tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post2349105391609210961..comments2022-06-08T23:01:20.594-07:00Comments on NBeh?: Is Bargnani a bust?DDignamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06508911795176535945noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-91685478482436889672011-02-02T05:32:28.903-08:002011-02-02T05:32:28.903-08:00If WP is such a useless number then what would you...If WP is such a useless number then what would you use that's so much better? Your gut feeling doesn't count for much in the world of stats.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-84021619218649798692010-10-18T10:00:43.556-07:002010-10-18T10:00:43.556-07:00Nope, just the insulting tired arguments.Nope, just the insulting tired arguments.DDignamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06508911795176535945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-46927014500350860722010-10-18T09:59:16.499-07:002010-10-18T09:59:16.499-07:00I'll take it that since you're now deletin...I'll take it that since you're now deleting responses that you're admitting that you're wrong and are simply going to keep deleting. I'll expect this one to be removed forthwith as well.E.H. Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09038816873823422488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-67604774628343573312010-10-17T18:12:49.712-07:002010-10-17T18:12:49.712-07:00"It has no understanding of individual roles...."It has no understanding of individual roles...."<br /><br />Really, you need to understand what WP is about. WP is about measuring how <i>productive</i> a player is, and how many wins they create for their teams. It's not about who would win one-on-one, who looks the best, etc.<br /><br />Ah, the old usage rate argument. It'll be up on Required Readings. Other high efficiency scorers? Nash, Durant, plenty of others.<br /><br />Way to make shit up. When did I say that Wolf and Sellers were hidden gems? I said that coaches don't always know which players are the best players on their teams - I never said that all those two were "hidden gems". Good work. Off the top of my head: Kevin Love, DeJuan Blair, and Balkman are all examples of good players stuck on the bench, and there are more.<br /><br />The list of players from the 1990 draft I'd rather have (for their first 4 seasons) over Abdul-Rauf: Cedric Ceballos, Toni Kukoc, Lionel Simmons, Derrick Coleman, Loy Vaught, Tyrone Hill, Dee Brown, Antonio Davis, Kenny Williams, Gary Payton, Derek Strong, Duane Causwell, Elden Campbell, Bimbo Coles, Felton Spencer, Jud Buechler, Kendall Gill, Anthony Bonner, Terry Mills, Tony Smith, Marcus Liberty, Steve Henson, Alaa Abdelnaby, Gerald Glass, Carl Herrera, Travis Mays, Rumeal Robinson, Willie Burton, and Dennis Scott. But I wouldn't want anyone after Gill. So the Nuggets selected (at best) the 30th most productive player at #3 in the 1990 draft.<br /><br />And still you haven't cited any numbers. I've asked you three times and you have failed to do so, which tells me that either you can't or you won't. If you'd like me to read any subsequent comments, I would suggest you start using some numbers.DDignamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06508911795176535945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-26707820899358971122010-10-17T14:48:23.414-07:002010-10-17T14:48:23.414-07:00Wins Produced is still a fairly useless number, it...Wins Produced is still a fairly useless number, it has no understanding of individual roles on offense and defense (and this is a huge weakness of all the magic numbers, Hollinger at the least admits this by attempting to adjust the value of a missed field goal). Primary scorers draw extra defensive coverage, and tend to be less efficient, but their inefficiency creates greater efficiency for the other players on the floor. (Yes, LeBron is an exception given his high efficiency, but can we grant that he's a freak?)<br /><br />And, no, you don't get to cite Wolf & Sellers as two of the ten worst picks in NBA history out of one side of your mouth and then out of the other call them hidden gems who were relegated to waiving towels by stupid coaches out of the other. Wolf couldn't score efficiently as a fifth offensive option, wasn't a terribly effective rebounder, even in his limited minutes (RebRates for part time 4/5s tend to be slightly inflated). By contrast Jackson was the primary scorer for the Nuggets. Was he a great primary scorer? No. Overall he was probably an above average player. <br /><br />And none of this changes the fact that Denver drafted the third best player with the third pick in the 1990 draft. And Detroit drafted about the 20th best player in the 2003 draft with the #2 pick. And yet Jackson was one of the ten worst picks in NBA history and Darko can't even make the bottom 100? If that's what your "objective numbers" are telling you, your methodology is wrong.E.H. Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09038816873823422488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-11233411957553592842010-10-17T12:59:32.617-07:002010-10-17T12:59:32.617-07:00Anonymous #23475291 and 1/2:
