CHA/UTA/CLE/PHI

[loserX]

No, no excuses. We are using your simplified argument and we are sticking with it.

This season will be a true indicator of the value of PER with Young being counted on to be a major option. Antwaan Jamison, similar player to Young, for the most part always had good PERs too and that didn't seem to be much of an impact to the Cavs a couple of seasons ago which I suspect will be what will happen to Young this season where those offensive stats won't seem so impressive.

Sure,we could instead look at things like:
Thad on the court: -0.6 points per 100 possessions.
Thad off the court: -8.7 points per 100 possessions.

But instead, we should look at the Sixers expected win total next season (ignoring that it will obviously include the effects of the rest of the roster), because it will prove he doesn't help a team win?

Also, when trying to prove a player helps a team win, its probably best to find something more recent than 07-08. You know, then you look better when being sarcastic.

Well, talking about excuses. Using a single variable and trying to cover all other variables with it is kind of weak too. An example of this single variable (PER etc.) being a determinate of a teams successful win total (players real value) is as weak as it comes. One stat variable being recited trumps everything in exclusion to other variables in value . Some examples of that single variable covering others in relation to teams success would be good which I provided with Jamison and Young comparison in the PER discussion where we are encouraged to believe that a PER stat trumps all in value.

1) You just quoted a post in which HW used a stat that wasn't PER. So we're not focused on one stat, but on multiple.
2) Team win total is NOT individual players' real value. There are too many confounding variables, too much noise. In that scenario individual value gets affected by things like teammate quality, coaching quality, teammate injuries, etc.

If player X has crappy teammates so his team loses, does that mean player X is inherently worth less? It shouldn't mean that, that's wholly unfair to the player.

[rjgraca]

No, no excuses. We are using your simplified argument and we are sticking with it.



Sure,we could instead look at things like:
Thad on the court: -0.6 points per 100 possessions.
Thad off the court: -8.7 points per 100 possessions.

But instead, we should look at the Sixers expected win total next season (ignoring that it will obviously include the effects of the rest of the roster), because it will prove he doesn't help a team win?

Also, when trying to prove a player helps a team win, its probably best to find something more recent than 07-08. You know, then you look better when being sarcastic.

Well, talking about excuses. Using a single variable and trying to cover all other variables with it is kind of weak too. An example of this single variable (PER etc.) being a determinate of a teams successful win total (players real value) is as weak as it comes. One stat variable being recited trumps everything in exclusion to other variables in value . Some examples of that single variable covering others in relation to teams success would be good which I provided with Jamison and Young comparison in the PER discussion where we are encouraged to believe that a PER stat trumps all in value.

1) You just quoted a post in which HW used a stat that wasn't PER. So we're not focused on one stat, but on multiple.
2) Team win total is NOT individual players' real value. There are too many confounding variables, too much noise. In that scenario individual value gets affected by things like teammate quality, coaching quality, teammate injuries, etc.

If player X has crappy teammates so his team loses, does that mean player X is inherently worth less? It shouldn't mean that, that's wholly unfair to the player.

Well, since you are nit picking that I Didn't mention the HW since it as relevant to a players true value in team success as a PER stat by it self. I don't think we live in a vacuum where only one variable is a determinate of total value. If a individual player can NOT lift a bad team and can only stuff a stat sheet that indicates that the indicated stat is not a true assignment of his value. I didn't get a graduate degree in business to not understand how stats can be miss used.

Yes, Player X on a bad team shows his real impact and contribution in most cases which helps focus those single variables verses more variables included significance.

[loserX]

Well, talking about excuses. Using a single variable and trying to cover all other variables with it is kind of weak too. An example of this single variable (PER etc.) being a determinate of a teams successful win total (players real value) is as weak as it comes. One stat variable being recited trumps everything in exclusion to other variables in value . Some examples of that single variable covering others in relation to teams success would be good which I provided with Jamison and Young comparison in the PER discussion where we are encouraged to believe that a PER stat trumps all in value.

1) You just quoted a post in which HW used a stat that wasn't PER. So we're not focused on one stat, but on multiple.
2) Team win total is NOT individual players' real value. There are too many confounding variables, too much noise. In that scenario individual value gets affected by things like teammate quality, coaching quality, teammate injuries, etc.

If player X has crappy teammates so his team loses, does that mean player X is inherently worth less? It shouldn't mean that, that's wholly unfair to the player.

Well, since you are nit picking that I Didn't mention the HW since it as relevant to a players true value in team success as a PER stat by it self. I don't think we live in a vacuum where only one variable is a determinate of total value. If a individual player can NOT lift a bad team and can only stuff a stat sheet that indicates that the indicated stat is not a true assignment of his value. I didn't get a graduate degree in business to not understand how stats can be miss used.

Yes, Player X on a bad team shows his real impact and contribution in most cases which helps focus those single variables verses more variables included significance.

I agree, I don't think any single stat can measure absolute player value. (Certainly no single stat that I've ever seen, anyway.) And I don't think any stat pretends to. And you're right, stats can certainly be misused.

But team success is even WORSE at depicting a player's individual value than a complex individual stat like PER or RAPM. As I say, too many confounding factors.

"Thad couldn't lift a bad team"? Well, not as much as a truly elite player could, sure. No one argues that. But what's your baseline? How would the Sixers be doing without Thad? How do we know he's NOT lifting them from "historically bad" to "mediocre"?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming Thad is any great shakes. But "he has atrocious teammates and his team will be bad" doesn't prove that Thad is good, bad or useless, it just proves that he isn't LeBron.