fishmike wrote:

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.

right... so you have no retort. Bonn? He's actually capable of a response. I was looking forward to that.

no actually what you just did right here was a "retort," jerkov. your honey nut cheerio boy who was crying out by the busses is not coming back to new york. and forever hated by new yorkers once he goes. how does that make you feel? i hope bad

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

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

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.

right... so you have no retort. Bonn? He's actually capable of a response. I was looking forward to that.

no actually what you just did right here was a "retort," jerkov. your honey nut cheerio boy who was crying out by the busses is not coming back to new york. and forever hated by new yorkers once he goes. how does that make you feel? i hope bad

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

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.

right... so you have no retort. Bonn? He's actually capable of a response. I was looking forward to that.

no actually what you just did right here was a "retort," jerkov. your honey nut cheerio boy who was crying out by the busses is not coming back to new york. and forever hated by new yorkers once he goes. how does that make you feel? i hope bad

lol.. you suck at posting and hurling insults. Kind of ironic you derailed your own thread. Hee haw.

good that you think i suck at hurling insults since that gives me carte blanche to continue. i think everybody knows by now what YOU are good at sucking.

meanwhile this is where the thread got derailed:

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.

if puppy don't want his nose stuck in his own doody then puppy needs to learn to do his doody somewhere else.

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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.

sorry!

On a side note Amare is bouncing back this year. Watch.... Its going be an epic swan song before he goes an wins titles in Israel Marbury style.

I'll am willing to bet my house against that. Can we use RPM's as the barometer?

Israel does not appreciate soft.

newyorknewyork wrote:

fishmike wrote:

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

Hibbert. Getting destroyed by Hibbert is what killed him for me. I was so excited for that playoff series. We played them very well in the reg season and Tyson was great vs. Hibbert during those games. Then he literally laid down. I had assumed he was hurt or banged up as that was the only reasoning behind such terrible play. F-ing Pacers

I never seen a player tabbed as defensive player of the yr during the regular season that yr and an NBA champion get his ass handed to him as badly as he did.

Thats because it was a BS award. Far from deserving.

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

dk7th wrote:

fishmike wrote:

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.

right... so you have no retort. Bonn? He's actually capable of a response. I was looking forward to that.

no actually what you just did right here was a "retort," jerkov. your honey nut cheerio boy who was crying out by the busses is not coming back to new york. and forever hated by new yorkers once he goes. how does that make you feel? i hope bad

lol.. you suck at posting and hurling insults. Kind of ironic you derailed your own thread. Hee haw.

good that you think i suck at hurling insults since that gives me carte blanche to continue. i think everybody knows by now what YOU are good at sucking.

meanwhile this is where the thread got derailed:

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.

if puppy don't want his nose stuck in his own doody then puppy needs to learn to do his doody somewhere else.

I cant compete with that... how can anyone? your right! you win again. March on... your quest calls you.

not getting uncomfortable now are you?

where ya from, son? it can't be new york city.

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 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

Well the real plus/minus adjusts for the quality of the players on the floor with you. If you're often on the court with someone who's a defensive liability, it hurts your regular plus/minus. It's hard to say how much weight to give the plus/minus or real plus/minus stat. I give them a little weight - just off a hunch that they shouldn't be completely ignored - but I give more weight to the win shares
Note that your numbers indicate the Knicks offense was a lot better with Tyson on the court!

that kind of makes sense doesnt it? Knicks rebound better with Tyson, especially offensively. As annoying as those leaping tip outs he does are they do yield a couple extra shots, usually 3s. Tyson also sets a good pick. Very good in fact. Not a huge impact but I would certainly give Tyson credit for that. Sure.... of course its not a great yield considering he's there for elite level defense.

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

fishmike wrote:

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

Hibbert. Getting destroyed by Hibbert is what killed him for me. I was so excited for that playoff series. We played them very well in the reg season and Tyson was great vs. Hibbert during those games. Then he literally laid down. I had assumed he was hurt or banged up as that was the only reasoning behind such terrible play. F-ing Pacers

I never seen a player tabbed as defensive player of the yr during the regular season that yr and an NBA champion get his ass handed to him as badly as he did.

Thats because it was a BS award. Far from deserving.

tyson had a good year defensively, but clearly serge ibaka should have won that award that year..

Ibaka or Lebron.

Dagger wrote:I like any stat that makes CarSMELLo look bad -DK7yearsold

The stat does;t really make Melo look bad at all. Well it does defensively but he still has a sold +/- ranking.

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Dagger wrote:I like any stat that makes CarSMELLo look bad -DK7yearsold

The stat does;t really make Melo look bad at all. Well it does defensively but he still has a sold +/- ranking.

It puts him in the top 50 - not what you'd want from a max player or anything close to the max though.

sure it is