My argument is objec...Anonymous #23475291 and 1/2:<br /><br />My argument is objectively based on WP, which is an objective stat. PER is highly flawed, as Berri has noted in the past. Win Shares is better, but not as good at explaining productivity as Wins Produced. That is an objective observation no matter how you want to slice it. Berri, Galletti, and Alvarez (among others) have written about this before, and the same tired criticisms have been around since the beginning.<br /><br />WP correlates very highly with win production in the NBA, much higher than PER or Win Shares. It is the best way to evaluate player productivity in the NBA.<br /><br />In the past I was skeptical of WP and treated it like any other metric. "It over-values rebounds, and treats OReb and DReb the same," I thought. But the truth is that rebounding is valuable, and missing shots and TOs are very costly. I've learned to trust WP over every other metric, and that is because it has a proven track record.<br /><br />Because of people like you, I will be creating another page on this site. From now on, if anyone raises one of the same old tired questions, I'll simply point to that page. I won't be wasting my time on these already settled questions anymore. If you really care to understand WP and player productivity, you will read everything I put up. Otherwise, feel free to live in ignorance.DDignamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06508911795176535945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-25028253670358232092010-10-17T12:00:26.447-07:002010-10-17T12:00:26.447-07:00It is your argument that is subjective. You are su...It is your argument that is subjective. You are subjectively judging, in the absence of any evidence except your metric of choice, that Abdul-Rauf was comparable to flotsam like Sellers and Wolf. By Dean Oliver's and John Hollinger's metrics, however, it's not even close. Abdul-Rauf accounted for 25.2 career Oliverian Win Shares compared with Wolf's 3.5. Wolf's Hollingerian career Player Efficiency Rating: 7.8. Abdul-Rauf's: 15.4<br /><br />Those are two metrics that say the opposite of what Berri's says. I am aware that Berri has criticisms of PER, but they're incorrect. Shooting percentage is not as important as Berri thinks. Abdul-Rauf is a perfect example. He was the leading scorer and first offensive option on a playoff team: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DEN/1995.html He was not a stretch shooter who is often open because a teammate is drawing the defense away. We can expect prime scorers like Abdul-Rauf to shoot worse than specialists for this reason. <br /><br />I think that you believe in wp48 so blindly that you have allowed it to obscure your ability to see the obvious. I mean this isn't even close. You might as well argue that Troy Murphy is the best player in the NBA (oh wait, Berri did say that at one point).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-89187658289619973392010-10-17T11:05:10.513-07:002010-10-17T11:05:10.513-07:001)First of all, we don't use win shares. We us...1)First of all, we don't use win shares. We used Wins Produced. There is a difference.<br /><br />2)You haven't told me <i>why</i> Abdul-Rauf was better than Sellers and Wolf. The old "if they were capable of being NBA starters, the would have been" argument doesn't work. We all know that coaches and GMs don't always realize who the best players are, and thus who should be starting.<br /><br />So again, tell me why Abdul-Rauf was better than Wolf and Sellers? What numbers can you use to back up your case? Give me some tangible, non-subjective reason.DDignamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06508911795176535945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-23295649272076428182010-10-17T01:26:23.172-07:002010-10-17T01:26:23.172-07:00The win shares metric is as bad, and generally use...The win shares metric is as bad, and generally useless, as any other magic number. Galletti's list is case in point. Win shares tells him that there were nearly 160 worse picks than Darko Milicic. And Darko is the <i>biggest</i> bust of the last decade. Yes, even bigger than Kwame Brown as Washington didn't pass up Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh to draft him. (There was one player as good as Bosh available in 2001.)<br /><br />As for Chris Jackson, he was the primary scorer on a poor team. Sellers & Wolf were bench fodder. And in Sellers case short term bench fodder. If they were capable of being NBA starters, they would have been. And you can't compare Jackson to third picks in good drafts and call him a bust because you have to show that there were much better options available. And in 1990 there weren't.E.H. Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09038816873823422488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-43245480360383822892010-10-16T21:04:15.469-07:002010-10-16T21:04:15.469-07:00ehmunro:
