PDA

View Full Version : According to 82games, PF is our best position.



Anthem
07-13-2011, 12:27 AM
Discuss.

http://www.82games.com/1011/1011IND5.HTM

spreedom
07-13-2011, 12:34 AM
That's a fine piece of evidence if you're making a case that stats don't matter. I think there's some value in this kind of information, but in this case it clearly gives misleading information. There's no way PF was our strong suit last year, with McBob in and out of the lineup, Hans in and out of the trainers' room, and Posey playing a scary amount of minutes early on. I'm as excited as anybody about Hansbrough's potential, but he was pretty average in a lot of ways, especially if you consider him to be the best PF on the roster.

The four is still our biggest area of need, if you ask me.

pacer4ever
07-13-2011, 12:39 AM
PER is a flawed stat and i don't use it or trust it ever. I just wrote a paper on this exact thing. (i don't have a stance either way on the issue i could care less what is the strongest position. They all can use improvement.

Taterhead
07-13-2011, 12:50 AM
Who the hell is 82games?

Basketball is not a game about producing better stats than the man guarding you. It's a completely meaningless stat.

Sookie
07-13-2011, 12:50 AM
PER is flawed in that it is completely biased towards post players. Hansbrough and McRoberts where much more consistent statistically than Foster/Hibbert, so it makes sense.

I think SF was our strongest, with essentially having Danny/PG/Dun/Dahntay play there.

King Tuts Tomb
07-13-2011, 12:57 AM
We have good players at power forward but not the traditional attributes that come with a power forward (mostly rebounding and low post scoring). For example, when the Mavs put Dirk at center. They have great production and a great PER at the center position but not the defense and shot blocking needed from a center.

Having a good player at a position doesn't always mean you're getting what you need from that position.

pacer4ever
07-13-2011, 12:58 AM
PER is flawed in that it is completely biased towards post players. Hansbrough and McRoberts where much more consistent statistically than Foster/Hibbert, so it makes sense.

I think SF was our strongest, with essentially having Danny/PG/Dun/Dahntay play there.

I did a write up i will post tomorrow on the PER rating. I think it is completely useless i mean it had Ty Lawson rated above Blake Griffin in the 09 draft. It is based on efficiency but still it doesn't take into a count a number of things. It doesnt nearly show how good 3 pt specialist and excellent defenders our. I mean Kendrick Perkins was almost dead last in PER rating and Joel Anthony was.

Brad8888
07-13-2011, 01:20 AM
Posey is obviously a beast.

BornReady
07-13-2011, 01:23 AM
lol.

Peck
07-13-2011, 02:50 AM
Ok, I'll go ahead and ask.

Can someone break down for me exactly what PER stands for and what it measures?

D0NT SH0OT ME
07-13-2011, 03:06 AM
I think the most interesting stat on that page is that our opponent's SGs were their least efficient position. Apparently MDJ and Rush are amazing defensively.

D0NT SH0OT ME
07-13-2011, 03:08 AM
Ok, I'll go ahead and ask.

Can someone break down for me exactly what PER stands for and what it measures?

www.google.com

Not trying to be a dick but googling is almost always the fastest way to find an answer to a question.

King Tuts Tomb
07-13-2011, 03:08 AM
Ok, I'll go ahead and ask.

Can someone break down for me exactly what PER stands for and what it measures?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2850240


The player efficiency rating (PER) is a rating of a player's per-minute productivity.

To generate PER, I created formulas -- outlined in tortuous detail in my book "Pro Basketball Forecast" -- that return a value for each of a player's accomplishments. That includes positive accomplishments such as field goals, free throws, 3-pointers, assists, rebounds, blocks and steals, and negative ones such as missed shots, turnovers and personal fouls.

Two important things to remember about PER are that it's per-minute and is pace-adjusted.

Because it's a per-minute measure, it allows us to compare, say, Steve Blake and Derek Fisher, even though there is a disparity in their minutes played.

I also adjust each player's rating for his team's pace, so that players on a slow-paced team like Detroit aren't penalized just because their team has fewer possessions than a fast-paced team such as Golden State.

Bear in mind that PER is not the final, once-and-for-all evaluation of a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for defensive specialists -- such as Quinton Ross and Jason Collins -- who don't get many blocks or steals.

What PER can do, however, is summarize a player's statistical accomplishments in a single number. That allows us to unify the disparate data on each player we try to track in our heads (e.g., Corey Maggette: free-throw machine, good rebounder, decent shooter, poor passer, etc.) so that we can move on to evaluating what might be missing from the stats.

I set the league average in PER to 15.00 every season.

Among players with at least 500 minutes in 2010-11, the highest rating was LeBron James' 27.34. The lowest was Stephen Graham's 4.41.

King Tuts Tomb
07-13-2011, 03:10 AM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html


Calculating PER

The Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is a per-minute rating developed by ESPN.com columnist John Hollinger. In John's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." It appears from his books that John's database only goes back to the 1988-89 season. I decided to expand on John's work and calculate PER for all players since minutes played were first recorded (1951-52).

All calculations begin with what I am calling unadjusted PER (uPER). The formula is:

uPER = (1 / MP) *
[ 3P
+ (2/3) * AST
+ (2 - factor * (team_AST / team_FG)) * FG
+ (FT *0.5 * (1 + (1 - (team_AST / team_FG)) + (2/3) * (team_AST / team_FG)))
- VOP * TOV
- VOP * DRB% * (FGA - FG)
- VOP * 0.44 * (0.44 + (0.56 * DRB%)) * (FTA - FT)
+ VOP * (1 - DRB%) * (TRB - ORB)
+ VOP * DRB% * ORB
+ VOP * STL
+ VOP * DRB% * BLK
- PF * ((lg_FT / lg_PF) - 0.44 * (lg_FTA / lg_PF) * VOP) ]
Most of the terms in the formula above should be clear, but let me define the less obvious ones:

factor = (2 / 3) - (0.5 * (lg_AST / lg_FG)) / (2 * (lg_FG / lg_FT))
VOP = lg_PTS / (lg_FGA - lg_ORB + lg_TOV + 0.44 * lg_FTA)
DRB% = (lg_TRB - lg_ORB) / lg_TRB
I am not going to go into details about what each component of the PER is measuring; that's why John writes and sells books.

