Horford still waiting on big-man help

[Jamaaliver]

3) Perhaps you should consider this, Antic was a much more accomplished player in Europe and Ayon has performed better on a per-minute and advanced statistical level than the flavor of the week, Omer Asik. Maybe give them the chance and they can grow to become just as overrated too. Oh, and don't forget Elton Brand, don't forget Elton Brand, don't forget Elton Brand. Mike Scott hasn't looked bad either with a full season under his belt.

4) I don't believe that Al had a serious injury at all.......thus why he is not listed on any reports and has fully practiced ever since he decided he didn't want to take a trip out for a preseason game. Confirmation bias much?

Yea, I indeed say so.

AL has played injured quite a bit over the last 16 months.

ALOT. He plays through it without complaining.

We

3) Our frontcourt DEPTH is not bad. It's really not.

Time will tell. I'm going on record as saying I have deep concerns. Ayon is already hurt. Elton is old. Antic is a three point specialist.
Time will tell.

[MaceCase]

Tyson Chandler s***s all over Asik offensively, and it isn't close. Chandler can catch, he can finish things other than dunks, sets better screens, and doesn't turn the ball over nearly as much.

Sure, let PPG be the only measure. Exclude, FG%, TS%, Offensive Rating, Offensive Win shares, plus-minus etc. etc. etc. We'll just be deliberately obtuse on this one.

No. Absolutely not. This is one of those instances where advanced stats do not tell the entire story.
Tyson Chandler is extremely limited offensively. He scores on alley-oops, Pick-and-Rolls and offensive rebounds. That's it. Every scouting report on his teams for years have mentioned that his teams offensively play 4 on 5 because he has absolutely offensive skillset.

The advanced stats would have us believe Tyson Chandler is one of the most elite, efficient scoring big men in the league today. But that just ain't the case. His entire offensive reprtoire consists of:

1. being tall.
2. standing next to the basket.

He literally avg around 6 shots a game because his teammates/coaches know he cannot score buckets on his own.

So........the fact that he's tremendously better at doing those specific things than Asik......somehow makes your point now that he's not offensively better than Asik. Try to reel yourself back into to reality, chief. What the stats show is that Chandler performs very efficiently for his limited role whereas Asik does not, stop inventing arguments much like you like to invent medical reports for Al.

[azuresou1]

Jamaal, do you want to list a single thing Asik does better than Tyson Chandler offensively?

[Jamaaliver]

Jamaal, do you want to list a single thing Asik does better than Tyson Chandler offensively?

Nothing. That's the point. They are both capable of standing next to the basket and getting putbacks or inside dishes for easy dunks.

It's why Asik's first full season as a starter resulted in pretty much identical production to Tyson's recent seasons as starter.

If you want to say Chandler is more explosive than Asik and dunks it harder, I'll give you that. But both are equally inept at creating their own shots. Neither has a post game, face up game or a jumpshot.

Be prepared, from what I've seen/read of Lucas, he is pretty much the same way. Tall and able to dunk.

So........the fact that he's tremendously better at doing those specific things than Asik

Tremendously better? At standing next to the basket? Tremendously? Even though they avg the same number of points on the same number of attempts?

Can one 10 ppg scorer be TREMENDOUSLY better than another 10 ppg scorer?

We're literally divided because Chandler shoots 9% points better on his dunks? Because he shoots 10% better on his Free Throws?

They are literally identical players. Same weaknesses. Same strengths.

[azuresou1]

I think you're underestimating just how big that edge is. The efficiency difference between Chandler and Asik (.113 TS%) is equivalent to the difference between Kyle Korver and Nick Young/Marshon Brooks. Then consider that Asik turns it over 30% more...

A strong similarity in playstyle doesn't mean that the two are equally as good.

[MaceCase]

Josh was just a mere 9 percentage points away from being one of the best shooters in the league. I don't know why we railed on him so much for taking jumpers.

[parson]

On the Asik-Chandler offensive "ability" debate, seems we're arguing which type of manure stinks less.

Meanwhile, we beat TOR. Horford schooled Valanciunas, making one side of the "Al Horford needs a Center" group happy. TOR had to play PF-types against him, making the other side happy. Everybody won last night.

[Jamaaliver]

I think you're underestimating just how big that edge is. The efficiency difference between Chandler and Asik (.113 TS%) is equivalent to the difference between Kyle Korver and Nick Young/Marshon Brooks. Then consider that Asik turns it over 30% more...

A strong similarity in playstyle doesn't mean that the two are equally as good.

Josh was just a mere 9 percentage points away from being one of the best shooters in the league. I don't know why we railed on him so much for taking jumpers.

But by that logic, isn't Tyson Chandler then a better offensive player than Josh?

Or Horford?

Or Lebron.

Because his TS% is higher right? But we know that isn't true. He merely shoots few shoots from point blank next to the basket...

[parson]

" A hit, a very palpable hit."

[MaceCase]

I think you're underestimating just how big that edge is. The efficiency difference between Chandler and Asik (.113 TS%) is equivalent to the difference between Kyle Korver and Nick Young/Marshon Brooks. Then consider that Asik turns it over 30% more...

