Is Sheed the answer??
by KillaCrossOver on Aug 3, 2007 2:46 PM PDT
73 comments
The Warriors should look at acquiring Rasheed Wallace to fill the void at PF. I am not sure how the 10 million dollar trade exception works so I have proposed a player for player's trade. Rasheed Wallace for Harrington and POB?
I think our line up would be very exciting and extremely active.
PG-Baron
SG-Ellis
SF-SJax
PF-Rasheed Wallace
C-Biedrins
http://www.realgm.com/src_tradechecker/3/
I like the possible trade for a back-up point guard in sending Pietrus for JWill in Miami. That will help reduce some minutes on Baron's legs and still gives us a good PG to run with our current roster.
I am totally blown away by the signing of Croshere! I understand the money we are paying out is damn cheap but couldn't we use that money towards a more productive player that we can use for at least more then one year?
I wonder what Mully has cooking. Any conspiracy theorist out there to contribute to the possibilities??
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
0 recs |
73 comments
Email
Print
Comments
May I ask...
In my opinion, the Pistons are still the cream of the crop in the east - and this trade would make them much more soft, and worse from top to bottom.
by UweBlab on Aug 3, 2007 2:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
SHEED
I say MULLIN..."don't make it happen", only because things we've asked for we haven't received!
If we could S/T PIETRUS for J-WILL I'm all for it, but I think if it was going to happen, it would have already happened.
by scottiepimppen on Aug 3, 2007 2:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
im sorry
by baller90210 on Aug 3, 2007 3:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Rasheed: "inch-up" version of Harrington
'06-'07 Al Harrington (Warriors only):
46% FG, 42% 3P, 68% FT, 10.9 RbR (rebound rate), .4 blocks/40min
'06-'07 Rasheed
42% FG, 35% 3P, 78% FT, 13.3 RbR, 2 blocks/40min
'05-'06 Rasheed
43% FG, 36% 3P, 74% FT, 11.7 RbR, 1.9 blocks/40min
So it looks to me like they are pretty similar. 'Sheed is a slightly better rebounder, blocks more shots, but less efficient a shooter. There's also the risk of him spontaneously combusting. Both guys are jumpshooting PF's who don't spend enough time as they should/could in the post. Does have playoff experience, and he is a veteran...but how much more so than Harrington (who was pretty good against Utah, just not great).
Now, I know Harrington gets alot of flak here, perhaps deservedly so, but remember he was learning a new system and getting into shape. Skill-wise, he fits in very well, he just needs to put in the effort and cut down on the brainfarts that seem to plague are team.
Financial aspect:
Rasheed makes $12.7M this year and $13.5M the next.
Harrington has $8.4, $9.2, and $10M left.
Total amount is roughly even, but we'd be free of our obligations a year earlier with 'Sheed.
Any deal would, of course, be centered around Harrington, as he would be a younger, similarly skilled player that Detroit might not mind having. His contract is fairly reasonable given his age and production.
I don't think Detroit is significantly worse with Harrington, but I don't think they view Rasheed as a negative, so this wouldn't be a "steal" situation where we can get a Stephan Jackson or Ron Artest for free.
Their needs are frontcourt depth and backup PG, so we might be able to help 'em out...
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 3, 2007 3:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
One stat you forgot . . .
'06-'07 Rasheed: 21 Technical Fouls
'06-'07 Al Harrington: 4 Technical Fouls
That's a 500% upgrade! The W's would lead the universe in T's!
The Warriors would also lead the league in "crazy", and that's just something that doesn't show up in the box score.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 4, 2007 1:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sheed is amazingly clutch in his years in Detroit
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 3, 2007 3:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Really? Clutch?
Heck, in '05-'06, he shot 56% from the line.
That doesn't sound very cluch to me.
It's so easy to throw terms like "clutch" or "leader" around, but it's not very helpful. Give me some substance to back up those assertions.
'Sheed is a marginally better rebounder, and could be a better defender- when he wants to be. If I had some assurances that Sheed would bring his A-game every night, then i'm all for it, and playing with a young squad and Baron and Nelson might do it...but it's still a question for me.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 3, 2007 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sheed
Harrington plays in an uptempo offense with dozens more possessions (i.e. scoring and rebounding opportunities) per game, thus padding his stats.
Rasheed has taken a back seat in the Pistons' 80ppg offense, thus negatively impacting his fantasy stats.
I'll try to find something to back this up, but I'm fairly certain that Rasheed is generally considered one of the better defensive power forwards in the league, particularly when it comes to team defense (which Detroit obviously excels in). On the other hand, Harrington is obviously one of the worst defenders/rebounders in the West.
As for Rasheed...
He should go inside more, yes.
His attitude is questionable, yes.
But there's absolutely no question that he's an upgrade over Al.
