RealGM

I thought Neto, Dinwiddie & Holiday all looked good. Gafford & Harrell seems like a pretty solid C rotation.

End of preseason observations:

Really like Unseld’s rotations and player usage. Significantly better than Scott Brooks. This team is going to be good whenever Beal locks in and actually tries and Bertans gets going(always starts slow).

Kuzma just doesn’t belong in the starting lineup or in the rotation at all. One obvious adjustment I would make would be to start Bertans at the 4 and let Rui and Avdija go up against 2nd units. The bench needs a go to offensive threat and I think Rui could be that. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to start Avdija at the 4. He’s looked really good all preseason. Very talented. That would allow Kispert to get some playing time as well. Just no reason to involve Kuzma in any capacity. He just doesn’t help you.

The team plays with great effort and actually cares about defending. Holliday and Neto will make a really consistent guard duo off the bench. Love what they bring.

This team sucks. They better trade Beal now while he has value because I see a pennies on the dollar trade at the deadline.

TGW wrote:This team sucks. They better trade Beal now while he has value because I see a pennies on the dollar trade at the deadline.

The Wizards have been up by 7 or more points in the middle of the fourth quarter in 3 of their 4 preseason games. When their main rotation guys are in, they're doing fine.

Tonight they were up 14 points with 6 minutes to go.

Bertans is looking unplayable at this point. He needs to hit these open 3s he's been getting.

Halcyon wrote:Bertans is looking unplayable at this point. He needs to hit these open 3s he's been getting.

You're worried about a career 40.7% 3pt shooter not hitting his shots?

dlts20 wrote:

dobrojim wrote:So how come Beal could play given his vaccine status?

Doesn't apply to road teams. New York has no jurisdiction over any other state

Okay.
Seems non sensical given that the game was in NYC.

This team really locks in on perimeter D when KCP and Holiday are on the court together. Deni has been solid on D as well.

On top of that, Beal has shown more effort on defense this preseason. And of course it helps to have Gafford patrolling the paint.

I’d expect the D to only get better when Rui returns.

NatP4 wrote:

miller31time wrote:

80sballboy wrote:

Read on Twitter

?s=20

BuT hE sPrEaDs ThE fLoOr AnD oPeNs Up So MuCh FoR eVeRyBoDy ElSe!!1!!1

I’m absolutely done with Bertans. Will he have a random game when he can’t freaking miss? Yup, but he just can’t shoot consistently. It’s Juan Dixon syndrome. Great when his shots are going down, unplayable when they’re not. So glad he fooled us with a fluke season.

Bertans led the team in on/off differential last year.

Aarrrgh. Time to put this to bed once & for all.

Last night Raul Neto played 24 unbelievably great minutes. He turned 13 shots into 22 points, & he went 3-4 from the FT line. He also got a couple of boards, a couple of assists, & 1 steal with no turnovers. He committed only 2 fouls.

An absolutely great game in other words. But, his on/off was -13.

Davis played 3/4 as many minutes. He missed every shot he took, & he didn't get to the line. Like Neto he had 2 rebounds. But he had zero steals & 1 turnover. He did have two blocks.

An absolutely terrible game in other words. But, his on/off was only -6.

There is zero information about Bertans' game or about Neto's game in that pair of on/off numbers.

A player's on/off number, in a game or on the season, tells you essentially nothing about the player. There are 9 other players on the floor with him. His on/off is equally affected by what he does & by what each of those other 9 players does.

If he hits a FT, that will help his on/off number a little bit. If a teammate hits a FT, that helps his on/off number exactly the same amount. Ditto if an opponent misses a FT attempt. Helps his on/off number exactly the same amount.

IOW, the other 9 players on the floor have, overall, 9 times the effect on his on/off number as he does.

Claro?

Thanks, PIF. I stopped paying attention to on/off numbers about 6 years ago after Kris Humphries (remember him ) had a great game (primarily scoring & rebounding) for the Zards in a loss to Denver. Yet Humphries was something like -14 for the game. That made absolutely no sense to me.

DCZards wrote:Thanks, PIF. I stopped paying attention to on/off numbers about 6 years ago after Kris Humphries (remember him ) had a great game (primarily scoring & rebounding) for the Zards in a loss to Denver. Yet Humphries was something like -14 for the game. That made absolutely no sense to me.

On/off numbers can be misleading in an individual game, but they start having real meaning in large sample sizes, particularly adjusted on/off numbers that use regression analysis to account for teammates.

ESPN's RPM is an on/off metric. The top of it's player rankings jibe pretty well with guys who are generally accepted as really good players. Given that the metric is calculated without using box score stats at all, it's an impressively accurate list.

No single stat is perfect, but I think it's informative to look at both a box score summary metric (such as WP/48, PER or win shares) while also looking at an on/off metric which may be capturing good things that a player does that doesn't show up in the box score (positional defense, moving the ball without it "sticking", boxing out, stretching the floor without the ball, etc.).

