mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

TPercy wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:and for everyone with the knicks winning 34/35 games, that isn't a whole lot of margin over 31.5.

I think they win 42. 35 is the minimum and I would see it as a disappointment. When healthy and playing an entire season, Melo has never won less than 37 games. The talent on the team has been upgraded and this group of guys appear to have good chemistry. Can't wait to see them on the court together.

So if they win 30 games, it will be easy to blame it on Melo being not truly healthy.

You really are something with the negative snide remarks! This is a better team than Vegas realizes. Not because of the individual talent but the improved mental disposition of the team. Better balance, skill, effort, defense and BB IQ. They aren't really taking that into account.

A healthy Melo with a solid supporting cast has mostly led to an above .500 season with only the last 2 years missing that mark. So IMO there's nothing about this team that would indicate this team won't reach those levels Melo's teams have always reached outside of total dysfunction and injuries as we had the last 2 years.

you are putting too much of a burden on melo when you refer to him vis a vis his "supporting cast." that said, in his best seasons melo is good for 8-10 win shares. hence if he is healthy and buys in the knicks could very well win 39 games. anything more than that is actually on the shoulders of the two rookies.

If by "buys in" you mean Melo shares the rock consistently and takes better shots I think we can easily win 42-52 games.

Win shares is nonsense..

So glad you see it that way. Kind of like a 14 year old claiming jazz sucks

that is a great line :-)

the moon is stupid.

As someone eloquently pointed out in the Draftkings/Fanduel debacle, there is a sucker born every quarter..

don't mean to be rude by asking but would you mind stating your age?

Old enough to have taken some math classes in my day that I can spot a formula that don't make sense from a mile away..

you need to be pretty old school and dense to disregard/easily dismiss statistical formulas that pretty smart people come up with and have spent years trying to perfect.

nothing is perfect or without flaws. Nothing is black and white ... geeez

Win shares flaw is that total wins are written into the formula..Now please explain to me how you can have a fair assessment of a player's performance via win shares when total wins are a factor in determining win shares...Teams with better records will always have players of higher win shares..I posted example of bench players playing limited minutes averaging 2 points per having higher win shares than starters averaging double digits with total team win being the determining factor..

I don't take anything from anyone at face value..Doesn't have anything to do with age..Everyone is trying to push their product and create their own niche..If the new science says the world is flat that you want to be down with your friends then run with it..

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

TPercy wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:and for everyone with the knicks winning 34/35 games, that isn't a whole lot of margin over 31.5.

I think they win 42. 35 is the minimum and I would see it as a disappointment. When healthy and playing an entire season, Melo has never won less than 37 games. The talent on the team has been upgraded and this group of guys appear to have good chemistry. Can't wait to see them on the court together.

So if they win 30 games, it will be easy to blame it on Melo being not truly healthy.

You really are something with the negative snide remarks! This is a better team than Vegas realizes. Not because of the individual talent but the improved mental disposition of the team. Better balance, skill, effort, defense and BB IQ. They aren't really taking that into account.

A healthy Melo with a solid supporting cast has mostly led to an above .500 season with only the last 2 years missing that mark. So IMO there's nothing about this team that would indicate this team won't reach those levels Melo's teams have always reached outside of total dysfunction and injuries as we had the last 2 years.

you are putting too much of a burden on melo when you refer to him vis a vis his "supporting cast." that said, in his best seasons melo is good for 8-10 win shares. hence if he is healthy and buys in the knicks could very well win 39 games. anything more than that is actually on the shoulders of the two rookies.

If by "buys in" you mean Melo shares the rock consistently and takes better shots I think we can easily win 42-52 games.

Win shares is nonsense..

So glad you see it that way. Kind of like a 14 year old claiming jazz sucks

that is a great line :-)

the moon is stupid.

As someone eloquently pointed out in the Draftkings/Fanduel debacle, there is a sucker born every quarter..

don't mean to be rude by asking but would you mind stating your age?

Old enough to have taken some math classes in my day that I can spot a formula that don't make sense from a mile away..

you need to be pretty old school and dense to disregard/easily dismiss statistical formulas that pretty smart people come up with and have spent years trying to perfect.

nothing is perfect or without flaws. Nothing is black and white ... geeez

Win shares flaw is that total wins are written into the formula..Now please explain to me how you can have a fair assessment of a player's performance via win shares when total wins are a factor in determining win shares...Teams with better records will always have players of higher win shares..I posted example of bench players playing limited minutes averaging 2 points per having higher win shares than starters averaging double digits with total team win being the determining factor..

