Page 24 of 36 FirstFirst ... 1420212223242526272834 ... LastLast
Results 576 to 600 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #576
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You contradict yourself, lie, ********, take sentences out of context, mis-represent everyone just to "win" a debate. Which you never have. You just refuse to admit you've lost nearly ever discussion by proving you're incapable of having an honest debate.

    What kind of person wastes their time constantly lying in nearly every post they make?

    Also, what is your motivation?
    The dark side of course...

  2. #577
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,536

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Please answer this- WHY Sollozzo, are you trying to delegitimize this statistic so badly?

    Is it because it ruins your false impression that Granger was just an inefficient chucker?

    If this is the case, give it up. Just understand you were wrong, and move on.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  4. #578
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,573

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Holy ****. Pay attention. It would be WORSE for the shooter (because he has a lower shooting percentage), but theoretically better for the TEAM (more chances to rebound the ball versus guaranteeing loss of possession because of a make)! I'm just pointing wholes in your completely weak argument.

    Stop. Just stop.
    So missing a shot and giving your team a chance to rebound the ball and MAYBE make a basket is better than making a basket and losing a possession? Absolutely hysterical.

    Possible points are better than made points?


    Also, you completely lose your credibility as a poster with your lame condescending insults. Me and Nuntuis have disagreed with each other throughout the course of this thread, but we always respond to each other with complete respect. You're 27, but argue as if you're a 14 year old. You make some good points, but it's hard to see them at times because your childish posting style is such a turn off.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  6. #579
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,536

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The dark side of course...
    That's not clever or witty...
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  7. #580
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,536

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So missing a shot and giving your team a chance to rebound the ball and MAYBE make a basket is better than making a basket and losing a possession? Absolutely hysterical.

    Possible points are better than made points?


    Also, you completely lose your credibility as a poster with your lame condescending insults. Me and Nuntuis have disagreed with each other throughout the course of this thread, but we always respond to each other with complete respect. You're 27, but argue as if you're a 14 year old. You make some good points, but it's hard to see them at times because your childish posting style is such a turn off.
    Less made shots, same points would be better than more made shots, same points.

    On the same token, I can have a condescending (your favorite) laugh because you think somehow if a guy scores the 12 points on 4 made threes, it is somehow worse than if a player made 12 points on 6 made buckets.

    Jesus.
    Last edited by mattie; 11-04-2013 at 11:22 AM.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  8. #581
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,536

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    I don't know why I keep discussing this. There is no point in taking you seriously. You aren't smart enough to understand basic math. So why should I keep trying to explain it?

    I'm done with this thread.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  9. #582
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,573

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Less made shots, same points would be better than more made shots, same points.

    On the same token, I can have a condescending (your favorite) laugh because you think somehow if a guy scores the 12 points on 4 made threes, it is somehow worse than if a player made 12 points on 6 made buckets.

    Jesus.
    If a guy goes 4 for 4 from three, then of course it's better than if a player gets 12 points from 6 of 18 shooting. But again, I'll use this example:


    Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.

    Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.


    Sure, both of these players score the same amount of points from the same number of shots. I recognize that has value and am not denying that this is a valid statistic. All I'm saying is that the 4 extra missed shots from Player B could have potentially been used on a higher percentage shot from another player. Is that wrong? Isn't that why plenty of people like high percentage low post scoring as opposed to teams that shoot a lot of threes?

    It's not as simple as you try to make it.

  10. #583
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,528

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I recognize that has value and am not denying that this is a valid statistic.
    Yes you are. You tried dismissing the fact by coming up with the lame comparison between Brent Barry and MJ, and when that got shut down you merely changed tactics on how to try to devalue the statistic by trying to argue how it's figured. If you're valuing the stat, then there's no reason to sit back and try to argue why it's wrong to put value on it, which is the entire point of the post I quoted.
    “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  12. #584
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,795

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If a guy goes 4 for 4 from three, then of course it's better than if a player gets 12 points from 6 of 18 shooting. But again, I'll use this example:


    Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.

    Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.


    Sure, both of these players score the same amount of points from the same number of shots. I recognize that has value and am not denying that this is a valid statistic. All I'm saying is that the 4 extra missed shots from Player B could have potentially been used on a higher percentage shot from another player. Is that wrong? Isn't that why plenty of people like high percentage low post scoring as opposed to teams that shoot a lot of threes?

    It's not as simple as you try to make it.
    I mentioned it in my previous post, but missed 3 pointers have two traits:

    1) They are more frequently offensively rebounded
    2) When they are defensively rebounded, they are more likely to result in fast breaks

    If a team has great transition defense, missed 3's aren't a problem as long as they're not blatant quick shots.

