Maggs: To keep or not to keep, that is the question
by dubzfan on Oct 4, 2009 11:43 PM PDT
Email
Print
So, this overpaid yet consistent forward has caught us in a weird situation since Wright has gone down. Do we really want him as our backup four or is he a cancer on this team? He always seems to have a good attitude but his game off sets that much like how Crawford did. Now I'm all for playing him 20 -25 minutes a game but now he looks like he will be playing much more. A player like him seems to not fit with us cause of how reluctant he is to pass but at the same time he seems so perfect cause a weakness of the we believe team was being consistent and he brings that(and boy do we need it). But his contract handicaps us for this big off season coming up where a player like Ray Allen or Joe Johnson would be a good addition but because of his contract we have no chance at either. I remember at the beginning of last season we all hated him and wanted to trade him, then he got injured and the Baron Davis rumors came up and we got excited. But at the end of last year he seemed to play really well. We are in a awkward situation with him. Do we keep him and have him as a sixth man or do we trade him for a cash dump like him for James Jones and Dorrell Wright? That is the question. As I see it we should explore that type of option with him but I would be ok if he were to stay. But we already have a player who can take his job and do even better then he has and his name is Kellena Azebuike. He is a great player when attacking the rim but he is getting older and seems to want to just take jumpers now.
Maybe you should do this more often....
But when he gets worried he just seems to want to hold the ball to long, then he will either turn it over or commit a foul. And his defense has so much potential with how strong and athletic he is but he just does not put in the effort there. Sometimes he seems like he cares more about stats then a win. He slows down the offense alot as well.
Pass the ball!
We can only hope he starts being a team player this year or a team needs his services and offers up some expiring contracts.
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!
95 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
For now, we might as well keep him. We need a backup 4 in the worst way. Maggs can score and probably rebounds as well as Moore. Besides, if Moore went down, we’d be completely screwed. Next year, Magg’s contract will be one year shorter and that much less awful.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I dunno. Maggette is a really, really, REALLY bad power forward. When he was the second-biggest guy on the floor for us last year, we got outscored by a 6.1 PT/48 MIN pace — we were essentially as bad as the Thunder. Nellie likes the fact that Maggette’s a dangerous scorer at the four… the problem is that almost any power forward being covered by Maggette is a more dangerous scorer.
The absence of Wright is a problem, but there are ways to handle it. If you get creative with substition patterns, you can use Biedrins, Randolph and Turiaf to fill 85-90 of the 96 PF/C minutes each night, with Moore spotting in for the rest. And hell, I’d rather see ’Buike at the four — ’Buike was a bit more competitive at the position last year than Maggette was.
Maggette will certainly have his uses if we’re forced to keep him, as we probably will be, but I don’t think he fills a real need, even in light of Wright’s injury. He’s a decent swing on a team with three other ones. If we could dump him, we should.
by onlxn on Oct 5, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
I dunno. Maggette is a really, really, REALLY bad power forward. When he was the second-biggest guy on the floor for us last year, we got outscored by a 6.1 PT/48 MIN pace
this could easily be a reflection of who else was on the floor with Maggette when Corey played the 4.
if you put any stock to PER or stats like it, Maggette actually was the 2nd best defender from the PF spot next to Turiaf.
Turiaf’s PER at PF 11.5 vs opposing PF 14.2
Maggette’s PER at PF 20.8 vs opposition 16.2
Wright 21.0 vs opp 19.2
Jackson 22.7 vs 21.3
Randolph 19.8 vs 22.0
And hell, I’d rather see ’Buike at the four — ’Buike was a bit more competitive at the position last year than Maggette was.Contrary to the imagination of the fans, Buike played only 4% of the available PF minutes. which is 1% more than Harrington did. his PER was 18.4 vs the opposition’s 22.5. based on PER, he was our worst defender at the 4.
Obviously, PER is flawed. But I’m willing to bet that our biases and opinions are much more flawed. Somehow, someway Maggette outproduced the opposing PF when he was at the PF position. This wasn’t a case of sample size as Maggette spent the most minutes of any player at the 4 position, but Randolph was 2nd, and Jack & Wright were almost tied for 3rd.
by homer simpson on Oct 5, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Biases and opinions can indeed be flawed, but I don’t put too much stock in player-vs.-player PERs as a stat.
As an example, by PER, Maggette outplayed his PF opponents 20.8-16.2, a +4.6 advantage. By PER, Maggette was actually outplayed by his SF opponents 13.9-13.6, a -0.3 deficit. By this standard, we should take Maggette from his natural position and use him exclusively at the four.
The problem is that we lost at a 6.2 point/48 minute pace with Maggette at PF, and “only” at a 1.8 point/48 minute pace with him at SF. We were roughly a 22-60 team with Maggette at the four, roughly a 37-45 team with Maggette at the three. Pretty huge difference, with a big sample size at both positions… Maggette played almost 70% of his minutes at the four, essentially all the rest at the three.
Maggette does score a lot when he plays the four, largely because the mismatch gets him open a lot. Perhaps I misstated it when I wrote that “the problem is that almost any power forward being covered by Maggette is a more dangerous scorer.” The problem is that our defense completely falls apart with Maggette at the four, partly because Maggette is so listless about rotating. The opposing PFs’ numbers weren’t huge when Maggette played the four, but I’d be willing to bet that the opposing SF and centers’ numbers were.
It’s not about your power forward outscoring the other team’s power forward… it’s about the overall function of the team. We functioned horribly with Corey Maggette at power forward last year. I doubt that’d change this year.
by onlxn on Oct 5, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The biggest problem with Maggs as our second-biggest player
… is that he’s simple not an adequate rebounder for the four. Yeah, there are defensive issues, too, but we’re jut not good enough at generating TOs to give up that much rebounding.
That too.
I mean, there’s basically no reason to think Corey Maggette can credibly play power forward. Nobody would’ve ever suggested putting him there during his first nine seasons in the league… the idea that it’s a good mismatch came from Nellie, and all evidence thus far suggests it’s the mistake it always seemed like it’d be. Significant minutes from Maggette at the four this year would not be a good thing.
Now the question becomes
What will Nelson do this year? Will he go back to Maggette as the backup 4? My guess is that is most likely the case. Kelenna could get the call as well, but I’m surprised that he’s infrequently been used there.
And also what would the rotations be if Ronny/Andris/AR make up 85-90 of 96 minutes. I hope you’re not implying any Ronny/Andris or Ronny/Moore combinations. That’d be just an unlikely combination. I think it’s much more likely that Nellie goes to small ball before putting in two non-scorers.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
The Awesomeness That Is Captain Jack -
Jackson on wanting to be on a winner: "I’m made for the playoffs and the championships. I’m Big Shot Jack. That’s what I do."
Jackson on wanting out after extension: "Who’s going to turn down that money? I didn’t go to college, but I’ve got a lot of common sense."