I've been clamoring for Rasheed for some time now over on my blog: http://sayhey.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/rasheed-wallace-needs-to-be-a-golden-state-warrior/
by TastesLikeBurning on Aug 3, 2007 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
still no
In '06-07, Detroit opponents averaged 92 PPG.
In '05-06, Detroit opponents averaged 90 PPG.
In '04-05, Detroit opponents averaged 89 PPG.
As you can see, their defense has slowly eroded.
Offensively, they went from 93PPG under Brown in '04-05 to 96PPG under Saunders from '05-'07.
Also, if you'll read my post more carefully, you'll see i used adjusted numbers. Rebound Rate accounts for minutes played and pace of play, so any purported advantage for Harrington would be erased.
Last year Harrington got 17.6 FG attempts/40 minutes.
'Sheed got 13.9 and 15.6 FG attempts/40.
Last year Harrington shot 5.2 3P's/40.
'Sheed got 4.9 and 6.2 3P's/40.
Looks to me like they both get their shots, and both take plenty of 3's. It's not like either was playing next to a big post presence either, both get their deep shots from drive-and-kicks or on the break.
I hardly see how it's "no question" that he's an upgrade- even if he is an upgrade, how much of one is he? He's only a slightly better rebounder, and worse shooter from the field and 3P range.
Motivation is a large factor. Would he WANT to play for us? If he doesn't, then i certainly wouldn't touch him with a 10-ft pole.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 3, 2007 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually...
Just because the Pistons' once-legendary defense has eroded by an entire three points per game (!) under Flip, the Pistons still played at an extremely slow pace.
To be precise, their pace factor last year (87.4) was the WORST in the league. On the other hand, the Warriors' pace factor was 99.1, which was FIRST (yes, ahead of Phoenix).
As to your other point, I obviously don't know if he'd like to play for the Warriors, but have you ever seen a player who likes to hoist up threes NOT want to play in a Nellie offense headed by Baron Davis?
Plus, Rasheed and Flip do not get along, which is why he is/was rumored to be on the market for the right price.
Rasheed's unhappiness under Flip is another reason why his stats suffered last year. If you take any other year, you'll see that he outperformed his 2007 version by far. And he's not old (32) or injury-prone so I think one can expect several more good years from him.
by TastesLikeBurning on Aug 3, 2007 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pace factor
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats?sort=offeff&order=false&league=nba
Which ranks Detroit 14th- still behind GS, but not worst in the league.
Look also at their Offensive Efficiency- they put up alot of points per possession
Also looking at the raw number of 3's he puts up...I can't buy that he's lacking opportunities to "pad his stats". Neither Harrington nor 'Sheed are the primary scorers on their team, they share the load with their teammates: Al had J-Rich, Ellis, Jackson; 'Sheed had Rip, Webber, Prince.
As for playing with the W's- 3P shooters might prefer the W's style, but there's more to it. Detroit is a legit contender, simply be being in the East (and a top 4 team in that conference). The W's...few would even rank us in the top 8. So he would be taking a step back from "contention".
Then throw in his age and attitude, and you have big question marks. Why doesn't he like Flip, an offensively minded coach? Would Nelson be preferable? I dunno, but I think they need to be asked.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 3, 2007 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pace factor
As for the Flip-Sheed feud, there's a bunch of stuff/theories online. I know Chris Sheridan dedicated some time to it in the spring. Google it.
I agree with the age/attitude question marks. Toss in his salary with those question marks for that matter.
My point is that generally speaking, Wallace is better than Harrington, particularly defensively. And also, regarding pace factor, you have to take that into consideration when determining individual statistics.
by TastesLikeBurning on Aug 3, 2007 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
If Mulson were confident in 'sheed fitting in to the club and not going bonkers (presumably they'd talk to him first), and it only cost us Harrington, POB, and a 2nd or something...I'd be willing to take a shot.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 3, 2007 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Can't you just see Nellie retiring to Hawaii halfway through the season?
(Speaking of powder kegs, here comes the Giants' bullpen. Sorry to get off topic.)
by TastesLikeBurning on Aug 3, 2007 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he makes clutch shots at the end of
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 3, 2007 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clutch
I posted 'sheeds numbers- if he's proven, he's proven to be pretty average. When did he shutdown Duncan? The Spurs pretty much ran wild against the Pistons- heck, they ran over everyone they played except Dallas and Phoenix.
thats the problem I have with "clutchness". Is someone always clutch? Can someone that's clutch ever become not clutch? can someone not clutch gain clutchness? are some players clutcher than others? what kinda drugs do i take to improve my clutchability?
It's lazy analysis, and I think you can do better than that.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 3, 2007 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you are going to argue that
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 3, 2007 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you're not willing to discuss
Essentially you're saying, "Billups is clutch because I said so and I can't/won't say how/why".
Against Chicago, Billups shot 39%- it's tough to be clutch with so many bricks.
