fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Yea I'm all for metrics in the NBA. I'm just not sure if you can use college metrics to pr rift NBA careers. Nba and NCAA is like apples and oranges

No, I do know what you mean. I've been looking at the win shares too, and Okafor's total is very good. Of course, Mike Sweetney's was outstanding, and that didn't project to the NBA.

have you seen towns (or ok4) play?

college is a bit different as you have to be able to project better.

Just the highlights. I've never really been into NCAA ball.
I was just citing numbers that I thought could be relevant. I wouldn't claim to be very knowledgeable about these college players.

I don't follow college either but over the last week I have been watching them both pretty closely and have watched some of the game replays.

The numbers are very misleading in college do to many lopsided factors.

You really need to watch and predict how their style would relate to the NBA and spot growth opps.

yea... if I say this I am some kind of anti-metrics guy. Not all #s translate, and we have seen great college players translate to total garbage and others with modest college career have better NBA ones.

nobody says that following metrics means you don't have to watch the games. of course you need both so you dont miss something that may not be metrically obvious or on the flip side, you don't trust your eyes and ignore the valuable metrics that tell a better story.

e.g. when people say "the guy scores 30 points a game every night"

and then, you look and see that the guy takes 25 shots a game to get to 30 points. At that point, you should realize that you got fooled by your eyes and it was important to validate that the 30 points was done in an efficient manner.

Al Iverson was the perfect example of the pre-metric player. Players don't play like that anymore because the advance metrics don't allow them to. It will call the player out and the player will be forced to change their game.

Iverson was a crazy talent. If he was accountable for his metrics, he could have been one of the best players to ever play his position. However, he was not accountable and was therefore an extremely inefficient player.

Now, players like Melo, Kobe, L Aldridge ... are being held to a higher standard and it is a problem for them because they love chucking low percentage shots. Its (now) in their blood. It was always ok. Its not ok anymore.

I read an article where LA was talking about him needing to become a 3 point shooter and that he knows (from his coach) that it is really holding him back. Ironically he is now shooting at least 1 a game at 50%. His attempts will need to go up in order to capitalize.

College ball is just a predicting tool and therefore much harder to predict via metrics because the player essentially is in the process of being built. You can't test drive a car before it is complete. A player in the NBA after a couple of years should mostly be built and at that point, the metrics should be able to give you a much clearer picture.

One last player, james harden. The dudes FG (which is not good) does not really tell the whole story. Once you calculate his 3% and FT%/attempts, the guy is an obvious superstar.

we are all learning this process and if we are willing to go along for the ride, we will become a lot smarter. And if we don't, we will just be that 60 year old baseball scout with a pot belly and a mad temper who complains about how the phd idiots ruined their mocho sport ...

well there are some folks who post here who do NOT watch games. Your not in that (very small) crowd and I like reading your posts whether I agree or not.

Remember also its a bottom line business and winning trumps all. Who was the 2nd best teammate Iverson had Philly? Dude was an MVP. In order for a guy to take 20 shots a night in the NBA you either have to be a very good scorer or play for a really bad team.

First of all, thanks for the compliment. Right back at ya. I like that you are open minded and don't have to be right. If you are not willing to admit you are wrong then you are always gonna be wrong.

Saying that Iverson won the MVP is all going back to the same issue and eye failure. He won the MVP as a horrible chucker with flashy Eye Candy Numbers - PPG.

Philly did not win with flashy players. They won with smart players and excellent defenders + Iverson. They won by killing the pace of the game and boring the sh1t out of their opponent. They were also not a great team and came out of a horrible east with something like 44 wins.

The main point is that Iverson could have been so much better if we were equipped with todays tools/metrics and held him accountable.

Billups was not flashy and did not win the MVP but he was miles better than Iverson and it so happens to be that he actually won it all, took Denver to the WCF (while AI failed miserably the year before), was a really good defender, and HAD GREAT METRICS.

