Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:Characterizing Melo as a one-dimensional chucker is simply one-dimensional posting.

In the category of PTS+REBS+ASSTS he ranks 10th in the league, bunched up there with Wade, Rose, Amare, etc,

And ahead of Kobe, Dirk, Deron, Gasol, Nash, Rondo, Paul, Gay, Bosh, Piece, Garnett, Joe Johnson, et al. Guys like Duncan aren't even in the top 50.

Pts + rbs + assists? Why on earth would you add those numbers? Because PPG are much higher than RPG and APG, all that stat really does is tell you who scores a lot of points (and regardless of the number of shots they take).

No Bonn, PTS+REBS+ASSTS is not just about points, it's about points, rebounds and assists.

Points are a much bigger number and thus carry a ridiculously disproportionate amount of weight in the total statistic.

Point escapes you.

It's a bad statistic. Those of you supporting it can't even make an argument for using it over more advanced stats like Hollinger's PER.

Bonn, as a point of discussion, it's a simplified version of PER, just without weights on each stat.

And as a way to differentiate "one-dimensional chucker" it's a perfect way of getting point across, and that's exactly what you are missing.

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:Characterizing Melo as a one-dimensional chucker is simply one-dimensional posting.

In the category of PTS+REBS+ASSTS he ranks 10th in the league, bunched up there with Wade, Rose, Amare, etc,

And ahead of Kobe, Dirk, Deron, Gasol, Nash, Rondo, Paul, Gay, Bosh, Piece, Garnett, Joe Johnson, et al. Guys like Duncan aren't even in the top 50.

Pts + rbs + assists? Why on earth would you add those numbers? Because PPG are much higher than RPG and APG, all that stat really does is tell you who scores a lot of points (and regardless of the number of shots they take).

No Bonn, PTS+REBS+ASSTS is not just about points, it's about points, rebounds and assists.

Points are a much bigger number and thus carry a ridiculously disproportionate amount of weight in the total statistic.

Point escapes you.

It's a bad statistic. Those of you supporting it can't even make an argument for using it over more advanced stats like Hollinger's PER.

Bonn, as a point of discussion, it's a simplified version of PER, just without weights on each stat.

And as a way to differentiate "one-dimensional chucker" it's a perfect way of getting point across, and that's exactly what you are missing.

I'm not missing the point; I'm pointing out that the argument is weak and the stat you're providing is basically a stat for the numerically incompetent.
People have said Melo is a chucker, although I haven't heard them say he's a one-dimensional chucker. He's definitely a good rebounder.

misterearl wrote:Bonn1997 - World B Free was a bad mother ("shut yo' mouth!") chucker. But we could dig it.

Forget kvetching over stats for a moment. People are totally missing the beauty that is Carmelo's smile. It is the same confident smile flashed by Magic Johnson under he bright lights of the LA Forum. Few players have it. Charisma. Mojo. THAT thing that you cannot describe in words. Melo has IT.

Showmanship. Panache. Style. That thing that makes ticket scalpers smile in their sleep.

Carmelo Anthony owns a rare quality that few athletes have. That is the coolness and focus to perform at a high level when the lights are the brightest. He smiles at the glare of attention in the same manner he would smile at an opponent on the playground in West Baltimore. That confidence drives wanna-be journalists, who NEVER picked up a basketball, nuts. They don't get it. It's only arrogant if you want to cast a negative spin on it. "He should be better" Yeah, right. YOU go drop 30 points in an NBA game.

You hate him when he is on the other team but when he is on your side you say, "rumble young man, rumble!"

Carmelo wanted out of Denver because LaLa prefers to go shopping in SoHo over the 16th Street Mall. But he also craved the spotlight of the big city. Like Borg needed McEnroe and Ali needed Frazier, Carmelo needs the big city spotlight to bring the best out of his game. He embraces the challenge of being a (co)leader because he was groomed for the role. He did the same at Syracuse as a team leader. A freshman no less. Gimme a break. A freshman. Playing in The Garden. You never forget the unique lighting and sounds.

So, take a step back my people. Take a deep breath. Yes, the trade stung. I still miss Mozgov. And Gallo. And The Mayor. But you know what?

Last night was a glimpse of an all star at work in HIS element. In the World's MOST Famous Arena, bright lights, skyscrapers, celebrities and all. The Utah announcers made a great observation. They mentioned that Carmelo didn't look like he had broken a sweat, and he had already dropped 17.

This young man can be as good as he wants to be.

Just because he makes it look easy does not mean he does not care.

Smile Carmelo.

I am happy to see the team win. Just because I'm critical of the trade and lukewarm on Carmelo as a player doesn't mean I don't get enjoyment out wins.

knickstorrents wrote:

martin wrote:Bonn, as a point of discussion, it's a simplified version of PER, just without weights on each stat.