I don't take anything from anyone at face value..Doesn't have anything to do with age..Everyone is trying to push their product and create their own niche..If the new science says the world is flat that you want to be down with your friends then run with it..

so basically you are saying that you have studied the complete formula, understand the data, are clear about how the key performance indicators were derived and this is your argument against it?

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

TPercy wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:and for everyone with the knicks winning 34/35 games, that isn't a whole lot of margin over 31.5.

I think they win 42. 35 is the minimum and I would see it as a disappointment. When healthy and playing an entire season, Melo has never won less than 37 games. The talent on the team has been upgraded and this group of guys appear to have good chemistry. Can't wait to see them on the court together.

So if they win 30 games, it will be easy to blame it on Melo being not truly healthy.

You really are something with the negative snide remarks! This is a better team than Vegas realizes. Not because of the individual talent but the improved mental disposition of the team. Better balance, skill, effort, defense and BB IQ. They aren't really taking that into account.

A healthy Melo with a solid supporting cast has mostly led to an above .500 season with only the last 2 years missing that mark. So IMO there's nothing about this team that would indicate this team won't reach those levels Melo's teams have always reached outside of total dysfunction and injuries as we had the last 2 years.

you are putting too much of a burden on melo when you refer to him vis a vis his "supporting cast." that said, in his best seasons melo is good for 8-10 win shares. hence if he is healthy and buys in the knicks could very well win 39 games. anything more than that is actually on the shoulders of the two rookies.

If by "buys in" you mean Melo shares the rock consistently and takes better shots I think we can easily win 42-52 games.

Win shares is nonsense..

So glad you see it that way. Kind of like a 14 year old claiming jazz sucks

that is a great line :-)

the moon is stupid.

As someone eloquently pointed out in the Draftkings/Fanduel debacle, there is a sucker born every quarter..

don't mean to be rude by asking but would you mind stating your age?

Old enough to have taken some math classes in my day that I can spot a formula that don't make sense from a mile away..

you need to be pretty old school and dense to disregard/easily dismiss statistical formulas that pretty smart people come up with and have spent years trying to perfect.

nothing is perfect or without flaws. Nothing is black and white ... geeez

Win shares flaw is that total wins are written into the formula..Now please explain to me how you can have a fair assessment of a player's performance via win shares when total wins are a factor in determining win shares...Teams with better records will always have players of higher win shares..I posted example of bench players playing limited minutes averaging 2 points per having higher win shares than starters averaging double digits with total team win being the determining factor..

I don't take anything from anyone at face value..Doesn't have anything to do with age..Everyone is trying to push their product and create their own niche..If the new science says the world is flat that you want to be down with your friends then run with it..

so basically you are saying that you have studied the complete formula, understand the data, are clear about how the key performance indicators were derived and this is your argument against it?

Well the whole concept doesn't make sense if you really think about it..First off you are taking a team game and assigning wins to one individual..How is that accomplished?..Second, let's look at Robin Lopez..dk7 took the win shares from last year and think that you can determine a similair outcome this year..So the conditions and circumstances that existed to create wins on the Portland Trailblazers are now predictable and can be transferred to another team with different players and playing different roles..But don't dtop there, multiply that by 10 players...So he added win shares of vet players from last year to determine win totals for the Knicks this year..And I'm the one out of touch..

You seem to be making many arguments based on not really knowing the data.

Alex English could have been the best player of all time .... if he played with shaq, right? Well ... you can't really prove me wrong, can you?

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

TPercy wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:and for everyone with the knicks winning 34/35 games, that isn't a whole lot of margin over 31.5.

I think they win 42. 35 is the minimum and I would see it as a disappointment. When healthy and playing an entire season, Melo has never won less than 37 games. The talent on the team has been upgraded and this group of guys appear to have good chemistry. Can't wait to see them on the court together.

So if they win 30 games, it will be easy to blame it on Melo being not truly healthy.

You really are something with the negative snide remarks! This is a better team than Vegas realizes. Not because of the individual talent but the improved mental disposition of the team. Better balance, skill, effort, defense and BB IQ. They aren't really taking that into account.

A healthy Melo with a solid supporting cast has mostly led to an above .500 season with only the last 2 years missing that mark. So IMO there's nothing about this team that would indicate this team won't reach those levels Melo's teams have always reached outside of total dysfunction and injuries as we had the last 2 years.

you are putting too much of a burden on melo when you refer to him vis a vis his "supporting cast." that said, in his best seasons melo is good for 8-10 win shares. hence if he is healthy and buys in the knicks could very well win 39 games. anything more than that is actually on the shoulders of the two rookies.

If by "buys in" you mean Melo shares the rock consistently and takes better shots I think we can easily win 42-52 games.

