Official Pierce & KG Thread

DarkXaero · Post #101 » by **DarkXaero** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:03 am

KG has been a lot better lately. His defense has improved, his passing is great and he elevates the play of the team on both ends.

FirstBallotKG · Post #102 » by **FirstBallotKG** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:57 am

deepblueday wrote:what an embarrassing, pointless discussion. kevin garnett has been awful this year. let me suggest statistics and, you know, actually watching him play as two superior methodologies for assessing his performance than **** picking an arbitrary minutes played barrier and comparing team record on both sides of it.

Garnett's minutes have been the lowest in his NBA career. The argument that dissenters - like yourself have - is that he doesn't deserve those minutes because he's 'been awful this year'. However, the stats that I showed - which shows either correlation or causation - is that it actually helps the team when KG is on the court.

Even in last night's game KG only played 16:24 of action; yet, he finished with a +/- of +34 in those 16 minutes.

Obviously, basketball isn't about +/- stats or minutes. It's about wins and losses. Hence, back to my original argument. When KG is on the court, it's been a good thing. The arbitrary number I chose [26] isn't the argument here - that's a red-herring argument - minutes...time on the floor...actual playing time. That's the argument. Even Rivers commented how he's surprised how Garnett's minutes have been reduced.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp: KG getting minutes in the game is a good thing.

deepblueday · Post #103 » by **deepblueday** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:02 am

KG05-21 wrote:Garnett's minutes have been the lowest in his NBA career. The argument that dissenters - like yourself have - is that he doesn't deserve those minutes because he's 'been awful this year'. However, the stats that I showed - which shows either correlation or causation - is that it actually helps the team when KG is on the court.

no. you don't get it. +/- 26 minutes played to w/l record is not a valid metric for assessing an individual players impact. i actually refuse to even mount an argument against it because it's stupidity is obvious on it's face. but even given that, prokhorov's numbers are correct, so you don't even have a meaningless correlation to fall back on.

Even in last night's game KG only played 16:24 of action; yet, he finished with a +/- of +34 in those 16 minutes.

which tells us nothing about kg's individual impact. but even if we play dumb like you seem to really enjoy and pretend that clearly KG played a masterful game last night, this particular performance actually runs counter to your point. :lol:

Obviously, basketball isn't about +/- stats or minutes. It's about wins and losses. Hence, back to my original argument. When KG is on the court, it's been a good thing. The arbitrary number I chose [26] isn't the argument here - that's a red-herring argument - minutes...time on the floor...actual playing time. That's the argument. Even Rivers commented how he's surprised how Garnett's minutes have been reduced.

you're either very dumb or very dishonest. you were just confronted with the fact that not rounding seconds turns your awful little metric right on it's head. and you can't understand why your argument is arbitrary. sigh

deepblueday · Post #104 » by **deepblueday** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:20 am

just gonna throw this out there because it speaks to the whole "kg getting minutes in a game is a good thing" thing far more than any argument or evidence presented in this thread.

http://www.82games.com/1314/1314BKN.HTM

deepblueday · Post #105 » by **deepblueday** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:22 am

and btw i actually agree that kg's play has improved recently. he's still been nowhere near impressive imo, but his attitude and energy are better and he seems to be coming around. im certainly rooting for him.

FirstBallotKG · Post #106 » by **FirstBallotKG** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:30 am

The arbitrary number of 26 or 25:31 is a red-herring argument.

Between you and Prokorov, that is the entire counter-argument. Really?

Rounding numbers is controversial now?

I guess ESPN should be held liable for giving out fraudulent statistics too.

My refrain has been, and has continued to be, that when KG is on the floor it is a good thing.

That's not really a hard concept. Really it isn't that hard.

Your refusal to accept certain statistics and metrics is acknowledging your shortcomings to grasp this simple correlation or causation. Perhaps if you accepted those 'statistics' [minutes or +/-] then you'd be able to grasp this.

Who knew rounding numbers was groundbreaking? You do realize that you and Prokorov are arguing over seconds - lololol. :lol:

deepblueday · Post #107 » by **deepblueday** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:32 am

jesus christ i give up.

FirstBallotKG · Post #108 » by **FirstBallotKG** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:41 am

deepblueday wrote:just gonna throw this out there because it speaks to the whole "kg getting minutes in a game is a good thing" thing far more than any argument or evidence presented in this thread.

http://www.82games.com/1314/1314BKN.HTM

refuse to even mount an argument against it because it's stupidity is obvious on it's face

then provides stats from http://www.82games.com: priceless

Garnett's number is at -6 for those who haven't clicked. Then, I clicked the link that featured the Nets BEST 5-man unit from that same site...

