Andrew wrote:What is the rank. I'm not sure how they ordered the list. I was looking at the wins produced number because that was what the initial article used, and the rank of the players is not determined by that number.

the Player rankings are pretty much consistent w/the "Classic Wins Produced" statline, whatever the hell that is

TMS wrote:

Andrew wrote:What is the rank. I'm not sure how they ordered the list. I was looking at the wins produced number because that was what the initial article used, and the rank of the players is not determined by that number.

the Player rankings are pretty much consistent w/the "Classic Wins Produced" statline, whatever the hell that is

But not really, because gallo has a 6+ classic wins produced and is alot lower on the list.

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

Andrew wrote:While the statistic is not the end all for determining a players worth, don't you have to pause and think about why Melo's rating is low compared to the other players listed? Doesn't it lend some validity to the questions people have posted about whether Melo is worth the price that is being asked?

no, it really doesn't... why is Gallinari ranked #149 in that list? is it because he sucks & can't help us win ballgames? we should trade him for Zach Randolph so we can win more games, is that it?

your response to Andrew's is so out of context it doesn't make sense. what does gallo and Randolph have to do with taking pause about reading melo's stats and his price of what is being asked?

because it proves how worthless this chart really is in determining a player's value... why would you take pause to consider Melo's value based on this useless chart & not do the same for the players i mentioned? or any other player on this list for that matter? using this logic, Gallo's #149 ranking would make him pretty much worthless as an NBA player.

what you are suggesting is that if you can find 1 anomaly (or some anomalies) within a particular statistical way of trying to grade out players, you should throw the whole thing out, rather than trying to see if some of it pans out and should at least be considered.

there's not just 1 anomaly there dude... take a look at the list & you'll see a whole bunch of anomalies that make this chart worthless

http://arturogalletti.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/untitled37.png

check out where players like Dirk Nowitzki ranks in comparison to Troy Murphy... take a look where Amare ranks in respect to David Lee & Chris Bosh... Russell Westbrook is #66 on the list compared to Matt Barnes at #36... i can go on & on & on... this list is ridiculously skewed... i can't even believe you are using this to try & formulate any kind of conclusion whatsoever in regards to Melo's value as an NBA player... i thought u were better than that.

I'm not. I've stated about 5 times in the thread that I don't understand the stat itself.

Perhaps you can explain it to me.

The only way to come up with a statisitc and correlate it to something (the article says "using the metric "Wins Produced" that predicts how statistics correlate to winning.") that I know of is to run a linear regression.

essentially, without knowing this dude's model, it would look something like:

(y) = (b1)(x1) + (b2)(x2) + (b3)(x3) + ... + a + e

or

(wins) = (b1)(points) + (b2)(rebounding) + (b3)(blocks) ... + (unexplained) + (error)

where the "b" is the correlation, or slope of a line, between the "x" and the "y"/wins

there are a whole slew of ways to **** one of these models up. There is a ton of theory on this too, and it's called econometrics. Basically, it attempts to forecast something based upon the relationship between two variables. There are a lot of statistics to weigh in basketball, and that leaves a lot of room for error, because the less variables the better the model.

It is impossible to explain what the output of the model means without knowing how the model is constructed and what the inputs are. But what he's essentially trying to draw a line through a bunch of data points

He has improved his rebounding rate.

A discussion of how valid advanced statistics are in comparing NBA players would be better without immediate hostility and sarcasm on both sides.

If someone publishes an article that says Melo is or isn't something...relax and take a look before just going

OMG! This says Carmelo is worse/better than Player X. Obviously this is all just some stupid bs.

Edit:

Obviously Win Shares is not a foolproof player evaluation tool. But if it says that Lebron/Dwade/Dwight Howard are rated at a certain level and Melo is not, I'd be curious to know why. I'm sure the stat wasn't made solely to poop on Melo.

fishmike wrote:at this point what are we debating? That Melo is a great scorer? That Melo can get you a clutch bucket as well as any player in the NBA? Who here would disagree with that? I dont think anyone.

All these discussions should revolve around 2 things:
1) what is Melo's value
2) what is Melo's value to the Knicks

If you think Melo is a superstar, that is an MVP caliber player than his value is a combo of picks and prospects. Knicks have a very good young team. Chandler, Gallo and Fields have good value around the league, I have no doubt. Knicks have expiring contract in Curry/Azu and some GM will surely take a shot on AR for a pick. Now if I was getting Lebron back I would trade all those guys. But Melo isnt Lebron. He's not a point anything and he's not an all NBA defensive team player either. He's a scorer who needs 20 shots a game to be an impact player.

