Game Thread: Magic (33-45, 21-18 Home) vs Heat (46-32, 19-19 Away) 4/8 7PM

[ChosenSavior]

Nevermind, I see OrlandO came through already lol.

[CraZyPraiZ]

This team is playing like it did in the beginning of the year again. I'm seeing consistency again and I hope that they have finally turned the corner. We have some really good pieces here. This Fournier, Mario debate is quite foolish. Mario is nowhere near ready yet but he is not expected to be. He has not lived up to the hype but what rookie does. Evan is a keeper whether he starts or comes off the bench which won't matter much as the dude has cojones of steel and he will finish games. Go Magic!!!

Do you really watch Mario play in the games and say "this guy screams nowhere near ready"?

I bet if Booker got jerked around with his minutes all year everyone would say he's way too young, nowhere near ready, needs to spend his first few years on the bench.

Never watched a game. This is baseball we're talking about right? Mario can't hit a curveball to save his life. Nowhere near ready yet.

[Xatticus]

As multiple analyses have shown, players typically improve until the 25/26/27 age range (due to growth, learning new skills, having more time to play) and then their performance falls off (due to becoming older).

The issue isn't at what point a player stops improving. This was all in response to a particular comment someone made about diminishing returns. There seems to be a general consensus here that development is linear, which it absolutely is not. This is calculus not algebra. My argument was that at some point, those improvements become negligible. Regardless of where you are on the developmental arc, which really only serves as an overarching guideline, development slows down.

If you actually delve into Fournier's career in the NBA and normalize for playing time, his development isn't particularly impressive.

At this point, Fournier is essentially whatever he is going to be. His next contract should reflect his current abilities, and not some potential improvement that no reasonable expectation would predict.

[ezzzp]

As multiple analyses have shown, players typically improve until the 25/26/27 age range (due to growth, learning new skills, having more time to play) and then their performance falls off (due to becoming older).

The issue isn't at what point a player stops improving. This was all in response to a particular comment someone made about diminishing returns. There seems to be a general consensus here that development is linear, which it absolutely is not. This is calculus not algebra. My argument was that at some point, those improvements become negligible. Regardless of where you are on the developmental arc, which really only serves as an overarching guideline, development slows down.

If you actually delve into Fournier's career in the NBA and normalize for playing time, his development isn't particularly impressive.

At this point, Fournier is essentially whatever he is going to be. His next contract should reflect his current abilities, and not some potential improvement that no reasonable expectation would predict.

Normalizing minutes is a terrible way to gauge development; you strip away so much detail and context. I find Fournier's improvement pretty nice and on a steady rise. I don't agree with your assessment at all.

He had almost no role his rookie year in Denver playing under 400 total minutes. But every year since he's made solid jumps; especially in maximizing his efficiency.

[Xatticus]

As multiple analyses have shown, players typically improve until the 25/26/27 age range (due to growth, learning new skills, having more time to play) and then their performance falls off (due to becoming older).

The issue isn't at what point a player stops improving. This was all in response to a particular comment someone made about diminishing returns. There seems to be a general consensus here that development is linear, which it absolutely is not. This is calculus not algebra. My argument was that at some point, those improvements become negligible. Regardless of where you are on the developmental arc, which really only serves as an overarching guideline, development slows down.

If you actually delve into Fournier's career in the NBA and normalize for playing time, his development isn't particularly impressive.

At this point, Fournier is essentially whatever he is going to be. His next contract should reflect his current abilities, and not some potential improvement that no reasonable expectation would predict.

Normalizing minutes is a terrible way to gauge development; you strip away so much detail and context. I find Fournier's improvement pretty nice and on a steady rise. I don't agree with your assessment at all.

He had almost no role his rookie year in Denver playing under 400 total minutes. But every year since he's made solid jumps; especially in maximizing his efficiency.

Normalizing doesn't remove context, it provides it. That is the entire point of the process. You used that very argument to eliminate his first season, which is actually an egregious statistical violation. Never remove data. If you wish to provide context, you would weight that information (by normalizing it).

And just to be clear, the findings of that particular study didn't back up the argument that players continue to develop to whatever age. It simply used a particular criterion to attempt to create a model for the developmental curve. The findings were that development peaks at 24/25. Expounding on other research in the area is obligatory for the purposes of conducting a study. It's also necessary to critique one's own research.

None of this is actually that meaningful for predicting the development curve of a particular player. That isn't the purpose of this type of model. This would require complex multiple regression analysis. The larger point here, is that regardless of which model you ascribe to, you do not expect significant improvement beyond the age of 23. There will obviously be some exceptions to this (Dennis Rodman comes to mind), and we may prefer wishful thinking to pragmatism when it comes to players we have some affinity for, but we all understand this point nonetheless. This is vividly exemplified in the negative correlation of ages on a draft board every year.

[ezzzp]

The issue isn't at what point a player stops improving. This was all in response to a particular comment someone made about diminishing returns. There seems to be a general consensus here that development is linear, which it absolutely is not. This is calculus not algebra. My argument was that at some point, those improvements become negligible. Regardless of where you are on the developmental arc, which really only serves as an overarching guideline, development slows down.

