The Rage Monster wrote:I still like Rubio, despite the things he can't do he still helps this team win games. If I'm looking at this right Rubio has played in 214 games so far and of those games he's played in the Wolves have won 93. That's a winning percentage of .434, during that same stretch the team's winning percentage is only .336. That's 10 percentage points higher and nearly a 30% increase.
I will take all his flaws, injuries aside, if he's making that kind of difference.
Sure. I think we all will. And I think all (most of us at least) realize Rubio makes the team better. Where we might differ is whether 43.4% is good enough. Or, whether Rubio can help a team win 63.4% of its games.
That's where it gets dicier. Rubio is pretty good while playing for pretty bad teams. Let's hope we get to see how good he is playing for a good team.
The Rage Monster wrote:I still like Rubio, despite the things he can't do he still helps this team win games. If I'm looking at this right Rubio has played in 214 games so far and of those games he's played in the Wolves have won 93. That's a winning percentage of .434, during that same stretch the team's winning percentage is only .336. That's 10 percentage points higher and nearly a 30% increase.
I will take all his flaws, injuries aside, if he's making that kind of difference.
Sure. I think we all will. And I think all (most of us at least) realize Rubio makes the team better. Where we might differ is whether 43.4% is good enough. Or, whether Rubio can help a team win 63.4% of its games.
That's where it gets dicier. Rubio is pretty good while playing for pretty bad teams. Let's hope we get to see how good he is playing for a good team.
I don't get your logic. If Rubio helps a poor team at least play mediocre to average, why wouldn't he help a good team even more?
The Rage Monster wrote:I still like Rubio, despite the things he can't do he still helps this team win games. If I'm looking at this right Rubio has played in 214 games so far and of those games he's played in the Wolves have won 93. That's a winning percentage of .434, during that same stretch the team's winning percentage is only .336. That's 10 percentage points higher and nearly a 30% increase.
I will take all his flaws, injuries aside, if he's making that kind of difference.
Sure. I think we all will. And I think all (most of us at least) realize Rubio makes the team better. Where we might differ is whether 43.4% is good enough. Or, whether Rubio can help a team win 63.4% of its games.
That's where it gets dicier. Rubio is pretty good while playing for pretty bad teams. Let's hope we get to see how good he is playing for a good team.
I don't get your logic. If Rubio helps a poor team at least play mediocre to average, why wouldn't he help a good team even more?
"Average" is stretching it. Remember, Rubio on a decent team was still under .500.
We just don't know. He hasn't been close to it. I don't think it's quite that clearcut of an argument. Some people could argue that it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games. It's all conjecture. We've never seen a guy shoot as poorly as Rubio. Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him. And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al. Outside of that... it's sort of uncharted waters.
I certainly wouldn't run with "A = A" so "B = B."
[Note: Philosophy aint my bag. So excuse my example.]
The Rage Monster wrote:I still like Rubio, despite the things he can't do he still helps this team win games. If I'm looking at this right Rubio has played in 214 games so far and of those games he's played in the Wolves have won 93. That's a winning percentage of .434, during that same stretch the team's winning percentage is only .336. That's 10 percentage points higher and nearly a 30% increase.
I will take all his flaws, injuries aside, if he's making that kind of difference.
Sure. I think we all will. And I think all (most of us at least) realize Rubio makes the team better. Where we might differ is whether 43.4% is good enough. Or, whether Rubio can help a team win 63.4% of its games.
That's where it gets dicier. Rubio is pretty good while playing for pretty bad teams. Let's hope we get to see how good he is playing for a good team.
I don't get your logic. If Rubio helps a poor team at least play mediocre to average, why wouldn't he help a good team even more?
"Average" is stretching it. Remember, Rubio on a decent team was still under .500.
We just don't know. He hasn't been close to it. I don't think it's quite that clearcut of an argument. Some people could argue that it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games. It's all conjecture. We've never seen a guy shoot as poorly as Rubio. Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him. And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al. Outside of that... it's sort of uncharted waters.
I certainly wouldn't run with "A = A" so "B = B."
[Note: Philosophy aint my bag. So excuse my example.]
I think both of these points are valid. I tend to agree that if Rubio can help elevate a bad team he'd also be able to help a good team become better. He defends, moves the ball, and I think he provides good leadership. The first 2 should help a team no matter what level they're at (how much is unknown).
43.4% isn't good enough but he was almost .500 a couple years ago with Love. I think a strong case could be made that Towns and Wiggins will be the two best teammates Rubio has had meaning that percentage should go up.
The Rage Monster wrote:I still like Rubio, despite the things he can't do he still helps this team win games. If I'm looking at this right Rubio has played in 214 games so far and of those games he's played in the Wolves have won 93. That's a winning percentage of .434, during that same stretch the team's winning percentage is only .336. That's 10 percentage points higher and nearly a 30% increase.
I will take all his flaws, injuries aside, if he's making that kind of difference.
Sure. I think we all will. And I think all (most of us at least) realize Rubio makes the team better. Where we might differ is whether 43.4% is good enough. Or, whether Rubio can help a team win 63.4% of its games.
That's where it gets dicier. Rubio is pretty good while playing for pretty bad teams. Let's hope we get to see how good he is playing for a good team.
I don't get your logic. If Rubio helps a poor team at least play mediocre to average, why wouldn't he help a good team even more?
"Average" is stretching it. Remember, Rubio on a decent team was still under .500.