It’s not about your power forward outscoring the other team’s power forward…
except PER, PAW and other #‘s aren’t about outscoring.
is it really so hard to consider that perhaps it wasn’t Maggette at PF that was the problem? that perhaps it was the combination of players Nelson chose to use alongside of Maggette at PF?
if Crawford played less often when Maggette was at SF and played more often when Maggette was at PF or if he played more with Turiaf at SF and less often with him at PF, those things heavily influence +/-. especially in the smaller sample size of SF (where Maggette only played 10% of the total SF minutes).
basically, while it is a large sample size, it’s not necessarily a good one. you don’t know the breakdown of who he spent those minutes on the court with.
it’s hard to prove things like
partly because Maggette is so listless about rotating.that’s a perception. i could easily say ALL the Warriors were listless about rotating last season. at the very least slow at reading things defensively and rotating except Turiaf & Randolph who overdo it. and we clearly saw the flaws of things such as that based on your recollection of Azubuike.
the whole Maggette thing sounds more like an i hate small ball argument (which i hate as well). but you can’t ignore the fact that there are very real #‘s that Maggette is more effective than others at the 4 that isn’t heavily skewed (like +/-) by who else is on the floor.
it’s about as relevant as the Warriors being a (13-33) 23-59 team with Buike at SG and being a 7-2 team (or 64-18 over a full season) with Buike at the PG (3-1) and C (4-1) spots.
by homer simpson on Oct 5, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
is it really so hard to consider that perhaps it wasn’t Maggette at PF that was the problem? that perhaps it was the combination of players Nelson chose to use alongside of Maggette at PF?
I am open to that possibility. But I don’t have the faith in positional PER numbers that you do. Plus-minus is indeed a flawed and noisy stat, but positional PER is, to me, a far more flawed and noisy stat.
basically, while it is a large sample size, it’s not necessarily a good one. you don’t know the breakdown of who he spent those minutes on the court with.
That’s not entirely correct. We do know a good chunk of that breakdown. Here are the five-man units Maggette played with most frequently:
Crawford-Ellis-Jackson-Maggette-Turiaf (85 minutes)
Watson-Azubuike-Jackson-Maggette-Biedrins (65 minutes)
Watson-Crawford-Azubuike-Maggette-Biedrins (54 minutes)
Watson-Crawford-Jackson-Maggette-Turiaf (51 minutes)
Crawford-Azubuike-Jackson-Maggette-Biedrins (49 minutes)
Watson-Azubuike-Jackson-Maggette-Turiaf (45 minutes)
Nelson-Jackson-Maggette-Harrington-Biedrins (44 minutes)
Watson-Crawford-Jackson-Maggette-Biedrins (44 minutes)
Watson-Morrow-Jackson-Maggette-Biedrins (41 minutes)
Crawford-Azubuike-Jackson-Maggette-Turiaf (40 minutes)
This accounts for 518 of Maggette’s 1588 minutes, so just under a third. Some things you’ll notice:
1) Our lineups were all over the place last year. The fact that Maggette never played more than 85 minutes with any other quartet is pretty unusual.
2) In nine of these ten combinations, Maggette was our second-biggest guy on the floor. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he was the notional PF that whole time — it’s possible that ‘Buike or Jack was defending the opposing four in certain situations. But Maggette was employed primarily in smallball lineups. Randolph and Wright don’t appear on his list; the only “traditional” lineup in his top ten features Al, oddly enough.
3) You’d have a hard time arguing that these lineups are aberrant in terms of surrounding talent. Nine of the ten feature Jack, which is no surprise… Jack played the most minutes per game, and his injury absences matched up pretty closely with Maggette’s. Of the nine smallball lineups, four feature Biedrins at center, four feature Turiaf… that accords with the total minutes they played. Six feature CJ, six feature Crawford… again, they played roughly equal minutes over the course of the year, so that makes sense. There are a few quirks — the DeMarcus Nelson cameo is amusing — but really this is a very representative sample of our smallball lineups from the year.
It doesn’t seem likely that Maggette’s numbers are overly skewed by his teammates. Which takes us back to the basic point:
1) Corey Maggette played a lot of power forward last season.
2) We tended to do terribly when he did.
that’s a perception. i could easily say ALL the Warriors were listless about rotating last season. at the very least slow at reading things defensively and rotating except Turiaf & Randolph who overdo it.
And I’d agree with you.
and we clearly saw the flaws of things such as that based on your recollection of Azubuike.
You saw that, because you see real significance in the positional PER numbers. I’m not convinced. In this construct, positional PER has all the biases of plus-minus plus others of its own. For instance, according to 82games, Maggette shot more often at the four than at the three last year — makes sense, as exploiting that mismatch on offense is the entire point. But unless you’re bricking like crazy, shooting frequency increases your PER. That means that while Maggette’s PF PER rose, the PERs of the other four Warriors on the floor fell a bit. There’s not nearly the net advantage to the team that you’d think.
the whole Maggette thing sounds more like an i hate small ball argument (which i hate as well).
Actually, I don’t hate small-ball. It’s an entertaining style, and I quite like it when it works. But it doesn’t always work. You need a backcourt that can take it from the other team more often than they cough it up to the other team, and above all, you need an undersized four who can compete. Matt Barnes could do it… Corey Maggette can not. And I’m not hating on Corey Maggette, either — I like the guy. He’s just not a power forward. He’s far closer to a two than he is a four.
but you can’t ignore the fact that there are very real #‘s that Maggette is more effective than others at the 4 that isn’t heavily skewed (like +/-) by who else is on the floor.
You’re suggesting that positional PER is not skewed by who else is on the floor, and that’s simply not true. If Monta’s on the floor instead of CJ, the other players are going to shoot a little less. If Turiaf’s on the floor instead of Biedrins, the overall passing’s going to be a bit better and the FG% of the other players is going to rise.
There are problems with plus-minus, for sure. The strength of your teammates matters — I’d think it’d matter less on the Warriors than on most teams, because basically all of our rotation guys are capable and none are very good, but it’s still a variable. And as jae points out, in this particular example the positional assignments we’re looking at can’t entirely be trusted. But that’s all true of positional PER as well, plus positional PER has the additional problem of being partially zero-sum in ways we can’t account for. It seems obvious to me that, of the two noisy stats we’re dealing with, that’s the noisier one.
it’s about as relevant as the Warriors being a (13-33) 23-59 team with Buike at SG and being a 7-2 team (or 64-18 over a full season) with Buike at the PG (3-1) and C (4-1) spots.
Heh… well, that’s a good example of the limitations of 82games.com’s positional accounting. It’s not an instructive comparison, though, as I’m sure you’re well aware. Corey Maggette really did play a lot of power forward last year, and we really did do badly when he did. If you want me to go back through the game logs and actually walk through the games where he played the four, I’ll need a couple days, but I can do it.
One thing I will say — you may be right that Azubuike’s superior performance at the four may be a mirage. The sample size 82games gives us is extremely small, and I suspect it may be dinging ’Buike’s performance more than it should, but I can’t be confident of that… gonna try to dig into this a little. For now, perhaps we can agree that we’d be better off if neither guy played much power forward this year?
by onlxn on Oct 6, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
i think the positional breakdowns you put up actually prove my point.
the non-subjective part that can statistically be proven to be a problem in putting Maggette at the PF position is that he doesn’t rebound adequately for a PF. putting Jackson at the SF and Turiaf at C only enhances that problem. We also see a lot of Watson & Crawford in those lineups.
based on positional PER (which is flawed, but shouldn’t be so readily dismissed just b/c it doesn’t back up your or my argument). isn’t that a better explanation as to why the dubs played so poorly? (that the dubs didn’t adequately cover the rebounding problems that having Maggette at the PF position creates).
basically you can’t put Jackson at the 3 when Maggette is at the 4 and you especially can’t decide to put Turiaf in at the 5 on top of that. fortunately, the additional problem of having Crawford at the 2 rebounding problem is no longer in play.
look, i’m not suggesting any of these things that you think i am. i’m just saying that you can’t just say “well this stat doesn’t fit my perception of things so let’s just ignore as a tool to explain something further”. if you consider “why is Maggette’s pos. PER positive when his +/- at the 4 is negative?” the most rational explanation is that the other players on the court did not compensate for the weaknesses that are created by having Maggette play the 4, which in this case is rebounding.
by homer simpson on Oct 6, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
the non-subjective part that can statistically be proven to be a problem in putting Maggette at the PF position is that he doesn’t rebound adequately for a PF
basically you can’t put Jackson at the 3 when Maggette is at the 4 and you especially can’t decide to put Turiaf in at the 5 on top of that. fortunately, the additional problem of having Crawford at the 2 rebounding problem is no longer in play.
I agree with these things. I think we’ve been talking past each other a bit here — rebounding, particularly defensive rebounding, is certainly part of my argument. But to be fair, the rebounding data somewhat contradicts what we’re saying here. Maggette was actually a better defensive rebounder than Wright, and yet we played dramatically better defense with Wright at the four. In general, our defensive rebounding was better with Maggette on the floor, but our overall defense was worse.
Though I can’t prove it, I suspect Maggette’s inability to guard the rim is an issue here. Maggette only blocked eight shots all year, this despite playing a helluva lot of four. I don’t blame Maggette for that, as he’s undersized for the position (because he’s, y’know, not a power forward), and blocks are by no means the key to effective defense, but I do wonder if there’s a certain baseline of shot-challenging that you need from your bigs. Anecdotally, it seemed like teams had an even easier time getting to the hoop against our small-ball lineups last year than they did in previous seasons. Matt Barnes blocked shots almost five times more often as a Warrior than Maggette, and I suspect that’s part of the reason he was more competitive at the four… between the occasional block and the occasional hard foul, Barnes was somebody an opposing offense had to account for a little more.
if you consider "why is Maggette’s pos. PER positive when his +/- at the 4 is negative?" the most rational explanation is that the other players on the court did not compensate for the weaknesses that are created by having Maggette play the 4, which in this case is rebounding.
Right, but that’s still an indictment of using Corey Maggette as a power forward. If he lines up at the four again this year, he’s not going to have Lebron at the three — it’s going to be a weak-rebounding lineup around him again, and we’re probably going to lose. On this team, with these teammates, Corey Maggette is not an effective four.
In fact, if you like, I’ll rephrase my original point. When I said “Corey Maggette is a really, really bad power forward,” what I should have said is that “the Warriors are really, really bad when Corey Maggette plays power forward.” It’s not that Maggette sucks… it’s that the overall equation doesn’t add up. Rebounding and defense are both big parts of that.
fair points, but i think i’m getting more and more convinced that the real problem is having Jackson at the 3 position along with Maggette at the 4 (and perhaps Azubuike at the 2?)
Jack played 35% of the available SF minutes (which is actually more than Maggette’s 27% at PF), yet the team actually won only an estimated 26% of the time he spent there, were outscored 104.6 to 112.4 and his PER was a -2.3.
the sample size is smaller for Maggette (3% & 5% (which would equate to 630 minutes over 2 seasons)), but both he (at PF) & Jackson (at SF) have respectable .500ish winning percentages prior to teaming up last year.
In fact, if you like, I’ll rephrase my original point. When I said "Corey Maggette is a really, really bad power forward," what I should have said is that "the Warriors are really, really bad when Corey Maggette plays power forward." It’s not that Maggette sucks… it’s that the overall equation doesn’t add up. Rebounding and defense are both big parts of that.well, if you want to say this, you’d have to say the Warriors are even worse when Stephen Jackson plays SF and just as bad when Azubuike plays SG.
by homer simpson on Oct 6, 2009 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions
fair points, but i think i’m getting more and more convinced that the real problem is having Jackson at the 3 position along with Maggette at the 4 (and perhaps Azubuike at the 2?)
well, if you want to say this, you’d have to say the Warriors are even worse when Stephen Jackson plays SF and just as bad when Azubuike plays SG.
If you want to argue against Jack as a three, I’ll be right there with you. With that wretched rebounding, he’s most useful as a two, and frankly, I’m not convinced he’s all that useful, period. He’s by far the most overrated player on the team.
Having said that, the numbers on Jack strike me as a little fishy… I doubt he’s a huge asset at the two and a huge detriment at the three. I’m guess the 82games accounting system has the most trouble deciding who’s a two and who’s a three, particularly for a team like ours, when guys seem to swap those positions every quarter or so. I’d prefer Jack in the backcourt so his horrible rebounding doesn’t hurt us as much, but I’d also take these numbers with a big grain of salt.
To me, the most interesting data on Jack is that we actually performed pretty well when Jack was listed as a power forward by 82games. There’s some wonkiness there too, no doubt — there were times when we had four shooting guards on the floor, and lord only knows who was supposed to do what — but these numbers suggest that Jack was a more effective power forward for us than Maggette, despite less efficient scoring and much worse rebounding. Is this possible? I’m just talking off the top of my head here, but I think it is, and here’s why: it may be that the best smallball power forwards are guys who can do things that actual power forwards can’t.
Jack, like Barnes (and really Al) before him, can hit threes, and that stretches the floor significantly… a defense is really compromised when the four has to defend the outer stripe. Jack can also pass much better than your average four, which makes things happen — he had a better AST/TO ratio as a four than as a three or a two. Finally, Jack steals the ball a good bit, far more often than most power forwards. Smallball is all about mismatches, and while I certainly wouldn’t play Jack at the four, you do have to admit, he creates a mismatch. Most power forwards don’t shoot threes capably and pass well.
Maggette, on the other hand, does not bring things to the table that your average power forward doesn’t. He scores most of his points either down low or at the line… while he admittedly scores down low in different ways than most fours, still, he’s down low. He shoots a lot of eighteen-footers, but that’s not a rare attribute for a power forward these days. Maggette is a crappy passer, so it’s not like the defense is going to have to deal with a bunch of nifty dishes from the four they otherwise wouldn’t. In general, Maggette at the four doesn’t actually compromise a defense at all… he might be a hard cover for the opposing power forward, but the overall defense doesn’t have to adjust to him. And when he’s on defense, he doesn’t rack up steals any more often than your average four. Offenses don’t have to adjust to him, other than to go to the rim when they otherwise wouldn’t.
According to 82games’s numbers — and again, grains upon grains of salt — Maggette outplayed his opponents at the four, far more so than Jack did. And yet we were a downright good team with Jack at the four and a downright horrible team with Maggette at the four. I think both of these things can be true. Jack at the four forces your opponents to deal with a lot of unexpected variables… Maggette at the four sort of doesn’t. He might score a lot on you, but in practice you’re just dealing with a normal power forward who’s bad at rebounding and altering shots.