So now, I always look up the metrics and check myself. After doing this for a while, I started to view the players very differently when I watch them play. I look for different things than I used to.

gunsnewing wrote:Iverson was a unique talent. MRain is right. Had Iverson come up in today's nba he probably would've gotten more out of his talent. But during that time it took took Larry Brown building a team that catered to Iverson and did all the dirty work. It was enough to get them to the finals in a weak eastern conference. Coaches tried to get Iverson to maximize his talent but he was very stubborn and set in his ways. He could've been great. Could've won a few rings like Isiah did it he just fleshed out his game

well said ... aside from the Isiah comment He was overrated a bit as well but not nearly like Iverson.

Your point is correct. All those players would have had much better numbers had they known which numbers are important. It is so interesting how much more efficient the new Isiah is compared to the old Isiah. Its not a a coincidence since the game has changes so much. Isiah was a terrible 3 point shooter. He could not get away with that in todays game which thrives on 3 point efficiency.

gunsnewing wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Iverson was a unique talent. MRain is right. Had Iverson come up in today's nba he probably would've gotten more out of his talent. But during that time it took took Larry Brown building a team that catered to Iverson and did all the dirty work. It was enough to get them to the finals in a weak eastern conference. Coaches tried to get Iverson to maximize his talent but he was very stubborn and set in his ways. He could've been great. Could've won a few rings like Isiah did it he just fleshed out his game

well said ... aside from the Isiah comment He was overrated a bit as well but not nearly like Iverson.

Your point is correct. All those players would have had much better numbers had they known which numbers are important. It is so interesting how much more efficient the new Isiah is compared to the old Isiah. Its not a a coincidence since the game has changes so much. Isiah was a terrible 3 point shooter. He could not get away with that in todays game which thrives on 3 point efficiency.

Yea good point. Isiah is an obvious testament for how the game has changed. He shot 45% which is pretty good though. So-so FT and 3pt. In general players were more efficient back in the day. The NBA became more of an individual game post JORDAN/Iverson-Kobe era until guys like Lebron and Wade came along.

Meanwhile Tim Duncan and the Spurs were putting up championship banners every year and continue to do so with guys like Parker, leonard and Ginobili.

Lakers however won on sheer talent. The one thing the Knicks have going for them is Phil who can win it all if he truly gets the talent here.

I don't know if players were more efficient back in the day. They were perhaps more efficient in the antiquated mid range game but not from 3. Players are much better 3 point shooters now and teams take many more of them.

I was watching the Duke game last night and there was a 4 on 1 break and instead of taking it to the hole, they kicked it out for an open 3 in transition. The announcer stated "wow ... there is the difference in the new modern game of basketball." I thought that was interesting. Coach K takes shots near the hoop or 3's. Nothing in the mid range (like Houston).

Looking back with what we know now, John Stockton was 50x the player than Isiah was. They are 1000 miles apart.

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Iverson was a unique talent. MRain is right. Had Iverson come up in today's nba he probably would've gotten more out of his talent. But during that time it took took Larry Brown building a team that catered to Iverson and did all the dirty work. It was enough to get them to the finals in a weak eastern conference. Coaches tried to get Iverson to maximize his talent but he was very stubborn and set in his ways. He could've been great. Could've won a few rings like Isiah did it he just fleshed out his game

well said ... aside from the Isiah comment He was overrated a bit as well but not nearly like Iverson.

Your point is correct. All those players would have had much better numbers had they known which numbers are important. It is so interesting how much more efficient the new Isiah is compared to the old Isiah. Its not a a coincidence since the game has changes so much. Isiah was a terrible 3 point shooter. He could not get away with that in todays game which thrives on 3 point efficiency.

Don't agree about Isiah. You look at today's NBA game and you can find examples of guys who have thrived while being below average three point shooters, Michael Westbrook being the best example. Heck, Chris Paul managed to have stellar seasons while shooting badly from three. The game has changed, but I think the great players would find a way to thrive. In order to play effectively, you have to be smart enough to avoid your weakness. Isiah was a weak three point shooter, but you didn't see him bombing away from there. Iverson is a different case. I think he would've been more effective if he took less threes and attacked the basket more.

aside from having solid assist numbers, the rest of his game was underwhelming. He was also on a great team so it got masked a bit.

How would you compare him to john stockton?

