No Wolves <3 for Lawson?

[Jonathan Watters]

I think Paul's numbers are unique for a pg over the past 8-10 years. If you look at usage and efficency stats,

This is the second time I've quoted you on this.

The metrics I am using to make my comparison encapsulate all offense, not just scoring, not just assists. They are readily available on a prominent college basketball statistics site. I'm not sure why you would think that Lawson being closer to Paul in assists but not any closer in overall effectiveness is a deal breaker, but it is the only way you can continue with this debate so it makes sense why you would stick to it.

If your original argument was that Lawson's stats are good so he's going to be a good player, I've agreed with you from the beginning.

However, bringing Chris Paul into the discussion while not bringing in other comparables is manipulating the stats. That's not going to change. There isn't a person with any sort of experience analyzing statistics that would disagree with me.

[Jonathan Watters]

That's your perception because you have very poor analytical skills and high judgment skills. You make an attempt to appear logical which is cute, but are by no means open to logical or open debate on a topic. You make judgment calls that you claim to be fact or claim to be pure and/or logical, but are by no means open to debate or further analytic process. That's fine and cute, but doesn't actually work in the real world with things of importance(which none of this is).

That's nice...

Let's see what your response to debate and further analytic process is....

imo you are:
a) crazy and need mental help/pills (National Mental Health Association 800-969-NMHA)
b) are crazy and stopped taking mental help/pills (see number above)
c) simply shroud your thought in a misty haze and nothing new ever develops
d) This is probably your pushy online board persona, because people push you around irl
e) You need to get a gf/bf
d) all of the above

[/quote]

And we all see how open your judgement calls are to further debate or analytic process...

The fact of the matter is that I've been making these calls for years and have spent much more time crunching the numbers and searching for the correct process than you have. I make a living doing it, not in basketball, but using similar methods on other things.

My point is valid, and you aren't going to find other knowledgeable folks who will say it isn't.

You are completely missing the forest through the trees, though you are well past the point of admitting it here.

[the_bruce]

The metrics I am using to make my comparison encapsulate all offense, not just scoring, not just assists. They are readily available on a prominent college basketball statistics site.

Congrats. You still didn't do what I've asked. Using the metrics posted on the original stats in message 1, taking into account physical factors, and how recent said prospect is find a closer match. Don't try and dodge the issue. find something comparable and why.

As for the encapsulation. Of Course you will find more matches since it abstracts data. Why not just chunk all of the data into ppg/ast/reb then instead of general efficiency or usage? The granular details of the usage/eff encapsulated data can give more insight on how that efficiency/usage is obtained.

However, bringing Chris Paul into the discussion while not bringing in other comparables is manipulating the stats. That's not going to change. There isn't a person with any sort of experience analyzing statistics that would disagree with me.

A mentally healthy person wouldn't see this as deliberate sabotage in an attempt to manipulate statistics. In fact no statistical manipulation occured they were simply comparables. Any mentally healthy person with a statistics background would be able to notice the difference inbetween comparable data and data that is input into a process or method for actual data manipulation. A mentally healthy person would think hey that's interesting, but I think his college stats resemble play x more and here is why.

The fact of the matter is that I've been making these calls for years and have spent much more time crunching the numbers and searching for the correct process than you have. I make a living doing it, not in basketball, but using similar methods on other things.

My point is valid, and you aren't going to find other knowledgeable folks who will say it isn't.

You are completely missing the forest through the trees, though you are well past the point of admitting it here.

Grats on making these calls for years.

You assume you've spent more time crunching numbers, but that is something you cannot know. Also, time has nothing to do with anything. Time merely allows you a larger span to analyze numbers and potentially learn new methods. It is more about expertise in both statistics and ability to structure a method and/or process that produces a more reliable result.

The proper method and time invested in designing, implementing, and verifying is of far greater value than the time used to evaluate using an incorrect method.

You don't actually have a point in any of that last post, you made statements....

You make judgement calls for years? You make a living using stats, but not in basketball? Those are more like qualifications than anything.

