holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:TS% is a stupid stat..17 of the top 20 guys who leads the league in this category aren't even considered the best offensive players on their teams..I challenge the people who holds these stats so dear to their hearts to list at least 15 of the top 20 players on this list as someone you want taking the last shot on their current teams..If you can't then what is this stat really telling you??..Nothing..

I'll go one further, they aren't even the top 2/3 options on their current teams..

Just because a player is efficient doesnt mean they are clutch at the end of games. The stat is fine, but like an stats perspective and situations have to be taken into account. Big men should have a high ts% considering their work is primary near the rim. That doesnt mean Tyson Chandler is a better shooter and more efficient than Dirk. But trying to dismiss the stat as nothing is something I'd hope the Knicks front office doesnt do. Glad fans dont make GM decisions.

So what is the point of the stat??..What conclusions do you draw from such stats when making basketball decisions???

You draw conclusions about who, over the course of the entire game, is using possessions efficiently. You also can use it as one of many clues to figure out why some players who look gifted offensively actually aren't scoring as efficiently as they could be. When you see high volume players with average or lower TS%, it's a warning sign that you have to figure out what situations are they taking bad shots in and how could that be changed. It also tells you how efficiently the player scores *when taking the kind of shots he normally takes.* So to answer your earlier question, if it was a last second situation and I was asked would I like to have D Jordan or Tyson dunking the ball? I would say, absolutely yes. If it's something other than dunking, than that's not what those player's TS% is comprised of and the TS% is the wrong stat in that situation to look at.

I'd add that scoring effectiveness is really about both volume and efficiency, and if you look at either one alone, you're going to make bad decisions. And then offensive effectiveness is a broader category that would have to include assists and turnovers.

My point is that these stats aren't shedding new light on the game...You can tell if a volume scorer is efficient by looking at his FG%..You can see how many threes and FT he take per game...If anything, TS% clouds the issue because it doesn't tell you how the player is scoring his baskets or where the player is doing his scoring..

Also, please explain how looking at TS% tells you why a player isn't scoring efficiently as they could be???

they are not only shedding new light on the game but they are actually driving the values of the game away from your comfort zone. it took 30 years to come up with formulae that incorporate innovations to the game such as the 3-point shot. my guess is you are born before 1970 and you don't care for the 3-point shot and what it has done to the sport. i actually do not have an argument with that. but you have to adapt both your empirical ability as well as factor in stats that are more relevant than fg%.

free throws and drawing fouls have always been a part of the game. it is a legitimate strategy to draw fouls, especially in close games in the playoffs. i hate flopping just like you do but then again there has always been gamesmanship. my favorite players have always been able to draw fouls, players like walt frazier, paul pierce, manu ginobili. the nba isn't some schoolyard where there is no reffing. you have to take what the game gives you, and wisely.

carmelo takes too many bad shots. all he needs to do to become more efficient is be more selective. a good coach would pull him from the game when he took a bad shot, engendering good habits by the time he got to the pros. it is clear he had bad coaching during his formative years. doug collins hammers this point home repeatedly: if it's a good shot then take it. breen and others often will use the term "tough shot" when somebody takes a bad shot. it's a euphemism.

anyway, that also would mean taking fewer total shots and taking another two free throws a game or so. meanwhile harden takes perhaps 1 or 2 bad shots a game-- he should cut back on his 3fga given his so-so percentage of around 37.5%. meanwhile melo has kind of improved his 3-point shooting but remains worse at it than harden, while drawing fewer fouls. he should never take more than 3-4 a game given his percentage. and as to his free throws, melo has gotten to the line an average of 8 times a game for his career, which i respect. but the way he gets to the line, via bullyball, is not something i respect. he needs to incorporate more guile into his game with head and ball fakes, which will reduce wear and tear on his already disintegrating body.

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:Jose had a TS% of 61.6 in 2012-13, 59.6 in 2013-14. This year was his worst in recent times at 51.9 but let's say he was healthy and at his normal levels. Would that make him superior to Melo? Of course not. A primary scoring option has a totally different set of expectations on him. The stamina both physically and mentally to be the man every night is a rare thing. I could post a ton of players who are highly efficient but wouldn't be sought after like Melo was last year in free agency. Teams understand the difference.

Straw man argument

Why did GM's even make an attempt to get Melo?

Straw man means you're arguing against a claim that no one is making. No one here is claiming TS% is the only important stat or that Calderon is better than Melo.

Again. Why did GM's even attempt to get Melo last summer? Many of whom are well versed in Metrics.

because he has qualities they wanted

These men all want to win. They all felt he could push them over the top. It's logical to want to build the most efficient team you can but teams also need an X Factor that can give them an edge. Melo isn't a perfect lead player but he is a weapon that is rare in this league and valued.

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:Jose had a TS% of 61.6 in 2012-13, 59.6 in 2013-14. This year was his worst in recent times at 51.9 but let's say he was healthy and at his normal levels. Would that make him superior to Melo? Of course not. A primary scoring option has a totally different set of expectations on him. The stamina both physically and mentally to be the man every night is a rare thing. I could post a ton of players who are highly efficient but wouldn't be sought after like Melo was last year in free agency. Teams understand the difference.

Straw man argument

Why did GM's even make an attempt to get Melo?

Straw man means you're arguing against a claim that no one is making. No one here is claiming TS% is the only important stat or that Calderon is better than Melo.

Again. Why did GM's even attempt to get Melo last summer? Many of whom are well versed in Metrics.

because he has qualities they wanted

These men all want to win. They all felt he could push them over the top. It's logical to want to build the most efficient team you can but teams also need an X Factor that can give them an edge. Melo isn't a perfect lead player but he is a weapon that is rare in this league and valued.

Oh, I guess you replied before I added more detail. I'll paste it here:
Like virtually every player in the league, having Melo can be great or bad depending on the price. Largest contract on the planet and with a no-trade clause thrown in? You already know my view on that. That doesn't mean he's bad at any price, though.

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:TS% is a stupid stat..17 of the top 20 guys who leads the league in this category aren't even considered the best offensive players on their teams..I challenge the people who holds these stats so dear to their hearts to list at least 15 of the top 20 players on this list as someone you want taking the last shot on their current teams..If you can't then what is this stat really telling you??..Nothing..

I'll go one further, they aren't even the top 2/3 options on their current teams..

Just because a player is efficient doesnt mean they are clutch at the end of games. The stat is fine, but like an stats perspective and situations have to be taken into account. Big men should have a high ts% considering their work is primary near the rim. That doesnt mean Tyson Chandler is a better shooter and more efficient than Dirk. But trying to dismiss the stat as nothing is something I'd hope the Knicks front office doesnt do. Glad fans dont make GM decisions.

So what is the point of the stat??..What conclusions do you draw from such stats when making basketball decisions???

You draw conclusions about who, over the course of the entire game, is using possessions efficiently. You also can use it as one of many clues to figure out why some players who look gifted offensively actually aren't scoring as efficiently as they could be. When you see high volume players with average or lower TS%, it's a warning sign that you have to figure out what situations are they taking bad shots in and how could that be changed. It also tells you how efficiently the player scores *when taking the kind of shots he normally takes.* So to answer your earlier question, if it was a last second situation and I was asked would I like to have D Jordan or Tyson dunking the ball? I would say, absolutely yes. If it's something other than dunking, than that's not what those player's TS% is comprised of and the TS% is the wrong stat in that situation to look at.

I'd add that scoring effectiveness is really about both volume and efficiency, and if you look at either one alone, you're going to make bad decisions. And then offensive effectiveness is a broader category that would have to include assists and turnovers.

My point is that these stats aren't shedding new light on the game...You can tell if a volume scorer is efficient by looking at his FG%..You can see how many threes and FT he take per game...If anything, TS% clouds the issue because it doesn't tell you how the player is scoring his baskets or where the player is doing his scoring..

Also, please explain how looking at TS% tells you why a player isn't scoring efficiently as they could be???

I never said TS% alone tells you why a player isn't scoring as efficiently as they could be. I said combining the TS% with what you see does (note bold above)

I'm not opposed to looking at 3 separate stats (FT%, 2 pt FG%, 3 pt FG%) in addition to the TS% stat. If you do that, you will note that Harden's imperfect game could use improvement from 2 point percentage even though he is the best in the game at the line and good at 3s. That's a separate, more detailed analysis analysis than the TS% is intended to provide though.

he shot 3-6 from 2, 1-5 from 3, was 15-17 from the line, dished out 11 assists, 2 TO and a steal, and had an elite point-guard like usg:ast of .5:1. and 64%TS.

these are mvp numbers, and the only thing that might detract is his defensive rating for this game which has not been provided yet.

holfresh wrote:With less than 3 minutes left of garbage time(score110-95) he took 6 fts as the Mavs were trying to slow down the clock..So if you are hanging your hat on garbage time numbers to label someone an MVP then have at it...The game painted a completely different picture to me...

he shot 3-6 from 2, 1-5 from 3, was 15-17 from the line, dished out 11 assists, 2 TO and a steal

And a heavy dose of matador defense...You seem to only hold defensive standards to you know who...He ran away from a Rondo layup, gambled for a steal every time he was caught on Dirk in the post after switching...

let me level with you: i watched all four games and by the time this game came on i was watching with one eye. that said, there was no garbage time regardless of the point differential. your narrative is incorrect. the mavs didn't stop playing, holfresh. they fouled other rockets players.

harden's defensive rating was 109 while the mavs scored 108, which means he was not really a liability to his team defensively. brewer was worse.

codeunknown wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:With less than 3 minutes left of garbage time(score110-95) he took 6 fts as the Mavs were trying to slow down the clock..So if you are hanging your hat on garbage time numbers to label someone an MVP then have at it...The game painted a completely different picture to me...

he shot 3-6 from 2, 1-5 from 3, was 15-17 from the line, dished out 11 assists, 2 TO and a steal

And a heavy dose of matador defense...You seem to only hold defensive standards to you know who...He ran away from a Rondo layup, gambled for a steal every time he was caught on Dirk in the post after switching...

let me level with you: i watched all four games and by the time this game came on i was watching with one eye. that said, there was no garbage time regardless of the point differential. your narrative is incorrect. the mavs didn't stop playing, holfresh. they fouled other rockets players.

harden's defensive rating was 109 while the mavs scored 108, which means he was not really a liability to his team defensively. brewer was worse.

Using defensive rating in the manner in which you have is absolute stupidity.

Number 1 - Defensive rating is a normalized per 100 possession statistic, and the Mavs had approximately 123 possessions, making your estimation of Harden's liability falsely optimistic. The team defensive rating was 101.4, ~ 8 better than Harden, although the relevance here is also questionable. The concentrated damage to Harden's defensive rating occurred between 7:45-4:12 in the second quarter with both Howard and Josh Smith (D rating - 99) off the floor. A combination of Harden's defensive inability, the relative ability of the others, and chance may all contribute.

Number 2 - Defensive rating should be used with caution in single game analysis and, with the exception of clear outliers, is best re-purposed for 5-man unit appraisal. The noise from a) opponent match-up usage, b) the wide distribution in defensive rating among Rocket teammates and c) the absurd size of your control (9 minutes when the bench played) make your conclusion drivel.

Number 3 - Individual defensive rating is best used over a large dataset with appropriate references taking into account starting/bench roles and player position. Inter-position comparisons are even more difficult with single games, where team specific defensive schemes may weight certain formula elements over others (ex. blocks over steals).

Number 4 - Any attempt at individual game applications requires significant non-overlap in minutes played of the major outliers - in this case Dwight Howard with a rating of 85, easily the best.

