James Harden is a superstar

fallacy · Post #821 » by **fallacy** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 12:28 am

Doormatt wrote:again, impossible to know which players okc couldve gotten in return for ibaka and how theyd fit in. all hypothetical really. i can only imagine that okc with a legit star like harden would be better going forward. but im sure okc is happy with how well kmart is playing anyway.

I disagree but I see your point. Harden is a vacuum is better than Ibaka.

CKRT · Post #822 » by **CKRT** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 2:26 am

i wonder what OKC's SRS/point diff. would be without that Charlotte game :lol:

@fallacy, I'm sure Ibaka could've netted them Varejao + picks pretty easily. A Westbrook/Harden/Durant/Collison/Varejao line-up would destroy teams.

fallacy · Post #823 » by **fallacy** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 5:43 am

CKRT wrote:i wonder what OKC's SRS/point diff. would be without that Charlotte game

@fallacy, I'm sure Ibaka could've netted them Varejao + picks pretty easily. A Westbrook/Harden/Durant/Collison/Varejao line-up would destroy teams.

Luckily every team in the NBA plays the Bobcats, so that's irrelevant. Every team has their chance.

I don't think Cleveland would trade V + picks for Ibaka

JordansBulls · Post #824 » by **JordansBulls** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 5:06 pm

fallacy wrote:Harden is a vacuum is better than Ibaka.

Huh, what does this mean?

Rapcity_11 · Post #825 » by **Rapcity_11** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 5:49 pm

fallacy wrote:
Luckily every team in the NBA plays the Bobcats, so that's irrelevant. Every team has their chance.

That isn't the point. It's a statistical outlier that makes too much of an impact within the small sample of games so far.

I don't think Cleveland would trade V + picks for Ibaka

Even straight up, OKC would have been better off with that move.

On a semi-related note, why doesn't Collison play more? I've been wondering this for years and can never come up with an answer.

CKRT · Post #826 » by **CKRT** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 5:52 pm

JordansBulls wrote:
fallacy wrote:Harden is a vacuum is better than Ibaka.

Huh, what does this mean?

removing the situations of their teams.

fallacy · Post #827 » by **fallacy** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 5:53 pm

JordansBulls wrote:
fallacy wrote:Harden is a vacuum is better than Ibaka.

Huh, what does this mean?

not factoring in fit to a team.

fallacy · Post #828 » by **fallacy** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 5:59 pm

Rapcity_11 wrote:
On a semi-related note, why doesn't Collison play more? I've been wondering this for years and can never come up with an answer.

It was a legit question before this year. He's not playing much this year because Ibaka is playing like a fringe all-star and can't really play center that effectively against inside centers. Durant is also playing the PF much more this year than ever before. Combine that with the fact that Thabeet has been a very good backup center, and there just isn't many minutes for him since he's not a center.

Collison is amazing though, he definitely deserves more minutes. He is a hugely under rated offensive player. He's been looking for his shot much more with the second team, and he's absurdly effective. .650 ts% and .634 eFg%, just crazy. He's a bad defensive rebounder though and fouls like crazy, but a much better overall player than Perkins.

Rapcity_11 · Post #829 » by **Rapcity_11** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 6:26 pm

fallacy wrote:
It was a legit question before this year.

It's still very much legit. As long as Perkins is getting more minutes.

He's not playing much this year because Ibaka is playing like a fringe all-star and can't really play center that effectively against inside centers. Durant is also playing the PF much more this year than ever before. Combine that with the fact that Thabeet has been a very good backup center, and there just isn't many minutes for him since he's not a center.

My issue here is with "centers". How many centers are currently in the league that require a Perkins type to matchup with them? This is the way I see it:

Memphis
Lakers
Golden State
Philly (with Bynum)
Brooklyn
Indiana
Spurs
Maybe Sacremento

That's only 8 teams where you really need Perkins to play center and may not want to roll with Collison/Ibaka. I will NEVER understand why coaches don't use situation starting lineups when they're willing to do it at any other point of the game except for the start of the 1st and 3rd quarters.

Additionally, check out Collison's on/off numbers this year. Mind-blowing considering how much time Durant spends off the court when Collison plays.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... -off/2013/

fallacy · Post #830 » by **fallacy** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 7:30 pm

You're expecting Brooks, the most stubborn lineup/rotation coach in the NBA to use advanced substitution patterns? There was a stat the other day that the Thunder have used the same starting lineup for like 70 games in a row, the second closest team had like 16 or something. Injuries factor into that as well I guess.

It's hard to hate on Perk with the way he's been playing the last week though; 8.5 points, 6 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.3 blocks, .75 steals, .71 fg% in 24.5 minutes/game is damn good for him.

