This Is Why Willie Green Will Be Traded

[ChuckS]

I love stats. After every game I watch, and sometimes during the game, I check out the box score to make sure what I am seeing is not clouded by bias or lack of attention. I also find the compilation of these box scores, which we accept as league averages, a useful tool.

Conversely, I do, however, almost totally disdain/distrust doctored numbers. I think the biggest perversion is the 48 minute idea. It amazes me that so many actually prefer to evaluate players based on minutes they did not play in various stages of the game. I will never believe the the mere projection of real minutes played does not distort or skew the findings up or down.

Other systems to which I am hopelessly averse involve some stranger arbitrarily arriving at a formula which determines effectiveness based on a factor he thinks is important. (i.e. free throws, or the relative value of assists, steals, rebounds, blocks, points, etc.) For example, should Miller get the two points for an assist through five defenders to an unguarded Reggie or Thad? How about one point for that dangerous cross court pass (that always seems to work) for an Iguodala three? Or should he only get a half point because of the difficulty of the shot? Is the guy who averages sixteen points a game with eight free throws necessarily better than a Ray Allen type who averages eighteen with fewer fouls drawn?

This leads me to my biggest fear, the youth of America (and some not so youthful) being led hopelessly astray by the plus and minus system in evaluating individuals in a team game. Everyone must know that this is subject to the influences of starter or reserve minutes, and the vagaries of various offensive and defensive combinations on the floor. Yet, how many disregard such things in determining who was the hero of a game?

But sometimes it is the analyst himself, usually so highly respected, who scares me most. One for example, at the beginning of the year, rated Andre Miller as the league's thirty second best point guard. I remember authoring a post scoffing at some of the mediocrities he had higher on his list. Are these people too busy on the computer or do they really watch basketball? Do they have an innate technical knowledge or are they just good with numbers?

I, therefor, will not ridicule Dond, for believing what he sees, even though he might not be able to prove someone else full of ..it. I do not want to hurt his image, but I am much the same. In fact I believe that the only reason that some of these "doctored" numbers have any credibility is because even the worst mathematician cannot totally distort the accomplishments of the best players.

But back to the point at hand. I think, based upon real numbers, NBA averages, Willie Green is currently the best guard, not named Andre, that we have. He has averaged more points per game at a better shooting percentage, and the rebounding numbers are a wash. I love Carney's defense. He has just the right touch of Reggie Evans in his game. But subjectively I believe Willie is also our best defender at the two. Lou can compare to neither, but has value against certain players and teams.

If Willie's man is consistently outproducing him at the two spot, then I think some statistical savant should consider adding a $ factor into his system. I think he is a bargain at three mil, and we are damn lucky to have him.

[bebopdeluxe]

Great post, ChuckS.

I am not the world's biggest WG fan, but I think that - especially relative to the Sixers roster/options and the relatively modest salary that WG makes - the amount of abuse that this guy continues to get on this forum simply amazes me.

He is shooting the highest FG% of his career, and if you take out that 7-game shooting slump that he had a few games ago ("Slump? Whaddaya mean slump? Players aren't allowed to have a 7 game slump over an 82-game season...and especially our new favorite whipping boy, Willie G..."), he is shooting over 46% from the field, which is far from terrible. He is currently our best defender at the 2, other than Iggy, IMO. Mo has taken minutes away from him as the other players have worked more in the rotation, and - like Evans - has been a complete pro about it.

I think that - for the most part - Mo has done a good job of handling Willie's minutes, and I think that (given the roster's current construction and Willie's relatively modest contract) Green has made a nice contribution to the team's success this year. No more, no less. Could we upgrade him? Sure. We probably will by next season. Should we trade him if we could? Absolutely. But I don't cringe when Willie is out there...the Green that we got last night is pretty much the Green that we have had all season...and he helped us get a win we really needed.

Now, Sammy, on the other hand...

Hoo boy - don't get me started.