Win shares is nonsense..

So glad you see it that way. Kind of like a 14 year old claiming jazz sucks

that is a great line :-)

the moon is stupid.

As someone eloquently pointed out in the Draftkings/Fanduel debacle, there is a sucker born every quarter..

don't mean to be rude by asking but would you mind stating your age?

Old enough to have taken some math classes in my day that I can spot a formula that don't make sense from a mile away..

you need to be pretty old school and dense to disregard/easily dismiss statistical formulas that pretty smart people come up with and have spent years trying to perfect.

nothing is perfect or without flaws. Nothing is black and white ... geeez

Win shares flaw is that total wins are written into the formula..Now please explain to me how you can have a fair assessment of a player's performance via win shares when total wins are a factor in determining win shares...Teams with better records will always have players of higher win shares..I posted example of bench players playing limited minutes averaging 2 points per having higher win shares than starters averaging double digits with total team win being the determining factor..

I don't take anything from anyone at face value..Doesn't have anything to do with age..Everyone is trying to push their product and create their own niche..If the new science says the world is flat that you want to be down with your friends then run with it..

so basically you are saying that you have studied the complete formula, understand the data, are clear about how the key performance indicators were derived and this is your argument against it?

Well the whole concept doesn't make sense if you really think about it..First off you are taking a team game and assigning wins to one individual..How is that accomplished?..Second, let's look at Robin Lopez..dk7 took the win shares from last year and think that you can determine a similair outcome this year..So the conditions and circumstances that existed to create wins on the Portland Trailblazers are now predictable and can be transferred to another team with different players and playing different roles..But don't dtop there, multiply that by 10 players...So he added win shares of vet players from last year to determine win totals for the Knicks this year..And I'm the one out of touch..

You seem to be making many arguments based on not really knowing the data.

Alex English could have been the best player of all time .... if he played with shaq, right? Well ... you can't really prove me wrong, can you?

You are busting my chops for being old and not being open minded when I have done far more research on the data then you have..

how do you know that?

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

TPercy wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:and for everyone with the knicks winning 34/35 games, that isn't a whole lot of margin over 31.5.

I think they win 42. 35 is the minimum and I would see it as a disappointment. When healthy and playing an entire season, Melo has never won less than 37 games. The talent on the team has been upgraded and this group of guys appear to have good chemistry. Can't wait to see them on the court together.

So if they win 30 games, it will be easy to blame it on Melo being not truly healthy.

You really are something with the negative snide remarks! This is a better team than Vegas realizes. Not because of the individual talent but the improved mental disposition of the team. Better balance, skill, effort, defense and BB IQ. They aren't really taking that into account.

A healthy Melo with a solid supporting cast has mostly led to an above .500 season with only the last 2 years missing that mark. So IMO there's nothing about this team that would indicate this team won't reach those levels Melo's teams have always reached outside of total dysfunction and injuries as we had the last 2 years.

you are putting too much of a burden on melo when you refer to him vis a vis his "supporting cast." that said, in his best seasons melo is good for 8-10 win shares. hence if he is healthy and buys in the knicks could very well win 39 games. anything more than that is actually on the shoulders of the two rookies.

If by "buys in" you mean Melo shares the rock consistently and takes better shots I think we can easily win 42-52 games.

Win shares is nonsense..

So glad you see it that way. Kind of like a 14 year old claiming jazz sucks

that is a great line :-)

the moon is stupid.

As someone eloquently pointed out in the Draftkings/Fanduel debacle, there is a sucker born every quarter..

don't mean to be rude by asking but would you mind stating your age?

Old enough to have taken some math classes in my day that I can spot a formula that don't make sense from a mile away..

you need to be pretty old school and dense to disregard/easily dismiss statistical formulas that pretty smart people come up with and have spent years trying to perfect.

nothing is perfect or without flaws. Nothing is black and white ... geeez

Win shares flaw is that total wins are written into the formula..Now please explain to me how you can have a fair assessment of a player's performance via win shares when total wins are a factor in determining win shares...Teams with better records will always have players of higher win shares..I posted example of bench players playing limited minutes averaging 2 points per having higher win shares than starters averaging double digits with total team win being the determining factor..

I don't take anything from anyone at face value..Doesn't have anything to do with age..Everyone is trying to push their product and create their own niche..If the new science says the world is flat that you want to be down with your friends then run with it..

so basically you are saying that you have studied the complete formula, understand the data, are clear about how the key performance indicators were derived and this is your argument against it?

Well the whole concept doesn't make sense if you really think about it..First off you are taking a team game and assigning wins to one individual..How is that accomplished?..Second, let's look at Robin Lopez..dk7 took the win shares from last year and think that you can determine a similair outcome this year..So the conditions and circumstances that existed to create wins on the Portland Trailblazers are now predictable and can be transferred to another team with different players and playing different roles..But don't dtop there, multiply that by 10 players...So he added win shares of vet players from last year to determine win totals for the Knicks this year..And I'm the one out of touch..

You seem to be making many arguments based on not really knowing the data.

Alex English could have been the best player of all time .... if he played with shaq, right? Well ... you can't really prove me wrong, can you?

You are busting my chops for being old and not being open minded when I have done far more research on the data then you have..

how do you know that?

Because I have pointed out things in advanced stat that u weren't aware of..

like FT's?

Of course I don't know or remember everything.

But at least I will take everything and try to learn more. I don't just stick my head in the sand.

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

TPercy wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:and for everyone with the knicks winning 34/35 games, that isn't a whole lot of margin over 31.5.

I think they win 42. 35 is the minimum and I would see it as a disappointment. When healthy and playing an entire season, Melo has never won less than 37 games. The talent on the team has been upgraded and this group of guys appear to have good chemistry. Can't wait to see them on the court together.

So if they win 30 games, it will be easy to blame it on Melo being not truly healthy.

You really are something with the negative snide remarks! This is a better team than Vegas realizes. Not because of the individual talent but the improved mental disposition of the team. Better balance, skill, effort, defense and BB IQ. They aren't really taking that into account.

A healthy Melo with a solid supporting cast has mostly led to an above .500 season with only the last 2 years missing that mark. So IMO there's nothing about this team that would indicate this team won't reach those levels Melo's teams have always reached outside of total dysfunction and injuries as we had the last 2 years.

you are putting too much of a burden on melo when you refer to him vis a vis his "supporting cast." that said, in his best seasons melo is good for 8-10 win shares. hence if he is healthy and buys in the knicks could very well win 39 games. anything more than that is actually on the shoulders of the two rookies.

If by "buys in" you mean Melo shares the rock consistently and takes better shots I think we can easily win 42-52 games.

Win shares is nonsense..

So glad you see it that way. Kind of like a 14 year old claiming jazz sucks

that is a great line :-)

the moon is stupid.

As someone eloquently pointed out in the Draftkings/Fanduel debacle, there is a sucker born every quarter..

don't mean to be rude by asking but would you mind stating your age?

Old enough to have taken some math classes in my day that I can spot a formula that don't make sense from a mile away..

you need to be pretty old school and dense to disregard/easily dismiss statistical formulas that pretty smart people come up with and have spent years trying to perfect.

nothing is perfect or without flaws. Nothing is black and white ... geeez

Win shares flaw is that total wins are written into the formula..Now please explain to me how you can have a fair assessment of a player's performance via win shares when total wins are a factor in determining win shares...Teams with better records will always have players of higher win shares..I posted example of bench players playing limited minutes averaging 2 points per having higher win shares than starters averaging double digits with total team win being the determining factor..

I don't take anything from anyone at face value..Doesn't have anything to do with age..Everyone is trying to push their product and create their own niche..If the new science says the world is flat that you want to be down with your friends then run with it..

so basically you are saying that you have studied the complete formula, understand the data, are clear about how the key performance indicators were derived and this is your argument against it?

Well the whole concept doesn't make sense if you really think about it..First off you are taking a team game and assigning wins to one individual..How is that accomplished?..Second, let's look at Robin Lopez..dk7 took the win shares from last year and think that you can determine a similair outcome this year..So the conditions and circumstances that existed to create wins on the Portland Trailblazers are now predictable and can be transferred to another team with different players and playing different roles..But don't dtop there, multiply that by 10 players...So he added win shares of vet players from last year to determine win totals for the Knicks this year..And I'm the one out of touch..

You seem to be making many arguments based on not really knowing the data.

Alex English could have been the best player of all time .... if he played with shaq, right? Well ... you can't really prove me wrong, can you?

You are busting my chops for being old and not being open minded when I have done far more research on the data then you have..

how do you know that?

Because I have pointed out things in advanced stat that u weren't aware of..

like FT's?

Of course I don't know or remember everything.

But at least I will take everything and try to learn more. I don't just stick my head in the sand.

That fact that I know the flaws in the formula isn't sticking my head in the sand is it..

my problem with you is that you look for a flaw that supports a pro melo argument. Do you think that you are looking at everything with an open mind?

which advanced stats do you follow?

It seems that many of your arguments have a strong melo factor.

just my take ...

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:I think that if Melo had a good WS then you would love the stat.

It seems that many of your arguments have a strong melo factor.

just my take ...

I promise u that the first time I looked at Melo's WS was to add the total WS of last year's team to make sure it makes sense in that aspect..That's about two weeks ago..I could care less about Melo's WS..

so which advanced stats do you follow?

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:I think that if Melo had a good WS then you would love the stat.

It seems that many of your arguments have a strong melo factor.

just my take ...

I promise u that the first time I looked at Melo's WS was to add the total WS of last year's team to make sure it makes sense in that aspect..That's about two weeks ago..I could care less about Melo's WS..

so which advanced stats do you follow?

I don't follow it..I looked at a few formulas to see if the make sense..Mqny are so convoluted that I think it done that way intentionally..But honestly those I examined didn't shed any new light in the game for me..I don't think looking at one number to describe an individual doesn't tell any sort of story..Like the discussions we have had in the past about Harden..I find the traditions stats tell me how a player get his point and how he is effective more so than ts%..But that's just me..

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

TPercy wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

franco12 wrote:and for everyone with the knicks winning 34/35 games, that isn't a whole lot of margin over 31.5.

I think they win 42. 35 is the minimum and I would see it as a disappointment. When healthy and playing an entire season, Melo has never won less than 37 games. The talent on the team has been upgraded and this group of guys appear to have good chemistry. Can't wait to see them on the court together.

So if they win 30 games, it will be easy to blame it on Melo being not truly healthy.

You really are something with the negative snide remarks! This is a better team than Vegas realizes. Not because of the individual talent but the improved mental disposition of the team. Better balance, skill, effort, defense and BB IQ. They aren't really taking that into account.

A healthy Melo with a solid supporting cast has mostly led to an above .500 season with only the last 2 years missing that mark. So IMO there's nothing about this team that would indicate this team won't reach those levels Melo's teams have always reached outside of total dysfunction and injuries as we had the last 2 years.

you are putting too much of a burden on melo when you refer to him vis a vis his "supporting cast." that said, in his best seasons melo is good for 8-10 win shares. hence if he is healthy and buys in the knicks could very well win 39 games. anything more than that is actually on the shoulders of the two rookies.

If by "buys in" you mean Melo shares the rock consistently and takes better shots I think we can easily win 42-52 games.

Win shares is nonsense..

So glad you see it that way. Kind of like a 14 year old claiming jazz sucks

that is a great line :-)

the moon is stupid.

As someone eloquently pointed out in the Draftkings/Fanduel debacle, there is a sucker born every quarter..

don't mean to be rude by asking but would you mind stating your age?

Old enough to have taken some math classes in my day that I can spot a formula that don't make sense from a mile away..

you need to be pretty old school and dense to disregard/easily dismiss statistical formulas that pretty smart people come up with and have spent years trying to perfect.

nothing is perfect or without flaws. Nothing is black and white ... geeez

Win shares flaw is that total wins are written into the formula..Now please explain to me how you can have a fair assessment of a player's performance via win shares when total wins are a factor in determining win shares...Teams with better records will always have players of higher win shares..I posted example of bench players playing limited minutes averaging 2 points per having higher win shares than starters averaging double digits with total team win being the determining factor..

I don't take anything from anyone at face value..Doesn't have anything to do with age..Everyone is trying to push their product and create their own niche..If the new science says the world is flat that you want to be down with your friends then run with it..

are you sure this is true? your sense of causality is... weird.

maybe you can post your example of a bench warmer getting as many win shares on a winning team as a starter on a losing team. lets examine your theory.

Jimmy Butler rookie year and Kemba Walker rookie year..Bulls won 50 games Char won 7..Butler averaged 2 points, Kemba 12 or 14..Don't remember..Guess who had a higher WS..

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:I think that if Melo had a good WS then you would love the stat.

It seems that many of your arguments have a strong melo factor.

just my take ...

I promise u that the first time I looked at Melo's WS was to add the total WS of last year's team to make sure it makes sense in that aspect..That's about two weeks ago..I could care less about Melo's WS..

so which advanced stats do you follow?

I don't follow it..I looked at a few formulas to see if the make sense..Mqny are so convoluted that I think it done that way intentionally..But honestly those I examined didn't shed any new light in the game for me..I don't think looking at one number to describe an individual doesn't tell any sort of story..Like the discussions we have had in the past about Harden..I find the traditions stats tell me how a player get his point and how he is effective more so than ts%..But that's just me..

you were wrong about harden. WS48 is a far better predictor than we are.

its strange how you can look at a formula, understand all of its components and foundations and so easily dismiss. Its a bit simple minded, no?