|
Lebon: "not today sir"
Sorry JimmiC, exorcism didnt work tonight.
|
|
|
Im happy to have never been fond of Toronto and DD (despite his Kobeesque game), but I can imagine the heartache this team brings to its fans on a yearly basis.
Goddamn JV, lol wtf learn to shoot UNDER THE RIM!
|
Never would have guessed JR and TT would show up big these last couple games. Maybe getting benched did them some good.
|
Corner 3s and taking timeouts with defenders in your vicinity need to die.
|
Funny thing is that was such a JR thing to happen. Love was almost out of bounds and the pass even swerved outside the court, and then JR just casually sinks a quick release hand in your face corner 3.
But really, JV lol what was that.
|
On May 02 2018 08:32 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 00:08 zev318 wrote:On May 01 2018 21:23 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On April 30 2018 22:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:KOBE > LEBRON- 5 > 3
+ Show Spoiler +I'll start with this one since this is the most obvious. Let me also stress that this is not an in-a-vacuum Shaquesque "ringz erneh" argument that implies having more rings means being a better player. Now having said that, we are fortunate that Kobe and Lebron's career actually overlapped. We can argue about which conference is stronger or whose team was more stacked, but those contingencies are part of real life. In the end, winning matters. This is why historically great players such as Barkley, Olajuwon, Ewing, Malone, Drexler, etc. are sidelined because someone else in their era was considered the winner. The fact of the matter is Kobe and Lebron played in the same era, and Kobe won more than Lebron [See Duncan in point #2]. Here's a gem straight from the goat's mouth: "There's something about 5 being more that 3..."
- Why we watch basketball
+ Show Spoiler +Basketball is a spectators' sport. Other than which team wins, a great part of watching basketball is the pleasure of watching players do their thing. (Before I go further on this, this is the reason why Duncan's "fundamental" basketball takes him out of the goat conversation despite winning 5 just like Kobe.) Being a winner makes one great, but being a winner AND having great basketball skills makes one goat. This is why Kareem, who is a consumate winner, an articulate and well-educated social activist in a time when it was needed the most, and generally a skillful basketball player is often left out of the goat conversation, even though he has a very good argument to be number one. Sure he owned the "sky hook", but does not get fans jumping up in the air with excitement, and that is all he has in terms of moves. This is also why other winners such as Robinson, Zeke, Cousy, Pippen, Fisher, etc. are not only not even within the fringes of greatest conversation, but are easy to forget unless we see them on tv. Conversely, this is also why "non-winners" who have beautiful fancy games are still loved and imitated today, such as Iverson, TMac, Carter, and why we have such special admiration for winners and skillful players like Magic, Hakeem, and MJ. Now let's play a little game before I go and count the ways on Kobe - name me a Lebron signature move. Chasedown block? Well yeah. But we have to add that it is mostly against smaller guards, and he very rarely goes for a block placing himself between a bigger opponent and the hoop [business decision] (see Durant dunkfest 2017 finals, among many others). Ramming his way to the hoop? Ok. His dunks? Carter, McGrady, Lavine, Richardson, heck even Nate Robinson has better and more creative dunks than him, so it could not be even considered something that he is the best in the league at. His passing and court vision? I have argued this earlier in another NBA thread, and I acknowledge Lebron grow as a better passer, but he is not this magical assist genius that Lebron stans make him out to be. Watch Kidd, Nash, Stockton, and CP3 and you will know what I am talking about. He is a great passer, and he makes difficult passes, but he is nowhere near the others I mentioned in terms of passing skills. He tries a few moves as well, like MJ/Kobe shoulder shimmy to fadeaway but it looks like the one kobe would make if he had spinal injury and his move was slowed in half. He also has a stepback, but it looks a lot like Hardens, if Harden were 50 years or and had sever arthritis. Lebron is a great player, don't misunderstand, and he can get his shots, rebounds, steals, and assists with ease, but mygod is he a stiff, ungraceful, and ugly player. He is not someone whom you'd watch and dream of copying the