[dond]

Cheeks has this team winning and in the playoffs. I would think fans would be happy and focused on that, and not how many minutes Willie Green is playing.

Thank You !!!!!!!!!!!!

[dond]

I love stats. After every game I watch, and sometimes during the game, I check out the box score to make sure what I am seeing is not clouded by bias or lack of attention. I also find the compilation of these box scores, which we accept as league averages, a useful tool.

Conversely, I do, however, almost totally disdain/distrust doctored numbers. I think the biggest perversion is the 48 minute idea. It amazes me that so many actually prefer to evaluate players based on minutes they did not play in various stages of the game. I will never believe the the mere projection of real minutes played does not distort or skew the findings up or down.

Other systems to which I am hopelessly averse involve some stranger arbitrarily arriving at a formula which determines effectiveness based on a factor he thinks is important. (i.e. free throws, or the relative value of assists, steals, rebounds, blocks, points, etc.) For example, should Miller get the two points for an assist through five defenders to an unguarded Reggie or Thad? How about one point for that dangerous cross court pass (that always seems to work) for an Iguodala three? Or should he only get a half point because of the difficulty of the shot? Is the guy who averages sixteen points a game with eight free throws necessarily better than a Ray Allen type who averages eighteen with fewer fouls drawn?

This leads me to my biggest fear, the youth of America (and some not so youthful) being led hopelessly astray by the plus and minus system in evaluating individuals in a team game. Everyone must know that this is subject to the influences of starter or reserve minutes, and the vagaries of various offensive and defensive combinations on the floor. Yet, how many disregard such things in determining who was the hero of a game?

But sometimes it is the analyst himself, usually so highly respected, who scares me most. One for example, at the beginning of the year, rated Andre Miller as the league's thirty second best point guard. I remember authoring a post scoffing at some of the mediocrities he had higher on his list. Are these people too busy on the computer or do they really watch basketball? Do they have an innate technical knowledge or are they just good with numbers?

I, therefor, will not ridicule Dond, for believing what he sees, even though he might not be able to prove someone else full of ..it. I do not want to hurt his image, but I am much the same. In fact I believe that the only reason that some of these "doctored" numbers have any credibility is because even the worst mathematician cannot totally distort the accomplishments of the best players.

But back to the point at hand. I think, based upon real numbers, NBA averages, Willie Green is currently the best guard, not named Andre, that we have. He has averaged more points per game at a better shooting percentage, and the rebounding numbers are a wash. I love Carney's defense. He has just the right touch of Reggie Evans in his game. But subjectively I believe Willie is also our best defender at the two. Lou can compare to neither, but has value against certain players and teams.

If Willie's man is consistently outproducing him at the two spot, then I think some statistical savant should consider adding a $ factor into his system. I think he is a bargain at three mil, and we are damn lucky to have him.

Thank you for doing what I no longer have the energy to do ...

[dbodner]

There is 1 of 2 things going on here. Either I'm not making myself clear, or you are just so much of a hater that it doesn't matter what I say, you are just going to argue.

First of all, I don't hate Willie Green. I actually think he's a good kid, who's a hard worker, not selfish, and wants to do the right thing. I hate rapists and murders and deadbeats. I don't hate Willie Green.

Second, when people use the term hater ("you're a willie green hater!"), it's not like Willie Green was drafted I went "bah! I hate you! I'll never say anything nice about you!". My opinion of him as a basketball player has been based on my watching him play, my opinion of him as a basketball player has not been based around some irrational means. He did not beat my sister.

Third, the degree to which Maurice Cheeks likes Willie Green is:
1) up for debate
2) not proof on how good of a basketball player Willie Green is.

You say Willie Green, even if he's not starting and getting big minutes, has a role on this team. I don't disagree. I said ideally he'd be playing 15 minutes, but he's getting more than that because we don't have another wing player asserting himself as a starter. I'm not sure where we disagree so vehemently, but I must not be getting that either.

