joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:fishmike wrote:joec32033 wrote:Jmpasq wrote:joec32033 wrote:Jmpasq wrote:joec32033 wrote:ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.
Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!
So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?
He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley
So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?
Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.
How exactly is he a bad fit?
poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor. Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"
Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?
How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?
On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..
RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).
No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.
All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.
You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.
RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.
The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.
But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...
I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.
Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.
I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.
If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).
Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can **** right the **** off.
I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.
Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.
You do what you got to do, brother.
You've kind of made it plain: "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care."
What other response are you looking for? I am literally just saying what you are reiterating back to me. You don't have a grasp of Advanced Stats, which you are in agreement with, and I stopped responding. Plus, in that thread, you are kind of conflating 3 different points and I didn't think it was worthwhile to engage past that.
You have an eye test. All of us do. There is not much after that if that is what you are heavily relying on.
I don't know why you have to say "No bias", cause that's literally what it is, your bias masked as your eye test.
I said "no bias" because Fish brought up not being biased in the origional post I quoted. And I said no bias....meaning no bias, it is my honest opinion.
fishmike wrote
poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"
Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?
How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?
Just because I have seen enough advanced stats-some that contradict each other-to feel that advanced stats are a good tool for comparison but not to say players are the same-it was in the RJ-Kobe thread. I have said before, they should never be the end all be all.
They aren't but they are a good starting point. But it's difficult if you also say, "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care.". I get that maybe some of the stats are hard to interpret - I don't get RAPTOR or WAR but know enough that something like PER sucks. But you kinda went to an extreme?
For me, it's difficult to the point of almost useless to compare players from different eras while using baseline stats to compare them. Different rules (like hand checking) and completely different games (the 3 point spacing is a good example of that over the last 5+ years) enough so that spacing in this current form creates something totally different for a player like RJ than for Kobe or Jordan before him when going to the rim - in the 90's you just couldn't get to rim without a ton of hand-checking on top of the lack of spacing created by the deluge of 3point spacing in today's more modern game. In the 90's, when the paint was more packed, there is just no way RJ makes it there unabated in the way he does today.
At an extreme, we KNOW we can't compare eFG% of Mitch and Steph, right? It's just stupid. For me, comparing RJ FG% to Kobe may not be as egregious but they are enough apples and oranges that it's not worth the effort when you are doing an across the board comparison.
I agree with almost everything you said.
The reason I came so hard on not caring about the advanced stats is, at least in almost every argument I've made about RJ, is " but advanced stat x says..."
I said it before advanced stats are better for game planning then they are for player x is better than player y. But that is all that is being used now. I remember when I posted my cross era comparison, RJ had a efg of 47. Grimes had one of like 55. Jskinny said it a couple posts up. About RJ not adjusting well. Looking at the stats RJ attempted .5 less 3 pt attempts this year compared to last. And he made .3 less per game. That resulted in the drop from 34% to 31%. Putting aside that I feel that is eminently fixable, I can draw, imo, better conclusions from that than any advanced stat.
When I made that post I figured the tougher defense on the easier shots offset the wild dependence of the lower percentage shot of the modern game. No, it's not perfect, but that was my reasoning.
Advanced stats can be a good starting point as you said (depending on where you want to start, mind you) but no matter what there othe so many other factors that I think each individual advanced stat kind of has a limited spectrum of usefulness
Classic "Moneyball" vs "Trouble With the Curve" argument. "Moneyball" focuses on the role of data and statistics in modern baseball, while "Trouble with the Curve" explores the importance of experience and human judgment in evaluating talent. There is validity to your point, but now that we are focused on advanced metrics, I don't think you can take one without the other. I don't think there is a substitute for boots on the ground, but advanced metrics help avoid emotional biases by quantifying results and giving them ascertainable meaning.
Stats are tricky because they are painful when used incorrectly. "Bob is a great person. He's only killed one human being. That's 1 out of 7 billion. That's a really low percentage of all people." "Bob is horrible. He killed over 10,000 living beings last summer." Not a big deal if Bob works for a mosquito exterminator, but pretty horrifying if he is committing genocide. How we frame the stats can create odd outcomes if we don't give them meaning through proper comparison and identification. Advanced stats give the other volume stats more meaning because they otherwise don't have context.
We can say "Bob is a great salesman. He broke the all-time used car sales record for the Company" which objectively sounds fantastic until we learn "Bob's net profit margin on those sales was negative. He sold cars at a loss because he realized he didn't have to charge for upgrades in sales system". Bob isn't objectively a good salesperson if he isn't profitable on those sales. Adding a net profit component to a volume sales record gives real meaning.
RJ is a volume scorer. But he isn't getting those points efficiently. Adding eFG to the analysis of his scoring totals is like adding Net Profit to analysis of Bob's sales performance. RJ sells a lot of cars, but he's not profitable. Grimes sells less cars, but man, he is profitable when he does. Its possible Grimes is getting wide open shots while RJ is consistently double and triple teamed. Need boots on the ground to see the differences there. But objectively and unemotionally, Barrett's efficiency is below average.
4/13/2023 6:36 AM
