dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:i have to believe that both the player and the team are taking full advantage of the access they have to these rankings. it's hard to argue with these numbers. personally i think they provide a more accurate value system than win share and PER.

Teams employ people to do their own data mining too. I imagine they have all kid of numbers besides the box score stats fans use. That doesn't mean that this stat isn't useful but that there are all kind of numbers available. Kevi Durant used to employ a personal advance statistician

yeah durant was probably among the first to do so. i remember the NYT magazine had an article on that. it was primarily shot charting. then there was another article about the guy who created a company out of this service, where he stated that he and durant looked at all aspects of his game and tried to shore up wherever he was weak so that he could become a complete player.

i really think the value of this stat of RPM is that it could be the most accurate picture of what a positive-sum player is-- though i'd be happy to be taught why it isn't.

short of being a complete player, a positive-sum player is the next best thing.

spurs have 5 players in the top 40.
heat have 2.
clips have 3.
okc has 4.
memphis has 2.
knicks had 1: ty chandler

if your stat has Chandler as the Knick's 1 positive sum player then that stat sucks. Sorry. Open your eyes.

it's a net positive sum, meaning that it takes both offense and defense numbers. he is not an offensive player, and he isn't suited to the triangle. now if you want to castigate him for his defense that's another story. the numbers don't lie.

they dont? Did you watch Chandler play last year? What do the numbers actually say? Because I have Chandler as a zero sum player last year on both ends and these #s dont lie either:
http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK18.HTM

Knicks were just as good defensively when Tyson was off the floor. Opposing centers shot .533 eFG% so he wasnt locking anyone down. Not sure what #s your looking at by I cant find anything that says Chandler had any impact on defense (last year).

you can't post an entire page without citing which numbers we are supposed to look at to support your case. what garbage posting-- do a little work so you can actually earn the right to get schooled by me, k?

fishmike will often use that site to support his argument. however, I explained to him that he does not apply it correctly. for example he used the +/- to try to expalin that the knicks were a winning team with carmelo on the floor.. I asked how is that possible when he played more minutes than anyone in the NBA and the knicks have a losing record, at the time we were waaaaaay under .500

what he didn't understand about that stat is that it tells us that with carmelo on the floor the knicks are better, but not a winning team. for example.. without carmelo on the floor the knicks can be -15, but with him on the floor we can be -7... better, but still not good or winning..

so it is no surprise that he didn't cite the numbers to look at...

437 players:

Amare 422
THJ 432!!!!! And this is the next reggie miller?

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:i have to believe that both the player and the team are taking full advantage of the access they have to these rankings. it's hard to argue with these numbers. personally i think they provide a more accurate value system than win share and PER.

Teams employ people to do their own data mining too. I imagine they have all kid of numbers besides the box score stats fans use. That doesn't mean that this stat isn't useful but that there are all kind of numbers available. Kevi Durant used to employ a personal advance statistician

yeah durant was probably among the first to do so. i remember the NYT magazine had an article on that. it was primarily shot charting. then there was another article about the guy who created a company out of this service, where he stated that he and durant looked at all aspects of his game and tried to shore up wherever he was weak so that he could become a complete player.

i really think the value of this stat of RPM is that it could be the most accurate picture of what a positive-sum player is-- though i'd be happy to be taught why it isn't.

short of being a complete player, a positive-sum player is the next best thing.

spurs have 5 players in the top 40.
heat have 2.
clips have 3.
okc has 4.
memphis has 2.
knicks had 1: ty chandler

if your stat has Chandler as the Knick's 1 positive sum player then that stat sucks. Sorry. Open your eyes.

it's a net positive sum, meaning that it takes both offense and defense numbers. he is not an offensive player, and he isn't suited to the triangle. now if you want to castigate him for his defense that's another story. the numbers don't lie.

they dont? Did you watch Chandler play last year? What do the numbers actually say? Because I have Chandler as a zero sum player last year on both ends and these #s dont lie either:
http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK18.HTM

Knicks were just as good defensively when Tyson was off the floor. Opposing centers shot .533 eFG% so he wasnt locking anyone down. Not sure what #s your looking at by I cant find anything that says Chandler had any impact on defense (last year).

Wait, are you really challenging the idea that the defense was a few points better when Tyson was at center than when Bargs or Amare was? What you cited was only the man-to-man defensive #s, nothing about help defense.