next time you play ball. Kobe, on the other hand... #8 Kobe had a MJ fadeaway version 2.0, under the rim reverse windmill (yes it's a thing), 360 transition dunks, alley oop to himself off the board, to name a few. #24 had a slower but tighter shimmy fadeaway, shuffle step cross over to jump shot or dunk, and highly ill-advised hand in your face swish over 3-4 defenders. And let's not even begin about the footwork. To demonstrate, let's examine three Kobe highlights: 1. full court outlet pass from Horry vs Nuggets, Kobe catches it somewhere within the three point area, dribble, semi hop, right foot, left foot, reverse dunk; 2. vs. Knicks, 16-18 ft right wing, he dribbles toward the baseline with headfake, draws two defenders in the air, pivots to his right for the jumpshot; 3. the filthy move on Manu, behind the back cross over between the legs stepback fake, step through and board shot (ok this is travel-ish, as some of his moves are, but they are so fluid and graceful that it's forgivable, just like Harden's stepbacks are today). I cannot even imagine Lebron doing any of this without blatantly traveling. (All plays I mentioned here are 1 click away on youtube, so you can find them yourselves, but I want to show this as exhibit #8592 of skills comparison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVwOD4BbtmY)
- Alpha
+ Show Spoiler +There is no argument to Kobe's killer alpha mentality. The only argument than Lebron stans bring up against this is that Kobe demanded for a trade. And once again, context matters.
Time has proven Shaq to be the petulant irresponsible child in the entire Kobe-Shaq feud. At the time it was happening, it was not obvious since Shaq was such a brilliant and fun media personality and Kobe was an aloof dbag who was facing a rape trial. It was easy to hate on Kobe and side with Shaq, but now that both have matured and the story is clearer, and that Shaq's many flaws being out in the open (being overweight, not practicing, not rehabbing offseason so they can be competitive in the season, shaq being a media slut about it all, etc.) Years later, Kobe again demanded to be traded because Lakers surrounded him Smush Parker and a team far worse than Lebron ever has.
So, were Lebron and Kobe right to demand to be traded or to transfer to another team in hopes of winning a championship? NO. But what happened to their careers after this is where we draw the line. Kobe worked things with the Lakers and worked with Pau and others to win a championship, while being the leader/alpha of the group. (And stop with this Shaq carried Kobe nonsense. In their first ring, that statement is valid, but in their second and third? Kobe is at least equal to Shaq and could even be argued that he and not Shaq led that team to the championship.)
Now let's go to Lebron. Lebron did great epic things in a not-for-championship team in his first Cleveland stint. And he was right to demand for a better team. But what was his solution to this? He joined Wade team and recruited another all star to form the first (inorganic) superteam in modern NBA. I have argued to death elsewhere that I completely understand the political economy behind players controlling their destiny and careers. But you just can't have your cake and eat it too. Lebron can't be called the greatest and underperform with a superteam he helped form twice. Jordan even said that if he were Lebron and had a carreer with Wade/Bosh then Kyrie/Love, he'd have won all rings since 2010 already. Moreover, you can't criticize other players for joining other players in order to better their championship chances and turn a blind eye on Lebron, the original sinner of the super team phenomenon.
And call me old-fashioned and romantic about it, but you can't seriously agree with Lebron when he #striveforgreatness and put himself in the conversation of goat when his path to greatness is one no other goat would even consider. MJ would never call Malone and Olajuwon in their primes to chase rings? Kobe would never call TMac and Iverson to chase rings. They wanted to kill the competition.
(Bonus: Kobe saved the USA Olympics team after Lebron and company bangled it in 2004. Additional bonus: Which team did Kobe want to be traded to? The Bulls, because he wanted a team from scratch and walk the path of his idol. Bonus #3. Could you imagine MJ or Lebron flopping the way Lebron does? Bonus #4: IF Lebron joins the Sixers next season, then he is immediately disqualified from the goat conversation and will be remembered as an extremely gifted player who had a well-managed corporate identity and who undoubtedly chased rings for his legacy.)
- Narrative
+ Show Spoiler +I am the biggest Lebron fan but I want to be objective and not fall into the deification that Lebron stans are wont to do. Lebron has certainly matured as a player and has a better understanding of the game now than in his early years, and certainly better than many others. But to call him a genius savant for a pass to an open man that anyone who plays ball would have done is laughably stupid. Lebron in his first Cavs years would even reply to reporters something like "you know I only finished high school..." or something like that, and his image (adided by Nike and his marketing team) tightened it up since he went to Miami. This is reflected in his later media appearances as he has matured enough already to say the right things and not let out any negativity in public. His efforts to extend beyond basketball and get involved in social issues is commendable, not even MJ went that far. But it is in his personal unguarded moments that Lebon shows his weird side. Remember the man in the mirror IG post? Zero dark thirty? Letter to himself for a stat that he is about to reach? If not for his on court greatness, Lebron might as well be a cringe teenage emo chick.
Let's go to the stats part. I concede Lebron's greatness makes it possible for him to break records left and right. But it is a byproduct of his realization after Miami that he can't reach MJ's legacy by being the leader of a championship team to match or have more rings than MJ. Hence he went for the numbers. Again, context matters. Westbrook has proven that you can be a stat monster and be a terrible player.
Some specific points now:
1. Lebron makes his teammates better
2. He is a better passer/makes the correct play
First, although he is not on Westbrook level poison to his teammates, but how did he make Wade and Bosh better? Allen saved him. And he jumped ship when he knew he can't win with them anymore. What about Kyrie and Love? Kyrie left him, that's all you need to know about him improving his teammates. (For a concrete example of a player improving their teammates, see Nash, Kidd, Magic, and to an extent Duncan.) Better passer and make the correct play? If I remember correctly, someone in the offseason thread showed that Kobe was a better passer in clutch situations and had a better pass/conversion ratio.
What about Kobe? Kobe was all about basketball and winning. He had the rape case (non-basketball), being a douche and a loner (also non-basketball), pouty series against the Suns (basketball), but you can't argue that it was manufactured for legacy and not out of sheer desire to win and be the best.
- The ultimate measurement
+ Show Spoiler +Last point, and this is will be brief. Would you agree with me that a good way to compare which of the two things is better is to actually put them side by side. Fortunately for us, Kobe and Lebron played in the same era. What happened in the times they went one on one? #DOMINATE.
(Let me sneak this one in since it is related. This was ancient Kobe vs. prime Lebron too. And now at 15 years people see Lebron dunk and think it's never been done before. Kobe was still competitive at 18 seasons and was a legitimate contender until the achilles injusry. MJ was still banging at 40. And Kareem was still MVP level at 38.)
for example a players 20 points in the first quarter has less value than a 2 point at the final minute of the fourth quarter that ties the game. this is even more true for players who average 20+ points per game with high ur. can u post the reasoning for this, i mean without the 20 points, u could have been down by 15 in the 4th and the 2 points would not have tied the game. great question. and i love answering this question frim friends when they ask about sports stat stuff. but before i answer do you mind answering a few questions related to it? im not baiting or hanging or anything but i want to see perspective of others on this. 1.do you play basketball? 2.what level: >a.not skillfully, just exercise >b.community ymca level >c.could compete with college varsity >d.g-league level 3.when you watch nba what are the thinks that you actively look at? 4.how do you value players especially max or near max level players?
I'm not the one you asked but I'm the OP you first replied to and I'm genuinely curious to know about this stat thing too, so I'll give it a go also
1. yes
2. +-5 years ago, maybe could win 5/10 against college guys, but now that I'm older, just a bit of competitive exercise
3. Players moves (Kobeeeee) and team offensive and defensive schemes, as far as I can identify them
4. If they can be reliable to give the team wins (Sorry DD, I like you as a player, but you're not there yet)
|
On May 02 2018 15:41 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 08:32 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On May 02 2018 00:08 zev318 wrote:On May 01 2018 21:23 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On April 30 2018 22:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:KOBE > LEBRON- 5 > 3
+ Show Spoiler +I'll start with this one since this is the most obvious. Let me also stress that this is not an in-a-vacuum Shaquesque "ringz erneh" argument that implies having more rings means being a better player. Now having said that, we are fortunate that Kobe and Lebron's career actually overlapped. We can argue about which conference is stronger or whose team was more stacked, but those contingencies are part of real life. In the end, winning matters. This is why historically great players such as Barkley, Olajuwon, Ewing, Malone, Drexler, etc. are sidelined because someone else in their era was considered the winner. The fact of the matter is Kobe and Lebron played in the same era, and Kobe won more than Lebron [See Duncan in point #2]. Here's a gem straight from the goat's mouth: "There's something about 5 being more that 3..."
