ImageImageImage

Cavs/Wolves trade

Moderators: Domejandro, Worm Guts, Calinks

shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,279
And1: 19,284
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Cavs/Wolves trade 

Post#61 » by shrink » Tue Aug 5, 2008 3:09 pm

stop-n-pop wrote:
stop-n-pop wrote: This has nothing to do with comparing starters and second string players. It is a stat that simply measures how well a team does with player x on and off the court.


McCants' minutes didn't change all that much from when he was a starter and when he came off the bench. He was in all of the top floor units:

http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN4B.HTM

So no, that's not correct and there's nothing incompatible about those statements. There's nothing even remotely exclusive about either of those statements even if your objection was based in fact.


LOL! McCants was in all the Top Units that McCants was in .. on the McCants page!

Here's the page for the Wolves:

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708MIN2.HTM

The unit that gathered the most minutes was

Foye-Jaric-Snyder-Gomes-Jefferson 228 minutes.

No McCants. To me, that looks like our starting rotation at the end of the season, with McCants coming off the bench, and ergo, he spent more time facing opponent's second string defenders than starters like Foye did. Of course, this is all just guesswork, which is the maajor flaw in the statistic .. we have no idea how much of an effect the other nine players on the court had on the fact that the team did better.
stop-n-pop
Sophomore
Posts: 126
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 16, 2008

Re: Cavs/Wolves trade 

Post#62 » by stop-n-pop » Tue Aug 5, 2008 3:11 pm

shrink wrote:What is particularly disturbing is that you want to take a statistic that is inheritantly unable to get rid of its interaction effects, and try to use it to justify your plans for acting on an individual player.

You like McCants. I like McCants too. However, I'm not going to base any idea to keep him and trade Randy Foye on information like this. There's no way of knowing if Foye was put in the same position as McCants (same combo-sets of players, same defenders, same situations), and a different PG was brought in, that Foye wouldn't have done better, worse, or the same as McCants.

I like McCants, but I'm not going to use it to blind myself to the flaws in his game. I think you're putting way more emphasis on this information than it deserves. It is certainly no Holy Grail.
What the hell are you even talking about at this point? Did you not just read that I said adj +/- stats should be taken in consideration with other measurements? Did I not link to previous posts with Shaddy and Foye that didn't even broach the subject of adj +/-? If you look back at the original post in this thread about the trade, you won't find mention of adj +/-, nor will you find anything other than me saying that both Foye and McCants could be included in the deal; I simply prefer Foye.

Come on now, you're just making stuff up at this point.
stop-n-pop
Sophomore
Posts: 126
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 16, 2008

Re: Cavs/Wolves trade 

Post#63 » by stop-n-pop » Tue Aug 5, 2008 3:14 pm

shrink wrote:
stop-n-pop wrote:
stop-n-pop wrote: This has nothing to do with comparing starters and second string players. It is a stat that simply measures how well a team does with player x on and off the court.


McCants' minutes didn't change all that much from when he was a starter and when he came off the bench. He was in all of the top floor units:

http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN4B.HTM

So no, that's not correct and there's nothing incompatible about those statements. There's nothing even remotely exclusive about either of those statements even if your objection was based in fact.


LOL! McCants was in all the Top Units that McCants was in .. on the McCants page!

Here's the page for the Wolves:

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708MIN2.HTM

The unit that gathered the most minutes was

Foye-Jaric-Snyder-Gomes-Jefferson 228 minutes.

No McCants. To me, that looks like our starting rotation at the end of the season, with McCants coming off the bench, and ergo, he spent more time facing opponent's second string defenders than starters like Foye did. Of course, this is all just guesswork, which is the maajor flaw in the statistic .. we have no idea how much of an effect the other nine players on the court had on the fact that the team did better.
That's my bad, I had 2 pages open at once. Here's the link:

http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.ph ... 8&team=MIN


He's on the one with the only positive ranking in the top 10.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,279
And1: 19,284
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Cavs/Wolves trade 

Post#64 » by shrink » Tue Aug 5, 2008 3:14 pm

Please. You brought up +/- . Nobody else did.

You brought it up to justify an unpopular trade. Read the thread title you posted this in.
stop-n-pop
Sophomore
Posts: 126
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 16, 2008

Re: Cavs/Wolves trade 

Post#65 » by stop-n-pop » Tue Aug 5, 2008 3:18 pm

shrink wrote:Please. You brought up +/- . Nobody else did.

You brought it up to justify an unpopular trade. Read the thread title you posted this in.
Again, you're just making stuff up at this point and you haven't addressed the 2 big problems in your argument. You then claim that you're too "bored" to reply right before you continue to do so. This....