RPM ranks Bertans as the 129th best player in the league. Weed out the guys who play less than 20 minutes a game and less than 20 games total, and he ranks 119th. That makes him somewhere around the 4th best player on a bad team or the 5th best player on a good team.

smoothSeph wrote:Unseld still isn’t using Deni right, oh well. He’s playing good defense tonight.

Tbh it's the only thing he can do well right now. He doesn't have enough talent and offensive talent in order to make crucial moves in this league. He can only pass, take rebounds, drive to the right and do defense. It's not bad, but he lacks a lot in the offensive game. It was very dissapointing to see how much the coach believed in him and trusted him to make plays at the 4th with the pressure of this game, and in the other hand to see how Deni isn't ready to fill this role. Maybe his injury in the summer is also a reason for that performance, but if he won't play better and be more assertive like been said here, he's in a problem.

I've counted as well so many times when he got the ball in the game and looked to get rid of it instead of trying making some plays. Anemic. It's up to him now, can't blame no one, and if we won't see a change in his body language and aggresivness, well, it's a bad sign for him and for the organisation. He's not a rookie anymore, he's in his 2nd year. If his ticket to this league will be just defense, his ceiling will become a lot lower than what i've expected from him, and he will struggle staying in the league. In other words, a bust. This year for Deni will be a real test if he's NBA ready.

Deni needs to be more assertive out there, especially if he’s gonna be playing mostly with the second unit.

Yep.


And as for the team itself - despite this loss, i'm optimist about this season. Good squad and coach. The Westbrook trade brought us talent, experience and teaming basketball.

I don't understand why Deni isn't involved in the screen game more. He's got the biggest body out of anyone sans the centers and he can make passes as a roll man.

True as well. But i believe that as the season will advance we will start to see more of that.

I like that Wes Jr. is giving him more options than just standing around. At some point, the light will turn on. If not, he's a bust. Remember, he's still just 20 and doesn't turn 21 until January.

That was a very good coaching there letting him play at the crucial moments, despite his bad game (shows the coach believes in you, yet Deni dissapointed him). Of course the fact it was a meaningless game helped that to happen but still.

dlts20 wrote:

dobrojim wrote:So how come Beal could play given his vaccine status?

Doesn't apply to road teams. New York has no jurisdiction over any other state

Not quite, but both NYC and SF/Golden State have exceptions for visiting sports teams. Otherwise some big hat from Texas could shout that NY has no jurisdiction over him while he coughs on your food.

nate33 wrote:

DCZards wrote:Thanks, PIF. I stopped paying attention to on/off numbers about 6 years ago after Kris Humphries (remember him ) had a great game (primarily scoring & rebounding) for the Zards in a loss to Denver. Yet Humphries was something like -14 for the game. That made absolutely no sense to me.

On/off numbers can be misleading in an individual game, but they start having real meaning in large sample sizes....

A number which has no meaningful relationship to the play of the particular player it assesses does not gain meaning by increasing the sample size. But....

nate33 wrote:...adjusted on/off numbers that use regression analysis to account for teammates...

may be a different matter. ESPN's RPM is one such. Yet, the fact that...

nate33 wrote:The top of it's player rankings jibe pretty well with guys who are generally accepted as really good players....

...is not an argument for it. That's simply not how truths are determined, by seeing how numbers jibe with what's "generally accepted."

Moreover, I don't believe the following is the case:

nate33 wrote:...the metric is calculated without using box score stats at all...

In fact, I don't believe the methodology behind RPM has been made public at all. It is, to use the classic term, mystery meat.

nate33 wrote:...No single stat is perfect, but I think it's informative to look at both a box score summary metric (such as WP/48, PER or win shares) while also looking at an on/off metric which may be capturing good things that a player does that doesn't show up in the box score (positional defense, moving the ball without it "sticking", boxing out, stretching the floor without the ball, etc.).

RPM ranks Bertans as the 129th best player in the league. Weed out the guys who play less than 20 minutes a game and less than 20 games total, and he ranks 119th. That makes him somewhere around the 4th best player on a bad team or the 5th best player on a good team.

For sure, no stat is perfect. I.e. a perfectly accurate mirror of reality. In fact, no one should compare a metric to reality. The only thing you compare a metric to is... another metric!

& how do you compare them? By using regression analysis to discover the rate of correlation of the metric to something known (not to an abstraction & not to something that's "generally accepted"). Something known which is also something you want to maximize.

What would that be in basketball? Well, every basketball game produces one known result that matters & that every team wants to maximize: a win.

So when you compare two metrics to each other, you use regression analysis to discover the correlation of that metric to wins. Nothing else. Just wins. The metric that correlates better to wins is the better metric. Period. Why would anything else matter?

payitforward wrote:

nate33 wrote:

DCZards wrote:Thanks, PIF. I stopped paying attention to on/off numbers about 6 years ago after Kris Humphries (remember him ) had a great game (primarily scoring & rebounding) for the Zards in a loss to Denver. Yet Humphries was something like -14 for the game. That made absolutely no sense to me.

On/off numbers can be misleading in an individual game, but they start having real meaning in large sample sizes....

A number which has no meaningful relationship to the play of the particular player it assesses does not gain meaning by increasing the sample size. But....

nate33 wrote:...adjusted on/off numbers that use regression analysis to account for teammates...

may be a different matter. ESPN's RPM is one such. Yet, the fact that...

nate33 wrote:The top of it's player rankings jibe pretty well with guys who are generally accepted as really good players....

...is not an argument for it. That's simply not how truths are determined, by seeing how numbers jibe with what's "generally accepted."

Moreover, I don't believe the following is the case:

nate33 wrote:...the metric is calculated without using box score stats at all...

In fact, I don't believe the methodology behind RPM has been made public at all. It is, to use the classic term, mystery meat.

nate33 wrote:...No single stat is perfect, but I think it's informative to look at both a box score summary metric (such as WP/48, PER or win shares) while also looking at an on/off metric which may be capturing good things that a player does that doesn't show up in the box score (positional defense, moving the ball without it "sticking", boxing out, stretching the floor without the ball, etc.).

RPM ranks Bertans as the 129th best player in the league. Weed out the guys who play less than 20 minutes a game and less than 20 games total, and he ranks 119th. That makes him somewhere around the 4th best player on a bad team or the 5th best player on a good team.

For sure, no stat is perfect. I.e. a perfectly accurate mirror of reality. In fact, no one should compare a metric to reality. The only thing you compare a metric to is... another metric!

& how do you compare them? By using regression analysis to discover the rate of correlation of the metric to something known (not to an abstraction & not to something that's "generally accepted"). Something known which is also something you want to maximize.

What would that be in basketball? Well, every basketball game produces one known result that matters & that every team wants to maximize: a win.

So when you compare two metrics to each other, you use regression analysis to discover the correlation of that metric to wins. Nothing else. Just wins. The metric that correlates better to wins is the better metric. Period. Why would anything else matter?

We've had this discussion before. Here's an interesting link comparing the various summary metrics:

https://fansided.com/2019/01/08/nylon-calculus-best-advanced-stat/

So is Rui playing in game 1? If so then I want him to start. I know that he hasn't been here and may have conditioning issues but I'd rather pull him after 4min than to bring him off the bench. I just believe in getting a group to jel. I think that that's its worse to get used to a certain lineup or rotation only to have to change it again when he gets his legs under him. Start him now

DCZards wrote:Thanks, PIF. I stopped paying attention to on/off numbers about 6 years ago after Kris Humphries (remember him ) had a great game (primarily scoring & rebounding) for the Zards in a loss to Denver. Yet Humphries was something like -14 for the game. That made absolutely no sense to me.

You make a compelling argument.

nate33 wrote:

payitforward wrote:

nate33 wrote:On/off numbers can be misleading in an individual game, but they start having real meaning in large sample sizes.... Jared Butler, & Joe Wieskamp.

A number which has no meaningful relationship to the play of the particular player it assesses does not gain meaning by increasing the sample size. But....

nate33 wrote:...adjusted on/off numbers that use regression analysis to account for teammates...

[size=50]may be a different matter. ESPN's RPM is one such. Yet, the fact that...

nate33 wrote:The top of it's player rankings jibe pretty well with guys who are generally accepted as really good players....

...is not an argument for it. That's simply not how truths are determined, by seeing how numbers jibe with what's "generally accepted."

Moreover, I don't believe the following is the case:

nate33 wrote:...the metric is calculated without using box score stats at all...

In fact, I don't believe the methodology behind RPM has been made public at all. It is, to use the classic term, mystery meat.

nate33 wrote:...No single stat is perfect, but I think it's informative to look at both a box score summary metric (such as WP/48, PER or win shares) while also looking at an on/off metric which may be capturing good things that a player does that doesn't show up in the box score (positional defense, moving the ball without it "sticking", boxing out, stretching the floor without the ball, etc.).

RPM ranks Bertans as the 129th best player in the league. Weed out the guys who play less than 20 minutes a game and less than 20 games total, and he ranks 119th. That makes him somewhere around the 4th best player on a bad team or the 5th best player on a good team.

For sure, no stat is perfect. I.e. a perfectly accurate mirror of reality. In fact, no one should compare a metric to reality. The only thing you compare a metric to is... another metric!

& how do you compare them? By using regression analysis to discover the rate of correlation of the metric to something known (not to an abstraction & not to something that's "generally accepted"). Something known which is also something you want to maximize.

What would that be in basketball? Well, every basketball game produces one known result that matters & that every team wants to maximize: a win.

So when you compare two metrics to each other, you use regression analysis to discover the correlation of that metric to wins. Nothing else. Just wins. The metric that correlates better to wins is the better metric. Period. Why would anything else matter?

nate33 wrote:We've had this discussion before.

Have we...? I don't remember that...
(& have agreed on the regular-size words above....)

nate33 wrote:...Here's an interesting link comparing the various summary metrics: https://fansided.com/2019/01/08/nylon-calculus-best-advanced-stat/

It is interesting, yes -- though it has the problem most such comparisons have: it's written by someone with a stake in the outcome.... NBD.