11/12 - 6PM CST | G13: Dallas Mavericks at Oklahoma City Thunder

[M2J]

PG13 is clearly way better by touching the ball more. For this team to succeed, Melo will have to do the dirty work (he said he came to win so let's prove it)

I would say all of them may play better with more touches and feel more comfortable. After two solid wins versus struggling teams come on I would not say that the direction of the team should be to push for George to go for 40 each night,. His whole intent was to get away from that mindset.

But you are right. They all need to do dirty work In order to make this team a success on a championship level. They all are playing their games, it just needs to continue to have the ball movement from the last two games.


Role players have definitely played much better. Albrines, Grant have been gems. This team has a lot of versatility in different ways that they can play around the Big Four. Unfortunately it's wood guys with great holes in their games. You wish Grant could play comparable defense to Roberson , but he fits in well next to them.

[slick_watts]

career high tov%. < 50% ts. no duh his ast% is high, the offense goes through him 99% of the time, but it's been what, league average with him in the game? after it was top 5 or 6 last year with him in the game? come on.

'facilitating'.

abrines? these are the kinds of non-sequitor arguments sleestak33 would make.

No, but I apparently can't use on/off because you don't count that. So I'm not really sure where to start. Seems like you're ignoring metrics you normally use to evaluate players because they suddenly don't fit.

If you'd also care, here's Nate (@bbstats) blended rating.

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNTY3ZGZhY2QtYzkyMy00ZTcwLTk0NmEtNzdmYmJlY2U2Y2NkIiwidCI6ImZkZmU4ODY4LThkZjMtNDgzMi04N2JjLTdhNTdjNDVkNGMxZiIsImMiOjN9

Russ also ahead.

this is at least a couple games old and i've never heard of it.

[bondom34]

No, but I apparently can't use on/off because you don't count that. So I'm not really sure where to start. Seems like you're ignoring metrics you normally use to evaluate players because they suddenly don't fit.

If you'd also care, here's Nate (@bbstats) blended rating.

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNTY3ZGZhY2QtYzkyMy00ZTcwLTk0NmEtNzdmYmJlY2U2Y2NkIiwidCI6ImZkZmU4ODY4LThkZjMtNDgzMi04N2JjLTdhNTdjNDVkNGMxZiIsImMiOjN9

Russ also ahead.

this is at least a couple games old and i've never heard of it.

He posts on APBR. And it's a blended APM. And it updates daily.

[slick_watts]

No, but I apparently can't use on/off because you don't count that. So I'm not really sure where to start. Seems like you're ignoring metrics you normally use to evaluate players because they suddenly don't fit.

that's not true and you know it. i never use raw individual +/- like this. this borderline libelous.

how about individual performance indicators? scoring efficiency? turnover%? usage? that sort of stuff.

I just posted one above.

And I used net rating on/off for the season, which you also ignored.

net rating on 400 minutes of play? really? so much lineup noise.

i think you are very clearly missing the forest for the trees on this one.

[bondom34]

that's not true and you know it. i never use raw individual +/- like this. this borderline libelous.

how about individual performance indicators? scoring efficiency? turnover%? usage? that sort of stuff.

I just posted one above.

And I used net rating on/off for the season, which you also ignored.

net rating on 400 minutes of play? really? so much lineup noise.

i think you are very clearly missing the forest for the trees on this one.

And I think (no wait, know) you're cherry picking because you suddenly are jumping from measures you've historically used.

[slick_watts]

If you'd also care, here's Nate (@bbstats) blended rating.

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNTY3ZGZhY2QtYzkyMy00ZTcwLTk0NmEtNzdmYmJlY2U2Y2NkIiwidCI6ImZkZmU4ODY4LThkZjMtNDgzMi04N2JjLTdhNTdjNDVkNGMxZiIsImMiOjN9

Russ also ahead.

this is at least a couple games old and i've never heard of it.

He posts on APBR. And it's a blended APM. And it updates daily.

it has baron at 343 minutes played and he was at 412 minutes played prior to tonight's game.

perhaps it's bugged?

[bondom34]

this is at least a couple games old and i've never heard of it.

He posts on APBR. And it's a blended APM. And it updates daily.

it has baron at 343 minutes played and he was at 412 minutes played prior to tonight's game.

perhaps it's bugged?

Who?

It may be, but the gap is still large.

[Atomic Punk]

this is at least a couple games old and i've never heard of it.