If this is actually true — and there’s no real reason to think it is, but I’m tipsy and bored, so we’re just gonna keep going — it suggests a couple of things for our power forward position this season.
1) I do NOT think it suggests we should go to war with Jack at the four every time Randolph’s on the bench. The fact that we were competitive with Jack at the four is interesting, and may speak well to both his versatility and his defense, but long-term you can’t compete with a power forward who only pulls down five rebounds every 36 minutes. An occasional mismatch against the right team — sure. A consistent feature of our lineup — not a good idea.
2) If there is a swingman on the team who we should try at the four, it’s probably Azubuike. ‘Buike is a strong three-point shooter, in fact a stronger one than anyone we’ve used at the four in years. ‘Buike is a solid rebounder for a swing, and blocks far more shots than Jack, Maggette or Morrow. ’Buike is not a strong passer, and I don’t know that he’d actually be an effective four in most situations, but he’d create a mismatch on offense and at least compete a bit on defense. In an array of mediocre options, he seems like the best one.
3) If we are going to use Maggette at the four consistently, we damn well better hope that his three-point stroke returns. It’s easy to forget, but Maggette was actually a very good three-point shooter in ‘07-’08, and a decent one in a couple other previous seasons. His career percentage is .323 - that’s not good by any means, but it’s not all that far off from Jack’s .341 career mark. If Maggette could get back into the .340.350 range, he’d be a much more interesting smallball weapon.
I was about to hold forth on the pleasures of Black Maple Hill bourbon, but I just remembered that this is Golden State Of Mind and not McCovey Chronicles. So let’s leave it there.
Things like Jackson being one of our better option PF is why I think it’s important to at least weigh in the individual measurement with the net +/- to check for discrepancies. (though this matches up better as Jackson is also a positive as an individual at the PF spot).
It’s ludicrous to think that Durant is OKC shouldn’t play Durant b/c he posts the worst net +/- on the team of 8.4 on vs off the court or that Derrick Rose is the Bulls worst player outside of Lindsey Hunter and Linton Johnson at -6.7. Both #’s are net +/ regardless of position. I guess it’s certainly reasonable that Zaza Pachulia and Al Harrington are better options than Al Horford and David Lee at PF & C respectively, but it’s hard to believe.
Based on this evidence, as much as I’d like to, I just can’t bring myself to say with certainty that Maggette at the PF position kills just b/c he has a bad net +/- when his individual #‘s reflect positively upon him.
Having said that, the numbers on Jack strike me as a little fishy… I doubt he’s a huge asset at the two and a huge detriment at the three.Easily explained by sample size. Jackson played only 6% of the available SG minutes (a whopping 236 minutes). Jackson went from a net +/- of +2.8 at the SF spot in 07-08 to an abysmal -7.8 in 08-09. that’s a difference of -10.6. His individual #‘s correlate this as he went from a differential in pos. PER of +1.4 to -2.3 (which is -3.7). It seems to indicate that Jack’s play suffered (perhaps from being the #1 option) and being the #1 option, his bad play affected our team the most, thus dragging down the #’s of all those who saw the most minutes while on the floor with him.
and Maggette might have seen a lot of minutes at the PF spot when Jack was quitting …..er playing poorly at the SF spot (back when AR wasn’t playing and BW was injured). guys like Randolph/Turiaf who saw tons of minutes after Jack went down were hurt the least in this regard or guys like BW or Al who were with Jack at the beginning of the season before he realized the team wasn’t going anywhere may have seen there #’s show up more positively.
by homer simpson on Oct 8, 2009 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions
based on positional PER (which is flawed, but shouldn’t be so readily dismissed just b/c it doesn’t back up your or my argument). isn’t that a better explanation as to why the dubs played so poorly? (that the dubs didn’t adequately cover the rebounding problems that having Maggette at the PF position creates).
Don’t dismiss it because it doesn’t match a story, but dismiss it because it’s an abstraction, partitioned by somewhat arbitrary assignments, perhaps influenced by 5man unit composition on the court that is only loosely and rather imperfectly tied to results in a game. Plus-Minus suffers from the arbitrary assignments and teammate unit issues, but it is at least a measure that is directly tied to who wins the game. The team that outscores the other wins. The team with the highest PER does not necessarily win. PER is a (flawed) way of trying to package the other stuff in addition to scoring assigned to players, but it is not necessary in the “vs position” issue as all that other stuff is already packaged into the plus-minus.
by jae on Oct 6, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
um…. you do realize you’re basically saying it’s KG’s fault that the Timberwolves were a 47% win team with him at PF. even though positional PER indicates it wasn’t his fault b/c he dominated the opposing PF.
by homer simpson on Oct 6, 2009 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions
The question is, were they better with him on the floor or worse, not what their record was. Jae only mentions +/- but not how to use it. If it’s better with Garnett on the floor, that’s evidence that he’s better than other players at that position on the team. Maggs, however, had a worse +/- at that position than other PF’s, like Wright.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
that’s not the way he phrased it. he said to dismiss positional PER b/c it’s an “abstraction” and plus-minus is “directly tied to who wins games”.
all i’m saying is that you can use positional PER to see that +/- doesn’t tell the whole story. that someone can be effective and not have that show up in a good +/- at position x.
as to your point, so Jack’s +/- is worse at SF than Maggette’s. guess Jack is a worse SF than anyone else on the team.
no need for Amare, they were 25-27 during his PF minutes. clearly, Dudley at 22-15 during his PF minutes is the better option at PF.
by homer simpson on Oct 6, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions
whoops should read “as to your point, so Jack’s +/- is worse at SF than Maggette’s at PF.”
by homer simpson on Oct 6, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions
he said to dismiss positional PER b/c it’s an "abstraction" and plus-minus is "directly tied to who wins games".
Instead of just drooling “uh-huh” and searching for a convenient strawman, you should have read what I wrote and responded to it instead of what you wish I’d written. Putting together two separate sentences I wrote as you did indicates that you have not read carefully.
You haven’t been here very long. I am not sure if you are aware of the flaws with PER. You should familiarize yourself with them though. It doesn’t appear that you have. You should also not pretend that I advocated something I have not.
dismiss it because it’s an abstraction, partitioned by somewhat arbitrary assignments, perhaps influenced by 5man unit composition on the court that is only loosely and rather imperfectly tied to results in a game.
Okay. So how should I have taken this statement? Doesn’t this suggest to dismiss the stat entirely b/c it has some flaws?
Plus-Minus suffers from the arbitrary assignments and teammate unit issues, but it is at least a measure that is directly tied to who wins the game. The team that outscores the other wins. The team with the highest PER does not necessarily win. PER is a (flawed) way of trying to package the other stuff in addition to scoring assigned to players, but it is not necessary in the "vs position" issue as all that other stuff is already packaged into the plus-minusSo this isn’t a summary as to why positional +/- is a better indicator of how a guy played at said position than an abstract, individual measurement such as PER?