I do agree with your point though, Collison should play more minutes against teams that don't have true centers.

CKRT · Post #831 » by **CKRT** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 7:36 pm

Collison is awesome. Just pure awesome.

Sadly he's started to decline with his rebounding from years past though.

Rapcity_11 · Post #832 » by **Rapcity_11** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 7:58 pm

fallacy wrote:You're expecting Brooks, the most stubborn lineup/rotation coach in the NBA to use advanced substitution patterns? There was a stat the other day that the Thunder have used the same starting lineup for like 70 games in a row, the second closest team had like 16 or something. Injuries factor into that as well I guess.

Oh, I'm not expecting it. Just venting some frustration, as a quasi-OKC fan.

I really don't get why some coaches are happy to make in-game lineup adjustments (IE not predetermined), but are completely unwilling to think about changes to their starting lineup on a game by game basis.

Rapcity_11 · Post #833 » by **Rapcity_11** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 8:02 pm

CKRT wrote:Collison is awesome. Just pure awesome.

Sadly he's started to decline with his rebounding from years past though.

Actually, his TRB% is basically the same this year as the past 2. ~12%.

And his on/off for team TRB% is +1.5% right now.

fallacy · Post #834 » by **fallacy** » Mon Dec 3, 2012 11:52 pm

To follow up on the plus/minus from earlier, here are some plus/minus numbers and rank

Player ~~~ +/- ~~~ NBA rank

Durant +207 (1)
Westbrook +181 (2)
K Martin +141 (4)
Ibaka +123 (6)
Collison +111 (14)
Sefolosha +98 (17)
Perkins +75 (28)

Maynor +23 (Not ranked)
Harden +16 (Not ranked)

I just found that interesting. Harden's +/- numbers are terrible, I thought he'd make more of an impact to his team than he is (statistically). Here's a couple of them that stuck out to me

Houston offensive rating with Harden on the floor: 107.0
Houston offensive rating with Harden on the bench: 110.3

Houston assist percentage with Harden on the floor: 58.1%
Houston assist percentage with Harden on the bench: 66.1%

Houston defensive rating with Harden on the court: 106.6
Houston defensive rating with Harden on the bench: 106.5

Opponent effective field goal percentage with Harden on the court: .510
Opponent effective field goal percentage with Harden on the bench: .479

Houston is better statistically when Harden is on the bench. For apparently being their only good player, the plus minus numbers should be much better than that. I don't know, just found this interesting when someone posted the +/- number in the MVP thread and Harden was no where to be found.

dream_catcher_9 · Post #835 » by **dream_catcher_9** » Tue Dec 4, 2012 2:03 am

fallacy wrote:Player ~~~ +/- ~~~ NBA rank

Durant +207 (1)
Westbrook +181 (2)
K Martin +141 (4)
Ibaka +123 (6)
Collison +111 (14)

I wonder what their plus minus is when all of those guys are on the court together.

fallacy · Post #836 » by **fallacy** » Tue Dec 4, 2012 2:40 am

dream_catcher_9 wrote:
fallacy wrote:Player ~~~ +/- ~~~ NBA rank

Durant +207 (1)
Westbrook +181 (2)
K Martin +141 (4)
Ibaka +123 (6)
Collison +111 (14)

I wonder what their plus minus is when all of those guys are on the court together.

1.19 Offensive rating, .99 defensive rating, +21 +/-, 9-4 Win/Loss

Pretty damn good five man unit and yet, not even the in the Thunder's top 3 best lineups :lol:

Krodis · Post #837 » by **Krodis** » Tue Dec 4, 2012 5:22 am

This is such a completely flagrant abuse of +/- statistics I don't even know where to start.

CKRT · Post #838 » by **CKRT** » Tue Dec 4, 2012 1:32 pm

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is wrong about what he posted?

re: Collison: that's what I get for trusting my eyes over looking at what the number say. :blush:

JordansBulls · Post #839 » by **JordansBulls** » Tue Dec 4, 2012 2:42 pm

Did not realize Harden is only shooting 43% FG right now. I guess that is what happens when you become the main focal point on a team.

Krodis · Post #840 » by **Krodis** » Tue Dec 4, 2012 4:33 pm

CKRT wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is wrong about what he posted?

re: Collison: that's what I get for trusting my eyes over looking at what the number say. :blush:

1. Sample size. Plus minus stats are near useless at this small of a sample size. Too much noise
2. He's using raw plus-minus. Heavily dependent on both teammates and opponents.

JordansBulls wrote:Did not realize Harden is only shooting 43% FG right now. I guess that is what happens when you become the main focal point on a team.

His TS% is a well above-average .570, so it's not like he turned into Monta Ellis >.>