Player of the Day: Andre Roberson

[spearsy23]

Huestis is the wildcard. If his defense translates then he is probably the best option long term. Not a lot of guys defense translates the way Robes has though.

Edit: And you have to believe to an extent that if Huestis could play defense on/near/half the level of Robes he would've been playing last year. But Billy is Billy so you can't be sure.

[sleestak33]

You beat a 60+ wins team in 2016 (which also had a historically great defense) and had a 73 wins team on the ropes with Roberson playing about 30 MPG, so obviously you can win a title with him playing such minutes. Not if this Warriors team stays as strong as last season, but then again that team will beat anyone in the NBA history, so this doesn't say much.

Yeah and the Thunder made it to the NBA finals starting Kendrick fricking Perkins and playing him almost 30 minutes per game and guess what...he cost them a championship because he never should have stepped on the court against Miami. Roberson was a huge part of the reason OKC lost to the Warriors in that series and lost that 3-1 lead because they took Green who was guarding him and he literally didn't even pay attention to him and double teamed KD and Westbrook when they had the ball or just stood by the lane waiting for one of them to drive. It worked perfectly as though even Roberson scored some since he wasn't guarded it forced our stars to take multiple bad, forced shots and they were able to come back and win the series. Why in the hell do you think KD and Westbrook shot the ball so bad in those closeout games? The uneducated fan who doesn't really understand what they're seeing would say that they just choked. Roberson not being guarded in that series is a big part of why they lost but that's something the Roberson supporters don't want to admit. OKC has no chance of competing with teams like the Warriors and Rockets starting a wing player that doesn't even need to be guarded because he's so pathetic on offense and from all appearances it looks like Roberson's somehow managed to get worse as he was atrocious in the preseason scoring only 2 points in 3 of the 4 games and going 0-5 on 3s.

[hardenASG13]

You aren't a position of authority either.

i certainly am not! which is why i back up any claims i make with evidence when challenged and if it's just my idle opinion i'm sharing then i will clearly remark that is the case.

Stats can be invalid. Really, they can. Are you disputing this?

never invalid. they are what they are and it's more or less clear what is being quantified. interpretation can be 'invalid', i suppose. but i don't see why that's relevant here.

How about having the ability to share an opinion, rather than just post stats, on a basketball discussion board?

your 'opinions' are presented in a way that invites scrutiny. your denouncement of stats and nerds and usage of the 'watch the games' message board trope invites a certain kind of scrutiny.

Clock is ticking till he's benched, Donovan already even hinting at it

people have been saying that for years.

Still can't believe you don't think data can be invalid. As in, are they measuring what they are supposed to, and giving an accurate picture of it. You have tried to argue with data that Roberson takes more contested looks than other guys! Could it be there a flaw in the operational definition of what qualifies as open, and that the formulas and collection methods, though likely the best available for a stat like that can be flawed. Because Roberson is left incomparably open to any player in the league, which should be clear as day. Most of your on/off numbers ignore factors such as the other 4 guys on the floor, value of continuity within a specific group, how tired the starters are late in the first and third quarters when he goes out and is replaced, often sadly with scrubs, etc. The variables matter, you have to be able to analyze data, and determine its validity/reliability before making definitive claims with it. This notion appears lost on you and others, and is quite comical. Seriously, do some Wikipedia research, it's a real thing. Those who work with data know it to be indisputable truth. Look for things like validity of data, reliability, independent variables (of which there are tons in basketball, like continuity, fatigue,etc.), and operational definitions in how data is described/taken.

To answer your question re: do I think Westbrook is a ballhog? No, him attacking is often the best option for the team, particularly last year. Early in his career? Yea he was, there were better options. Now? It's a lazy narrative like saying Carmelo Anthony can't defend.

[slick_watts]

Still can't believe you don't think data can be invalid.

you don't understand. unless there's some kind of computational error, data is just data. it is what it is. people interpret data to extract meaning, to support or challenge observations.

lineup data doesn't care whether you think it's invalid. it is what it is. andre roberson starters being vastly superior to dion waiters starters isn't invalid. RPM isn't invalid. you choose to summarily dismiss data like this because it does not support your observations. for me this is a lot like dismissing the final score of a game because you don't believe we lost. it's a lame cop out.

instead, find other data that supports your position. instead of dismissing it all, which is a discussion ender. why were the andre roberson starters superior to the dion waiters starters? and can you show any evidence for this reason being the case?

You have tried to argue with data that Roberson takes more contested looks than other guys! Could it be there a flaw in the operational definition of what qualifies as open, and that the formulas and collection methods, though likely the best available for a stat like that can be flawed.

this is also why i provided video clips. stats.nba.com has clips of everything that is charted. you could easily debunk this if you cared to take the time. i'm guessing you won't.

The variables matter, you have to be able to analyze data, and determine its validity/reliability before making definitive claims with it. This notion appears lost on you and others, and is quite comical.

wrong. it's incumbent on you to do this. here's an example.

my observation last year was that russell westbrook securing / chasing drb did not really help the offense. this wasn't really supported any data that was readily available. so i charted russell westbrook's defensive rebounds last season to measure how him chasing DRB affected the pace and efficiency of the offense. literally watched every defensive rebound and subsequent offensive possession in order to figure out what was going on there because publicly available data on this was insufficient. my findings ended up supporting my observation. this could easily be you in this debate. it takes time and effort. don't whine to me about people using numbers blindly.

To answer your question re: do I think Westbrook is a ballhog? No, him attacking is often the best option for the team, particularly last year. Early in his career? Yea he was, there were better options.

he had a 40%+ usage. first person ever to do that. yes, he is a ball hog.

Now? It's a lazy narrative like saying Carmelo Anthony can't defend.

[hardenASG13]

Still can't believe you don't think data can be invalid.

you don't understand. unless there's some kind of computational error, data is just data. it is what it is. people interpret data to extract meaning, to support or challenge observations.

lineup data doesn't care whether you think it's invalid. it is what it is. andre roberson starters being vastly superior to dion waiters starters isn't invalid. RPM isn't invalid. you choose to summarily dismiss data like this because it does not support your observations. for me this is a lot like dismissing the final score of a game because you don't believe we lost. it's a lame cop out.

instead, find other data that supports your position. instead of dismissing it all, which is a discussion ender. why were the andre roberson starters superior to the dion waiters starters? and can you show any evidence for this reason being the case?

You have tried to argue with data that Roberson takes more contested looks than other guys! Could it be there a flaw in the operational definition of what qualifies as open, and that the formulas and collection methods, though likely the best available for a stat like that can be flawed.

this is also why i provided video clips. stats.nba.com has clips of everything that is charted. you could easily debunk this if you cared to take the time. i'm guessing you won't.

The variables matter, you have to be able to analyze data, and determine its validity/reliability before making definitive claims with it. This notion appears lost on you and others, and is quite comical.

wrong. it's incumbent on you to do this. here's an example.

my observation last year was that russell westbrook securing / chasing drb did not really help the offense. this wasn't really supported any data that was readily available. so i charted russell westbrook's defensive rebounds last season to measure how him chasing DRB affected the pace and efficiency of the offense. literally watched every defensive rebound and subsequent offensive possession in order to figure out what was going on there because publicly available data on this was insufficient. my findings ended up supporting my observation. this could easily be you in this debate. it takes time and effort. don't whine to me about people using numbers blindly.

To answer your question re: do I think Westbrook is a ballhog? No, him attacking is often the best option for the team, particularly last year. Early in his career? Yea he was, there were better options.

he had a 40%+ usage. first person ever to do that. yes, he is a ball hog.

Now? It's a lazy narrative like saying Carmelo Anthony can't defend.

Man, I hope someone is paying you for all that work, that must have taken hundreds of hours. Wow

Really do take the time to read up on the validity of data, and all the factors that go into it. You will be surprised, as your view of its absoluteness is comically, embarrasingly narrow.

Also, in basketball, your not a ballhog if the team wants/needs you to make all the plays, as in last year's thunder. We know Roberson, the "shooting guard" contributed 0 in that department as he doesn't dribble or collapse the defense. There was oladipo, and.....kanter? If he gave the ball up, he got it right back because nobody else could, or would even try to do anything with it in the playmaking department (another example of stats being misleading, like Westbrooks usage. So your saying he wasn't a willing passer? He had to do everything, doesn't mean he was a ballhog). If his usage remains that high with Paul George, and Carmelo Anthony on the team? Yeah he's be a ball hog. I'm betting it doesnt. Don't let data do the thinking for you.

[slick_watts]

Man, I hope someone is paying you for all that work, that must have taken hundreds of hours. Wow

10 hours. some people take basketball seriously. others pretend to be coaches on the internet.

[hardenASG13]

Man, I hope someone is paying you for all that work, that must have taken hundreds of hours. Wow

10 hours. some people take basketball seriously. others pretend to be coaches on the internet.

So you watched every defensive rebound and ensuing possession, and concluded you were right, and it only took you 10 hours?! How were you judging the effect that the ensuing pace had on the possession by the way.

More like some people try way too hard to present as knowing about basketball (how does you "charting" every defensive rebound, then deciding based on your own criteria the effect it had on the next possession , prove anything, to anyone, other than yourself? ) this just keeps getting funnier. Only 10 hours, man, seems worth it to me. What did you "prove" again by wasting those 10 hours? You get some AND 1s or something?

[slick_watts]

So you watched every defensive rebound and ensuing possession, and concluded you were right, and it only took you 10 hours?! How were you judging the effect that the ensuing pace had on the possession by the way.

you can judge that by the outcome of the possession. i charted fga (attempted / made), pf drawn, sf drawn, turnovers, etc. then you can calculate points scored per possession, and even as a function of pace if you wanted. exploring the effect westbrook's defensive rebounding had on pace wasn't my intention, and pace was faster when westbrook got a defensive rebound v. a teammate (slightly). but the offense wasn't affected at all, the team scored about the same points per possession when westbrook secured a defensive rebound v. when a teammate did.

and no, this isn't trying 'way too hard'. this is how knowledge develops. this was a prevalent discussion not just among thunder fans but among nba fans, whether or not westbrook's defensive rebounding was helping, what its effect was. and there was no real publc data to say one way or another. coincidentally, a slate nba writer wrote a piece on this with similar research shortly after i did it which had similar results. and many other sites like nylon calculus did it later on when it became a topic of the mvp debate. it just wasn't possible to have an informed discussion on this specific topic without that research.

(how does you "charting" every defensive rebound, then deciding based on your own criteria the effect it had on the next possession , prove anything, to anyone, other than yourself? )

points per possession. eFG%. do you know what those things are?

[bbms]

Huestis is the wildcard. If his defense translates then he is probably the best option long term. Not a lot of guys defense translates the way Robes has though.

Edit: And you have to believe to an extent that if Huestis could play defense on/near/half the level of Robes he would've been playing last year. But Billy is Billy so you can't be sure.

if huestis is that good defensively with a 40% 3pt clip, at his 6'7" 240lbs size, he should play a lot, and not at the expense of Robes...

[hardenASG13]

So you watched every defensive rebound and ensuing possession, and concluded you were right, and it only took you 10 hours?! How were you judging the effect that the ensuing pace had on the possession by the way.

you can judge that by the outcome of the possession. i charted fga (attempted / made), pf drawn, sf drawn, turnovers, etc. then you can calculate points scored per possession, and even as a function of pace if you wanted. exploring the effect westbrook's defensive rebounding had on pace wasn't my intention, and pace was faster when westbrook got a defensive rebound v. a teammate (slightly). but the offense wasn't affected at all, the team scored about the same points per possession when westbrook secured a defensive rebound v. when a teammate did.

and no, this isn't trying 'way too hard'. this is how knowledge develops. this was a prevalent discussion not just among thunder fans but among nba fans, whether or not westbrook's defensive rebounding was helping, what its effect was. and there was no real publc data to say one way or another. coincidentally, a slate nba writer wrote a piece on this with similar research shortly after i did it which had similar results. and many other sites like nylon calculus did it later on when it became a topic of the mvp debate. it just wasn't possible to have an informed discussion on this specific topic without that research.

(how does you "charting" every defensive rebound, then deciding based on your own criteria the effect it had on the next possession , prove anything, to anyone, other than yourself? )

points per possession. eFG%. do you know what those things are?

[slick_watts]

So you watched every defensive rebound and ensuing possession, and concluded you were right, and it only took you 10 hours?! How were you judging the effect that the ensuing pace had on the possession by the way.

you can judge that by the outcome of the possession. i charted fga (attempted / made), pf drawn, sf drawn, turnovers, etc. then you can calculate points scored per possession, and even as a function of pace if you wanted. exploring the effect westbrook's defensive rebounding had on pace wasn't my intention, and pace was faster when westbrook got a defensive rebound v. a teammate (slightly). but the offense wasn't affected at all, the team scored about the same points per possession when westbrook secured a defensive rebound v. when a teammate did.

and no, this isn't trying 'way too hard'. this is how knowledge develops. this was a prevalent discussion not just among thunder fans but among nba fans, whether or not westbrook's defensive rebounding was helping, what its effect was. and there was no real publc data to say one way or another. coincidentally, a slate nba writer wrote a piece on this with similar research shortly after i did it which had similar results. and many other sites like nylon calculus did it later on when it became a topic of the mvp debate. it just wasn't possible to have an informed discussion on this specific topic without that research.

(how does you "charting" every defensive rebound, then deciding based on your own criteria the effect it had on the next possession , prove anything, to anyone, other than yourself? )

points per possession. eFG%. do you know what those things are?

i win, once again.

[hardenASG13]

you can judge that by the outcome of the possession. i charted fga (attempted / made), pf drawn, sf drawn, turnovers, etc. then you can calculate points scored per possession, and even as a function of pace if you wanted. exploring the effect westbrook's defensive rebounding had on pace wasn't my intention, and pace was faster when westbrook got a defensive rebound v. a teammate (slightly). but the offense wasn't affected at all, the team scored about the same points per possession when westbrook secured a defensive rebound v. when a teammate did.

and no, this isn't trying 'way too hard'. this is how knowledge develops. this was a prevalent discussion not just among thunder fans but among nba fans, whether or not westbrook's defensive rebounding was helping, what its effect was. and there was no real publc data to say one way or another. coincidentally, a slate nba writer wrote a piece on this with similar research shortly after i did it which had similar results. and many other sites like nylon calculus did it later on when it became a topic of the mvp debate. it just wasn't possible to have an informed discussion on this specific topic without that research.



points per possession. eFG%. do you know what those things are?

i win, once again.

You spent 10 hours (probably more) examining tape and charting meaningless things. You didn't win that situation. You lost

[slick_watts]

i win, once again.

You spent 10 hours (probably more) examining tape and charting meaningless things. You didn't win that situation. You lost

i pioneered a discussion that would later involve much of the nba blogosphere intelligentsia.

are you seriously trying to undermine my position in this debate by telling me i try too hard? is this middle school?

[hardenASG13]

i win, once again.

You spent 10 hours (probably more) examining tape and charting meaningless things. You didn't win that situation. You lost

i pioneered a discussion that would later involve much of the nba blogosphere intelligentsia.

are you seriously trying to undermine my position in this debate by telling me i try too hard? is this middle school?

No, good job that's useful info. The extra rebounds didn't help the team too much. Good to know.

[spearsy23]

You spent 10 hours (probably more) examining tape and charting meaningless things. You didn't win that situation. You lost

i pioneered a discussion that would later involve much of the nba blogosphere intelligentsia.

are you seriously trying to undermine my position in this debate by telling me i try too hard? is this middle school?

No, good job that's useful info. The extra rebounds didn't help the team too much. Good to know.

That's explicitly not what his conclusion was or what he was trying to prove. He clearly stated that it did not lead to improved offensive outcomes. That doesn't mean they had no value, it means they weren't any more valuable offensively than a Robes/Adams/Kanter/Taj rebound.

How can you claim to be a coach and then Attempt to ridicule someone for spending time reviewing tape to draw a conclusion on the effects of play style? How can you be an NBA fan that spends hours on a message board and denigrate someone for wasting their time because they inform their opinion with more critical thinking than you? You don't think about the game as in depth as Slick does, and that's fine, I would bet there are very few people not being paid for it that do. That doesn't mean his conclusions are all correct, but ridiculing him for going through the effort to arise at those conclusions instead of your preferred method of ignoring reality because you can see with your special eyes what everyone else misses is asinine.

[hardenASG13]

i pioneered a discussion that would later involve much of the nba blogosphere intelligentsia.

are you seriously trying to undermine my position in this debate by telling me i try too hard? is this middle school?

No, good job that's useful info. The extra rebounds didn't help the team too much. Good to know.

That's explicitly not what his conclusion was or what he was trying to prove. He clearly stated that it did not lead to improved offensive outcomes. That doesn't mean they had no value, it means they weren't any more valuable offensively than a Robes/Adams/Kanter/Taj rebound.

How can you claim to be a coach and then Attempt to ridicule someone for spending time reviewing tape to draw a conclusion on the effects of play style? How can you be an NBA fan that spends hours on a message board and denigrate someone for wasting their time because they inform their opinion with more critical thinking than you? You don't think about the game as in depth as Slick does, and that's fine, I would bet there are very few people not being paid for it that do. That doesn't mean his conclusions are all correct, but ridiculing him for going through the effort to arise at those conclusions instead of your preferred method of ignoring reality because you can see with your special eyes what everyone else misses is asinine.

No, I got his point....impressive. I'm not sure why you keep attacking the fact that I coach HS ball? I've merely mentioned it as something I do, mainly because I love the game of basketball and enjoy it as a winter hobby.....problem with that.

If he wants to spend his time reviewing every single rebound, and 'charting' them in some fashion for hours on end, that's fine. I'm ridiculing him because he used the fact that he does things like that, along with his continual advanced stat postings, to present as a genius, and talks to people who don't approach the game from that viewpoint as morons and speaks condescendingly and disrespectfully to them in almost every post of his. Then others usually jump on.

[slick_watts]

I'm ridiculing him because he used the fact that he does things like that...

i'm showing you how it's done-- when you believe the conventional wisdom is wrong and you want convince others. the tools are out there. don't just say 'the defense stats are wrong'. show us they are wrong.

my example wasn't to show that i'm smarter than anyone. a monkey could do what i did.

[spearsy23]

No, good job that's useful info. The extra rebounds didn't help the team too much. Good to know.

That's explicitly not what his conclusion was or what he was trying to prove. He clearly stated that it did not lead to improved offensive outcomes. That doesn't mean they had no value, it means they weren't any more valuable offensively than a Robes/Adams/Kanter/Taj rebound.

How can you claim to be a coach and then Attempt to ridicule someone for spending time reviewing tape to draw a conclusion on the effects of play style? How can you be an NBA fan that spends hours on a message board and denigrate someone for wasting their time because they inform their opinion with more critical thinking than you? You don't think about the game as in depth as Slick does, and that's fine, I would bet there are very few people not being paid for it that do. That doesn't mean his conclusions are all correct, but ridiculing him for going through the effort to arise at those conclusions instead of your preferred method of ignoring reality because you can see with your special eyes what everyone else misses is asinine.

No, I got his point....impressive. I'm not sure why you keep attacking the fact that I coach HS ball? I've merely mentioned it as something I do, mainly because I love the game of basketball and enjoy it as a winter hobby.....problem with that.

If he wants to spend his time reviewing every single rebound, and 'charting' them in some fashion for hours on end, that's fine. I'm ridiculing him because he used the fact that he does things like that, along with his continual advanced stat postings, to present as a genius, and talks to people who don't approach the game from that viewpoint as morons and speaks condescendingly and disrespectfully to them in almost every post of his. Then others usually jump on.

I'm not attacking anything, I'm saying that it's odd a coach would denigrate someone for breaking down game film.

And I agree, slick can be condescending at times, that doesnt make your response any less worthless.

[hardenASG13]

That's explicitly not what his conclusion was or what he was trying to prove. He clearly stated that it did not lead to improved offensive outcomes. That doesn't mean they had no value, it means they weren't any more valuable offensively than a Robes/Adams/Kanter/Taj rebound.

How can you claim to be a coach and then Attempt to ridicule someone for spending time reviewing tape to draw a conclusion on the effects of play style? How can you be an NBA fan that spends hours on a message board and denigrate someone for wasting their time because they inform their opinion with more critical thinking than you? You don't think about the game as in depth as Slick does, and that's fine, I would bet there are very few people not being paid for it that do. That doesn't mean his conclusions are all correct, but ridiculing him for going through the effort to arise at those conclusions instead of your preferred method of ignoring reality because you can see with your special eyes what everyone else misses is asinine.

No, I got his point....impressive. I'm not sure why you keep attacking the fact that I coach HS ball? I've merely mentioned it as something I do, mainly because I love the game of basketball and enjoy it as a winter hobby.....problem with that.

If he wants to spend his time reviewing every single rebound, and 'charting' them in some fashion for hours on end, that's fine. I'm ridiculing him because he used the fact that he does things like that, along with his continual advanced stat postings, to present as a genius, and talks to people who don't approach the game from that viewpoint as morons and speaks condescendingly and disrespectfully to them in almost every post of his. Then others usually jump on.

I'm not attacking anything, I'm saying that it's odd a coach would denigrate someone for breaking down game film.

And I agree, slick can be condescending at times, that doesnt make your response any less worthless.

Well, I wouldn't denigrate another coach for breaking down game film of his own team, or an upcoming opponent. That's not the case here though. He's just 'showing how it's done'(?), in this case to 'challenge the conventional wisdom' that Westbrook/the team weren't just padding his rebound stats (it was pretty clear they were). Spending 10 hours to do so, for the blogosphere intelligentsia

[bondom34]

So spending hours watching film for one thing is but hours coaching high school is a hobby.