foosballnick wrote:AB is not a perfect player. I suspect that if he was a very good two way player, he would not be on the Knicks right now. But is he worthless?My issue is that some are throwing around individual peformance statistics to substantiate just how much of a liability that Bargs is to a team. There are several problems with this theory.
1). Basketball is a kinetic, team game. What that means in terms of individual stats is that if your teammates performance can greatly sway the individual performance statistics. A pass that does not come timely or get you in the correct shooting position will effect your ability to make a shot. A pass inside for an open dunk or layup, will give you a freebee. On offense, stats can be greatly effected by who is running the offense. A true pass first PG with great vision will allow his teammates more open (and easier) shots. A lead guard who is more shot first may forego an open look to a teammate. Defensive stats can be effected by rotation or assignment. A slower, plodding big man might be instructed to stay at home to fight every rebound, a swifter athletic tall man, might be given the opportunity to release.
2). Individual stats do not (often) take into account non-compete type play such as garbage time. Think rebounds off a missed free throw, half court shots at the end of each quarter, desperation shots with the clock running down, end of game garbage time etc.
3). Basketball Sabremetrics are still relatively in their infancy. Some statistics are just flawed at this point. For instance, a stat that some like to throw around is TS% or true shooting percentage. The calculation is total points divided by factors of field goals and free throws attempted. The metric is supposedly a function of point efficiency........however it does not differentiate between two and three point shots, has a curious coefficient of .44 to assign to free throws based on number of possessions that free throws account for, but does not have a similar coefficient to account for successful 3 point shot possessions.
4). There are very few statistical "normalizers" in basketball. Essentially this means how would "x" player be expected to perform with a change of team or in the circumstances of "y" player......given "y" players team. Consider for instance that when Lebron James "took his talents" to Miami, in that year his Assist% , win share and offensive win shares all dropped somewhat dramatically with the change from Cleveland to Miami. Does this mean LBJ was not as good? Hardly. It means he was surrounded by better players and did not have to control the offense as much in Miami.
5). Individual stats do not always account for player roles. A bench "role player" might be very efficient for what he is called upon to do. For instance, Novak is a very good spot up three point shooter who at the end of games might be kept on the floor during offensive possessions and pulled during defensive possessions......Jared Jeffries is the opposite type player....good D....pulled during O.
6). Most of us are not statisticians. We are casually pulling and using statistics developed by others and taking it as gospel that these stats tell the entire picture. A mathmetician or statistician would tell you that when using statistics to predict an outome, the more kinetic the environment......meaning the more outside factors at a higher degree of movement, the less probability of a predicted outcome success rate.
Does this all mean AB will be successful in NY? We won't know until we see him on the floor. But those predicting performance will be the same as in Toronto do not know either. In team sports I value team wins over everything else. If the unit is working well and produces wins, it is more valuable to me than if "x" player is a volume shooter or has a lower than average TS%. We won't know if the unit works well until they play together. To predict a player will fail prior to understanding his role and the team on the floor with him is folly.
Statistics are more useful than you claim if they are properly utilized by those who understand their functions as well as their limits. The main thing you miss about stats is that they become more and more useful the larger amount of data is compiled over time.
By way of an audiovisual analogy, it is like comparing a digital "curve" for CDs to an analog curve of vinyl records. The digital curve is limited to a binary system that creates a step-like sequence from one increment of the curve to the next, whereas no such step-like sequence exists in analog-- it is smooth.
Hence the reason why some listeners insist that the analog sourcing and medium is "warmer" than anything a digital source and medium can convey to the ear.
Yet the more data can be packed into a CD, the number of bits, the closer the digital sound will get to the true smooth curve of analog.
Stats work in a similar way-- the more stats that you can compile for interpretation the clearer the impression is and the more effectively their illuminative-- and predictive-- power.
Bargnani has a history in the NBA. The sample size is adequate enough to account for context. The past is prelude to the future. He has never been a positive-sum player no matter how you slice it, but to simplify matters: if you give up more points on defense than you create on offense you are a negative-sum player. For inefficient scorers like Bargnani and Anthony the matter becomes compounded. If you destroy cohesion and chemistry you are a negative-sum player.
As to your denigration of the TS%, you need to do a better job of analyzing the formula itself... 3-point shots are accounted for by virtue of the total points in the numerator relative to the total FGA in the denominator. If you think about simple algebra for a moment you will understand how.
knicks win 38-43 games in 16-17. rose MUST shoot no more than 14 shots per game, defer to kp6 + melo, and have a usage rate of less than 25%
8/8/2013 4:20 PM LAST EDITED: 8/8/2013 4:21 PM