NBA Regular Season 2015/16

Carcharodon

Derrick Rose not getting any love here, he just released a new line of sneakers too...

NufcNavan

BTW, is there still any doubt that Jimmy Butler is a top 20 player in the league?? :P

Carcharodon

NufcNavan wrote: »

BTW, is there still any doubt that Jimmy Butler is a top 20 player in the league?? :P

Probably not the way he is playing but people get too wrapped up into that stuff to be honest, spouting off numbers and stats to beat the band. It can be hard to tell sometimes, a lot depends on who you are playing for and playing with.

brady23

Carcharodon wrote: »

Probably not the way he is playing but people get too wrapped up into that stuff to be honest, spouting off numbers and stats to beat the band. It can be hard to tell sometimes, a lot depends on who you are playing for and playing with.

I don't think people get too wrapped up in stats. People who don't use them or disregard their worth will have a similar opinion. PER and RPM are exceptionally good at evaluating players worth.
Its not hard to tell, in fact it's often very clear cut. Players are often far overvalued by their raw numbers ie Kevin Love in Minnesota and highlight plays. Conversely some players are often way undervalued. Can't think off the top of my head but Khris Middleton ranked way higher in advanced metrics last season than his raw stats suggested.
One of the main reasons for these is to evaluate a players contribution regardless of team performance. Give me a team of guys who rank high in RPM/PER over a team of guys who look the part any day.

Just to say I do think the past 10 games or so Jimmy Butler looks like a clear top 20 player and solidified his place as the 2nd best two guard in the league. My argument simply was at the time that given all the info at hand, the guy wasn't a clear cut top 20 player and I stand by that.

ButtersSuki

NufcNavan wrote: »

BTW, is there still any doubt that Jimmy Butler is a top 20 player in the league?? :P

The real question is.....is he better than boards.ie favourite John Wall?

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

ButtersSuki

brady23 wrote: »

I don't think people get too wrapped up in stats. People who don't use them or disregard their worth will have a similar opinion. PER and RPM are exceptionally good at evaluating players worth.
Its not hard to tell, in fact it's often very clear cut. Players are often far overvalued by their raw numbers ie Kevin Love in Minnesota and highlight plays. Conversely some players are often way undervalued. Can't think off the top of my head but Khris Middleton ranked way higher in advanced metrics last season than his raw stats suggested.
One of the main reasons for these is to evaluate a players contribution regardless of team performance. Give me a team of guys who rank high in RPM/PER over a team of guys who look the part any day.

Just to say I do think the past 10 games or so Jimmy Butler looks like a clear top 20 player and solidified his place as the 2nd best two guard in the league. My argument simply was at the time that given all the info at hand, the guy wasn't a clear cut top 20 player and I stand by that.

Stats, stats, stats.

The Love example is a good one. Were his numbers inflated in M because his team mates were so poor OR are they defalted now because he's playing with LBJ and is realistically option 3 on offence now? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

BUT

I've often posted on here how guys with certain skill sets suit certain offences, teams, styles or patterns of play. Throw Love on that Boston team right now and I'd say he's back to his best stats wise.

I could name dozens of players like this over the last 30 or so years I'm watching the pro game.

What I wonder about though is what guys like that prefer? Is it to be the man and the stat stuffer on a crap team or to sacrifice stats and win? I mean imagine what Tim Duncan's stats would be if he played for an utterly crap team his whole career and was offence option 1 instead of having his minutes limited and playing true team ball his entire career?

Hell throw Curry onto most teams in the league and he'd not be as productive simply because his style is so geared to high-tempo, passing, spacing and quick ball movement and crucially he has the team mates to play that style. Put him on say a walk up post offence like Memphis and he'll be such a bad fit it's hard to see how they'd win as many games as they do currently.

And it's never one player.....it's the system and how he fits into it. Some guys suit some systems, some guys don't.

brady23

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Stats, stats, stats.

The Love example is a good one. Were his numbers inflated in M because his team mates were so poor OR are they defalted now because he's playing with LBJ and is realistically option 3 on offence now? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

BUT

I've often posted on here how guys with certain skill sets suit certain offences, teams, styles or patterns of play. Throw Love on that Boston team right now and I'd say he's back to his best stats wise.

I could name dozens of players like this over the last 30 or so years I'm watching the pro game.

What I wonder about though is what guys like that prefer? Is it to be the man and the stat stuffer on a crap team or to sacrifice stats and win? I mean imagine what Tim Duncan's stats would be if he played for an utterly crap team his whole career and was offence option 1 instead of having his minutes limited and playing true team ball his entire career?