    But you are arguing on the extreme case, where the shot combinations equal each other. Granger's career average from 3 is 38.4%, which is much better than an equalizing 33%. His 2pt% has been steadily decreasing over his career. In Danny's specific case, you want him shooting fewer midrange jumpers. If you go to this site (http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND8.HTM) you can see at the top his shooting distribution. He shot 57% on shots inside, which tells you that if he wasn't getting fouled he was getting up a good shot from that range. However, more than 3/4 of his shots were jumpers, with an eFG% of .454. Now, he shot 38.1% from 3 (eFG% 57%) and made 123/323 3-pointers last season, which means he shot an awful 145/402 (36%) from midrange. Assuming his 3 point shooting and inside game remains strong, Granger will always be an efficient scorer. But if his role is reduced and he's not asked to create from the midrange wing? Say, because Paul George is already doing it better? He will be an efficient scorer by everybody's metric.

    These are only "advanced" statistics by basketball standards. Weighted outcomes are actually a very basic statistical procedure. But to apply them correctly you have understand where they come from in the context of the offense.
    Last edited by aamcguy; 11-04-2013 at 12:25 PM.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  14. #585
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,428

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.

    Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.
    This is the age-old is it better to shoot 50% from 2 or 33% from 3 problem. In isolation, from the efficiency point of view, they are equivalent. But of course this can't actually exist in isolation in a basketball game.

    The usual arguments are that player A will have more opportunities for foul shots while player B has a greater chance of giving up fastbreak points, even though their eFG% is identical. Fortunately though, we are not just looking at eFG% right? It's just one of Dean Oliver's 4 factors after all. Both the potential FTs and rebounds given up will show up elsewhere.

    The Pacers last season are a classic illustration of the 4 factors at work. Our team eFG% was pretty bad (and turnover % too), but we made up for it with rebounding and FTs (smashmouth basketball FTW!).

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Sure, both of these players score the same amount of points from the same number of shots. I recognize that has value and am not denying that this is a valid statistic. All I'm saying is that the 4 extra missed shots from Player B could have potentially been used on a higher percentage shot from another player. Is that wrong? Isn't that why plenty of people like high percentage low post scoring as opposed to teams that shoot a lot of threes?
    Well, you could argue that someone else could make better use of the 6 shots that player A missed just as well as someone else could have made use of the 8 shots that player B missed. 1 point per shot isn't great efficiency for a top scorer, either for player A or player B. So I don't buy this argument anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's not as simple as you try to make it.
    True enough.
    Last edited by wintermute; 11-04-2013 at 12:21 PM.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:


  16. #586
    Member Pacergeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,649

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Who can honestly say Granger can shoot 3's better than Lance? Stephenson has been knocking them down at a great clip. What does Granger do better than Lance?
    David "And One" West

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Pacergeek For This Useful Post:


  18. #587
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,876

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think that it gives an advantage to chuckers. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Here is why I'm not a huge fan of eFG%:

    Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.

    Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.


    So it's true that both of these players got the same amount of points out of 12 shots. I suppose that I was guilty of of some hyperbole when I tried to completely write off these statistics. That being said, Player B missed 8 shots while Player A only missed 4. Those 4 extra misses from Player B mean something right? Those 4 misses could lead to empty possessions and fastbreak rebounds for the other team. Maybe the possession would have been better utilized if Player B would have passed it more to Player A for a higher percentage shot?

    Like I said, I think that this stat bails out chuckers.
    how exactly are two players who take the same amount of shots, but only one is a chucker?

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to ilive4sports For This Useful Post:


  20. #588
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,363

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Many times I don't need stats... I just watch the players play the game....
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Bball For This Useful Post:


  22. #589
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,528

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Who can honestly say Granger can shoot 3's better than Lance? Stephenson has been knocking them down at a great clip. What does Granger do better than Lance?
    I seriously have to question people's basketball knowledge, if they think 3 games worth of shooting out does 8-9 YEARS worth of it. Arguing that Lance is a better shooter than Danny, because of his shooting percentage this year, might be the dumbest argument yet.

    Sorry if it's harsh, but it's true. You might as well break out the dart board and blindfold, and pick your arguments that way.
    “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  23. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  24. #590

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think that it gives an advantage to chuckers. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Here is why I'm not a huge fan of eFG%:

    Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.

    Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.


