Game Thread: Nets @ Celtics - 10/29/14 Season Opener 7:30pm

[Prokorov]

Just because I don't try to trade him away for meaningless 2015 cap space and bash him every chance I get doesnt means I'm a Lopez homer. He's in my avy since he's one of our few drafted players whose been here for a long while and always wanted to be here despite the all the trade rumors. Unfortunately we don't really have a ton of likable players who are about the team.

And yes the stats show he is a great rim protector (blocked shots, opponent FG% at the rim) but more importantly he's our best (only) rim protector which is kind of important given how terrible our guards are at letting players go to the rim. Funny how opposing announcers even recognize it as do 90% of the fans, but you see something we don't.

But yeah...this team is much better without him and Plumlee in his place.

Anyway I'll stop arguing with the PBPs.

not only is lopez not a good rim protector, he is one of the worst you'll find. he is super slow and his low bbiq leads to him not even challenging alot of plays. gaurds finish past him or at him with regularity. he alters very few shots.

The stats you use for rim protection are pretty poor:

Blocks: This really doesnt tell you anything about how good of a rim protector you are. the best shot blockers block 2 or 3 shots a game. there are like 50-80 FGA per game per team. 2 or 3 is irrelevant to how you protect the rim over the course of your 30-40 minutes. there are plenty of shot blockers who are great defenders and plenty who are bad defenders.

opponent FG% at the rim: probably the most worthless stat for rim protection. first off, it doesnt include plays where you foul someone on an attempt at the rim. which is pretty frequent, as fouls down count as shot attempts even though you get a trip to the FT line.... thats why we use stuff like TS% and not raw FG% when evaluating offense..... also the end result is whats more important then how long it took to get there. if you for a miss but the guy just corralls it and throws it down it still counts as 2 points.... and it really gives 0 context on how many shots at the rim you allow in the first place.



ill take a guy who allows 100% FG at the rim but only allows 2 or 3 attempts a game over a guy who allows 40% FG at the rim but allows 12 or 14 attempts a game. being a rim protect isnt just about stopping FG attempts at the rim, its about preventing guys from being in position to even take those shots.

either way, anyone with a set of eyeballs who doesnt have a perscription for rose colored glass knows lopez isnt very good defensively, especially at protecting the rim. no gaurds fear him, and anyone with a head of steam has an automatic 2 points. he had 2 blocks last night, great.... his defense probably cost us the game

Points per post up?
He was elite there too.
So Blocked Shots, Opponent FG% in the paint and PPP all were among the leaders last year.
What other stats are there to use? Any that support your argument?

Funny (sad actually) how you probably hoped and waited all night for him to have a bad game so you could reply to me like you always do. He's played 57 minutes since last December.. and yeah he's looked awful on O and D so far. Shocking. He's not in game shape, he's lost weight and he's out of rhythm. Maybe we should judge him after 10 games or so?

yes, i cant wait for lopez to play so bad that it costs us games....

people want to quantify individul defense with stats like they do with offense but it just doenst work that way. offense is easy. only 1 person shoots the ball on a given possesion and it goes in or it doesnt. on defense all 5 guys have an effect on if a shot goes in or not, where its taken, and how its influenced.

PPP on post ups? fantastic... in a league full of tweeners and stretch bigs where there are like what 5 or 6 back to the basket bigs who have any kind of post game? and the ones who do usually eat lopez up anyhow. pek last night and cousins has abused him pretty badly the last couple times he faced him.

alot of those advanced defense stats are GREAT for 5 man units. but they just are worthless for evaluating individuals. there are just too many variables and context is just lost.

lopez is a bad defender. i can listen to a case he is an average defender. anyone saying he is above average is either an enormous homer or simply doesnt understand the game

also, brook played what, 17 games last year? we are really gonna go off that sample for anything?

[Trader_Joe]

not only is lopez not a good rim protector, he is one of the worst you'll find. he is super slow and his low bbiq leads to him not even challenging alot of plays. gaurds finish past him or at him with regularity. he alters very few shots.

The stats you use for rim protection are pretty poor:

Blocks: This really doesnt tell you anything about how good of a rim protector you are. the best shot blockers block 2 or 3 shots a game. there are like 50-80 FGA per game per team. 2 or 3 is irrelevant to how you protect the rim over the course of your 30-40 minutes. there are plenty of shot blockers who are great defenders and plenty who are bad defenders.

opponent FG% at the rim: probably the most worthless stat for rim protection. first off, it doesnt include plays where you foul someone on an attempt at the rim. which is pretty frequent, as fouls down count as shot attempts even though you get a trip to the FT line.... thats why we use stuff like TS% and not raw FG% when evaluating offense..... also the end result is whats more important then how long it took to get there. if you for a miss but the guy just corralls it and throws it down it still counts as 2 points.... and it really gives 0 context on how many shots at the rim you allow in the first place.



ill take a guy who allows 100% FG at the rim but only allows 2 or 3 attempts a game over a guy who allows 40% FG at the rim but allows 12 or 14 attempts a game. being a rim protect isnt just about stopping FG attempts at the rim, its about preventing guys from being in position to even take those shots.

either way, anyone with a set of eyeballs who doesnt have a perscription for rose colored glass knows lopez isnt very good defensively, especially at protecting the rim. no gaurds fear him, and anyone with a head of steam has an automatic 2 points. he had 2 blocks last night, great.... his defense probably cost us the game

Points per post up?
He was elite there too.
So Blocked Shots, Opponent FG% in the paint and PPP all were among the leaders last year.
What other stats are there to use? Any that support your argument?

