I doubt any of the respected NBA heads that use those stats would say that are "sufficient" to describe a player.
Furthermore, 99% of people once thought the earth was flat, too. Not that it's a bad thing. Without people like you, including those coaches/commentators/analysts you refer to, Morey would be out of a job. It is exactly because this type of ignorance is not only widely prevalent, it is in fact widely accepted, that gives guys like Morey in the stat community their edge in the first place.
1. My intention for starting this discussion is to first identify guys whose statistical profiles are similar to Lowry's when you look beyond the superficial traditional box-score numbers and then talk about who among them may be comparable to Lowry. I thought we'd go beyond some of the prior Lowry threads where folks just throw out random assertions about Lowry's abilities ("Star!" "Solid starter only!" "Career backup!" "No better than Brooks in 09/10!"). It's probably not surprising that, for some people, this is not at all how the discussion turned out. 2. The Mike Conley comparison, like the Aaron Brooks 09/10 comparison is yet another good case for examining the difference between looking at "traditional" box-score stats and looking beyond them. When you look at "Traditonal" stats people talk about when it comes to PGs: Conley had a higher FG% than Lowry (44.4 to 42.6), and had comparable PPG (13.7 to 13.5) and APG (6.5 to 6.7). However, Lowry is better and more efficient when you take deeper look: For example, Lowry had better ORTG (115 to 108) and TS% (55.0 to 52.1). Now, how does Lowry have such better efficiency number than Conley when Conley had better FG%? There are several factors: a. 3 pointers: FG% is really a rather meaningless stat combining 2pt and 3pt FG% even though these shots have different values in terms of points per make/miss. In fact Euro Leagues stat sheets list those number separately, and do not list a "FG%", I think it's a more fair way to do it. So, if you look at Conley vs. Lowry. A much lower portion of Conley's shots were 3 pointers (217 out of 953 vs. 343 out of 809 for Lowry), which makes it easier for him to have a higher FG% but actually makes him less efficient in terms of helping his team score more pts per possession. This is because people tend to shoot lower on the 3 pt shots than they do on the 2 pt shots, taking a ton of 3s tend to lower your FG%, but is typically actually more efficient (since each FG is worth 3 pts, and there also the OReb factor). In any case, if you look at their points scored per FG attempt (not counting fouls), Lowry is better (1.012 to .972) due to the higher proportion of 3 pt shots attempted. b. Offensive Rebounds: While people don't really think of small guards as offensive rebounders, the rebounds they still gets you and extra chance to shoot at the basket (and often a higher quality shot since the D is kind of scrambled at that point) and helps the team score. O Rebound rate is a part of a players's ORtg, so it helps further separate Lowry from Conley. c. FTs: At first, it may not look like there's much of a difference between the two guys in terms of FTA/G and FT%, but (i) these differences do matter and give Lowry an edge, (ii) further, since Lowry attempts less FGs, and less 2pt FGs in particular, Lowry really is drawing fouls at a higher rate than the FTA or FTA/G would reflect. 3. More generally, Lowry is kind of a poster child for the "advanced stats" guys: He managed to be quite efficent over the last couple of years (113 and 115 ORtg) without having a high FG% (39.8 and 42.6) by drawing fouls (more so in 09/10), hitting 3s (more so in 10/11) and crashing the boards. He also does a good job pushing the ball in transition to give himself and teammates easier opportunities. This last season, even when he looked like he had a shooting month in January (40% FG%, 31% 3s), he still managed to maintain a TS% similar to his season average (52.6% for the month, which is actually higher than Conley's season average of 52.1%) and still got to the offensive boards. Again, it's not surprising how highly Morey speaks of the guy. If you look at scoring efficiency, I think Lowry really had just one bad month (November, and the 4 games when he played hurt in April) last season and was otherwise fine even when not shooting well. I think it speaks to his ability of doing the "little things" even when not hitting shots-- sort of like what the "smart vets" like J. Kidd and Battier do. 4. Back to the "comparison: durvasa, I agree with your point that Mookie tended to launch a lot from the perimeter and that Lowry might have been a bit more excited about his new toy (the J) last season. Another notable fact is that Mookie never shot many 3s until his 4th season in the league, when he was 25. I think he really went to town on the 3s later on when the 3 pt line was shortened. I am not sure, though, if Lowry wasn't making the smart choice in terms of shooting vs. driving. Perhaps he over-did it at some points, but I typically felt good about his shot selection which watchin games. His FT rate decreased but perhaps its a matter of a lot of the slashing responsibilities being given to Kevin Martin, who was even better at flopping than Lowry was.
lmao, what edge? What has Morey done for this team? I don't remember having MVP's on this team, or reaching the finals, or reaching the conference finals. Don Waddell Sam Presti Who are these guys you never hear mentioned? GM's of teams who actually have success.
Lowry's 4yr/24$mil is >>>>>>>>> Conley's 5/40. I would say that he is the overall better player at this point and has a greater impact on the court than his Grizzly rival. We all knew that Lowry was a jumper/respectable 3pt shot away from being a really good player. Now that he has one, I wonder how he will expand his game to become even better. My suggestion is that he should develop a little floater or a tear drop. Being able to finish in the paint against bigs should open his game up even more and make defenses have to commit to him as a threat once he gets into the paint. I know that one of his strengths is over powering other guards and also drawing contact but a tear-drop shot would be an extra option that will keep opponents guessing. Hopefully he will not be consulting Rafer.
I didn't mean to say that advanced stats are sufficient either. What I'm saying is that no respected commentator will ever say that the boxscore is sufficient to describe what a player brings. That doesn't mean its wrong to point to the boxscore to help convey what player brings, but clearly that's not the end of the story. And for some players, its totally inadequate. And on your other point about the inadequacy of advanced defensive stats like DRTG and Defensive Win Shares, agreed. Personally, I don't put much stock in those particular stats. I think for defense, adjusted +/- becomes somewhat more useful, though it can be a bit hit and miss. Then of course it becomes even more important to just watch what the player does and also take into account the opinion of his teammates and coaches. Put that all together, and you can get a pretty good view of how effective the player is defensively.
Very good post, and I agree. And I never said the boxscore is completely adequate either. Cxbobby just started going off b/c I used 20pts/5apg and the MIP to claim Brooks had a good year (without acknowledging the "role" Brooks was put in as the scorer AND playmaker for our team--again, a role usually reserved for the all-stars in this league. A role Adelman said himself Brooks was put in, and a role Lowry was never put in last year). He brought up other "high scorers" and yet most of those players' roles are/were nowhere close to what Brooks' responsibilities in 09-10. I think the boxscore is a very good baseline to start differentiating players (for instance a Swift v. another PF--ala a 4.6 career rebounding average is completely pathetic). And if they are very similar, then you go on to the more advanced stats. But even that might not be completely adequate if you don't consider the type of role/system that player is in, b/c that can competely alters their "ratings" or +/-. An example would be Mike Bibby. He is NOWHERE near an average defensive player, and yet his defensive rating was higher than some of the better defenders in this league, primarily b/c he shared more minutes with Lebron/Wade, 2 of the best defenders in this league. I think you have to look at overall package: a player's role/responsibilities--big/small, their stats/performance in that role, and how the team performs with them in that role.
Actually, no. Traditional boxscore is a very poor baseline to start differentiating players. For instance, Stromile Swift vs. Luis Scola-- ala Swift's 4.6/game career rebounding average might look complete pathetic next to Scola's 8.0/game. Your "starting point" would suggest that Scola is much better at rebounding than Stromile Swift was. However, when you compare their numbers on a per-minute or per-possession basis, then Swift's numbers (8.4/36 minutes, 13.5 Total Rebound %) is much closer to Scola's (9.6/36 minutes, 15.2 Total Rebound % for his career; 9.0/36 minutes, and 14.2 Total Rebounding % last season). The publicly available advanced stats one can get from hoopdata.com, basketball-reference.com, etc. (or a more nuanced look at such available stats) are often a fairly decent baseline to start differentiating players. As durvasa and others have said, these stats need to be supplemented by detailed tape break down, capable scouting, and other types of non-public information in order to form the basis of professional-level evaluation. Relying on traditional per/game scores the Stromile Swift reb/game example in your post is pretty much completely worthless.
I disagree. This is where advanced stats can be misleading. Again, taking into a player's "role" on a team into account, Swift was never asked to do anything but defend and rebound (his role is more of a specialist). Therefore, for him to get a % lower than Scola, who isn't considered a great rebounder by any means--but he's asked to do MUCH more offensively, is pretty pathetic. I still consider Swift a below average rebounder. Therefore, the basic box-score line pretty much tells me what I need to know about Swift. Now consider Lamar Odom v. JJ Hickson for instance, on a per 36 min basis, Hickson beats him (11.1 to 9.7; on a per game basis, they are even), but would you consider HIckson a much better rebounder, taking into account Odom plays on a team with 2 7footers + usually plays a more perimeter-oriented game on both ends of the floor? I would consider Odom and HIckson are even rebounding-wise, or even giving a slight edge to Odom Or if you consider Odom vs. Scola on a per 36 min basis for rebounds, Odom is just "slightly" higher. But using the same argument as above, I can say that Odom blows Scola out of the water in terms of rebounding. Again, usually when I compare players, I really need to understand their role on a team.
1. OReb/36 min: 0.6 2. Height: 6'2 3. Assists/36 min: 6.8 4. Points/36 min: 15.1 5. 3 Pointers Made/36 minutes: 1.8 He doesn't meet the offensive rebounding prerequisite, but the other categories match. These stats belong to Spoiler
This is precisely why the offensive rebouding prerequisite and other "little things" about Lowry's game is important: Even in Rafer Alston's most efficient year (04/05 with Toronto), when his shooting numbers were similar to that of Lowry's last season, his career best ORtg was still only 108. Things like Offensive Rebounding push Lowry's ORtg to 113 and 115 over the last couple seasons even though his box-score shooting numbers don't look too good. Now, I don't think Rafer Alston was as terrible as some say: He was a starting PG on several 50+ win teams, including an Orlando team that made it to the NBA Finals, but personal offensive efficiency wasn't one of his strengths. His game is also very much different than Lowry's-- Rafer never really was able to finish on his drives while Lowry was much better at it. I disagree. This is where pulling opinions out of your ass without looking at the facts is misleading. Scola's "Usage Rates," which measures how often he shot, over his 4 seasons were: 20, 20, 23, 26. For Swift, during his 2nd to 5th season, his usage rates were 22, 21, 23, 25. People may not remember any version of Stro other than the Swift actually got minutes in Memphis and, when he played, he wasn't only asked to rebound and block shots -- he actually put up a decent number fo shot attempts. I don't disagree that you look at roles, teammates, etc. when evaluating a player. But I fail to see how this makes the raw rebounds per game a "decent starting point" in evaluating a player's rebounding rate, which is the argument you were trying to make in the prior post. The point is, when two players play TOTALLY DIFFERENT NUMBER OF MINUTES, rebounds per game and other traditional per game boxscore stats are COMPLETELY USELESS even as a STARTING POINT for trying to compare their respective production. Of course pace, teammates, role ,etc. all matter in the equation, but a better STARING point are number measured on a per-possession or at least per-minute basis. FOR EXAMPLE: DIKEMBE MUTOMBO averaged 5.3 rebound a game in 2004/2005. Is this good? THEO RATLIFF also averaged 5.3 per game. What do these number say about the respective rebounding ability of these guys? NOTHING.
#1 Conley is not as good as Lowry. #2 Lowry reminds me of someone that did not make your list: Fat Lever.
Chris Paul's usage rating in his best season was 25.7. Do you seriously want to tell (or imply) to me that Swift's role is anywhere clsoe to those guys??? Shot attempts (and in this case your use of usage rating) don't really tell if you're involved in an offense, as more than 50% of his rebounding % is from the offensive end (or in box-score #s, around 35-40% of his rebounds are from the offensive end--which will result in shot attempts, believe it or not). Swift was never a top 3-4 option in any team he was on, period. So no, he's pathetic as a rebounder. and FYI: in his only season with us, he had 20 minutes to prove his worth. He averaged 4 rebounds per game. Looking at nothing beyond that--as his role was nothing more than a defender/rebounder under JVG, it's pretty damn pathetic to me. First of all, raw statistics (or the box-score) ARE the starting point in every discussion of player comparisons. Secondly, raw rebounding numbers are a decent starting point b/c usually most players aren't good enough to average 36 minutes per game (for you to use that to rationalize that advanced stat--what he would average if he does indeed play 36 minutes--as you did to compare Scola vs Swift). If they were, they would play more minutes. I mean, I can't use the raw "assist" numbers to claim Lebron James is a better passer than say a Kevin Martin? Or that Steve Nash is one of the best assist man in the league? In your example of Ratliff vs Deke, another terrible comparison. Looking at minutes played (and RAW minutes played), one gets 5.3 boards in 15 minutes of play, while the other in 28 minutes of play. One is a starter that year, and one is a bench player. So no, those raw rebounding numbers tell me that Deke was a vastly superior rebounder. BTW, 5.3 rebounds for a 38 year old player who plays just 15 minutes a game is outrageously great. So I disagree, looking at the RAW statline for both players that year (minutes per game, rebounding number), it tells me a WHOLE lot (Deke vs Theo)
He is not a more pathetic rebounder than the likes of Kenyon Martin, Nene, or Marc Gasol, looking at rebounding rates. The reason why he was terrible is because he lacked the basketball acumen and mental agility to correctly position himself on offense and defense, therefore being a detriment to the team. Much like our very own Jordan Hill, or yourself for that matter. Then again, those are things you will not be able to catch on to looking at a raw boxscore. Yes they are, for newbs like yourself. Some of us would like to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that. Tim Duncan is a 20/10 guy, and so are guys like Chris Bosh, Boozer, Zach Randolph, Amare, Pau Gasol, Al Jefferson. Even guys like David West, Lamarcus Aldridge, Chris Kaman, David Lee have come close or done it for a season or two. The reason why one guy is considered the greatest PF of all time, and the others just allstars, or even merely average players, is a reason untold in Points or Rebounds. So when you make Points and Rebounds, and all your other raw boxscore stats the starting point in all your discussions, you will inevitably arrive at a vastly different conclusion than some of the rest of us who sees things not so shallowly. I am not sure if this last statement is meant to be intentionally difficult, or merely just dumb. Arguing that looking at "minutes per game" and "rebounding number" separately, then comparing them, is "looking at the RAW statline", meanwhile disregarding "per 36 stats" is high comedy at its best. You seriously cannot be this dense. Can you?
1) I understand why Swift didn't get a lot of playing minutes (poor bball IQ), but poor rebounding was also one of them. 2) How ridiculous are you to bring those guys up? Marc Gasol has been playing with freakin' Zach Randolph for most of his career, who he is a rebounding machine. Are you telling that that won't affect his rebounding rate? I've been saying for a bajillion posts that you have to take into account what role that player is in, and Gasol shares the paint with Randolph. Kenyon Martin may not be a great rebounder, but he's a great 1-on-1 defender. If Swift was as good of an individual defender as Martin, a lot of coaches would have overlooked his pathetic rebounding, and other shortcomings (since he wasn't asked to do much else). Didn't I claim Swift's role has always been defense/rebounding? Not only was he bad at rebounding, he was bad at defense. And Nene, tell me when Swift has a legit post game that is worth talking about? Players are on the court for several reasons. Nene is on the court for primarily his offense. Please take into consider the player's ROLE on that team PLEASE. Amare is a terrible rebounder, but he's an all-star. I never said a PF has to be great at rebounding. It's simply if they are performing up to what they are asked of for the most part, and Swift didn't do zilch. You're basically stating why Swift was a bad player. We all know why since JVG pointed them out so blatantly by playing him 20 minutes per game. 3) Another terrible example to bring up Tim Duncan. PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ROLE OF THAT PLAYER when comparing players. PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE. Tim Duncan WAS and STILL IS and TWO-WAY player. Looking at the RAW statline again, none of the guys you brought up play on the defensive side of the ball (which you can easily use the block shots per game to illustrate--a RAW stat I might add). Blocks may not illustrate the entire defensive side of the ball, but it's very easy to see this HUGE discrepancy when comparing those players. Furthermore, Tim Duncan did this for a decade straight (20/10). The other guys do it here and there. I'm sure if those players put up 20/10 for a decade (not for a SEASON OR TWO OR THREE OR FOUR), they'll be mentioned among some of the greatest of all time too. Raw stats just aren't restricted to points and rebounds. I"m sure if you look at their ENTIRE raw statline between those players, it's VERY EASY to point out why Tim Duncan is the better player. No need to go into the advanced stats too much. Don't make things more complicated than it really is. You may think you're trying to be smart, but you're not. I mean, take a Karl Malone statline and put that against LA, Zbo... Or a MIchael Jordan against a Kevin Martin for god sakes. It's really that freakin' simple. Lay out the raw statline (PPG, RPG, APG, BPG, SPG, FG%, FT%, TO..) Or do you really want to go into the advanced stats to claim why Duncan/Jordan/Malone are some of the greatest players to ever play the game? 4) I do disregard the 36 minutes per game stat. Why do you bring that up to compare players when most players can't average that (only the good ones are)? Swift isn't going to average 36 minutes per game. Scola IS averaging 36 minutes per game. If you think looking at the raw minutes per game played to determine the effectiveness of their statline isn't a good way to measure performance, then I disagree. There's a reason some players averaged a certain amount of minutes (and they may not go beyond that). Furthermore, what players can do in 15 minutes, they may not do in 25 or 30, and so on. So we can really only judge their production on how long they are actually out there, in raw terms, taking into account their roles as the most important factor. Dwayne Wade's per 36 ppg is 24.7; while Kevin Martin is 25.9. I'll end with that. So yes, I'll admit that I completely disregard the per 36 min stat Anyways, people may view statistics in whatever way they want. I'll view it my way, and others view it how they want to view it.