A strong similarity in playstyle doesn't mean that the two are equally as good.

Josh was just a mere 9 percentage points away from being one of the best shooters in the league. I don't know why we railed on him so much for taking jumpers.

But by that logic, isn't Tyson Chandler then a better offensive player than Josh?

Or Horford?

Or Lebron.

Because his TS% is higher right? But we know that isn't true. He merely shoots few shoots from point blank next to the basket...

No, only by your own ridiculous "logic" would anyone believe that to be true.

Here's the thing, would you look at Kobe's and Korver's FG% and use that

one

single

basic

metric

to tell you who is a better offensive player?

No?

So why do you think it is logical to suggest that an advanced stat such as TS% is attempting to do the same? Here's a newflash, it's not. All you are showing here is your own ignorance over the stats and how they work by making your own very wrong assumptions.

Additionally we are not comparing apples to oranges here so there is absolutely no reasoning behind you flying off the handle trying to use irrelevant comparisons. Much like you wouldn't use FG% to tell you all you need to know about a player, there are other stats, both analog and advanced, that you could also cite to give you more information on a comparison along with..... good old fashioned common sense...............


..............That is all a waste of time though because we are making an apples to apples comparison here between

two

7 foot

defensive bigmen

with

limited offensive repertoires

similar shot attempts

and

usage%.

Now we know across the board that Chandler dominates Asik in "standing next to the basket" but for some reason your ego won't allow you to accept defeat and move on from the matter. No, you rather jump into an old man tirade on the merits of advanced stats (even though plain FG% was cited) and then downplay the significance of the gap in efficiency in a rather ludicrous manner.

Like I said, spot everyone on the team "just" 9 points on their FG% and see where they rank not just today but amongst Hall of Famers. Better yet, subtract 9 points and see where they rank amongst the worst scrubs in the league. Not a huge swing at all, right?

[azuresou1]

Kyle Korver and Nick Young score relatively similar number of points on a per-minute basis. Korver is vastly more efficient. Tyson Chandler and Omer Asik score relatively similar number of points on a per-minute basis. Chandler is vastly more efficient.

LeBron James is a Top 5 per-minute scorer so it's stupid to compare him to guys like Josh Smith.

FWIW, here are my Scoring Ability rankings/scores, which take into account volume AND efficiency:
LeBron - #2 - 306%
Korver - #31 - 170%
Chandler - #62 - 149%
Young - #87 - 139%
Asik - #260 - 91%

[Jamaaliver]

All you are showing here is your own ignorance over the stats and how they work by making your own very wrong assumptions.

1. Calm down. Seriously. Everyone isn't ignorant, or ridiculous, or a liar or a coward just for having different views.
(UGA, THIS is the kind of rhetoric that needs to be cleaned up around here. The insulting & taunting is juvenile and in violation of our user agreements.)

Here's the thing, would you look at Kobe's and Korver's FG% and use that

one

single

basic

metric

to tell you who is a better offensive player?

No?

2. That's my point. Metrics are not an accurate measure of ability. They can help measure efficiency, tendencies, strengths and weaknesses... but they can't be the primary indicator of who is a better player.

Watching them play dozens (or hundreds of games) is a better way to judge talent.

[MaceCase]

You are ignorant because you are falsely proclaiming the intent of a statistic and the information that it is actually trying to represent. There are no difference of views there, it's a fact. 2+2=4, there is no leeway in the identification of that. Saying that all numbers added to 2 equals 4 or 4 can only be made up of a combination of 2 and 2 is demonstrating an ignorance over how addition works or worse, a misappropriation of the arithmetic's intent. Don't cry to the mods, cry to your math teachers.

Your point is that A METRIC, singular, not plural is not an accurate measure of ability. But of course nobody has made this claim. Tell me though, what have you seen between the two that is telling you otherwise from what the myriad of stats are displaying about their individual abilities? Hmm? See the real problem here is that you're not ignorant or stupid, your argument lacks focus because you are willfully obfuscating in order to save some small measure of face from being proven so astoundingly wrong. But I'll leave you too it, clearly you are operating under the assumption that you can say whatever bull **** you want and nobody dare call you out on it lest they face disciplinary action, lol.

[Jamaaliver]

You are ignorant

Dude. Seriously. Chill with the insults.

Pretty sure I never went on a tirade. I don't have the attention span for that anymore.

Again, metrics can't tell the whole story. Because they are man-made. Created to minimize some facts while emphasizing others.

Think of it this way:

Tyson Chandler last season had a higher FG%, TS%, eFG%, and even OWS than Brook Lopez. And we can all agree that Lopez is a MUCH more talented scorer than Tyson. The only pure offensive stat that Brook beat Tyson in was (obviously) PPG.

THat's why I say you can't fully trust metrics and stats. Chandler benefits from fewer FGAs and shots that are point blank next to the basket.

Tyson:http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chandty01.html
Brook Lopez: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lopezbr01.html

[MaceCase]

Oh, why don't you just look across to Usage% or even just FGAs to establish their roles and volume of their shot attempts so as to clear up that confusion?