- Why we watch basketball
+ Show Spoiler +Basketball is a spectators' sport. Other than which team wins, a great part of watching basketball is the pleasure of watching players do their thing. (Before I go further on this, this is the reason why Duncan's "fundamental" basketball takes him out of the goat conversation despite winning 5 just like Kobe.) Being a winner makes one great, but being a winner AND having great basketball skills makes one goat. This is why Kareem, who is a consumate winner, an articulate and well-educated social activist in a time when it was needed the most, and generally a skillful basketball player is often left out of the goat conversation, even though he has a very good argument to be number one. Sure he owned the "sky hook", but does not get fans jumping up in the air with excitement, and that is all he has in terms of moves. This is also why other winners such as Robinson, Zeke, Cousy, Pippen, Fisher, etc. are not only not even within the fringes of greatest conversation, but are easy to forget unless we see them on tv. Conversely, this is also why "non-winners" who have beautiful fancy games are still loved and imitated today, such as Iverson, TMac, Carter, and why we have such special admiration for winners and skillful players like Magic, Hakeem, and MJ. Now let's play a little game before I go and count the ways on Kobe - name me a Lebron signature move. Chasedown block? Well yeah. But we have to add that it is mostly against smaller guards, and he very rarely goes for a block placing himself between a bigger opponent and the hoop [business decision] (see Durant dunkfest 2017 finals, among many others). Ramming his way to the hoop? Ok. His dunks? Carter, McGrady, Lavine, Richardson, heck even Nate Robinson has better and more creative dunks than him, so it could not be even considered something that he is the best in the league at. His passing and court vision? I have argued this earlier in another NBA thread, and I acknowledge Lebron grow as a better passer, but he is not this magical assist genius that Lebron stans make him out to be. Watch Kidd, Nash, Stockton, and CP3 and you will know what I am talking about. He is a great passer, and he makes difficult passes, but he is nowhere near the others I mentioned in terms of passing skills. He tries a few moves as well, like MJ/Kobe shoulder shimmy to fadeaway but it looks like the one kobe would make if he had spinal injury and his move was slowed in half. He also has a stepback, but it looks a lot like Hardens, if Harden were 50 years or and had sever arthritis. Lebron is a great player, don't misunderstand, and he can get his shots, rebounds, steals, and assists with ease, but mygod is he a stiff, ungraceful, and ugly player. He is not someone whom you'd watch and dream of copying the next time you play ball. Kobe, on the other hand... #8 Kobe had a MJ fadeaway version 2.0, under the rim reverse windmill (yes it's a thing), 360 transition dunks, alley oop to himself off the board, to name a few. #24 had a slower but tighter shimmy fadeaway, shuffle step cross over to jump shot or dunk, and highly ill-advised hand in your face swish over 3-4 defenders. And let's not even begin about the footwork. To demonstrate, let's examine three Kobe highlights: 1. full court outlet pass from Horry vs Nuggets, Kobe catches it somewhere within the three point area, dribble, semi hop, right foot, left foot, reverse dunk; 2. vs. Knicks, 16-18 ft right wing, he dribbles toward the baseline with headfake, draws two defenders in the air, pivots to his right for the jumpshot; 3. the filthy move on Manu, behind the back cross over between the legs stepback fake, step through and board shot (ok this is travel-ish, as some of his moves are, but they are so fluid and graceful that it's forgivable, just like Harden's stepbacks are today). I cannot even imagine Lebron doing any of this without blatantly traveling. (All plays I mentioned here are 1 click away on youtube, so you can find them yourselves, but I want to show this as exhibit #8592 of skills comparison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVwOD4BbtmY)
- Alpha
+ Show Spoiler +There is no argument to Kobe's killer alpha mentality. The only argument than Lebron stans bring up against this is that Kobe demanded for a trade. And once again, context matters.
Time has proven Shaq to be the petulant irresponsible child in the entire Kobe-Shaq feud. At the time it was happening, it was not obvious since Shaq was such a brilliant and fun media personality and Kobe was an aloof dbag who was facing a rape trial. It was easy to hate on Kobe and side with Shaq, but now that both have matured and the story is clearer, and that Shaq's many flaws being out in the open (being overweight, not practicing, not rehabbing offseason so they can be competitive in the season, shaq being a media slut about it all, etc.) Years later, Kobe again demanded to be traded because Lakers surrounded him Smush Parker and a team far worse than Lebron ever has.
So, were Lebron and Kobe right to demand to be traded or to transfer to another team in hopes of winning a championship? NO. But what happened to their careers after this is where we draw the line. Kobe worked things with the Lakers and worked with Pau and others to win a championship, while being the leader/alpha of the group. (And stop with this Shaq carried Kobe nonsense. In their first ring, that statement is valid, but in their second and third? Kobe is at least equal to Shaq and could even be argued that he and not Shaq led that team to the championship.)
Now let's go to Lebron. Lebron did great epic things in a not-for-championship team in his first Cleveland stint. And he was right to demand for a better team. But what was his solution to this? He joined Wade team and recruited another all star to form the first (inorganic) superteam in modern NBA. I have argued to death elsewhere that I completely understand the political economy behind players controlling their destiny and careers. But you just can't have your cake and eat it too. Lebron can't be called the greatest and underperform with a superteam he helped form twice. Jordan even said that if he were Lebron and had a carreer with Wade/Bosh then Kyrie/Love, he'd have won all rings since 2010 already. Moreover, you can't criticize other players for joining other players in order to better their championship chances and turn a blind eye on Lebron, the original sinner of the super team phenomenon.
And call me old-fashioned and romantic about it, but you can't seriously agree with Lebron when he #striveforgreatness and put himself in the conversation of goat when his path to greatness is one no other goat would even consider. MJ would never call Malone and Olajuwon in their primes to chase rings? Kobe would never call TMac and Iverson to chase rings. They wanted to kill the competition.
(Bonus: Kobe saved the USA Olympics team after Lebron and company bangled it in 2004. Additional bonus: Which team did Kobe want to be traded to? The Bulls, because he wanted a team from scratch and walk the path of his idol. Bonus #3. Could you imagine MJ or Lebron flopping the way Lebron does? Bonus #4: IF Lebron joins the Sixers next season, then he is immediately disqualified from the goat conversation and will be remembered as an extremely gifted player who had a well-managed corporate identity and who undoubtedly chased rings for his legacy.)
- Narrative
+ Show Spoiler +I am the biggest Lebron fan but I want to be objective and not fall into the deification that Lebron stans are wont to do. Lebron has certainly matured as a player and has a better understanding of the game now than in his early years, and certainly better than many others. But to call him a genius savant for a pass to an open man that anyone who plays ball would have done is laughably stupid. Lebron in his first Cavs years would even reply to reporters something like "you know I only finished high school..." or something like that, and his image (adided by Nike and his marketing team) tightened it up since he went to Miami. This is reflected in his later media appearances as he has matured enough already to say the right things and not let out any negativity in public. His efforts to extend beyond basketball and get involved in social issues is commendable, not even MJ went that far. But it is in his personal unguarded moments that Lebon shows his weird side. Remember the man in the mirror IG post? Zero dark thirty? Letter to himself for a stat that he is about to reach? If not for his on court greatness, Lebron might as well be a cringe teenage emo chick.
Let's go to the stats part. I concede Lebron's greatness makes it possible for him to break records left and right. But it is a byproduct of his realization after Miami that he can't reach MJ's legacy by being the leader of a championship team to match or have more rings than MJ. Hence he went for the numbers. Again, context matters. Westbrook has proven that you can be a stat monster and be a terrible player.
Some specific points now:
1. Lebron makes his teammates better
2. He is a better passer/makes the correct play
First, although he is not on Westbrook level poison to his teammates, but how did he make Wade and Bosh better? Allen saved him. And he jumped ship when he knew he can't win with them anymore. What about Kyrie and Love? Kyrie left him, that's all you need to know about him improving his teammates. (For a concrete example of a player improving their teammates, see Nash, Kidd, Magic, and to an extent Duncan.) Better passer and make the correct play? If I remember correctly, someone in the offseason thread showed that Kobe was a better passer in clutch situations and had a better pass/conversion ratio.
