Jeff Hornacek Fired

[AtheJ415]

I won't respond to the rest of your strawman, but I have shown this isn't true. Of course you did pull out one stat that favored Warren to PJ, but out youngsters were FAR at the bottom, particularly Booker and Archie. You may want to call some of them skewed because of minutes, but when you say ALL advanced stats, you would be nice to see what they are. Later today I may do some research to see if I can come up with anything that backs this claim you make, since you can't seem to.

No. You used VORP, a number that factors in % of minutes played. I stated "non-minute-weighted". Accordingly the more minutes you play, the higher the VORP. Its not apples to apples. In comparing guys who play the same minutes, VORP is a good measure, but in comparing guys who are in different roles and therefore seeing very different minutes, it's going to horribly inflate the guy with more minutes. That's why according to VORP, Brandon Knight is drastically better than Booker.

No, I did not use VORP, I used Real plus minus from espn and BPM (a net of OBPM and DBPM). The latter may be somewhat similar to VORP but ALL of those are stats based on per 100 possessions, so minutes played isn't really factored in.

But even using your favorite, WS/48, Len is 10th, Knight 11th and Goodwin is 12th on the team. That stat does help the Warren argument, but if you want to go strictly by that, Price is also 6th while Booker is 7th.

That stat if you only want to use that one gives you the argument about Warren vs Tucker, but it certainly doesn't help Goodwin or Knight, and if that was used for playing time, Booker would lose minutes to Price.

Yes, you did use VORP, but okay. We discussed it at length.

And yes, you also used BPM, but it's highly impacted by who you are playing with, and it's not really a non-biased factor when our starters had the benefit of Eric Bledsoe for a lot of the year.

So yeah, you can feel free to keep using measures of individual effort that are extracted from team play instead of those advanced stats that are more direct measures. That's your choice. But it isn't accurate and leads to results you know aren't true relative to the stats I pointed out that don't have any of those biases. WS/48 and net ORtg-DRtg are just better in this discussion. They don't contain any of the biases that are there with the ones you keep adding to the conversation, and the truth is yours are so indirect that they are are only good measures with large sample sizes. Honestly look at our team ranked by the 2 stats I provided and then look at our team given the 2 you provided and ask yourself which one better represents how our guys have played this year. I could throw a ton of other numbers in there if i simply wanted to overwhelm the discussion with stats favoring TJ, but I think those are biased in these scenarios as well for various reasons.

Tyson's numbers now are better than Len's, but they weren't for much of the year. He received a giant boost for his performance the last 2 weeks. So yes, our discussion is now different relative to Len v. Tyson now than it was earlier in the season. And it does not justify Jeff starting him for as long as he did when those numbers were decidedly different earlier on. But regardless, WS/48 is not as good in Booker v. the group discussions, mostly because Booker and Archie didn't even enter the games consistently, with frequent DNPs. The math warps a bit in these scenarios with the way basketball reference calculates it. It becomes less apples to apples.

The discussion of Tucker v. Warren is nonsense. Always has been. Always will be. I have no interest in continuing it because frankly it's a waste of time at this point.

Regardless, I'm out of this discussion. I don't really feel like diving into the math behind basketball stats on signing day and given the trade rumors out there.

[bwgood77]

No. You used VORP, a number that factors in % of minutes played. I stated "non-minute-weighted". Accordingly the more minutes you play, the higher the VORP. Its not apples to apples. In comparing guys who play the same minutes, VORP is a good measure, but in comparing guys who are in different roles and therefore seeing very different minutes, it's going to horribly inflate the guy with more minutes. That's why according to VORP, Brandon Knight is drastically better than Booker.

No, I did not use VORP, I used Real plus minus from espn and BPM (a net of OBPM and DBPM). The latter may be somewhat similar to VORP but ALL of those are stats based on per 100 possessions, so minutes played isn't really factored in.

But even using your favorite, WS/48, Len is 10th, Knight 11th and Goodwin is 12th on the team. That stat does help the Warren argument, but if you want to go strictly by that, Price is also 6th while Booker is 7th.

That stat if you only want to use that one gives you the argument about Warren vs Tucker, but it certainly doesn't help Goodwin or Knight, and if that was used for playing time, Booker would lose minutes to Price.

Yes, you did use VORP, but okay. We discussed it at length.

And yes, you also used BPM, but it's highly impacted by who you are playing with, and it's not really a non-biased factor when our starters had the benefit of Eric Bledsoe for a lot of the year.

So yeah, you can feel free to keep using measures of individual effort that are extracted from team play instead of those advanced stats that are actual direct measures. That's your choice. But it isn't accurate and leads to results you know aren't true relative to the stats I pointed out that don't have any of those biases. WS/48 and net ORtg-DRtg are just better in this discussion. They don't contain any of the biases that are there with the ones you keep adding to the conversation, and the truth is yours are so indirect that they are are only good measures with large sample sizes. Honestly look at our team ranked by the 2 stats I provided and then look at our team given the 2 you provided and ask yourself which one better represents how our guys have played this year.