And as a way to differentiate "one-dimensional chucker" it's a perfect way of getting point across, and that's exactly what you are missing.

Adding up pts + rebs + assists is a very lame way to determine a player's value. I've found win shares/WP48 to be a pretty good predictor of a teams performance.

The problem with just adding counting stats is it does not take into account the cost of getting those stats. For points specifically, there is a cost associated with every miss, that leads into a possession for the other team. If the other team shoots a higher team percentage than you, and you allow them more possessions, guess what - you lose the game.

I agree with this and Bonn here, 30PTS may have the same impacts as 15 Rebs or 10 Assts, but take three players who each get only one of those will have a very different scores -- 30, 15, 10 etc under thios system. This may be oversimplified and seems to be a very weak statistic. Unless I am completely missing something...wouldn't be the first time.

loweyecue wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:

martin wrote:Bonn, as a point of discussion, it's a simplified version of PER, just without weights on each stat.

And as a way to differentiate "one-dimensional chucker" it's a perfect way of getting point across, and that's exactly what you are missing.

Adding up pts + rebs + assists is a very lame way to determine a player's value. I've found win shares/WP48 to be a pretty good predictor of a teams performance.

The problem with just adding counting stats is it does not take into account the cost of getting those stats. For points specifically, there is a cost associated with every miss, that leads into a possession for the other team. If the other team shoots a higher team percentage than you, and you allow them more possessions, guess what - you lose the game.

I agree with this and Bonn here, 30PTS may have the same impacts as 15 Rebs or 10 Assts, but take three players who each get only one of those will have a very different scores -- 30, 15, 10 etc under thios system. This may be oversimplified and seems to be a very weak statistic. Unless I am completely missing something...wouldn't be the first time.

you ktorrents and bonnie def missing the bigger point, but at this point, who cares.

If Jared Jeffries brings the "intangibles" that do not show up in the scorebook with only one point in four games... what is the measure of "intangibles" when the defense is chasing after the flammable Carmelo, while Toney Douglas (or Shawne Williams) finds the extra space to hoist a three pointer?

Does it equate to 25.9 times Jeffries positive influence on defense?

Help me out here.

knickstorrents wrote:My issue with Carmelo's brain dead isolations is that it is too predictable. I guess you can be optimistic that it draws people's attention, but what I see is that he holds the ball, defenses key on him, and he still doesn't pass the ball. That will not lead to a high percentage shot.

Unless Carmelo gets his assists up, and his true shooting percentage up, and regular shooting percentage, I still don't thinkn he's worth a max salary slot.

Funny. They used to say the same thing about Patrick Ewing.

knickstorrents wrote:My issue with Carmelo's brain dead isolations is that it is too predictable. I guess you can be optimistic that it draws people's attention, but what I see is that he holds the ball, defenses key on him, and he still doesn't pass the ball. That will not lead to a high percentage shot.

Unless Carmelo gets his assists up, and his true shooting percentage up, and regular shooting percentage, I still don't thinkn he's worth a max salary slot.

Were Michael Jordans isolations "brain dead"?

Assists, true shooting percentage, regular shooting percentage... what is this ... math class or a basketball game?

Carmelo gets paid because he is one of the best at what he does. The fact he draws attention with the ball in his hands means that Landry Fields and Shawne Williams get open looks at the rim. How about this? Let's kvetch over every single clutch jumper, or take off the dribble, Carmelo makes with a hand in his face as a BAD shot. Bad Carmelo. Bad.

one more thing...

Why the resentment over his paycheck?

It ain't your money.

misterearl wrote:Why the resentment over his paycheck?

It ain't your money.

If there was no cap no one would care. Obviously, paying someone a max slot means you have less resources to get other players.

knickstorrents wrote:

misterearl wrote:Why the resentment over his paycheck?

It ain't your money.

If there was no cap no one would care. Obviously, paying someone a max slot means you have less resources to get other players.

I thought misterearl would have realized by now the ridiculousness of the "it aint your money" comment. He seemed to have (intelligently) abandoned using that comment after seeing how badly ignoring salary backfired over the past decade.

knickstorrents wrote:

misterearl wrote:Why the resentment over his paycheck?

It ain't your money.

If there was no cap no one would care. Obviously, paying someone a max slot means you have less resources to get other players.

Max slot. Schmacks slot. I could care less about the size of Carmelo's paycheck, or Charlie Sheen's for that matter. Carmelo worked his way to the top of his profession and his valuable skill set is rewarded accordingly for its revenue value to Cablevision. I have no problem with that.

There is no prize for playing amateur GM. Donnie Walsh knows what he is doing.

Unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Dolan forced Walsh's hand to give away those "resources" you speak of.

I still miss Mozgov.