Draft Day/Today's Trade Rumors

[sdballer]

We have a 228 minute sample where the Thornton lineup had a 63.1 winning percentage. How might that winning percentage change (due to factors such as quality of opponent) if they played more minutes?



Confidence level = 6.08. This means that if they played 100 full seasons, in 95 of them, their winning percentage would be within 63.1 +/- 6.08 (no less than 57.02).

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

We have a 316 minute sample where the McLemore lineup had a 51.8 winning percentage. How might that winning percentage change (due to factors such as quality of opponent) if they played more minutes?



Confidence level = 5.28. This means that if they played 100 full seasons, in 95 of them, their winning percentage would be within 51.8 +/- 5.28. (no more than 57.08).

My confidence level that you are past the point of contributing anything meaningful in this forum: 100%

[SmellingColors]

To get back on topic, I'd love the Kings to throw a sizeable, but not unreasonable, contract at Diaw and just see what he says. The Spurs just drafted Anderson and though they'd likely love to have him learn under Diaw you never know whether they match it or not. I doubt it would work, but if you bring in Diaw you are filling the PF spot with pretty much exactly the guy you need to have Stauskas and McLemore play together for extended minutes. (That or Livingston). I'd love to see us pursue Diaw and Livingston. The more I hear about Henson the less I want him and the less I'm interested in giving up McLemore to get him. Also, really don't like the McLemore for Smith trade even giving up 2 bloated contracts. Sounded like we could get smith for 1 bloated contract and keep McLemore. I like that better. Still I take Diaw over Smith 10/10 times an Livingston is my highest priority signing.

[bleeds_purple]

Do we have any info on what the deal was for Smith?

[City of Trees]

Do we have any info on what the deal was for Smith?

it was rumored we were offering JT + Williams and/or Terry.

What Detroit didn't like about that package hasn't been reported to my knowledge.

Sent from my SM-G900T using RealGM Forums mobile app

[SmellingColors]

We have a 228 minute sample where the Thornton lineup had a 63.1 winning percentage. How might that winning percentage change (due to factors such as quality of opponent) if they played more minutes?



Confidence level = 6.08. This means that if they played 100 full seasons, in 95 of them, their winning percentage would be within 63.1 +/- 6.08 (no less than 57.02).

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

We have a 316 minute sample where the McLemore lineup had a 51.8 winning percentage. How might that winning percentage change (due to factors such as quality of opponent) if they played more minutes?



Confidence level = 5.28. This means that if they played 100 full seasons, in 95 of them, their winning percentage would be within 51.8 +/- 5.28. (no more than 57.08).

My confidence level that you are past the point of contributing anything meaningful in this forum: 100%

But really... How do your statistics factor in McLemores growth as a player? They assume that McLemore plays the same way the rest of his career. It might work for a player like Thornton who likely won't change much, but they don't with McLemore who is nowhere near his ceiling. Your posts are equally annoying as they are misleading.

[DiamondParoxysm]

Henson, Knight for McLemore, 2nd rounder fair? A LOT of people vary on Henson's value.

[teerfour+40LG]

But really... How do your statistics factor in McLemores growth as a player? They assume that McLemore plays the same way the rest of his career. It might work for a player like Thornton who likely won't change much, but they don't with McLemore who is nowhere near his ceiling. Your posts are equally annoying as they are misleading.

First of all, thank you for understanding the statistics. You are the first today.

You are RIGHT. These stats ONLY show how well IT-Ben-Gay-Thompson-Cousins and IT-MT23-Gay-Thompson-Cousins can perform at their 2013-2014 level.

But remember: I'm only arguing that if you replace 2014 Ben in the following 2014 lineup

2014 IT - 2014 Ben - 2014 Gay - 2014 Thompson - 2014 Cousins

with a better defender/rebounder/passer, then it (the lineup) improves significantly.

If 2015 Ben is a better defender/rebounder/passer, then YES, even he will improve the lineup.

Henson, Knight for McLemore, 2nd rounder fair? A LOT of people vary on Henson's value.

The trade in my sig is better. McLemore, Reggie Evans, Travis Outlaw, Jason Terry for Henson, Zaza Pachulia, Carlos Delfino. Reasons:

1) IT > Brandon Knight

2) We get vets who improve our bench a lot. How?

Carlos Defino replaces Travis Outlaw. Carlos Delfino is a better passer, shooter, and maybe defender.

