EwingsGlass wrote:martin wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:martin wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:nixluva wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:martin wrote:BigRedDog wrote:Great and we have no money open
you'd want him on the team? At what price? Dude will be 28 and had like 2 really good playoff games.
they just handed THJ $71 million for similar production
NO! No they didn't. THJ just turned 25!!! THJ had a FAR better season and has much more upside.
the end of last season is basically the only time THJ really did anything of note
the end of last season? How about a majority of last season?
Nov, Dec he was OK. Jan, Feb, Mar, he was very good. For 6 games in Apr, he was pretty good. In the playoffs he sucked.
his PER was 15.2 - yeah, great year
that's your response? Misdirection on a stat that we all know is way outdated?
Stats don't become outdated. Their weaknesses become exposed. But that is when they become most effective. When you better understand them. Win Shares overstates wins versus losses which are not an individual effort but ateam effort. +/- is a measure of the player's relationship with his teammates. PER has too much weight on the usage multiplier and creates random values for specific behaviors while giving no values for others. Points scored is really a function of shots taken. TS% and eFG% are very player specific and are better regarded with respect to specific areas of the floor rather than as a whole. I.e. Just because Tyson Chandler has a high eFG doesnt mean I want him taking more shots. His eFG% is high because he pretty much only makes putbacks.
Any stat you can dream of I can invalidate or overstate to suit my needs. But I agree with Supreme. His stats are decidedly average. People are confused because average is a lot better than how he performed when he was here. That boost in performance does not a superstar make.
Couple of thoughts on PER - not necessarily outdated, but certainly a crude way to assess for unassisted created field goals. It's team pace adjustment also doesn't adjust for individual inefficient "volume" shooting - so while the average numbers will bear out (field goal percentage to achieve a certain PER, for example), individual "chuckers" may have a decided advantage here. For example Kobe once had a per of 17.6, with a true shooting percentage of 47, which is garbage.
PER also incrementally dings players on high assist teams and this marginally affects Hardaway. And of course, PER is a miserable rating of defensive ability, because it relies completely on blocks steals and rebounds.
But the bottom line is none of the stats above are relevant in this case. It comes down to whether you believe Tims last 48 games are predicative of the next 4 years. In those last 48 games his offensive stats are certainly above average. His post all-star split numbers are 17.5 ppg in 32 minutes with a 59.3% true shooting, 2.6 ast and 3.5 rebounds. Those numbers are even slightly better over march and April.
538's career regression analysis is the only publicized metric (that I'm aware of) with relevance to a player whose trajectory is in flux, but its probably susceptible to overfitting, and it's not clear how reliable it is even as a guide right now.
My overall take is Hardaway is a reasonable gamble, in the context of where we are as a team.
If he hits his January-April numbers, we win that gamble, he can function as a part of a championship team, as well as be part of a core that reignites interest in the team going forward.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
7/13/2017 7:47 PM