GT #51: Bullets @ 76ers 7 PM (NBCSW/980 AM) [2/2/22]

[DCZards]

Kuzma is complete fools gold. He has to go. I don't dislike him, but he's on a hot streak right now. Take advantage and move him while he can get top dollar.

We've seen this show before...it never ends well.

A "hot streak" that's lasted about two months.

[TGW]

Kuzma is complete fools gold. He has to go. I don't dislike him, but he's on a hot streak right now. Take advantage and move him while he can get top dollar.

We've seen this show before...it never ends well.

A "hot streak" that's lasted about two months.

Don’t be silly. He’s putting up empty stats and his advanced numbers are average. But I get it, the “Zards” can’t do any wrong in your eyes.

[WallToWall]

Good win.
All can say about Din is that we got a Westbrook like stat line from him... 14pts 12 rbs 10 assists... on 4/16 shooting. Lakers, is that you on the phone?

Screw that. At least Russ cared and was aggressive. Spencer can't move and plays he doesn't give a crap.

On the flip side, Din will not bullet pass the ball to someone in the 6th row. Point is he may have some redeeming qualities worth a 2nd to some team. I hope.

[NatP4]

Kuzma is complete fools gold. He has to go. I don't dislike him, but he's on a hot streak right now. Take advantage and move him while he can get top dollar.

We've seen this show before...it never ends well.

A "hot streak" that's lasted about two months.

Don’t be silly. He’s putting up empty stats and his advanced numbers are average. But I get it, the “Zards” can’t do any wrong in your eyes.

He’s putting up empty box score stats while his advanced numbers are absolute garbage....just like the other 4 years of his career.

[9 and 20]

I got a fever. And the only prescription is more Kuz-bell.

Surprised/not surprised we won without Beal. Everyone's trade value went up except for Beal, looks like.

[dlts20]

Trade Spencer, keep gaff and Beal. Idk wtf is wrong with Beal but I do think that as a player, he is closer to last year than he is this season.

[queridiculo]

I got a fever. And the only prescription is more Kuz-bell.

Surprised/not surprised we won without Beal. Everyone's trade value went up except for Beal, looks like.

The idea that a game here or there is going to change decision makers perception of those players seems a bit far fetched.

Beal didn't forget to play basketball all of a sudden and guys like Kuzma aren't going to be sought after as major pieces in a trade for top tier talent or draft compensation.

[bsilver]

Gafford can't seem to defend any centers with any bulk. The way he was getting moved around looked like he was on ice skates. Trez bailed us out by putting up some resistance at the end, although no one really contain Embiid.

I'm on the Kuzma bandwagon. Only player on the team worth watching the last month.

[payitforward]

...He’s putting up empty stats and his advanced numbers are average. But I get it, the “Zards” can’t do any wrong in your eyes.

He’s putting up empty box score stats while his advanced numbers are absolute garbage....just like the other 4 years of his career.

Amazing the way no one ever likes to be wrong....

Once you've decided someone isn't good, that's it! Nothing he does will change that view. Nothing he does matters.

There are no such thing as "empty stats." If a shot goes in, that's good. If it misses, that's bad.
If a guy gets a rebound, that's good. The more he gets the better.

A made shot in the first quarter has exactly the same effect on the final score (i.e. on winning & losing) as a made shot with 30 seconds left in the game. There's more entertainment value in the 2d of those makes, but that's as far as it goes.

To take an obvious example, if a Wizard, any Wizard, had made one more shot in the first quarter of that game DeRozan won with a last second 3-pointer, we'd have another win on our record. Period.

But, if you really must assess someone based on your emotions, e.g. on "clutch," then how in h#ll can you choose Kuzma as the one to label with "empty stats?" Of all our players?

Hasn't he made more of those "game-winning" shots than anyone else on the team? Answer: yes, he has.

[payitforward]

One more thing...

...his advanced numbers are average....

...his advanced numbers are absolute garbage....

