Doctor MJ wrote:trex_8063 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:I think it's really easy to overrate the offensive rebounding of Grant based on his time in Chicago. This was a team, after all, that saw it's offensive rebounding rank improve AFTER Grant left BEFORE Rodman got there at a time when the club's top offensive rebounder only played 20 MPG.
This is a somewhat misleading statement, imo. For one, their league rank in ORebs improved only from the year immediately before (but were ranked worse in some OReb categories than any season in recent memory with Grant in a Bull uniform). Secondly, while their league rank mysteriously improves, their OReb numbers (by
any and all means you choose to measure) were worse in '95 than in any of the previous four seasons. I'll show what I mean.....
Below I'll list (by year) Chicago's ORebs (league rank)
/OREB% (league rank)
/% of missed TSA's claimed by OReb:
'91: 1148 (13th/27)/34.7% (4th/27)/30.90%
'92: 1173 (12th/27)/35.1% (5th/27)/31.16%
'93: 1290 (3rd/27)/36.3% (1st/27)/32.58%
'94: 1143 (13th/27)/33.8% (11th/27)/29.99%
'95 (no Grant, no Rodman):
1106 (7th/27)/
32.9% (6th/27)/
29.36%'96: 1247 (3rd/29)/36.9% (1st/29)/32.62%
So let's get this straight here:
Your response to "Grant left, and they got better at offensive rebounding without him" is "Actually they got ever so slightly worse".
I'm sensing a smirk in your tone.
But yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, because I think there's a fair bit of disparity between "they got better" and "they got slightly worse". Had you said "they got
slightly better without Grant", then perhaps the difference I was pointing out would be relatively trivial. I'd still probably call you out on that it because I tend to stickler on points like that. But since you
didn't use that particular adverb to modify your statement, it left the degree to which they "got better" vague, and certainly seemed to
imply that it was by a significant margin......which, as I stated, I find misleading.
Doctor MJ wrote:Whenever we talk about impact, we have to talk in terms of replaceability. And when we talk about offensive rebounding and the Bulls, to me there's only one guy who we can clearly say "That was THE guy for the Bulls to get in that role.", and that's Rodman. Grant by contrast was simply a very nice player in the right place at the right time on this front.
Fair point about replaceability, and perhaps Jones's talents are somewhat more "irreplaceable". Though I somewhat resent the implication that Grant was merely a "right place at the right time" guy, and little more. In defense of this I'd point out that his numbers during his first three prime years in Orlando are very very similar to his previous four seasons in Chicago (so maybe he's a guy who can be "right" in many different places and times?? I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this regard).
And wrt "impact", his impact data looks pretty good, even though we largely only have it for POST-prime Horace Grant.
Non-scaled PI RAPM by year:
'97: +3.25 (NPI; *30th in league, and just ahead of Dennis Rodman, fwiw)
'98 (this is early post-prime): +2.26
'99: +1.17
'00: +0.56
'01: +2.0 (NPI; *tied for 38th in league)
'02: +2.9 (33rd in league)
----my source has withdrawn data from '03' thru '06.
Judging by his impact while past his prime, I tend to suspect it was pretty solid during his prime. EDIT: And this raw +/- that's recently brought up supports that notion (though I'm not sure how excited I should get about it; more on that in later post)......
Horace's league rank in raw +/- by year:
'94: 30th (colts18 ran a regression to obtain RAPM data; Grant ranked 20th in league by that)
'95: 6th (behind only DRob, K.Malone, Penny, Shaq, and Stockton; 11th by colts18's RAPM data)
'96: 18th (10th by colts18's RAPM)
Doctor MJ wrote:trex_8063 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote: You talk about turnovers, and try to equate the roles of the 2 guys, but when the guy with more turnovers also has more assists, he's obviously being asked to do a considerably more intensive playmaking role.
I don't know that I'd go so far as to say "considerably more intensive role" as a playmaker. Jones is averaging 4.5 ast/100 poss vs. 3.4 for Grant. It's more, yes, but the verbiage used seems to imply Jones had to shoulder a ton of facilitating (which isn't precisely the case). Further, I'm not sure getting +1.1 ast/100 possessions at expense of 1.6 additional turnovers per 100 possessions is a nice exchange, regardless of role.
Longevity's another significant consideration when comparing the two, fwiw.
When people are using Jones' turnovers against him, the fact that he also got more assists has to be brought up, because there's obviously a connection. Fine to argue that there's enough more turnovers that either 1) Jones shouldn't have been playmaking like he did, or 2) there's something else going on, but you absolutely cannot emphasize the turnovers while praising Grant's playmaking without also talking about the fact that Jones was racking up more assists than Grant.
And yes, longevity is a fine thing to bring up.
fwiw, I never "praised" Grant's playmaking; and I wasn't the one who brought the topic up (the person whom you were originally responding to on this front). I'm merely stating that I don't think noting him racking up more assists is sufficient argument to claim that Jones was a superior (or perhaps even equal) playmaker given 1) he's not racking up
too many more assists, while 2) also racking up quite a few more turnovers (at ratios which are not at all flattering, especially when compared to Grant).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