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Iverson was a unique talent. MRain is right. Had Iverson come up in today's nba he probably would've gotten more out of his talent. But during that time it took took Larry Brown building a team that catered to Iverson and did all the dirty work. It was enough to get them to the finals in a weak eastern conference. Coaches tried to get Iverson to maximize his talent but he was very stubborn and set in his ways. He could've been great. Could've won a few rings like Isiah did it he just fleshed out his game

well said ... aside from the Isiah comment He was overrated a bit as well but not nearly like Iverson.

Your point is correct. All those players would have had much better numbers had they known which numbers are important. It is so interesting how much more efficient the new Isiah is compared to the old Isiah. Its not a a coincidence since the game has changes so much. Isiah was a terrible 3 point shooter. He could not get away with that in todays game which thrives on 3 point efficiency.

Don't agree about Isiah. You look at today's NBA game and you can find examples of guys who have thrived while being below average three point shooters, Michael Westbrook being the best example. Heck, Chris Paul managed to have stellar seasons while shooting badly from three. The game has changed, but I think the great players would find a way to thrive. In order to play effectively, you have to be smart enough to avoid your weakness. Isiah was a weak three point shooter, but you didn't see him bombing away from there. Iverson is a different case. I think he would've been more effective if he took less threes and attacked the basket more.

aside from having solid assist numbers, the rest of his game was underwhelming. He was also on a great team so it got masked a bit.

How would you compare him to john stockton?

Isaiah put up tremendous numbers on some mediocre Detroit teams. It's hard to compare Isaiah and Stockton because they played the position so differently. I rank Stockton higher in my all-time rankings, but there's a part of me questions how muchbofbStockton's success was due to Sloan's system.

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Iverson was a unique talent. MRain is right. Had Iverson come up in today's nba he probably would've gotten more out of his talent. But during that time it took took Larry Brown building a team that catered to Iverson and did all the dirty work. It was enough to get them to the finals in a weak eastern conference. Coaches tried to get Iverson to maximize his talent but he was very stubborn and set in his ways. He could've been great. Could've won a few rings like Isiah did it he just fleshed out his game

well said ... aside from the Isiah comment He was overrated a bit as well but not nearly like Iverson.

Your point is correct. All those players would have had much better numbers had they known which numbers are important. It is so interesting how much more efficient the new Isiah is compared to the old Isiah. Its not a a coincidence since the game has changes so much. Isiah was a terrible 3 point shooter. He could not get away with that in todays game which thrives on 3 point efficiency.

Don't agree about Isiah. You look at today's NBA game and you can find examples of guys who have thrived while being below average three point shooters, Michael Westbrook being the best example. Heck, Chris Paul managed to have stellar seasons while shooting badly from three. The game has changed, but I think the great players would find a way to thrive. In order to play effectively, you have to be smart enough to avoid your weakness. Isiah was a weak three point shooter, but you didn't see him bombing away from there. Iverson is a different case. I think he would've been more effective if he took less threes and attacked the basket more.

aside from having solid assist numbers, the rest of his game was underwhelming. He was also on a great team so it got masked a bit.

How would you compare him to john stockton?

Isaiah put up tremendous numbers on some mediocre Detroit teams. It's hard to compare Isaiah and Stockton because they played the position so differently. I rank Stockton higher in my all-time rankings, but there's a part of me questions how muchbofbStockton's success was due to Sloan's system.

Its really not close. Have you compared the stats? They are mind boggling. And stockton did it so quietly and without flare.

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Iverson was a unique talent. MRain is right. Had Iverson come up in today's nba he probably would've gotten more out of his talent. But during that time it took took Larry Brown building a team that catered to Iverson and did all the dirty work. It was enough to get them to the finals in a weak eastern conference. Coaches tried to get Iverson to maximize his talent but he was very stubborn and set in his ways. He could've been great. Could've won a few rings like Isiah did it he just fleshed out his game

well said ... aside from the Isiah comment He was overrated a bit as well but not nearly like Iverson.

Your point is correct. All those players would have had much better numbers had they known which numbers are important. It is so interesting how much more efficient the new Isiah is compared to the old Isiah. Its not a a coincidence since the game has changes so much. Isiah was a terrible 3 point shooter. He could not get away with that in todays game which thrives on 3 point efficiency.

Don't agree about Isiah. You look at today's NBA game and you can find examples of guys who have thrived while being below average three point shooters, Michael Westbrook being the best example. Heck, Chris Paul managed to have stellar seasons while shooting badly from three. The game has changed, but I think the great players would find a way to thrive. In order to play effectively, you have to be smart enough to avoid your weakness. Isiah was a weak three point shooter, but you didn't see him bombing away from there. Iverson is a different case. I think he would've been more effective if he took less threes and attacked the basket more.

aside from having solid assist numbers, the rest of his game was underwhelming. He was also on a great team so it got masked a bit.

How would you compare him to john stockton?

Isaiah put up tremendous numbers on some mediocre Detroit teams. It's hard to compare Isaiah and Stockton because they played the position so differently. I rank Stockton higher in my all-time rankings, but there's a part of me questions how muchbofbStockton's success was due to Sloan's system.

Its really not close. Have you compared the stats? They are mind boggling. And stockton did it so quietly and without flare.

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Iverson was a unique talent. MRain is right. Had Iverson come up in today's nba he probably would've gotten more out of his talent. But during that time it took took Larry Brown building a team that catered to Iverson and did all the dirty work. It was enough to get them to the finals in a weak eastern conference. Coaches tried to get Iverson to maximize his talent but he was very stubborn and set in his ways. He could've been great. Could've won a few rings like Isiah did it he just fleshed out his game

well said ... aside from the Isiah comment He was overrated a bit as well but not nearly like Iverson.

Your point is correct. All those players would have had much better numbers had they known which numbers are important. It is so interesting how much more efficient the new Isiah is compared to the old Isiah. Its not a a coincidence since the game has changes so much. Isiah was a terrible 3 point shooter. He could not get away with that in todays game which thrives on 3 point efficiency.

Don't agree about Isiah. You look at today's NBA game and you can find examples of guys who have thrived while being below average three point shooters, Michael Westbrook being the best example. Heck, Chris Paul managed to have stellar seasons while shooting badly from three. The game has changed, but I think the great players would find a way to thrive. In order to play effectively, you have to be smart enough to avoid your weakness. Isiah was a weak three point shooter, but you didn't see him bombing away from there. Iverson is a different case. I think he would've been more effective if he took less threes and attacked the basket more.

aside from having solid assist numbers, the rest of his game was underwhelming. He was also on a great team so it got masked a bit.

How would you compare him to john stockton?

Isaiah put up tremendous numbers on some mediocre Detroit teams. It's hard to compare Isaiah and Stockton because they played the position so differently. I rank Stockton higher in my all-time rankings, but there's a part of me questions how muchbofbStockton's success was due to Sloan's system.

Its really not close. Have you compared the stats? They are mind boggling. And stockton did it so quietly and without flare.

Stockton's shooting percentages are better, but that goes back to the different roles they played on their respective teams. Isaiah was his teams primary scoring option while Stockton had the luxury of being able to pick and choose his shots. Imagine if Isaiah had post presence like Karl Malone on his team?

Dumars was pretty good, actually better than Isiah.

You can say the same for Nash who had Stat but we all know how that really worked. Stockton made Malone. Isiah would not have been able to make Malone what he was. Isiah liked to show off too much.

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Iverson was a unique talent. MRain is right. Had Iverson come up in today's nba he probably would've gotten more out of his talent. But during that time it took took Larry Brown building a team that catered to Iverson and did all the dirty work. It was enough to get them to the finals in a weak eastern conference. Coaches tried to get Iverson to maximize his talent but he was very stubborn and set in his ways. He could've been great. Could've won a few rings like Isiah did it he just fleshed out his game

well said ... aside from the Isiah comment He was overrated a bit as well but not nearly like Iverson.

Your point is correct. All those players would have had much better numbers had they known which numbers are important. It is so interesting how much more efficient the new Isiah is compared to the old Isiah. Its not a a coincidence since the game has changes so much. Isiah was a terrible 3 point shooter. He could not get away with that in todays game which thrives on 3 point efficiency.

Don't agree about Isiah. You look at today's NBA game and you can find examples of guys who have thrived while being below average three point shooters, Michael Westbrook being the best example. Heck, Chris Paul managed to have stellar seasons while shooting badly from three. The game has changed, but I think the great players would find a way to thrive. In order to play effectively, you have to be smart enough to avoid your weakness. Isiah was a weak three point shooter, but you didn't see him bombing away from there. Iverson is a different case. I think he would've been more effective if he took less threes and attacked the basket more.

aside from having solid assist numbers, the rest of his game was underwhelming. He was also on a great team so it got masked a bit.

How would you compare him to john stockton?

Isaiah put up tremendous numbers on some mediocre Detroit teams. It's hard to compare Isaiah and Stockton because they played the position so differently. I rank Stockton higher in my all-time rankings, but there's a part of me questions how muchbofbStockton's success was due to Sloan's system.

Its really not close. Have you compared the stats? They are mind boggling. And stockton did it so quietly and without flare.

Stockton's shooting percentages are better, but that goes back to the different roles they played on their respective teams. Isaiah was his teams primary scoring option while Stockton had the luxury of being able to pick and choose his shots. Imagine if Isaiah had post presence like Karl Malone on his team?

Dumars was pretty good, actually better than Isiah.

You can say the same for Nash who had Stat but we all know how that really worked. Stockton made Malone. Isiah would not have been able to make Malone what he was. Isiah liked to show off too much.

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Iverson was a unique talent. MRain is right. Had Iverson come up in today's nba he probably would've gotten more out of his talent. But during that time it took took Larry Brown building a team that catered to Iverson and did all the dirty work. It was enough to get them to the finals in a weak eastern conference. Coaches tried to get Iverson to maximize his talent but he was very stubborn and set in his ways. He could've been great. Could've won a few rings like Isiah did it he just fleshed out his game

well said ... aside from the Isiah comment He was overrated a bit as well but not nearly like Iverson.

Your point is correct. All those players would have had much better numbers had they known which numbers are important. It is so interesting how much more efficient the new Isiah is compared to the old Isiah. Its not a a coincidence since the game has changes so much. Isiah was a terrible 3 point shooter. He could not get away with that in todays game which thrives on 3 point efficiency.

Don't agree about Isiah. You look at today's NBA game and you can find examples of guys who have thrived while being below average three point shooters, Michael Westbrook being the best example. Heck, Chris Paul managed to have stellar seasons while shooting badly from three. The game has changed, but I think the great players would find a way to thrive. In order to play effectively, you have to be smart enough to avoid your weakness. Isiah was a weak three point shooter, but you didn't see him bombing away from there. Iverson is a different case. I think he would've been more effective if he took less threes and attacked the basket more.

aside from having solid assist numbers, the rest of his game was underwhelming. He was also on a great team so it got masked a bit.

How would you compare him to john stockton?

Isaiah put up tremendous numbers on some mediocre Detroit teams. It's hard to compare Isaiah and Stockton because they played the position so differently. I rank Stockton higher in my all-time rankings, but there's a part of me questions how muchbofbStockton's success was due to Sloan's system.

Its really not close. Have you compared the stats? They are mind boggling. And stockton did it so quietly and without flare.

Stockton's shooting percentages are better, but that goes back to the different roles they played on their respective teams. Isaiah was his teams primary scoring option while Stockton had the luxury of being able to pick and choose his shots. Imagine if Isaiah had post presence like Karl Malone on his team?

Dumars was pretty good, actually better than Isiah.

You can say the same for Nash who had Stat but we all know how that really worked. Stockton made Malone. Isiah would not have been able to make Malone what he was. Isiah liked to show off too much.

Joe Dumars doesn't even agree with that statement.

cause he is a dummy. Just look at his moves as GM

gunsnewing wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:You are overthinking it. Stockton, Malone and Sloan were all great. Impossible to say who was more impossible. They all were

so was hornacek but he never got any credit. He is a good coach too.

IMHO, Stockton would have been a HOFer where ever he went.

It was interesting to see how well Nash did without Stat. Just as good.

Marlins was light years better than amare. Inside, out, rebounding and defensively

who da phuck is Marlins?