Now would be a good time for you to go back and practice your "math skills" before you embarrass yourself further.

ok will do. thanks for the insights. anything else in my posts that needs correcting?

codeunknown wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:With less than 3 minutes left of garbage time(score110-95) he took 6 fts as the Mavs were trying to slow down the clock..So if you are hanging your hat on garbage time numbers to label someone an MVP then have at it...The game painted a completely different picture to me...

he shot 3-6 from 2, 1-5 from 3, was 15-17 from the line, dished out 11 assists, 2 TO and a steal

And a heavy dose of matador defense...You seem to only hold defensive standards to you know who...He ran away from a Rondo layup, gambled for a steal every time he was caught on Dirk in the post after switching...

let me level with you: i watched all four games and by the time this game came on i was watching with one eye. that said, there was no garbage time regardless of the point differential. your narrative is incorrect. the mavs didn't stop playing, holfresh. they fouled other rockets players.

harden's defensive rating was 109 while the mavs scored 108, which means he was not really a liability to his team defensively. brewer was worse.

Using defensive rating in the manner in which you have is absolute stupidity.

Number 1 - Defensive rating is a normalized per 100 possession statistic, and the Mavs had approximately 123 possessions, making your estimation of Harden's liability falsely optimistic. The team defensive rating was 101.4, ~ 8 better than Harden, although the relevance here is also questionable. The concentrated damage to Harden's defensive rating occurred between 7:45-4:12 in the second quarter with both Howard and Josh Smith (D rating - 99) off the floor. A combination of Harden's defensive inability, the relative ability of the others, and chance may all contribute.

Number 2 - Defensive rating should be used with caution in single game analysis and, with the exception of clear outliers, is best re-purposed for 5-man unit appraisal. The noise from a) opponent match-up usage, b) the wide distribution in defensive rating among Rocket teammates and c) the absurd size of your control (9 minutes when the bench played) make your conclusion drivel.

Number 3 - Individual defensive rating is best used over a large dataset with appropriate references taking into account starting/bench roles and player position. Inter-position comparisons are even more difficult with single games, where team specific defensive schemes may weight certain formula elements over others (ex. blocks over steals).

Number 4 - Any attempt at individual game applications requires significant non-overlap in minutes played of the major outliers - in this case Dwight Howard with a rating of 85, easily the best.

Now would be a good time for you to go back and practice your "math skills" before you embarrass yourself further.

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

codeunknown wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:With less than 3 minutes left of garbage time(score110-95) he took 6 fts as the Mavs were trying to slow down the clock..So if you are hanging your hat on garbage time numbers to label someone an MVP then have at it...The game painted a completely different picture to me...

he shot 3-6 from 2, 1-5 from 3, was 15-17 from the line, dished out 11 assists, 2 TO and a steal

And a heavy dose of matador defense...You seem to only hold defensive standards to you know who...He ran away from a Rondo layup, gambled for a steal every time he was caught on Dirk in the post after switching...

let me level with you: i watched all four games and by the time this game came on i was watching with one eye. that said, there was no garbage time regardless of the point differential. your narrative is incorrect. the mavs didn't stop playing, holfresh. they fouled other rockets players.

harden's defensive rating was 109 while the mavs scored 108, which means he was not really a liability to his team defensively. brewer was worse.

Using defensive rating in the manner in which you have is absolute stupidity.

Number 1 - Defensive rating is a normalized per 100 possession statistic, and the Mavs had approximately 123 possessions, making your estimation of Harden's liability falsely optimistic. The team defensive rating was 101.4, ~ 8 better than Harden, although the relevance here is also questionable. The concentrated damage to Harden's defensive rating occurred between 7:45-4:12 in the second quarter with both Howard and Josh Smith (D rating - 99) off the floor. A combination of Harden's defensive inability, the relative ability of the others, and chance may all contribute.

Number 2 - Defensive rating should be used with caution in single game analysis and, with the exception of clear outliers, is best re-purposed for 5-man unit appraisal. The noise from a) opponent match-up usage, b) the wide distribution in defensive rating among Rocket teammates and c) the absurd size of your control (9 minutes when the bench played) make your conclusion drivel.

Number 3 - Individual defensive rating is best used over a large dataset with appropriate references taking into account starting/bench roles and player position. Inter-position comparisons are even more difficult with single games, where team specific defensive schemes may weight certain formula elements over others (ex. blocks over steals).

Number 4 - Any attempt at individual game applications requires significant non-overlap in minutes played of the major outliers - in this case Dwight Howard with a rating of 85, easily the best.

Now would be a good time for you to go back and practice your "math skills" before you embarrass yourself further.

+1
Gotta love the erudite, concise, numbered response. Holeeeeeeeeeee sheeeeeeeeeehit.

Why pile on? Despite being called stupid, DK simply said thank you and asked for additional feedback. You're normally above this.

I was impressed with the response. I have +1 on other people's posts in the past.

Bonn, relax a little on the motherly reflex, okay? dk7th is a big boy, he can take, it.

The highlights:
— Jackson said it was crazy to think New York could win a title next year. It’s something some rabid fans probably hate to hear, but it’s the truth. The Knicks can get to the 30- to 40-win range if Carmelo Anthony returns healthy, they spend their money well, and they get a good player in the draft — but they probably won’t be much better than that.

— Jackson said he was also more than willing to build the Knicks so they get to their final destination (a championship) after he leaves the franchise. That means there won’t be any selling out in free agency to try to win with Melo right away. Jackson understands there are steady steps to get team from second-worst in the league to a title contender. He’s more than willing to set up the Knicks to be there seven years from now, even if he isn’t. That type of long-term plan, without relying on quick fixes, hasn’t been attempted since Patrick Ewing was drafted.

— Jackson referenced Ewing when speaking about the draft pick the Knicks have this year. He gets that the player they select, depending on where they pick, could be a generational talent — a centerpiece of the franchise for the next 15 years. He wants that type of player (like Ewing) to build around. He mentioned the need for a steady big, especially defensively, which points to Jahlil Okafor and Karl-Anthony Towns (more likely) as his targets.

— Jackson did mention potentially trading the pick if the right offer comes along, but he made it clear that he would not do it if the player he wants is on the board when the Knicks are on the clock. He indicated it was far more likely to move it if the Knicks pick fifth overall, which might indicate he thinks the draft is, in fact, only four players deep. There was also recognition that even if the Knicks got the top pick, that player would not be a star in year one and would have to develop. It points to patience.

— Patience is something Jackson also plans to exercise in free agency. He once again indicated the possibility of targeting several mid-market players rather than going all-in on a max-contract guy. He said the team won’t need nine or 10 players to fill out the roster, but instead more like three. I’m not sure I buy that one, but the Knicks would be wise to spread their money around to get several guys to surround Anthony and their pick.

— Jackson also seemed to understand what a unique market this free-agent class will face, especially considering how much the cap is expected to jump in the summers of 2016 and ’17. Players could want short-term deals to cash in the following two seasons, or teams might be more willing to throw crazy cash around because of the exploding cap. Jackson also said that all it takes is for one team to value a player to set the market. That means the Knicks might target a couple guys they want and try to strike early before someone else does.

— But Jackson was also careful to note that guys are overpaid in free agency. It is the nature of the business. He definitely doesn’t sound like someone who will rush into a big contract just for the sake of making a splash (Amar’e Stoudemire). That’s how you avoid big mistakes (Stoudemire, again).

— The Knicks president also spoke about the type of players the franchise needs to succeed. He bemoaned the team’s lack of free-throw attempts this season, and knows he needs to find someone who can penetrate and get to the line. Jackson recognized that Carmelo Anthony is a tweener (SF/PF) and that will be taken into consideration when putting players around him. No one asked directly at which position Jackson thinks Melo is a better player.

— The other goal Jackson talked about was getting the team better defensively. He cited the Hawks and Warriors as two teams that turned the corner because of their improved defense. He knows he needs players to play that end of the floor, whether it is the anchor in the middle to protect the rim or guards willing to run around and expend their energy at the perimeter. It’s his goal to begin to find them this summer.

— It’s pretty clear to me from the tenor of Jackson’s comments that he still has full autonomy. I could imagine Jim Dolan getting more and more infuriated with Jackson telling his paying customers that next year won’t be awesome, and there are still hard times ahead. But it’s the truth. And everyone, Dolan included, needed to hear it. Jackson needs time to build.
Now the Knicks need some luck in the draft lottery on May 19, and again in July when free agency opens. Maybe the Bulls get frugal and don’t want to pay Jimmy Butler the max. Crazier things have happened.