Even if we assume you are right that Maurice Cheeks likes Willie Green (which, again, the degree to which is up for debate), that's really irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Coaches have made mistakes before, and I'm sure they will in the future. If I am not able to have an opinion because the coach disagrees with me and because no matter what I say it won't change what happens on the court, then I have no reason to be here. We're here to discuss and debate basketball. Nobody here has delusions of calling up Ed Stefanski and Mo Cheeks and getting them to change their philosophies.

As for why it bothers me even though we're winning. First of all, I enjoy discussion and debate. More importantly, my goal is to win a championship. The fact that we're winning doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the flaws on the team.

Chuck:
I love the backhanded jabs and comments at "watching the games". Through the miracle that is TiVo, I have seen every minute of every game for the Sixers this year (and through the miracle of draftexpress and synergy sports tech, hundreds of hours of other teams). I also split season tickets with a coworker, and attend roughly 20 home games per year. I do not base my opinion on stats, but on watching the games. I use stats to help back up my opinion.

And you say that "based upon real numbers". Well, you may hate the guy who creates his own stats in his basement. That's true. There are people who create stats more for self glorification (they usually end up naming the stat after themselves). You may not believe that some of these stats accurately reflect a players worth. However, the same can be said for those "real" stats (whatever that means). You say that you worry about the +/- system evaluating players in a team game, but the same can be said for those averages you previously mentioned. Averages are facts, but that doesn't make them meaningful. In my time I have found things like PPG, APG, and so forth have much more potential to distort effectiveness than some of these made up voodoo stats like PER, where averages ignore minor intricacies of the game like defense, team play, situation, style of play, and so forth. These new fangled "doctored" numbers are actually designed to address the shortcomings of those old, "real" stats. If you wish to debate whether or not they're valid, fine, but simply standing around calling them all doctored and irrelevant might not be the best approach.

[Sixerscan]

Conversely, I do, however, almost totally disdain/distrust doctored numbers. I think the biggest perversion is the 48 minute idea. It amazes me that so many actually prefer to evaluate players based on minutes they did not play in various stages of the game. I will never believe the the mere projection of real minutes played does not distort or skew the findings up or down.

Does Cole Hamels' ERA last year of 3.39 mean that if he pitched 9 innings every game he would give up an average of 3.39 runs?

[ChuckS]

[quote] "I love the backhanded jabs and comments at "watching the games". Through the miracle that is TiVo, I have seen every minute of every game for the Sixers this year (and through the miracle of draftexpress and synergy sports tech, hundreds of hours of other teams). I also split season tickets with a coworker, and attend roughly 20 home games per year. I do not base my opinion on stats, but on watching the games. I use stats to help back up my opinion."


I think I have a problem with the written word...or perhaps you are oversensitive to disagreement. I thought the context in which I used the expression made it clear that I was referring to the creators of the "new fangled" statistics...and particularly one, who used his "expertise" to determine that Andre was the league's 32d best point guard.

While I admit that I believe that you and Jem (for example) place more importance on such numbers, I've certainly been reading these boards long enough to know that you spend more time, work, and effort, watching and writing about the game than do I, a relatively casual, albeit long time, fan.


[quote] "so rather than say why the stats I presented are flawed and not a fair representation, he just says "eh, they're stats, and hence not valid".

" If you wish to debate whether or not they're valid, fine, but simply standing around calling them all doctored and irrelevant might not be the best approach."


Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a difficult man to please. I tried to do what you criticized Dond for not doing, by suggesting why I believe the stats you presented were flawed. Well...that certainly didn't work! My thoughts might not be popular, but I still think they are not without merit. I will not argue semantics, but feel that whenever you take a number and add, subtract, divide, or multiply it by any factor, you are, for better or worse, "doctoring". I leave relevance to each individual. It goes without saying that you can select the stats you feel are most meaningful. Similarly, I reserve the right to insist that they actually compound any "shortcomings of those old 'real' stats".