    So it's true that both of these players got the same amount of points out of 12 shots. I suppose that I was guilty of of some hyperbole when I tried to completely write off these statistics. That being said, Player B missed 8 shots while Player A only missed 4. Those 4 extra misses from Player B mean something right? Those 4 misses could lead to empty possessions and fastbreak rebounds for the other team. Maybe the possession would have been better utilized if Player B would have passed it more to Player A for a higher percentage shot?

    Like I said, I think that this stat bails out chuckers.
    I don't think that's accurate.

    I think the stat attempts to allow for a comparison between jump shooters and players who play inside.

    I know we've all been scarred by Jim O'brien. But shooters are important in the game of basketball. Spreading the court, is an important part of the game. The team doesn't have to run down the court and chuck a three pointer every time.

    And I think your scenarios are only one side of the coin. What if it isn't a good passing team, and attempting to get a better shot would likely lead to a turnover? What if the team's best offense is an offensive rebound?

    Basketball works best when there is balance. Efg is just simply a way to value a shooters performance in comparison to someone who makes layups.

  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sookie For This Useful Post:


  26. #591
    Member Sparhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    5,431

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Who can honestly say Granger can shoot 3's better than Lance? Stephenson has been knocking them down at a great clip. What does Granger do better than Lance?
    Probably play defense and get some blocks. Lance gets a bit lazy on D still.
    With the #3 pick in the 2015 draft, your Indiana Pacers!

  27. #592
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,573

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes you are. You tried dismissing the fact by coming up with the lame comparison between Brent Barry and MJ, and when that got shut down you merely changed tactics on how to try to devalue the statistic by trying to argue how it's figured. If you're valuing the stat, then there's no reason to sit back and try to argue why it's wrong to put value on it, which is the entire point of the post I quoted.

    I didn't come up with any lame comparison between Brent Barry and Jordan. Was just stating what the statistics say. What's there to shut down? Brent Barry is higher than Jordan on that list, is he not?

  28. #593
    Member Jukeb0xHero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Avon, Indiana
    Age
    26
    Posts
    468
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    I enjoy how people try to tear down certain advance stats by harping on a minor flaw (that someone else probably pointed out) or changing it's context, but ignore the massive flaws in any "mainstream" statistic.


    Obviously, FG% is better than TS% because it's on ESPN. Nevermind that ESPN is essentially useless for analysis of any sort. grade A logic

  29. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jukeb0xHero For This Useful Post:


  30. #594
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,528

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I didn't come up with any lame comparison between Brent Barry and Jordan. Was just stating what the statistics say. What's there to shut down? Brent Barry is higher than Jordan on that list, is he not?
    Sorry, it wasn't Brent Barry vs. Jordan, it was Barry vs. Jordan, Shaq, Dirk, LeBron, and Bird.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree with you. The stats clearly show that Brent Barry was one of the most efficient scorers in NBA history. Better than the likes of Shaq, Dirk, Lebron, Jordan, and Larry Bird.

    I wonder why he's not going into the HOF? Bizarre.
    You've spent the last three pages trying to either trying to distort what the statistic means, and after that didn't work out, how it's calculated.
    Last edited by Since86; 11-04-2013 at 12:54 PM.
    “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  32. #595
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,428

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    All stats have flaws. There are better examples that show TS% flaws, for example. That's why it's always better to look at the bigger picture instead of just 1 or 2 stats that "prove" one's point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Many times I don't need stats... I just watch the players play the game....
    Maybe... but wouldn't it be more useful to apply stats and eyeballs together? The whole point of the stats is to create a better understanding of the game, after all.

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:


  34. #596
    Member Pacergeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,649

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I seriously have to question people's basketball knowledge, if they think 3 games worth of shooting out does 8-9 YEARS worth of it. Arguing that Lance is a better shooter than Danny, because of his shooting percentage this year, might be the dumbest argument yet.

    Sorry if it's harsh, but it's true. You might as well break out the dart board and blindfold, and pick your arguments that way.
    RIGHT NOW, in November of 2013, LANCE is the better shooter!!! Danny hasn't played in a year and a half, and you are making a BIG assumption that Danny will be the same player he was. Besides, Danny was always a volume scorer. Never an automatic shooter like Ray Allen or Kyle Korver. FACT: Lance is shooting lights out RIGHT NOW. Until or IF Danny comes back, YOU cannot assume he is Reggie Miller 2.0
    David "And One" West

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to Pacergeek For This Useful Post:


  36. #597
    Member Pacergeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,649

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparhawk View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Probably play defense and get some blocks. Lance gets a bit lazy on D still.
    Danny was NEVER known for his defense. Lance CAN defend and is a terrific rebounder for a SG
    David "And One" West

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to Pacergeek For This Useful Post:


  38. #598
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Who can honestly say Granger can shoot 3's better than Lance? Stephenson has been knocking them down at a great clip. What does Granger do better than Lance?
    Let's review how well both have shot the 3 ball since Lance arrived, as well as look at their career %'s.