What about Kobe? Kobe was all about basketball and winning. He had the rape case (non-basketball), being a douche and a loner (also non-basketball), pouty series against the Suns (basketball), but you can't argue that it was manufactured for legacy and not out of sheer desire to win and be the best.
- The ultimate measurement
+ Show Spoiler +Last point, and this is will be brief. Would you agree with me that a good way to compare which of the two things is better is to actually put them side by side. Fortunately for us, Kobe and Lebron played in the same era. What happened in the times they went one on one? #DOMINATE.
(Let me sneak this one in since it is related. This was ancient Kobe vs. prime Lebron too. And now at 15 years people see Lebron dunk and think it's never been done before. Kobe was still competitive at 18 seasons and was a legitimate contender until the achilles injusry. MJ was still banging at 40. And Kareem was still MVP level at 38.)
for example a players 20 points in the first quarter has less value than a 2 point at the final minute of the fourth quarter that ties the game. this is even more true for players who average 20+ points per game with high ur. can u post the reasoning for this, i mean without the 20 points, u could have been down by 15 in the 4th and the 2 points would not have tied the game. great question. and i love answering this question frim friends when they ask about sports stat stuff. but before i answer do you mind answering a few questions related to it? im not baiting or hanging or anything but i want to see perspective of others on this. 1.do you play basketball? 2.what level: >a.not skillfully, just exercise >b.community ymca level >c.could compete with college varsity >d.g-league level 3.when you watch nba what are the thinks that you actively look at? 4.how do you value players especially max or near max level players? I'm not the one you asked but I'm the OP you first replied to and I'm genuinely curious to know about this stat thing too, so I'll give it a go also 1. yes 2. +-5 years ago, maybe could win 5/10 against college guys, but now that I'm older, just a bit of competitive exercise 3. Players moves (Kobeeeee) and team offensive and defensive schemes, as far as I can identify them 4. If they can be reliable to give the team wins (Sorry DD, I like you as a player, but you're not there yet)
Since this is fun:
1 Yes
2 YMCA, but I'm not great. My game is best described as a short, white, Draymond.
3 Defense and fouls
4 Players in general I evaluate based on what I consider to be relative value. As such, I typically value 1 way players much lower (particularly 1-way offensive players). This results in my evaluation of guys like Melo and Kyrie to be much lower (and most short players generally).
|
|
|
i play pickup basketball at the 2 places in the city of Toronto where the best pickup ball is played.
its a tonne of fun and i get to meet some really good players. there were no games in April due to the very cold bad weather.
On May 02 2018 11:54 JimmiC wrote:
The bad news is they lose, the good news I guess is Vanvleet missed 2 open threes for the win (one super open) and Miles, Derozn and JV all missed tipins for the win. So it was very winnable. But still disappointing as fuck.
nothing i love more than back-up PG talk. VanVleet's 3 looks off to me. he is 2-10 since his return.
i'm not convinced VanVleet's right shoulder is 100%. He used to never wear a t-shirt thing under his uniform. Since his return he wears one all the time. God knows what kind of brace or bandage or whatever is underneath that t-shirt.
since VanVleet's return .. the times i've seen VanVleet go down VanVleet's team mates make a point of always picking him up by his left arm.
until VanVleet can prove he can hit the 3 Cleveland would be wise to make him their lowest priority cover on the 3-point line. I'd make Wright, Lowry, CJ and OG a much higher priority on the 3 point line.
On May 02 2018 16:01 cLutZ wrote:
4 Players in general I evaluate based on what I consider to be relative value. As such, I typically value 1 way players much lower (particularly 1-way offensive players). This results in my evaluation of guys like Melo and Kyrie to be much lower (and most short players generally).
for the 1st year ever Derozan's offense is finally worth more than his weak defense. Derozan is almost always an opponent's 1st choice as victim on a PnR play. Derozan is an over-rated box score stuffer. So far, Toronto's most impressive and dominant run in the playoffs occurred with Derozan's ass stapled to the bench.
On May 02 2018 21:43 JimmiC wrote:
2. I used to play a spring league with Canadian College guys (think div 2-3 NCAA) Now I'm old and do pick up rarely.
do you know how good Canadian College is compared to CIAU basketball? i went to Waterloo and during my entire time there the basketball team won about 15 games. 
the best basketball player in the school lived on my residence floor in 1st year and he didn't play on the team. Waterloo is a co-op school and he wanted to work in Seattle for his work term so he figured it would be a waste of time to play part of a year.
|
On May 02 2018 11:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
this looks like the Raptors 2015 offense. LOL.
i think the 4th quarter is exactly what everyone was worried about. when shit got real, the raptors would just revert back to iso derozen/lowry only, and they did.
|
Ok so thanks everyone who answered the questions. i didnt mean to be probing but i just want to have a good feel of where you come from on this topic.
+ Show Spoiler +A little caveat first. sports analytics is not perfect and most of the time the modeling process is backwards.
we look at the base phenomenon, identify operative functions or things that are essential to that phenomenon, construct models, and synthesize a new phenomenon regardless of contingencies and hope to recreate the base phenomenon.
this explains why you have a 3pt trigger happy cp3 in houston now and why warriors burst alway come midway in the second or in the third quarter.
because of this and because of the many variables and involved in any given model-making, no one or even two or stat points will ever be an absolute measurement of value no matter what value you want to identify.
in the offense it is much easier since mostly its all about points and assist. but defensive ratings are a wash. anyone who says there is a stat that measures a players value on defense is lying or is an ignorant. state like ortg and drtg and apm might be nice for the players to know especially those how are number conscious, but its only the 5th or 6th stat that coaches and advanced stat staff look at.
ratings only work reliably on what we call high performing players on defense who are good performers on two metrics: above average on points allowed on iso plays and 80% or better on phantom set performance.
and yes draymond green is a monster on these metrics, as well as battier, ariza, and pippen. james is a bad performer because he has a tendency to be off play most of the time. call it laziness or preserving energy but numbers are numbers.
you might be interested on phantom set as its not a casually popular term but its a simple one. on any defensive or offensive sets points are plotted where players should ideally be positioned. the performance measures how closely a player ranges within the plotted point.
it is not perfect tho because it assumes all offensive players are equal and does not yet fully incorporate indiviual skills and performance.
for example the point against curry on the 30ft area should be within 5 feet while you can sag well below the three point line when austin rivers is still 30ft out. but this is being worked into the system.
anyway on to the point. the question is why is 20 points in the first quarter less valuable than 2 points that equalize at the end of the fourth.
a little bit of anecdote now first, to all of us who have played some sort of competitive ball in our lives we know for a fact that you can afford to be a little lazy or sloppy in the 1at or 2nd quarter but when the gameis close down the stretch, you have to play well and perfectly.
given all things equal with parity in teams we can always set an standard scoring range in games, lets call this standard control 1. lets assume the mean total is 100 for ease, per 100 possessions. lets also simplify to 25 per quarter.
so given all things equal, a player can score 20 in q1 that is very good only if the player averages well below 20 per game. for the stars, that is an almost insignificant achievement because it just falls within the variables of standard control 1.
and when the game is close within the 5 minute mark of the 4th that 20 pts in the first quarter is even more less valuable. stars are expected to get their numbers. their value is determined how they break away from the standard contorls.
there are many complications to this, to scoring performance in specific points of the game, lets call this auxiliary regression, and lets note 3: 1.defense gets tighter and more refined in the 4th 2.there is a way to determine a players scoring performance based on physiology - lactic acid, o2 intake, mileage, momentum. 3.opportunity cost.
number 1 is self explanatory. #2 is an old idea but present teams trainers and conditioning staff manipulate this so maximize scoring efficiency. the spurs were among the first to adopt this iirc, as well as warriors, rockets, and 6ers. this is also why hornets, pacers, kings, are glaring examples of old school nba that gets eaten alive by modern systems.