Problems arise for seasons prior to 1979-80:

1979-80 — debut of 3-point shot in NBA
1977-78 — player turnovers first recorded in NBA
1973-74 — player offensive rebounds, steals, and blocked shots first recorded in NBA
The calcuation of uPER obviously depends on these statistics, so here are my solutions for years when the data are missing:

Zero out three-point field goals, turnovers, blocked shots, and steals.
Set the league value of possession (VOP) equal to 1.
Set the defensive rebound percentage (DRB%) equal to 0.7.
Set player offensive rebounds (ORB) equal to 0.3 * TRB.
Some of these solutions may not be elegant, but I think they are reasonable. After uPER is calculated, an adjustment must be made for the team's pace. The pace adjustment is:

pace adjustment = lg_Pace / team_Pace
League and team pace factors cannot be computed for seasons prior to 1973-74, so I estimate the above using:

estimated pace adjustment = 2 * lg_PPG / (team_PPG + opp_PPG)
To give you an idea of the accuracy of these estimates, here are the actual pace adjustments and the estimated pace adjustments for teams from the Eastern Conference in 2002-03:

Tm Act Est

ATL 1.00 0.99
BOS 1.00 1.02
CHI 0.97 0.98
CLE 0.97 0.99
DET 1.05 1.06
IND 0.99 1.00
MIA 1.04 1.08
MIL 1.01 0.96
NJN 0.99 1.03
NOH 1.01 1.02
NYK 1.00 0.98
ORL 0.98 0.97
PHI 1.00 0.99
TOR 1.01 1.01
WAS 1.03 1.03
For all seasons where actual pace adjustments can be computed, the root mean square error of the estimates is 0.01967.

Now the pace adjustment is made to uPER (I will call this aPER):

aPER = (pace adjustment) * uPER
The final step is to standardize aPER. First, calculate league average aPER (lg_aPER) using player minutes played as the weights. Then, do the following:

PER = aPER * (15 / lg_aPER)
The step above sets the league average to 15 for all seasons.

King Tuts Tomb
07-13-2011, 03:13 AM
According to 82games, PF is our best position.

And they're not saying PF was our best position. They're saying it was our most efficient per minute position.

ilive4sports
07-13-2011, 03:18 AM
And this is why I like to judge with my eyes more than statistics.

pacer4ever
07-13-2011, 03:19 AM
And they're not saying PF was our best position. They're saying it was our most efficient per minute position.

SF was our best. but of course our 4th or 5th option will be more efficient that's why PER is so flawed lol. (along with numerous other reasons PER is just a terrible stat. Offensive and defensive rating stats are far better IMO.(but im not a big stat guy more watching film than looking at stats)

and i agree 100% with ilive4sports you cant judge based off stats. Especially a flawed stat like PER.

King Tuts Tomb
07-13-2011, 03:22 AM
From 82games:


While we never advocate reliance on 'overall rating' type metrics for players since we believe that "fit" within a team's roster and coaching schemes, financial considerations and other factors play a considerable part in player evaluation, it can be useful to gauge quickly how a player stacks up in certain statistical categories.

wintermute
07-13-2011, 03:34 AM
PER is a single value stat that measures a player's performance. It takes a bunch of box score stats, and resolves it into a single value. A notable weakness of PER is that it doesn't measure defense, other than the part of defense that can be captured in rebounds, blocks, and steals.

The calculation is here:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

As a quick, rough reference for checking a player's performance, it's not bad. But it overrates certain things (Troy, for example, tends to rate well in PER) so don't take it as gospel. Myself, I prefer Win Shares for single stat evaluation.

For reference, here are the PER values of the 2010-11 Pacers (Hollinger describes a PER of 15 as an average player):

PER Player
17.9 Granger
16.4 Hansbrough
16.1 McRoberts
16.0 Hibbert
15.7 Collison
14.6 Dunleavy
14.3 Foster
13.8 D. Jones
13.1 George
10.7 Price
10.6 Rush
9.9 Ford
8.5 S. Jones
7.5 Posey
5.6 Stephenson

The Pacers are a bit of a statistical oddity, having a big bunch of players with a PER around 15. Hollinger remarked on this during the season. Most teams tend to be more top heavy.

wintermute
07-13-2011, 03:50 AM
Discuss.

http://www.82games.com/1011/1011IND5.HTM

Why are we looking at the compiled stats page? 82games has stats for individual players.

Danny: http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND10.HTM#bypos
Hans: http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND11.HTM#bypos
McBob: http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND12.HTM#bypos

According to this, Danny outperforms his counterpart by a PER of 2.2 when playing PF and 2.3 when playing SF. Hans outperforms by 2.1 playing PF (and by a huge margin when playing center, but that's in very limited minutes). McBob is a net zero in PER, and a negative when playing center.

So clearly, the "strong" PF position comes from Danny and Hans having high PERs, according to 82games.

Even 82games doesn't use this method to evaluate players though. Their preferred method is a "Simple Rating" which combines PER production with on court/off court rating.

http://www.82games.com/1011/1011IND.HTM

By this measure, McBob fares better despite his poor PER production.

As King Tuts Tomb pointed out though, be wary of all these measures and try not to read too much into them. To quote Obie, it's a tool, not the tool :devil:

ilive4sports
07-13-2011, 04:01 AM
Why are we looking at the compiled stats page? 82games has stats for individual players.

Danny: http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND10.HTM#bypos
Hans: http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND11.HTM#bypos
McBob: http://www.82games.com/1011/10IND12.HTM#bypos

According to this, Danny outperforms his counterpart by a PER of 2.2 when playing PF and 2.3 when playing SF. Hans outperforms by 2.1 playing PF (and by a huge margin when playing center, but that's in very limited minutes). McBob is a net zero in PER, and a negative when playing center.

So clearly, the "strong" PF position comes from Danny and Hans having high PERs, according to 82games.

Even 82games doesn't use this method to evaluate players though. Their preferred method is a "Simple Rating" which combines PER production with on court/off court rating.

http://www.82games.com/1011/1011IND.HTM

By this measure, McBob fares better despite his poor PER production.

As King Tuts Tomb pointed out though, be wary of all these measures and try not to read too much into them. To quote Obie, it's a tool, not the tool :devil:

So you're saying that the 2 positions Danny plays just so happen to be the only 2 positions where we outperform the other team. Interesting...

Shade
07-13-2011, 07:46 AM
PER is great for fantasy sports, but that's about it.

Mackey_Rose
07-13-2011, 07:54 AM
Clearly nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough at the center position.

Speed
07-13-2011, 08:04 AM
I could honestly say, I felt the PF position was good post Vogel last year. Just not as good as it could be, with how the team is constructed now.

Mackey_Rose
07-13-2011, 08:06 AM
PER is great for fantasy sports, but that's about it.

