^^^ It's a phrase that probably comes up a lot when the topic of Rafer is brought up... last year especially. Hopefully this year he can continue to keep the need for slapping to a minimum, heh. Absolutely true.
. duravsa, I want to add something to my post #200, but I can't edit it. Some examples: Case(1) A,B play 82 games in a two teams league(A,B only) League average: 90.0-90.0 (offense-defense) A average: 91.5-88.5 B average: 88.5-91.5 By a logic, offensively A is better than B, defensively A is better than B too. Clearly, there is a flaw in this logic, and remember, you did understand it and you did agree with me here. Case(2) A,B play 82 games in a 4 teams league(A,B,C,D) League average: 90.0-90.0 (offense-defense) A average: 91.5-88.5 B average: 88.5-91.5 By your logic, offensively A is better than B, defensively A is better than B too. Can you see a flaw here? Case(3) A,B play 82 games in a 26 teams league(A,B,C,D,....,X,Y,Z) League average: 90.0-90.0 (offense-defense) A average: 91.5-88.5 B average: 88.5-91.5 By your logic, offensively A is better than B, defensively A is better than B too. Can you see a flaw here? If you did understand there is a logical flaw in case(1), why on earth you can't understand there is a similar logical flaw in this case? Why on earth 2 teams league is so bad in stats? Why on earth 4 teams, 26 teams, 30 teams league are so important in stats? You pretend to be a stats guy, but you don't know anything about basic math and stats. And you told me that I need go and educate myself? Shame on you. If you still can't understand it, I have nothing else to say. If you can understand it here, you will know what I'm talking about, and you will know that the so-called offensive efficiency isn't the real efficiency, it is just a pseudo-offensive efficiency. The foundation of your stats is broken. Good luck to you. .
You are creating an artificial distinction between "details" and "big picture" . I've shown that you can in fact separate the good offensive teams and the good defensive teams, and you respond "Well, you're talking in the big picture. I'm talking about details." This is meaningless. You can't analyze anything in detail without an understanding of expectation (i.e. average). It requires aggregating and summarizing data. That's how science works. No, there is no contradiction. If two teams play in the same league, over time they will have faced increasingly similar level of defense (just as they will face increasingly similar level of competition, in general, which is why you can use W/L record or point-differential to determine who are the best teams). As a result, you can determine who is the better offensive team based on who scores more. Yes, points scored depends on defense faced. But if teams are facing the same level of defense, then that part of the equation cancels out. Yet another analogy: There is a large boulder on the ground. You have a group of people trying to push the boulder as far as possible in 10 seconds. The strength of the person is analogous to "offense" of a given team, and the weight of the boulder is analogous to "level of defense faced over the course of a season". Jack is able to push it 3 feet. Does that tell us how strong he is? No, it depends on the boulder. But if Steve is able to push the same boulder 5 feet, then you have "separated" the two factors -- strength of the person involved, and the weight of the boulder. The weight drops out of the equation, since they are both pushing the same boulder. Now, you can say that Steve was the stronger person. That's about as clear as I can put it, but I don't expect it will make any difference for you. Knowing what a team does on the offensive end does not tell you anything more about how much they win than knowing what a team does on the defensive end. It is a statistical fact, not a "miracle". It's very simple to show, but I will never convince you if you're not willing to accept some basic scientific principles: to understand anything in detail you need to look at "big picture" stuff like averages and probabilities. So this is it. I'm not going to convince you, and you're certainly not going to convince me. Post a response if you like, but I promise I'm through. It's not fair to have a never-ending conversation in a thread that's off topic.
Very quickly (and then I'm through): Ok. In case (1), you only have two teams. A only plays B, and B only plays A. The schedules faced are completely disjoint. No way to separate whether A is winning by virtue of offense or defense. In case (2), you have a four team league, so there is a little more similarity in schedule (and, consequentially, offense/defense faced). So you can be a little more confident that the numbers reflect true offense/defense abilities. In case (3), you have a 26 team league. Now there will be much more similarity in schedule (and, consequentially, offense/defense faced). So you can be much more confident in the numbers. Hope that helps, but I suspect it doesn't. Oh well. I suppose Daryl Morey doesn't know basic math and stats either, because he also uses offensive and defensive efficiency to rate team offense/defense? Whatever.
In radio interviews, Morey frequently uses offensive and defensive efficiency when ranking a team's offense or defense. So, evidently he believes you can separate the two. But I guess he's just an idiot who doesn't know anything about this stuff. --- In the playoffs, there is a tendency for teams to rely on their big offensive stats more. It happened last year, just as it happened in 2005 and in the championship years. I think it is almost inevitable.
durvasa, I'm sorry, I really don't want to bring it up again, but ... Mathematically, statistically, logically, I can always convert a n-team league into a 2-team league. For example, I can convert a 30-team league (T1,T2,T3,...,T15,T16,...,T30) ==> (T1,...,T15) vs (T16,...,T30) ==> (A1,A2,A3,...,A15) vs (B1,B2,B3,...,B15) ==> A vs B ==> 2-team league. So, doesn't matter how many small teams are there in a league, I can always say there are only 2 big teams A and B. Doesn't matter how random schedule between these small teams are, from my point of view, I only see that 2 big teams (A and B) are playing against each other. And, based on "the average law" which you keeping saying, in the long run, I can say, team A and B are facing similar offense and defense against each other. As you know, and you agree with, there is a fatal weakness in any 2-team league in stats. There is no way you can overcome it by a n-team league in stats, because I can always convert the n-team league into a 2-team league in stats. I can always say there is a similar fatal weakness in any n-team league in stats. It is a logical flaw, there is no way you can overcome it. Can you understand? .
blackbird, I posted a response in your offense >> defense thread. We should move the discussion there, because this is no longer the place for it.
rafer's been doing excellent lately. excellent ... as in what he used to be. he's not an all star guard but he's making his jumpers, making good passes (though unusually a couple bad ones), finishing around the hoop a little better, etc. i dont like it when he's taking like 15-18 shots a game though ... i've also noticed he's learned a good move on defense of when he gets beat that maybe stevie (francis) showed him. it's that one where he swipes the ball over the top. this year was the first year I've seen Steve use it and then couple weeks later, I see rafer pull it off a few times. Not bad not bad. But the biggest flaw I still see in Rafer are the same things I saw last year, specifically in last year's playoffs. He completely disappears in the clutch. I don't know if the coach tells him to give the ball up to t-mac and spot up every single play in the 4th quarters, but he just disappears, regardless of whether he's having the best shooting night in his career or shooting 18%. He's hit a few big shots in the clutch though, but generally he disappears like that kings game. well that's my lil spiel of my opinion on rafer.