He posts on APBR. And it's a blended APM. And it updates daily.

it has baron at 343 minutes played and he was at 412 minutes played prior to tonight's game.

perhaps it's bugged?

NERD ALERT!

[Dadouv47]

PG13 is clearly way better by touching the ball more. For this team to succeed, Melo will have to do the dirty work (he said he came to win so let's prove it)

I would say all of them may play better with more touches and feel more comfortable. After two solid wins versus struggling teams come on I would not say that the direction of the team should be to push for George to go for 40 each night,. His whole intent was to get away from that mindset.

But you are right. They all need to do dirty work In order to make this team a success on a championship level. They all are playing their games, it just needs to continue to have the ball movement from the last two games.


Role players have definitely played much better. Albrines, Grant have been gems. This team has a lot of versatility in different ways that they can play around the Big Four. Unfortunately it's wood guys with great holes in their games. You wish Grant could play comparable defense to Roberson , but he fits in well next to them.

It's not so much about scoring a lot or not. It's mainly because PG13 feels more confortable by touching the ball more. It helps him to be more effective. He's also an underrated passer and him attacking the paint is great as well.

[slick_watts]

I just posted one above.

And I used net rating on/off for the season, which you also ignored.

net rating on 400 minutes of play? really? so much lineup noise.

i think you are very clearly missing the forest for the trees on this one.

And I think (no wait, know) you're cherry picking because you suddenly are jumping from measures you've historically used.

i have never used individual net rating for any kind of player evaluation on these kinds of sample sizes unless it's to demonstrate a continuing trend. it's noisy. lineup driven. net rating can be quite useful for lineup consideration, i think, even on limited sample sizes. but individual?

the thing is you know this, and you would agree with my assessment here if it was me making a point in an argument with sleestak or the other guy that you agreed with. i'm not the one cherry picking.

[slick_watts]

He posts on APBR. And it's a blended APM. And it updates daily.

it has baron at 343 minutes played and he was at 412 minutes played prior to tonight's game.

perhaps it's bugged?

Who?

It may be, but the gap is still large.

i spotted this discrepancy immediately, and it casts doubt on the metric's value imo. i'd have to look up nate on apbrmetrics to see what it's about and how this metric performed in their contests before i'd trust it.

[Atomic Punk]

net rating on 400 minutes of play? really? so much lineup noise.

i think you are very clearly missing the forest for the trees on this one.

And I think (no wait, know) you're cherry picking because you suddenly are jumping from measures you've historically used.

i have never used individual net rating for any kind of player evaluation on these kinds of sample sizes unless it's to demonstrate a continuing trend. it's noisy. lineup driven. net rating can be quite useful for lineup consideration, i think, even on limited sample sizes. but individual?

the thing is you know this, and you would agree with my assessment here if it was me making a point in an argument with sleestak or the other guy that you agreed with. i'm not the one cherry picking.

No, but you are beginning to rant incoherently. I’ll just get off your lawn and go home.

[bondom34]

net rating on 400 minutes of play? really? so much lineup noise.

i think you are very clearly missing the forest for the trees on this one.

And I think (no wait, know) you're cherry picking because you suddenly are jumping from measures you've historically used.

i have never used individual net rating for any kind of player evaluation on these kinds of sample sizes unless it's to demonstrate a continuing trend. it's noisy. lineup driven. net rating can be quite useful for lineup consideration, i think, even on limited sample sizes. but individual?

the thing is you know this, and you would agree with my assessment here if it was me making a point in an argument with sleestak or the other guy that you agreed with. i'm not the one cherry picking.

This is literally why you argue for Roberson constantly. PG hasn't been better. Sorry I disagree.

it has baron at 343 minutes played and he was at 412 minutes played prior to tonight's game.

perhaps it's bugged?

Who?

It may be, but the gap is still large.

i spotted this discrepancy immediately, and it casts doubt on the metric's value imo. i'd have to look up nate on apbrmetrics to see what it's about and how this metric performed in their contests before i'd trust it.

Read on Twitter

That all said, nice win against a team they had to beat. I gotta go for the night, have a good one J. I always enjoy a good debate.

[slick_watts]

This is literally why you argue for Roberson constantly. PG hasn't been better. Sorry I disagree.

no. wrong. i'll argue for dre on the premise of the starting lineup's net rating with him v. alternatives. over the course of thousands of minutes.

in this argument you are trying to say that westbrook and george's net ratings over a sample of 100-200 minutes they spend apart is statistically significant relative to their individual #'s. i would say 'no', just like i would say dre's net rating with the starter's this year on a sample of 200 minutes is not statistically significant relative to the thousands of minutes over the last three season.

That all said, nice win against a team they had to beat. I gotta go for the night, have a good one J. I always enjoy a good debate.

his twitter profile image is him with his mouth hanging wide open. not a great first impression.

[bondom34]

This is literally why you argue for Roberson constantly. PG hasn't been better. Sorry I disagree.

no. wrong. i'll argue for dre on the premise of the starting lineup's net rating with him v. alternatives. over the course of thousands of minutes.

in this argument you are trying to say that westbrook and george's net ratings over a sample of 100-200 minutes they spend apart is statistically significant relative to their individual #'s. i would say 'no', just like i would say dre's net rating with the starter's this year on a sample of 200 minutes is not statistically significant relative to the thousands of minutes over the last three season.

That all said, nice win against a team they had to beat. I gotta go for the night, have a good one J. I always enjoy a good debate.

his twitter profile image is him with his mouth hanging wide open. not a great first impression.

And we've got a history of thousands of minutes with Russ too. That doesn't sway you.

And Engelmann works for ESPN now and his profile picture is Ron Artest after the Malice at the Palace. I'd rather judge intellectual content personally.

[slick_watts]

And we've got a history of thousands of minutes with Russ too. That doesn't sway you.

we're talking about results from this season. history is not relevant. i'm not predicting that baron is going to play this way all year, or suggesting that the thunder change rotations because he's no good anymore. just commenting on his productivity. if i was making predictions for the future based on baron's season to date-- sure, i think you're be warranted in commenting on the sample size of the season.

And Engelmann works for ESPN now and his profile picture is Ron Artest after the Malice at the Palace. I'd rather judge intellectual content personally.

then what's your problem with me?

[Pacersike]

I can see you all have a good idea of what Paul George is capable of, labeling his performances up to date as bad and trash

When playoffs come, the big 3 will be ready

[Atomic Punk]

And we've got a history of thousands of minutes with Russ too. That doesn't sway you.

we're talking about results from this season. history is not relevant. i'm not predicting that baron is going to play this way all year, or suggesting that the thunder change rotations because he's no good anymore. just commenting on his productivity. if i was making predictions for the future based on baron's season to date-- sure, i think you're be warranted in commenting on the sample size of the season.

And Engelmann works for ESPN now and his profile picture is Ron Artest after the Malice at the Palace. I'd rather judge intellectual content personally.

then what's your problem with me?

You are intellectually dishonest. You say history is not relevant and yet you endlessly point to Roberson’s history to argue against anyone who would suggest that he may be an offensive liability or question his value to the team. You frequently point to and/or dismiss stats on a whim simply to support whatever narrative you are attempting to promote. You are no where near as intelligent as you would like everyone to believe and you are incapable of having an honest and respectful debate because in your mind, you are simply right and everyone else is wrong. You are not, in my opinion worthy of any further debate or discussion.

[slick_watts]

You are intellectually dishonest. You say history is not relevant and yet you endlessly point to Roberson’s history to argue against anyone who would suggest that he may be an offensive liability or question his value to the team.

if we're talking about baron's value to the team so far this year then no, history is not relevant. is that difficult to understand? he's been bad. that's really all i've commented on. will he continue to be this bad? well, history would suggest probably not. but that has nothing to do with the fact that he's been bad so far.

if we're talking about roberson and his value and how that should be weighed as far as rotation and lineup decisions are concerned? then history is very important. you don't want to jump the gun on a slow start and make changes when he's been so valuable in the past.

You frequently point to and/or dismiss stats on a whim simply to support whatever narrative you are attempting to promote.

bondom54 knows what he was doing by bringing up net rating in this discussion. i don't expect you to understand. but re-read the posts if you want, i think i explained my position on this thoroughly.

[bondom34]

And we've got a history of thousands of minutes with Russ too. That doesn't sway you.

we're talking about results from this season. history is not relevant. i'm not predicting that baron is going to play this way all year, or suggesting that the thunder change rotations because he's no good anymore. just commenting on his productivity. if i was making predictions for the future based on baron's season to date-- sure, i think you're be warranted in commenting on the sample size of the season.

And Engelmann works for ESPN now and his profile picture is Ron Artest after the Malice at the Palace. I'd rather judge intellectual content personally.

then what's your problem with me?

I don't have aproblem w/ you. And if we're talking results from this season the defense w/ Dre is as iffy as anything. So really you're still shifting goalposts.