Im in pursuit of a post-graduate degree, so Ive dealt with a fair amount of statistical analysis (no expert of course). Rule number 1 when it comes to stats is what theoretical questioning are the stats in explanation of, and what is the significance if at all. The theory has to be sound and grounded.

With that, what is the relationship with efficiency and what you are trying to explain? One would assume winning, correct? Your stats have little relevancy to that theory, given that Felton led knick squads have been pretty successful during his two stints --- this season of particular emphasis.

Efficiency is a variable of questionable importance here. A cursory glance of the stats and players provided in the link should tell you that your theory has major holes, and needs a more comprehensive approach, and far more intuitiveness. You cant use one variable as a representative of entirety, to the expense of others when proving a theory. You should know that, because when you do that you're just agenda seeking.

Now if you want to just talk efficiency, thats cool --- but whats the context? I could go more in depth, but I dont feel like it right now, and this post is too long as is.

sebstar wrote:I can appreciate the attention paid to advanced stats by some of the posters around here, because it does help to elevate the discussion --- but the intensity of which they are paid to by some borders on gimmickry. I hate to burst bubbles, but your logic is not in coherence with what you are trying to conclude.

Im in pursuit of a post-graduate degree, so Ive dealt with a fair amount of statistical analysis (no expert of course). Rule number 1 when it comes to stats is what theoretical questioning are the stats in explanation of, and what is the significance if at all. The theory has to be sound and grounded.

With that, what is the relationship with efficiency and what you are trying to explain? One would assume winning, correct? Your stats have little relevancy to that theory, given that Felton led knick squads have been pretty successful during his two stints --- this season of particular emphasis.

Efficiency is a variable of questionable importance here. A cursory glance of the stats and players provided in the link should tell you that your theory has major holes, and needs a more comprehensive approach, and far more intuitiveness. You cant use one variable as a representative of entirety, to the expense of others when proving a theory. You should know that, because when you do that you're just agenda seeking.

Now if you want to just talk efficiency, thats cool --- but whats the context? I could go more in depth, but I dont feel like it right now, and this post is too long as is.

That is not bad but I have taught undergrad stats courses, although that was a while ago.

Scoring efficiency is given the most weight in the advanced stats, which are well-validated. David Berri discusses the validation studies in his books but the short answer is that if you use the weights he gives to different variables to calculate individual players' wins produced scores and then add together the WP of the entire team's individual players, you will usually predict within about 2 or 3 games how many wins the team will have. Note that that formula has a high weight for scoring efficiency but almost no weight for PPG (don't remember the exact weight off-hand). The weighting is derived from multiple regression analyses.

It's quite simple though - on average teams will get about 82 shots per game (+ or - a few depending on pace). That's true regardless of how many "shot-creators" the team has. What really matters is how efficiently you use those 82 shots (i.e., how many points per 82 shots you get).

sebstar wrote:Lets try to keep the convo focused on Felton, the link provided, and what it is exactly you are trying to explain, to avoid an unmanageable discussion. Perhaps we can broaden it out into a wholesale defense of advanced stats in b-ball as it develops.

I appreciate your knowledge of stats as a contained object of study --- but what I am telling you is that from my vantage point, your use of the efficiency stat as explanation for winning basketball when it comes to Felton and other PGs is, charitably speaking, very messy.

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Can you say straw man? No one said the team PPS was bad with Felton. We said Felton's PPS was bad. It would be interesting to look at the team's PPS in the five games Melo played in that Felton missed but I have to run now and don't have time.

because it's a team game you hope that whatever flaws a particular player has gets covered by others. in felton's case it is kidd who covers up felton's considerable flaws-- when given the opportunity.

what is disturbing that felton qua felton is so bad in the first place. ideally you want complete players with as few flaws as possible and who mesh seamlessly with others. and if deeply flawed-- as felton is-- at least be aware of those flaws and not allow bad decisions to flow from those flaws. but he doesn't appear to be so he continues to be a zero-sum player.

it might be a good idea to start prigioni with kidd and see what comes of that.

How does one player go about covering up the flaws of another player?..Because it's a team game???..Does that happen with other players as well?...I managed to look at the 4 game stretch Felton played that Kidd didn't and Felton played very well 3 out of 4 games..Knicks won very easily in all 4 games...Must be a carry over effect...

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Can you say straw man? No one said the team PPS was bad with Felton. We said Felton's PPS was bad. It would be interesting to look at the team's PPS in the five games Melo played in that Felton missed but I have to run now and don't have time.

because it's a team game you hope that whatever flaws a particular player has gets covered by others. in felton's case it is kidd who covers up felton's considerable flaws-- when given the opportunity.

what is disturbing that felton qua felton is so bad in the first place. ideally you want complete players with as few flaws as possible and who mesh seamlessly with others. and if deeply flawed-- as felton is-- at least be aware of those flaws and not allow bad decisions to flow from those flaws. but he doesn't appear to be so he continues to be a zero-sum player.

it might be a good idea to start prigioni with kidd and see what comes of that.