WS48 is a far better metric, I'd rather know how a player is helping the team than how he is doing getting numbers.

vnzla81
07-13-2011, 08:15 AM
Is funny that the same people that used stats to show me how amazing Mike Suckleavy was are the same people that are againts this stats :lol:

troyc11a
07-13-2011, 08:33 AM
Is funny that the same people that used stats to show me how amazing Mike Suckleavy was are the same people that are againts this stats :lol:

They should also try listening to the coach! Vogel said the PF position was a strength. Duh! People only want to use stats when they say what they want then to. When they dont, they are ignored. Hans is our starting PF and a darn good one. MCBob is a quality backup. No other position on the team has a backup as good as McBob. This is why he is going to get some good money when the lockout is over. Tyler will be our 2-3 best player next year.

graphic-er
07-13-2011, 08:49 AM
They should also try listening to the coach! Vogel said the PF position was a strength. Duh! People only want to use stats when they say what they want then to. When they dont, they are ignored. Hans is our starting PF and a darn good one. MCBob is a quality backup. No other position on the team has a backup as good as McBob. This is why he is going to get some good money when the lockout is over. Tyler will be our 2-3 best player next year.

I will concede that Hans is a good starting PF when Hans can pull down some offensive rebounds and put the ball back up with out getting blocked 3 times in a row.

Unclebuck
07-13-2011, 08:51 AM
OK, if the power forward position is our best position that tells me two things. We aren't very good and or Roy isn't as good as most of us think.

Rogco
07-13-2011, 09:16 AM
People tend to hate or love stats. Personally, I find them interesting, frequently revealing, but I always trust what I have seen more than the stats. I have no problem with PER and think it's better than a lot of other metrics out there.

As for the PF, I thought it was our second best position last year after SF. DC struggled for large parts of the year with no decent back-up at point (remember when he couldn't hit and went on a stretch of games averaging something like 4 turnovers and 3 assists a game?). At shooting guard we were either injured, high (sorry.... uncalled for) or inexperienced, SF was solid, with the insertion of Tyler, PF was solid, and Roy went through some really rough times at center as we watched his confidence disintegrate before our eyes.

The thing is that with so many young players, I don't think last years (or in this case three years) stats translate very well moving forward. George, DC, Hans, McBob and Hibbert to me will all be better next year. And in part when I rate these players, it's based on the potential they showed last year, the improvement once Vogel came in, and the effort and skills from the playoff series.

Rogco
07-13-2011, 09:19 AM
It did have point as our worst (compared to other teams) position last year, and I definitely agree. Our pgs were inexperienced, frequently poor shooting and generally overmatched defensively.

BillS
07-13-2011, 09:31 AM
Both stats and observation are better tools when used to raise questions, because neither one alone can answer them.

ballism
07-13-2011, 09:45 AM
To break this down a little more, according to 82games:

Granger played 18% of those PF minutes we are talking about, 20.5 PER, 18.3 opponent PER
McBob - 33%, 18.6, 18.7
Tyler - 38%, 16.7, 14.6
Posey - 8%, 10.1, 13.7
Foster - 1%, 19.7, 1.6 (mmmmmm, best defender ever! talk about a small sample size)

In other words, (not to take anything away from Tyler who has a nice +/- PER himself) Granger boosted the PF numbers quite a bit during O'Brien's small ball fever.

On the other hand, the usual SF in those small ball lineups according to 82games.com is Posey. Who used 12% of total SF minutes, while posting a remarkable 5.4 PER as a SF and "limiting" his opponents to 16.4 PER.
Minus 11 PER, 12% SF season minutes. That must be a record of some sorts.

So, to sum this up, Granger is boosting team PF numbers. While Posey at the same time is doing a remarkable job to sink the overall SF numbers.

Disregard Posey who is finished anyway. Use Granger as a SF. And the world goes back to normal. SF when used properly is our most efficient position.

You can push this further to other positions.
AJ Price and TJ Ford combined for 37% of team minutes at PG. Their combined +/- PER is close to negative 7. No wonder the position overall is -2.4 in that table.
Enter George Hill with +3.3 PER last season.

Lets check SG. Paul George had a -0.2 PER this year while using 20% of SG minutes.
But mostly, SG stats suffer due to Brandon Rush. Rush used 43% of SG minutes while his +/- was at -2 PER.
Again, enter George Hill. Enter an improvement from Paul George (or so we hope). Enter Mike Dunleavy if resigned or Dahntay Jones as the next SG in rotation - both have been way more efficient than Brandon Rush.

In other words... 82games stats aren't that evil. They are only saying that our players were misused last year and we were one efficient backcourt player short - which we got in George Hill.

Taterhead
07-13-2011, 10:21 AM
PF wasn't our worst position last year by a long shot. It was probably PG. Darren was inconsistent and AJ was just brutal overall. But I totally expect that to change next season. Lance Stephenson will be a big boost to our back court, IMO. Lance and Darren compliment each other well offensively as PG's.

I would even say that Center is easily our second weakest position. Roy is a big time presence when he plays well. In fact, we are practically unbeatable when Roy has a great game. But he is inconsistent, and outside of him we have no one besides Jeff Foster, who is on his last legs.

On the wings we are pretty darn good at both spots, IMO. We are deep at SG with Stephenson, Rush, Jones, Hill and Paul George. Jones, Rush and Paul George are all capable of sliding down to SF and relieve Danny Granger depending on the match up. That's a very nice wing rotation.

At PF we have 2 really solid players in McRoberts and Hans so most nights we get a descent combined performance out of them. But, we don't have one single combination that compliments each other well defensively. We are way too weak rebounding the ball and defending the rim. It is also the position with the most limited upside. Hans and McRoberts will continue to improve but not at the rate of the other young guys on the roster like Darren Collison, Paul George and Roy Hibbert.

As far as PER and all that mess......it's just not even an interesting stat to me. The things in basketball that can't be measured (heart, team work, intelligence, strength, effort, communication, athleticism, toughness), are what really matters most.


OK, if the power forward position is our best position that tells me two things. We aren't very good and or Roy isn't as good as most of us think.

I think you pick on Roy too much Buck. I think PF is a much better position for us than C, and I'm not sure why that would be an indictment on Roy. The reason I say that is the limited options we have at C. Roy is by far our best front court player, but he's all we got. We have 3 good players we can play at PF if you include Granger. I think the reason some people are so hard on Roy is that they notice his absence more than anyone else, IMO. They know when he goes out of the game that our chances of winning drop significantly and they have grown frustrated by his inconsistent play. But when he is good he takes us to another level.

I remember when we drafted him and almost no one expected him to be a starting center. He's clearly exceeded those expectations and people are still not happy? I don't get it. He's not Patrick Ewing, but that's OK. I think he's going to be much better than Rik Smits ever was, and he's the best center in our NBA history. So I'm more than happy with Roy.

tfarks
07-13-2011, 10:31 AM
The things in basketball that can't be measured (heart, team work, intelligence, strength, effort, communication, athleticism, toughness), are what really matters most.

This is a baseless statement. For one, every single player has each of those qualities, to whatever degree, combined with their talent and execution it makes them a good player or not. Which is certainly measurable. You can't seperate these things out from a player, it's all encompassing. Yeah that guy might be really tough but it doesn't mean anything if he can't stay out of foul trouble.

You're just throwing crap out there like a 7th grade basketball coach blah blah you gotta have heart! blah blah intangibles!

Trophy
07-13-2011, 10:34 AM
No doubt Tyler is a very good player and has a great deal of potential to become a solid starter.

He's still a very good PF and one who would want bringing the energy off your bench in a 6th man role.

We really need more at that position.

johndozark
07-13-2011, 10:37 AM
McRoberts is not a great PF, but he is better than this forum usually acknowledges, probably above average for a second team PF in the NBA. And he is still improving. At some things he is really good, and at others he shows potential. Unless we can find a star PF to push Hansbrough back to the second team, we need to keep McRoberts.

I believe our biggest need is a backup Center. It would be great if that backup center could double as a defensive/rebounding PF when neither Hansbrough nor McRoberts are up to the needed task.

troyc11a
07-13-2011, 10:38 AM
OK, if the power forward position is our best position that tells me two things. We aren't very good and or Roy isn't as good as most of us think.

Ding ding ding!!!!

We are better at the PF position than at: C. PG, and SG.
If you count the depth it is even better than SF. Partly because we have no real SF to back up Danny.

Hans is a better PF than Roy is a Center, George is a SG, Collison is PG!

graphic-er
07-13-2011, 10:41 AM
Ding ding ding!!!!

We are better at the PF position than at: C. PG, and SG.
If you count the depth it is even better than SF. Partly because we have no real SF to back up Danny.

Hans is a better PF than Roy is a Center, George is a SG, Collison is PG!


You can't be serious.

Heisenberg
07-13-2011, 10:44 AM
I'd post the jpeg of the equation from the Wiki article but it'd break the page. Seriously.

Taterhead
07-13-2011, 10:57 AM
This is a baseless statement. For one, every single player has each of those qualities, to whatever degree, combined with their talent and execution it makes them a good player or not. Which is certainly measurable. You can't seperate these things out from a player, it's all encompassing. Yeah that guy might be really tough but it doesn't mean anything if he can't stay out of foul trouble.

You're just throwing crap out there like a 7th grade basketball coach blah blah you gotta have heart! blah blah intangibles!

"All encompassing"?

I've played basketball, I've coached basketball and I currently scout basketball for a living. You can believe what you'd like.

For example, you make this puzzling statement in bold........of course you can't measure a guys ability to be tough without staying out of foul trouble. That was my whole point. Your whole post agrees with my statement except the first and last sentence. My point was....THAT ability, to stay out of foul trouble while remaining physical, is far more important than a single block shot. It factors into every play.

A stat is just a byproduct of the game. Nothing more than a count of what happened on a select number of plays. A guy grabs 12 rebounds that is only 12 out of lets say 50 possessions he was on the court(just an example). His toughness comes into play on every possession. His intelligence comes into play every second he's out there. It's really not a hard concept to fallow.

In any competition the most important factor is mental toughness. There is no stat for it other than wins.


You can't be serious.

I think by better, they mean deeper.

tfarks
07-13-2011, 11:10 AM
You CAN measure a guy's ability to be tough without staying out of foul trouble. You don't separate them -That means the player isn't very good because he can't stay on the court for you.
Those factors are apart of his talent and execution. He's fouling out because he doesn't have proper fundamentals or he's not athletic enough. It's all one big thing. His unmeasurable toughness isn't the most important part - it's the execution. He can execute through sheer talent/athleticism/toughness/positioning/offensive and defensive strategy that places him...seperating those out and making them more important in your eyes is just semantics. It's the combination that is the key, and it's very measurable.

It's not a hard concept, I agree. And mental toughness does a lot for someone besides making them win. but only when combined with talent and execution. Again, your 7th grade coach semantics are out in full force - attributing the intangible as the most important factor. Its Motivation 101 pooey that you feed to kids who grow up watching Rocky. And attributing mental toughness to wins is absurd. Felix Hernandez is an MLB pitcher who won the AL Cy Young going 13-12. Basketball is different sure, and allows 1 player to be more influential over the course of the season, but still, attributing wins to a single player in a team sport is a flawed approach. You see that with those stat byproducts you dismiss.

Taterhead
07-13-2011, 11:18 AM
You CAN measure a guy's ability to be tough without staying out of foul trouble. You don't separate them -That means the player isn't very good because he can't stay on the court for you.
Those factors are apart of his talent and execution. He's fouling out because he doesn't have proper fundamentals or he's not athletic enough. It's all one big thing. His unmeasurable toughness isn't the most important part - it's the execution. He can execute through sheer talent/athleticism/toughness/positioning/offensive and defensive strategy that places him...seperating those out and making them more important in your eyes is just semantics. It's the combination that is the key, and it's very measurable.

It's not a hard concept, I agree. And mental toughness does a lot for someone besides making them win. but only when combined with talent and execution. Again, your 7th grade coach semantics are out in full force - attributing the intangible as the most important factor. Its Motivation 101 pooey that you feed to kids who grow up watching Rocky. And attributing mental toughness to wins is absurd. Felix Hernandez is an MLB pitcher who won the AL Cy Young going 13-12. Basketball is different sure, and allows 1 player to be more influential over the course of the season, but still, attributing wins to a single player in a team sport is a flawed approach. You see that with those stat byproducts you dismiss.

What stat do YOU use to measure a guys toughness? Cause I wasn't aware there was one. What stat do you use to measure execution of a single player? There isn't one of those either. You have a strange view of things my friend.

You can't even think of a good basketball example to try and spin your strange view of things. And you call me a 7th grade coach? Please go troll somewhere else.

Stats are for people who don't understand the game or didn't watch.

tfarks
07-13-2011, 11:34 AM
What stat do YOU use to measure a guys toughness? Cause I wasn't aware there was one. What stat do you use to measure execution of a single player? There isn't one of those either. You have a strange view of things my friend.

You can't even think of a good basketball example to try and spin your strange view of things. And you call me a 7th grade coach? Please go troll somewhere else.

Stats are for people who don't understand the game or didn't watch.

You don't get it. There is no stat. Because you can't seperate things out. The stat is he has a low RPG because he can't stay on the floor. I have said more than once that these qualities are all encompassing. Stats don't have semantic opinions on how the best way to get those rebouonds are. Easy enough?

And of course I can. LeBron James is the best basketball player in the NBA and doesn't have a NBA title. Karl Malone is a HOF and a great player. He didn't win an NBA title because of Michael Jordan, not because of mental toughness. Easy enough?

And yes, you have the talking points of a 7th grade basketball coach. That's okay, intangibles make people feel good. But I can have the biggest heart in the world and be terrible at everything sports related. It's something you can use to separate 2 NBA talents - not declare the MOST IMPORTANT thing of all.

The only trollish thing here is your completely uneducated and ignorant view on statistics. Your bullish attitude on your importance towards intangibles has made you willfully ignortant towards other opinions. I admit intangibles are important, but not as important as you think. You think stats are for people who don't watch games.

Someone is wrong there, and it's not me.

Kid Minneapolis
07-13-2011, 12:15 PM
I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that PF is our most efficient position. There is very little drop-off in talent when McRoberts comes in. And both are better than people around here want to give credit for. What they lack is Danny Granger-style star power. Doesn't mean it's not a fairly effective tandem, though. It's not unlike DD/AD back in the day. They are still younger, but I can completely see TH/JM becoming a damn good PF tandem in this league. People always forget how young they are.

I think PG and C are our weakest overall spots, because of Collison's inconsistency, and Hibbert's inconsistent, and then poor backups. Granger is fantastic, poor backup. Might be a different story if Dunleavy played SF and could stay healthy. George/Rush aren't half bad, but still have room to grow. Hansbrough usually holds up well, and McRoberts holds his own against the 2nd teams. I can say ya, it's our most consistent, efficient position.

Everyone's been clamoring for a PF this off-season, and I've not really chimed in on those threads, because I haven't really agreed. I think PG/C is our areas of improvement. Maybe Hibbert and Collison and George Hill grow this off-season and take care of that for us.

The one thing I can say is, most of our guys are young, and it's not a stretch to assume that almost every one of them will improve this year, and that is an exciting thought.

Taterhead
07-13-2011, 01:05 PM
You don't get it. There is no stat. Because you can't seperate things out. The stat is he has a low RPG because he can't stay on the floor. I have said more than once that these qualities are all encompassing. Stats don't have semantic opinions on how the best way to get those rebouonds are. Easy enough?

And of course I can. LeBron James is the best basketball player in the NBA and doesn't have a NBA title. Karl Malone is a HOF and a great player. He didn't win an NBA title because of Michael Jordan, not because of mental toughness. Easy enough?

And yes, you have the talking points of a 7th grade basketball coach. That's okay, intangibles make people feel good. But I can have the biggest heart in the world and be terrible at everything sports related. It's something you can use to separate 2 NBA talents - not declare the MOST IMPORTANT thing of all.

The only trollish thing here is your completely uneducated and ignorant view on statistics. Your bullish attitude on your importance towards intangibles has made you willfully ignortant towards other opinions. I admit intangibles are important, but not as important as you think. You think stats are for people who don't watch games.

Someone is wrong there, and it's not me.

Are you serious? Can you read?

I never said intangibles were everything and all that mattered. I never said any of the BS that you've been spewing. You are trying to twist everything I say into something else. So far, you have talked about baseball, me liking Rocky, 7th grade basketball coaches, Karl Malone not winning a title, Lebron being the best player...........like really dude? Are you are just incapable of comprehending what I'm saying? You are even in some regard making the exact same argument that I am while using any strange scenario you can think of, all while truly oblivious of it, which I find hilariously entertaining.

I made a point about the PER statistic in particular because it is a flawed stat that makes the game too simplistic. I never said one word about measurables not mattering or said anything about Rocky going to Russia and out running a car IN THE SNOW on pure heart. Troy Murphy can rebound but he's not tough. He doesn't play defense at all and hangs out around the basket so he probably should. You are trying to connect the two for some reason. Troy is tough because he can rebound, they must be connected? Huh? Wow!

If you understand the game you know that you can't look at a box score and tell anything more than what the results were. You can't even necessarily tell who impacted the game from statistics. A guy could come in at the end of the game and get a key steal and bucket giving his team a win and he would just show up as 2 points 1 steal.

tfarks
07-13-2011, 01:32 PM
My examples are all in context. It's not difficult. Maybe read it twice? Especially since you asked for EXAMPLES???

You may have started off making a point about a PER. But you said stats are for people who don't understand or don't watch games. Please provide any proof that there is an ounce of credibility in that statement. It is 100% unequivocally wrong. Don't backpedal now.

You also said:
The things in basketball that can't be measured (heart, team work, intelligence, strength, effort, communication, athleticism, toughness), are what really matters most.

I'm still waiting to hear why those matter MOST...

There are too many variables for me to make a statement like that. I want to know why you're so confident that you're not being semantic. All those things matter, sure, but why do they matter more than talent? Or coordination? Or coaching? Or execution? For me you're just extracting things that give a good pep talk to a 7th grade basketball team. Just wanted to hear this explanation. You either got it or you don't.

tfarks
07-13-2011, 01:44 PM
Also. Stats don't explain the game. PER has his flaws, but not because it makes the game too simplistic. The game doesn't change.

Stats help evaluate and predict trends. Quit being so irreverent about stats if you can't even explain what they do. Just because a statistical parameter doesn't agree with a preconceived notion you may have doesn't mean it's wrong. In fact, your interpretation of the numbers is whats wrong.

Taterhead
07-13-2011, 01:49 PM
My examples are all in context. It's not difficult. Maybe read it twice? Especially since you asked for EXAMPLES???

You may have started off making a point about a PER. But you said stats are for people who don't understand or don't watch games. Please provide any proof that there is an ounce of credibility in that statement. It is 100% unequivocally wrong. Don't backpedal now.

You also said:
The things in basketball that can't be measured (heart, team work, intelligence, strength, effort, communication, athleticism, toughness), are what really matters most.

I'm still waiting to hear why those matter MOST...

There are too many variables for me to make a statement like that. I want to know why you're so confident that you're not being semantic. All those things matter, sure, but why do they matter more than talent? Or coordination? Or coaching? Or execution? For me you're just extracting things that give a good pep talk to a 7th grade basketball team. Just wanted to hear this explanation. You either got it or you don't.

I just explained it to you. Anyone who understands the game doesn't need the stats to tell him who were the key players. That's all I meant by that. Just because a guy has good stats doesn't mean he wasn't a reason you lost. You can only measure the players intangibles by watching the game, not the score sheet.