Perhaps you should also click that link as well. Or is the link that you provided accurate; whereas, the other link from that very same site distortion? lol :lol:

http://www.82games.com/1314/1314BKN2.HTM

deepblueday · Post #109 » by **deepblueday** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:05 am

sigh. that isn't the "BEST" 5-man unit, it's the 5-man unit that's been played the most minutes.

AntwanBoldin · Post #110 » by **AntwanBoldin** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:46 am

If Pierre is so unhappy as simmons says just send him back to Boston and get a 1st back

FirstBallotKG · Post #111 » by **FirstBallotKG** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:55 am

deepblueday wrote:sigh. that isn't the "BEST" 5-man unit, it's the 5-man unit that's been played the most minutes.

You're right, Prokorov. It's the 5-man unit that's played the most minutes listed first.

FirstBallotKG · Post #112 » by **FirstBallotKG** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:28 pm

For what it's worth...

Results for KG when minutes were 26 >=

http://stats.nba.com/playerGameLogs.htm ... tOrder=DES

Results for KG when minutes were 26 <

http://stats.nba.com/playerGameLogs.htm ... tOrder=DES

Prokorov · Post #113 » by **Prokorov** » Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:42 pm

KG05-21 wrote:The arbitrary number of 26 or 25:31 is a red-herring argument.

Between you and Prokorov, that is the entire counter-argument. Really?

Rounding numbers is controversial now?

I guess ESPN should be held liable for giving out fraudulent statistics too.

Don't get angry with me because your statements were factually incorrect. YOU are the one who came up with the arbitrary number of 26 minutes. you are the one who said something to the effect of:

When KG plays 26 minutes or more, the nets usually win. When he plays < 26 minutes, the nets are a much worse team

If you wanted to include games where KG played 25:31 seconds, then you should have said "in games where KG plays 25 minutes or more, we usually win". But you did not say that. you said 26 minutes or more. Don't get on us because the facts where wrong and we pointed that out for you.

But all of that is moot, since regardless of what benchmark number you use the premise is entirely flawed anyhow, since KG is going to play more minutes in close games then in blowouts, and we have had WAY more blowout losses then wins.

It also completely ignores the impact that Deron Williams and Brook Lopez have on the nets success, as KG has played more minutes in games those 2 have been healthy, as opposed to games where they have been out of the lineup.

That is like me saying the nets are more successful when I wear my brook lopez jersey, because they have a much better record in those games. But then when you realize i only were my lopez jersey when lopez plays its clear the reason the nets are better in those games because lopez is healthy.

You need to take all factors into account, especially in a small sample size like 20 games, when concluding why a team is playing better or worse. KG playing more or less minutes has been an effect and not a cause. He has played more in wins because the game were close... the games were not close because he has been playing.

FirstBallotKG · Post #114 » by **FirstBallotKG** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:29 am

For a second, I was about to be get baited into your pedantic red-herring straw-man argument you've posted, when I realized that you had LIED and FABRICATED my words to use as a direct quote from me?

At this point, I realize that I can't take you seriously. Being ignorant of rounding numbers or having trouble w reading comprehension is one thing. But lying so you can create a straw man argument reveals that you want an endless debate on this.

I'll pass.

http://stats.nba.com/playerGameLogs.htm ... tOrder=DES

http://stats.nba.com/playerGameLogs.htm ... tOrder=DES

Paradise · Post #115 » by **Paradise** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:03 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vEW64oHPH0[/youtube]

therealbig3 · Post #116 » by **therealbig3** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:00 am

This is frikin embarrassing, and I've been KG's biggest supporter this season. Using the 26 minute barometer is stupid, because it's such an arbitrary number to pick, and it's not even factually accurate to round up numbers from 25:31 and call it 26 minutes! It is not indicative of KG's impact whatsoever. It's sad when Prokorov is the voice of reason in a debate.

Angrily dismissing posters that point out the clear flaws in your logic is not the way to go. KG has been BAD this season, and no amount of cherry-picking will change that. He needs to step up big time. A lot of his low minute games are a result of the other team blowing us out. He could have easily been out there a few more minutes, played 26 minutes, and that would have affected the Nets record in games he played 26 minutes. It's a completely arbitrary and useless stat.

If you want to provide evidence of KG's impact and make a case for why he should play more...make an argument based on stats (can't do that, because KG's suck), or things like +/- and on/off. But apparently, KG's numbers in those departments suck too. I trust those numbers more than the Nets W-L record when KG plays a random amount of minutes.

exculpatory · Post #117 » by **exculpatory** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:09 am

Paradise wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vEW64oHPH0[/youtube]

Magnificent scoring versatility on display - EVEN at freaking age 36!! Expect plenty more games like this during the remaining 2/3 of a season - if he does not get injured again.

