martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote: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

I don't get the planning part. For me, advanced stats give us a better or deeper understanding of what the player is doing and then a better way to compare those two players, not player X is better than player Y. It's a nuance but it's the comparison part that is usually more important.

So, instead of just FG%, we know that eFG% is better when considering shooters in the modern game. It's not the whole story but it gets us to a better understanding of the story, and then you can compare.

I don't really understand your JSkinny scenario and how you are using stats in that instance; it doesn't make sense to me.

In regards to the planning part.

I think advanced stat better can show where players should be, what shots they are more effective taking, what combinations may be working better, what defenses may be working against what offenses.

Ok. Let's take your efg%. The formula is: (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. It gives 3 pointers more value because they are worth more, but assigning a value of .5 more to 3 pointers seems random to me when measuring the difficulty of the shot vs the point value of the shot. FG% has nothing to do with points the shot is worth. Half court shots are worth the same as corner 3's. The average NBA 3P% is 36. The average NBA 2P% is about 55% (I couldnt find the exact number so I looked https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/two-point-pct and picked the 15 ranked team. That means a 3 pointer is 19% harder to make. Why is that value not used? To me it would make more sense.

Another one I posted the equation for was points per posession. the equation is: PPP = Points ÷ (Field Goal Attempts + (0.44 x Free Throw Attempts) + Turnovers). In this instance turnovers are measured are factored in. Why are steals and rebounds not? At the very least if you are counting turnovers, you should factor in steals somehow, imo.

Maybe I am being too nitpicky with this, but this is why I advanced stats as malleable. Assigning values really irks me. Not looking at all aspects of what is being measured does too.

I don't think any regular stat or advanced stat will ever tell the whole story, which is why you also have to watch and know what you are looking at to apply these numbers. I don't think saying player X has a 1.07 PPP so they are so much better than a player with a 1.02 PPP.

Like I said maybe it's just me, but that is really how I look at it.

Without getting into the details, your take on these stats are different than what they mean to show, it's just that simple, give or take.

Most will generally accept a baseline from which stats come from and you have chosen to not start there, so your interpretation will not be comparable to everyone else (and you haven't really laid out that baseline enough for others).

For example, 3 points are just worth more when you make them, thus the formula, but you don't start there. Everyone wants to start talking about oranges and you have your own apple to discuss without any regards to oranges. After that, your back and forth with ANYONE regarding anything to do with stats will not be worth it, and that's not me trying to be sarcastic or down-putting, you are just literally talking about something else that is not equitable.

To have a meaningful discussion, you at least have to have a baseline assumption of things and work from there?

You may be right, but I said before I'm not a guy that is going to come up with an advanced stat equation. I have an idea of what I would put into it. When I look at some (most) of these equations I just know something is off.

For example for the efg you said a 3 pointer is worth more if you make it. And I get that my question is what is that value, how much more? I think it is weighted way too much. And why on a stat that is labeled efg% why does the value of the shot matter? It should be the ahot percentage that matters and if you are going to weight it you need to weight ot correctly. The average NBA 2pt shot % and the average NBA 3pt shot % varied varied by 17 percentage points. So that is what the the 3 point shot should be weighted to off set the difficulty.

I also think if something as basic as turnovers is in your equation you need to include it's exact opposite in that equation (in this case steals, but I would be happy to have a new stat like forced turnovers in football). For the example of PPP counting turnovers in it's equation but not affording for the times that player as caused a turnover. Plus I'm not even sure why turnovers is accounted for in that. I would want to know how many times the player touched the ball in a game (they have to track it...i saw an advanced stat that was points with fewest dribbles that Klay Thompson was good at a few years back), how many points they scored, and start building off that.

I don't know Martin. My thing is finding a starting point is hard when you look at the directions and they don't look right.

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote: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

I don't get the planning part. For me, advanced stats give us a better or deeper understanding of what the player is doing and then a better way to compare those two players, not player X is better than player Y. It's a nuance but it's the comparison part that is usually more important.

So, instead of just FG%, we know that eFG% is better when considering shooters in the modern game. It's not the whole story but it gets us to a better understanding of the story, and then you can compare.

I don't really understand your JSkinny scenario and how you are using stats in that instance; it doesn't make sense to me.

In regards to the planning part.

I think advanced stat better can show where players should be, what shots they are more effective taking, what combinations may be working better, what defenses may be working against what offenses.

Ok. Let's take your efg%. The formula is: (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. It gives 3 pointers more value because they are worth more, but assigning a value of .5 more to 3 pointers seems random to me when measuring the difficulty of the shot vs the point value of the shot. FG% has nothing to do with points the shot is worth. Half court shots are worth the same as corner 3's. The average NBA 3P% is 36. The average NBA 2P% is about 55% (I couldnt find the exact number so I looked https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/two-point-pct and picked the 15 ranked team. That means a 3 pointer is 19% harder to make. Why is that value not used? To me it would make more sense.

