did he play an inegral role on a team that won 3 nba championships, a gold medal and world championhip? you aren't very bright are you? would you prefer i slow down when i post?
i don't blame you for backtracking from your post... nice move on your part focusing on a misspelled word though
if manu played 41 minutes/game on a regular basis, his numbers would not go up. he's so intense during the time he is on the court that the spurs intentionally limit his minutes because he gets drained. on the other hand, ginobili will make his teammates better than joe johnson will. if you don't believe me, then compare the spurs second unit to the hawks first unit. the latter has more talent, but the former has better team play.
Agreed on your first point completely. On your second point, remember JJ at Phoenix. He was a stud player a superbly talented team who handled the ball and created for others. He blended very well into the team concept. The problem now is he plays for an aimless Hawks franchise with a poorly constructed team full of very immature players. Put Manu on the Hawks for JJ and they would be even worse.
George Gervin is a cool man. That's why his nickname is "Iceman." BTW, Gervin has never been known to be "defensive."
This was a very nice article. I fully agree with the author picks and I hope next playoff series Tracy will shoot better than 39%.
Well, I gave you the opportunity to educate yourself, and you declined. Have fun on your side. I'll restate: over the last 30 years, the overwhelming majority of players who have taken in increases in minutes per game averages have seen their per-minute numbers go up. Those who haven't include Oliver Miller, Sweetney, the Fat Boys, etc. I won't respond to your next post if you refuse to read what I've laid out for you. Yes, it's a pretty strong indicator, nearly every player who has been in the NBA (save for the lard-asses) since the ABA/NBA merger (because stats before that year can't be trusted). Good to have you on board. Christ. What happened to the old "you?" Didn't you listen when I told you that each study performed has proven that the more minutes played, the higher the per-minute numbers go? Why are you choosing to ignore the basis of my argument in favor of what "sounds durn good?" No doubt. If I were the coach, I'd want the ball in their hands as well. Too bad they didn't actually perform as expected. The stats bear that out. Me. Mainly because his stats are below Manu's level, and Manu is a better position defender. He's probably several levels below. "Boston is a level below the Beatles and the Stones, who are in a stratosphere by themselves." That "sounds right" to you. Every study taken in over the last 30 years has proven that a jump in minutes per game has not only sustained a player's per-minute output -- it has exceeded the per-minute output. Too bad you refuse to believe me. You'd cease to appear silly when I continually point this fact out. A3PO: Unless you are huge, your per-minute numbers go up with every actual minute you play. Thank you. Except for the studies that I asked you to seek out, and you declined. I've taken the time to read things. I've taken the time to go over patterns and stats. That's my gig. You haven't. That's not your job, and that's fine. That said, if you're going to challenge me, kindly take the time to read up on what I've pointed-out. Especially if what I've pointed out flies completely in the face of wrong "sounds good, I reckon" assumptions you've made. Then again, I have studies on my end that tell you that your assumptions are way off. Keep flopping. Nice fake strawman. That's the strangest flippin' question I've ever read. Try again, please. What NBA team would take Manu over JJ? Based on who I've talked to, you really don't want to hear the answer to that question.
So as Robert Horry but you can't find him nowhere in top 20 PF's. This is pretty real rankings,I like them but you gotta admit that T-Mac in his prime > Wade in his prime. Right now Wade > T-Mac!
Kelly, do you understand the concept of diminishing returns? For every NBA player, there comes a point where you get less productivity per minute the more they play. It's a fact of life that applies beyond the NBA. If you increased Manu's minutes from 27 to 41 for the entire 82 game season, his per game stats would drop off, probably dramatically. There is a reason only a few players average 40+minutes a game. It's called physical exhaustion.
