All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • mattie
    Member
    • Feb 2011
    • 3887

    Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

    Originally posted by BlueNGold
    Actually, just looking at the per 36, you cannot conclude that he's rebounding better this year vs. any other year. It's one single stat that doesn't take enough into account to make a conclusion.

    In any event, I'm not focused on whether Roy rebounds well or not here. I'm saying you cannot accurately conclude anyone was stealing his rebounds last year. There are too many factors. BTW, there was another flawed write-up that said Paul George was stealing more of Roy's rebounds than Lance. I don't believe that one either.
    See. You want to argue so badly, that you'll say anything. Just respond to reason. Good god.

    BnG. He IS rebounding better than last year. Now, there are many factors that could explain why he is rebounding better, but he is, without a doubt, and we have empirical evidence that he is rebounding "better." Now one might argue- "Roy is only rebounding better because his team is boxing out for him much better than last year, so as a result he is getting more rebounds." Here's what we can't argue with that particular statistic: "The Pacers rebound better with Roy Hibbert on the court." We have no idea, based on that stat alone. But is he rebounding better? Yes. He has more rebounds than last year, so that is not debatable. Now, is the team as a whole benefiting from some sort of improved play? Based off that stat, we have no evidence.

    Now, we also can't conclude that someone is stealing rebounds based off that statistic alone. Of course not. That's insane. But, you can notice Roy's rebound number's oddly decrease, and watch the player of particular players on the court develop an obsession with rebounds (that started in the 2013 playoffs) and make an educated guess- a guess that suggests that one player was "probably" stealing rebounds and we have a decent amount of evidence to support that claim.

    I'm not making that claim, but that's where this gets fun.

    Comment

    • mattie
      Member
      • Feb 2011
      • 3887

      Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

      Originally posted by BlueNGold
      I'm not denying the stat. I'm denying the conclusions being made with it. Sure, Roy has X boards per 36. That doesn't necessarily mean that just because his per 36 is higher this year, that he's a better rebounder or that someone was stealing his rebounds last year. All it means is that it's higher and many, many factors might explain that.
      Exactly! Well said. ANd by the way, you WERE denying the stat. Now you aren't. I applaud you.

      Comment

      • BlueNGold
        Banned
        • Aug 2005
        • 32249

        Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

        Originally posted by mattie
        Exactly! Well said. ANd by the way, you WERE denying the stat. Now you aren't. I applaud you.
        Show me where I was denying the accuracy of the stat itself.

        Comment

        • cdash
          Whale Shepherd
          • Jun 2009
          • 32259

          Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

          I just don't care about Roy's rebounding (or lackthereof) to truly get invested in this discussion. Seriously, rebounding is easily replaced and I would be very concerned if the Pacers, as a team, were a dreadful rebounding team. They might be this year, truthfully I don't know, but I know in past years with Roy manning the middle we have been a very good rebounding team. That's what matters.

          Comment

          • BlueNGold
            Banned
            • Aug 2005
            • 32249

            Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

            Originally posted by mattie
            See. You want to argue so badly, that you'll say anything. Just respond to reason. Good god.

            BnG. He IS rebounding better than last year. Now, there are many factors that could explain why he is rebounding better, but he is, without a doubt, and we have empirical evidence that he is rebounding "better." Now one might argue- "Roy is only rebounding better because his team is boxing out for him much better than last year, so as a result he is getting more rebounds." Here's what we can't argue with that particular statistic: "The Pacers rebound better with Roy Hibbert on the court." We have no idea, based on that stat alone. But is he rebounding better? Yes. He has more rebounds than last year, so that is not debatable. Now, is the team as a whole benefiting from some sort of improved play? Based off that stat, we have no evidence.

            Now, we also can't conclude that someone is stealing rebounds based off that statistic alone. Of course not. That's insane. But, you can notice Roy's rebound number's oddly decrease, and watch the player of particular players on the court develop an obsession with rebounds (that started in the 2013 playoffs) and make an educated guess- a guess that suggests that one player was "probably" stealing rebounds and we have a decent amount of evidence to support that claim.

            I'm not making that claim, but that's where this gets fun.
            Having a higher per 36 does not mean Roy's rebounding better this year. It means simply that his per 36 is higher. Those are very, very different things.

            Comment

            • mattie
              Member
              • Feb 2011
              • 3887

              Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

              I really shouldn't do this. Ok. It's besides the point. We've agreed, so I'll leave it at this:


              Originally posted by BlueNGold
              Per 36 is, at best a shaky measure... It's a meaningless stat.
              (It isn't shaky. It is quite clear what it measures. False conclusions aren't the stat's fault.)

              Comment

              • mattie
                Member
                • Feb 2011
                • 3887

                Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                We're arguing semantics. I'm done.


                Boobs.

                Comment

                • BlueNGold
                  Banned
                  • Aug 2005
                  • 32249

                  Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                  Originally posted by mattie
                  I really shouldn't do this. Ok. It's besides the point. We've agreed, so I'll leave it at this:




                  (It isn't shaky. It is quite clear what it measures. False conclusions aren't the stat's fault.)
                  You have got to start reading context. I was responding to this:

                  Originally posted by ECKrueger
                  This is such a pointless statement. No one is bringing up per 36 to say "oh look how many rebounds Roy gets!"

                  He was showing the dip in rebounds last year based on a standardized statistic.
                  Yes, per 36...while an accurate stat by itself...is a shaky measure to conclude that he had a dip in rebounds last year. I was NOT saying that the stat itself is flawed. This is really like a microcosm of this conversation.
                  Last edited by BlueNGold; 02-03-2015, 12:02 AM.

                  Comment

                  • mattie
                    Member
                    • Feb 2011
                    • 3887

                    Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                    HE DID HAVE A DIP IN REBOUNDS. "WHY" is a different debate all together.

                    Comment

                    • Ace E.Anderson
                      Member
                      • Dec 2011
                      • 18261

                      Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                      Roy produces an average amount of rebounds for a big man. Part of it is his limited mobility and athleticism, part of it is the way we use our bigs to box out other bigs, and part of it is based on the lack of extended playing time.

                      The end

                      Comment

                      • CableKC
                        Member
                        • Mar 2005
                        • 36687

                        Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                        Just watched the Hornets/Wizards game.......watched Lance play a game. He did very well in the first half and ultimately scored 8 points on 4-8 shooting from the field.....but 0 for 3 from the 3pt line.

                        Unfortunately, Lance is still not closing the game even with Kemba out.

                        The Hornets are still a terrible offensive Team.....they scored very well in the 1st half....but went on enough of a scoring drought in the 2nd half to not cover my OVER Bet on the game.
                        Last edited by CableKC; 02-03-2015, 12:36 AM.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment

                        • mattie
                          Member
                          • Feb 2011
                          • 3887

                          Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                          Originally posted by CableKC
                          Just watched the Hornets/Wizards game.......watched Lance play a game. He did very well in the first half and ultimately scored 8 points on 4-8 shooting from the field.....but 0 for 3 from the 3pt line.

                          Unfortunately, Lance is still not closing the game even with Kemba out.
                          I bet Lance would make a killing in Phoenix.

                          Comment

                          • CableKC
                            Member
                            • Mar 2005
                            • 36687

                            Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                            Originally posted by mattie
                            I bet Lance would make a killing in Phoenix.
                            Someone who watches Hornets games more can better answer this, but Lance plays way more "off the ball" than he should be.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment

                            • Ace E.Anderson
                              Member
                              • Dec 2011
                              • 18261

                              Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                              Originally posted by mattie
                              I bet Lance would make a killing in Phoenix.
                              I agree.

                              I also think that any guy with ball handling ability and/or shooting/scoring ability would THRIVE in PHX.

                              I've long thought Lance would do well in DEN with bigs that like to run and can finish. As long as he doesn't have to be counted on to score at more than a 13-14 ppg level, Lance can be quite effective.

                              I also think he'd be a good 6th man for HOU as well.
                              Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 02-03-2015, 12:53 AM.

                              Comment

                              • Ace E.Anderson
                                Member
                                • Dec 2011
                                • 18261

                                Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                                Originally posted by CableKC
                                Someone who watches Hornets games more can better answer this, but Lance plays way more "off the ball" than he should be.
                                All off guards play off the ball in CHA's offense. Henderson gets all those mid range, catch and shoot plays, Gary Neal the same thing but from 3. Its just the way they run their offense

                                Comment

                                Working...