Hell throw Curry onto most teams in the league and he'd not be as productive simply because his style is so geared to high-tempo, passing, spacing and quick ball movement and crucially he has the team mates to play that style. Put him on say a walk up post offence like Memphis and he'll be such a bad fit it's hard to see how they'd win as many games as they do currently.

And it's never one player.....it's the system and how he fits into it. Some guys suit some systems, some guys don't.

I don't think being a raw stats beast is attractive anymore and probably more laughed at than ever before. I would struggle to think of many players in the modern game whos production has increased/decreased significantly without any other external factors.
Personally I think you're probably putting too much down to the system and not enough to the stats and I am possibly the other way around

Carcharodon

brady23 wrote: »

I don't think people get too wrapped up in stats. People who don't use them or disregard their worth will have a similar opinion. PER and RPM are exceptionally good at evaluating players worth.
Its not hard to tell, in fact it's often very clear cut. Players are often far overvalued by their raw numbers ie Kevin Love in Minnesota and highlight plays. Conversely some players are often way undervalued. Can't think off the top of my head but Khris Middleton ranked way higher in advanced metrics last season than his raw stats suggested.
One of the main reasons for these is to evaluate a players contribution regardless of team performance. Give me a team of guys who rank high in RPM/PER over a team of guys who look the part any day.

Just to say I do think the past 10 games or so Jimmy Butler looks like a clear top 20 player and solidified his place as the 2nd best two guard in the league. My argument simply was at the time that given all the info at hand, the guy wasn't a clear cut top 20 player and I stand by that.

I totally understand what your saying and really do apppreciate someone that has a good understanding and knowledge of game.
My only thing is that I do firmly believe people do get wrapped up in stats, not that they know anything about them but espn or sky sports rattle off nonsense and people just buy into it.
I do realise what you are talking about is different though.

GoldFour4

Carcharodon wrote: »

Probably not the way he is playing but people get too wrapped up into that stuff to be honest, spouting off numbers and stats to beat the band. It can be hard to tell sometimes, a lot depends on who you are playing for and playing with.

This is it. I think Butler is a great player but he's not top 20 all of a sudden just because of a 40 point half. Mo Williams had 52 (?) last year in a game for the Wolves. Does that make him a top 10 point guard, no it doesn't.

Butler is top 20 because he is a consistent performer, not because of 1 game with a lot of points.

ButtersSuki

One thing I will say about Butler is he plays both ends of the floor at elite level, not many guys who are the focal point offensively (as he has become) play hard on D every night.

ButtersSuki

brady23 wrote: »

I don't think being a raw stats beast is attractive anymore and probably more laughed at than ever before. I would struggle to think of many players in the modern game whos production has increased/decreased significantly without any other external factors.
Personally I think you're probably putting too much down to the system and not enough to the stats and I am possibly the other way around

Not really, if you think about it.

Throw a run and gun guard onto a post up team? Never really works.

Make Pau Gasol go run and gun (D'Antoni in his Lakers stint)....production hugely down.

Petrovic in Portland? Benchwarmer. Pertovic as a Net? All Star.

There are honestly dozens of examples like this.

brady23

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Not really, if you think about it.

Throw a run and gun guard onto a post up team? Never really works.

Make Pau Gasol go run and gun (D'Antoni in his Lakers stint)....production hugely down.

Petrovic in Portland? Benchwarmer. Pertovic as a Net? All Star.

There are honestly dozens of examples like this.

I had something wrong out but at the end I realised I'm probably just flogging a dead horse a bit. You guys have your opinions, for the most part I disagree but that's cool.

NufcNavan

I 100% agree with Charles Barkley here regarding analytics.

I feel the same way about sports psychologists.

brady23

NufcNavan wrote: »

I 100% agree with Charles Barkley here regarding analytics.

I feel the same way about sports psychologists.

If you honestly agree with Barkley you're so far removed from the direction basketball is going. It's 100% going down that Moneyball type route and so are all sports even amateur ones.

My issue with Barkley saying that, is that he just decides that analytics is ****e cos he doesn't want to try understand it.

Daryl Morey and Mark Cuban for example spend a crazy amount of time and money looking at analytics through the MIT Sloan Conference for example. These guys at these conferences are thinking on a level that the majority of people can't even comprehend.

Every sport is moving towards this. Look at soccer even, there's a reason why fewer and fewer top draw ex players are coaching now with the exception of Guardiola and Simeone.
To coach at the highest level involves understanding far more than simply watching a game and making a decision.
Everybody has personal preference no matter how objective they think they are. One person may look at a great pass as an indicator or a steal etc.
Analytics (delivered properly) gives the most objective unbiased view possible.