    October 2010:
    3 games, Danny averaged 3.7/8.0 for 45.8% (that's FG% not eFG% by the way)
    Lance DNP

    November 2010:
    13 games, Danny averaged 2.5/6.1 for 40.5%
    Lance DNP

    December 2010:
    14 games, Danny averaged 1.5/5.5 for 27.3%
    Lance DNP

    January 2011:
    14 games, Danny averaged 2.2/4.9 for 45.6%
    Lance DNP

    February 2011:
    13 games, Danny averaged 1.9/4.5 for 42.4%
    1 game, Lance averaged 0.0/0.0 for 0%

    March 2011:
    17 games, Danny averaged 1.5/4.6 for 33.3%
    11 games, Lance averaged 0.0/0.5 for 0%

    April 2011:
    5 games, Danny averaged 2.2/4.4 for 50%
    Lance DNP

    ---
    December 2011:
    4 games, Danny averaged 1.8/4.5 for 38.9%
    3 games, Lance averaged 0.0/0.3 for 0%

    January 2012:
    15 games, Danny averaged 1.7/5.1 for 32.9%
    14 games, Lance averaged 0.0/0.5 for 0.0%

    February 2012:
    13 games, Danny averaged 2.2/5.9 for 36.4%
    14 games, Lance averaged 0.1/0.8 for 18.2%

    March 2012:
    17 games, Danny averaged 1.6/4.6 for 35.9%
    7 games, Lance averaged 0.0/0.7 for 0%

    April 2012:
    13 games, Danny averaged 2.7/5.7 for 47.3%
    4 games, Lance averaged 0.5/1.5 for 33.3%

    ---
    October 2012:
    Danny DNP
    1 game, Lance 1.0/1.0 100%

    November 2012:
    Danny DNP
    15 games, Lance 0.9/2.3 for 37.1%

    December 2012:
    Danny DNP
    13 games, Lance 0.7/1.8 for 39.1%

    January 2012:
    Danny DNP
    15 games, Lance 0.8/2.4 for 33.3%

    February 2012:
    3 games, Danny 0.3/2.3 for 14.3%
    12 games, Lance 1.1/3.3 for 32.5%

    March 2013:
    2 games, Danny 0.5/1.5 for 33.3%
    15 games, Lance 0.5/2.2 for 21.2%

    April 2013:
    Danny DNP
    7 games, Lance 1.0/2.9 for 35%

    ---
    October 2013:
    Danny DNP
    2 games, Lance 2.0/3.5 for 57.1%

    November 2013 (as of 11/04/2013)
    Danny DNP
    1 game, Lance 5.0/7.0 for 71.4%

    Career Three Point %:
    Danny .384
    Lance .316

    Lance has certainly gotten better, but if you think these first 3 games represent his normal 3p% from now on, you're on your own island with that opinion.

    http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.htm...Season=2010-11
    http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.htm...Season=2010-11
    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...grangda01.html
    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...stephla01.html

  39. #599
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Many times I don't need stats... I just watch the players play the game....
    Aye, and it's amazing how posters hop back and forth between "I don't need stats" and "here's some stats" depending on how well the stats back up their eyes...

    And otherwise, saying you watch the games means nothing on a forum where everybody is watching the games.

    Also, spoiler-alert:

    Statistics are a collection of observations put down on paper! They are 100% generated BY WATCHING THE GAME.

  40. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  41. #600
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,536

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by wintermute View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    All stats have flaws. There are better examples that show TS% flaws, for example. That's why it's always better to look at the bigger picture instead of just 1 or 2 stats that "prove" one's point.
    I wouldn't say this is a flaw- TS% is basically bullet proof.

    But TS% doesn't account for turnovers. So while I generally refer to a player's "scoring efficiency", a player could still have a higher TS% but turn the ball over too much.

    If it is only taken at face value, it is a good statistic. There's much more to the game is all.

    If a guy "ballstops" on offense, even if he is efficient when scoring, maybe he slows down the offense on the whole, while putting up his own good numbers. This is all hypothetical, but to be quite clear, I would never argue that one player is better than another ONLY because of that one particular statistic.

    My arguments earlier, were simply try explain the usefulness of that one particular statistic by pointing out the flaws in everyones argument.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  42. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •