ImageImageImageImageImage

To What Extent Should Statistics be a Part of Your Wizards?

Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart

User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: To What Extent Should Statistics be a Part of Your Wizar 

Post#121 » by Nivek » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:28 pm

Aldrich would be near the top (if not at the top) of my Diamond rating IF he had enough minutes. So far he's up to 145 minutes (as of my last update). He rates well above average in those few minutes -- good offensive efficiency. Looks like he's done a nice job on the boards and blocking shots when he's been able to play. But, 145 minutes isn't enough to make any conclusions. It's an encouraging start, though.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 54,529
And1: 10,296
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: To What Extent Should Statistics be a Part of Your Wizar 

Post#122 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:27 pm

Nivek wrote:
Dat2U wrote:Chicago arguably has the best two backup bigs in the league. And that's without even looking at the numbers. In terms of their activity defensively and aggressiveness on the boards, Asik & Gibson can really impact games with the way they dominate in the paint.


Yep. On many teams, those guys would be starters. With Chicago, they're behind Noah and Boozer, and both of those guys are pretty damn good.

When I apply the more in-depth defensive adjustment, Boozer and Gibson are essentially tied in overall rating. Boozer would probably pull ahead on "degree of difficulty" since he plays more minutes against starters.

In the "hey, how 'bout that" category -- Noah and Rose are basically tied as most productive Bulls in my system.

Just heard the Bulls are 16-7 without Derrick Rose. As good as Rose can play, there is no way he should have been the NBA MVP. The popular misconception is that team is nothing without him. They won't get superstar calls and enough point production to win in the playoffs without Rose, but IMO the Bulls are just about as good with CJ Watson and John Lucas III playing at the top of their game and no Derrick Rose.
Tre Johnson is the future of the Wizards.
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: To What Extent Should Statistics be a Part of Your Wizar 

Post#123 » by Nivek » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:37 pm

I didn't like Rose being selected as MVP last season, but I haven't liked a number of the picks in recent years. It seems like the media gets a narrative in their collective head and end up voting for that story instead of what's actually happening on the floor. Rose is REALLY good, but the rest of that team is also good.

And, I think it gets to a basic problem with how players are evaluated. Scoring trumps everything. Guys who can create their shots are extra special. A sorta little guy (like Rose) who can create shots? Extra-extra special.

I wouldn't go so far as saying Chicago is just as good with CJ Watson and JLIII instead of Rose. But I don't think Rose is the MVP. Just like I didn't think Nash was the MVP either time he got it. Or Iverson when he got his. Or Karl Malone when he got picked over Jordan.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 54,529
And1: 10,296
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: To What Extent Should Statistics be a Part of Your Wizar 

Post#124 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:41 pm

DCZards wrote:
Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:I liked Novak when he was at Marquette. I said then he's the best shooter I've seen. Five years later, that is panning out.

Washington could really be smart and take a money ball approach to improving its roster. If D'Antoni is to be the next coach, Steve Novak is worth what they could pay to get him. John Lucas III is a much better PG than Mack. They don't need Derrick Brown, but I would move Jan Vesely or Chris Singleton for either of Portland or Houston's picks in this draft. (They each have two firsts.)

You can easily improve the Wizards with one of the players your rating system is indicating.


When he's set, Novak is a great three-point shooter, but that's pretty much all I've seen from him. I wouldn't pay too much for Novak. His offensive game is far too limited.

As for Novak being the best shooter you've ever seen, ccj, you must not be paying much attention to this Ray Allen guy.

The idea of trading for either Portland's or Houston's first pick is tempting. But I'm more and more intrigued by Ves's improvement/potential. Ves is tall and long, a fluid athlete and has a very high bball IQ. Those attributes are a great start for a player clearly just learning how to play the game at the NBA level, especially physically.

Jeff Van Gundy coached him in Houston and he called Novak the best shooter he's ever seen.

I'm talking about feet set, in the gym, dude doesn't miss kind of shooter. Ray Allen is a gracefully athletic, fast, and strong guy. Novak is floor-bound, slow of foot, and he needs to be squared up. He doesn't compare to Ray Allen in terms of scorer/shooter. However, in Ray Allen's 16 seasons, he is currently shooting the three better than ever. He is hitting .453. That is amazing shooting. I think having Rondo, Pierce, KG etc. helps Ray get spacing and good looks. Still .453 from three is almost unheard of.

That said, monte, Novak is hitting .464 from three. That is the best in the NBA. Last season he didn't get enough shots to qualify. In short stints with Dallas and San Antonio, Novak hit .565 overall from three. Novak's career three point average is .431.

The only guy who can legitimately claim to be a better three point shooter IMO is Steph Curry.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... ctive.html
Tre Johnson is the future of the Wizards.
Severn Hoos
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,443
And1: 223
Joined: May 09, 2002

Re: To What Extent Should Statistics be a Part of Your Wizar 

Post#125 » by Severn Hoos » Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:01 pm

There have been only 3 seasons in NBA history where a player made at least 100 3-pointers while shooting better than 50% from three. Jason Kopono made 108/210 for a 3P% of .514 in 2006-07. Interesting, the other two were both during the 1995-96 season.

Steve Kerr made 122/237 for the Bulls, a 3P% of .515

And our own Tim Legler made 128/245, for a 3P% of .522

In terms of volume and percentage, I'd say Legler had the greatest single-season performance as a (3-point) shooter in NBA history.


D'oh! Forgot about the 3-year experiment with the shorter 3-point line....


Oh well, I still love me some Legs.



LEGLER! I meant Legler. TIM Legler.



:giveup:
"A society that puts equality - in the sense of equality of outcome - ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom" Milton Friedman, Free to Choose
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 54,529
And1: 10,296
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: To What Extent Should Statistics be a Part of Your Wizar 

Post#126 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:48 pm

I was stationed at a base in Omaha back when Legler was a CBA player with the Omaha Racers. He was a tremendous basketball player, way too good to be in that league. His game was like Ray Allen's in the CBA.

Sev, I forgot about the shorter 3 PT line.
Tre Johnson is the future of the Wizards.
User avatar
Ed Wood
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,763
And1: 330
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
Location: I appreciate Kevin Seraphin's affinity for hacks
Contact:
   

Re: To What Extent Should Statistics be a Part of Your Wizards? 

Post#127 » by Ed Wood » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:39 am

With due respect to the combat sports thread, which I'll get back in on, this is the best thing I've ever done on this board, and so I'm going to try to bring it back.

My current goal is to unhelpfully create my own stat for largely self-aggrandizing reasons to tout. I'd like to take a weighted ratio of combined three point shots and foul shots vs. total field goal attempts and use it as a way to measure effective offensive orchestration more than offensive efficiency. The weighting would be based on the correlation between three point/free throw rates and overall offensive rating over the last five years.

Stay tuned for more flailing.

Also talk about stats.
User avatar
BigA
Analyst
Posts: 3,091
And1: 999
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Location: Arlington, VA
 

Re: To What Extent Should Statistics be a Part of Your Wizards? 

Post#128 » by BigA » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:49 am

Ed Wood wrote:With due respect to the combat sports thread, which I'll get back in on, this is the best thing I've ever done on this board, and so I'm going to try to bring it back.

My current goal is to unhelpfully create my own stat for largely self-aggrandizing reasons to tout. I'd like to take a weighted ratio of combined three point shots and foul shots vs. total field goal attempts and use it as a way to measure effective offensive orchestration more than offensive efficiency. The weighting would be based on the correlation between three point/free throw rates and overall offensive rating over the last five years.

Stay tuned for more flailing.

Also talk about stats.

I like the necro-bouncing trend, and the return of interesting board members.

Return to Washington Wizards