Look, you're not going to stop Boozer anyways. He was excellent against San Antonio as well. Great individual players aren't going to be shut down. JVG felt that he'd rather take his chances with Yao on Boozer then make Yao a perimeter defender and screw up our entire team defense. I thought that was the right decision as well, even though I knew Chuck could do a much better job on Boozer. Now, I'm not claiming Chuck is a shutdown defender. I think he's a solid man defender, and an excellent team defender. That he didn't shutdown Okur in every game of the series doesn't prove or even suggest otherwise. I guarantee that Okur, not to mention the entire team, would have shot a much higher percentage from beyond the arc if Yao was guarding him. I've heard this argument too many times. Go back and watch the final quarter of that game and point out where Chuck screwed up an opportunity to secure a defensive rebound. Remember, he was guarding Okur on the perimeter. Was it Okur grabbing those offensive boards?
I have already responded as to why I don't like to take some stats over the full 48 minutes. We don't agree on that issue, or the video (that i saw and disagree with), stats (that I provided which counter your opinion) and popular opinion on the board (because the board is always right). I only wanted to respond to this new point as we are rehashing the same points over and over again (i.e. we aren't going to agree). You don't think Hayes has limited minutes because he is #3 at his position for fouls per game?
I fail to see how Hayes playing 20 mpg somehow diminishes how good his 20 minutes are. I'll take those 20, be happy about it, and find someone else to play the other 28 minutes he doesn't play in. The quantity of his minutes doesn't diminish the quality thereof.
And your example about why it's flawed was flat out wrong. Shall I post the relevant information again? Deke as a starter (33 games): 10.4 rpg in 27.1 minutes. Per 48 rpg = 18.42 Deke as a reserve (42 games): 3.4 rpg in 9.4 minutes. Per 48 rpg = 17.36 Did you say something about him being great only when his minutes were limited? Something about his production suffering when he played more minutes? It's blatantly false. Then again, Deke is the "perfect" example of why mpg stats can be misleading, right? Your words. Why am I even bothering? If stat guru Hollinger is wrong about Hayes being good defensively, what factual information can we offer? You're offering arguments that defy reality, as the Deke example shows above. Admit you're wrong about that, at least.
I stand behind my point on Deke. As I mentioned earlier, he is not able to play extended minutes due to his age, so it's pointless to say stretch his stats out over 48 minutes (or say 35) and say that's the kind of production the Rockets can expect. Um, no it's not...because he can't consistently log those kind of minutes to give the team that production. Why do you think we traded for another center during the season? The coach and GM are on record as saying they made a move to get some help for Deke. The same goes for Hayes. Due to his inability to stay out of foul trouble he can't stay on the floor. So it is pointless to say extend his stats over heavy minutes and this is what the Rockets can get...because he can't stay on the floor to get those minutes. He isn't stuck behind studs like J.Oneal was in Portland. He isn't fighting off other quality PF's on the team for minutes. If he weren't #3 at his position in FPG then he would play more, period. I can see stretching stats over minutes in situations where a person is just stuck behind folks and you think they can do X if they get more time, but the key is being able to stay on the court and get that time. Sometimes old age and foul problems stand in the way. I may be able to make an exception for a coach just deciding not to play a player, but again that's not the case with Hayes. The logic is quite simple. And yes, I think stat guru Hollinger is an idiot if he thinks Hayes is one of the top 2 (if he is going by the PF position) or 4 (if he is just listing forwards) defensive forwards in the league (since he put him on his 2nd all-nba team). Top 2 PF means he is better than either KG or Duncan. Top 4 means he is better than those two plus Prince, AK-47 and Marion (all of the top of my head). Um, you go ahead and believe that if you want to based on his statistical anaylsis. I will let my common sense guide me (not an insult saying you don't have common sense).
I can't knock Hayes because he is a hustler. But he struggles defensively because he is undersized and has limited offensive skills. If Scola can truly play at the NBA level, then Hayes should only average about 12-15 minutes per game.
Alright, last question. If you're absolutely ignoring per minute production, do you really believe Deke is the 21st best rebounder amongst centers? Do you really think Eddy Curry is a better rebounder than Deke? Is Deke a poor rebounder at all? His RPG suggests so.
I agree but Chuck is thankfull player and could very well serve Rockets.I am happy cause he's in Houston.
I think Ice is confused on the benefits of per minute production. It isn't a gauge of how much a player can actually perform if he played a full game, its a gauge of how productive a player is on the court in the minutes he plays. The idea isn't to say that Deke or Chuck could do more in more minutes, its an attempt to level the playing field so that you have a solid frame of reference. Think of it in scientific terms. The 48 minutes is the constant in the experiment. The production gives you the ratio. You are thinking too narrowly when you consider per 48 stats.
In Ice's defense ... in scientific terms, the 48 minute stat really fails, because there is an inherent bias created by the fact that someone that knows, for example, that they will only have 10 minutes to play, typically will play harder (no fear of tiring out in only 10 min) and with more reckless abandon (no fear of fouling out in only 10 min). Thus, their production may be appear enhanced when extrapolated out to 48 minutes. On the other hand, some players may require more than 10 min to get into a rhythm or warm up, so their stats may be skewed lower in a per 48 minute calculation. Either way, in scientific terms, the 10 minutes of play would be considered an insufficient sample to accurately predict the production in extended play. With that said, I think Deke's play in actual extended minutes shows that he is still a very capable center and would be a steal at the veteran's minimum.
I am saying you are overstating its relevance here. In the way that you are using it (while making comparisons) you are saying Hayes is just as good in this area as player X, and showing his mpg stats as support because his regular stat in that category don’t stack up. The argument seems to be well Hayes plays less, but if he played more you could expect this. You have to look at his situation and why he isn’t playing more when doing your analysis. I don’t follow the Knicks like that so I have no clue as to what’s going on with Curry. However, I do watch all the Rockets games, I know the other PF’s suck, and the only thing that kept Hayes from getting more time last year was his foul issues. You can't level the playing field. Especially in Hayes case when he has yet to prove he can stay in the game to make it level (in theory). That completely takes out a player going all out in his limited time, conserving himself until a certain quarter (see Shaq), etc. See Launch Pad's response.
We're talking about Chuck Hayes and the applicability of per-minute stats when judging his performance. Chuck started most of the games for us last year, and he played close to 25 minutes per game. No one expects him to play much more than that next year. If we know that Chuck was an effective per-minute player in those roughly 25 mpg (which the stats show), why can't we presume he'll continue to be an effective per-minute player in similar minutes next year? By convention, we scale per minute stats by a factor of 40 or 48 just because its easier for our brains to process. It's not about predicting Chuck's stats if he played 40 or 48 minutes per game. That's a pointless exercise, because he'll likely never play that many minutes. The issue is how effective he can be for us in the playing time allotted to him. Let's not get sidetracked.
Hi Durvasa, The best gauge of how Hayes plays in 25 min/game is ..... His stats in 25 min/game! I agree with you that keeping Hayes is an important part of the Rockets plans, based upon his play last year. However, as I explained above, the per 48 min stat is often highly inaccurate, so using it only makes it "easier for our brains to process" likely incorrect information.
True. And what's the best guage for his stats in, say, 30 minutes per game? Or 18 minutes per game? Or 27 minutes per game? Is he going to give you the same stats for each scenario? Of course not. It's "inaccurate" if the implication is that the player can produce those stats if he played 48 minutes per game. Obviously that's a ludicrous claim, and no one makes it. The best way to compare two players statistically is to separate the stats into per minute (or per possession), and then also consider MPG separately. That way, you have all the information. So, you'd say that Chuck produces X on a per minute basis, AND he probably won't give you more than 30 mpg (though he's only been in the league for one full season, let's not completely shut the door on that possibility). To echo Carl Herrerra's words from a previous post, we need to distinguish between quality and quantity. Too often, fans just go by per game numbers without even considering minutes played. That's completely useless. I hope we can at least agree on that.
Unfortunately, there is no good way to accurately and precisecly gauge a player's performance at different minutes played. Instead, you must look at their stats in the time they're alloted, consider the qualitative aspects of their game (ie, what you see), and make your judgements based on that. This is precisely why scouts exist. The numbers by themselves will never give you the complete story. If it is "ludicrous" that the player could perform at that level for 48 minutes, then it isn't it equally as ludicrous that you can evaluate and compare players based upon this same artificial number? The per minute stat is basically just the per 48 min stat divided by 48, so it is just as inaccurate and prone to the same biases as mentioned in my first post in this thread. This is something we can definitely agree upon. However, I hope we also can agree that statistics alone often fail to give us a true evaluation of a player, especially, when they do not factor in potential confounds.
Don't dodge the question. When he takes the floor, Deke gobbles up more rebounds than anyone else on the floor. There is no doubt that he is one of the best rebounders in the game. Per minute stats reflect this, per game stats completely contradict this. Deke ranks 21st in rpg amongst centers. Is he a good rebounder? Answer this question, please.
I got lazy and waited for someone to say this, lol but this is the bottom line. We're not expecting chuck hayes to play anywhere near 30+ minutes per game. 25, like durvasa said is more like it. We didn't sign him expecting him to increase his mpg, maybe even lose depending on scola's performance. PER MINUTE, Hayes is among the best defensive 4s. And for his speculated salary, he's a damn bargain.
Agreed. I don't follow your logic here. Multiplying a per-minute stat by 48 or 40 is completely arbitrary. So it doesn't make sense to say that per-minute stats are invalidated because of the inability of a player to play 48 minutes per game effectively. That's beside the point. I'm not arguing for statistics as a be-all, end-all evaluation tool. Subjective evaluation is still vital. But some ways of looking at stats are much more useful than others. I think, by and large, people overstate the usefulness of per-game numbers and understate the usefulness of per-minute numbers when comparing players. That's not too crazy a notion, is it?