Knicks defense was literally the same regardless of Tyson being on the court or off.

Points Scored 3429 4655 -1226
Points Allowed 3416 4733 -1317
A pretty even sample size no?

Effective FG% Allowed 51.7% 51.1% +0.6%
Here's one that says Knicks were a little better with Tyson

Rebounding
Offensive Rebounding 28.7% 26.8% +1.9%
Defensive Rebounding 73.1% 70.5% +2.6%
Total Rebounding 50.9% 48.6% +2.3%
If you want to find one positive the Knicks were a better rebounding team with Tyson on the floor

Bonn... do you disagree with these #s? I mean when Tyson isnt on the floor who was? Bargs? Amare? Cole? Tyler? I mean if Tyson's backup was some defensive specialist OK.. maybe thats not fair, but the fact that this shows the Knicks were simply not better defensively with him on the floor says a lot doesnt? And you watched I think you would have observed the same

tkf wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:i have to believe that both the player and the team are taking full advantage of the access they have to these rankings. it's hard to argue with these numbers. personally i think they provide a more accurate value system than win share and PER.

Teams employ people to do their own data mining too. I imagine they have all kid of numbers besides the box score stats fans use. That doesn't mean that this stat isn't useful but that there are all kind of numbers available. Kevi Durant used to employ a personal advance statistician

yeah durant was probably among the first to do so. i remember the NYT magazine had an article on that. it was primarily shot charting. then there was another article about the guy who created a company out of this service, where he stated that he and durant looked at all aspects of his game and tried to shore up wherever he was weak so that he could become a complete player.

i really think the value of this stat of RPM is that it could be the most accurate picture of what a positive-sum player is-- though i'd be happy to be taught why it isn't.

short of being a complete player, a positive-sum player is the next best thing.

spurs have 5 players in the top 40.
heat have 2.
clips have 3.
okc has 4.
memphis has 2.
knicks had 1: ty chandler

if your stat has Chandler as the Knick's 1 positive sum player then that stat sucks. Sorry. Open your eyes.

it's a net positive sum, meaning that it takes both offense and defense numbers. he is not an offensive player, and he isn't suited to the triangle. now if you want to castigate him for his defense that's another story. the numbers don't lie.

they dont? Did you watch Chandler play last year? What do the numbers actually say? Because I have Chandler as a zero sum player last year on both ends and these #s dont lie either:
http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK18.HTM

Knicks were just as good defensively when Tyson was off the floor. Opposing centers shot .533 eFG% so he wasnt locking anyone down. Not sure what #s your looking at by I cant find anything that says Chandler had any impact on defense (last year).

Wait, are you really challenging the idea that the defense was a few points better when Tyson was at center than when Bargs or Amare was? What you cited was only the man-to-man defensive #s, nothing about help defense.

translation: his post is garbage

dk isnt time for you and your fluff buddy to crying to the moderators? Seems your getting a little testy.

why not reply to the post instead of posting such childish drivel? you talk about crying to the moderators, it was you and others crying that got them on here.. they just happen to be in your pro carmelo camp.. one that is about to jump ship to chicago.. Praise the lord...

Bonn if you want to set me straight on those #s Im open to listening....

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:i have to believe that both the player and the team are taking full advantage of the access they have to these rankings. it's hard to argue with these numbers. personally i think they provide a more accurate value system than win share and PER.

Teams employ people to do their own data mining too. I imagine they have all kid of numbers besides the box score stats fans use. That doesn't mean that this stat isn't useful but that there are all kind of numbers available. Kevi Durant used to employ a personal advance statistician

yeah durant was probably among the first to do so. i remember the NYT magazine had an article on that. it was primarily shot charting. then there was another article about the guy who created a company out of this service, where he stated that he and durant looked at all aspects of his game and tried to shore up wherever he was weak so that he could become a complete player.

i really think the value of this stat of RPM is that it could be the most accurate picture of what a positive-sum player is-- though i'd be happy to be taught why it isn't.

short of being a complete player, a positive-sum player is the next best thing.

spurs have 5 players in the top 40.
heat have 2.
clips have 3.
okc has 4.
memphis has 2.
knicks had 1: ty chandler

if your stat has Chandler as the Knick's 1 positive sum player then that stat sucks. Sorry. Open your eyes.

it's a net positive sum, meaning that it takes both offense and defense numbers. he is not an offensive player, and he isn't suited to the triangle. now if you want to castigate him for his defense that's another story. the numbers don't lie.

they dont? Did you watch Chandler play last year? What do the numbers actually say? Because I have Chandler as a zero sum player last year on both ends and these #s dont lie either:
http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK18.HTM

Knicks were just as good defensively when Tyson was off the floor. Opposing centers shot .533 eFG% so he wasnt locking anyone down. Not sure what #s your looking at by I cant find anything that says Chandler had any impact on defense (last year).