Neither of you can explain what "advanced numbers" are. Or how "advanced numbers" are calculated.

Feel free to lay out the formula for any "advanced number" you comprehend. I don't mean parrot some tout's claim, I mean provide the method.

But, you can't. & that's ok -- you want to know why it's ok? Because there are no such things as "advanced numbers."

[TGW]

OK PIF. Are you going to act like basketball reference doesn't exist, or is your need to be argumentative on fleek today?

[DCZards]

Thanks, PIF, I was beginning to wonder whether that turnaround jumper that Kuz made in the last 2 mins and his block of Embiid’s shot in the last seconds were not real but simply “empty stats.”

But you’re right, “empty stats” is really an unsubstantiated catch phrase.

[nate33]

One more thing...

...his advanced numbers are average....

...his advanced numbers are absolute garbage....

Neither of you can explain what "advanced numbers" are. Or how "advanced numbers" are calculated.

Feel free to lay out the formula for any "advanced number" you comprehend. I don't mean parrot some tout's claim, I mean provide the method.

But, you can't. & that's ok -- you want to know why it's ok? Because there are no such things as "advanced numbers."

This is a rather ridiculous criticism.

Advanced numbers are numbers that utilize on/off data and player tracking data above and beyond what you see in a traditional box score. Some advanced number systems are more complicated than others based on the regression techniques used. But the idea that one has to understand every mathematical step in the calculation in order to use the metric is absurd. Even if it's a "black box", that doesn't mean the black box can't pump out useful information.

No statistic is perfect (even your precious Wins Produced), but if you look at an advanced number method ranking of top players, and they pass the smell test for you based on what you see when watching games, then it's probably a pretty good metric to consider when evaluating a player. Certainly most NBA teams utilized advanced numbers, some of the most common being PIPM, BPM and RAPTOR.

When someone points out that Kuzma's "advanced stats" aren't as impressive as his box score stats, that's a valid criticism. It doesn't mean that one should conclude with certainty that Kuzma isn't as good as his box score numbers suggest, but it's a data point. One of the main problems with with on/off regression analysis is that it takes a lot of data, often multiple seasons, to really eliminate the noise. I'd say we are still well within the "noisy" range of the on/off data for Kuzma on the Wizards.

[Zonkerbl]

My eyes tell me Kuz is better than Beal. What do the advanced numbers say about that?

Could be biased - he does miss a lot of shots in the middle of games that my mind sort of fuzzes over.

[payitforward]

One more thing...

...his advanced numbers are absolute garbage....

Neither of you can explain what "advanced numbers" are. Or how "advanced numbers" are calculated.

Feel free to lay out the formula for any "advanced number" you comprehend. I don't mean parrot some tout's claim, I mean provide the method.

But, you can't. & that's ok -- you want to know why it's ok? Because there are no such things as "advanced numbers."

This is a rather ridiculous criticism.

Advanced numbers are numbers that utilize on/off data and player tracking data above and beyond what you see in a traditional box score. Some advanced number systems are more complicated than others based on the regression techniques used. But the idea that one has to understand every mathematical step in the calculation in order to use the metric is absurd. Even if it's a "black box", that doesn't mean the black box can't pump out useful information.

No statistic is perfect (even your precious Wins Produced), but if you look at an advanced number method ranking of top players, and they pass the smell test for you based on what you see when watching games, then it's probably a pretty good metric to consider when evaluating a player. Certainly most NBA teams utilized advanced numbers, some of the most common being PIPM, BPM and RAPTOR.

When someone points out that Kuzma's "advanced stats" aren't as impressive as his box score stats, that's a valid criticism. It doesn't mean that one should conclude with certainty that Kuzma isn't as good as his box score numbers suggest, but it's a data point. One of the main problems with with on/off regression analysis is that it takes a lot of data, often multiple seasons, to really eliminate the noise. I'd say we are still well within the "noisy" range of the on/off data for Kuzma on the Wizards.

-- well, I appreciate you at least using the word "rather"....