Against Cleveland, he had more turnovers than assists. Clutch?
Without that dominating series against the hapless Magic, it would be even more obvious that he's slipped.
Billups hasn't been "clutch" since the Pistons beat the Lakers.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 3, 2007 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha I am not payed to give you good
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 3, 2007 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
numbers
If you believe what you believe and don't care about the possibility that you might be wrong, then, yeah, i guess you have nothing to say to me.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 3, 2007 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sigh
It is a proven fact that Rasheed is a much, much better defender than Harrington. If you watch a game, you can just see it. No stats needed. If you don't think silly commenters like us have the know-how to identify NBA ability and talent, fine.
But IMO, no one (NO ONE!) knows the NBA better than TrueHoop's Henry Abbott, who said this about him: "Rasheed Wallace is a killer shooter who guards Tim Duncan extremely well. He is a champion."
In dreaming a scenario where Rasheed goes to Phoenix, Abbott has this to say: "I'll say this: it's hard to imagine you'll get a better basketball player than Rasheed Wallace, especially if you are intent on saving money and improving your chances of beating the Spurs.
And imagine how many open three-pointers Steve Nash will get him. Wallace ought to have games when he scores 40. He'd be like a kid in a candy store."
He goes on to quote a piece from the AZ Republic: "Wallace, 32, is an ideal basketball piece, because he shoots and runs well at 6 feet 11 and keeps the floor spread (as Tim Thomas did with the Suns in 2006), is a top post defender (which would help Amaré Stoudemire), has been a popular teammate at each stop"
I'm fairly certain no experts have ever described Al Harrington in this way. I think most people can agree with this.
Source (sorry, too lazy to hyperlink): http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-25-46/How-About-Rasheed-Wallace-for-Shawn-Marion-.html
by TastesLikeBurning on Aug 3, 2007 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You just see it
Certainly, stats alone do not tell the whole story, that's right.
The numbers, however, aren't worthless, they give some basis for an individual to start. If what you see on paper and what you see on the court are different, then you have to ask yourself why, and thats when analysis gets deeper and deeper.
Yeah, I've seen Rasheed, and no doubt, he's talented. Abbot mentions that 'Sheed should have nights when he gets 40. Well, even without Nash, shouldn't he average 20 points per game? I mean, c'mon, he's playing with Chauncy Billups, a pretty good distributor. He's got other offensive weapons to help shoulder the load. He's got a coach that lets him shoot at buncha 3's per game. Why isn't he ALREADY doing what people say he COULD do?
He's dropped off noticeably from his days playing on good Portland teams, why? Just because he doesn't feel like being great anymore?
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 3, 2007 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Double sigh
On clutchitude: if such a thing exists, there's a lot of debate over how much predictive value it has. We can certainly say that some players have been more clutch than others in the past, but it's hard to prove that clutchness is an actual, repeatable skill, like rebounding or shooting. Just as an example, David Ortiz, one of the most "clutch" athletes I've ever witnessed (in big games, close and late situations, with RISP, etc.), has been absolutely dreadful in such situations this year, despite having excellent numbers overall.
If one is going to make a case for a player's clutchness, one at the very least needs to define specific clutch situations (playoffs, 4th quarter, game-winning shot attempts, etc.) and to see how that compares to their performance overall. Even a significant split in these totals wouldn't constitute "proof," but it would certainly be a lot more convincing than simply saying stuff like "Billups is clutch" with absolutely nothing but your personal opinion to back it up.
Obviously there are things in hoops that are hard to measure with stats, but accepting this is quite different from trying to make an actual argument based on statements like "clutch is not about stats and percentages you nerd" and "I dont need to go over to hollinger's analysis to know if one player is more clutch." All that stuff basically translates to "what I say is true because I say it is, so there, nyah, nyah." This board deserves better.
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 3, 2007 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
C'mon Sleepy...
We're bordering on philosophical territory by debating "fact" and "consensus opinion." It's a pretty blurry line between the two. The Big Bang is technically general consensus. And in this arena, philosophy is as pointless as drafting Todd Fuller.
But, since it's a slow night and Bonds hasn't done anything, I'll play devil's advocate.
Can you come up with either facts or consensus (or anything written by any "expert" for that matter) that says Rasheed is NOT a better defender than Al? I don't think you can. Does that mean it's true?
If the stats favor Wallace defensively (he's got better career numbers when it comes to rebounds, blocks, fouls per game, steals et al), does that constitute a fact?
Rasheed's got at least 2 inches on Al, which helps defensively. Plus, looking at their body types, I'd wager his wingspan is significantly longer as well.
Check the Individual Player Floor Time stats at 82games.com (http://www.82games.com/0607/0607GSW1.HTM). When Harrington's on the floor, the defense clearly suffers. Among all the players who got over 20% of the playing time, Harrington has by far the lowest Win % at 37.5. No on else was under 40.
Do those stats constitute fact?
Anyway, like I said earlier, Sheed's got plenty of problems, but it's my biased opinion that he'd be fun to watch on the W's. I still maintain that he's an upgrade over Al, especially defensively and rebounding-wise.
It probably won't happen, but hey, it's fun to talk about. Enjoy the evening.
by TastesLikeBurning on Aug 3, 2007 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Anyway, even if it is pretty obvious that Sheed is a better defender, I'm glad you threw out some numbers to support your argument. I still wouldn't call it "fact" but yeah, at that point it is mostly a semantic quibble. The point of my post was really to complain about throwing out a statement like "so-and-so is clutch" with neither statistical nor anecdotal evidence to back it up.
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 3, 2007 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is nothing statistical to prove that he is
I would say based on his teams success that he is a "clutch" player. Obviously this is not an absolute statement and something that cannot be proven by John Hollinger and his statistics(same with Billups although he has a lesser body of work then wallace but his nickname is "MR Clutch" or something like it. People dont just hand out that name).
So obviously you cant prove it through stats but that doesn't mean that he isnt a good to great crunch time/clutch player. This should go without saying if you have watched him perform in the playoffs over his whole career. Of course he is on the downside of his career but he is a much better player then harrington and I dont know of many players sans warriors fans that would argue that point.
All of this doesn't even matter anyways because I would be shocked if the pistons traded him for Harrington. I would love the trade though it would make us into a top 4-6 team in the west IMO.
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 3, 2007 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
team success
Well, in that case, Gooden and Varejao must be more clutch, since they are PF's for the team that beat Wallace's Pistons.
Detroit couldn't even come out a weak East last year and barely beat the Cavs the previous year.
They got ridiculously lucky drawing Orlando in the first round, and let Chicago claw back in the 2nd round.
Since '04-'05, the Pistons have steadily slipped. Only Prince has stepped up his game (and yes, you can see this from the numbers).
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 3, 2007 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
82games
With Harrington on the court, the W's give up 108 points/100 possessions
With Harrington off the court, the W's give up 109 points/100 possessions
Looks like our defense actually suffers without him.
Regarding the bit about him having the lowest win % of all players with 20% of the playing time...all that means is that Baron, J-Rich, Ellis, etc were more valuable. As far as I can tell, Harrington v. rest of the Warriors wasn't what we're talking about.
Look at Wallace and the Pistons- he ranks below the 3 of the starters and McDyess as well.
Would anyone contend that their games are very similar? Perimeter oriented, take lots of jumpers, should be able to attack more but don't. Both are mobile; Wallace is longer and blocks more shots, but Harrington might have more footspeed.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 3, 2007 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the free throw numbers ar moot seing as big men
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 3, 2007 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(laughing and stops talking)
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 3, 2007 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
by Proof on Aug 4, 2007 1:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Read that post again
What's a clutch situation? Under 1 min left? Under 30 secs left? How bout 1:15 Left? Crap, I hit a shot at 1:17, but that's too early, so it doesn't count as clutchness, even though it puts my team ahead.
What's a "big" shot? Only buzzer beaters?
What's a "necessary defensive stop"? Do defensive stops earlier in the game not matter anymore? No credit for playing 47min of good defense, giving my team a huge lead?
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 4, 2007 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you knew anything about
by Proof on Aug 4, 2007 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i've got both
Maybe randomly throwing around the word "clutch" isn't the best way to further a discussion?
just a thought
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 4, 2007 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
clutch...
i guess i would say that it is when it matters the most. late in the game, close score, something along those lines. you can't really put numbers on it, you just have to be able to sense it.
in a previous arguement where you stated rasheed wallaces ppg, rpg, and fg% in the playoffs and said that he isn't clutch. here is my arguement in return to why you can't go by these numbers.
Robert Horry Career Playoff Stats
9 ppg
6.1 rebounds per game
.432 fg%
.363 3ptfg%
he is clutch
notice the nickname "Big Shot" Bob
his numbers are worse then sheeds
im not saying sheed is clutch, i haven't seen him play enough, but why couldn't sheed be clutch just cuz his numbers in these categories aren't that good.
by Proof on Aug 5, 2007 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
clutch...
in a previous arguement where you stated rasheed wallaces ppg, rpg, and fg% in the playoffs and said that he isn't clutch. here is my arguement in return to why you can't go by these numbers.
Robert Horry Career Playoff Stats
9 ppg
6.1 rebounds per game
.432 fg%
.363 3ptfg%
he is clutch
notice the nickname "Big Shot" Bob
his numbers are worse then sheeds
im not saying sheed is clutch, i haven't seen him play enough, but why couldn't sheed be clutch just cuz his numbers in these categories aren't that good.
by Proof on Aug 4, 2007 11:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Robert Horry Career Playoff Stats
6.1 rebounds per game
.432 fg%
.363 3ptfg%
he is clutch
notice the nickname "Big Shot" Bob
his numbers are worse then sheeds
im not saying sheed is clutch, i haven't seen him play enough, but why couldn't sheed be clutch just cuz his numbers in these categories aren't that good.
by Proof on Aug 4, 2007 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's
by J Rich 4 MVP on Aug 3, 2007 4:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
sheed
by Proof on Aug 4, 2007 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clutch
by pfree on Aug 3, 2007 7:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What's it about then?
If, for example, a player has career averages of 40% fg and 25 ppg in the regular season, and 50%/35 ppg in the playoffs -- or vice versa -- does this mean nothing to you?
Not trying to be snarky, just trying to get you to define more clearly your definiton of clutchness.
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 3, 2007 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i have to agree with him
by Proof on Aug 4, 2007 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's cool
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 3, 2007 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You cant prove an objective world void of stats
You wont prove the objective no one will. And you might say that is an absolute/ objective statement, made by a subject. So really this is all rhetoric that means nothing. if you mention faith well then that is something for "suckers" right sleepy.
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 3, 2007 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AHHHHHHHHH
.
by olympicmike on Aug 3, 2007 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
dude
It's here on the internet that observation needs to be used carefully. I mean, who are you? Dallaswarrior on GSoM, so what? Are you an NBA scout? I don't know who you are, so why should your subjective analysis mean anything to me? By the same token, my own subjective observations, and those of any other individual poster...what value do they have?
Are we Mullin and Nelson? Are we Hollinger and the ESPN crew? Do we work for TNT? How bout draft express? do we have any legitimacy? Few, if any of us, could lay claim to anything like that
so that's why any opinion you post based solely on your subjective point of view is relatively worthless, and why your seemingly casual disregard for any statistical analysis is so disturbing
yeah, let's throw out stats...then any discussion becomes a shouting match: THIS IS TRUE CUZ I SAW I SAID IT! NOOO UR WRONG CUZ I KNOW FOR SURE THIS IS TRUE! NOOOOO EVERYONE KNOWS U SUXORS!
I can't see how anyone finds that appealing.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 3, 2007 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand that but all I am saying is that
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 4, 2007 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
SHEED HATES THE BAY..
by jayknocc14 on Aug 3, 2007 11:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
thank god
btw
Michael Jordan
career regular season FG% - 46%
career playoff FG% - 46%
regardless of stats, i'm sure we all agree that Jordan was quite clutch in the playoffs. he's the perfect example of "just seeing it"
meanwhile
Adonal Foyle
career regular season FG% - 48%
career playoff FG% - 100%
numbers DO lie
"I bet that Mike Conley could find Osama Bin Laden...if he was open."
by nativeson on Aug 4, 2007 3:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, they don't
Foyle is easily explained by pointing out the incredibly small sample size.
Jordan's career playoff FG% is actually 49%- so here, the numbers didn't lie, someone just read wrong.
Jordan also played more minutes in the playoffs and scored more, and we have specific shots you can refer to, such as the Utah game winner. With so many playoff games, we have something meaningful to judge him on, and he fairs quite well statistically and from observation.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 4, 2007 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Zero
Stats are a good way of evaluating a player. But you also have to go on what you see in person. Like most of us, we haven't seen Sheed' play live too many times through the year. If a scout or NBA exec went by stats, and stats alone, i'd figure he'd only be doing half his job.
by kenntoe on Aug 4, 2007 12:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nobody argued otherwise
If you recall, the reason this tired debate reared its head is that a poster tried to make a case for a player's "clutchness," with nothing to back it up. Personally I do believe in the existence of a kind of clutchness, but as I said, I doubt it's as predictive as most people think. At the very least, if someone is going to cite it, the burden is them to define it and show how and why it might exist, not merely to ridicule others for being skeptical.
Didn't someone once do a study that showed there was no such thing as a "hot hand"? -- that is, that a shooter who made their last shot is statistically no more likely to make one again than one who missed their last shot? I should probably double-check to see if it's 100% true, but if it is it's a very compelling example of why we shouldn't fully trust our subjective impressions.
Meanwhile, silly tactics like citing Foyle's 100 playoff FG% only serve to ridicule and undermine what could otherwise be a pretty interesting discussion.
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 4, 2007 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Explain how that is a straw man.
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 4, 2007 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
strawman
User A: Billups is CLUTCH!
User B: He had more turnovers (3.8) than assists (3.5). He shot poorly from the field in another series. For his career, his FG% is pretty low, and his 3P% isn't great.
User A: But he's CLUTCH!
User B: If he's clutch, when why did he play so poorly on the "big stage"
User A: Stats don't tell the whole story!
or
User A: Damn, J-Rich was a GREAT player!
User B: No, he isn't. He's good, but flawed significantly. His FT% is atrocious, his FG% has never been great, and his reliance on the 3P has steadily increased.
User A: But he has HEART! and he's improved EVERY AREA!
User B: No, he hasn't. His FG% actually dropped this year, his FT% has never improved.
User A: Stats don't tell the whole story!
or
(different sport, circa 2002)
User A: Russ Ortiz is the ACE of the Giants' staff!
User B: No, he isn't. Jason Schmidt is: more strikeouts, fewer walks, lower opponents' batting average.
User A: Russ Ortiz is a WINNER!
User B: Russ Ortiz's team is the winner. Russ Ortiz himself is an incredibly lucky pitcher. His walks to BB ratio is poor, opponents bat well against him, and his strikeout rate is mediocre.
User A: Stats don't tell the whole story!
That statement becomes a strawman argument when it is brought up not to contest the point raised by the statistics someone h as brought up, but to deflect attention to the shortcoming of numbers in general.
More common example:
Person A: Don't run across the street, it's dangerous.
Person B: People die everyday!
People do die every day, but that doesn't change the fact that Person B is a suicidical idiot if he runs across the street.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 4, 2007 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dallas Warrior
It becomes a straw man argument when the it's meant to imply that the person on the other side of the debate (in this case OZ, or maybe me) thinks that stats DO tell the whole story.
Third definition of "straw man" under Google...
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 4, 2007 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When all OZ puts up is statistics and then
And the lazy term argument can be used with any descriptive word because smart, tall, short, pretty, clever, fat, slow, skinny and every other word of the sort is relative to other people who might be smarter taller shorter prettier adn the like. It is tired argument and it is funny that either of you think it holds any real water. Being clutch is an empirical idea and feature but it can definatly be argued, such as you can argue a tall skinny fat or pretty person.
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 5, 2007 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you
how are those good stats to go by. those are stats that indicate how sheed does the entire game. how efficient he is, etc. not how he performs under clutch situations or how many game winners he has hit, etc. you gotta watch the games to see if a player is clutch most of the time. stats that can go against a player would be if they did terribly in 4th quarters fg% wise or something along those lines.
by Proof on Aug 4, 2007 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point
You, for some reason, have picked out memories which define 'sheed as "clutch". Hooray, he made a big bucket the past playoffs (and his team was eliminated the very next series).
Even "clutch" players don't always come through "in the clutch"- so, whats the piont of repeatedly calling a guy that, when it really doesn't say diddly squat?
Baron is "clutch", right? He's hit a number of game winners (Seattle, Houston). But oh wait, he bricked a crucial free throw in Game 2 v Utah. Then he played like crap in the rest of the series. Did he suddenly lose his "clutchness"? Can he "re-clutch" and be "clutch" again?
Using "clutch" is lazy. What makes 'sheed someone you want to go to at the end end of a game? What makes him better than Harrington? How much better than Harrington is he likely to be?
THOSE are questions I haven't heard people asking, and there have been damn few answers. Instead, hear that he's "clutch".
So, in your next post, Proof, can you come back and tell me about Rasheed and Harrington without using the word "clutch" or taking a shot at my alleged basketball knowledge? It's a challenge to you, consider it a a favor to me if you'd deign to answer poor little me (who has no sense of the game, apparently).
Clutch. Are you? Can you come throw in crunch time? The clock's ticking down, show us what you got!
Choke!
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 4, 2007 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hold on hold on
by Proof on Aug 4, 2007 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and therein lies the problem
Billups hit big 3's in '04-'05 against the Lakers.
However, this year, he came up short a couple times against Cleveland.
Many would say BILLUPS is clutch- but then, why did he fail that time?
Are people wrong? Was he clutch before? Is he ever gonna be clutch again?
Again, maybe there is such a "Thing" a clutchness, but the label is overused and given out far too often.
One particular play might be a "clutch" play- game winning 3, blocked shot late in a game. Sure, that's accurate to call that a clutch play.
But to ascribe "clutchness" to a player, that's far too difficult and ambitious a feat.
Like Sleepy said, some guys might be clutch- David Ortiz is a good example, he has had a ton of big hits, recorded and immortalized, his BAA skyrockets in those situations.
As a general point about Wallace, however, the "playoffs" are considered "clutch" situations, and he doesn't exactly elevate his game. He hit ONE game winner-type shot (chicago, i believe). What ELSE did he do? Does ONE shot make a guy clutch forever? If he misses the next "clutch" opportunity, is he not "clutch" anymore?
So again- spare us the overbroad generalizations and spiel against stats. Give us some real substance when you're providing analysis.
Saying a guy's got "heart" or "leadership" or "clutch" or "intangibles", OVER AND OVER again does nothing for me. It makes for convenient writing when ESPN needs to do a game recap, but in this diary, we'd like to know if Rasheed is actually better than harrington, and how much so.
When people start throwing oout "OMG! HE SOOO CLUTCH! HARRINGTON's NOT CLUTCH!"...well, it really annoys me. What do we do with statements like that? They don't want to bother discussing it, they just want it to be said and accepted as truth on its face.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 5, 2007 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i mostly agree.
there are times when puting the labels of heart, leadership, intagibles, etc. do not mean very much, but other times where they do.
I will use J-Rich as an example. for this arguement let's throw out last years injury plagued season for j rich.
J-Rich statistically is a good player, an above average 2nd tier shooting gaurd, but we know him as a player that plays with heart. he steps his game up in "clutch" situations. gives it his all. leads by example. he is probably a better player then his numbers would tell because of his intangibles. those are my opinions.
sheed is tough, and appears to be fearless which would help him in clutch situations. is he clutch? idk i don't watch the pistons enough, but he is probably better all around then harrington.
by Proof on Aug 5, 2007 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can use this argument with any vague term used
Baron Davis tall? Well yes but not in comparison to Yao Ming. So is he really tall then? Any descriptive word in your book can then be said to be "lazy." It is really a ridiculous assertion. So give it up
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 5, 2007 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
tall
if you want to be lazy in your analysis, fine
don't get mad when others want to go farther, though
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 5, 2007 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow you dont get it do you?
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 5, 2007 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha you must be a hard person to talk to
If someone asks you to describe yourself do you give them your height wieght eye color waist sieze shoe size hat size date of birth (with the hour included) along with your mothers physical demensions at the time of the birth, your mother maiden name and your complete lineage back to the monkeys or whatever you believe?
No you say I your name and your job and a few more vague facts. Otherwise no one would talk to you it would be nauseating to talk to you if that is how you interact with people. But that is what you expect in here? For everyone to give the complete statistics on every player just because someone used an adjective(that you particularly dont like)? Thats ridiculously critical and not even needed. If someone says that someone is clutch all you have to ask is why they say that. Not jump on me because I used a word you dont like to elevate yourself on an internet blog.
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 5, 2007 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So
Do you realize how far you're stretching your credibility here? Did you bother to read anything sleepy or I have actually posted?
The issue isn't whether "i can use adjectives".
This diary is about Rasheed Wallace and whether he'd actually be an improvement over our current power foward.
One poster threw out that he was "clutch". I pointed out that Rasheed wasn't "clutch", and furthermore, "cluthness" is generally worthless for evaluating player performance and future production. I threw out some numbers to show he doesn't elevate his game in the playoffs.
Then comes the spiel about "numbers don't tell the whole story".
You come along and say, oh, it's just words, who cares if i don't know what i'm talking about.
Does that just about sum it up for you?
No one's saying that "adjectives" are useless, I'm not even demanding that you post all sorts of charts and graphs and equations (DEVIL SPAWN!).
But when a discussion devolves into "SHEED IS CLUTCH CUZ I SAID SO AND OMGWTFBBQ U DUNNO NOTHING ABOUT BASKETBALL CUZ YOU DISAGREE!", I tend to think we're not going very far.
If we want to have a discussion about a player, is it really unfair for me to ask people to use less ambigious terms?
Basketball players as a group are "tall", so you've picked a poor example to demonstrate whatever point you were attempting to make.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 5, 2007 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No I picked any easy example I hoped you would
No it is not fair for you to ask for less ambigious terms however there is a way to do it. And I think you know that.
Anyways you are not going to react to my argument with any kind of real response so lets just agree to move on.
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 5, 2007 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
typo * not unfair
THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE W'S
by dallaswarrior on Aug 5, 2007 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
once again
How is that remotely accurate?
Clutchness generally means one becomes more productive or successful in "clutch" situations, which are generally considered late in close ball games.
If a player repeatedly and noticeably increases his production under those circumstances (like a David Ortiz), then you can measure it. You can list out late season, late series, game-winning or late-game shots or plays and you can compare his production then to his production at other times.
Saying that it's "not related to statistics" is just...wrong.
Questions? Complaints?
(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)
by OptionZero on Aug 5, 2007 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope this is a real response...
- Define what you mean by a clutch situation -- close and late, playoffs, etc.
- Measure a player's performance in these situations, by your usual preferred measures of performance (PER, wins shares, shooting percentages, the eye test, etc.)
- Compare these situations to the player's performance overall.
On a separate note, do people think that white birthmark in Sheed's hair is a mark of the angel or a mark of the devil? My best friend has one of those marks and his mom always told it was where an angel kissed him when he was in the womb. I have my doubts. Also, why is always guys rather than girls who have those marks? I mean ther than Rogue in the X-Men, has anyone ever seen a young woman with the white "devil mark"?...
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 5, 2007 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Proof
This whole discussion would be a lot more interesting and more fun if you were willing to listen to new information and ideas and adjust your thinking accordingly. That's kind of the problem with dogmatic, religious ways of thinking. Of course you have every right to believe what you want to believe, but it makes for a very frustrating debate partner.
As someone who has watched and played lots of hoops, I find it hard to believe that a hot hand is a total myth, but I'm at least willing to uncover my ears and listen to the evidence. Here's an interesting piece from the NYTimes on the subject that you're free to ignore or ponder as you see fit.
Those who play, coach or otherwise follow basketball believe almost universally that a player who has successfully made his last shot or last few shots - a player with hot hands - is more likely to make his next shot. An exhaustive statistical analysis led by a Stanford University psychologist, examining thousands of shots in actual games, found otherwise: the probability of a successful shot depends not at all on the shots that come before.
To the psychologist, Amos Tversky, the discrepancy between reality and belief highlights the extraordinary differences between events that are random and events that people perceive as random. When events come in clusters and streaks, people look for explanations; they refuse to believe they are random, even though clusters and streaks do occur in random data.
''Very often the search for explanation in human affairs is a rejection of randomness,'' Dr. Tversky said.
To understand attitudes about streakiness in basketball, Dr. Tversky and his researchers interviewed many ''real mavens'' of the sport, as well as players and basketball statisticians. The more intimately their subjects knew the game, the more firmly they believed in hot hands.
To test the theory, the researchers got the records of every shot taken from the field by the Philadelphia 76ers over a full season and a half. When they looked at every sequence of two shots by the same player - hit-hit, hit-miss, miss-hit or miss-miss - they found that a hit followed by a miss was actually a tiny bit likelier than a hit followed by a hit.
They also looked at sequences of more than two shots. Again, the number of long streaks was no greater than would have been expected in a random set of data, with every event independent of its predecessor.
Do their results contradict the universal belief that players have good days and bad days? Can they be reconciled with the subjective feeling, experienced by everyone who has played any sport, that one's ability can soar or plunge depending on the occasion? Is it possible that hot shooters hurt their percentages by attempting harder shots - and, alternatively, take fewer risks when they are shooting poorly?
In a way, such questions are beside the point, Dr. Tversky believes.
''Could there be, kind of inside their bodies, a hot hands tendency that isn't reflected in the data?'' he asked. ''That may well be an epiphenomenon: you feel hot because you're scoring, it's not that you're scoring because you're hot.''
It doesn't matter. And no one is claiming that basketball, or any one basketball shot, is somehow a random process. The point is that an observer who bets on any one shot, based on the shooter's last few shots, will do no better than an observer making random guesses.
Indeed, in separate research with men's and women's basketball teams at Cornell University, players took shots from a fixed distance. Both the shooter and an observer were allowed either to bet a nickel on the next shot or to raise the bet to a dime. Both players and observers tended to raise their bets after successful shots, hoping to take advantage of their sense of when a shooter was hot. But there proved to be no correlation between the dime bets and the shots that followed.
Still, facts are facts and belief is belief. Dr. Tversky finds that no quantity of data is enough to change mavens' minds about streaks in random-seeming sequences - a phenomenon that may apply to gambling psychology and stock-market analysis as well. ''It may be that the only way you can learn about randomness is to toss coins on the side while you play,'' he said.
On the issue of clutchness, let me ask you this: If a player you consider a "clutch" shooter had a much lower shooting percentage in clutch situations (playoffs, close games, 4th quarters, etc.) would that not make you question your belief? Coversely, if his shooting numbers went up in such situations, would you not feel slightly more secure in your belief?
I guess I just don't understand the fear of the evidence. The truth, as they say, will set you free...
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 5, 2007 5:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank you Sleepy.
As a B-Ball fan/player I have "experienced" the "hot-hand" syndrome enough to have basic belief in the term. However reading this just threw me for a loop.
It is obvious that shooters will be "streaky" and some games will shoot above their average and sometimes below but it is very interesting to see that this could just be statistical randomness and have no connection to confidence. Confidence is what I always attributed these hot streaks to, but was I just feeling confident because I hit a string of shots which was totally explainable by statistical randomness? Hmmm.
My next question is about players labeled "streaky shooters". From simple observation some player seem more likely to have extremely hot and extremely cold games while others seem more consistent. Is this completely false? One thing I have noticed is that the term is usually applied to player who are high volume shooters. If a player takes more shots in a game it would stand to reason that the strings of makes and misses would be more apparent to the casual observer.
I realize that this diary is basically dead now but this is a very interesting subject (that has nothing to do with Sheed) and you should consider making a diary about it. I would love to hear more from the users who tend to make good use of statistics on this subject (yourself, OZ, JAE...). Anyway if you come back in here and read this, thanks!
.
by olympicmike on Aug 6, 2007 12:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