Thats #1

#2 is his value. Since the Knicks already excel at what he brings his value it lower to the Knicks than to the rest of the market. The Knicks finish games quite well, Amare leads the NBA in 4th qtr scoring. Knicks have also gotten big game winning shots from Chandler, Gallo and Felton numerous times. When the Knicks lose it alway because of one of two reasons: We got killed on the boards, we didnt defend well enough.

If I am going to blow up my young guys its going to have to be for a player that clearly puts the Knicks in the same category as the elite teams. Melo doesnt do that. Melo doesnt outplay Lebron. Melo doesnt lock down Paul Pierce or keep Kevin Love from getting 30 rebounds.

What can I say? Call me a homer but I believe in the Knicks young core of players to be quality and potential parts of a title caliber team. If I am going blow them all up I'm getting an elite bigman back. If I could keep either Chandler, Fields or Gallo I would trade the rest, that includes Fields/Chandler/Gallo/Douglas/AR/Mosgov/Turiaf/Azu for Andrew Bogut, because a frontline of Bogut/Amare/Gallo (or Chandler or Fields) is about the best in the NBA and can pound a team like the Heat into submission. I would like to see Mr Versatile Lebron play PF against an Amare/Bogut frontline. Please do!

My point is simple... Is Bogut clearly a better BB player than Melo? No, but with Amare/Felton already here he's a piece that makes us a title contendor, Melo doesnt. If I'm dumping these good young players I want a piece back that makes my team elite.

Great post fish, with you 1000%. Donnie, unlike our past leadership, does not starphuck - he's going by a player's value to the Knicks as they are currently constituted, not playing some real world version of NBA 2K11.

But, when deciding whether to trade guys like Gallo (currently, his statistical efficiency makes him an average player)for Melo, you need to consider that more veteran's will want to play with Melo and Amare than Amare, Gallo and Chandler. These are the guys that are willing to accept minimum contracts. So, when trading 3 for 1, you need to consider that the additional 2 players you add this coming offseason may be a player at the MLE (if it still exists) that is willing to accept less to play for a winning team or just veteran minimum contracts of the same sort of players.

Call it a "starphuch" if you will, but when we are facing teams like the Lakers, Dallas, Boston, and Miami, it will be good to have a veteran bench.

I am still voting to get a Melo trade done, but to do it in a manner that preserves assets.

Bonn1997 wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

Andrew wrote:While the statistic is not the end all for determining a players worth, don't you have to pause and think about why Melo's rating is low compared to the other players listed? Doesn't it lend some validity to the questions people have posted about whether Melo is worth the price that is being asked?

no, it really doesn't... why is Gallinari ranked #149 in that list? is it because he sucks & can't help us win ballgames? we should trade him for Zach Randolph so we can win more games, is that it?

your response to Andrew's is so out of context it doesn't make sense. what does gallo and Randolph have to do with taking pause about reading melo's stats and his price of what is being asked?

because it proves how worthless this chart really is in determining a player's value... why would you take pause to consider Melo's value based on this useless chart & not do the same for the players i mentioned? or any other player on this list for that matter? using this logic, Gallo's #149 ranking would make him pretty much worthless as an NBA player.

There's close to 400 players in the NBA. If you're 149, not a star but you're certainly not worthless!

no, not worthless... just worth LESS than 148 other guys i guess... please... i can't believe i'm actually debating this with some of y'all... if u feel that Melo can't help this team get better, knock yourselves out.

Bonn1997 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:You also have to take into consideration what I will call "curb appeal". We can determine that Melo is only a moderately efficient shooter while being a high volume shooter and other players, like Gallo have higher effective shooting percentages.

But, when deciding whether to trade guys like Gallo (currently, his statistical efficiency makes him an average player)for Melo, you need to consider that more veteran's will want to play with Melo and Amare than Amare, Gallo and Chandler. These are the guys that are willing to accept minimum contracts. So, when trading 3 for 1, you need to consider that the additional 2 players you add this coming offseason may be a player at the MLE (if it still exists) that is willing to accept less to play for a winning team or just veteran minimum contracts of the same sort of players.

Call it a "starphuch" if you will, but when we are facing teams like the Lakers, Dallas, Boston, and Miami, it will be good to have a veteran bench.

I am still voting to get a Melo trade done, but to do it in a manner that preserves assets.