(btw, I only used PER over EWA or PAWs b/c it was the most readily available in the 82games.com database. the point is not PER, the point is that Maggette has favorable positional stats at the the PF position.)
so wouldn’t your statements suggest KG or Al Jefferson or Pau Gasol on the Grizz or name any good player on a bad team – which is NOT a straw man argument, it does happen – can’t be a good player b/c the +/- doesn’t indicate that even though the abstract, individual measurement does?
Instead of just drooling "uh-huh"pot calling the kettle black? dude, since you didn’t notice, you did the same thing with the “reread what i wrote comment.”
searching for a convenient strawmani didn’t have to search for a strawman, all i had to do was think of a team that underperformed last season. seeing as how the stars are the driving factor, usually you’ll find that the stars didn’t put up good +/- #‘s. i’m betting you can do the same with BD last year or one of the Pistons or the Heat in the final Shaq/Wade year.
by homer simpson on Oct 6, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions
The “position vs position” PER? It’s got enough flaws that I’d more or less completely dismiss it for anything that isn’t glaringly obvious without it. With unknown methodology on how “position” is defined, especially in “non-traditional” lineups designed to create mismatches where teammate composition seems likely to play a bigger part, I don’t think it’s a meaningful stat at all, certainly not in the range of variation we see. Given that PER can rise while increasing shot volume so long as you are above a very low FG% percentage, one low enough to be demonstrably a detriment to the team.
(btw, I only used PER over EWA or PAWs b/c it was the most readily available in the 82games.com database. the point is not PER, the point is that Maggette has favorable positional stats at the the PF position.)
Yes, people use PER because someone else has computed it. That’s a poor argument for depending on it. FWIW EWA is PER-derived and until I can see some evidence (and I’ve seen counter evidence) that the “wins” it “expects” are remotely meaningful, I’ll largely ignore it as well.
Positional plus-minus isn’t very good either for many of the above reasons, but it at least avoids the problem of the statistic not being tied to the outcome of games closely. At least it gets right to the end goal of the game: score more than the opposition. Don’t pretend I ever said it was a good measurement. I didn’t.
so wouldn’t your statements suggest KG or Al Jefferson or Pau Gasol on the Grizz or name any good player on a bad team – which is NOT a straw man argument, it does happen – can’t be a good player b/c the +/- doesn’t indicate that even though the abstract, individual measurement does?
No.
It appears you are grossly confusing raw plus-minus with net plus-minus as well. It is common that on a bad team, the stars will still be a negative plus-minus. Net plus-minus, compared to team performance when the player sits is more useful. It’s still compounded by many variables, and still has some extreme limitations, but less so than the former. The T-wolves in Garnett’s last years there were negative with him on the court, but much more so when he sat. The net indicated that, relative to the rest of the team, he was an extreme asset.
by jae on Oct 7, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
goosefrabah. what did Hollinger do to you?
not to defend PER, but i’d assume that the shot volume is an attempt to quantify role on a team. there is no way David Lee would be as efficient as he is if he had to find a way to get 20 shots up per game.
BUT AGAIN, this is not about PER, this is about a player’s individual performance not being reflected in net +/-. Just like Dudley’s net +/- of 4.4 being better at the 4 than any other PF doesn’t indicate what a terrible player he was while playing the 4 position.
would you rather have Zaza or Horford at C? by net +/- Zaza is +3.9, Horford is +0.8. Derrick Rose is a net -6.7 on the court only Lindsey Hunter and Linton Johnson were worse on the entire Bulls team. guess they should stop playing that guy. and that’s just the 1st 2 teams I looked at alphabetically (which was actually surprising given that they had decent records).
AGAIN, a net +/- at a position doesn’t tell the whole story and you can spot these potential cases by looking at an abstract, individual measurement.
either that or the Bulls really shouldn’t be playing Derrick Rose.and Kevin Durant is by far the worst player on OKC w/ a 8.4 net +/.
and please stop making half of your entire argument about me not understanding it.
by homer simpson on Oct 7, 2009 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions
AGAIN, a net +/- at a position doesn’t tell the whole story
And AGAIN, this is a giant straw man, since no one has said or implied otherwise. If this is really what your argument has been reduced to, don’t you think it might be time to admit you’ve got nothing and move on?
There will be no extra point!
Okay, I understand you have jae’s back, but did you take the time to read all of what he and I wrote and what onlxn & my discussion was in regards to?
if it’s a straw man, it’s a straw man that has over 20 or more examples last season alone. if that is your definition of straw man then i don’t know what to tell you.
look, the best way to circumvent the flaw in net +/- is to look at the individual performance – not ignore or dismiss it.
by homer simpson on Oct 8, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
if that is your definition of straw man then i don’t know what to tell you.
It’s not about my definition. It’s about the definition (or at least, the common vernacular usage). Since you seem to be a little unclear on this:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
In the case of your statement (“a net +/- at a position doesn’t tell you the whole story”): the straw man lies in your implication that jae or anyone else ever said otherwise. Obviously, the statement is true — indeed, the fact that it’s obviously true is a big part of what makes it a straw man.
look, the best way to circumvent the flaw in net +/- is to look at the individual performance – not ignore or dismiss it.
Agreed. And again, I don’t think anyone ever said otherwise. What jae has said is that PER — and in particular, positional PER — is a not a good or useful measure of individual performance.
Have you looked at WP?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 8, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
ah. i thought you were talking about my Amare/Dudley example as a straw man since that’s how jae originally used it.
searching for a convenient strawmanhe posted this as a reply to my Amare/Dudley example.
Have you looked at WP?i admit i didn’t look very hard, but i couldn’t find WP with a score based on where a player was playing or an oppositional break down by position (i’m assuming it either doesn’t exist or backs up what positional PER also showed, b/c jae hasn’t thrown this number out that shows Maggette was also bad individually at PF).
i know PAWS has different scores for different positions, but it didn’t appear to have scores for a player based on how he played at a position, it seemed to take a players production and compare it with his perceived position. plus, it’s most noted for Troy Murphy producing like one of the 10 best NBA players last season.
still, it’s reasonable to assume that if we could look at it positionally (even with the emphasis on rebounding), it’s probably likely that Maggette would still look good b/c he outproduced his opponent by statistical production when at the PF spot.
some metrics value one thing, while another values other things. saying one is useless b/c it doesn’t value what you value is tunnel vision. truth is, most metrics like the same players. it’s flawed, but hardly useless – you don’t see 20 some player rankings in PER that boggle the mind.
imo, you can certainly use it to make the case that that the 6.2 net +/ might not be the whole story.
by homer simpson on Oct 8, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
not to defend PER, but i’d assume that the shot volume is an attempt to quantify role on a team.
It’s not what Hollinger did to me, but simply that his formula have flaws. PER correlates very well with popular opinion, but not as well with actual wins. One of the reasons for this is because it rewards inefficient high volume shooters, even when there’s solid evidence (both empirical and theoretical) that they harm the team and if they shot less, it is seldom the case that increased shooting loads for other players actually diminishes their returns as is so often stated but so very, very rarely demonstrated.
there is no way David Lee would be as efficient as he is if he had to find a way to get 20 shots up per game.