If you actually delve into Fournier's career in the NBA and normalize for playing time, his development isn't particularly impressive.

At this point, Fournier is essentially whatever he is going to be. His next contract should reflect his current abilities, and not some potential improvement that no reasonable expectation would predict.

Normalizing minutes is a terrible way to gauge development; you strip away so much detail and context. I find Fournier's improvement pretty nice and on a steady rise. I don't agree with your assessment at all.

He had almost no role his rookie year in Denver playing under 400 total minutes. But every year since he's made solid jumps; especially in maximizing his efficiency.

Normalizing doesn't remove context, it provides it. That is the entire point of the process. You used that very argument to eliminate his first season, which is actually an egregious statistical violation. Never remove data. If you wish to provide context, you would weight that information (by normalizing it).

And just to be clear, the findings of that particular study didn't back up the argument that players continue to develop to whatever age. It simply used a particular criterion to attempt to create a model for the developmental curve. The findings were that development peaks at 24/25. Expounding on other research in the area is obligatory for the purposes of conducting a study. It's also necessary to critique one's own research.

None of this is actually that meaningful for predicting the development curve of a particular player. That isn't the purpose of this type of model. This would require complex multiple regression analysis. The larger point here, is that regardless of which model you ascribe to, you do not expect significant improvement beyond the age of 23. There will obviously be some exceptions to this (Dennis Rodman comes to mind), and we may prefer wishful thinking to pragmatism when it comes to players we have some affinity for, but we all understand this point nonetheless. This is vividly exemplified in the negative correlation of ages on a draft board every year.

Show me where in that paper it concludes (or the math that does) that the developmental peak is 24/25.

Also I found this statement in FiveThirtyEight's description of their CARMELO player trajectory model:

The most important attribute of all, in terms of determining a player’s future career trajectory, is his age. NBA players, like MLB players, improve on average through about age 27 and then begin to decline after that.

Which btw, predicted Fournier's WARP this season to mean at 1.7 with a peak at just under 5 for best case scenario for this year...Fournier is at 4.60...

[Xatticus]

Show me where in that paper it concludes (or the math that does) that the developmental peak is 24/25.

Also I found this statement in FiveThirtyEight's description of their CARMELO player trajectory model:

The most important attribute of all, in terms of determining a player’s future career trajectory, is his age. NBA players, like MLB players, improve on average through about age 27 and then begin to decline after that.

Which btw, predicted Fournier's WARP this season to mean at 1.7 with a peak at just under 5 for best case scenario for this year...Fournier is at 4.60...

They don't explicitly state 24/25, they state 25/26, but since I can read a graph...

I suspect they hedged towards conventional wisdom.

I'm not going to give a long-winded explanation (because I'm not getting paid for this...) as to why, but you are actually supporting my argument here.

Statistical modeling accounts for numerous factors, but VORP and WARP are essentially counting stats. The CARMELO projections are influenced by playing time, which peaks at 27/28 years of age. But if you look at their projections, you will see precisely what I told you, there is little development after the age of 23. This is built into their model and reflected in the shape of the curve. Again, this is all about calculus.

Fournier's 2014/15 season, which you argue demonstrated significant progress, actually served to hinder his long-term projections. The cause for this, simply stated, is that he under-performed relative to expectations. This season, he exceeded expectations (for the first time, actually), which was certainly predictable if we assume that previous models were at all valid. His perceived improvement this season was based almost exclusively on the fact that he took more shots and hit a higher percentage of them. The latter of which there are no guarantees he will maintain, let alone improve upon going forward.

Which brings us to the concept of regression. Long-term modeling is all about regression. You are attempting to find the mean value among all conceivable outcomes. Believe it or not, both his 2014/15 (below) and 2015/16 (above) seasons fell within expected ranges (two standard deviations). Next season's projections will certainly reflect this season's performance, but it will also reflect his previous three.

[Bergmaniac]

not at all
Hezonja is team player
He is not selfish
He put team before himself
Fournier is too selfish
He is not team player
He puts himself before team
He play for his stats and contract
It is obviously to anyone who watch them

I watch them and I disagree about that, so you are wrong.

[Lakers4Life310]

What is wrong with REALGM??!?! Why certain post taking me to the wrong links.

[ezzzp]

Show me where in that paper it concludes (or the math that does) that the developmental peak is 24/25.

Also I found this statement in FiveThirtyEight's description of their CARMELO player trajectory model:

The most important attribute of all, in terms of determining a player’s future career trajectory, is his age. NBA players, like MLB players, improve on average through about age 27 and then begin to decline after that.

Which btw, predicted Fournier's WARP this season to mean at 1.7 with a peak at just under 5 for best case scenario for this year...Fournier is at 4.60...

They don't explicitly state 24/25, they state 25/26, but since I can read a graph...

I suspect they hedged towards conventional wisdom.

I'm not going to give a long-winded explanation (because I'm not getting paid for this...) as to why, but you are actually supporting my argument here.

