Jeremy Lin out 2 weeks with grade one knee sprain (UPDATE: Will return vs. Portland)

I think the reason why is because he doesn't really deserve it yet. Can you honestly say that his defence is as good as he sold it to us last year?? Majority of his OPs are scoring pretty much their average at around 45%. I mean he's suppose to be a defensive specialist and so far we haven't seen anything impressive. I actually enjoy watching him hustle for rebounds then watch them play D.

 

Odd. On 82games it shows opposing players shoot 43 eFG%(count 3s extra) and per-48 scoring of 16 points against Beverley. Unfortunately BR can't filter by exact dates(or I don't know how to do it), but a scan of opposing starting PGs against the Rockets imply that it has to be less than 16ppg.

 

Honestly Bev sold us on his defensive game last season no? Even I admire his pest-ty game...he was all over the OP constantly. This season tho he looks like a slightly above average defender at most. Does it surprise me?? Hell no...why?? For the obvious reasons he can't keep up the pest-ty defence playing a crap load of mins....He can't be too pest-ty cause that gets him into foul problems early. Did he have to worry about all those above reasons when he came of the bench?? Its a no brainer.

 

I hope not. I rather Jeremy coming back 100% healthy. I want to see an aggressive Jeremy not passive Jeremy.

 

Actually, if Beverley really has held opposing PGs to 43 eFG%, that's All-NBA defense right there. That's making the other guy look like Rudy Gay. I do question the exact method 82games used to get those numbers. But if it's true, Beverley can average 5/2 for all I care and still start.

As for the minutes, Lin's been out. McHale like every coach in the NBA play his others more when there's an injury situation. Not sure why people would read so deeply into this.

 

To be fair, if you're using that stat it's a bit dodgy as it skews all over the place depending on your defensive assignment and what line ups you're on the floor with in terms of time. Also it swings wildly over small game samples as it will depend heavily on the opposing teams and results. Being on the floor during a blow out like the Clippers game can make you look terrible. While being on the floor against the Offense impaired Bulls can make you look like a superstar.

Without breaking it down further over a much longer sample of games, it's hard to say.

That said, if you are absolutely *determined* to use that stat...

Patrick Beverley
Opposing EFG% - .430, Opposing PER - 12.5

http://www.82games.com/1314/13HOU3.HTM

Jeremy Lin
Opposing EFG% - .432, Opposing PER - 12.3

http://www.82games.com/1314/13HOU4.HTM

Aaron Brooks
Opposing EFG% - .570, Opposing PER - 13.8

http://www.82games.com/1314/13HOU1.HTM

IE, the "elite" defense would apply to both Lin and Beverley. Assuming you bought into that stat over a small sample at all...

 

^Genius

 

OH SNAP

Kwame faints

 

Not sure why you brought Lin into this. The question was whether Beverley should be playing starter minutes(30+mpg). I have never once said Lin should NOT be getting starter minutes.

If anything, I've liked Lin's defense so far this year, except those games at SG where freaking James Anderson went Kobe on him.

 

I was merely pointing out that the stat is unreliable over small game sample sizes. IE, if you're pointing to it as proof that Beverley is All NBA defense off that stat, then Lin is as well. An assertion which is on the face of it, ludicrous. :grin:

 

I don't understand why you have to get annoyed at my use of small sample sizes, when the attacks on Beverley in this thread all use the same small sample sizes?

Unless, of course, you can point out to someone who makes a logical argument using large sample size which makes a convincing argument that Beverley has become a mediocre defender now that he plays more minutes?

 

I'm not opposed to the use of small sample sizes per se, as long as they're considered with the usual caveats. IE, statistical variation/deviation, context, etc.

As for Beverley's defense, I think the sample size is still too small to determine if his defense is declining, improving, or remaining the same in terms of correlation to minutes played.

However, I do think it's not an illogical hypothesis to argue that it is very difficult to maintain a high level of on ball defense for large numbers of minutes due to 2 simple factors.

1) Energy expenditure. There have been players that have maintained very high energy levels for 30+ minutes per night when playing aggressive guard defense, but that list is very, very short. It's simply physically exhausting to constantly chase guards and fight over screens. Is it possible that Beverley isn't suffering from a decline in overall per minute effectiveness? Sure. However, it would be unusual.

2) Fouls. Beverley's on ball defense relies heavily on being physically aggressive. This is fine in small minutes like 15 or 20 minutes when it's highly unlikely that he'll foul out. However, when playing 30+ minutes, the issue of fouls becomes much more significant. On a purely stylistic basis Beverley may be required to play less aggressive defense (less bodying up, and less "handsy") simply in order to stay in the game, especially against players with more favorable referee treatment (superstar calls).

So, while the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions, I think as a hypothesis that Beverley's defensive effectiveness will have a drop off with increasing minutes is not one without logical basis.

Whether that plays out in reality, we won't know for some time.

 

Actually no it does not.

If Lin and Beverley are on the floor together and Beverley is on Kobe, while Lin is on Steve Blake, equal eFG% would not indicate that Lin is All NBA defense. It is no secret Lin is hidden on defense.

 

SPOT ON.

The irrational criticism against Lin in this forum is, well, irrational.

 

It doesn't prove or disprove it either way.

You're attempting to add context, without per minute breakdowns of coverage or overlapping time, neither of which can be discerned from the statistic.

Let's also not forget that Lin played a considerable number of games WITHOUT Beverley. Beverley missed the first 2 weeks of the season due to a torn abdominal muscle, which meant that Lin was covering the opposing PG.

So, your assertions are based on context that is not included in the statistic, nor supported by the actual minutes played, without the actual statistics backing up your context, or secondary/corollary statistics supporting your hypothesis.

Small sample size + lack of context in relation to that *specific* stat make it highly unreliable, especially given the extreme variation of the opposing teams and line ups.

Of course, if you have enough data on the context, and enough secondary statistics that are pointing in a similar direction, than that can enhance the probability of that statistic pointing in the correct/incorrect direction.

 

It's not only the increase in minutes, but also because he is being scouted now.

Last year, as a bench player, he was able to "sneak up" on opposing teams with his hustle. This year, as a starter, he won't be able to surprise attack so much.

I expect a further decline in Beverley's numbers as the year progresses, by the time the playoffs start, Lin will be back in the starting lineup.

 

So what you're saying is, you have no problem with people attacking Beverley's defense for reasons that are only supported by personal (non-professional) opinion and not by any factual events.

But when someone uses data to dispute that above opinion, then you need large sample size proof to ensure that it's 100% ironclad?

I'm curious to know how you feel about people attacking Lin's play this year. Do you feel you cannot defend Lin because, let's face it, it's only a small sample size?

 

No, what I'm saying is that someone can have an opinion (pose a hypothesis), but it's nowhere near factual until you have data that argues one way or the other in a meaningful way.

Eg 1.

"I believe that Beverley's defense will not be sustainable because of X, Y and Z."

As long as it's logically consistent, then it's just a hypothesis. An opinion without factual basis, though it may be logically consistent. It can be theorized or debated, but can neither be proven or disproved until data is accumulated.

If it's logically inconsistent, then it can be shown as unreasonable without data as flawed logic leads to flawed conclusions.

Eg 1.

"I believe the Beverley's defense has declined because of X, Y, and Z."

Without a factual basis or statistically arguable basis to present the argument, then the subsequent argument has no merit. IE, it is an opinion without basis. In other words, if you can not actually Quantify that his defense has declined, then the opinion has limited to no value.

How can you argue the cause of something that you can't actual measure or determine? Show me how his defense has declined before you try to argue reasons for why it's "declined".

And once you have data, show me something quantifiable that is not subject to high variation, and if it is subject to high variation show me something that is corollary that is also indicating that there is some validity to the trending of that data.

Opinions without data are fine, as long as they aren't predicated on non-existent data if you get what I'm saying.

A + B = C is fine as long as you can prove that your assumptions of the value of A, B and C are correct.

A + B > C is arguable (though not definitive), even if you don't know the value of A or B or C as long as you have sufficient corollary information that points toward the totality of A and B being greater than C.

And that logic applies to every player, Beverley, Lin or otherwise.

 

Meh. haven't read whole thread. Point is - a lot of ppl here make Bev out to be some sort of Darrelle Revise who locks down opposing pgs. A lot of the same ppl make Lin out to be some sort of sieve.

 

All I see is torocan *pwning* meh and larsv8. It reminds me of whack-a-mole.