NBA 2016-2017 Season Thread

[indesertum]



There's some beautiful unintentional irony here. You guys act all butt hurt and complain about straw men and being pigeonholed as people who only look at stats and never watch games (was that ever said anywhere outside of your own posts?) and then turn around and start making a straw man caricature of anyone who might suggests that the conclusions to be drawn from the analytics might not be as obvious or unitary as you suggest. Hilarious. Who is saying that one should "willing turn down more information that could be helpful to winning games?" I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree that having access to as much data as possible is a good thing -- even if not everyone would agree about how best to utilize that data.

yes ed said it earlier

too much text in this thread. more gifs please. brain hurts

 

[indesertum]



durant's only glaring weakness is absolutely no post up game. none.

it's a pretty glaring weakness too, but brooks has it so that he doesn't need to post up. i don't think anybody outside the thunder centers actually post up much at all unlike the blazers or the warriors last season where any guard with an advantage would immediately call for the ball on the low block

 

[lawyerdad]



This was all you needed to say. It goes both ways.

 

[Brothersport]

@lawyerdad i obviously didn't say that anyone is intentionally turning down more information that could be helpful. i tried to reframe the "advanced stats and analytics" concept to attempt to show ed and others that it's not about blindly following what the data says or using that above game tape.

oh, and since you can't read...

One of the biggest issues I have with advanced stats and the people that use them (and not all of them fall into this category) is that they either don't know the game that well or don't watch a lot of it but simply look at stats and determine whether player A is this or that.

in terms of your first question, just look at bball blogs/columns etc. ESPN has a computer which predicts team records strictly based on analytics. I mentioned on a knicks blog that bargnani could be a valuable member of a triangle offense due to his midrange game and immediately the first response was, "he sucks as a stretch 4 and if you are a 7 footer and can't shoot threes, you have no place in the league" One of the local papers mentioned that Shane Larkin's 3rd year option was not going to be picked up by the team and the writer mentions that he was -5 in the game against Chicago. I guess showing that as a reason for the Knicks not picking up the option. Yet, he was the second most important player for the Knicks in that game.

and I am convinced brothersport does not actually watch basketball games, just reads blogs/stats etc.

happy? now stfu.

 

[lawyerdad]



@lawyerdad i obviously didn't say that anyone is intentionally turning down more information that could be helpful. i tried to reframe the "advanced stats and analytics" concept to attempt to show ed and others that it's not about blindly following what the data says or using that above game tape.

oh, and since you can't read...


happy? now stfu.

Or what?

 

[Brothersport]

good point, there are no ramifications if you keep writing **** posts.

 

[RFX45]

 

[wojt]



i have no idea who you're trying to argue against, but i've said several times that literally nobody is saying they're horribly inefficient and are better off shooting 3s. the amount of consistent strawmans is mind boggling

happy nao?

[..]but you can look at the data for individuals and for the vast majority the shooting percentage doesn't drop much from 19-24 feet and a lot of players are still shooting too many 22 foot 2 point shots. There is readily available shot data for every player in the NBA where you can confirm or correct your opinion.

For example, Carmelo last season shot 56% within 3 feet, 33% from 4-9 ft, 46% from 10-15 feet, 44% 16+ ft 2s, 42% on 3's. He shot 33% on corner 3's. 31% of his shots were 16+ ft 2's and 23% were 3's. You tell me - as a Knicks fan do you wish he were able to take more 3's in exchange for fewer long 2's?

tbh i'd prefer to argue about Marco's Bellineli shooting skills, but I think that topic was depleted last time

 

[lawyerdad]



good point, there are no ramifications if you keep writing **** posts.

Except you'll keep crying like a little *****.

 

[ballmouse]

You shouldn't have a high volume shooter (which is probably your 'star' player) taking lots of corner 3s ironically due to the same reason corner 3s are more efficient. Your 'star' player or volume shooter should wear down the defense, but if he's in the corner all the time he's probably not using the ball enough. I mean, do you think you're more likely to win basketball games if Kobe, Carmelo, or Dirk spend more time in the corner than if they take the ball inside the 3 point line?

I guess this theory doesn't hold true if he's a catch-and-shoot player like Rip Hamilton or Reggie Miller, and then he might as well camp in the corner.

 

[Neo_Version 7]

So, who here thinks Kawhi is a max player?

 

[Brothersport]



Except you'll keep crying like a little *****.

i'm touched you think that's a negative ramification.

 

[Brothersport]



You shouldn't have a high volume shooter (which is probably your 'star' player) taking lots of corner 3s ironically due to the same reason corner 3s are more efficient. Your 'star' player or volume shooter should wear down the defense, but if he's in the corner all the time he's probably not using the ball enough. I mean, do you think you're more likely to win basketball games if Kobe, Carmelo, or Dirk spend more time in the corner than if they take the ball inside the 3 point line?

I guess this theory doesn't hold true if he's a catch-and-shoot player like Rip Hamilton or Reggie Miller, and then he might as well camp in the corner.

this applies to steph curry a lot actually. iirc he's really low on corner 3s, as well as super low on assisted 3s (for the same reason).

 

[ballmouse]

So, who here thinks Kawhi is a max player?

I think the Spurs should keep him. He's going to keep the Spurs as championship contenders as long as Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili play similarly to the way they played last year. And I don't see the Spurs winning a championship if one of Duncan, Parker, or Ginobili retire, so what's the point of not trying to be contenders when the Big 3 are still playing?

And after the Big 3, he'll only be paid around $14 million (correct me if I'm wrong) a year, which is not a terrible price for a player that can play well in Pop's system in a small NBA market.

So if the only way he stays a Spur is if he gets the max, I think he should get it. Obviously if they can keep him by paying less, they should try to do that as well.

 

[wojt]

they made a wise move not to extend him now, they can still do it at the end of the season, if he doesn't improve or has a bad year they can pay him less and keep him if not he will earn his max