What Barkley is saying is absolute total ****e. Just cos the Rockets give up 117 points makes them bad? That is quite literally 1.2% of their entire regular season, talk about a tiny sample.

ButtersSuki

Analytics ain't 100% crap as Barkely posits, but you can't live and die by them either. You need to understand the subtleties around them.

Here's an example - a foul goes under analytics as a negative - BUT, if my team is 3 points up and I foul a guy at half court with less than a second left before he can get off a potential game tying 3 is that a bad foul? No, of course not, it guarantees we win, so it's a good foul. That's something a stat can't cover.

Here's another: if I make a perfectly good pass to someone and he doesn't even see it coming and it goes straight out of bounds is that my turnover? Technically yes, but everyone else can see that it was his fault for not looking for/expecting the pass.

Similarly, if I'm wide open and unguarded under the basket and some ballhog won't pass is that good play or bad play on my part? Or I consistently get into good scoring positions but no ball comes? How is that covered by stats?

Or - and I have seen both of these first hand with guys I played with:

1. Clock winding down and opposition in the old 1 on 1 or shooting penalty. Team spreading the floor to try and run down the clock.....guy deliberately gets caught in possession repeatedly to shoot free throws and pad his stats with easy points at the end of a game. THIS HAPPENED, MORE THAN ONCE, to the point where he actually nearly cost us a game through this BS
2. Do a "Moses Malone" on your stats. Take 4 rebounds per possession....exaggerating to highlight the point but for example you take multiple rebounds on the same possession because you can basically. Again say this when I was playing first hand.

Both of those examples were at National League/SuperLeague level. Now in analytics that behaviour is rewarded positively. A trained eye sees whats going on however.


Or the 'hockey assist', (this is the pass before the assist itself). Anyone who's played at even a basic level knows the importance of this and how important ball movement in general is both in terms of freeing up space and players. Doesn't show up on the stat sheet though.........
I'd like to see it.


So whilst I find stats interesting and a basic rough guide to a player, there's a lot of interpretation required before they become truly meangingful.

brady23

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Analytics ain't 100% crap as Barkely posits, but you can't live and die by them either. You need to understand the subtleties around them.

Here's an example - a foul goes under analytics as a negative - BUT, if my team is 3 points up and I foul a guy at half court with less than a second left before he can get off a potential game tying 3 is that a bad foul? No, of course not, it guarantees we win, so it's a good foul. That's something a stat can't cover.

Here's another: if I make a perfectly good pass to someone and he doesn't even see it coming and it goes straight out of bounds is that my turnover? Technically yes, but everyone else can see that it was his fault for not looking for/expecting the pass.

Similarly, if I'm wide open and unguarded under the basket and some ballhog won't pass is that good play or bad play on my part? Or I consistently get into good scoring positions but no ball comes? How is that covered by stats?

Or - and I have seen both of these first hand with guys I played with:

1. Clock winding down and opposition in the old 1 on 1 or shooting penalty. Team spreading the floor to try and run down the clock.....guy deliberately gets caught in possession repeatedly to shoot free throws and pad his stats with easy points at the end of a game. THIS HAPPENED, MORE THAN ONCE, to the point where he actually nearly cost us a game through this BS
2. Do a "Moses Malone" on your stats. Take 4 rebounds per possession....exaggerating to highlight the point but for example you take multiple rebounds on the same possession because you can basically. Again say this when I was playing first hand.

Both of those examples were at National League/SuperLeague level. Now in analytics that behaviour is rewarded positively. A trained eye sees whats going on however.


Or the 'hockey assist', (this is the pass before the assist itself). Anyone who's played at even a basic level knows the importance of this and how important ball movement in general is both in terms of freeing up space and players. Doesn't show up on the stat sheet though.........
I'd like to see it.


So whilst I find stats interesting and a basic rough guide to a player, there's a lot of interpretation required before they become truly meangingful.

I think you're missing the point of analytics as a whole. You are giving very specific situations which don't occur as often as other plays.
I agree there are situations that stats can't equate for but these advanced metrics ie PER, RPM and WARP for example are designed with a standard deviation so that it can account for instances which are not particularly normal. I'm 99% sure one of the above mentioned stats has an assist to assist ratio built in and its commonly mentioned. Imo the analytics which are now available are so complex and comprehensive that very scenarios aren't accounted for. Instances of missed passes, late game scenarios etc are so miniscule in the grand scheme of an entire NBA season
I agree not everything can be equated for but they 100% hold far more value than you're giving them credit for.