Jackson has made it clear: the work starts now. This is what he will be judged on.
He’s right, and the fate of the franchise depends on it.

codeunknown wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

codeunknown wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:With less than 3 minutes left of garbage time(score110-95) he took 6 fts as the Mavs were trying to slow down the clock..So if you are hanging your hat on garbage time numbers to label someone an MVP then have at it...The game painted a completely different picture to me...

he shot 3-6 from 2, 1-5 from 3, was 15-17 from the line, dished out 11 assists, 2 TO and a steal

And a heavy dose of matador defense...You seem to only hold defensive standards to you know who...He ran away from a Rondo layup, gambled for a steal every time he was caught on Dirk in the post after switching...

let me level with you: i watched all four games and by the time this game came on i was watching with one eye. that said, there was no garbage time regardless of the point differential. your narrative is incorrect. the mavs didn't stop playing, holfresh. they fouled other rockets players.

harden's defensive rating was 109 while the mavs scored 108, which means he was not really a liability to his team defensively. brewer was worse.

Using defensive rating in the manner in which you have is absolute stupidity.

Number 1 - Defensive rating is a normalized per 100 possession statistic, and the Mavs had approximately 123 possessions, making your estimation of Harden's liability falsely optimistic. The team defensive rating was 101.4, ~ 8 better than Harden, although the relevance here is also questionable. The concentrated damage to Harden's defensive rating occurred between 7:45-4:12 in the second quarter with both Howard and Josh Smith (D rating - 99) off the floor. A combination of Harden's defensive inability, the relative ability of the others, and chance may all contribute.

Number 2 - Defensive rating should be used with caution in single game analysis and, with the exception of clear outliers, is best re-purposed for 5-man unit appraisal. The noise from a) opponent match-up usage, b) the wide distribution in defensive rating among Rocket teammates and c) the absurd size of your control (9 minutes when the bench played) make your conclusion drivel.

Number 3 - Individual defensive rating is best used over a large dataset with appropriate references taking into account starting/bench roles and player position. Inter-position comparisons are even more difficult with single games, where team specific defensive schemes may weight certain formula elements over others (ex. blocks over steals).

Number 4 - Any attempt at individual game applications requires significant non-overlap in minutes played of the major outliers - in this case Dwight Howard with a rating of 85, easily the best.

Now would be a good time for you to go back and practice your "math skills" before you embarrass yourself further.

+1
Gotta love the erudite, concise, numbered response. Holeeeeeeeeeee sheeeeeeeeeehit.

Why pile on? Despite being called stupid, DK simply said thank you and asked for additional feedback. You're normally above this.

You asked nicely earlier for him to stop insulting another poster. It didn't work. Sometimes a role reversal does wonders for perspective.

that's not what actually happened. if you continue to be gratuitously unkind it may hurt my feelings.

on the original note, what do you make of other measures of his defense for the regular season (an adequate sample size no doubt), such as DRPM which is 1.0 this season, and his defensive rating of 103 points per 100 possessions? these seem to reflect that he is not hurting his team on defense, no?

do you think you can educate me with a bit more civility this time? i am interested in learning.

TripleThreat wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:In just about every case, you refuse to acknowledge what the other person is saying without outright dismissal and condescension , then you will default defensively at that point with the classic "Prove to me why your opinion matters/show to me why I should listen to you" crap. Then as a last resort, you'll derail the topic when it gets too close to you actually having to get near anything called basic accountability.

nixluva wrote: I'm still waiting for TripleThreat to post his plan for improving the Knicks this summer. It's much easier to sit back and criticize other peoples plans.

Like I said, you are pretty transparent.

And like I said, I give you credit, that you can get some of these low speed high drag mouth breathers to actually turn their mob mentality in your favor is both a sign of your skill as a shill terrorist and their failure to see past your agenda.

dude, give it a rest and let's talk Knicks.