What separates the greats from the very good are the things you cannot measure, IMO. That is is why to me they matter more than anything. There are a lot of great athletes with very high skill levels. But that isn't enough to do it in the clutch against tough opposition in a hostile environment.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that I don't like PER because it ignores intangibles? That was my point in my initial post. That's when you came in with your 7th grade coach insults and Rocky references.

Stats and wins are two different things. You are making an argument that makes no sense. And you are insulting me every chance you get for no reason.


Also. Stats don't explain the game. PER has his flaws, but not because it makes the game too simplistic. The game doesn't change.

Stats help evaluate and predict trends. Quit being so irreverent about stats if you can't even explain what they do. Just because a statistical parameter doesn't agree with a preconceived notion you may have doesn't mean it's wrong. In fact, your interpretation of the numbers is whats wrong.

People who know the game don't over analyze the statistics. They understand their limitation. I don't understand what you don't understand about my point. Of course some stats are extremely useful. But Anyone who comes up with a stat like PER is reaching desperately. It's design is to tell you who impacted the game in a positive way and it fails miserably to do that.

BTW I am done. You should try and take a reading comprehension course immediately. Me and John Wooden disagree with you on the importance of intangibles. You should try reading about him after the class is completed.

tfarks
07-13-2011, 02:03 PM
You're just whiffing badly here.

Why does looking at statistics infer in your mind, that one didn't watch or didn't understand the game???

They are not mutually exclusive.

Why can they not be used in conjuction? Why does the sabermetric community exist? Are all of them dumb people who don't understand sports?

You've become so gung-ho about intangibles that you ignore a completely legitimate and useful aspect of evaluating a basketball game.

If 2 highly skilled players go at it and one beats the other. You might say that player must have had more HEART, more TOUGHNESS.

The statistician has his own view. Why doesn't this one count? The stats might show that one player was playing more efficiently than you thought he was while watching. Why does he not understand or watch the game?

ballism
07-13-2011, 02:07 PM
It seems you guys are having an unnecessarily edgy argument over simple semantics. Sure, PER and boxscore stats reflect things like "heart" or "toughness" somewhat. But these stats don't capture them fully and in that it's completely normal to criticize them.

Tougness or excellent communication may give you a 50/50 board, or a put back, or an assist. These show up in PER. That said, PER does not capture a ton of things - boost in teammates' morale, intimidation of opponent, even a lot of measurable stuff like hustle plays or team rebounds.

troyc11a
07-13-2011, 02:11 PM
You can't be serious.

This is a no-brainer!
There is not a team in the league that wouldnt love to have Tyler.
DC pretty much stinks - cant play defense or shoot
PG - is completely raw
Roy - is a weak, spineless Center. The only value he has is that he is 7"2

The only two positions on this team that are in good shape is the 3 and 4. Hey, the coach himself said the 4 spot was one of our strengths. He know more than you do!

Taterhead
07-13-2011, 02:21 PM
You're just whiffing badly here.

Why does looking at statistics infer in your mind, that one didn't watch or didn't understand the game???

They are not mutually exclusive.

Why can they not be used in conjuction? Why does the sabermetric community exist? Are all of them dumb people who don't understand sports?

You've become so gung-ho about intangibles that you ignore a completely legitimate and useful aspect of evaluating a basketball game.

If 2 highly skilled players go at it and one beats the other. You might say that player must have had more HEART, more TOUGHNESS.

The statistician has his own view. Why doesn't this one count? The stats might show that one player was playing more efficiently than you thought he was while watching. Why does he not understand or watch the game?

I didn't say that. Ok, you got me. One more time.....this thread is about stats and what they say about the players on our team. Not anything you have even commented on. You cherry picked two sentences out of my initial post and butchered the opportunity to join into the conversation and turned it into an argument and I don't even know what your point is. You are arguing that intangibles aren't the only thing that matters, and you are literally the ONLY person I have even heard say that.

PER is a stat that is designed to evaluate players. My point was that the only way you can truly evaluate a players impact on a game is by watching and understanding it. My comment was in reference to a statistic that says PF is our best position in particular. Which is a ludicrous claim.

Someone who uses stats to make claims like this were the point of my comment.

But the truth is, the stat doesn't even really say PF is our best position. That is just Anthems interpretation of the stat. All the stat says is that our PF position has the best PER on the team. That's it. And that's another reason stats are not important. Stats lie because they are open to interpretation. Remember that.

Taterhead
07-13-2011, 02:27 PM
It seems you guys are having an unnecessarily edgy argument over simple semantics. Sure, PER and boxscore stats reflect things like "heart" or "toughness" somewhat. But these stats don't capture them fully and in that it's completely normal to criticize them.

Tougness or excellent communication may give you a 50/50 board, or a put back, or an assist. These show up in PER. That said, PER does not capture a ton of things - boost in teammates' morale, intimidation of opponent, even a lot of measurable stuff like hustle plays or team rebounds.

It seems edgy because he came in with insults from the jump. I don't get that. I was actually pretty level headed with him I thought.

But I don't even know what he's talking about. The only reason I keep talking to him is to try and understand his POV. But I really don't know why he is taking exception to my view on this. I don't think I've said anything outrageous. Maybe I worded something a little wrong? IDK?


This is a no-brainer!
There is not a team in the league that wouldnt love to have Tyler.
DC pretty much stinks - cant play defense or shoot
PG - is completely raw
Roy - is a weak, spineless Center. The only value he has is that he is 7"2

The only two positions on this team that are in good shape is the 3 and 4. Hey, the coach himself said the 4 spot was one of our strengths. He know more than you do!

Wow. Man we just disagree. I think pretty much the opposite of all that except that everyone would love to have Tyler Hansbrough on their team, that might be true.

Your evaluations of Roy Hibbert and Darren Collison are just so blindly ridiculous it's comical.

Frank Vogels job isn't too evaluate the roster. That is Larry Bird's job. And he is looking for a PF. Hate to break it to you.

tfarks
07-13-2011, 02:36 PM
Stats never lie. They can be manipulated. But what they output is in absence of bias.

This quote here sums up this situation to me perfectly: "My point was that the only way you can truly evaluate a players impact on a game is by watching and understanding it."

I absolutely disagree. You can evaluate a player's impact in more than 1 fashion. Even the most astute observers can't recognize everything. IMO the best way to make a decision one should take what they watched, weigh it against statistical data, see what matches and differs, and make a complete opinion of it then.

Let's take a simplistic example that won't convince you but I'll say anyway.

One might see Hans in there wailing and flailing and conclude that he looks a little outmatched out there. He's struggling for position, he's shooting 38%, he gave up some bad offensive rebounds and eventually fouled out. But he was tough in the paint and got to the line. Not too bad though.

