GustavBahler wrote:I was concerned that AA would b worn out by the end of the season the way he was playing for a while, but he has almost completely stopped going to the paint. I think he has developed Shumpert's syndrome. Another Knick guard who has grown allergic to the rim.

offense can come and go but defense should be consistent... unless you are a poor defender. the problem with afflalo is that he is not merely inconsistent on offense but he is a constant liability on defense. i urge you and others to focus on afflalo's defense next time.

mreinman wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:affalo has not lived up to expectation at all. you'd think he'd be the 2nd highest scorer behind melo...not a rookie

who's expectations? Afflalo is exactly what afflalo always was.

Agrred, a decent offensive player at times that is highly overrated as a defender. I just hope he has trade value like he had in the past. Last year he played worst and still had value.

GustavBahler wrote:

dk7th wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:I was concerned that AA would b worn out by the end of the season the way he was playing for a while, but he has almost completely stopped going to the paint. I think he has developed Shumpert's syndrome. Another Knick guard who has grown allergic to the rim.

offense can come and go but defense should be consistent... unless you are a poor defender. the problem with afflalo is that he is not merely inconsistent on offense but he is a constant liability on defense. i urge you and others to focus on afflalo's defense next time.

We have one of the worst starting PGs in the league, I "urge" you to look at our record when AA doesnt score 20pts a game.

well although i can't stand him because of his defense, the fact is that he isn't the worst-- the point of the opening post and the stats provided is that he is actually almost holding his own for the knicks, as counterintuitive as that is. with both "real plus-minus" and WS48 calderon is about average, give or take.... just as the knicks are about average give or take.

add to that the fact that calderon's average minutes per game is only 28 minutes, fisher is limiting the damage as much as he can. however, fisher is not limiting afflalo's minutes nearly enough. thirty-three minutes a game for a player of afflalo's caliber is too many minutes. the most respected numbers on the guy are just not good at all.

GustavBahler wrote:

dk7th wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:I was concerned that AA would b worn out by the end of the season the way he was playing for a while, but he has almost completely stopped going to the paint. I think he has developed Shumpert's syndrome. Another Knick guard who has grown allergic to the rim.

offense can come and go but defense should be consistent... unless you are a poor defender. the problem with afflalo is that he is not merely inconsistent on offense but he is a constant liability on defense. i urge you and others to focus on afflalo's defense next time.

We have one of the worst starting PGs in the league, I "urge" you to look at our record when AA doesnt score 20pts a game.

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?

Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.

The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.

what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?

Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.

what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.

is that not enough and if not, how not?

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?

Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.

The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.

what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?

Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.

what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.

is that not enough and if not, how not?

what are you comparing side by side?

espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?

Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.

The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.

what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?

Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.

what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.

is that not enough and if not, how not?

what are you comparing side by side?

espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48

I know but are you just comparing a couple of players to see how they measure up with the 2 stats?

i looked at our starters in both statistical models, and i perused various top players as well. what i noticed about real plus minus is that it is more linear from worst/average/best as compared with ws48, which seems more bell curvish, with a greater number of middling players clumped together above and below a median.

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?

Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.

The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.

what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?

Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.

what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.

is that not enough and if not, how not?

what are you comparing side by side?

espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48

I know but are you just comparing a couple of players to see how they measure up with the 2 stats?

i looked at our starters in both statistical models, and i perused various top players as well. what i noticed about real plus minus is that it is more linear from worst/average/best as compared with ws48, which seems more bell curvish, with a greater number of middling players clumped together above and below a median.

you are using a quick eye ball test when comparing data that is to be used specifically to avoid failed eye testing

or i have better-than-average pattern recognition ability

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?

Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.

The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.

what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?

Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.

what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.

is that not enough and if not, how not?

what are you comparing side by side?

espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48

I know but are you just comparing a couple of players to see how they measure up with the 2 stats?

i looked at our starters in both statistical models, and i perused various top players as well. what i noticed about real plus minus is that it is more linear from worst/average/best as compared with ws48, which seems more bell curvish, with a greater number of middling players clumped together above and below a median.

you are using a quick eye ball test when comparing data that is to be used specifically to avoid failed eye testing

or i have better-than-average pattern recognition ability

thats what they all think

before they are brought low by those who don't think?

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?

Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.

The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.

what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?

Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.

what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.

is that not enough and if not, how not?

what are you comparing side by side?

espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48

Honestly, to have a really good sense of which stats to use requires grad level training in statistics and full-time dedication to learning about all of them. I don't really have that time dedication (thankfully). So I just look at all the major advanced stats: win shares, wins produced, real plus minus (it's OK to look at it), box plus minus, value over replacement, the player tracking data, and more. When I'm too busy for all that, I just look at the win shares but I realize that's not a great approach.

right, and by every measure outside of the eye test afflalo is being awarded too many minutes.