Bonn1997 wrote:

So basically you're saying the All NBA Team means diddly squat

No, see comment about intuition correlating with validated forms of assessment

that you know more than all the people that cover the sport for a living?

No, only some of them. And so are you.

I've never heard of the All Validated Statistical Analysis NBA Team. As far as I'm concerned, "All NBA" is pretty legitimate as a barometer of greatness akin to the "All Pro" is to the NFL. Both usually mirror what happens out there on the court or field. I'm not sure that these people that cover the sport have been wrong 5 times. It's more likely that your statistical based opinions are more likely off base than experts and writers with decades of experience getting it wrong 5 times.

If it's going to happen for Anthony, it has to start now. And yet he's ball-hogged his way into a corner: If he takes over a game offensively, he's being selfish. If he doesn't, he isn't an elite player.

Happily, his 16-point effort against Tunisia played against type, somewhat. Anthony wasn't the starter outhustled by hungrier bench players; he wasn't even starting for U.S.A. Instead, after Tunisia raced out to an unlikely 15-12 lead, Anthony was part of a bench substitution that came on and took over. He went a perfect 6-for-6, finding his shots in the rhythm of an offense ironically designed by D'Antoni, a U.S.A. assistant, and his defensive pressure helped turn the game as well.

Anthony is a gifted passer, and a capable defender, and has blended in impeccably on Team U.S.A. He even drew praise from the staff for coming in 12 pounds lighter than he'd been during the N.B.A. season. (Although this revelation carries with it its own negative space: Why did Anthony, after an N.B.A. season, have 12 pounds to lose?)

This really serves as a dress rehearsal for his moments to come with the Knicks. He gets to fill in his own biography, playing for the team he insisted Denver trade him to, under a coach he helped get promoted and then retained, surrounded by teammates brought in largely to maximize Anthony's own prime seasons.

It will be up to him whether he reinforces the assumptions about his game based on his team's limitations to date, or if he makes the most of a situation he tailored himself.

- Howard Megdal

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

So basically you're saying the All NBA Team means diddly squat

No, see comment about intuition correlating with validated forms of assessment

that you know more than all the people that cover the sport for a living?

No, only some of them. And so are you.

I've never heard of the All Validated Statistical Analysis NBA Team. As far as I'm concerned, "All NBA" is pretty legitimate as a barometer of greatness akin to the "All Pro" is to the NFL. Both usually mirror what happens out there on the court or field. I'm not sure that these people that cover the sport have been wrong 5 times. It's more likely that your statistical based opinions are more likely off base than experts and writers with decades of experience getting it wrong 5 times.

Both mirror your intuitive assessment of what's happening on the court, which should not be surprising since you and the award voters are using the same method of assessment (intuition). Agreement does not indicate validity, though. You could have two broken scales that give similar but incorrect weights. Regression equations predicting actual wins do indicate validity, and several sabermetricians have published such results.

Please give me the All Sabermetrician NBA team. I want to see the link and results of who qualified for it.

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

So basically you're saying the All NBA Team means diddly squat

No, see comment about intuition correlating with validated forms of assessment

that you know more than all the people that cover the sport for a living?

No, only some of them. And so are you.

I've never heard of the All Validated Statistical Analysis NBA Team. As far as I'm concerned, "All NBA" is pretty legitimate as a barometer of greatness akin to the "All Pro" is to the NFL. Both usually mirror what happens out there on the court or field. I'm not sure that these people that cover the sport have been wrong 5 times. It's more likely that your statistical based opinions are more likely off base than experts and writers with decades of experience getting it wrong 5 times.

Both mirror your intuitive assessment of what's happening on the court, which should not be surprising since you and the award voters are using the same method of assessment (intuition). Agreement does not indicate validity, though. You could have two broken scales that give similar but incorrect weights. Regression equations predicting actual wins do indicate validity, and several sabermetricians have published such results.

Please give me the All Sabermetrician NBA team. I want to see the link and results of who qualified for it.

You could take the highest ranked player at each position for any sabermetric and call it the all nba team. Look at win shares or wins produced for a start.

You have a link somewhere? I tried to google "All Sabermetrics NBA Team", but it didn't really produce any definitive results.