Well the two lists I created were Real Plus Minus from espn and BPM from basketball reference, but if I have time later, I will try to find the link to the original post to refresh your memory. I may have talked about VORP at some point as well, but those were not the original numbers I was working off of to try and figure out why you kept saying "ALL THE ADVANCED NUMBERS SAY WARREN SHOULD PLAY OVER TUCKER" so I checked a while back, and wondered where you came up with that. After seeing you say it again several days or weeks later....the exact same way "ALL THE ADVANCED STATS SAY...", I decided to once, check again, and I didn't see it, except for that one stat WS/48 you mentioned, but in every other list, PJ was ranked higher.

OK, just checked Ortg, and it has Chandler 3rd over Booker, Bledsoe 6th, Price 5th, Knight and Len 10th and 11th.

DRtg has Chandler and Len as the top two, Bryce Cotton 3rd, Markieff 4th, Bledsoe 6th, Warren 13th, Booker 16th.

Those certainly don't look like great ones to use either. The two I started out with had Bledsoe clearly at the top, and he was clearly our most important player, and the advanced stats most advanced stat guys use say that.

[AtheJ415]

No, I did not use VORP, I used Real plus minus from espn and BPM (a net of OBPM and DBPM). The latter may be somewhat similar to VORP but ALL of those are stats based on per 100 possessions, so minutes played isn't really factored in.

But even using your favorite, WS/48, Len is 10th, Knight 11th and Goodwin is 12th on the team. That stat does help the Warren argument, but if you want to go strictly by that, Price is also 6th while Booker is 7th.

That stat if you only want to use that one gives you the argument about Warren vs Tucker, but it certainly doesn't help Goodwin or Knight, and if that was used for playing time, Booker would lose minutes to Price.

Yes, you did use VORP, but okay. We discussed it at length.

And yes, you also used BPM, but it's highly impacted by who you are playing with, and it's not really a non-biased factor when our starters had the benefit of Eric Bledsoe for a lot of the year.

So yeah, you can feel free to keep using measures of individual effort that are extracted from team play instead of those advanced stats that are actual direct measures. That's your choice. But it isn't accurate and leads to results you know aren't true relative to the stats I pointed out that don't have any of those biases. WS/48 and net ORtg-DRtg are just better in this discussion. They don't contain any of the biases that are there with the ones you keep adding to the conversation, and the truth is yours are so indirect that they are are only good measures with large sample sizes. Honestly look at our team ranked by the 2 stats I provided and then look at our team given the 2 you provided and ask yourself which one better represents how our guys have played this year.

Well the two lists I created were Real Plus Minus from espn and BPM from basketball reference, but if I have time later, I will try to find the link to the original post to refresh your memory. I may have talked about VORP at some point as well, but those were not the original numbers I was working off of to try and figure out why you kept saying "ALL THE ADVANCED NUMBERS SAY WARREN SHOULD PLAY OVER TUCKER" so I checked a while back, and wondered where you came up with that. After seeing you say it again several days or weeks later....the exact same way "ALL THE ADVANCED STATS SAY...", I decided to once, check again, and I didn't see it, except for that one stat WS/48 you mentioned, but in every other list, PJ was ranked higher.

OK, just checked Ortg, and it has Chandler 3rd over Booker, Bledsoe 6th, Price 5th, Knight and Len 10th and 11th.

DRtg has Chandler and Len as the top two, Bryce Cotton 3rd, Markieff 4th, Bledsoe 6th, Warren 13th, Booker 16th.

Those certainly don't look like great ones to use either. The two I started out with had Bledsoe clearly at the top, and he was clearly our most important player, and the advanced stats most advanced stat guys use say that.

We discussed VORP. You brought it up initially. I saw it and then I had to explain it has minutes involved in the formula and gives weight to % of minutes played, and we then had a huge, long conversation about it and whether X, Y, or Z makes a difference.

ORtg-DRtg is the measure, not individual ORtg and DRtg and then ranking them. Do you see why ranking the team on each side separately would give the wrong results? Teams that are top heavy vs. even in depth, and guys who are crazy good at one end of the court and weak at another would not reflect the degree in between, and thus would give misleading rankings. That's why you have to net them first, then rank the players. Why use ordinal rankings when we could use the exact numbers?

I'm fully checking out of this thread. An in depth discussion on Jeff, who is gone (thank god), and about the math behind advanced stats is simply not something that interests me. You don't have to agree with my opinion or the stats I use, and I certainly disagree with yours and don't feel like wasting more time explaining why. We aren't going to agree. But back to the original point, if you think Jeff did a great job managing the rotations this year, then you are lying to yourself imo.

[bwgood77]

But back to the original point, if you think Jeff did a great job managing the rotations this year, then you are lying to yourself imo.