I hate to jump into something that doesn't involve me, but in this case I feel like I can help break up this spin cycle. A_3PO -- the nice thing about per-minute stats is that they include subjective forces like physical exhaustion. so i think what kelly is trying to tell you is that even though logically we would look at the situation and expect diminishing returns, the stats prove that this does not actually happen, and that in fact, the trend is the opposite. in all honesty, the only way for either of you to actually _be_ right about this would be if Manu played 41 minutes per game this season and we could measure whether his per minute stats went up or down, because these things truly come down to the individual. where I think A_3PO is ignoring the statistical context that kelly is providing, I also think that kelly is turning a somewhat blind eye to the individual nature of each player's game in the NBA. general statistical trends are great for setting our frame of mind, but at the end of the day, there is probably a bell curve behind the "player performance per minute goes up with additional mpg" stat trend, and there are probably players whose stats go down with more minutes, and it's entirely possible manu could be one of those. so while this has been an interesting conversation, it would be much more interesting if we could at least move past this disconnect . . .
Kelly, maybe I missed it. I think you have to clarify what the "trend" is you are talking about. I don't doubt you information. But perhaps you can give us a context of that information. Do the studies show (A) or (B) below: (A) In general, players who play more minutes have better per minute stats than players who play less. (B) When a player's minutes increase, his per minute stats also increase. And this is true for almost every player. If it is (A), it doesn't really say much. Because we all know that good players get to play more. If it is (B), I think that's what A_3PO is arguing against, and I understand why. It seems, on the surface, to be counterintuitive. The more a player plays, the less energy he has and his performance should decline. What I am wondering is this. Could the "trend" has some sort of limit? For example, could it be that when a 25 mpg player becomes a 35 mpg player, his per minute stats go up? But when a 35 mpg player plays 45 mpg, his per minutes stats might go down? It makes sense that a 25 mpg player does better when his PT increases to 35 mpg. The correlation does not necessarily indicate cause and effect. It could just mean that when the guy improves, his coach gives him more minutes. But when a guy is already good enough to play 35 mpg, playing more may wear him out faster and therefore diminishing his performance. Does this make sense?
Yes. Except for the dozen studies that prove a statement like that completely wrong. That statement, to you, "sounds right;" however, in practice, it's way off. Not even close. That said, your statement does work for Oliver Miller, and Michael Sweetney. Agreed. It just doesn't apply to the NBA, save for the players I pointed out. If you'd read Hollinger and Ziller and several other writers' breakdowns of this particular subject, you'd understand that -- over the last 25 years -- the per-minute averages of players who take in minute increases (per-game) has gone up. That means, save for the corpulent few, the more minutes a player plays, the more his per-minute stats go up. Let me repeat that: the more a player plays, the better his per-minute stats look. So, for a cat like Manu, his per-40 stats would be better at 41 minutes per game than they would be at 27 minutes per game. I know that doesn't "sound right," but we're trying to do away with people that think that way. I don't know why you brought that up, but we only use "per 40" stats as a measurin' tool. We don't think these guys should be playing 40 minutes a night. That said -- from all the games I've seen, Joe Johnson doesn't appear to be losing anything.
That's the idea that so many of us have been dealing with, especially when dealing with Sloan-types. The idea that some player would just start to "get it" and turn his game around, and a coach would be on the level and start to hand out minutes accordingly -- it's just not like that. You're giving the ties too much credit. If it seems too simple, it usually is.
Why are we still talking about this? Shooting Guard? I thought T is a point forward..? How long till Kobe start to decline and lose his reign as the world's top SG? I'd say about 5 years max.. he's 28 now so the window is closing. If Wade stops going inside too much therefore increasing his injury probability, I can see him challenging Kobe in a couple of years.. especially if he develops a more reliable outside shooting. Tmac should be #2 IMO but his persisting injuries are worrisome. Also I would like to see Richard Hamilton higher and Ray Allen lower, way lower. Hamilton would do very well in an Adelman offense right now. Oh how I dream! People get tired of chasing him around in Detroit's offense, imagine in Adelman's system. I need a towel.