So much to talk about, and so many ways ...ehmunro:<br /><br />So much to talk about, and so many ways I could respond. We'll go point by point, and I'll pretend that you weren't so vulgar.<br /><br />Why do you say Abdul-Rauf was more productive than Joe Wolf and Brad Sellers? As I said above, Wins Produced actually tells us that Abdul-Rauf <i>was</i> more productive than those two, but I want to hear your explanation.<br /><br />We'll address those other points after this one.DDignamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06508911795176535945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-27643251831564680182010-10-16T18:45:32.102-07:002010-10-16T18:45:32.102-07:00One, Chris Jackson was a whole lot more productive...One, Chris Jackson was a whole lot more productive Joe Wolf and Brad Sellers, and if you have a statistic that tells you otherwise, <i>stop fucking using it,</i> because it sucks like Paris Hilton after a fifth of Black Death vodka. Two, Galletti's list is fucked nine ways from nowhere because the one thing you <i>can't</i> do is claim that a player is a bust by comparing his production to other players selected in other years at a similar spot. For one, in 1984 you had some really great choices at #3. In 1990 there was Jackson and pretty much nothing else. mean, sure, there were roleplayers like Ty Hill & Toni Kukoc, but if the Nuggets had drafted either of them they'd be even higher on that bust list.E.H. Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09038816873823422488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-50676602051521084312010-10-15T19:16:42.828-07:002010-10-15T19:16:42.828-07:00Thanks for the SF, and PF numbers Devin,
I know B...Thanks for the SF, and PF numbers Devin,<br /><br />I know Bargs is a defensive 5, I just thought it would be cool to see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-40497046328977946252010-10-15T14:14:00.629-07:002010-10-15T14:14:00.629-07:00New post with Bargnani moved to SF is up.
Anonymo...New post with Bargnani moved to SF is up.<br /><br />Anonymous: the draft scorecard - created by Arturo Galletti - ranks picks compared to the average production level offered by players taken at that pick. Abdul-Rauf was the 3rd pick in the 1990 draft, and remember, after the 1st pick, the 3rd pick is expected to be the most productive. His WP48, or per-minute production, was slightly larger than both Joe Wolf and Brad Sellers, but also way below what we should expect from a 3rd pick. So yes, you are partly correct: Abdul-Rauf was a better player than Wolf and Sellers.<br /><br />But a better comparison for Abdul-Rauf would be Adam Morrison - both were taken at the 3rd pick. It just so happens that Morrison was almost exactly twice as unproductive as Abdul-Rauf, and Arturo ranks him as the worst draft decision of the last 30 years.DDignamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06508911795176535945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-83428678814848587982010-10-15T12:49:53.580-07:002010-10-15T12:49:53.580-07:00It doesn't surprise me that Berri's metric...It doesn't surprise me that Berri's metric has Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf (nee Chris Jackson) as a bad player. Prime scorers on bad teams tend to be overguarded and shoot for a lower percentage. Jackson was not an overwhelming physical talent like LBJ or Jordan. He could not overwhelm and devastate his opponents. But no one in their right mind would suggest that he belongs on a list with Joe Wolf and Brad Sellers. Not even close.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-89746236228518891002010-10-15T11:36:53.128-07:002010-10-15T11:36:53.128-07:00yep really want to know where he compares to sf to...yep really want to know where he compares to sf to (always thought he should have played there... still do)<br /><br />Two things when looking at Wins Produced, as is stated they "adjusted for other factors including pace, position and team." If I'm not mistaken FG% and Rebounds have a very big influence at the C... one which Bargs completely sucks at (rebounding) but his 'style' will always result in a lower number (both rebs and %).<br /><br />Would still take Bargs over Kwame Brown any day of the week.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-18561786116794295472010-10-15T10:36:17.757-07:002010-10-15T10:36:17.757-07:00Nice post,
Nice questions posed as well,
How wo...Nice post,<br /><br />Nice questions posed as well, <br /><br />How would Bargs numbers look if here were compared to PFs and SFs?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1196014153540046218.post-15627065958061482712010-10-15T06:37:57.524-07:002010-10-15T06:37:57.524-07:00Not arguing with your evaluation of Bargnani but I...Not arguing with your evaluation of Bargnani but I've begun to wonder if the Raptors compounded the mistake of choosing him by trying to turn him into a centre. If you treat him as a SF and his stats stay the same (which, of course, they wouldn't if he were a 3), how does he look? Still costing his team games or just a below-average player?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com