[IggyTheBEaST]

Willie Green should not be in the NBA. I'm hoping that Mo and others eventually see this. He sucks and I hope he is traded soon. I personally think that Green has some dirt on Mo or is blackmailing him somehow. I mean, why else would he be starting Green?

Thats a little harsh. Im not a willie fan but when he is on he can pretty much score at will. He is a pretty good finisher too. That reverse the other night was pretty. He is not an NBA starter but he IS an NBA player.

[dbodner]

Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a difficult man to please. I tried to do what you criticized Dond for not doing, by suggesting why I believe the stats you presented were flawed. Well...that certainly didn't work!

You didn't address PER, or wages of wins, or any of the ones I was using in my argument. You disagreed with per 48 (which nobody really used in this thread), and I'm guessing PPS (what the ft is worth more than a made basket comments were aimed at) and generally applied blanket statements about the use of exotic stats.

I don't think you can look at it like "all these stats are distorting the truth". If you have a problem when someone uses PER, explain why PER is flawed and why plain averages are better. Certainly things like PER and wins generated are not perfect, but I think they are a definite step up for ppg, rpg, and apg when measuring overall impact.

As for what I perceived as a condescending nature, I apologize if I misconstrued that.

[ChuckS]

[quote] "You didn't address PER, or wages of wins, or any of the ones I was using in my argument."

"If you have a problem when someone uses PER, explain why PER is flawed and why plain averages are better."


My bad. I thought I had addressed these issues.

I stated that I thought using forty eight minute statistics distorted. I touched on the dangers of using arbitrary factors to value assists, rebounds, etc. I, indirectly, hinted at the problems in comparing starters and reserves and constantly changing combinations on the court.

This will seem condescending, but it would seem to follow that, regardless of the title, I believe that statistical derivations based on such factors (a couple of which you mentioned) are inherently flawed.

Now you can certainly disagree and be in good company. I suspect yours is a majority opinion. Hell...I watch Charlie Eppes on TV. His algorithms always work.

I feel safer using the "pure" base numbers, however, supplemented by my own game observations.

[dond]

You didn't address PER, or wages of wins, or any of the ones I was using in my argument. You disagreed with per 48 (which nobody really used in this thread), and I'm guessing PPS (what the ft is worth more than a made basket comments were aimed at) and generally applied blanket statements about the use of exotic stats.

I don't think you can look at it like "all these stats are distorting the truth". If you have a problem when someone uses PER, explain why PER is flawed and why plain averages are better. Certainly things like PER and wins generated are not perfect, but I think they are a definite step up for ppg, rpg, and apg when measuring overall impact.

Well, let me try to present this in a different manner and you see if this makes sense to you.

Let's suppose it is my job to do the drafting for the Sixers (purely fantasy). Do you suppose I would select a particular player without seeing him play a few times (on film at least) ? Of course not ! There is something about actually seeing a player in action that overrides all of the statistics about that player. Once I have seen the players in action, the statistics on them plays a very secondary role, if any at all, in my decision. Of course, seeing them just once may not be enough for that course of action but it might be. That is why when statistics are brought up to override my "sense" of how good a player is ... it doesn't sit right with me. That is not to say that the statistics are not accurate or don't have a place in the evaluation process. They just do not constitute the final word on the subject. I will pick the player I "like".

Now, you may say ... well, what if player-A has a shooting percentage of 50% and player-B has a shooting percentage of 30% ? Well, the answer to that is in all likely hood I will already "like" player-A better than player-B because I will "see" he is a better shooter. There may be a zillion ... what ifs to throw at this but I am hoping you get the general gist of things.

Seeing always overrides Statistics.

[dbodner]

Let's suppose it is my job to do the drafting for the Sixers (purely fantasy). Do you suppose I would select a particular player without seeing him play a few times (on film at least) ?

