Nice graph jtr. What can one gather from the plot with the likes of Derek Fisher and Mario Chalmers.... seeming outliers from the line, with a higher %ast? Why is there a negative correlation between the two?
Basically, Jeremy Lin is a decent point guard who can become good or great if he improves his shooting splits or turnover rate.
There isn't a negative correlation... I think it might help to look at the graph again without the trend line. The graph is illustrative - there isn't necessarily a connection between the two statistics being shown. If you read it straight-up, and look at D-Fish, it's pretty clear why he's there - he produces almost no Wins and yet has a huge %AST. Basically, that means he doesn't add any value to the team and can barely create his own shots (nearly 80% of his FGs are assisted). Chalmers, for whatever reasons, is a middle-of-the-pack PG in terms of Wins. Overall, you can call him "average" in terms of overall production for the team (note that this is a counting stat, not a rate stat - it doesn't reflect his ability so much as his season-long production). Swap him out for any other PG in the game, and you'll have a roughly 50/50 chance of getting someone better or worse. However, is %AST is near the top of the charts. This means that whenever he scores, it is almost always an assisted shot. Obviously, just like with D-Fish, this means that Chalmers sucks, can't create his own shot, and must rely on his teammates to get him an open look. Or does it? Here is where it gets tricky, and why context with statistics is always important. Because the only thing %AST means is that the official scorer thought that the guy who passed the player the ball should get credit for an assist. Think about the number of assist you see in a given game, and how many different ways you can get an assist (including just because your name is Kobe Bryant and the scorer likes you so he's gonna give you that freebie). In Chalmers's case, it's more believable that the reason he has a high %AST is not because he's a horrible shot creator on his own, but because the guys he is playing with are so good and command so much attention that any shot he takes is going to be "assisted". In other words, the guy holding the ball (a.k.a. LeBron James) is always going to be double-teamed. Anyone LeBron passes to is almost by definition getting an assisted shot. In addition, Chalmers's high %AST could also mean that his job on the floor is to literally stand on the arc and only take open shots. In other words, by virtue of his role on the team, he will only get point when he is wide-open. Which, to circle back to the earlier point, almost always only happens when someone else is commanding extra defensive attention. As a whole, I think the graph makes sense. I would argue that a rate value stat such as WS/48 (with a minimum count threshold) makes more sense than total Wins, but whatever, given a large enough sample the chart results wouldn't surprise anyone. Also, this is me being anal but I would've flipped the axes and reversed the %AST scale. You want Wins on the Y and %AST on the X (from highest to lowest) so that the graph adheres to the intuitive "climbing higher is better" principle. That would put Chris Paul clearly at the top of the pack early and D-Fish buried on the bottom-left. Not to put jtr on the spot but you can also put other stats against %AST to get some interesting patterns as well. For example, seeing a player's %AST against his Points/36 or his eFG% would give you some insight into how efficient of a scorer he is on the floor. A player with low %AST and high eFG% could be taken to mean that he doesn't need anyone else to create his own shot but makes sure to shoot only when it has a good chance of going in, while a player with low %AST and low eFG% is basically a ball-hog who wastes possessions trying to get his points (a.k.a. the Allen Iverson effect).
Where did you get that? If that's true, LeBron would have averaged about 30 assists per game. You really like to exaggerate things, don't you?
Hopefully Lin can rediscover his love for the game, rather than try to live up to the unrealistic expectations established by his linsanity run.
All Lin needs to do is bring the ball up, give it to Harden, and wait on the perimeter for a kick out in the unlikely event that the pick and roll doesnt work, he then swings it to Parsons for the three........... job done.
This...was really what you took away from Nubmonger's otherwise very coherent and intelligent post? You have a vendetta against him or something? hahaha
Wow, what a martyr. Any PG can fill that role. For this team to be over the edge of "very good", Jeremy Lin has to play like a weapon. The goal has never been to stifle Jeremy Lin, but to fit the pieces together. It means he needs to be great with the chances he gets. A la Manu Ginobili. Not that he needs to give up his chances.
Terrible. Then why do you expect him to excel in his role? Even my little cousin can perform that role
No. I don't disagree with his general points. But making exaggerated statements like that dampens his credibility. It's one thing to say that the %AST stats need to be taken in context. It's another to say that the NBA assist numbers are unreliable because they gave Kobe freebies, or that every LeBron pass was by definition an assist. He could have made a much more convincing argument without using those sensational statements.
Again, it's obviously hyperbole, and given the tone of his whole post, I hardly see it as that detracting. No one reading that will actually assume EVERY pass from LBJ always terminates in an assist (assuming the shot goes in). The Kobe comment was a parenthetical, and somewhat tongue in cheek. But even if you took it at face value, is he somehow wrong? Superstars are known to get superstar treatment. The fact that Kobe might get slight preference in more than just the fouls arena isn't that mindblowing. He didn't even say something so sensational as, "Scorers like Kobe so he gets assist freebies ALL THE TIME!" Would his argument been just as strong without those examples? Or at least those examples stated in that way? Sure, though personally I think the post would then lack personality. It's a tough balance, but one I thought he struck nicely. Would your post have seemed less biased if you didn't dig through a whole post that was rather informative to only emphasize these rather nuanced yet seemingly trivial points? Sure, but I guess then your post would lack personality too then, huh?
This should prove to be a good year for Lin. 1. he's injury free 2. he's familiar with the coach, the system and their expectations 3. he's got the best big on the planet to roll with and lob to. 4. expectations, while still high, are now far more modest than they were just a season ago. I expect steady improvement from lin each season. I think he can be an all star point in a few seasons.