Wait, are you really challenging the idea that the defense was a few points better when Tyson was at center than when Bargs or Amare was? What you cited was only the man-to-man defensive #s, nothing about help defense.

no... what I cited was the Knicks TEAM defense when Chandler is on the floor vs. off the floor.
Knicks with Tyson | Knicks w/o Tyson
Offense: Pts per 100 Poss. 111.1 107.6 +3.5
Defense: Pts per 100 Poss. 110.3 110.5 -0.2

Knicks defense was literally the same regardless of Tyson being on the court or off.

Points Scored 3429 4655 -1226
Points Allowed 3416 4733 -1317
A pretty even sample size no?

Effective FG% Allowed 51.7% 51.1% +0.6%
Here's one that says Knicks were a little better with Tyson

Rebounding
Offensive Rebounding 28.7% 26.8% +1.9%
Defensive Rebounding 73.1% 70.5% +2.6%
Total Rebounding 50.9% 48.6% +2.3%
If you want to find one positive the Knicks were a better rebounding team with Tyson on the floor

Bonn... do you disagree with these #s? I mean when Tyson isnt on the floor who was? Bargs? Amare? Cole? Tyler? I mean if Tyson's backup was some defensive specialist OK.. maybe thats not fair, but the fact that this shows the Knicks were simply not better defensively with him on the floor says a lot doesnt? And you watched I think you would have observed the same

no it means that the knicks roster was compromised back in february 2011 when carmelo was brought in by dolan over walsh's and d'antoni's dead bodies.

it's a domino effect that jackson is now trying to stop which is why melo cannot hope to get max money here in ny.

mreinman wrote:

mreinman wrote:any stat that has Amare at the absolute bottom of 430 players has my attention.

437 players:

Amare 422
THJ 432!!!!! And this is the next reggie miller?

Bumping my post since it was washed and wasted in another stupid intifada

Wow, Amar'e is your whipping boy. THJ gets a slight pass because of being a rookie and I will blame coaching some. However you can't stop the TKF/DK/Fish train you just have to sit and wait for it to pass by like everyone else.

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

mreinman wrote:any stat that has Amare at the absolute bottom of 430 players has my attention.

437 players:

Amare 422
THJ 432!!!!! And this is the next reggie miller?

Bumping my post since it was washed and wasted in another stupid intifada

Wow, Amar'e is your whipping boy. THJ gets a slight pass because of being a rookie and I will blame coaching some. However you can't stop the TKF/DK/Fish train you just have to sit and wait for it to pass by like everyone else.

I really really really hated the Amare signing and hated (even more) that he did not get amnestied. Talk about setting a franchise back ... ugh

THJ can get a slight pass but people on this board (as usual with our kiddies) are way overrating him.

Yeah ... it would be nice if they had a Fish vs. Tkf-DK sticky so that every thread does not get shat on. It makes posting here much less fun.

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:i have to believe that both the player and the team are taking full advantage of the access they have to these rankings. it's hard to argue with these numbers. personally i think they provide a more accurate value system than win share and PER.

Teams employ people to do their own data mining too. I imagine they have all kid of numbers besides the box score stats fans use. That doesn't mean that this stat isn't useful but that there are all kind of numbers available. Kevi Durant used to employ a personal advance statistician

yeah durant was probably among the first to do so. i remember the NYT magazine had an article on that. it was primarily shot charting. then there was another article about the guy who created a company out of this service, where he stated that he and durant looked at all aspects of his game and tried to shore up wherever he was weak so that he could become a complete player.

i really think the value of this stat of RPM is that it could be the most accurate picture of what a positive-sum player is-- though i'd be happy to be taught why it isn't.

short of being a complete player, a positive-sum player is the next best thing.

spurs have 5 players in the top 40.
heat have 2.
clips have 3.
okc has 4.
memphis has 2.
knicks had 1: ty chandler

if your stat has Chandler as the Knick's 1 positive sum player then that stat sucks. Sorry. Open your eyes.

it's a net positive sum, meaning that it takes both offense and defense numbers. he is not an offensive player, and he isn't suited to the triangle. now if you want to castigate him for his defense that's another story. the numbers don't lie.

they dont? Did you watch Chandler play last year? What do the numbers actually say? Because I have Chandler as a zero sum player last year on both ends and these #s dont lie either:
http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK18.HTM

Knicks were just as good defensively when Tyson was off the floor. Opposing centers shot .533 eFG% so he wasnt locking anyone down. Not sure what #s your looking at by I cant find anything that says Chandler had any impact on defense (last year).

Wait, are you really challenging the idea that the defense was a few points better when Tyson was at center than when Bargs or Amare was? What you cited was only the man-to-man defensive #s, nothing about help defense.

no... what I cited was the Knicks TEAM defense when Chandler is on the floor vs. off the floor.
Knicks with Tyson | Knicks w/o Tyson
Offense: Pts per 100 Poss. 111.1 107.6 +3.5
Defense: Pts per 100 Poss. 110.3 110.5 -0.2

Knicks defense was literally the same regardless of Tyson being on the court or off.

Points Scored 3429 4655 -1226
Points Allowed 3416 4733 -1317
A pretty even sample size no?

Effective FG% Allowed 51.7% 51.1% +0.6%
Here's one that says Knicks were a little better with Tyson

Rebounding
Offensive Rebounding 28.7% 26.8% +1.9%
Defensive Rebounding 73.1% 70.5% +2.6%
Total Rebounding 50.9% 48.6% +2.3%
If you want to find one positive the Knicks were a better rebounding team with Tyson on the floor

Bonn... do you disagree with these #s? I mean when Tyson isnt on the floor who was? Bargs? Amare? Cole? Tyler? I mean if Tyson's backup was some defensive specialist OK.. maybe thats not fair, but the fact that this shows the Knicks were simply not better defensively with him on the floor says a lot doesnt? And you watched I think you would have observed the same

no it means that the knicks roster was compromised back in february 2011 when carmelo was brought in by dolan over walsh's and d'antoni's dead bodies.

it's a domino effect that jackson is now trying to stop which is why melo cannot hope to get max money here in ny.

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:i have to believe that both the player and the team are taking full advantage of the access they have to these rankings. it's hard to argue with these numbers. personally i think they provide a more accurate value system than win share and PER.

Teams employ people to do their own data mining too. I imagine they have all kid of numbers besides the box score stats fans use. That doesn't mean that this stat isn't useful but that there are all kind of numbers available. Kevi Durant used to employ a personal advance statistician

yeah durant was probably among the first to do so. i remember the NYT magazine had an article on that. it was primarily shot charting. then there was another article about the guy who created a company out of this service, where he stated that he and durant looked at all aspects of his game and tried to shore up wherever he was weak so that he could become a complete player.

i really think the value of this stat of RPM is that it could be the most accurate picture of what a positive-sum player is-- though i'd be happy to be taught why it isn't.

short of being a complete player, a positive-sum player is the next best thing.

spurs have 5 players in the top 40.
heat have 2.
clips have 3.
okc has 4.
memphis has 2.
knicks had 1: ty chandler

if your stat has Chandler as the Knick's 1 positive sum player then that stat sucks. Sorry. Open your eyes.

it's a net positive sum, meaning that it takes both offense and defense numbers. he is not an offensive player, and he isn't suited to the triangle. now if you want to castigate him for his defense that's another story. the numbers don't lie.

they dont? Did you watch Chandler play last year? What do the numbers actually say? Because I have Chandler as a zero sum player last year on both ends and these #s dont lie either:
http://www.82games.com/1314/13NYK18.HTM

Knicks were just as good defensively when Tyson was off the floor. Opposing centers shot .533 eFG% so he wasnt locking anyone down. Not sure what #s your looking at by I cant find anything that says Chandler had any impact on defense (last year).

you can't post an entire page without citing which numbers we are supposed to look at to support your case. what garbage posting-- do a little work so you can actually earn the right to get schooled by me, k?

newyorknewyork wrote:Tyson Chandler has been absolute garbage in the playoffs every yr since we signed him. Everything else doesn't really matter.