all I know is his value just went sky high, denver got smoked by kobe showing that good defense on kobe can slow him down and disrupt the lakers offense, battier didnt stop him but kept him from killing us. I think a potential team looking to win it big could send us something productive for battier, love the guy but if you were going to trade him the time is now.
Do you actually believe it's a useless stat? I'm asking because i think it was you that used that stat in the past to imply houston's D would stay top notch without Shane. If it wasn't you then nevermind.
I never use 82 games data because its based on 48 mins which is dumb. I never bring up pts per 100 possessions or anything like that. The only defensive stats that matter to me is opp fg%,opp ppg, and defensive rebounding. Everything else to me doesn't even matter. The teams that are tops in those 3 categories are the top defensive teams.The only thing I've ever brought regarding defense is when people say our defense will suck without shane and the basic stats show before shane, our lowest ranking was 6th in the jvg era. Also, in the begiining of the season when the team went 10-5 they were top 5 without shane. Its more about team defense regardless and how u rotate and contest shots. After all that, u have to get the rebound. Any coach will tell you that. Defend,contgest, get the rebound.
Yeah, but you can't pay Artest the kind of money he wants, or even close to what he wants, and have him share minutes with Shane. That means one of them has to go. Nor can you start both of them (like we did in the playoffs), because that would mean our team isn't going to score enough points, which will lead to Yao playing more regular season minutes than he should. It's.......complicated.
It could be per 36 minutes or per 24 minutes or whatever. 48 is an arbitrary and meaningless number. What matters is that they're accounting for time played, and coming up with per-minute efficiency. Turnovers don't matter? Whether a team makes a 3pt shot or a 2pt shot doesn't matter?
Yeah thats what i was refering to, not the 82 games/48 mins stuff....the way i see it, at the start of the season there was a lot of hype about how great of a defensive team this would be. How much ron would add on d, etc...so the team was on a high to start the year trying to show it wasn't just hype. Ron specificially set a defensive tone early, remember he stole the other team's first posession for like 3 straight games to start the season. Defensive player of the year type of stuff. The rest of the team followed his lead and played great team D. Then injuries happened to ron and tmac, lineup changes happened, and the high fizzled....after that ron never got back to that type of defensive play, although the team did. I'm not saying Ron's D was a fluke. I just am not sure he can be the defensive catalyst for the team for the length of a season because his D is more about his personal matchup. Shane's is more oriented towards helping on D and getting the team set up defensively. So i attribute that start to the high of the new season and wouldn't expect that same team to keep it up for a season. As for the D prior to shane arriving....JVG was the main reason for it, his defensive philosophy carried over after he left thanks to shane and deke primarily, even chuck. Prior to Adelman's first season, the chronicle had interviews with players where they talked about it and Adelman mentioned he wasn't going to change much on D and thought guys like deke and shane could help carry it over. In other words, the defensive transition wouldn't have been as smooth and constant if it were not for those 3, now that deke is gone, it leaves chuck and shane. Chuck, however, can only do so much as a leader/model on D from the bench, so shane takes a lot of that responsibility now.
It's only complicated with injuries...with health there wouldn't be a scoring problem. I think we need to wait and see how Tmac comes back, hopefully he'll be on schedule so we won't have to wait long to see how he comes back. I don't think Houston is as high on Ron as they are saying, at least not if he's going to be Yao's Robin. It's a tough position to be in, because you'd rather have a healthy tmac instead of ron, so if tmac comes back then it's better to have a shooter takes ron's spot. If tmac isn't going to come back or not close to 100%, then Houston needs another big name player next to Yao, which isn't easy to find, so Ron may be the only choice. Problem is you have to decide whether to re-sign ron or not before knowing how Tmac turns out......there's always the option of trading ron during the season i guess.
This is about as sensible as saying, "I never look at the speedometer on my car to determine how fast I'm going, because it's based on arbitrary units of distance (1 mile = 5280 feet) and time (1 hour = 60 minutes)".
Does it really make sense for me to do so when you're going to call me a liar because you feel like it and ignore anything I write that doesnt help your argument? Discussion is fine until you reach a certain point. We're not getting anywhere with this anymore, so i think that point is now, so stop asking..
LOL, so by your definition a player that plays 40 minutes, shoots 35 times and scores 30 points is better than a player who played 30 minutes, shot 15 times, and scored 25 points.
