AbeVigodaLive wrote:To be fair... with a young team like the Wolves... a 24 ppg scorer (per 36 minutes) has a role if used correctly. That's what Martin is in a small sample size. Last season, he averaged 28 ppg or more in 1/4 of the games he played.
That's legit scoring. Does it come at a price in other ways? Maybe... probably.
I just cringe a bit when I see LaVine and "ouplaying" in any context right now. There's very little I like about the kid's game thus far. We all have players we like to watch or not watch play. And I can definitely see why Martin is a guy many people don't like to watch.
But he's a better player than Zach LaVine right now. Maybe dumping Martin and using those minutes for LaVine will change that because at least LaVine will be playing a position he has promise and possibly even legit potential at.
Note: basketballreference has different O and D ratings:
O Ratings:
Martin - 113
LaVine - 87
D Ratings:
Martin - 102
LaVine - 101
B-Refs ratings have always been wrong. They do some weird thing were your rating can change based on how guys play when you aren't even on the court. Look at KG and Prince's ratings and tell me how they are plus anything this year.
Also Martin isn't even shooting 3's at a better clip than Zach. Literally the only things he statistically does better than Zach at this point is score more and do it more efficiently and turn it over less which isn't hard to do when Zach is playing out of position at PG. If Martin's 3pt shooting isn't there how can his scoring not be easily replaced by Bazz and then Lavine's more all-around game benefit the team around him better at the 2? Zach passes a lot more, plays better defense, rebounds better and isn't a black hole. How does just scoring more trump all of that? Martin is getting by based on reputation on this board, not by how he's actually played because he's played a terrible brand of team basketball which is why he is statistically the worst rotation player on the team right now in every team play statistic.
Interesting about the ratings. But I need more links or something to bring some sense of context/normalcy/accuracy to the very vast differences in the ratings.
By the way, basketballreference has Prince and Garnett as the two worst O Rating guys on the team...
Wow, those numbers don't do Martin any favors in the trade market, hopefully someone will bite and give us a second rounder, the sooner the better. With Belly playing better, Big KAT's offensive range and Bazz getting more time, we're not so dependent on Martin for outside shooting
AbeVigodaLive wrote:To be fair... with a young team like the Wolves... a 24 ppg scorer (per 36 minutes) has a role if used correctly. That's what Martin is in a small sample size. Last season, he averaged 28 ppg or more in 1/4 of the games he played.
That's legit scoring. Does it come at a price in other ways? Maybe... probably.
I just cringe a bit when I see LaVine and "ouplaying" in any context right now. There's very little I like about the kid's game thus far. We all have players we like to watch or not watch play. And I can definitely see why Martin is a guy many people don't like to watch.
But he's a better player than Zach LaVine right now. Maybe dumping Martin and using those minutes for LaVine will change that because at least LaVine will be playing a position he has promise and possibly even legit potential at.
Note: basketballreference has different O and D ratings:
O Ratings:
Martin - 113
LaVine - 87
D Ratings:
Martin - 102
LaVine - 101
B-Refs ratings have always been wrong. They do some weird thing were your rating can change based on how guys play when you aren't even on the court. Look at KG and Prince's ratings and tell me how they are plus anything this year.
Also Martin isn't even shooting 3's at a better clip than Zach. Literally the only things he statistically does better than Zach at this point is score more and do it more efficiently and turn it over less which isn't hard to do when Zach is playing out of position at PG. If Martin's 3pt shooting isn't there how can his scoring not be easily replaced by Bazz and then Lavine's more all-around game benefit the team around him better at the 2? Zach passes a lot more, plays better defense, rebounds better and isn't a black hole. How does just scoring more trump all of that? Martin is getting by based on reputation on this board, not by how he's actually played because he's played a terrible brand of team basketball which is why he is statistically the worst rotation player on the team right now in every team play statistic.
Interesting about the ratings. But I need more links or something to bring some sense of context/normalcy/accuracy to the very vast differences in the ratings.
By the way, basketballreference has Prince and Garnett as the two worst O Rating guys on the team...
Yes, because compared to the rest of the team they are terrible on offense, but the ratings aren't supposed to compare you to your teammates. That's why given the fact they are both our highest plus players, it would make no sense to me they both have a lower offensive rating than defensive rating. NBAdotcom tells a very different story with offensive and defensive rating with them that more closely matches why they are plus players overall.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:To be fair... with a young team like the Wolves... a 24 ppg scorer (per 36 minutes) has a role if used correctly. That's what Martin is in a small sample size. Last season, he averaged 28 ppg or more in 1/4 of the games he played.
That's legit scoring. Does it come at a price in other ways? Maybe... probably.
I just cringe a bit when I see LaVine and "ouplaying" in any context right now. There's very little I like about the kid's game thus far. We all have players we like to watch or not watch play. And I can definitely see why Martin is a guy many people don't like to watch.
But he's a better player than Zach LaVine right now. Maybe dumping Martin and using those minutes for LaVine will change that because at least LaVine will be playing a position he has promise and possibly even legit potential at.
Note: basketballreference has different O and D ratings:
O Ratings:
Martin - 113
LaVine - 87
D Ratings:
Martin - 102
LaVine - 101
B-Refs ratings have always been wrong. They do some weird thing were your rating can change based on how guys play when you aren't even on the court. Look at KG and Prince's ratings and tell me how they are plus anything this year.
Also Martin isn't even shooting 3's at a better clip than Zach. Literally the only things he statistically does better than Zach at this point is score more and do it more efficiently and turn it over less which isn't hard to do when Zach is playing out of position at PG. If Martin's 3pt shooting isn't there how can his scoring not be easily replaced by Bazz and then Lavine's more all-around game benefit the team around him better at the 2? Zach passes a lot more, plays better defense, rebounds better and isn't a black hole. How does just scoring more trump all of that? Martin is getting by based on reputation on this board, not by how he's actually played because he's played a terrible brand of team basketball which is why he is statistically the worst rotation player on the team right now in every team play statistic.
Interesting about the ratings. But I need more links or something to bring some sense of context/normalcy/accuracy to the very vast differences in the ratings.
By the way, basketballreference has Prince and Garnett as the two worst O Rating guys on the team...
Yes, because compared to the rest of the team they are terrible on offense, but the ratings aren't supposed to compare you to your teammates. That's why given the fact they are both our highest plus players, it would make no sense to me they both have a lower offensive rating than defensive rating. NBAdotcom tells a very different story with offensive and defensive rating with them that more closely matches why they are plus players overall.
So we're just picking and choosing which stats are "legit" to fit our narrative? Fair enough. That's the beauty of stats. We can play up the ones that support our argument and downplay the ones that don't.
So we're just picking and choosing which stats are "legit" to fit our narrative? Fair enough. That's the beauty of stats. We can play up the ones that support our argument and downplay the ones that don't.
So we're just picking and choosing which stats are "legit" to fit our narrative? Fair enough. That's the beauty of stats. We can play up the ones that support our argument and downplay the ones that don't.
I think Abe is making a good point that there is merit to Kmarts scoring and that he is still by the numbers one of our best scoring options. Moreover, I agree that Lavine is yet to prove that he can compete with Kmart.
I would add that I would just like to see more sets with Bazz as the Primary option. The second unit seems to be overwhelmingly either Kmart or Lavine. And as long as Lavine is PG I don't think that's changing. The pecking order still fits that Kmart deserves the ball over anyone on the second unit. But I like that there are glimpses of our future emerging before our eyes.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:To be fair... with a young team like the Wolves... a 24 ppg scorer (per 36 minutes) has a role if used correctly. That's what Martin is in a small sample size. Last season, he averaged 28 ppg or more in 1/4 of the games he played.
That's legit scoring. Does it come at a price in other ways? Maybe... probably.
I just cringe a bit when I see LaVine and "ouplaying" in any context right now. There's very little I like about the kid's game thus far. We all have players we like to watch or not watch play. And I can definitely see why Martin is a guy many people don't like to watch.
But he's a better player than Zach LaVine right now. Maybe dumping Martin and using those minutes for LaVine will change that because at least LaVine will be playing a position he has promise and possibly even legit potential at.
Note: basketballreference has different O and D ratings:
O Ratings:
Martin - 113
LaVine - 87
D Ratings:
Martin - 102
LaVine - 101
B-Refs ratings have always been wrong. They do some weird thing were your rating can change based on how guys play when you aren't even on the court. Look at KG and Prince's ratings and tell me how they are plus anything this year.
Also Martin isn't even shooting 3's at a better clip than Zach. Literally the only things he statistically does better than Zach at this point is score more and do it more efficiently and turn it over less which isn't hard to do when Zach is playing out of position at PG. If Martin's 3pt shooting isn't there how can his scoring not be easily replaced by Bazz and then Lavine's more all-around game benefit the team around him better at the 2? Zach passes a lot more, plays better defense, rebounds better and isn't a black hole. How does just scoring more trump all of that? Martin is getting by based on reputation on this board, not by how he's actually played because he's played a terrible brand of team basketball which is why he is statistically the worst rotation player on the team right now in every team play statistic.
Interesting about the ratings. But I need more links or something to bring some sense of context/normalcy/accuracy to the very vast differences in the ratings.
By the way, basketballreference has Prince and Garnett as the two worst O Rating guys on the team...
Yes, because compared to the rest of the team they are terrible on offense, but the ratings aren't supposed to compare you to your teammates. That's why given the fact they are both our highest plus players, it would make no sense to me they both have a lower offensive rating than defensive rating. NBAdotcom tells a very different story with offensive and defensive rating with them that more closely matches why they are plus players overall.
So we're just picking and choosing which stats are "legit" to fit our narrative? Fair enough. That's the beauty of stats. We can play up the ones that support our argument and downplay the ones that don't.
I'm not picking and choosing stats. You gave the O and D ratings from one website. I gave the O and D ratings from another and then gave context to why my stats are actually more likely to be right and yours wrong. How can KG and Prince have a deficit between offensive and defensive ratings and still be plus players? That doesn't make any sense. Then compare that to their NBAdotcom ratings that show 93.6/77.7 for KG and 99.0/83.5 for Prince. The offensive numbers are comparable or worse to their more effective offensive teammates and their defensive ratings show how they would be plus players even while having lower offensive ratings. Look at these definitions and tell me which one is the accurate number.
B-Ref O rating- an estimate of points produced (players) or scored (teams) per 100 posessions.
NBA - the number of points scored per 100 possessions by a team. For a player, it is the number of points per 100 possessions that the team scores while that individual player is on the court.
How can those numbers be so different if the stat is measuring the same thing?
AbeVigodaLive wrote:To be fair... with a young team like the Wolves... a 24 ppg scorer (per 36 minutes) has a role if used correctly. That's what Martin is in a small sample size. Last season, he averaged 28 ppg or more in 1/4 of the games he played.
That's legit scoring. Does it come at a price in other ways? Maybe... probably.
I just cringe a bit when I see LaVine and "ouplaying" in any context right now. There's very little I like about the kid's game thus far. We all have players we like to watch or not watch play. And I can definitely see why Martin is a guy many people don't like to watch.
But he's a better player than Zach LaVine right now. Maybe dumping Martin and using those minutes for LaVine will change that because at least LaVine will be playing a position he has promise and possibly even legit potential at.
Note: basketballreference has different O and D ratings:
O Ratings:
Martin - 113
LaVine - 87
D Ratings:
Martin - 102
LaVine - 101
B-Refs ratings have always been wrong. They do some weird thing were your rating can change based on how guys play when you aren't even on the court. Look at KG and Prince's ratings and tell me how they are plus anything this year.
Also Martin isn't even shooting 3's at a better clip than Zach. Literally the only things he statistically does better than Zach at this point is score more and do it more efficiently and turn it over less which isn't hard to do when Zach is playing out of position at PG. If Martin's 3pt shooting isn't there how can his scoring not be easily replaced by Bazz and then Lavine's more all-around game benefit the team around him better at the 2? Zach passes a lot more, plays better defense, rebounds better and isn't a black hole. How does just scoring more trump all of that? Martin is getting by based on reputation on this board, not by how he's actually played because he's played a terrible brand of team basketball which is why he is statistically the worst rotation player on the team right now in every team play statistic.
Interesting about the ratings. But I need more links or something to bring some sense of context/normalcy/accuracy to the very vast differences in the ratings.
By the way, basketballreference has Prince and Garnett as the two worst O Rating guys on the team...
Yes, because compared to the rest of the team they are terrible on offense, but the ratings aren't supposed to compare you to your teammates. That's why given the fact they are both our highest plus players, it would make no sense to me they both have a lower offensive rating than defensive rating. NBAdotcom tells a very different story with offensive and defensive rating with them that more closely matches why they are plus players overall.
So we're just picking and choosing which stats are "legit" to fit our narrative? Fair enough. That's the beauty of stats. We can play up the ones that support our argument and downplay the ones that don't.
I'm not picking and choosing stats. You gave the O and D ratings from one website. I gave the O and D ratings from another and then gave context to why my stats are actually more likely to be right and yours wrong. How can KG and Prince have a deficit between offensive and defensive ratings and still be plus players? That doesn't make any sense. Then compare that to their NBAdotcom ratings that show 93.6/77.7 for KG and 99.0/83.5 for Prince. The offensive numbers are comparable or worse to their more effective offensive teammates and their defensive ratings show how they would be plus players even while having lower offensive ratings. Look at these definitions and tell me which one is the accurate number.
B-Ref O rating- an estimate of points produced (players) or scored (teams) per 100 posessions.
NBA - the number of points scored per 100 possessions by a team. For a player, it is the number of points per 100 possessions that the team scores while that individual player is on the court.
How can those numbers be so different if the stat is measuring the same thing?
I honestly have no idea. That's why I was hoping for a link or something to explain such vast discrepancies.
I'd like to think it has something to do with small sample sizes that will even out... but I don't think so. I also haven't found any explanation online about the differences.
I agree with Khans not to use B-Ball Reference's individual Drtg and Ortg numbers because it incorporates a combination of team-based metrics per 100 possessions AND box score metrics. It's not completely useless, but it is a different than simply looking at a straight-up Team metric when said player is on or off the court.
Of course, if you look ONLY at a team metric to evaluate a player, it obfuscates the impact of the other four guys he's playing with plus the context in which he's being utilized. For example, I would say that one reason Martin looks so terrible out there is that he's playing with a crap point guard. It's funny how two seasons ago he co-existed just fine with Pekovic and Love, who also demanded a ton of touches. But guess who was running the show? That was one of the top 3 starting units in basketball that season.
I'm also not convinced that LaVine is "just as good as Martin". First off, it's not true. Second of all, how would we even know!? We have never even seen the guy play SG for any extended stretch other than a handful of games at the end of a busted season.
