I already posted their college stats in the other reply. Look at their advanved metrics and you'll see for yourself. Now let me ask you a question you think Mobley will do better than AD in first year yes or no?
Bruh AD was playing with another top 5 pick and half his college team made it to the NBA. Mobley’s team was rated lower than Cade’s and he took them to the elite 8. Comparing ts% when AD was getting spoon fed dunks is meaningless.
No? I just said AD was the overall better player. I expect Mobley to make a hell of a bigger impact than Cade or Green though.
You sure love to take stuff out of context to make a point. Simple question what do you think AD did much better than Mobley did at USC? It certainly was not shooting better.
AD was not that dominant at Kentucky it was something that was questioned about him coming out. Terrence Jones was more dominant offensively. AD was 80% projection coming out of Kentucky because a guy who moved like that at that height was an anomaly. If AD came out this year he would be getting picked apart just like Mobley. This is a myth that AD was a finished product or was dominant at Kentucky.
He did everything better including scoring, as shown by his higher TS%, OWS, and offensive box score plus minus. You are the one who said Mobley was the iffensive hub while AD is only an after thought and behind Terrence Jones in priority. The after thought has better offense metrics than the hub wjat does that tell you?
So +17.2 BPM is a myth? 9.3 ws is a myth? He has higher BPM and win shares than Mobley if he isnt dominant what does that make Mobley?
I don't now, but let's not act like AD had a great rookie year. I don't think Mobley will be the offensive player AD is and that's not what the discussion is either. So once again what did AD do that was much better than what Mobley did at USC? You say AD was much more advanced so why did he score about the same as MKG and Terrence Jones?
Are you really using a plus-minus stat to prove individual skills? On/Off, Plus/Minus On/Off, Plus/Minus stats are an "advanced stat" but they are something that some bloggers and writers get a hold of, play with and try to draw conclusions that shouldn't be drawn. They attempt to measure a player's contribution to the team by determining how a team does while the player is on the court versus how a team does while the player is off the court. A player's team scores 100 points per 100 possessions while he's "on" the court and they score 90 points while he's on the bench. However, at the same time, the other team scores 110 points while he's on the court and 90 points while he's on the bench. Therefore, his team is a net "minus-10" while he's on the court and a net zero while he's on the bench; his on/off plus/minus is minus-10, meaning his team is a net 10 points worse while he's on the court. The notion is that by factoring this in you can account for the "team effect." According to this measure, Paul Pierce would have been the best player in the NBA last year. Pierce is good, but best in the NBA? Still not convinced. How about Nick Collison as the eighth-best player in the NBA? Steve Nash is a better overall player than LeBron James or Dwight Howard. Finally, the best player on the Chicago Bulls is Omer Asik. The other problem is that it also doesn't even measure just that; it measures how a player's backup, with other backups, plays against the opposing backups. In other words, it actually doesn't tell you what it's trying to. The tremendous number of variables that are there and the limited number of minutes the starters spend on the bench all make this a very hard thing to use to determine who the "best players" are. To be fair, they weren't really intended to be a measure of "best players" and the stat's originators, Aaron Barzilai and Steve Ilardi, explicitly say that explaining: It is important to note that the adjusted +/- rating is not a “holy grail” statistic that perfectly captures each player’s overall value...the estimates suffer from the issue of skewed sampling—the fact that most players usually find themselves on the court in the company of certain teammates and not others. As a result, it can be difficult to accurately tease out the individual effects of two players who almost always appear on the court together. Rosenbaum and others have outlined different ways of addressing these issues, most notably using multiple years’ worth of data and augmenting regression results with additional analyses based on box score statistics. The problem with using multiple seasons though becomes that that teammates change, and some players improve while others don't. The bottom line is that while these stats can do a great job of telling us what units play well together, they don't tell us what makes a good player. The bottom line is that these stats don't belong in a "best player debate" and even the guys who made up the stat agree. I give up, you are just throwing stuff against the wall at this point.
Yes, he's a difference maker. I was just pointing out he wasn't playing with a bunch of scrubs. That USC team had alot of talent, Evan was their unquestioned leader and did a fine job.
Thats my point AD didnt have a great rookie year and he was more advanced than Mobley/ aka Mobley is rawer than AD. So why expect Mobley to have an impact in his rookie year when AD didnt? I didnt specify offense or defense I meant advanced as in general. You keep asking what AD and I showed you the advanced metrics, advanced metrics show AD is much better than Mobley. Maybe if one or 2 had AD higher htne you can make an argument but pretty much every stats shows AD is better/more advanced/less raw than Mobley. Why dont you answer me if Mobley is better and AD being dominant is just a myth why all his stats inferior to AD?
It's a season stat, for the entire season the noise settles and gets filtered out. You arent using multiple seasons you are using just 1 season so the issue of diff teammates dont matter. Its not a definitive measure just like every stat but it is an indicator. No 1 stat can be used as the ultimate measure you use a variety of stats and they form the overall picture of player performance. Sure beats looking at a dude taking jump hooks and then automatically assuming he is more advanced than the other dude. TS you know what that is right? Win Shares you know what that is as well? PER? You have a clue what that is? Efg%? TRB%? Almost every stat AD has higher than Mobley except usage rate which Mobley has 5% more. Meaning AD does more with less. Let me ask you agin you said AD being dominant in college is a myth. How come he has superior stats to Mobley then across the board? Is Mobley dominant yes or no?
AD had a great rookie year? he was 13-8 on 52 EFG how is that great? Mobley can definitely do that if gets the same amount of shots. Once again none of this matters especially concerning the original point. All of his stats are not inferior to Ad's, why are just flat out lying?
How about winshares, boxscore plus minus true rebound percentage? All meaningless as well? BPM is gonna boost Mobley if his team sucked they should tank to the ground when he sits. AD has a stacked team when he sits the BPM shouldnt be high if he has strong teammates. AD still ended up with higher stats across the board including bpm lmao
Do you even know how to read? I said DIDNT have a great rookie year. Read my quote on your post it literally says "didnt have a great rookie year". I didnt say all I said ALMOST ALL of his advanced stats are inferior to AD. Which advanced stat has Mobley higher? You are the one lying here not me. Dont lie man and then say you are done. Lol you just wasted my time making up lies and then acting like you're the one done wtf.