Jmpasq wrote:I noticed yesterday that no one made a thread. He was great yesterday. Melo along with Westbrook Looked like the best players on the floor.Guy is playing great defense. Even on the FT's he is showing great effort establishing position to get possible rebounds.I think melo is figuring things out.

I did.

http://ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=42706

CashMoney wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:.456% IS Pretty damn good for a guy who scores from anywhere on the floor. And would be even higher once he figures out when to pass and not force as many shots. Which he said he wants to do when he was talking about moving the ball and movong without the ball more. Not expecting Lebron like efficiency but just a little of that will make a world of defense. Keep the defense om their toes again 46% for a career is veryvgood. H20 was at 43%

.456 is pretty damn average. It doesn't matter where you score from - with the caveat that 3s are obviously more valuable than 2s.

Melo often palys bully ball. How may times have you watched a game and see him throw one off the backboard so he can quickly go back up and get a better shot off? That absolutely effects his FG %.

CashMoney wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:.456% IS Pretty damn good for a guy who scores from anywhere on the floor. And would be even higher once he figures out when to pass and not force as many shots. Which he said he wants to do when he was talking about moving the ball and movong without the ball more. Not expecting Lebron like efficiency but just a little of that will make a world of defense. Keep the defense om their toes again 46% for a career is veryvgood. H20 was at 43%

.456 is pretty damn average. It doesn't matter where you score from - with the caveat that 3s are obviously more valuable than 2s.

Melo often palys bully ball. How may times have you watched a game and see him throw one off the backboard so he can quickly go back up and get a better shot off? That absolutely effects his FG %.

I'd guess that happens about once every 6 or 8 games and his % might go up around .005 or .008 if you excluded those misses. Note that when that happens it doesn't not negatively impact WS or WP (which really is the stat that matters, more so than FG% does). It's just adding both a missed shot and a rebound to his stat line.

Win shares are overrated. For example, you can have a player that plays on a team that exceeds expectaions, based on the Pythagorean expectation. That player would receive more win shares than a player whose team wins fewer games than expected.

Based on career win share I found the below;

Yao Ming has a higher win share than Dwayne Wade, Bill Russell, Garnett and KOBE.

Pau Gasol has a better win share than Hakeem Olajuwon and Steve Nash.

Andrei Kirilenko than Willis Reed, Robert Parish and Patrick Ewing.

Long story short sabermatrics suck.

CashMoney wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:.456% IS Pretty damn good for a guy who scores from anywhere on the floor. And would be even higher once he figures out when to pass and not force as many shots. Which he said he wants to do when he was talking about moving the ball and movong without the ball more. Not expecting Lebron like efficiency but just a little of that will make a world of defense. Keep the defense om their toes again 46% for a career is veryvgood. H20 was at 43%

.456 is pretty damn average. It doesn't matter where you score from - with the caveat that 3s are obviously more valuable than 2s.

Melo often palys bully ball. How may times have you watched a game and see him throw one off the backboard so he can quickly go back up and get a better shot off? That absolutely effects his FG %.

I'd guess that happens about once every 6 or 8 games and his % might go up around .005 or .008 if you excluded those misses. Note that when that happens it doesn't not negatively impact WS or WP (which really is the stat that matters, more so than FG% does). It's just adding both a missed shot and a rebound to his stat line.

Win shares are overrated. For example, you can have a player that plays on a team that exceeds expectaions, based on the Pythagorean expectation. That player would receive more win shares than a player whose team wins fewer games than expected.

Based on career win share I found the below;

Yao Ming has a higher win share than Dwayne Wade, Bill Russell, Garnett and KOBE.

Pau Gasol has a better win share than Hakeem Olajuwon and Steve Nash.

Andrei Kirilenko than Willis Reed, Robert Parish and Patrick Ewing.

Long story short sabermatrics suck.

Your first claim is false.
Your second statement (Ming, Gasol, etc.) shows only that on certain occasions WS contradict your intuitive assessment. I would have granted that without your taking the time to find examples.
For the record, I think wins produced is probably a better stat than win shares because it (WP) adjusts stats for position whereas WS doesn't. Usually the two will have quite similar assessments of players though.

Baed on WP in a players best years Barkey was better than MJ.