But a statistic, such as PER, can let you look at it in a different light outside of the speed of the game. And you can say, well he made 90% of his free throws and actually scored more points per shot than my center over there who shot 50% from the field.

I didn't realize how ugly yet efficient Hans can look, interesting. Maybe I'm underestimating the output from our PF position.

BillS
07-13-2011, 02:39 PM
Frank Vogels job isn't too evaluate the roster.

Coach damn well better evaluate the roster so he can effectively use its strengths and compensate for its weaknesses.

I'll give a couple of hypothetical examples about why evaluations might be seen differently at different levels. PF could be a strong position but if it is one easily made stronger that would be a good reason to look to upgrade. PG could be weak but if there's nothing on the table to allow it to be made stronger you'd better do the best with what you have.

Sookie
07-13-2011, 03:17 PM
Coach damn well better evaluate the roster so he can effectively use its strengths and compensate for its weaknesses.

I'll give a couple of hypothetical examples about why evaluations might be seen differently at different levels. PF could be a strong position but if it is one easily made stronger that would be a good reason to look to upgrade. PG could be weak but if there's nothing on the table to allow it to be made stronger you'd better do the best with what you have.

Right..wasn't that one of our biggest complaints with O'brien.

If Vogel fails to evaluate the roster correctly, and is seen playing Posey ahead of Hans..I'll call for his head too.

graphic-er
07-13-2011, 03:18 PM
This is a no-brainer!
There is not a team in the league that wouldnt love to have Tyler.
DC pretty much stinks - cant play defense or shoot
PG - is completely raw
Roy - is a weak, spineless Center. The only value he has is that he is 7"2

The only two positions on this team that are in good shape is the 3 and 4. Hey, the coach himself said the 4 spot was one of our strengths. He know more than you do!

One could also argue that even though Tyler has a high motor and plays super tough....he doesn't play a lick of defense, does not rebound well, and is pretty much useless if he isn't knocking down that mid range jumper because no one respects his game around the basket.

He was essentially a rookie last year and looked like one for most of the year, and you are over here saying he and McBob have the greatest impact on the team.

vnzla81
07-13-2011, 03:37 PM
One could also argue that even though Tyler has a high motor and plays super tough....he doesn't play a lick of defense, does not rebound well, and is pretty much useless if he isn't knocking down that mid range jumper because no one respects his game around the basket.

He was essentially a rookie last year and looked like one for most of the year, and you are over here saying he and McBob have the greatest impact on the team.

Were do you get that Hansbrough doesn't play D? He is a pretty good defender, I've seen him guarding quicker guards off screens and everything.

ECKrueger
07-13-2011, 03:44 PM
Were do you get that Hansbrough doesn't play D? He is a pretty good defender, I've seen him guarding quicker guards off screens and everything.

I agree. Tyler is not an a first-team defender, but he isn't bad. You know for sure he going to try and is pretty strong at the very least.

Kid Minneapolis
07-13-2011, 03:47 PM
I agree. Tyler is not an a first-team defender, but he isn't bad. You know for sure he going to try and is pretty strong at the very least.

He also moves very well for his size, and jumps well. He also has a huge motor. He needs some refinement in his technique, but he has all the makings to be a good defender. He's already decent.

ECKrueger
07-13-2011, 03:52 PM
He also moves very well for his size, and jumps well. He also has a huge motor. He needs some refinement in his technique, but he has all the makings to be a good defender. He's already decent.

Ya, I agree completely. He is not a guy you put in the game specifically for defense, but he is definitely capable, and like you said he has a huge motor, so you know he will always be doing his best.

I just don't get how you could say "he doesn't play a lick of defense."

Sookie
07-13-2011, 04:13 PM
Were do you get that Hansbrough doesn't play D? He is a pretty good defender, I've seen him guarding quicker guards off screens and everything.

It depends on who you are comparing him too..

No, he's not a good defender. Not at all. However, sometimes he can be effective because of how he plays, his physical play will drive opponents nuts.

Is he better than players on our team. Uh..yea.

Rogco
07-13-2011, 04:22 PM
One could also argue that even though Tyler has a high motor and plays super tough....he doesn't play a lick of defense, does not rebound well, and is pretty much useless if he isn't knocking down that mid range jumper because no one respects his game around the basket.

He was essentially a rookie last year and looked like one for most of the year, and you are over here saying he and McBob have the greatest impact on the team.

Ok, I keep seeing the Hans can't play D argument. I just don't get it (or maybe I should say I only partly get it). Hans man on man D I though was actually very good. Hans team D (help defense, rotations etc...) were really bad. On the plus side he was a rookie, and I think it's easier for a player with very limited playing time to improve on his team D than his individual D. All in all, Hans was about an average defender on our team. Better than DC, Duns, Posey and Granger.

Rogco
07-13-2011, 04:25 PM
To back this up statistically, check out the PERs of the opposing players against our PFs:

Granger played 18% of those PF minutes we are talking about, 20.5 PER, 18.3 opponent PER
McBob - 33%, 18.6, 18.7
Tyler - 38%, 16.7, 14.6

So for Pacer's players who played significant PF minutes, in statistical theory Hans played the best D, and frequently against the other teams starters.

Not that I necessarily by the above as proof (insert statistical argument here), but it does back up what I saw on the court.

Unclebuck
07-13-2011, 04:27 PM
He also moves very well for his size, and jumps well. He also has a huge motor. He needs some refinement in his technique, but he has all the makings to be a good defender. He's already decent.


I agree, plus he has very good lateral quickness - better than Josh. And lateral quickness is very important in playing one-on-one defense. he does a really nice job staying with quicker players. I would put only Jeff Foster ahead of him in doing this at one of the big positions.

Where Tyler has a lot to learn and get better at is team defense he often got lost. That is where Josh is much better. For example when Jeff and Josh were in the game against the Bulls the Pacers defensive IQ was much better than when Roy and tyler were in, in fact the Pacers were able to play a more complicated system with Jeff and Josh. The differences in the approach was significant.

But there is no reason that Tyler cannot become a good team defender also - he just needs experience.

Putnam
07-13-2011, 04:34 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people on this forum are to misinterpret data and then assert, on the basis of their own misinterpretation, that the data are wrong. This time it's mostly Taterhead, but as King Tut says, Anthem starts the thread off with a misconstrual.


Anthem: Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos.

graphic-er
07-13-2011, 04:37 PM
To back this up statistically, check out the PERs of the opposing players against our PFs:

Granger played 18% of those PF minutes we are talking about, 20.5 PER, 18.3 opponent PER
McBob - 33%, 18.6, 18.7
Tyler - 38%, 16.7, 14.6

So for Pacer's players who played significant PF minutes, in statistical theory Hans played the best D, and frequently against the other teams starters.