Funny (sad actually) how you probably hoped and waited all night for him to have a bad game so you could reply to me like you always do. He's played 57 minutes since last December.. and yeah he's looked awful on O and D so far. Shocking. He's not in game shape, he's lost weight and he's out of rhythm. Maybe we should judge him after 10 games or so?

yes, i cant wait for lopez to play so bad that it costs us games....

people want to quantify individul defense with stats like they do with offense but it just doenst work that way. offense is easy. only 1 person shoots the ball on a given possesion and it goes in or it doesnt. on defense all 5 guys have an effect on if a shot goes in or not, where its taken, and how its influenced.

PPP on post ups? fantastic... in a league full of tweeners and stretch bigs where there are like what 5 or 6 back to the basket bigs who have any kind of post game? and the ones who do usually eat lopez up anyhow. pek last night and cousins has abused him pretty badly the last couple times he faced him.

alot of those advanced defense stats are GREAT for 5 man units. but they just are worthless for evaluating individuals. there are just too many variables and context is just lost.

lopez is a bad defender. i can listen to a case he is an average defender. anyone saying he is above average is either an enormous homer or simply doesnt understand the game

also, brook played what, 17 games last year? we are really gonna go off that sample for anything?

No, but we can use 3 games sample sizes to generalize the T'Wolves since it works for your argument at the time. As others have said you love to cherry pick and be hypocritical in your arguments by doing so.

[Prokorov]

No, but we can use 3 games sample sizes to generalize the T'Wolves since it works for your argument at the time. As others have said you love to cherry pick and be hypocritical in your arguments by doing so.

there is a big difference. with lopez we have 7 years to go on.

with this group of wolves, with alot of new pieces, we have 3 or 4 games to go on.

[Trader_Joe]

No, but we can use 3 games sample sizes to generalize the T'Wolves since it works for your argument at the time. As others have said you love to cherry pick and be hypocritical in your arguments by doing so.

there is a big difference. with lopez we have 7 years to go on.

with this group of wolves, with alot of new pieces, we have 3 or 4 games to go on.

My point was you have no problem cherry picking over a 3 game sample to start the season when it suits you, yet will criticize others for using a much larger sample size that was in line with what we saw in 2012-13 when Lopez started putting on weight and was handling players much better in the post.

[Prokorov]

No, but we can use 3 games sample sizes to generalize the T'Wolves since it works for your argument at the time. As others have said you love to cherry pick and be hypocritical in your arguments by doing so.

there is a big difference. with lopez we have 7 years to go on.

with this group of wolves, with alot of new pieces, we have 3 or 4 games to go on.

My point was you have no problem cherry picking over a 3 game sample to start the season when it suits you, yet will criticize others for using a much larger sample size that was in line with what we saw in 2012-13 when Lopez started putting on weight and was handling players much better in the post.

when you have 7 years to go on, going by 17 games makes no sense

when you have 3 games to go on, going by 3 games makes alot of sense

im not sure how thats not clear.

[Trader_Joe]

there is a big difference. with lopez we have 7 years to go on.

with this group of wolves, with alot of new pieces, we have 3 or 4 games to go on.

My point was you have no problem cherry picking over a 3 game sample to start the season when it suits you, yet will criticize others for using a much larger sample size that was in line with what we saw in 2012-13 when Lopez started putting on weight and was handling players much better in the post.

when you have 7 years to go on, going by 17 games makes no sense

when you have 3 games to go on, going by 3 games makes alot of sense

im not sure how thats not clear.

17 games plus the roll over from 2012-13 which I mentioned.
And no, there is not much to take away statistically from 3 games.
I'm not sure how that is not clear.
I also don't know how you can say we should beat any team in transition when we are slow as dirt, don't run and don't attack on the break. The most we get on the break are pull up shots from Jarret Jack so far.

And of course you are ignoring the bigger point.. I was the one saying it was going to be a tough game for us while you thought it was going to be a blow out. We have historically done poor against this team and there was really no reason to think that.

[Prokorov]

[
I also don't know how you can say we should beat any team in transition when we are slow as dirt, don't run and don't attack on the break. The most we get on the break are pull up shots from Jarret Jack so far.

the wolves arent a good transition team either! which is why they didnt hurt us in transition. they are bad on both ends in transition.

[qupte]
And of course you are ignoring the bigger point.. I was the one saying it was going to be a tough game for us while you thought it was going to be a blow out. We have historically done poor against this team and there was really no reason to think that.[/quote]

we SHOULD have blown them out, which is why its such a disappointing loss. losing to a bad team, at home, who has 0 advantages against you is flat out embarassing. its a terrible loss.