Nope. Which isn't my argument. If you've ready anything I've said, I said stats are best used to support opinions, not form opinions.

I stated that I thought using forty eight minute statistics distorted. I touched on the dangers of using arbitrary factors to value assists, rebounds, etc. I, indirectly, hinted at the problems in comparing starters and reserves and constantly changing combinations on the court.

I guess what I'm expecting is more along the lines of:
PER is invalid because it doesn't stress <insert basketball skill> and overvalues <insert basketball skill>. Simply throwing them out because you don't think it can be done well, IMO, isn't the best approach.

As I've said, averages are just that. They're what you average. But they don't inherently represent the true value of ones play on the basketball court because of what they don't take into consideration (team play, defense, nuances of the game like rotational defense and setting screens, etc). Stats like PER, while you believe are inherently flawed because they arbitrarily decide what's worth more, I believe make an attempt, which while might not be perfect, do improve upon the shortcomings of averages.

[dond]

Nope. Which isn't my argument. If you've ready anything I've said, I said stats are best used to support opinions, not form opinions.

Well, I think you have missed my point and I may not have stated it well enough. My point is ... Seeing Overrides Statistics everytime !!!!

If I have an opinion based upon seeing a player in action, it is unlikely that a page full of statistics will change my opinion. It may cause me to watch the player a few more times to make sure my opinion holds up ... but only seeing him again will allow me to modify my opinion ... not the statistics. So, when you present me with a page of statistics to back up a differing opinion on some player my only action will be to consider what you have presented to me and then perhaps watching the player to see if I may have been mistaken about that player .... NOT, to go out and look up some more statistics to back up my opinion or argue with you about why I think your statistics are invalid. Those are meaningless, argumentative activities with no possibility of success. Only SEEING the player has any true chance of changing my opinion. You want me to change your opinion with statistics and I am telling you it can't be done so why try ?

[Sixerscan]

I stated that I thought using forty eight minute statistics distorted.

So I'll ask again since you seemed to ignore me.

Does Cole Hamels' ERA last year of 3.39 mean that if he pitched 9 innings every game he would give up an average of 3.39 runs?

[Sixerscan]

-= original quote snipped =-



Well, I think you have missed my point and I may not have stated it well enough. My point is ... Seeing Overrides Statistics everytime !!!!

If I have an opinion based upon seeing a player in action, it is unlikely that a page full of statistics will change my opinion. It may cause me to watch the player a few more times to make sure my opinion holds up ... but only seeing him again will allow me to modify my opinion ... not the statistics. So, when you present me with a page of statistics to back up a differing opinion on some player my only action will be to consider what you have presented to me and then perhaps watching the player to see if I may have been mistaken about that player .... NOT, to go out and look up some more statistics to back up my opinion or argue with you about why I think your statistics are invalid. Those are meaningless, argumentative activities with no possibility of success. Only SEEING the player has any true chance of changing my opinion. You want me to change your opinion with statistics and I am telling you it can't be done so why try ?

They aren't making these numbers up. The stats are simply a recording of the game played. Someone has to watch the game to plug the stats in.

And stop acting like it's a huge chore to go find these statistics. It takes me like 15 seconds to go to Willie Green's ESPN.com page. How much time have you spent on this board writing long winded rants about how statistics are too time consuming and such? This is hilarious.

You flat out are not smart enough to figure out how good a player is by watching him a few times. No one is unless they have a photographic memory. Players can have good games and they have bad games. You can develop certain biases about players that simply are not true. Either you or bebop (I forget which, sorry) have stated that Willie Green is a good rebounder, which is ridiculous because he gets 2.4 boards a game and 5.2% of available rebounds which 63rd among 67 SGs that played at least 500 minutes. (BTW I timed myself and it took me 12 seconds to look that up). Stats have no bias.

[dond]

You flat out are not smart enough to figure out how good a player is by watching him a few times. No one is unless they have a photographic memory.

I disagree. I think when you have played basketball and watch a lot of basketball you can spot a good player almost immediately. Most everyone on this forum who will admit it knows that Willie Green is a talented basketball player. They also know he can shoot you to a loss or a win. He is not consistent. He works hard on defense and is fairly effective. He runs the floor well. He goes to the rim with authority. I don't need a page full of statistics to tell me that. I like him as a player and hope he overcomes his weakness ... inconsistency ... because he could be a tremendous asset to the Sixers. I think the coaching staff sees and hopes that also. They know he is not perfect and they play him accordingly ... he rarely plays much in the 4th quarter. I believe the reason for that is because Mo Cheeks believes that he has other players that perform more consistently under pressure. That is Ok, I am fine with that ... it makes sense because I see it ... not because of a page full of statistics. If Willie would do more driving to the basket instead of shooting jumpshots, I think he would play in the 4th quarter. I also think the coaches are working with him on that and if he responds to their coaching he will find himself in the game in the 4th quarter more often. These are all things I SEE .... and believe because of what I SEE ... not because of statistics. SEEING OVERRIDES STATISTICS !!!!!

[Sixerscan]

Everything you said right there is way too vague. "Talented?" What does that even mean? "Works hard?" "Fairly effective?" That doesn't really do me any good. It's only with relation to everyone else in the NBA at his position that characteristics like that mean anything. Are you prepared to tell me you can do that?

-= original quote snipped =-



I disagree. I think when you have played basketball and watch a lot of basketball you can spot a good player almost immediately.

I guarantee Bods has watched more basketball this year that you have. Why do you two have different opinions on how good Green is?

[SouthJersey]

The one thing I get from Willie when I watch him is that he can make open shots and drive to the lane.; however, he doesnt seem to grasp the idea of playing as a team on offense. He rarely passes and takes ill advised shots. The one difference I see between him and Lou Williams, is that Lou makes the pass (and is a better shooter). Willie does not and this effects the ebb and flow of the offense alot of the time. His offense is nice when it's there, but his short comings outweigh it most of the time.

[dbodner]

I have not run into one non-scout who has seen every minute of every game of every player in the NBA. Until you can do so, stats help put things in perspective.

[ChuckS]

[quote] "So I'll ask again since you seemed to ignore me.

Does Cole Hamels' ERA last year of 3.39 mean that if he pitched 9 innings every game he would give up an average of 3.39 runs?"

Isn't that the very definition of an earned run average? I ignored you because I knew I would have difficulty explaining why I do not believe there is a correlation to forty eight minutes in basketball...which is what I'm sure you were implying.

Forgive me because I have not followed baseball since Willie Mays left New York. Generally I think that there are less variables, which makes ERA more realistic for me. Certainly it is not always accurate with relief pitchers, for example, and can be effected by a juiced ball, or juiced batters, but the two games are so very different that I distrust using the same concept for hoops. Anyone can, and some I am sure will, disagree.

I see the pitcher as one man against opposing batters...maybe only slightly less alone than a tennis player. Of course I realize that having eight golden glovers will impact performance, as will facing a murderer's row. But realistically it makes a relatively insignificant difference who he has playing first base. And neither team changes players every ten (or less) minutes. In effect you are comparing one pitcher to another, facing the same squads in a year. The quality of their fielders is of course a factor, but since errors do not statistically hurt them, much less of one than you might think. In effect the pitcher is surrounded by a constant, unchanging, team and opposition for the nine (or however many) innings.

I see little or no correlation to basketball, where a guy can play five garbage minutes with and/or against other garbage players, and can statistically look good versus a guy who spends most of his time against Kobe or LeBron. The permutations of having twenty four potential players in and out of a forty eight minute game are endless. Someone can have man to man responsibility and look guilty if his man scores against someone else when playing zone. I just do not see an analogy to baseball's ERA.