[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

we just played the rooks vs. the starters and they did work
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 4 of 6 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5  6 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
11/17/2005  1:44 AM
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by djsunyc:

if you don't want to see it or don't agree


Neither. I don't disagree and I don't not want to see it. Just trying to raise the bar a bit. One of the most frustrating things in sports is all this he-said she-said. People will make claims and run with it and spout and go on and on, and in many cases it's a waste of time because the original idea was flawed or poorly conceived. I'm not saying you're wrong about Marbury, but I am saying that this whole Marbury thing is one big tired karmic cycle over and over. I am getting tired of this spin wash. Let's break out. Show me the stats. If not, you will be reincarnated as a flatworm in Marbs' intestines, duking it out with the other flatworms ad nauseam.

It's ridiculous for anyone to base all of their beliefs on statistics. Ridiculous. How do I know I'm typing on my computer? Well, the statistical evidence shows... How do I know Marbury fails at the end of games? Just watch the games.


[Edited by - Knight on 11-17-2005 01:45 AM]
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
AUTOADVERT
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/17/2005  1:48 AM
Posted by Knight:

It's ridiculous for anyone to base all of their beliefs on statistics. Ridiculous. How do I know I'm typing on my computer? Well, the statistical evidence shows...


I'm not basing all my belief on statistics. I am looking for an objective measure everyone can agree on. He-said she-said will not cut it in this case. There is no true concensus opinion on Marbury, which would be fine if we didn't have to hear people arguing one way or the other all the time and making up various fantasies and tales of intrigue and doomsday stories and exaggerated fancies and on and on and on. I hear this thing about Steph in the clutch all the time, but there is no concensus from mere observation. Some people obviously think much worse of him than others. How can we resolve this? Let's look at the stats. Not a perfect answer, but neither is subjective evaluation of the games. Something to move this forward and get it off of perpetual repeat, please.

[Edited by - tomverve on 11-17-2005 01:49 AM]
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
11/17/2005  1:50 AM
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by Knight:

It's ridiculous for anyone to base all of their beliefs on statistics. Ridiculous. How do I know I'm typing on my computer? Well, the statistical evidence shows...


I'm not basing all my belief on statistics. I am looking for an objective measure everyone can agree on. He-said she-said will not cut it in this case. There is no true concensus opinion on Marbury, which would be fine if we didn't have to hear people arguing one way or the other all the time and making up various fantasies and tales of intrigue and doomsday stories and exaggerated fancies and on and on and on. I hear this thing about Steph in the clutch all the time, but there is no concensus from mere observation. Some people obviously think much worse of him than others. How can we resolve this? Let's look at the stats. Not a perfect answer, but neither is subjective evaluation of the games. Something to move this forward and get it off of perpetual repeat, please.

There is no objective measure, get over it.
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/17/2005  1:53 AM
Posted by Knight:

There is no objective measure, get over it.


We have objective measures of Marbs' shooting percentages, scoring numbers, passing, all that and more in the clutch. Not a perfect or exhaustive measure of performace, but certainly an objective one.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
11/17/2005  1:56 AM
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by Knight:

There is no objective measure, get over it.

We have objective measures of Marbs' shooting percentages, scoring numbers, passing, all that and more in the clutch. Not a perfect or exhaustive measure of performace, but certainly an objective one.

Define "clutch". On second thought, don't bother. It's too late for this nonsense.


[Edited by - Knight on 11-17-2005 02:00 AM]
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/17/2005  2:01 AM
82games.com defines clutch situations as follows:

4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points

Sounds reasonable to me. Whether we want to haggle further about how to define that I don't know, but I do know we can just put out there what Marbury does in those situations statistically and no one can deny that information. I don't know what the numbers will show or if they will change any minds, but they will certainly shed some light on the issues.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
11/17/2005  2:03 AM
I know we lost more close games last year than any other team.
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
TemujinKnick
Posts: 20771
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/3/2005
Member: #1022
11/17/2005  2:03 AM
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by TemujinKnick:

It isn't the stats. It's the steel to carry the team to a win when they start to get shaken. He can do it. He hasn't yet.


Nonsense. If a guy makes a difference in the clutch, it's because he did something to affect the score of the game. Conversely, if a guy's presence has no statistical effect on the game during the clutch, then by definition he cannot have made a difference to the outcome of the game.


So when a play silences the crowd, drains the energy or hope from the other team, takes key opposing players out of their game, or otherwise lifts up our team with intangibles... That means nothing?
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
11/17/2005  2:05 AM
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by Knight:

There is no objective measure, get over it.


We have objective measures of Marbs' shooting percentages, scoring numbers, passing, all that and more in the clutch. Not a perfect or exhaustive measure of performace, but certainly an objective one.