This is one of those things that gets repeated as some sort of defense of the high volume low efficiency shooters, that they need to do it because no one else would. Actual analysis beyond conjecture suggests that this is not nearly the extreme case that most pretend it to be.
AGAIN, a net +/- at a position doesn’t tell the whole story
And I’m not a big proponent of of plus-minus in general, which is why I’m not going to bother playing your “would you rather” game. It is, however, less ridiculous than position per-vs-per when there’s still a totally unknown methodology for how position is defined.
and please stop making half of your entire argument about me not understanding it.
It’s not my argument. It’s my observation.
by jae on Oct 8, 2009 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
knew you were going to post this.
dude, if you understood what i wrote, i’m just pointing out the logic to you. i’m not saying i agree with it. guys like andris & lee are efficient playing the way he does, but the way he plays does not generate 20 shots. he’d have to go outside of the way he plays (for instance, taking jump shots) in order to generate said 20 shots.
flawed? of course. but that’s not the point. the idea is that there’s really no other statistical way to account for this concept and this is the method Hollinger used to try to account for it.
And I’m not a big proponent of of plus-minus in general, which is why I’m not going to bother playing your "would you rather" game. It is, however, less ridiculous than position per-vs-per when there’s still a totally unknown methodology for how position is defined.good lord. this doesn’t matter. the +/- was used to indicate that Maggette was ineffective at PF. the biggest flaw in +/- is that you (Corey) can play good, but if someone else really stinks, it makes the individual who played with the guy(s) who stunk (Jack & Azubuike) look bad. same with Durant – there’s a reason 82games goes with the Roland Rating (flawed as it may be) to rate players and not just +/- b/c it may or may not be the better metric.
most people with sense choose to look at how both the team and the individual performed to get the picture, not one over the other.
by homer simpson on Oct 8, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
the idea is that there’s really no other statistical way to account for this concept and this is the method Hollinger used to try to account for it.
No other way?
I think you need to search a bit further. Hollinger and 82games.com aren’t the end-all.
perhaps you’re right about that, but this is the method Hollinger & 82games chose to use. either way, it’s subjective. if we were to look at specific metrics, i’m willing to wager that it’s not like it’s 5x better and that the end result would still show that Maggette was adequate at the PF position as an individual.
secondly, it continues to ignore that an individual measurement can be looked at to give a better picture of the +/- figures that this Maggette topic was based on.
maybe i shouldn’t have used PER, but i’m lazy and i didn’t want to keep flipping over to check out individual measures. i figured most reasonable ppl would accept it as an acceptable way to at least get a picture of an individuals performance since it’s not like PER is so flawed that it makes you go “wtf? this is telling me Adonal Foyle doesn’t suck and that Lebron, CP3, etc aren’t great!”
again, to get the best picture of Maggette’s time at PF, you want to look at both the net +/- and how he fared individually. not just ignore or dismiss one b/c it doesn’t fit what we want to see.
if you look at the entire picture, it’s much more reasonable to point the finger at Jack at SF (and Buike at SG) than GSoM’s official whipping boy, Maggette. and of course i can’t say it with certainty, but i can say that it is backed better statistically than the Maggette sucks at PF just b/c he’s at -6.1 at PF argument.
by homer simpson on Oct 8, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
perhaps you’re right about that, but this is the method Hollinger & 82games chose to use. either way, it’s subjective.
Actually, it is not subjective. The application of a statistical measurement to rating quality is an objective measure.
i figured most reasonable ppl would accept it as an acceptable way to at least get a picture of an individuals performance since it’s not like PER is so flawed that it makes you go "wtf? this is telling me Adonal Foyle doesn’t suck and that Lebron, CP3, etc aren’t great!"
No, but it’s flawed enough to have problems separating out finer gradations, like those you’re trying to apply to Maggette. Being able to recapitulate the blindingly obvious (Paul is better than Foyle) doesn’t mean it is a good measure for distinguishing all comparisons. It isn’t.
by jae on Oct 8, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions
we’ll have to agree to disagree.
i agree it’s flawed, but don’t think it’s so flawed that you can’t make the case that that the -6.2 net plus/minus might not be the whole story.
especially in light of Jackson’s even more atrocious SF plus/minus numbers and Azubuike’s corresponding SG plus/minus numbers.
by homer simpson on Oct 8, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Might I interject...
Not sure if this is on topic, or if subjective and rather overreactionary opinions are allowed here but…
Given the choice, straight up, I would much rather have Corey Maggette than Stephen Jackson, even given Maggs’ more onerous contract. I mean, Cap’n Jack was never particularly fast or athletic, but he looks this season to have lost about two steps of speed and about half of his vertical leap (taking him from two inches off the ground to one). He seriously looks incapable of rising over anyone over 6 foot tall to finish a shot or grab a rebound. I’m at the point where I literally cringe anytime he has the ball in his hands. The assertion by some posters that he’s “the best player on the team” is totally laughable to me. He doesn’t even look like he’s Top 8. If Nellie had the balls to cut his minutes to 10-12 minutes a night, I would have a ton of respect for him. In the absence of a bold move like this, someone really needs to kneecap the Captain.
Until Wright returns…
Monta 28 / Curry 20
Morrow 30 / Jack 12 / Monta 6
Azubuike 26 / Maggs 22
Randolph 36 / Turiaf 12
Biedrins 36 / Turiaf 12
There will be no extra point!
I mean, Cap’n Jack was never particularly fast or athletic, but he looks this season to have lost about two steps of speed and about half of his vertical leap (taking him from two inches off the ground to one). He seriously looks incapable of rising over anyone over 6 foot tall to finish a shot or grab a rebound.
This is interesting. Given that many of the “his contract won’t be that bad” apologists cited that Jax wasn’t that athletic to begin with that he didn’t rely on it and thus his decline wouldn’t be as pronounced. Sounds more like he used every bit of his athleticism, as most players do, regardless of the absolute value of the ability. As it goes, he still suffers the decline, no longer being a guy who wasn’t the greatest athlete in the association but was “athletic enough” to becoming someone whose skills can no longer compensate.
That’s speculation, but the speculation for why he wouldn’t decline sounded bogus to me when I’ve read them. In general, with lots of play around the generality, those players who seem to survive the longest are those players who are either very big and strong (size being something that doesn’t really decline with age) or very good shooters (something that can improve with age). Jax doesn’t fit either of these.
by jae on Oct 8, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions
those players who seem to survive the longest ?
knuckle ballers.
What’s the hoops equivalent?
Sam Cassell??
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 8, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Reggie Miller, John Stockton, Steve Nash
(Freakishly Best-player-of-all-time: Jordan, who was a pretty good shooter too)
by jae on Oct 8, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
This is one of those things that gets repeated as some sort of defense of the high volume low efficiency shooters,
Not to defend low efficiency shooters but I do think that guy’s (like David Lee} percentages would go down if they shot lots more per game simply because the defense would start to concentrate on them more. The guys who shoot the most draws the most interest, guys like MikeyMoore in the clips game can make shots sometimes just cause no one is taking them seriously.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 8, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Your interpretation of what he is saying is incorrect. +/- out of context tells us little. However, with the right set of data, it tells us a great deal with a large enough sample size. You thought Jae’s view would mean that it was Garnett’s fault the T-Wolves lost. Nothing he said would indicate that. Using +/-, you can tell that Garnett makes teams much better than they are without him. If you look at +/- per se, without the right data to put it in context, it tells us nothing. He never said to use +/- out of context. You read into what he was saying without an understanding of how he might use +/-.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Okay, I’ll give you that perhaps he didn’t mean what he wrote, but as written, that’s what he implies (w/o perhaps realizing he’s implying it) by stating net +/- has more credence than an individual measurement in determining the effectiveness of a player at a position and that the individual measurement should be dismissed.
He stated and has continued to state that net +/- has more credence despite the fact that net +/- says things like the Suns were more successful when Dudley was playing PF for them than when Amare was playing PF.
The only way he isn’t mistaken is if he totally misunderstood the entire topic that onlxn and I were discussing and is merely fussing over some arbitrary point that neither I or onlxn are in disagreement over.
by homer simpson on Oct 7, 2009 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay, I’ll give you that perhaps he didn’t mean what he wrote
You misspelled: “Okay, I’’l give you that perhaps he didn’t mean what I thought he wrote”
by jae on Oct 8, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
You misspelled: "Okay, I’’l give you that perhaps he didn’t mean what I thought he wrote"
You miss spelled I’l’’ wrong
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 8, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
heh. figures. I’ll be expecting my grammar warnings eventually. hopefully, i don’t insult OptionZero if he’s still here, but we’ve seen this before.
by homer simpson on Oct 8, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
heh. figures. I’ll be expecting my grammar warnings eventually.
Grammar? Did you read what he wrote?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 8, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
yeah. i’m just saying he’s getting petty. and when he gets petty, grammar warnings follow.
by homer simpson on Oct 8, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Umm, that’s not ‘petty grammar warning.’
It appears you did NOT read what I wrote.
My issue wasn’t at all with your grammar nor spelling. My issue was that the sentence you wrote was simply not accurate. The “misspelled” is a joke. It’s the content of the sentence that was the problem.
where did i say petty grammar warning? i thought your play on my words was a petty attack.
to clear things up about the grammar comment. i’ve never received a grammar warning. like i say below, that’s just what i’ve read happens to you on this site when certain mods get into it with you. i read these things both here, realgm and on warriorsworld. this topic occurs occasionally on other sites whenever someone attacks another persons grammar on those sites.
by homer simpson on Oct 8, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
i’m just saying he’s getting petty. and when he gets petty, grammar warnings follow.
that’s only because there are other players involved, this is a team sport.
his individual pettiness is quite different than his net pettiness.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 8, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
at least that’s what people on ww.net say.
by homer simpson on Oct 8, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
hopefully, i don’t insult OptionZero if he’s still here, but we’ve seen this before.
Option Zero isn’t still here — or if he is, he’s under deep cover (maybe disguised as Montadaboss or Mike Fox…?)
I think I was one of the few here who had an irrational fondness for OZ, but I never saw much similarity between him and jae. Totally different voices, totally different styles. Without dissing OZ, let’s just say that I much prefer the writing, thinking, and moderating style of jae.
The posters on this site are really distinct freely acting people. To suggest otherwise always sounds a bit paranoid. I mean, it can occasionally get slightly fratboyish and clique-y in here, but only slightly. You look at how quickly someone like onlxn or mark dash or Ronaldinho earned the respect and acceptance of the “old-timers.” All it takes is one or two eloquent posts. Key phrase here might actually be “one or two.” One of the best qualities of those three posters — and a quality we all would do well to emulate — is their tendency to say their piece ONCE, clearly and eloquently, and move on. I know that’s easier said than done when people contradict you, but I think it’s an extremely underrated quality in being a persuasive and beloved internet poster.
Er … what were we talking about again?
There will be no extra point!
while replying to onlxn, i thought of a clearer way to post this. i’m not sure i can reach jae, he seems pretty stubborn about always being right, but maybe i can convince you about the flaw in his argument.
in regards to our topic – how effective a player is at a certain position – he’s basically saying I should ignore/dismiss the individual measurement b/c it is more flawed and less useful than the net +/- figure.
I’m saying it doesn’t matter whether it’s more flawed or not. They’re both flawed. Instead of dismissing one b/c it contradicts the other, I’m saying you can use the other metric to try and fix some of the flaws in the 1st one.
Basically, it doesn’t matter which is the best metric – you shouldn’t be the one who uses the best metric, you should use the most metrics b/c that’ll give you the most comprehensive picture. and whether net +/-, a metric that tells us OKC shouldn’t play Kevin Durant, is the best metric is debatable in it of itself….
but you don’t have that problem if you use all metrics – by default, you’re using the best metric despite not knowing which one that is. lending credence to one metric over another only adds the human element to statistics.
the best way to use statistics is to take all of them and try to see the picture that it gives us. deciding to ignore a piece of the puzzle b/c it doesn’t fit where you want it to only gives you an incomplete puzzle.
by homer simpson on Oct 8, 2009 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions
the best way to use statistics is to take all of them
and put them in a big book called “NBA history , now get over it”
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 8, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
The method by which 82games assigns positions is still somewhat of a mystery. I suspect in lineups that are close to ‘traditional’, it may work well, but in a small ball lineup when there’s 3 guys who might easily be classified as 2’s or 3’s, it tends to get a bit wonky. Until I see an explanation of their methodology for assigning positions, I’d remain hesitant do rely on it too much where the Warriors are concerned.
valid point, but you could use this same argument to discredit the 6.2 +/ from the “PF” spot. the point remains that +/- is still a fuzzy stat that is greatly altered by the % a line up is used.
if lebron is on the floor a lot when mo williams plays SG (b/c that’s the lineup the coach preferred), the SG +/- for mo will look awfully good. in other words, it could be an indictment of who else was on the floor when Maggette was at the 4. if he’s on the floor with CJ at PG, Crawford at SG, Jack at SF & Wright/Turiaf at C for 50% of his minutes at PF, it’s going to pretty much be a given that his PF +/- #‘s are going to look poor no matter how well he does b/c they’re going to give up a whole bunch of Off Rebounds.
by homer simpson on Oct 5, 2009 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Just throwing it out there
Numbers can’t tell you if he is a good defender. Maggs has never been a good defender and that is not going to change anytime soon
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
he can draw charges nicely
And the new refs seem to call them a lot too
It may have had something to do with help defense. I doubt Maggs was useful in that respect and his rebounding, of course, is inferior. I don’t think he’s a good PF at all. But he’s better than nothing. If another big man goes down, like the elderly Mikke or the bad knee of Turiaf or the shaky ankles of Biedrins, we’ve got problems.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
Pretty much agree
If we get a good offer, trade him. But I wouldn’t move him just to move him, a la jamal crawford
virtually untradeable
the consensus around the league is no one will even consider a trade with his name in it.
Source?
It was only a little more than a year ago that many of the best teams in the league were tripping all over themselves to offer him their MLE for four or five years. The contract he signed with us is bigger than that, and he’s a year older to boot… I have no illusions that he’d be a hot property. He’d be difficult to move. But I see no founding for the idea that it’s a radioactive contract. The idea that nobody would even consider a trade involving Maggette, no matter what else we included, strikes me as ridiculous.
i heard an nba expert say this over the offseason on the radio.
sorry i can’t get specific. hahaha THAT’S HIM AT THE MLE before he had a very mediocre injury plagued season(last year)
see we had to overpay him because we basically suck and no1 wants to come here. Then, he was not as good as we expected, thus he relatively sucks and is overpaid for a long period of time.
we couldn’t give his contract away dude. plus he is a ball-hog and can’t even start for our team because he kills ball-movement.
I'd honestly give him up for anything and anybody..
aslong as its not a worse contract.
Not going anywhere
Unless he plays out of his mind, no team is going to pick up his contract. The only team I’ve ever heard interested in him is the Spurs and I’m sure they are not willing to take on that salary for someone that comes off the bench.
That being said, as Naticus2 mentioned before, we will probably need him to backup the four, especially with Nellie throwing out the smaller lineups.
He provides something no other player on the team does
He attracts defenders in the paint, gets to the line, hits his FT’s, regularly gives the guys a chance to catch their breath while he’s there, is instant offense off the bench in a completely different way than Morrow. I would say his radical difference in style of play from the other players is something Nelson uses to the Dubs advantage. He may be a black hole, but he’s not throwing the ball away, he’s SCORING.
Does anybody want him and his contract?
thats the bigger question
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Oct 5, 2009 9:17 AM PDT reply actions
Still pissed...
we didn’t pull the trigger when rumors of the Baron for Maggs/Marcus Williams offer came up. We wasted Marcus Williams as a talent and as trade bait. Danny Ainge was man enough to swallow his pride and re-trade for Antoine Walker when he figured out he was wrong. Rowell should’ve done the same. Baron will always have his share of haters, and those saying he’s injury-prone and not worth the money, but to me people like that have lost sight of what he brought to this team, and all true Warrior fans will appreciate what he meant to the success of the Warriors. No matter who we were facing, you always had confidence it was a winnable game w/BD running the show. Everytime I hear “injury-prone,” “out of shape,”, or listen to Ralph Barbieri constantly bash him for his Hollywood connections, it sickens me. He was the most talented point guard we’ve had since Tim Hardaway. It’s a shame it had to end so soon.
Anthony Morrow's jumper is so pure, he has to cut it with baking soda.
we didn’t pull the trigger when rumors of the Baron for Maggs/Marcus Williams offer came up
One cannot pull the trigger on a rumor, only on a real offer. We do not know that the offer was real.
Well if it was a real offer that the Clips put on the table AND they passed on it…disappointing. Not as disappointing as not re-signing him in the offseason, then throwing those max offers at Arenas (who’s just as injury prone) and Brand (not the healthiest body in the locker room either) though.
Anthony Morrow's jumper is so pure, he has to cut it with baking soda.
I think we have something even more exciting this year...
Curry really looks the part and possibly the most “NBA ready” rookie I have seen for a few years….
my prediction is that come the end of the year… it will be a case for once and for all of “Baron who?”
Fingers crossed…
GSOM Blog Beast!
by BritWarriorGSW on Oct 5, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
my prediction is that come the end of the year… it will be a case for once and for all of "Baron who?"
It will take a second round playoff series victory for Curr-bury to eclipse Boom in Warrior fan’s hearts. The end of the year will likely only mean the end of the season this year, if the little Curr wins ROY that would be a good start however.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 5, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Well said
I’m still excited for Curry though. But Boom will always have a place with us.
Maggette is a great backup 2 or 3
His best game as a 4 came against LaMarcus Aldridge when he fouled him out of the game by taking a bunch of charges. Honestly, we only need to roll with 3 big men. I think BIedrins should get 30+ mins a game, Randolph should now see around 30 himself. Ronny should get all the backup mins for both PF and C. If we need to rest AR and AB at the same time, Mikki Moore should play.
I know this won’t happen, but Maggette should only play the 4 if one of our other bigs goes down.
I’ve said all along that we should use Jack or Maggette and a combination of expiring contracts and/or BWright to aquire AK47. Right now that deal is looking even better. Kirilenko is the perfect swing forward 6th man in Nellie’s system.
Why not make a fanpost?
A few people seem to like this trade idea, myself included. Why not make a post discussing how it would work, what we would gain, what we would lose, etc. I think this is a subject should be revisited.
Kirilenko is an expiring next year and a big one at that. The Jazz know teams are coveting that and will covet that even more next year. Not only that, Kirilenko is a tremendous asset. I know teams are making offers to the Jazz, and they are not biting. We don’t have what it takes to get him.
Welcome to the Pit of Despair! Don't even think about trying to escape.
I know teams are making offers to the Jazz, and they are not biting.
The Jazz area pretty patient bunch, they don’t just let guys go on a whim. They’ll just Malone him for a while till he decides he likes it there.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Oct 7, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
3 way trade!!!!
CHA gets expiring contracts Howard + Azubuike + Claxton
DAL gets a young potent scorer in Ellis and backup center Diop
GSW gets a great defender in Wallace and superscrub Humpries
GSW playoff lineup:
PG Curry – Watson
SG Jackson – Morrow
SF Wallace – Maggette
PF Randolph – Moore
C Biedrins – Turiaf
No
Why trade Ellis? Cause Curry had a good preseason game? (sigh) Why keep Jackson as well if Monta is leaving? That would make Jack even angrier. Azebuike > Maggette as well. Sorry but no thank you
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
hello lottery
love new york in the springtime!
SHAKE THINGS UP ALREADY !!!!!!
I like this idea.
Stephen Jackson and Acie Law to Dallas for Howard
and then trade ellis for josh smith of atlanta
and the trade maggette for kirk hinrich
starting five
pg hinrich 28 /curry
sg howard 29/morrow
sf randolph/buike
pf smith 23/george/turiaf
c biedrins/turiaf/moore
i think this works well for us in the now and in the long run.
Did someone say “nutty four way trade”? Woohoo!
This also works for us in the now and in the long run: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ybvyyap
1. Paul 36 / Curry 12
2. Ellis 32 / Morrow 8 / Curry 8
3. LeBron 36 / Morrow 12
4. Randolph 36 / Turiaf 6 / Moore 6
5. Howard 36 / Turiaf 12
There will be no extra point!
Chicago would not do that
Maggs would only be traded if it’s in a salary dump. As for trading Ellis,no. Why do you want to trade him, it won’t matter cause we have Cohan and Rowell and that is the only shake up we need.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
I like this better!
CHA gets Howard + Claxton + Law
DAL gets Jackson + Diop
GSW gets Wallace
PG Ellis – Curry
SG Buke – Morrow
SF Wallace – Maggette
PF Randolph – Moore
C Biedrins – Turiaf
But a better question is why would Charlotte or Dallas like it better?
by jae on Oct 6, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Because...
Cha gets 18M of salary relief. That’s plenty of cash to grab them a key FA in 2010.
Dal cuts their ties with disgruntled Howard and also pick up a center to back up Dampier.
And an even better question: Do you understand the “reply” button?
by jae on Oct 6, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