I've never said this. I thought he was given a crappy situation and I don't think anyone would have done anything with the roster left after the deadline last year, the Kieff situation, being a lame duck, injuries, etc. I have said before he made some head scratching rotational moves and I wished he played TJ more. I expected him fired right before or after the holidays and said as much, but thought he had been dealt a **** hand. He could have probably done better, but likely negligible to the big picture of where this team was. He was always going to be gone anyway, if Sarver living in fantasy land thought this putrid roster and all the huge question marks and negativity around it had any business sniffing the playoffs.

Thank the Lord for Booker!

[MathiasPW]

Yes, you did use VORP, but okay. We discussed it at length.

And yes, you also used BPM, but it's highly impacted by who you are playing with, and it's not really a non-biased factor when our starters had the benefit of Eric Bledsoe for a lot of the year.

So yeah, you can feel free to keep using measures of individual effort that are extracted from team play instead of those advanced stats that are actual direct measures. That's your choice. But it isn't accurate and leads to results you know aren't true relative to the stats I pointed out that don't have any of those biases. WS/48 and net ORtg-DRtg are just better in this discussion. They don't contain any of the biases that are there with the ones you keep adding to the conversation, and the truth is yours are so indirect that they are are only good measures with large sample sizes. Honestly look at our team ranked by the 2 stats I provided and then look at our team given the 2 you provided and ask yourself which one better represents how our guys have played this year.

Well the two lists I created were Real Plus Minus from espn and BPM from basketball reference, but if I have time later, I will try to find the link to the original post to refresh your memory. I may have talked about VORP at some point as well, but those were not the original numbers I was working off of to try and figure out why you kept saying "ALL THE ADVANCED NUMBERS SAY WARREN SHOULD PLAY OVER TUCKER" so I checked a while back, and wondered where you came up with that. After seeing you say it again several days or weeks later....the exact same way "ALL THE ADVANCED STATS SAY...", I decided to once, check again, and I didn't see it, except for that one stat WS/48 you mentioned, but in every other list, PJ was ranked higher.

OK, just checked Ortg, and it has Chandler 3rd over Booker, Bledsoe 6th, Price 5th, Knight and Len 10th and 11th.

DRtg has Chandler and Len as the top two, Bryce Cotton 3rd, Markieff 4th, Bledsoe 6th, Warren 13th, Booker 16th.

Those certainly don't look like great ones to use either. The two I started out with had Bledsoe clearly at the top, and he was clearly our most important player, and the advanced stats most advanced stat guys use say that.

We discussed VORP. You brought it up initially. I saw it and then I had to explain it has minutes involved in the formula and gives weight to % of minutes played, and we then had a huge, long conversation about it and whether X, Y, or Z makes a difference.

ORtg-DRtg is the measure, not individual ORtg and DRtg and then ranking them. Do you see why ranking the team on each side separately would give the wrong results? Teams that are top heavy vs. even in depth, and guys who are crazy good at one end of the court and weak at another would not reflect the degree in between, and thus would give misleading rankings. That's why you have to net them first, then rank the players. Why use ordinal rankings when we could use the exact numbers?

I'm fully checking out of this thread. An in depth discussion on Jeff, who is gone (thank god), and about the math behind advanced stats is simply not something that interests me. You don't have to agree with my opinion or the stats I use, and I certainly disagree with yours and don't feel like wasting more time explaining why. We aren't going to agree. But back to the original point, if you think Jeff did a great job managing the rotations this year, then you are lying to yourself imo.

[MathiasPW]

BTW, while we are at it, how about merging all the threads related to coaching? (Hornacek fired, who would be your new coach, Would you want Blatt as coach....it's getting messy)

[Big NBA Fan]

About the Terry Porter discussion that took place earlier in this thread...

- Porter was an excellent PG for many years, and from all accounts, he's a great guy with a great work-ethic.

I blame Kerr and the players more than I blame Porter for that situation.

Remember, Steve Kerr WANTED a firmer approach from the new coach than the easy-going atmosphere under MDA. He WANTED Porter's Detroit Pistons-style offensive system that ultimately did not suit Nash.

I remember Coro revealing that several players were "uncomfortable" with how old-school Porter went on them and let's not forget all of the complaining that was going on from Amare/Nash/Raja about Porter from the very beginning of his tenure.

The guys who played well for him were the ones who actually gave him a chance and bought in; Shaq/Hill/Lou were good under Porter.

Granted, I can't sit here and say Porter did a great job or anything- I agree, in hindsight, he never should have been hired - but he was put in a tough spot with so much resistance from the players not being willing to change their approach.

Everybody deserves the blame for that debacle; I just wish Kerr hired Gentry from the beginning or went with Mike Budenholzer, who impressed Kerr and Griffin very much during the interview process before he was ultimately not the choice.

[enigmatics]

If we're seriously going after Thunder Dan I might have to renounce my fandom

Brilliant. Just what this team needs, Coach "Vodka" leading them.