Zaza Pachulia would be our 2nd best passing big. Pachulia is a solid and tough defender, though he's not a good shot blocker or alterer. He's also a semi-decent mid range shooter. He brings toughness, is willing to take the toughest defensive assignment, doesn't get pushed around, and sees himself as a backup C, which Thompson sure as hell doesn't (watch thompson complain about guarding 5s here).

3) Even if Henson sucks, he'll still block shots, rebound, and could be our third best passing big. To me that makes him better than Landry.

Jason Thompson / John Henson
DeMarcus Cousins / Zaza Pachulia

4) It saves us $3 million right away, which can keep us under the lux tax after signing someone like Shaun Livingston and retaining Isaiah Thomas.

5) Doesn't sacrifice a lot of cap flexibility.

6) It allows us to completely revamp the roster with just three VERY DO-ABLE moves. Like, keep our RFA, sign a low key free agent, and convince MIL to dump a couple "mediocre vets". It's simple and elegant.

[SacKingZZZ]

You win with vets, or at least players with more polish who limit their mistakes. So, while I'm not going to rely on limited situational statistics to tell the whole story, yes, the Kings would have been better with anyone at SG who could play and had more experience. This team was in disarray when Thornton was here but there is no question that when Thornton was in this team was better for it. Just from the perspective of he didn't F up as much at BMac. Lets see what the kid can do with a real shot at it. Question is though, did this recent draft just kill that shot? Might have if Stauskas at PG and Ben McLemore as PG stopper fails. Once it fails though, get ready to find none to many teams willing to give much for him. Once a young player looks like a bust after his rookie year, he might as well be a bust.

[SacKingZZZ]

Henson, Knight for McLemore, 2nd rounder fair? A LOT of people vary on Henson's value.

If the Bucks think it is I more than think it is. McLemore has way more potential than the other two but if you can get players that have proven to be productive already in at least some of the areas you need production it's fair.

[teerfour+40LG]

You win with vets, or at least players with more polish who limit their mistakes. So, while I'm not going to rely on limited situational statistics to tell the whole story...

I should share, shouldn't I? The stat I use to determine who is a better passer than who is assists per 100 possessions. The stat is available on basketball reference. Here's the page that show's each Bucks player's assists per 100 possessions: (http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... poss::none).

Zaza gets 5.4 and Henson gets 3.2.

For SAC (http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... poss::none), Cousins leads the way with 4.6. Everyone else is under 2.

This stat is obv affected by usage and such, but eh. I can youtube Zaza Pachulia and see that he can make passes that Carl Landry, Reggie Evans, and Jason Thompson clearly can't, so it's good enough for me. Though I probably shouldn't be saying that Henson is a better passer.

[SacKingZZZ]

OK, the more I'm thinking about some of what Pete and Vivek said after they drafted Stauskas and also what Malone has said about what he wants to do moving forward, they NEED to get Josh McRoberts. This guy is the exact player they are trying to put on the floor next to Cuz and Gay. He's a willing and darn near elite passer from the high post. I didn't realize he was that nutty in the assist to turnover category. He's Brad Miller level easy. Of course, he won't be doing that for the Kings without cutters but he's the perfect stretch 4 who will also pass first and do it better than anyone else on the Kings right now when turnovers are considered. The other great thing is that the Hornets selected Vonleh so that would have to effect their willingness and ability to bring McRoberts back.

[SmellingColors]

OK, the more I'm thinking about some of what Pete and Vivek said after they drafted Stauskas and also what Malone has said about what he wants to do moving forward, they NEED to get Josh McRoberts. This guy is the exact player they are trying to put on the floor next to Cuz and Gay. He's a willing and darn near elite passer from the high post. I didn't realize he was that nutty in the assist to turnover category. He's Brad Miller level easy. Of course, he won't be doing that for the Kings without cutters but he's the perfect stretch 4 who will also pass first and do it better than anyone else on the Kings right now when turnovers are considered. The other great thing is that the Hornets selected Vonleh so that would have to effect their willingness and ability to bring McRoberts back.

A quick YouTube search shows he can hit the three well and has decent handles for a big guy too. I don't know much about him but I like the idea so far. Anyone have any idea how he fairs defensively?

[ICMTM]

Draft day is over...I know the thread is moving but please recreate a new one with the proper subject.