You asked me a question and I answered it to the best of my ability. I'm asking you to do the same. Stop coming up with excuses and stop taking the lazy and easy way out by refusing. Extend me the same courtesy I extended you. Just answer the questions. I'm really curious as to what you think.
No, i watch games, not boxscores. Also , i watch alot of non rocket games around the league, thats the benefit of having league pass since its birth. When i say i don't look at pts per 100 possession or pts per shot is that players always balance out. For instance, corey maggette is one of the most effecient offensive basketball players in the league. Year in and yr out, he scores a fairly high number of points on a rather mediocre numer of attempts. He's shown that rather its 28-30 mins or 35-40. Now we can look at the pts per 100 or 48 mins based stats and come up with the conclusion wafer is as effecient as maggette because he scores "x" points in "x" minutes. By the defeinition that if you stretch it out, his numbers will look the same, but until a guy has done it, you don't know if the extra minutes will make him less productive. Thats what happens to alot of guys is that the more minutes they get, they get exposed. Thats why i don't look at pts per shot or per 100 poss type of stat. If i want to look at stat, all i look at is fg atts,fg %,ft att,ft%,ppg. If i'm really looking at a guy, i'll look at where he takes and makes shots, chart transition plays and stuff like that. I know durvasa and a few others like using 82 game stuff, but that not how i operate. Hell, i can look at a guys shot chart and get a better understanding of what kind of player he is offensively better than pts per poss or 82 games stats.
Uh, I hate to break this to you, but using per minute or per shot stats is the same principle as using per game stats rather than total points or assists over the course of the season. If you disagree with one then you should logically disagree with the other.
Not really to me. The 82 games web is based on 48mins. How do you par that down when a guy like landry plays 20? Who plays 48 mins? I never said anyone had to agree with me, i'm just saying i don't jerry west, joe dumars, the spurs gm, or guys like use pts per possession. Maybe they do or dont. Maybe they mix it, bu on this board, people seem to think the stats morey uses are the gospel. I think in basketball decision making, your eyes should tell you as much about a player than anything. I'm not saying they don't watch players, i'm just saying that maybe the feel of the player is different. This thread is about shane and i argue all the time with people when i tell them shane hasn't improved since his rookie yr and that the shane in memphis was much better and a more diverse player than the shane the rox have. It has nothing to do with age or athleticism either.
Divide all the per 48 minutes stats by 2. Now its per 24 minutes, and it tells you the exact same thing. Happy? The per 100 possession stuff is just a rate. Like FG%. When you say a guy shoots 45% from the field, that means he makes .45 field goals per 1 field goal attempt. Equivalently, you could say he makes 45 field goals per 100 field goal attempts. Does FG% become invalid all of a sudden, because players don't shoot 100 field goals in a game? Of course not. Similarly, I say a team scores 105 points per 100 possessions. Equivalently, I could say they score 1.05 points per 1 possession. Same thing.
I think guys like West who tend to "eye" talent hit some home runs, but also strike out a lot. Like i mentioned, he was trying to trade Gay AND a draft pick for Morrison on draft day. Morrison was the guy he truly wanted that draft. Guys like Morey take a safer approach it seems since they take a wider variety of info into consideration, it's not a home run or striking out for them, but some singles, doubles, triples....strike outs and home runs are less likely, but possible. I think that may hurt you if you're starting from scratch and don't have the luck to land a #1 pick because you're going to play it safe and may never strike gold.. but when you already have bait to get you Tmac and you get lucky with a #1 to get Yao, well then you can afford to play it safe from there... Playing it safe may not sound appealing, but i think it's the difference between being an up and down franchise and being a franchise that's consistently competitive. It's been a while since we've had a bad season due to talent, for us it's only been due to injuries.
First off, there is nothing to suggest west tried to trade gay and a pick for morrison especially after he got gay for peanuts. Secondly, playing it safe doesn't mean anyhing but being mediocre. The lakers have been the best franchise in sports over the last 30 yrs. How safe did they play? kobe for Vlade, was that safe? How about trading shaq a year early vs a yr late, was that safe. What about trading norm nixon for a draft pick which was byron scott? Do you see the trend? They traded guys that hit the wall for guys with rookie guys with higher upside. No where do you see them trading a young guy with high talent for a older maxxed out guy. I guess that why we have 2 rings and they're working on 16. Safe doesn't making you a millionaire. Safe gets you a gold watch after working 40 yrs and a bull**** pension.