*sigh*

I already destroyed that weak argument so I don't know why you are attempting to reuse it. Azu and I have pointed out that volume matters in statistical analysis. Common sense dictates that a larger number of attempts and higher difficulty of shots will obviously depress efficiency. Man made stats account for this but alas, this singular man is clearly ignorant to that fact. This particular man is also ignorant to the concept of "context" and is phrasing his own inability to properly contextualize the statistics as though it is a failing of the metrics.......not himself.

We have already established that we are not making an apples to oranges comparison here and just in case you do not understand what that phrase means, we are not comparing two dissimilar players. We are not comparing a star to a role player, we are comparing a role player to a role player.

Between these two role players one is incredibly more efficient in performing the

same

exact

role

as the other but again, this won't seep in to your head or you just won't admit to it. No, next you are going to say that stats "claim" that Korver is a better offensive player than Jordan because he has a higher 3point %.


In summary your own ignor..........lack of understanding of how and where to apply the statistics only proves that you are fallible, not the statistics.

[Jamaaliver]

^



And now you're just cherry-picking which advanced stats to focus on and which ones to ignore. And in doing so making my point. These man-made advanced stats do not tell the entire story. I provided 5 highly valued offensive stats between to starting 7 foot Centers. They skew in favor of the massively less talented player.

The truth is, there is no dependable evidence to say that Tyson Chandler is a better offensive player than Brook Lopez, because it isn't true.

Despite the fact he ranks MUCH higher in a myriad of of offensive advanced stats, we know he doesn't hold a candle to Brook Lopez on the offensive end. Any one who's ever watched them play can attest to that.

So when you say Tyson Chandler, one of the worst offensive bigs in recent memory, is tremendously more talented than a guy (Asik) who puts up identical production and BASE IT ON ADVANCED STATS, the argument immediately becomes moot, void, nonsensical.
When you say he is tremendously more talented and link it to a single base statistic (FG%) the argument is already lost.

Especially when we have Years (more than a decade!) of footage telling us otherwise.

[MaceCase]

Oh this is a just a great argument.

"STATS DON'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY!"

It's why I will present only certain stats.......without their contextual basis.......and then accuse you of cherry picking...

Because after all, volume has no bearing on shooting stats. I mean, it's entirely logical to make the claim that, say a guy who has taken 19 3 pointers their whole career and hit 37% of them *cough* Al Horford *cough* is a comparable 3 point shooter to Kevin Durant, who has taken 1,898 of them. Yeaaaaaaaah man, the stats tell me they are both 37% 3point shooters, there's simply no statistical way to differentiate the two as shooters, maaaaaaaayn. The stat is trying to tell me that Al is as talented a player and scorer as Kevin Durant!

And thus I've now proven that 3point % is a bunk stat

I'll fill you in on a not so secret secret here, chief. TS% and eFG%......are just different forms of FG%. The only thing "advanced" about them is that one tabulates 3 pointers on top of FG% and the other tabulates FTs on top of eFG%......but they are all still just FG%. So you listed the same stat......3 times and then OWS, which is also team dependent.

See, an ignorant man will just see the word "advanced" and naturally assume that the stat is somehow trying to rank who is the best offensive player in world.......rather than just simply stating who hit the most out of the attempts that they got.

How about you learn what the stats actually mean before you feebly attempt to discredit them with ridiculous arguments. The word talent has not left anyone's finger tips, efficiency =/= talent unless you are trying to co-opt that definition too just like you're doing with stats.

[Jamaaliver]

^ What? Seriously. It's been a week and I still haven't made it through that entire thing.

See, an ignorant man....

But I think I get the gist.

Gotta say I'm underwhelmed by our backup bigs. Elton has a minutes limit to start the season. Ayon is still getting into game shape. Ayon has been...serviceable.

AL is, sadly, doing most of the dirty work in the post alone. Yet again.

Meanwhile even our prized rookie first rounder has been a disappointment in the Spanish League. Nursing an injury.

At least Muscala is balling....

[Jamaaliver]

...there is currently no real Center anywhere on our roster. We basically employ a team full of Power Forwards. We've already seen AL lose almost a whole year due to injury. (A pectoral tear is common weightlifter injury when guys are literally trying to lift to heavy of a load.)

We're tempting fate by forcing him to handle this responsibility full time and alone.

Well, this series gave us a chance to see just how lacking our depth in the front court is. Pero played admirably, but is strictly a role player. Brand did what he could, but at his age can't be depended upon consistently.

Can we all agree that proven, effective post players are indeed needed to play Center and PF now?

Early rumors out of ESPN state we'll be pursuing Greg Monroe in Free Agency. He'd be a nice fit short-term as a backup C/PF. And he'd be a great long term fit as a starter at either position. We saw how effective CHA was with an elite post scorer in AL Jefferson.

[Yungsta404]

it would be nice to have some post players instead of having all of our bigs camp out on the perimeter. If you want to do anything meaningful you need some kind of inside threat.

We talk about wanting to be the spurs and but overlook the fact that the spurs have a post player like duncan who can feast on smaller front courts and still get you close to 20/10 a night.