Some great assists & D, & tough rebounds also.

This is the reason why Paul will finish this season as the 18th leading scorer in NBA history approaching 25K points - after he passes Iverson & Ewing, & will finish next season as the 14th leading scorer in NBA history right behind Hondo - after he passes West, Reggie, KG & English.

This is the reason he has a reasonable shot at 2000 made 3s before he retires (1848 right now) - only behind Reggie & Traitor Ray (currently he is #5).

Imagine that after a 17 year HOF career - FOURTEENTH in NBA HISTORY in overall points, & THIRD in NBA history in 3s!

I am not sure he will continue to play in 2015-2016 at age 38. He could possibly return to the Celtics to retire.

MaxZaslofskyJr · Post #118 » by **MaxZaslofskyJr** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:17 am

therealbig3 wrote:This is frikin embarrassing, and I've been KG's biggest supporter this season. Using the 26 minute barometer is stupid, because it's such an arbitrary number to pick, and it's not even factually accurate to round up numbers from 25:31 and call it 26 minutes! It is not indicative of KG's impact whatsoever. It's sad when Prokorov is the voice of reason in a debate.

Yeah. I haven't been getting this one either. If anyone wants to "prove" this hypothesis, start with a seriatim analysis of the games the Nets have played thus far. Provide scores and Garnett's numbers. Show us the games where him playing 4 or 5 more minutes might have made a difference. And still there's a matter of cause and effect. Did Garnett's extra play in the wins "cause" them by his magnificence or did the fact that he played poorly in losses result in him getting less minutes? And, he has not been playing that great.

exculpatory · Post #119 » by **exculpatory** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:07 am

http://bleacherreport.com/tb/dc1SH

http://bleacherreport.com/tb/dc1SA

Fracture in his hand occurred 11 games prior to the formal diagnosis - the PRIMARY reason we have not seen more vintage/spectacular "Truth games" like VS the Wiz.

Also, adjustment to his role on the team.

FirstBallotKG · Post #120 » by **FirstBallotKG** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:16 pm

therealbig3 wrote:This is frikin embarrassing, and I've been KG's biggest supporter this season. Using the 26 minute barometer is stupid, because it's such an arbitrary number to pick, and it's not even factually accurate to round up numbers from 25:31 and call it 26 minutes! It is not indicative of KG's impact whatsoever. It's sad when Prokorov is the voice of reason in a debate.

Angrily dismissing posters that point out the clear flaws in your logic is not the way to go. KG has been BAD this season, and no amount of cherry-picking will change that. He needs to step up big time. A lot of his low minute games are a result of the other team blowing us out. He could have easily been out there a few more minutes, played 26 minutes, and that would have affected the Nets record in games he played 26 minutes. It's a completely arbitrary and useless stat.

If you want to provide evidence of KG's impact and make a case for why he should play more...make an argument based on stats (can't do that, because KG's suck), or things like +/- and on/off. But apparently, KG's numbers in those departments suck too. I trust those numbers more than the Nets W-L record when KG plays a random amount of minutes.

ESPN and NBA provided game logs that exclusively used whole numbers for minutes played, links here:

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_ ... in-garnett
http://stats.nba.com/playerGameLogs.htm ... tOrder=DES

ESPN & NBA are household names and reputable reliable sources of statistics. They elected to use rounding up of numbers. I don't have an issue with that at all. If ESPN/NBA decided that rounding up numbers was adequate, I'm okay with that as well. As it is standard practice so I have no qualms.

I had said earlier in this thread that KG is a rhythm player; hence, he needs more minutes until he can find his game. His former coach, Rivers, also shared that same sentiment.

"...of course [KG's] numbers are going to be down. So I think at some point, he probably is going to have to play more minutes to improve, so he can get a better rhythm himself."

http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/20 ... e-minutes/

KG's minutes have been restricted. He hasn't had 5 games playing the same minutes he played one season ago of 29.7 minutes.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/i ... in-garnett

The games that were closest to 29.7 mpg, were games that the team's record were also 5 and 2 - which made me curious, given the horrific start to the Brooklyn season.

Agreed that KG has been off his game. I've attributed that to a lot of different things [Dealing w bone spurs in both ankles in addition to new teammates, new coach staff, new expectations, etc.]. But the most bizarre of those changes has been the minute reduction. Kidd entered the season with a time-restriction in mind. I made my observation how bizarre and questionable it was, after 6 games into the season.

To EXPECT last year's production of KG playing in 7 less minutes is bizarre.

What benefit is it to the Nets organization, the fans and the city of NOT finding out if this is correlation or causation? Whether it is correlation or not, why not have 5 games to find out?