I disagree with that. If I were a veteran, I'd assume I'd never get field goal attempts on that team. And if I were looking to be a role player on a championship contending team, there are teams I'd pick up above NY.

While you are entitled to your opinion, there are countless examples of veterans taking less money to be part of a contending team. Look at the roster of the Heat, Lakers, Celtics etc... I highly doubt that the Knicks would be unable to convince a few good vets to shore up their roster with a team containing Amar'e, Melo, Felton and others.

TMS wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

Andrew wrote:While the statistic is not the end all for determining a players worth, don't you have to pause and think about why Melo's rating is low compared to the other players listed? Doesn't it lend some validity to the questions people have posted about whether Melo is worth the price that is being asked?

no, it really doesn't... why is Gallinari ranked #149 in that list? is it because he sucks & can't help us win ballgames? we should trade him for Zach Randolph so we can win more games, is that it?

your response to Andrew's is so out of context it doesn't make sense. what does gallo and Randolph have to do with taking pause about reading melo's stats and his price of what is being asked?

because it proves how worthless this chart really is in determining a player's value... why would you take pause to consider Melo's value based on this useless chart & not do the same for the players i mentioned? or any other player on this list for that matter? using this logic, Gallo's #149 ranking would make him pretty much worthless as an NBA player.

There's close to 400 players in the NBA. If you're 149, not a star but you're certainly not worthless!

no, not worthless... just worth LESS than 148 other guys i guess... please... i can't believe i'm actually debating this with some of y'all... if u feel that Melo can't help this team get better, knock yourselves out.

By that logic, there's 150 starters in this league. I know that some bench players are better than some teams starters, but on the average, Gallo barely breaks the startng lineup on that chart.

EwingsGlass wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

Andrew wrote:While the statistic is not the end all for determining a players worth, don't you have to pause and think about why Melo's rating is low compared to the other players listed? Doesn't it lend some validity to the questions people have posted about whether Melo is worth the price that is being asked?

no, it really doesn't... why is Gallinari ranked #149 in that list? is it because he sucks & can't help us win ballgames? we should trade him for Zach Randolph so we can win more games, is that it?

your response to Andrew's is so out of context it doesn't make sense. what does gallo and Randolph have to do with taking pause about reading melo's stats and his price of what is being asked?

because it proves how worthless this chart really is in determining a player's value... why would you take pause to consider Melo's value based on this useless chart & not do the same for the players i mentioned? or any other player on this list for that matter? using this logic, Gallo's #149 ranking would make him pretty much worthless as an NBA player.

There's close to 400 players in the NBA. If you're 149, not a star but you're certainly not worthless!

Bonn, you get so lost in minutia. Try this on, there are 30 NBA teams with 5 starters each. That's 150 starters and Gallo is ranked 149. Does that stat fairly represent Gallo's value? If not, why would you apply it to Melo or anyone else?

We think alike.

149 out of 150 of us will get it. Lets see where Bonn ranks.

BlueSeats wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

Andrew wrote:While the statistic is not the end all for determining a players worth, don't you have to pause and think about why Melo's rating is low compared to the other players listed? Doesn't it lend some validity to the questions people have posted about whether Melo is worth the price that is being asked?

no, it really doesn't... why is Gallinari ranked #149 in that list? is it because he sucks & can't help us win ballgames? we should trade him for Zach Randolph so we can win more games, is that it?

your response to Andrew's is so out of context it doesn't make sense. what does gallo and Randolph have to do with taking pause about reading melo's stats and his price of what is being asked?

because it proves how worthless this chart really is in determining a player's value... why would you take pause to consider Melo's value based on this useless chart & not do the same for the players i mentioned? or any other player on this list for that matter? using this logic, Gallo's #149 ranking would make him pretty much worthless as an NBA player.

There's close to 400 players in the NBA. If you're 149, not a star but you're certainly not worthless!

Bonn, you get so lost in minutia. Try this on, there are 30 NBA teams with 5 starters each. That's 150 starters and Gallo is ranked 149. Does that stat fairly represent Gallo's value? If not, why would you apply it to Melo or anyone else?

Why would you ask a lost person what their opinion is? I wouldn't go to a lost person for directions to the mall!

Gallo is significantly below average for a starter in the NBA though. Does he rebound well? No. Does he create shots for his teammates well? If so, I see no statistical evidence of it. Does he block shots well? No. Does he get a good number of steals? No. The only two things he does better than the average starter are shoot from the perimeter and draw fouls. Although he has good skills in those two areas, he only utilizes those skills well enough to put up 15 PPG.