Statistical modeling accounts for numerous factors, but VORP and WARP are essentially counting stats. The CARMELO projections are influenced by playing time, which peaks at 27/28 years of age. But if you look at their projections, you will see precisely what I told you, there is little development after the age of 23. This is built into their model and reflected in the shape of the curve. Again, this is all about calculus.

Fournier's 2014/15 season, which you argue demonstrated significant progress, actually served to hinder his long-term projections. The cause for this, simply stated, is that he under-performed relative to expectations. This season, he exceeded expectations (for the first time, actually), which was certainly predictable if we assume that previous models were at all valid. His perceived improvement this season was based almost exclusively on the fact that he took more shots and hit a higher percentage of them. The latter of which there are no guarantees he will maintain, let alone improve upon going forward.

Which brings us to the concept of regression. Long-term modeling is all about regression. You are attempting to find the mean value among all conceivable outcomes. Believe it or not, both his 2014/15 (below) and 2015/16 (above) seasons fell within expected ranges (two standard deviations). Next season's projections will certainly reflect this season's performance, but it will also reflect his previous three.

Your assumption that no one but you can read a graph is comical in its arrogance and ignorance.

The paper you brought in as support material says 25/26.

But now you discredit the findings of that paper - by saying they hedged towards conventional wisdom but can't be bothered to explain why because "I'm not getting paid for this" ... and then take the time to write a longwinded justification on why Fournier's development isn't development...guess you're doing that Pro-bono

The paper you brought into the fray says 25/26 is the peak of development. Convention wisdom says 25 to 27 is the peak. Nate Silver, Wages of Wins and multiple other articles written by respected sports statisticians about NBA developmental peak say 25-27 is the peak. Guess they all can't read a graph or have never taken calculus before either...smh

[Blue_and_Whte]

What is wrong with REALGM??!?! Why certain post taking me to the wrong links.

Because you're a laker fan

[Xatticus]

Your assumption that no one but you can read a graph is comical in its arrogance and ignorance.

The paper you brought in as support material says 25/26.

But now you discredit the findings of that paper - by saying they hedged towards conventional wisdom but can't be bothered to explain why because "I'm not getting paid for this" ... and then take the time to write a longwinded justification on why Fournier's development isn't development...guess you're doing that Pro-bono

The paper you brought into the fray says 25/26 is the peak of development. Convention wisdom says 25 to 27 is the peak. Nate Silver, Wages of Wins and multiple other articles written by respected sports statisticians about NBA developmental peak say 25-27 is the peak. Guess they all can't read a graph or have never taken calculus before either...smh

That was the exceptionally short explanation. If you want a better explanation, you need to work on a statistics degree. I'm not here to teach you.

Did you look at the graph provided in the link? The peak in their findings is quite obvious.

And once again, none of this has anything to do with the crux of the debate here. You continue to try to diverge away from the fundamental point here (the one that initiated this entire discussion). Improvement decreases demonstrably as one approaches their peak.

[ezzzp]

Your assumption that no one but you can read a graph is comical in its arrogance and ignorance.

The paper you brought in as support material says 25/26.

But now you discredit the findings of that paper - by saying they hedged towards conventional wisdom but can't be bothered to explain why because "I'm not getting paid for this" ... and then take the time to write a longwinded justification on why Fournier's development isn't development...guess you're doing that Pro-bono

The paper you brought into the fray says 25/26 is the peak of development. Convention wisdom says 25 to 27 is the peak. Nate Silver, Wages of Wins and multiple other articles written by respected sports statisticians about NBA developmental peak say 25-27 is the peak. Guess they all can't read a graph or have never taken calculus before either...smh

That was the exceptionally short explanation. If you want a better explanation, you need to work on a statistics degree. I'm not here to teach you.

Did you look at the graph provided in the link? The peak in their findings is quite obvious.

And once again, none of this has anything to do with the crux of the debate here. You continue to try to diverge away from the fundamental point here (the one that initiated this entire discussion). Improvement decreases demonstrably as one approaches their peak.

I did look at the graph and it is clear...25/26

I don't need you to teach me anything - you bring nothing unique to the conversation except delusions of grandeur and ill conceived arrogance.

.....as if having a basic level college degree makes you anything special or unique on this forum...what a joke

[Lakers4Life310]

What is wrong with REALGM??!?! Why certain post taking me to the wrong links.

Because you're a laker fan

Magic suck! Lakers fan till i die. Your team is stacked with talent and yall cant even make playoffs in the eat. What a joke. I respect that my team is in a rebuilding process with Kobe but at least we are going somewhere lol Offering Tobias a 64 Million then just trading him. Yall dont know understand talent.

[Pickled Prunes]

What is wrong with REALGM??!?! Why certain post taking me to the wrong links.

Because you're a laker fan

Magic suck! Lakers fan till i die. Your team is stacked with talent and yall cant even make playoffs in the eat. What a joke. I respect that my team is in a rebuilding process with Kobe but at least we are going somewhere lol Offering Tobias a 64 Million then just trading him. Yall dont know understand talent.

Team allegiances aside, it was still a solid comment!