1. "Wins Produced" is neither "precious" to me nor an "advanced number." In the end, it's just a way of weighting the box office stats that, at the team level, account 100% for wins & losses in a way that statistical regression tells you is right, & then seeing who accounts for what part of those stats.

2. Of course that method has an inherent limitation -- it fails to account for effects of interaction between players. I.e. it's not "reality," it's an analysis of reality.

3. No one in his right mind compares an analysis with reality. Instead, you just compare it to other analyses, from which you can learn which one gives you the results closest to what actually happens & under what circumstances it does better or worse.

4. Neither you nor anyone here -- or anywhere as far as I know -- can assess the relationship between so-called advanced numbers, e.g. RAPTOR, & wins & losses.

Read that last sentence carefully. It's either true or it's false. If it's true, then I'm right: "advanced numbers" are baloney. If it's false, then I'm wrong about e.g. RAPTOR.

Can you show either one? Can you provide an actual correlation of any kind between, e.g. on the one hand the sum of RAPTOR numbers for a team's players across their season of minutes on the floor & on the other hand that team's win-loss record?

You can't, nate -- but, obviously, that's not the problem. The problem is that the people who invented these numbers (RAPTOR, etc.) can't do it either.

Of course, I could simply be ignorant. Like most people, there's a lot more I do not know than the sum of what I do know.

IOW, all you have to do is show me where these folks actually have described this correlation. I'd be happy if you did. I don't argue with valid mathematics or numerical analysis.

But, until you do, it's irrelevant to produce any other arguments in favor of these numbers. It's irrelevant, for example, to point out that teams "use" these numbers. After all, we have no idea how they use them, do we? Not to mention that people use all kinds of meaningless techniques to do all kinds of things.

&, btw, no you cannot use a black box to gather useful information. Period. Not possible. If you could, it wouldn't be a black box. I'm surprised this isn't obvious to you.

[nate33]

4. Neither you nor anyone here -- or anywhere as far as I know -- can assess the relationship between so-called advanced numbers, e.g. RAPTOR, & wins & losses.

Well, that applies to all metrics. I guess we shouldn't use stats at all.

[Ruzious]

My eyes tell me Kuz is better than Beal. What do the advanced numbers say about that?

Could be biased - he does miss a lot of shots in the middle of games that my mind sort of fuzzes over.

Using box score number or advanced numbers, I'm guessing they say pretty much the same thing on Kuz - since December 30th, there's been a dramatic uptick in his performance. Up until December 30th, he was roughly the same level player he was with the Lakers all those years. Is this change going to last? I''m not sure, but I'm hopeful the light finally went on for him.

[payitforward]

My eyes tell me Kuz is better than Beal. What do the advanced numbers say about that?

Could be biased - he does miss a lot of shots in the middle of games that my mind sort of fuzzes over.

Why would you need "advanced numbers?" This year, he's better than Beal by far.

Brad gets more assists than Kuzma & slightly more steals too. But he turns the ball over much more often, shoots a lower 2 pt. %, shoots a lower 3pt% & posts a lower TS%. Obviously, one can't compare rebounding straight across, but Brad is about average for a 2 this year, while Kuzma is significantly above average for a 4.

Compare the two guys last year, & it would have been different.

[payitforward]

4. Neither you nor anyone here -- or anywhere as far as I know -- can assess the relationship between so-called advanced numbers, e.g. RAPTOR, & wins & losses.

Well, that applies to all metrics. I guess we shouldn't use stats at all.

nate... no, it doesn't apply to all metrics. People often publish their methodologies & explain the correlations between them & real-world outcomes. The guys with the mystery meat don't do that.

But, there's little point in this debate: you're not really arguing with what I'm saying. You're just arguing with me.

& I don't know why you want to either, since the whole thrust of what I wrote was to say that, like you, I don't think we should trade Kyle Kuzma right now.

Instead I'd say it's well worth following his results to see whether he's established himself at a new level -- or maybe he'll even continue to climb.