Has any GM put a championship team together based on this mumbo jumbo?

MSG3 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:.456% IS Pretty damn good for a guy who scores from anywhere on the floor. And would be even higher once he figures out when to pass and not force as many shots. Which he said he wants to do when he was talking about moving the ball and movong without the ball more. Not expecting Lebron like efficiency but just a little of that will make a world of defense. Keep the defense om their toes again 46% for a career is veryvgood. H20 was at 43%

.456 is pretty damn average. It doesn't matter where you score from - with the caveat that 3s are obviously more valuable than 2s.

Melo often palys bully ball. How may times have you watched a game and see him throw one off the backboard so he can quickly go back up and get a better shot off? That absolutely effects his FG %.

I'd guess that happens about once every 6 or 8 games and his % might go up around .005 or .008 if you excluded those misses. Note that when that happens it doesn't not negatively impact WS or WP (which really is the stat that matters, more so than FG% does). It's just adding both a missed shot and a rebound to his stat line.

Win shares are overrated. For example, you can have a player that plays on a team that exceeds expectaions, based on the Pythagorean expectation. That player would receive more win shares than a player whose team wins fewer games than expected.

Based on career win share I found the below;

Yao Ming has a higher win share than Dwayne Wade, Bill Russell, Garnett and KOBE.

Pau Gasol has a better win share than Hakeem Olajuwon and Steve Nash.

Andrei Kirilenko than Willis Reed, Robert Parish and Patrick Ewing.

Long story short sabermatrics suck.

Your first claim is false.
Your second statement (Ming, Gasol, etc.) shows only that on certain occasions WS contradict your intuitive assessment. I would have granted that without your taking the time to find examples.
For the record, I think wins produced is probably a better stat than win shares because it (WP) adjusts stats for position whereas WS doesn't. Usually the two will have quite similar assessments of players though.

Baed on WP in a players best years Barkey was better than MJ.

Has any GM put a championship team together based on this mumbo jumbo?

Yes. According to Bonn the Oakland A's won the world series.

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

MSG3 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:.456% IS Pretty damn good for a guy who scores from anywhere on the floor. And would be even higher once he figures out when to pass and not force as many shots. Which he said he wants to do when he was talking about moving the ball and movong without the ball more. Not expecting Lebron like efficiency but just a little of that will make a world of defense. Keep the defense om their toes again 46% for a career is veryvgood. H20 was at 43%

.456 is pretty damn average. It doesn't matter where you score from - with the caveat that 3s are obviously more valuable than 2s.

Melo often palys bully ball. How may times have you watched a game and see him throw one off the backboard so he can quickly go back up and get a better shot off? That absolutely effects his FG %.

I'd guess that happens about once every 6 or 8 games and his % might go up around .005 or .008 if you excluded those misses. Note that when that happens it doesn't not negatively impact WS or WP (which really is the stat that matters, more so than FG% does). It's just adding both a missed shot and a rebound to his stat line.

Win shares are overrated. For example, you can have a player that plays on a team that exceeds expectaions, based on the Pythagorean expectation. That player would receive more win shares than a player whose team wins fewer games than expected.

Based on career win share I found the below;

Yao Ming has a higher win share than Dwayne Wade, Bill Russell, Garnett and KOBE.

Pau Gasol has a better win share than Hakeem Olajuwon and Steve Nash.

Andrei Kirilenko than Willis Reed, Robert Parish and Patrick Ewing.

Long story short sabermatrics suck.

Your first claim is false.
Your second statement (Ming, Gasol, etc.) shows only that on certain occasions WS contradict your intuitive assessment. I would have granted that without your taking the time to find examples.
For the record, I think wins produced is probably a better stat than win shares because it (WP) adjusts stats for position whereas WS doesn't. Usually the two will have quite similar assessments of players though.

Baed on WP in a players best years Barkey was better than MJ.

Has any GM put a championship team together based on this mumbo jumbo?

Yes. According to Bonn the Oakland A's won the world series.

If the truth doesn't help you as might as well lie.

But the As didn't win the World Series during Billy Beanes tenure so how is that a lie? So basically sabermetrics or money ball = failure = Bonn's argument thrown out the window.

Lets just be happy that the U.S. was able to halt the Tunisian juggernaut.