Not that I necessarily by the above as proof (insert statistical argument here), but it does back up what I saw on the court.

Okay I stand corrected, he doesn't play a lick of team D. Does boxing out count as Team D too?

graphic-er
07-13-2011, 04:40 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people on this forum are to misinterpret data and then assert, on the basis of their own misinterpretation, that the data are wrong. This time it's mostly Taterhead, but as King Tut says, Anthem starts the thread off with a misconstrual.


Anthem: Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos.


It never ceases to amaze me how many people jump into a thread and call out individuals as being dead wrong and then don't even bother to lay it out.

"NO! You're wrong!" :zip:

Rogco
07-13-2011, 04:55 PM
Okay I stand corrected, he doesn't play a lick of team D. Does boxing out count as Team D too?

Probably not. It would probably fall under rebounding, something Hans is average at. Or maybe it would. Who cares? I don't think Hans will ever be a really good rebounder, but he should be adequate. Few people are great rebounders (likeTroy Murphy, we'll always miss his rebounding!). If our wings decide to box out, then Hans won't be left trying to box out two people, which should make him look decidedly better to you.

Taterhead
07-13-2011, 06:46 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people on this forum are to misinterpret data and then assert, on the basis of their own misinterpretation, that the data are wrong. This time it's mostly Taterhead, but as King Tut says, Anthem starts the thread off with a misconstrual.


Anthem: Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos.

I never gave my interpretation of any data. My argument was that people misrepresent the data and what it really means. So I am not sure what you are talking about exactly.

I think my wording choice was very poor in a few of my points and some took statements I made the wrong way.


Coach damn well better evaluate the roster so he can effectively use its strengths and compensate for its weaknesses.

I'll give a couple of hypothetical examples about why evaluations might be seen differently at different levels. PF could be a strong position but if it is one easily made stronger that would be a good reason to look to upgrade. PG could be weak but if there's nothing on the table to allow it to be made stronger you'd better do the best with what you have.

Like this for example.

He made a point about Vogel saying PF was a big strength for us last year.

I made a counter point that Larry Bird has been openly shopping for a PF for awhile now, and that is more telling than PER anyday if you want to know how good our PF position is. I then said the line you quoted. I was speaking in reference to his comment about Vogel claiming PF was one of our strengths.

Eleazar
07-13-2011, 08:42 PM
I think PF is a strength not because McBob and Hans are better players than Hibbert, Collision, George, etc., but because there is really no drop-off between the two just different styles. When players were getting consistent minutes (i.e. beginning of the year, and under Vogel) PF was consistently the most consistent position in my opinion. I think this attributes to the high PER. That doesn't mean we have a bigger need to upgrade over Hibbert, Collison, or George it just means there was more stability at that position. If compared to the C position Hibbert is a better player than both of them, but he is also a more inconsistent player. While I think Foster is still just as good as them in limited minutes, it is in limited minutes and not 24+ minutes per game. I think that is true with every position. Every position last year had at least one player if not two players (or more) who has a higher ceiling than McBob and Hans, but they also had at least one or more players who had a lower ceiling.

In any sport consistency goes a long way. Just look at how good the team is when JOB was consistent with his playing time, then look at how bad the team was when he was inconsistent. You could easily make an argument that the team played better at the beginning of the season, than they did under Vogel. You can't really argue that the Collison, Dunleavy, Granger, McBob, Hibbert line-up wasn't a good line-up. Every statistic I have found says it was one of the best line-ups in the whole league. It was only once he started to try and fix what wasn't broken that everything came crashing down.

BlueNGold
07-13-2011, 11:23 PM
The problem with stats is that people use them to conclude something very general like: PF is our best position. I don't think you can do that. Sure, stats are accurate mathematically. The problem is when people go down the road of attempting to draw conclusions. Life is almost always too complicated to do that.

As for our best position, a better measure might be the open market. Who here believes that Tyler Hansborough (obviously I am a fan) is more valuable than Danny Granger? No one should believe that. Just look at Danny's playoff performance. Danny is much better than Tyler right now. IMO, it is a closer call between Tyler and Roy and I'd probably give Tyler the short term edge and Roy the long term edge purely on his potential. Collison might also be a better player but it's not entirely clear how good Darren will be. I would probably draft Tyler before I would draft Collison...and that might turn out to be a mistake. I'd pick Paul George before any of them though...

In any event, regardless of the stats, our best position is SF. Granger remains clearly our best player and best playoff performer. Everyone else except Tyler and Collison pretty much disappeared against the Bulls.

Edit: to Tyler's credit, he did defend Boozer well and has played better defensively than Danny. However, Tyler was very inconsistent throughout the year and people forget that Danny is often doubled and is always the #1 focus of the opposing defense...yet he delivered in the playoffs. Will PF be out best position at some point. Maybe so, but not yet.

Also, if the bench is the issue, I consider Dahntay Jones to be as good as Josh...and I'd play Dunleavy or Rush before I would play Posey.

imawhat
07-13-2011, 11:26 PM
Putnam!

JEM
07-13-2011, 11:44 PM
I think PER is a good place to start when looking to see if a player does his job well while on the floor.

King Tuts Tomb
07-14-2011, 12:29 AM
It's also worth mentioning that the founder of 82games, Roland Beech, works for the Dallas Mavericks and was a crucial part of them winning the title this year.

Here's Hollinger with more on data and strategy:

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/30227/carlisle-pushed-all-of-the-right-buttons

docpaul
07-14-2011, 04:56 AM
Discuss.

http://www.82games.com/1011/1011IND5.HTM

PER is traditionally inflated for power forwards. It tends to be the best position for most all teams.

Take a look at this to see an alternative view:

http://www.82games.com/1011/1011IND5.HTM

We have the 30th and 32nd best rated PFs given Hollinger PER ratings.

wintermute
07-14-2011, 06:06 AM
It's also worth mentioning that the founder of 82games, Roland Beech, works for the Dallas Mavericks and was a crucial part of them winning the title this year.

Here's Hollinger with more on data and strategy:

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/30227/carlisle-pushed-all-of-the-right-buttons

That's a wonderful article. A rare example of advanced stats being applied the right way, with a front office and coach who understand and embrace this approach.

wintermute
07-14-2011, 06:13 AM
Just to be clear, since I'm still seeing posts about Hans and McBob being better than expected.

What 82games data actually shows is that Granger (playing small ball PF) and Hans outperform opponents in terms of PER. McBob is a net zero.

Now you can question whether PER vs your counterpart is an effective way to evaluate players (and I do), but nowhere in 82games' data is it implied that Hans and McBob are better than Danny.