How does one player go about covering up the flaws of another player?..Because it's a team game???..Does that happen with other players as well?...I managed to look at the 4 game stretch Felton played that Kidd didn't and Felton played very well 3 out of 4 games..Knicks won very easily in all 4 games...Must be a carry over effect...

in felton and kidd's case they tend to cancel the flaws or provide certain skills, the operative word here being "tend." what felton lacks in orchestrating skills and creation of offensive cohesion kidd provides. what kidd lacks in the ability to draw in defenses felton provides-- so long as not putting up ineffective floaters and teardrops. when felton lays off on those low percentage shots and passes the ball the knicks are better off.

in short there is a principle in team sports called "synergy" where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. here the whole is two players.

i don't agree that kidd has been god awful. he plays within himself and knows his limitations. for a 40 year old player he understands what he needs to do but he does need help, even from an inferior player such as felton is.

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Can you say straw man? No one said the team PPS was bad with Felton. We said Felton's PPS was bad. It would be interesting to look at the team's PPS in the five games Melo played in that Felton missed but I have to run now and don't have time.

because it's a team game you hope that whatever flaws a particular player has gets covered by others. in felton's case it is kidd who covers up felton's considerable flaws-- when given the opportunity.

what is disturbing that felton qua felton is so bad in the first place. ideally you want complete players with as few flaws as possible and who mesh seamlessly with others. and if deeply flawed-- as felton is-- at least be aware of those flaws and not allow bad decisions to flow from those flaws. but he doesn't appear to be so he continues to be a zero-sum player.

it might be a good idea to start prigioni with kidd and see what comes of that.

How does one player go about covering up the flaws of another player?..Because it's a team game???..Does that happen with other players as well?...I managed to look at the 4 game stretch Felton played that Kidd didn't and Felton played very well 3 out of 4 games..Knicks won very easily in all 4 games...Must be a carry over effect...

in felton and kidd's case they tend to cancel the flaws or provide certain skills, the operative word here being "tend." what felton lacks in orchestrating skills and creation of offensive cohesion kidd provides. what kidd lacks in the ability to draw in defenses felton provides-- so long as not putting up ineffective floaters and teardrops. when felton lays off on those low percentage shots and passes the ball the knicks are better off.

in short there is a principle in team sports called "synergy" where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. here the whole is two players.

i don't agree that kidd has been god awful. he plays within himself and knows his limitations. for a 40 year old player he understands what he needs to do but he does need help, even from an inferior player such as felton is.

Well not just Kidd, the whole team needs Felton...Clearly the offense and perimeter defense for that matter, isn't the same...Much as you may not want to admit it, Chandler, Kidd, Brewer and the team as a whole played better when Felton is there...I have to think that Amare's assimilation is more difficult because we don't have a PG who can involve him effectively...Hey, we are a better team with Felton...But u frown on Melo and his game as well, so what does that say about your approach and analysis...

the team doesn't need felton it needs someone with some point guard skills. woodson has been making a mistake not giving kidd a point guard to work with. prigioni should have been starting as soon as felton went down.

as far as melo i don't like his game that's true but how does a difference of opinion or a perhaps merely a matter of taste invalidate my take on things? would you like me to say that your take on things is trivial? your entitled to your opinion on players.

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:Dudes are watching these games and still talking about how Felton needs Kidd..Yeah OK...

Seriously!! Our offense was predicated on PNR and pg penetration. Both are nonexistent sense Felt went down. Felt and Chandler lead the league at one point on alley-oops which came directly on pnr. Teh pressure Felt put on the rim opened things up for everyone. Honestly, I think these dudes are trashing Felton simply because Lin is no longer here....

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:Dudes are watching these games and still talking about how Felton needs Kidd..Yeah OK...

Seriously!! Our offense was predicated on PNR and pg penetration. Both are nonexistent sense Felt went down. Felt and Chandler lead the league at one point on alley-oops which came directly on pnr. Teh pressure Felt put on the rim opened things up for everyone. Honestly, I think these dudes are trashing Felton simply because Lin is no longer here....

We need a competent PG. Felton almost qualifies; he's the least bad option we have at PG.

So you no longer think Kidd is the best PG...U change game to game..

Hard to say. Not sure if he's injured or just too old. They're both bad options at PG. It's like asking if I'd rather have cancer or AIDS.