[Jonathan Watters]

The metrics I am using to make my comparison encapsulate all offense, not just scoring, not just assists. They are readily available on a prominent college basketball statistics site.

Congrats. You still didn't do what I've asked. Using the metrics posted on the original stats in message 1, taking into account physical factors, and how recent said prospect is find a closer match. Don't try and dodge the issue. find something comparable and why.

First off, I never said anything about the physical factors. I was only talking about the stats.

Secondly, how do you weight each category? How do you know that these statistics are even relevant in the first place? What gives us the best predictive value? These are questions that you need to answer in order to give validity to your method.

As for the encapsulation. Of Course you will find more matches since it abstracts data. Why not just chunk all of the data into ppg/ast/reb then instead of general efficiency or usage? The granular details of the usage/eff encapsulated data can give more insight on how that efficiency/usage is obtained.

It also gives us a result that is much more likely to be accurate, rather than arbitrarily weighting different categories however the heck we feel like it.

I know these things:

1) the box score has limitations in the view it gives us of a player's performance
2) ncaa performance has severe limitations in the view it gives us of a player's NBA performance
3) the multiple statistics you want to look at may have much more to do with a player's college situation than his NBA potential
4) even if you could adjust for the situation of each individual player, they are severely limited and very likely meaningless unless weighted properly

Add these things together, and the ground you are walking on is well beyond shaky.

The method I used, offensive rating and usage, at least helps with #3 and #4.

However, bringing Chris Paul into the discussion while not bringing in other comparables is manipulating the stats. That's not going to change. There isn't a person with any sort of experience analyzing statistics that would disagree with me.

A mentally healthy person wouldn't see this as deliberate sabotage in an attempt to manipulate statistics. In fact no statistical manipulation occured they were simply comparables. Any mentally healthy person with a statistics background would be able to notice the difference inbetween comparable data and data that is input into a process or method for actual data manipulation. A mentally healthy person would think hey that's interesting, but I think his college stats resemble play x more and here is why.

I'm not saying it was a deliberate attempt to mislead or anything like that. I'm saying that you took a conclusion and found some statistics that matched your conclusion quite nicely. Which you absolutely did.

The proper method and time invested in designing, implementing, and verifying is of far greater value than the time used to evaluate using an incorrect method.

You should take your own advice...

[the_bruce]

First off, I never said anything about the physical factors. I was only talking about the stats.

My initial post was simply a comparable data set and I do infact mention athletic markers in the comparison. If you want to argue this point find a better comparable player to lawson in stats and athletic makeup and list the reasons why. Or why you think the break down of an abstracted datapoint such as FTA/p & ast/p in the passing ratio usage stats is of no value.

Most of the rest of your post is an argument about modeling, and it's simply to large a topic to go on and on about. Modeling this sort of data and/or discussing it would take away my free time. So that won't do, as I've already wasted enough time talking about my college lawson = nba cp3 conspiracy you manufactured in your overactive imagination.

I'm not saying it was a deliberate attempt to mislead or anything like that. I'm saying that you took a conclusion and found some statistics that matched your conclusion quite nicely. Which you absolutely did.

How do you know it wasn't the other way around? That I looked through statistics found a comparable player and used that for the most recent comparable. How can you draw that conclusion with no evidence other than assumptive approach. No facts dictate what you stated. again that is a judgement call not a logical conclusion.

Now if my motivation was Lawson = CP3 wouldn't you think I would be calling for simply picking him with the wolves pick at #5. Instead I call for seeing if we could package up to get in range of him. Does that sound like a person who thinks Lawson = next sure fire PG.

I'm leaning heavily towards a Derozan & package up for Lawson draft as being my ideal. A high ceiling wing with high risk and great work ethic. An efficient long term PG who may not be a projected franchise player(but you never know!!), but certainly will get the job done and has less risk.

Notice how I say who may not be a projected franchise player(but you never know), does this sound like someone who says CP3 = lawson? If I thought other teams would think lawson would be a franchise player don't you think my post would call for trading up because I got the INSIDE SCOOP on the NBA sekrets and we gotta move up to snatch this balla yo!!