NufcNavan

brady23 wrote: »

If you honestly agree with Barkley you're so far removed from the direction basketball is going. It's 100% going down that Moneyball type route and so are all sports even amateur ones.

My issue with Barkley saying that, is that he just decides that analytics is ****e cos he doesn't want to try understand it.

Daryl Morey and Mark Cuban for example spend a crazy amount of time and money looking at analytics through the MIT Sloan Conference for example. These guys at these conferences are thinking on a level that the majority of people can't even comprehend.

Every sport is moving towards this. Look at soccer even, there's a reason why fewer and fewer top draw ex players are coaching now with the exception of Guardiola and Simeone.
To coach at the highest level involves understanding far more than simply watching a game and making a decision.
Everybody has personal preference no matter how objective they think they are. One person may look at a great pass as an indicator or a steal etc.
Analytics (delivered properly) gives the most objective unbiased view possible.

What Barkley is saying is absolute total ****e. Just cos the Rockets give up 117 points makes them bad? That is quite literally 1.2% of their entire regular season, talk about a tiny sample.

Stats in themselves are fine, I have nothing against looking at a player's stats to weigh up his strengths and weaknesses. However if you make roster decisions purely on analytics then that's where I think it's gone too far.

It's like judging a car based on its tyre size, top speed, engine size etc. But ultimately you won't know how the car will perform in variable circumstances until you drive it yourself. Layman's example I know but still.

Guys like Morey and Cuban are heavily invested in analytics because they want to try and gain an edge in any way possible. They want to win, and therefore have to try something different. Morey will never win a ring with the Rockets, and Cuban certainly didn't win his because of it. The Mavs won the NBA title in 2011 because of a savvy veteran team that came together as a perfect storm to give it one last push. A Herculean performance over the series from a future HOFer in Dirk also helped.

In soccer, the top leagues have never really had many managers who were top drawer players. That has never been the case, so not a whole lot has changed there. The best managers tend to have been mediocre to decent players which helps them relate to their players in that they can maximise their abilities better. There have been a few exceptions of course (Beckenbauer, Zoff etc).

Stats and analytics are getting more attention, but ultimately a team will still come down to the manager's system and philosophy in terms of how they play. Some will masquerade this with analytics but this is how it's always been done. The style of play has evolved through generations but the fundamental process has remained the same.

Take FC Midtjylland for example. They aimed to be the first team to qualify for the CL on a team purely based on analytics. They did really well for a small club to win the Danish league, but again came up short in qualifying for the big one. Analytics has gotten them to a decent level in the EL and there's nothing wrong with that, but ultimately they came up short because their players weren't good enough to qualify and they didn't have the same resources as the 'big clubs'. It's that simple. I don't want a situation where FC Midtjylland win the Danish League and analysts say "oh it must be analytics". It's more to do with the fact they had good players who played a winning game, otherwise anyone could just stand in and fill x's and o's.

To get back to basketball, I feel the notion of analytics just feeds into the culture of over-analysis which is hugely prevalent in the US media. There are some media members who enjoy talking about a player/team's stats more than they actually enjoy watching the game itself. It's another niche for people to get into the game and fills up airtime on shows like ESPN.

ButtersSuki

brady23 wrote: »

I think you're missing the point of analytics as a whole. You are giving very specific situations which don't occur as often as other plays.
I agree there are situations that stats can't equate for but these advanced metrics ie PER, RPM and WARP for example are designed with a standard deviation so that it can account for instances which are not particularly normal. I'm 99% sure one of the above mentioned stats has an assist to assist ratio built in and its commonly mentioned. Imo the analytics which are now available are so complex and comprehensive that very scenarios aren't accounted for. Instances of missed passes, late game scenarios etc are so miniscule in the grand scheme of an entire NBA season
I agree not everything can be equated for but they 100% hold far more value than you're giving them credit for.

Dude, I'm actually very pro stats!

I'm a stats nerd, I can be happy just reading stats, I'm that boring! I was like a stats encyclopaedia when I was younger....honestly could have done mastermind on it!

All I'm saying is (like others I think) that I wouldn't build a team on JUST stats.

Of course my examples are extreme, but you need to see them to see the flaws. Stats are an absolute, but the game is more fluid than that.

The foul example is actually more common than you think. There are such things as good / tactical fouls.

ButtersSuki

Sorry, just wanted to say hickey assists are not officially counter by the NBA. I know someone outside the NBA counted them for a season or two but I don't know if that's still being done tbh.

NufcNavan

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Dude, I'm actually very pro stats!

I'm a stats nerd, I can be happy just reading stats, I'm that boring! I was like a stats encyclopaedia when I was younger....honestly could have done mastermind on it!

All I'm saying is (like others I think) that I wouldn't build a team on JUST stats.

Of course my examples are extreme, but you need to see them to see the flaws. Stats are an absolute, but the game is more fluid than that.

The foul example is actually more common than you think. There are such things as good / tactical fouls.

Analytics are a part of a process (They are just advanced stats after all) but at the end of the day adding talented players is what matters. Sixers were obsessed with analytics and look where it got them.

Carcharodon

Some life left in Rose yet, one might say he was even productive tonight :pac:
He had some pretty decent stats

Good to see Kobe have a good game, showed some real flashes of Kobe in his prime, a real shame that the Lakers are sooo bad, zero defense. Hibbert doesn't even look like a basketball player at times.

Kings could make playoffs in my opinion, Cousins is a beast and Rondo is playing at a high level, just need to gel a bit more and get consistent.

Edit - well that game took a real turn, first time ever I've rooted for lakers, fair play to them for turning it around, they were unlucky in the end.
Russell has talent, he can make things happen but in the end cousins is d man.

PokeHerKing

Hi Folks,

I'm going to be in Chicago over paddys weekend and was hoping to catch a Bulls game. They are playing the Utah Jazz on Saturday 19th of March. Any advice on how best to pick up tickets for it?

Cheers

GoldFour4

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Hi Folks,

I'm going to be in Chicago over paddys weekend and was hoping to catch a Bulls game. They are playing the Utah Jazz on Saturday 19th of March. Any advice on how best to pick up tickets for it?

Cheers

Stubhub would have a good reputation. Could also try seatgeek or other such sites.

Here's a link to that game on stubhub.

http://http://www.stubhub.com/chicago-bulls-tickets-chicago-bulls-chicago-united-center-3-19-2016/event/9370565/

ButtersSuki

malistheman wrote: »

Stubhub would have a good reputation. Could also try seatgeek or other such sites.

Here's a link to that game on stubhub.

http://http://www.stubhub.com/chicago-bulls-tickets-chicago-bulls-chicago-united-center-3-19-2016/event/9370565/

Stub hub can be incredibly expensive as they are a reselling site.

Try ticketmaster first.id pop an ad on sons of the Chicago blogs or free ads in the online papers/ads etc too. It'll cost you a few dollars but you'll have a better chance of getting a ticket for face value (or even less maybe!) as there's always people who can't go, want to sell etc.

If you really want a ticket in advance then go the stub hub route, but be prepared to get fleeced.

I'd also consider going down to the stadium without a ticket and chancing your arm. On the few occasions when I haven't gad an advance ticket and I've tried this I've always managed to get a ticket on the day for face value or else a bit on top.

Wrap up though, outside Chicago Stadium is coooooollllld.

PokeHerKing

Cheers lads, I'll look into the cheaper options first. Missing Miami heats visit by a day but probably stand a better chance of getting for tickets for the Jazz

PokeHerKing

€200 for 2 nosebleeds on ticket master, tickets printed and all. Cheers for the help folks!

ButtersSuki

PokeHerKing wrote: »

€200 for 2 nosebleeds on ticket master, tickets printed and all. Cheers for the help folks!

Enjoy dude!

It's normal practice on here to post pics of your big day out at an NBA game so do bring us bank some pics. There's a Jordan Flight statue outside one of the entrances and the championship trophies are on display inside the area in the walkway (walk the full distance around, it's not that far) that are kinda must have props for pics.

I've posted a few over the years (Boston, MSG, Barclays Brooklyn, Chicago, Orlando) but it'll be hard to beat Cocharadon's (or however he spells it!) recent GSW VIP Experience......jelly.

NufcNavan

Would love to get to a game.

Unfortunately if I were to head to the states it would probably be Summer time, meaning no NBA

Carcharodon

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Enjoy dude!

It's normal practice on here to post pics of your big day out at an NBA game so do bring us bank some pics. There's a Jordan Flight statue outside one of the entrances and the championship trophies are on display inside the area in the walkway (walk the full distance around, it's not that far) that are kinda must have props for pics.

I've posted a few over the years (Boston, MSG, Barclays Brooklyn, Chicago, Orlando) but it'll be hard to beat Cocharadon's (or however he spells it!) recent GSW VIP Experience......jelly.

Iam not going to lie, it was freaking fantastic should of taken more pics but got really caught up in the game.

Carcharodon

NufcNavan wrote: »

Would love to get to a game.

Unfortunately if I were to head to the states it would probably be Summer time, meaning no NBA

Las Vegas summer league brah.....fun times to be had !!!