Another one I posted the equation for was points per posession. the equation is: PPP = Points ÷ (Field Goal Attempts + (0.44 x Free Throw Attempts) + Turnovers). In this instance turnovers are measured are factored in. Why are steals and rebounds not? At the very least if you are counting turnovers, you should factor in steals somehow, imo.

Maybe I am being too nitpicky with this, but this is why I advanced stats as malleable. Assigning values really irks me. Not looking at all aspects of what is being measured does too.

I don't think any regular stat or advanced stat will ever tell the whole story, which is why you also have to watch and know what you are looking at to apply these numbers. I don't think saying player X has a 1.07 PPP so they are so much better than a player with a 1.02 PPP.

Like I said maybe it's just me, but that is really how I look at it.

Without getting into the details, your take on these stats are different than what they mean to show, it's just that simple, give or take.

Most will generally accept a baseline from which stats come from and you have chosen to not start there, so your interpretation will not be comparable to everyone else (and you haven't really laid out that baseline enough for others).

For example, 3 points are just worth more when you make them, thus the formula, but you don't start there. Everyone wants to start talking about oranges and you have your own apple to discuss without any regards to oranges. After that, your back and forth with ANYONE regarding anything to do with stats will not be worth it, and that's not me trying to be sarcastic or down-putting, you are just literally talking about something else that is not equitable.

To have a meaningful discussion, you at least have to have a baseline assumption of things and work from there?

You may be right, but I said before I'm not a guy that is going to come up with an advanced stat equation. I have an idea of what I would put into it. When I look at some (most) of these equations I just know something is off.

For example for the efg you said a 3 pointer is worth more if you make it. And I get that my question is what is that value, how much more? I think it is weighted way too much. And why on a stat that is labeled efg% why does the value of the shot matter? It should be the ahot percentage that matters and if you are going to weight it you need to weight ot correctly. The average NBA 2pt shot % and the average NBA 3pt shot % varied varied by 17 percentage points. So that is what the the 3 point shot should be weighted to off set the difficulty.

I also think if something as basic as turnovers is in your equation you need to include it's exact opposite in that equation (in this case steals, but I would be happy to have a new stat like forced turnovers in football). For the example of PPP counting turnovers in it's equation but not affording for the times that player as caused a turnover. Plus I'm not even sure why turnovers is accounted for in that. I would want to know how many times the player touched the ball in a game (they have to track it...i saw an advanced stat that was points with fewest dribbles that Klay Thompson was good at a few years back), how many points they scored, and start building off that.

I don't know Martin. My thing is finding a starting point is hard when you look at the directions and they don't look right.

You keep saying you are not an advanced stat guy but you also have your interpretation of maybe what they could be that are wildly different than everyone else.

There is a starting point that pretty much everyone else starts with that you ignore or have your own version while also saying you are not an advanced stats guy.

You can't have all of those and any meaningful convo, that's the short of it.

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote: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

I don't get the planning part. For me, advanced stats give us a better or deeper understanding of what the player is doing and then a better way to compare those two players, not player X is better than player Y. It's a nuance but it's the comparison part that is usually more important.

So, instead of just FG%, we know that eFG% is better when considering shooters in the modern game. It's not the whole story but it gets us to a better understanding of the story, and then you can compare.

I don't really understand your JSkinny scenario and how you are using stats in that instance; it doesn't make sense to me.

In regards to the planning part.

I think advanced stat better can show where players should be, what shots they are more effective taking, what combinations may be working better, what defenses may be working against what offenses.

Ok. Let's take your efg%. The formula is: (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. It gives 3 pointers more value because they are worth more, but assigning a value of .5 more to 3 pointers seems random to me when measuring the difficulty of the shot vs the point value of the shot. FG% has nothing to do with points the shot is worth. Half court shots are worth the same as corner 3's. The average NBA 3P% is 36. The average NBA 2P% is about 55% (I couldnt find the exact number so I looked https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/two-point-pct and picked the 15 ranked team. That means a 3 pointer is 19% harder to make. Why is that value not used? To me it would make more sense.

Another one I posted the equation for was points per posession. the equation is: PPP = Points ÷ (Field Goal Attempts + (0.44 x Free Throw Attempts) + Turnovers). In this instance turnovers are measured are factored in. Why are steals and rebounds not? At the very least if you are counting turnovers, you should factor in steals somehow, imo.

Maybe I am being too nitpicky with this, but this is why I advanced stats as malleable. Assigning values really irks me. Not looking at all aspects of what is being measured does too.

I don't think any regular stat or advanced stat will ever tell the whole story, which is why you also have to watch and know what you are looking at to apply these numbers. I don't think saying player X has a 1.07 PPP so they are so much better than a player with a 1.02 PPP.

Like I said maybe it's just me, but that is really how I look at it.

Without getting into the details, your take on these stats are different than what they mean to show, it's just that simple, give or take.

Most will generally accept a baseline from which stats come from and you have chosen to not start there, so your interpretation will not be comparable to everyone else (and you haven't really laid out that baseline enough for others).

For example, 3 points are just worth more when you make them, thus the formula, but you don't start there. Everyone wants to start talking about oranges and you have your own apple to discuss without any regards to oranges. After that, your back and forth with ANYONE regarding anything to do with stats will not be worth it, and that's not me trying to be sarcastic or down-putting, you are just literally talking about something else that is not equitable.

To have a meaningful discussion, you at least have to have a baseline assumption of things and work from there?

You may be right, but I said before I'm not a guy that is going to come up with an advanced stat equation. I have an idea of what I would put into it. When I look at some (most) of these equations I just know something is off.

For example for the efg you said a 3 pointer is worth more if you make it. And I get that my question is what is that value, how much more? I think it is weighted way too much. And why on a stat that is labeled efg% why does the value of the shot matter? It should be the ahot percentage that matters and if you are going to weight it you need to weight ot correctly. The average NBA 2pt shot % and the average NBA 3pt shot % varied varied by 17 percentage points. So that is what the the 3 point shot should be weighted to off set the difficulty.

I also think if something as basic as turnovers is in your equation you need to include it's exact opposite in that equation (in this case steals, but I would be happy to have a new stat like forced turnovers in football). For the example of PPP counting turnovers in it's equation but not affording for the times that player as caused a turnover. Plus I'm not even sure why turnovers is accounted for in that. I would want to know how many times the player touched the ball in a game (they have to track it...i saw an advanced stat that was points with fewest dribbles that Klay Thompson was good at a few years back), how many points they scored, and start building off that.

I don't know Martin. My thing is finding a starting point is hard when you look at the directions and they don't look right.

You keep saying you are not an advanced stat guy but you also have your interpretation of maybe what they could be that are wildly different than everyone else.

There is a starting point that pretty much everyone else starts with that you ignore or have your own version while also saying you are not an advanced stats guy.

You can't have all of those and any meaningful convo, that's the short of it.

So the things we agree on:

I am not an advanced stat guy.
I do have my own version (opinion) of what they should look like for me, myself, to put credence in them.
My opinion on advanced stats is different from most-which is why I try to have a functional understanding of them...
...but then comes the part where I look at the components of that stat and see there are holes in the concept.
I don't have a starting point because at this point I am not sure what you mean by starting point.

Simple things, like efg% is (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. That should be meaningful without you adding in your 0.9 whatever re shot difficulty.

Like why they don't count steals in PPP.

You are convulsing everyone else's starting point with your own interpretation that no one in the whole wide world would put into the comparison stuff. Maybe there are some exceptions but keep things more in line and you will have better.

When he got knocked down to the third option. Barrett didnt do enough to make the necessary adjustments IMO. Hart's game is what RJ should be looking to emulate, with this lineup.

You could see most all of them even on both teams were amped, missing shots pretty wildly. Even IQ with the stupid cross court passes that even our mom's saw coming.

IQ, Grimes, RJ will all smooth out. They just gotta chill.

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:RJ did better statistically than I thought he did the last game. Still didnt see him have the same effect that Hart had. Hart made a big play when we needed it. RJ used to be better at these things, as well as 4th quarter play.

When he got knocked down to the third option. Barrett didnt do enough to make the necessary adjustments IMO. Hart's game is what RJ should be looking to emulate, with this lineup.

RJ is under the microscope by fans these days as his shooting %, especially from 3pt is glaringly very loud.
Josh Hart has carved out his role and does it very well. What Knicks want from RJ is between him and his coaches and we are just not privy to what's in his head, or his coaches.
Hart has the clutch thing going and we praise every good play he makes. RJ makes good ones we just sort of wait until his next mistake.

RJ is being groomed to score. Jhart has bounced a bit and perhaps with Thibs finally got his team and role proper for his skill set. Prediction on RJ going forward? I can only hope it leads to victories!

Ive been one of RJ's biggest defenders on this board, so I reject the notion that I'm being overly critical. Hart has been part of deals for stars. I dont consider that a knock on his game.

What I'd like to see RJ emulate is Hart's decision making. JH has a better feel for his role than RJ does this season. Does a better job of moving without the ball.

I'd guess that this is the biggest scare of Knicks coaches, the decision-making. You can add ball handling and drill shooting to a point of gradually getting better, but the decision making curve should be better by now and he shows big gaps in his learning curve. This is one of those thing just like foot speed, you either got it or you don't and if you don't, there is only so much you can add depending on where your start point is.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/iqfor3/status/1648777463894294528

If miles bridges was on this team, there will be a thread with the same title.

This team is built around 2 ball dominate half court players with an old school coach in a half court system. You grind it out on both ends.

RJ is not a half court player. He needs a system surrounded by players who play downhill. Maybe pair Brunson with ball would work. Charlotte pg ball plays downhill and would increase the tempo. Look how he made miles bridges look like an all star. He would have the same affect on RJ. And he’s tall enough to defend SGs if you pair him with Brunson.

Will be interesting to see which direction Leon goes in the off season. Or does he do nothing and continue to develop the yoots?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/TommyBeer/status/1648767946502594581

He's literally missing more than anyone in the league.