#3 is tricky. the best way to explain this is how kobe explained it in details. he said it was a mistake to take a 18ft jump shot in the 1st even if he makes it. passing it to ariza and him not making it is more valuable than him not passing but making it.
that 2pts in the first quarter by kobe limits the ability of other players to get into the game. remember again standard control. kobe has high ur enough that he ccan get his shots anytime in the game. but getting 20 points in the first is bad if it means it limits others contribution when you can that 20 at the 4th especially when the game is close.
so that's it. it could be explained more but thats it lol.
the examples i used are general and im not the best writer but i hope my points are clear. i didnt want to digress to much but i am currently crunching some numbers as well so its easy to get carried away.
|
|
|
|
|
i was the last cut in 2006. to put this into perspective... the Waterloo Warriors won exactly 0 games that year. Waterloo is considered a big time school for its academics not its athletics. The co-op program forces athletics way down on the priority list for most students.
I think Carleton can compete with NCAA Division 1, but i'd say the rest of the CIAU would get stomped by Division 1 teams. 10 years ago i think CIAU >> Canadian College. I don't know about nowadays though.
|
|
|
On May 03 2018 02:07 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:
Ok so thanks everyone who answered the questions. i didnt mean to be probing but i just want to have a good feel of where you come from on this topic.
Thanks for responding. Wow this is too much to digest.
and yes draymond green is a monster on these metrics, as well as battier, ariza, and pippen. james is a bad performer because he has a tendency to be off play most of the time. call it laziness or preserving energy but numbers are numbers.
you might be interested on phantom set as its not a casually popular term but its a simple one. on any defensive or offensive sets points are plotted where players should ideally be positioned. the performance measures how closely a player ranges within the plotted point.
Could you elaborate on this? Does this mean that it measures the players distance compared to the ideal position?
anyway on to the point. the question is why is 20 points in the first quarter less valuable than 2 points that equalize at the end of the fourth.
there are many complications to this, to scoring performance in specific points of the game, lets call this auxiliary regression, and lets note 3: 1.defense gets tighter and more refined in the 4th 2.there is a way to determine a players scoring performance based on physiology - lactic acid, o2 intake, mileage, momentum. 3.opportunity cost.
It seems like what you imply here is that teams "manage" the rhythm of the game and deliberately score more on some quarters than others? Is this correct? I get that GSW always seem to break in the third and blow the game by 15-20 point leads, but what happens when they don't? I don't have data know but I'm sure there are games where GSW or other teams have more or less equal scoring distributed within quarters, or more in some than others and not necessarily just in a particular quarter. So it's more or less random. How does analytics account for this?
that 2pts in the first quarter by kobe limits the ability of other players to get into the game. remember again standard control. kobe has high ur enough that he ccan get his shots anytime in the game. but getting 20 points in the first is bad if it means it limits others contribution when you can that 20 at the 4th especially when the game is close.
I noticed this too. Interesting thought indeed. I think the important thing here is that the player must be a proficient scorer who can turn it on any time so that they can allow their teammates to contribute and be in rhythm early?
|
VanVleet's Right Shoulder
during the shoot-around Q&A VanVleet acknowledged he is playing through shoulder pain and "they'll have to cut my arm off to stop me from playing".
+ Show Spoiler +
so if i'm Cleveland i'm playing off VanVleet and daring him to shoot the 3.
On May 03 2018 05:02 JimmiC wrote:
So you played 04 and 05? We were pretty bad at that time did you travel out west? Can you link your profile?
nope, i entered Waterloo in September 2006.
however. bad you claim your school was at inter-university athletics.. i can assure you my school was worse
+ Show Spoiler +due to a poster on here following me around and sending unwanted PMs for a long periods of time who also acknowledges he PMs with you i can not do that. sry. if you do some digging through my posts you can probably figure out my identity though. Remember, i'm related to Rob Cowie, former LA King and Maple Leafs scout.
from what i recall the Warriors only played in Ontario during the 2006-7 season.
there was a year when i was at Waterloo where both the football team and the basketball team won 0 games. that might have been 2006/2007. i can't recall.
it was pretty hilarious though.
|
|
|
i wonder if Mitchell will object to returning to his old, lesser role, in the Jazz offense once Rubio returns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
