Bonn1997 wrote:I don't see how you can say he ignored defense or athleticism. He didn't say he was giving an exhaustive list of his reasons for preferring Harden. It's crazy to give the kind of weight you're giving to 3 playoff games. Tons of great players in all sports have poor post-season #s if their sample is small enough. I remember when people were concerned that CC Sabbathia couldn't perform in the playoffs!

It seems like you are making much ado about nothing. I simply said it's a wash and defense / athleticism / playoffs should be taken into consideration. This is not something I care to debate. Efficiency is important. So is defense. So is athleticism. So is performing in the playoffs. All should be considered.

NUPE wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I don't see how you can say he ignored defense or athleticism. He didn't say he was giving an exhaustive list of his reasons for preferring Harden. It's crazy to give the kind of weight you're giving to 3 playoff games. Tons of great players in all sports have poor post-season #s if their sample is small enough. I remember when people were concerned that CC Sabbathia couldn't perform in the playoffs!

It seems like you are making much ado about nothing. I simply said it's a wash and defense / athleticism should be taken into consideration.

Bonn1997 wrote:

NUPE wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NUPE wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I don't see how you can say he ignored defense or athleticism. He didn't say he was giving an exhaustive list of his reasons for preferring Harden. It's crazy to give the kind of weight you're giving to 3 playoff games. Tons of great players in all sports have poor post-season #s if their sample is small enough. I remember when people were concerned that CC Sabbathia couldn't perform in the playoffs!

It seems like you are making much ado about nothing. I simply said it's a wash and defense / athleticism should be taken into consideration.

Well I was responding to both you and holfresh since you both seemed to be making a big deal out of 3 games.
I care much more about how effectively the player uses whatever athletic abilities he has than about the abilities in their own right. Maybe Westbrook jumps higher but who cares?

How am I making a big deal. I simply said playoffs / finals should be considered in conjunction with several other things. You are the only person here making a big deal.

Well merely mentioning the 3 games is making more of a deal than is justified IMO since it's only 3 games.

Except I did not mention three games. Last time I checked, the playoffs is not merely three games. I said playoffs & finals in conjunction with defense, athleticism and efficiency.

Bonn1997 wrote:

NUPE wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NUPE wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NUPE wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I don't see how you can say he ignored defense or athleticism. He didn't say he was giving an exhaustive list of his reasons for preferring Harden. It's crazy to give the kind of weight you're giving to 3 playoff games. Tons of great players in all sports have poor post-season #s if their sample is small enough. I remember when people were concerned that CC Sabbathia couldn't perform in the playoffs!

It seems like you are making much ado about nothing. I simply said it's a wash and defense / athleticism should be taken into consideration.

Well I was responding to both you and holfresh since you both seemed to be making a big deal out of 3 games.
I care much more about how effectively the player uses whatever athletic abilities he has than about the abilities in their own right. Maybe Westbrook jumps higher but who cares?

How am I making a big deal. I simply said playoffs / finals should be considered in conjunction with several other things. You are the only person here making a big deal.

Well merely mentioning the 3 games is making more of a deal than is justified IMO since it's only 3 games.

Except I did not mention three games. Last time I checked, the playoffs is not merely three games. I said playoffs & finals in conjunction with defense and athleticism.

Right but there's nothing beyond 3 of the finals games to complain about. Mentioning "playoffs" is just an unjustifiable attempt to make the sample appear bigger.

Where exactly did I complain? And it is funny that you continue to ignore the fact I said athleticism, defense and efficiency while summarily concluding that I complained about something. LMAO!

NUPE wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NUPE wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NUPE wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NUPE wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I don't see how you can say he ignored defense or athleticism. He didn't say he was giving an exhaustive list of his reasons for preferring Harden. It's crazy to give the kind of weight you're giving to 3 playoff games. Tons of great players in all sports have poor post-season #s if their sample is small enough. I remember when people were concerned that CC Sabbathia couldn't perform in the playoffs!

It seems like you are making much ado about nothing. I simply said it's a wash and defense / athleticism should be taken into consideration.

Well I was responding to both you and holfresh since you both seemed to be making a big deal out of 3 games.
I care much more about how effectively the player uses whatever athletic abilities he has than about the abilities in their own right. Maybe Westbrook jumps higher but who cares?

How am I making a big deal. I simply said playoffs / finals should be considered in conjunction with several other things. You are the only person here making a big deal.

Well merely mentioning the 3 games is making more of a deal than is justified IMO since it's only 3 games.

Except I did not mention three games. Last time I checked, the playoffs is not merely three games. I said playoffs & finals in conjunction with defense and athleticism.

Right but there's nothing beyond 3 of the finals games to complain about. Mentioning "playoffs" is just an unjustifiable attempt to make the sample appear bigger.

Where exactly did I complain? And it is funny that you continue to ignore the fact I said athleticism, defense and efficiency while summarily concluding that I complained about something. LMAO!

sebstar wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

sebstar wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

sebstar wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

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

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

You have not presented any argument or evidence that it is messy though. The best validated stats give high weight to efficiency. You have not found evidence of flaws in this validation research. It is also doubtful that you need a strong theory in order to make use of data anyway. Inductive statistics basically works by getting the data first and then making sense of them theoretically. If you initially did not realize it but then find that scoring efficiency is actually critical when looking at the data, it is acceptable to then formulate a theory that accounts for the importance of efficiency.

Sorry. Busy day. Didnt even get to watch the game.

For starters, as mentioned, the knicks had one of the best records in the league, over a 1/3 of the way through the season, with Felton manning the point. Overall, his teams have been successful throughout his career, except for when he had his head up his *** last year, so thats problematic for you off top because winning is the dependent variable. Not efficiency.

Then there is Jason Kidd and his ranking. Kidd is ranked, what 3rd? So with efficiency as a de-facto variable that explains success and w/ls, Kidd should therefore be considered one of the best current pgs in the league. We know thats not true.

Kidd is wonderful as a specialist, role player --- but as a featured pg? A liability. He cant put pressure on a defense, nor make things happen as an athlete anymore at his age, which hurts the effectiveness of his teammates. Anyone who watches knows as much.

But if you look at "efficiency", it says hes a top 5 pg. Efficiency often rewards those who do less, not impact the game more. Kidd plays almost a mistake free game --- but he cant assert himself physically to the benefit of his teammates. Its a great example on how stats, decontextualized, are dangerous (especially concerning more substantive studies).

Feltons aggressive play, and decent shooting for a PG the most important position, stresses the defense w/ consistent pressure. As a legit offensive threat, the d is on their heels, which has a positive effect on Melo and the team as a whole. Even when he misses, its potentially a positive as a cumulative effect (and direct effect w/ an offensive rebound). The formula for success with him as pg works, but it doesnt show up on a sheet sometimes.

I don't see how anything you said about Kidd negates the importance of scoring efficiency. For the season as a whole, he's been a very efficient scorer and it has definitely helped the team. Scoring efficiency is obviously only one of many factors that are considered in the advanced stats though. If you're very low in scoring efficiency but outstanding in other areas, that probably wouldn't be a problem. That doesn't apply to Felton, though.

I didnt negate it, per say, I just think you are applying too much weight as a complete explanation for the viability of a player, when its simply a variable. Im just using felton/kidd as examples on how it can be misleading, because of how accessible they are given that we all familiar with their play and production.

But I haven't even said how much weight I give it other than that it is one of many important variables (see bold). I support the amount of weight that WS and WP give it - it's quite important but so is your rate for rebounding, steals, assists, turnovers, fouls, and blocks. Felton is basically average in all those other areas and record-setting bad in scoring efficiency.

Hes a good asst. guy, doesnt turn the ball over much, is a scoring threat, a good defender, and his teams win. You can abstract convenient stats to turn him into something he's not all you want.

While talking about how the Knicks’ offensive has changed, D’Alessandro spat out, “Raymond Felton gone for at least another month.” So far as I can tell, D’Alessandro is the only one to have reported Felton missing extended time, as most people expect Felton to return in the near future, with Boston being an actual target on the 24th.

If Felton does indeed miss extra time, this is some very concerning news, as the team really misses him. Without Felton, penetration dies, which leads the Knicks to fall back on isolation plays for Melo and J.R. Smith. While both guys can have near-perfect nights, relying on Carmelo Anthony and/or J.R. Smith to go ISO for most of the team’s offense is a recipe for disaster.

- TheKnicksWall

sebstar wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Here are his #s per 48 min and the average PG:
Rbs: 3.7 (Felton) vs. 3.9 (average)
Ast: 9.2 vs. 8.3
TOs: 3.6 vs. 3.3
Blk: 0.3 vs. 0.3
Stls: 2.0 vs. 1.8

Other than the scoring efficiency, he's basically average. He gets both more assists and turnovers than average, but the ratio is pretty average.

his asst:to ratio is great, and he is a scoring threat, shooting a decent percentage for a PG. Im not trying to place him in a standing that is over-inflated. Id say he is above average, and a perfect fit for the objectives of this team, which our record with him as a starter reflects. I dont put much stock in this worst efficiency season in decades stat, because it doest square with other more important variables. Ive already accounted for why its a misleading stat.

how can he be a "scoring threat" when he shoots 39.6%FG. such a scoring threat is felton that some teams have been backing off of and daring him to shoot.

so far as efficiency it basically rewards smart shot-takers and exposes players who take foolish shots. it also rewards players who can draw fouls. there's absolutely nothing misleading about the stat, nothing. the problem with felton's game is that he refuses to recognize his limitations and play within his limitations. why does such a lousy scorer take so many shots? he has NO business putting up 16-17 shots a game.

"perfect fit for the objectives of this team" geezus

sebstar wrote:

dk7th wrote:

sebstar wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Here are his #s per 48 min and the average PG:
Rbs: 3.7 (Felton) vs. 3.9 (average)
Ast: 9.2 vs. 8.3
TOs: 3.6 vs. 3.3
Blk: 0.3 vs. 0.3
Stls: 2.0 vs. 1.8

Other than the scoring efficiency, he's basically average. He gets both more assists and turnovers than average, but the ratio is pretty average.

his asst:to ratio is great, and he is a scoring threat, shooting a decent percentage for a PG. Im not trying to place him in a standing that is over-inflated. Id say he is above average, and a perfect fit for the objectives of this team, which our record with him as a starter reflects. I dont put much stock in this worst efficiency season in decades stat, because it doest square with other more important variables. Ive already accounted for why its a misleading stat.

how can he be a "scoring threat" when he shoots 39.6%FG. such a scoring threat is felton that some teams have been backing off of and daring him to shoot.

so far as efficiency it basically rewards smart shot-takers and exposes players who take foolish shots. it also rewards players who can draw fouls. there's absolutely nothing misleading about the stat, nothing. the problem with felton's game is that he refuses to recognize his limitations and play within his limitations. why does such a lousy scorer take so many shots? he has NO business putting up 16-17 shots a game.

"perfect fit for the objectives of this team" geezus

He was shooting fine until he basically broke both of his hands....I guess thats the thanks he gets from knick fans for trying to gut it out, and help the team.

Efficiency is more important than winning it appears.

sebstar wrote:

dk7th wrote:

sebstar wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Here are his #s per 48 min and the average PG:
Rbs: 3.7 (Felton) vs. 3.9 (average)
Ast: 9.2 vs. 8.3
TOs: 3.6 vs. 3.3
Blk: 0.3 vs. 0.3
Stls: 2.0 vs. 1.8

Other than the scoring efficiency, he's basically average. He gets both more assists and turnovers than average, but the ratio is pretty average.

his asst:to ratio is great, and he is a scoring threat, shooting a decent percentage for a PG. Im not trying to place him in a standing that is over-inflated. Id say he is above average, and a perfect fit for the objectives of this team, which our record with him as a starter reflects. I dont put much stock in this worst efficiency season in decades stat, because it doest square with other more important variables. Ive already accounted for why its a misleading stat.

how can he be a "scoring threat" when he shoots 39.6%FG. such a scoring threat is felton that some teams have been backing off of and daring him to shoot.

so far as efficiency it basically rewards smart shot-takers and exposes players who take foolish shots. it also rewards players who can draw fouls. there's absolutely nothing misleading about the stat, nothing. the problem with felton's game is that he refuses to recognize his limitations and play within his limitations. why does such a lousy scorer take so many shots? he has NO business putting up 16-17 shots a game.

"perfect fit for the objectives of this team" geezus

He was shooting fine until he basically broke both of his hands....I guess thats the thanks he gets from knick fans for trying to gut it out, and help the team.

No, not today's Knicks fans...They praise Lin who left us high and dry during last years playoff against the Heat..Left it up to Melo to do it all alone...Then they call Melo selfish...Felton plays through injury in both hands because he knows the team need him and gets dumped on for it...Lin rides the pine to make sure the offer is as big as he can get and it's all good...He is the type of player we need they say...I love it...Can't make this stuff up...