You asked for it.

http://www.82games.com/clutchplay3.htm

The bottom of the page is their grand summation, their best tally of clutchness. The list the top 50 in the league. Marbury doesn't even make the list.

Now if you consider that they list 50 players, for only 30 teams, and it could be argued that last year there were few teams in the league as dependant on one guy (Steph) as us, it's a pretty woeful commentary.

Is that the kind of objective measure you were looking for?
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/17/2005  2:05 AM
Posted by Knight:

I know we lost more close games last year than any other team.


Maybe it was mostly due to poor play from the other 4 guys on the court. Disagree? Show me the stats.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
11/17/2005  2:08 AM
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by Knight:

I know we lost more close games last year than any other team.


Maybe it was mostly due to poor play from the other 4 guys on the court. Disagree? Show me the stats.

Poor play by 5 guys actually.
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/17/2005  2:09 AM
Posted by TemujinKnick:

So when a play silences the crowd, drains the energy or hope from the other team, takes key opposing players out of their game, or otherwise lifts up our team with intangibles... That means nothing?


It does if the silencing of the crowd makes no impact on the game. All those intangibles you mention, if they really matter to the outcome of the game, will naturally show the effect that they have on the game in the stats. Suppose a team makes a great play and all those intangibles happen and as a result they wind up outscoring the opposition 6-0 to close out the game. The stats won't tell you the crowd got silenced, but they will tell you that the winning team had a decisive advantage to close it out.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
Knight
Posts: 22775
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/21/2005
Member: #968
11/17/2005  2:11 AM
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by TemujinKnick:

So when a play silences the crowd, drains the energy or hope from the other team, takes key opposing players out of their game, or otherwise lifts up our team with intangibles... That means nothing?


It does if the silencing of the crowd makes no impact on the game. All those intangibles you mention, if they really matter to the outcome of the game, will naturally show the effect that they have on the game in the stats. Suppose a team makes a great play and all those intangibles happen and as a result they wind up outscoring the opposition 6-0 to close out the game. The stats won't tell you the crowd got silenced, but they will tell you that the winning team had a decisive advantage to close it out.

But you won't know the cause of the advantage which is what is most interesting.
"He only went to Georgia Tech for one year, and that's an engineering school." -LB
TemujinKnick
Posts: 20771
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/3/2005
Member: #1022
11/17/2005  2:12 AM
Posted by Knight:
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by TemujinKnick:

So when a play silences the crowd, drains the energy or hope from the other team, takes key opposing players out of their game, or otherwise lifts up our team with intangibles... That means nothing?


It does if the silencing of the crowd makes no impact on the game. All those intangibles you mention, if they really matter to the outcome of the game, will naturally show the effect that they have on the game in the stats. Suppose a team makes a great play and all those intangibles happen and as a result they wind up outscoring the opposition 6-0 to close out the game. The stats won't tell you the crowd got silenced, but they will tell you that the winning team had a decisive advantage to close it out.

But you won't know the cause of the advantage which is what is most interesting.


... and most useful for building the strength and character of the team.
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/17/2005  2:20 AM
Posted by BlueSeats:

You asked for it.

http://www.82games.com/clutchplay3.htm

The bottom of the page is their grand summation, their best tally of clutchness. The list the top 50 in the league. Marbury doesn't even make the list.

Now if you consider that they list 50 players, for only 30 teams, and it could be argued that last year there were few teams in the league as dependant on one guy (Steph) as us, it's a pretty woeful commentary.

Is that the kind of objective measure you were looking for?





Yes, that is the level of discussion I am looking for. Thank you.

A couple of points:
1) People historically rag on Steph specifically for not making plays on the offense in the clutch. However, Steph ranks 29th on the PER list during the clutch. PER is primarily a measure of offensive productivity, so it seems that complaints about Marbury's offensive production in the clutch may be somewhat exaggerated.

2) The final list ranks players in part by subtracting their 'counterpart' clutch PER from their own clutch PER, in order to take offense and defense into account. This is not the best way to measure defense, however, as the author alludes to. (It makes assumptions about who guards whom and does not at all take team defense into account.) In any case, that Marbury does not show up on the final list is attributable to defensive concerns, not offensive. But it is really Marbury's offense in clutch situations in particular that seems to be at issue.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/17/2005  2:22 AM
Posted by Knight:

But you won't know the cause of the advantage which is what is most interesting.


True, and agreed that knowing the cause is more interesting. Nonetheless, contrary to popular belief, the effects will show up in the stats some way or another if they are at all relevant to the outcome of the game. Of course, the ideal thing would be to actually watch the game and then be able to explain the stats in terms of that, and vice versa.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
11/17/2005  2:31 AM
whats crunch time? we're talking about with under 1 minute left, last posessions
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
11/17/2005  2:37 AM
Posted by tomverve:
Posted by BlueSeats:

You asked for it.

http://www.82games.com/clutchplay3.htm

The bottom of the page is their grand summation, their best tally of clutchness. The list the top 50 in the league. Marbury doesn't even make the list.

Now if you consider that they list 50 players, for only 30 teams, and it could be argued that last year there were few teams in the league as dependant on one guy (Steph) as us, it's a pretty woeful commentary.

Is that the kind of objective measure you were looking for?





Yes, that is the level of discussion I am looking for. Thank you.

A couple of points:
1) People historically rag on Steph specifically for not making plays on the offense in the clutch. However, Steph ranks 29th on the PER list during the clutch. PER is primarily a measure of offensive productivity, so it seems that complaints about Marbury's offensive production in the clutch may be somewhat exaggerated.

Complaints about being ranked 29th are exaggerated? There are only 30 teams. How low could he go and still give you comfort?

2) The final list ranks players in part by subtracting their 'counterpart' clutch PER from their own clutch PER, in order to take offense and defense into account. This is not the best way to measure defense, however, as the author alludes to. (It makes assumptions about who guards whom and does not at all take team defense into account.) In any case, that Marbury does not show up on the final list is attributable to defensive concerns, not offensive. But it is really Marbury's offense in clutch situations in particular that seems to be at issue.

Perhaps to you. I recall kobe going off for 41, or whatever it was, being a complain tonight. And guys like Bibby, Lue, and Palacio, scorching him last year being a complaint. And getting scorched by guys like Arroyo and the Lithuanian PG in the Olympics being a complaint before that.

So he's 29th overall offensively (with 30 teams), and who knows how far below 50th when offense and defense are factored in, and you see these as redeeming stats? Again, I have to ask.... how low could he go before you'd feel these objective measures (which you seem to put so much stock in) would look bad on Steph.



[Edited by - BlueSeats on 11-17-2005 02:44 AM]
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
11/17/2005  2:47 AM
Posted by gunsnewing:

whats crunch time? we're talking about with under 1 minute left, last posessions

82games.com uses the last 5 minutes of regulation of close games and OT. If I recall correctly, nba.com or cbssportsline uses the last 2 mins and OT, but I couldn't find theirs.
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
11/17/2005  10:35 AM
Some more observations about these numbers.

Pro:
1) Marbury raised his 2005 PER in the clutch, from 21.91 for the overall season to 27.2 in the clutch. He actually played better statistically during the last 5 minutes and overtime of close games than he did overall.

2) Of the top 50 in clutch PER, Marbury ranked 11th in FTA in the clutch (17.5).
Comparable to: Jermaine O'Neal (17.5), Steve Nash (17.8), Chauncey Billups (17.3), Shaquille O'Neal (16.8), Zach Randolph (18.2)

3) Of the top 50 in clutch PER, Marbury ranked 5th in asst/TO ratio (8.0/2.1 => 3.81).
Comparable to: Steve Nash (3.35), Jason Kidd (3.21), Antonio Daniels (4.22), Sam Cassell (4.38)

4) Of the top 50 in clutch PER, Marbury ranked 15th in points per 100 possessions (34.9)
Comparable to: Sam Cassell (35.3), Jerry Stackhouse (34.8), Chauncey Billups (33.2), Michael Redd (36.1), Allen Iverson (34.3)

5) Of the top 50 in clutch PER, Marbury ranked 6th in FGA per 100 possessions (28.3)-- for all those who claim he doesn't shoot it enough in the clutch
Comparable to: Sam Cassell (28.9), Allen Iverson (27.8), Dwyane Wade (26.7), Ben Gordon (27.7), Dirk Nowitzki (27.3)


Con:
1) Of the top 50 in clutch PER, Marbury tied for 49th in eFG% with Iverson (.370)
Comparable to: Dirk Nowitzki (.383), Tim Duncan (.395), Kobe Bryant (.371), Allen Iverson (.370), Zach Randolph (.386)

2) Of the top 50 in clutch PER, Marbury ranked 47th in rebounds per 100 possessions (3.1)
Comparable to: Earl Boykins (3.3), Tyronn Lue (2.2), Jason Williams (2.6), Jalen Rose (4.2)


So it looks like the main knock on Marbury's clutch offense, at least for last season, is that he shot a poor percentage, but his percentage was not poor enough to be prohibitively low amongst go-to players. Despite his poor shooting percentage in the clutch, Marbury overall actually elevated his offensive production, ranking relatively high in FTA, FGA, Ass/TO, and points per 100 possessions.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
Page 4 of 6 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5  6 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
we just played the rooks vs. the starters and they did work
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy