Please stop wasting time and stop responding to the OP, especially @heypartner You destroyed this a long time ago. It's clearly over his head and apparently a few others here who have no business trying to chime in with nothing relevant to say
All you've done is make a fool out of yourself by exposing your confirmation bias (Beverley MUST be a good defender no matter what, ergo let's look for all the esoteric reasons why our defense sucks with him being in the starting line-up.) As I have clearly pointed out, you don't get to pick and choose which data point to include or exclude at this juncture in time, because we are still in the mid-season and have no idea what a true outlier game looks like. And no, just because it is an outlier, that doesn't mean you get to discard it at your convenience, unless it's an outright error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier#Exclusion Deletion of outlier data is a controversial practice frowned upon by many scientists and science instructors; while mathematical criteria provide an objective and quantitative method for data rejection, they do not make the practice more scientifically or methodologically sound, especially in small sets or where a normal distribution cannot be assumed. Rejection of outliers is more acceptable in areas of practice where the underlying model of the process being measured and the usual distribution of measurement error are confidently known. An outlier resulting from an instrument reading error may be excluded but it is desirable that the reading is at least verified. http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/outliers-to-drop-or-not-to-drop/ Despite all this, as much as you’d like to, it is NOT acceptable to drop an observation just because it is an outlier. They can be legitimate observations and are sometimes the most interesting ones. It’s important to investigate the nature of the outlier before deciding. So in the end, it all comes down to this : Pre-Beverley return (11 games) : 105.4 DRtg Post-Beverley return (7 games) : 110.9 DRtg
nah my eye-test result is telling me that I already destroyed you mate, got anything new to say? oh, so you can point out some weaknesses regarding stats? I can also point to 10 things wrong with eye-tests. wanna play that game?
I have nothing against Beverley, but all I'm seeing is heypartner trying to come up with lousy excuses for why our team defense is worse with Beverley than just owning it like a man. It's pathetic really.
LOL at these low information posters. Its called game to game variability. The game is random, because there are a bazillion variables. Anyone who has taken statistics in high school would laugh this argument out of the class room.
Welcome to the board. HeyP put some rational explanations as to why you can't take the stats the OP posted at face value when there are other things that don't make sense. He also points out that making conclusions based on small sample size is problematic. Finally he points out that whether or not he is better or worse defensively (I think he's a wash so far), the team has done much better overall with him on the court. Not sure what he has to own - he made very clear points that are much more concrete than "the eye test," which fooled the media into thinking that Harden doesn't play D but Lillard does.
that's the problem though. that's actually not what is happening in reality as far as what heypartner is doing
I will repeat this until everyone understands : Pre-Beverley return (11 games) : 105.4 DRtg Post-Beverley return (7 games) : 110.9 DRtg
To me HeyP is the one being irrational here, but maybe that's because I have very critical views about Beverley's defense in the first place. I think Beverley is just a glorified version of Brewer, both are not good, sound defenders but they sure are good at fooling some people into thinking that they are.
yup, getting caught lying as usual : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier#Exclusion Deletion of outlier data is a controversial practice frowned upon by many scientists and science instructors; while mathematical criteria provide an objective and quantitative method for data rejection, they do not make the practice more scientifically or methodologically sound, especially in small sets or where a normal distribution cannot be assumed. Rejection of outliers is more acceptable in areas of practice where the underlying model of the process being measured and the usual distribution of measurement error are confidently known. An outlier resulting from an instrument reading error may be excluded but it is desirable that the reading is at least verified. http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/outliers-to-drop-or-not-to-drop/ Despite all this, as much as you’d like to, it is NOT acceptable to drop an observation just because it is an outlier. They can be legitimate observations and are sometimes the most interesting ones. It’s important to investigate the nature of the outlier before deciding. Not to mention that you don't get to decide which ones are 'outlier' games to throw out just to fit your narrative when the season is not even over yet, smh
I'm not saying he's All Defense anymore. I also think that his defense is sometimes overvalued. He tends to gamble a lot, and in his push to be "tough" or whatever he makes dumb mistakes. He was quite good last year and in 13-14. I don't think you can look at last year and deny that he was a top defensive PG. He's recovering this year and looks closer to 14-15 form, which is not good. All that being said, I think what HeyP is saying has merit. Look at the defensive stats and tell me, do you think Capela is one of our worst starters? Is Ariza one of our worst defenders? And - if those stats have merit and aren't just blips, how does Beverley get more blame than those two? And, above all, how can you even make a rational conclusion when 1) the sample size is so small, 2) it's likely that his performance will improve as he gets back into game shape (which takes longer than 2 weeks)?
You have, and it is still stupid. Just an FYI, we also played better offensive teams. Who would of thought, better offensive teams, are going to score more. Stop spamming the board with your agenda nonsense.
I've already settled this issue. Heypartner made a big fuss about individual DRtg, not me. It was just one part of many data points that I provided, but he dishonestly decided to nitpick on those rather than tackling my main theme - which is that our team defense is tanking ever since Bev came back. We played one of the best defense in the history of this franchise back in 2014-15 when Bev got hurt and only played 56 games. Even when he was on the roster, our defense was BETTER with him on the bench rather than on the court. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/beverpa01/on-off/2015 This isn't some new phenomenon that I'm pointing out, the sample size is already sufficiently large enough to reasonably draw the conclusion that this guy is not helping our defense at all.
Just an FYI, you calculations are way off. Portland is 23rd best offensive team? Atlanta 12th? OKC 10th? Don't lie just because I destroyed your precious princess Beverley.
You're cherry picking. He was elite in 13-14 and in 15-16. And there's no way you can tell me that we were better in 14-15 with Terry or Prigioni rather than Beverley. He may not be a great defender but he's far from a traffic cone. Also - please address larsv8's comment above. We played far better teams in the past 7 games. Next, why do you pin the blame on Beverley if you believe individual defensive ratings and Ariza and Capela have been awful by those metrics - far worse than Beverley, who has a net positive rating despite a high DRtg? Finally, why bring this up after 7 games for a guy coming off a knee injury? Seems like you have an agenda or are trolling.
sorry you clearly have an agenda to dic*k-ride princess Beverley. Bev has sucked on defense the past few seasons. We played great defense when he got hurt back in 2014-15. And this is happening again this season. All I'm guilty of is noticing patterns.
heypartner is not trying to prove that Beverley is a great defensive player. He's poking holes in the OP's statistical argument. I happen to agree that Beverley is an overrated defender. But the evidence the OP provides is seriously flawed. And to use the word "fraud" in the thread title is clearly agenda driven. There is a thing called "believing in the right thing for a very wrong reason."
Those aren't my calculations, those are readily available via basketball reference. Stop being an idiot.