What is particularly disturbing is that you want to take a statistic that is inheritantly unable to get rid of its interaction effects, and try to use it to justify your plans for acting on an individual player.


...couldn't be more of a fabrication. You literally made that up. I'm not claiming it's a holy grail or anything other than a useful tool to be used in conjunction with other stats.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 59,279
And1: 19,284
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Cavs/Wolves trade 

Post#66 » by shrink » Tue Aug 5, 2008 3:31 pm

My "boredom" with the thread, and these statistics in particular, is because I'm trying to avoid going into the depth that would put everyone to sleep. My undergraduate thesis was based on statistical modeling that specifically tried to discover the interactive effects on a conglomerate value, which is exactly what your +/- stat is. However, on a superficial level, I've posted because I've disagreed with your posts, and your characterization that I have not demonstrated why I don't give +/- much credence.

After your initial trade idea, on page two of this thread, you were the one who brought up +/-. You have said you believe that Foye and McCants are incompatable ("death match" I think you said) and that one had to go. You then went into great detail about McCants +/-, and how it was a factor that could indicate great things for him in the future.

However, let's just skip all that. If the discussion on +/- is not based on this trade, then its off topic for this thread and we can both just drop it, right?
stop-n-pop
Sophomore
Posts: 126
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 16, 2008

Re: Cavs/Wolves trade 

Post#67 » by stop-n-pop » Tue Aug 5, 2008 3:53 pm

shrink wrote:My "boredom" with the thread, and these statistics in particular, is because I'm trying to avoid going into the depth that would put everyone to sleep. My undergraduate thesis was based on statistical modeling that specifically tried to discover the interactive effects on a conglomerate value, which is exactly what your +/- stat is. However, on a superficial level, I've posted because I've disagreed with your posts, and your characterization that I have not demonstrated why I don't give +/- much credence.

After your initial trade idea, on page two of this thread, you were the one who brought up +/-. You have said you believe that Foye and McCants are incompatable ("death match" I think you said) and that one had to go. You then went into great detail about McCants +/-, and how it was a factor that could indicate great things for him in the future.

However, let's just skip all that. If the discussion on +/- is not based on this trade, then its off topic for this thread and we can both just drop it, right?
I think you mean "incompatible". Thank god for spell checks on those undergrad papers ;)

Again, you continue to literally pull stuff out of a hat. The very original post here said quite clearly that Shaddy and Foye could both be put in this trade. The stuff on page 2 of this thread clearly states that adj +/- is just a part of the overall evaluation and that injuries and other stats (on the links provided) play a part in the big picture.

While I don't disagree that you don't give adj +/- much credence, acceptance never has been the gold standard of your original claim: a lack of credibility. I can accept all sorts of things without them being credible. Hell, I've learned to live with the 2000 election. Writing an undergrad paper doesn't excuse you from the fact that you fundamentally mis-characterized the purpose of adj +/- stats or that your objections, while clearly expressing your distaste for what adj +/- has to offer, never addressed the credibility of what the stat was designed to do: measure the on/off value of a player in the context of his team's overall play. (Just to play along with the degree-measuring, I majored in polisci with a dual in Religious Studies. I followed it up with a Masters in Public Policy.) It has nothing to do with who is "best". It's hard to say that you're addressing the credibility of something when you have shown signs that you misjudged its original purpose. Regardless of what I may believe in terms of Shaddy/Foye, you are crossing all sorts of streams here and confusing a bunch of different ideas. It's ultimately led you to literally put words in my mouth.

That being said, I completely take the solid point you make about how I've taken this thread way off the tracks. Point taken and I'll shut up about it now. I know how things can appear on the internets; no disrespect meant.
User avatar
deeney0
RealGM
Posts: 10,594
And1: 9
Joined: Jan 26, 2005
Location: Cambridge, MA

Re: Cavs/Wolves trade 

Post#68 » by deeney0 » Wed Aug 6, 2008 12:12 am

Talking Foye vs. McCants, the fact the Shaddy's knee injury was more severe has to be brought up. Yes, those who have undergone microfracture over the past few years have returned to form much better than those who had the surgery in its infancy (it ruined the careers of Chris Webber, Jamal Mashburn, Brian Grant, Penny, Allan Houston to name a few), but the long term viability of these players is a complete unknown. Pessimistically, I don't expect Amare to play much past 30. Oden too, as physically as I would expect him to play and the frame he's carrying... I wouldn't want to bet on him having a career as long as the players he's been compared to. Shaddy? It at least has to enter the conversation.

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves