification work. He created it, it contains his selection biases.
That’s why there was no real need for the New York Knicks to add Paul. Paul value comes from his ability to create easy shots for his teammates, but Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire don’t need anyone creating shots for them. They can do that themselves; that’s why they are both perennial All-Stars.
Are you fucking kidding me?
By leaving Dallas and going to New York City, Chandler swung the balance of power in the NBA, removing the Mavericks from title contention while giving the Knicks a legitimate chance at one.
Umm, I don't pray at the altar of PER, if you recall the NBA thread of last year, my point is that the PG position is overrated. I have always said PG is overrated, and if I was re-drafting the whole NBA I would not take a PG in the top 5. Hollinger himself says PER is imperfect, especially on defense (Battier's strength for instance), and it overrates offensive players who have high usage rates and don't necessarily play efficiently. CP3 has a higher PER than Howard and I would take Howard over CP3 10 out of 10 times.
The success rate of drafting guards is infinitely higher than drafting big men. If they both command the same max money, why would you risk it on a big man in the modern era of free agency? Just like we're seeing now, everyone is tradeable but it's much easier to score a commodity with a top pick guard, whereas most high pick big men are complete flops.
PER doesn't just overrate inefficient shooters, it completely ignores the team aspect of basketball. That's why it's worthless.
The sketchy record of drafting big men high in the NBA draft is not related to what I was talking about and has a simple explanation.
First, what I was talking about was putting every current NBA player in a pool and re-drafting every 15 man roster for a season. In no particular order my top 5 would be: Lebron, Durant, Howard, Wade, Nowitzki.
Second, the reason that big men are so often flops in the NBA after being drafted high is because GMs reach for big men that don't have skills. Skilled big men are rare, which is why they are so valuable. Taking a big man high is a calculated risk. A perfect example of the big man "flop" is the 1998 draft. Olowokandi went 1st, Bibby 2nd. Bibby was a "sure thing" and he did fine but never has been great, the same if going to be true for last years #1 pick Kyrie Irving, he will not suck, but hes not going to transform Cleveland. Olowokandi was a bust, but he could have been a Pau Gasol or Tyson Chandler, Mike Bibby is...bleh. Another perfect example: 2001 Bulls draft. Chandler and Curry were both huge reaches for the Bulls. If Chandler had matured more quickly and Curry had been motivated they could have been Duncan/Robinson take 2. Instead they were immature and/or fat.
That was never going to happen
Oh I agree, Curry was way overrated. I also agree that PGs are better at making terrible teams competitive (actually I would use the word "feisty"). What I am really dubious of is the ability of PGs to make teams elite. I am not saying exclusively championship teams, but a pair of finals appearances and a conference finals appearance in a 3 year span out of PG-driven team would be something that would sway me towards your contention that the, ""get a big man over a guard" mantra has been dead for years now."
On December 11 2011 10:57 igotmyown wrote: I wouldn't say Garnett came into the league ahead of where Dwight is now. He had many solid years of Kevin McHale one on one instruction.
Mchale gave Garnett a jumpshot, low post offense and defensive ability to guard perimeter players as a near 7-footer?
On December 11 2011 11:18 cLutZ wrote: I am not saying exclusively championship teams, but a pair of finals appearances and a conference finals appearance in a 3 year span out of PG-driven team would be something that would sway me towards your contention that the, ""get a big man over a guard" mantra has been dead for years now."
What about Kidd's Nets? :X Ok, maybe the East was terrible but the Nets were part of that terribleness. I guess there's Gary Payton too. He still won 61 games with Vin Baker.
The problem is that most championship teams have to be fairly loaded, so it's pretty rare to get an exclusively important PG or big man. I guess Wade/AI come to mind, but they weren't really playing PG.
You have to differentiate between great PGs and truly legendary ones. There's been a lot of very good PGs in the last 15 years, but their window is fairly short. Guys like KJ and even Terry Porter were extremely good for a few years, but don't get much credit for it today. At the top tier, there's just not many PGs or big men to draw many conclusions. But there's way more successful second/third tier PGs than there are big men, which is why I think it's a better draft decision. It's not that hard to find another Rod Strickland, but it's even easier to convince GMs that he'll be their franchise PG after only a couple good seasons.
Also, Porter might be one of the most underrated players of all time. I hated him as a Pistons fan, but he just dominated smaller PGs like Stockton and KJ. Kinda like Chauncey against CP3, only more intense.
On December 11 2011 10:57 igotmyown wrote: I wouldn't say Garnett came into the league ahead of where Dwight is now. He had many solid years of Kevin McHale one on one instruction.
Mchale gave Garnett a jumpshot, low post offense and defensive ability to guard perimeter players as a near 7-footer?
It's such a shame we have a shortened season because these superstar teams are going to be incredible. Heat add Battier, Celtics might add West, Bulls are adding Rip, plus whatever happens with CP3/D12.
No one's talking about it yet, but I think Rip to the Bulls is a pretty incredible move for them. He's still a premier shooter who's going to be playing past 35 and is a very underrated defender. I'm not sure if it's enough to put them past the Heat, but it makes them a very interesting team and if they add him to the offense effectively, he'll be a very efficient scorer for the end of games.
And he fits in well with the Bulls' pace. The more I think about it, assuming the Bulls actually run good half court sets, I think it can set them ahead. He's a pretty significant upgrade over Korver in every way and you can still run an offense for him, especially if you're a team like the Bulls.
EPT