We just don't know. He hasn't been close to it. I don't think it's quite that clearcut of an argument. Some people could argue that it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games. It's all conjecture. We've never seen a guy shoot as poorly as Rubio. Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him. And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al. Outside of that... it's sort of uncharted waters.
I certainly wouldn't run with "A = A" so "B = B."
[Note: Philosophy aint my bag. So excuse my example.]
I think both of these points are valid. I tend to agree that if Rubio can help elevate a bad team he'd also be able to help a good team become better. He defends, moves the ball, and I think he provides good leadership. The first 2 should help a team no matter what level they're at (how much is unknown).
43.4% isn't good enough but he was almost .500 a couple years ago with Love. I think a strong case could be made that Towns and Wiggins will be the two best teammates Rubio has had meaning that percentage should go up.
Hmmm, let's see if I can be more clear...
Pretty good player on a bad team = Mediocre team. I can see that.
Pretty good player on an average team = Good team? I don't know if it's quite that simple.
Pretty good player on a good team = Great team?
(in addition to Abe who has this right)
well what the real question is, can we go deep in playoffs with him?
there is big difference between random regular season game, important and close regular season game, and playoff series. In regular season (in NBA and NHL, where the grind is) all teams play fully within their system, sure they adjust per opponent but there is not much time between games and you do not want to disrupt team flow. It is the playoffs where flaws are going to come back to bait you right in the ass.
Nobody will even think of playing zone defense against us in regular season (unless they want to practice that), they could mess their defense for few more games down the stretch by doing so. .. In playoffs? Why not, 3-2 zone it is, good luck breaking that with PG who cannot shoot or drive to the basket .. free win.
Again, how about DJ. He is definitely great plus player when it comes to season, yet in playoffs he will sit half of the time on the bench, so you have your 20mil+ center out of the game, what now.
If in regular season minor adjustments force coach like Adelman to play 5'9 spark plug instead of your starting PG in 4th quarter. You have some problems to solve. I dare to say that in 90+ perc. of those situations any other average starting PG would be on the floor.
My concern is that we might lose a lot of time with Ricky, with not only health issues, but also trying to make work something which cannot, or is incredibly hard to pull of as you need brilliant Pop level coaching for that to happen.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
To be fair, just yesterday you were using stats from 3, 4 and 5 years ago to make your point, while completely dismissing more recent stats.
[Note: Rubio is polarizing, which is why the "Pork-O-Meter" is relevant. I think the 2014 season is a great case study in the phenomenon. Case in point: 3 or 4 people took exception to me simply pointing out Rubio went 16 games without scoring a basket in the 4th quarter. How could anybody try to sugarcoat that? NewsFlash: Rubio is one of my favorite players. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be his apologist.]
False. Yesterday I responded to you posting a 5 year trend of Rubio's FG%. I pointed out the potential pitfalls of trying to include the last two years in any sort of analysis. Specifically, the fact that the last two years are small samples with regard to games played and the fact he was either injured or recovering. That wasn't me pulling stats from 3, 4, 5 years ago to make a point. It was all your data.
Also - out of curiosity - why do you often put some of your comments below the main body in brackets? Are those comments supposed to be part of the discussion too? If so - why are you bracketing them off? Maybe it's your style - IDK. No big deal. I was always just curious. Honestly, half the time I don't see/read the bracketed part because of spacing/formatting - I don't notice it. Many of us are on small screens.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
To be fair, just yesterday you were using stats from 3, 4 and 5 years ago to make your point, while completely dismissing more recent stats.
[Note: Rubio is polarizing, which is why the "Pork-O-Meter" is relevant. I think the 2014 season is a great case study in the phenomenon. Case in point: 3 or 4 people took exception to me simply pointing out Rubio went 16 games without scoring a basket in the 4th quarter. How could anybody try to sugarcoat that? NewsFlash: Rubio is one of my favorite players. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be his apologist.]
False. Yesterday I responded to you posting a 5 year trend of Rubio's FG%. I pointed out the potential pitfalls of trying to include the last two years in any sort of analysis. Specifically, the fact that the last two years are small samples with regard to games played and the fact he was either injured or recovering. That wasn't me pulling stats from 3, 4, 5 years ago to make a point. It was all your data.
Also - out of curiosity - why do you often put some of your comments below the main body in brackets? Are those comments supposed to be part of the discussion too? If so - why are you bracketing them off? Maybe it's your style - IDK. No big deal. I was always just curious. Honestly, half the time I don't see/read the bracketed part because of spacing/formatting - I don't notice it. Many of us are on small screens.
There's a disconnect somewhere. As you acknowledge, you wrote that stats from the last two seasons don't matter... but ones from 3, 4 and 5 seasons do. Then, you tell me that stats from 3 seasons ago don't. We're just missing each other somewhere here. No big deal, the beauty of a message board...
[Note: I even wrote "It's still early though" acknowledging the small sample size so I found it odd that you either missed it or deemed it necessary to point it out to me. You mean like that?]
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
There's a disconnect somewhere. As you acknowledge, you wrote that stats from the last two seasons don't matter... but ones from 3, 4 and 5 seasons do. Then, you tell me that stats from 3 seasons ago don't. We're just missing each other somewhere here. No big deal, the beauty of a message board...
You don't seem to grasp the concept of More Data > less Data. If you are attempting to trend Rubio's FG%, certainly more weight should be given to seasons where he was relatively healthy and played more games than the last two season which consisted of battling injuries and playing 22 games and now 12 games.
The "clutch" data is no different. You keep going back to an article that was written three years ago - in the middle of a season. The sample size of that data is insignificant. And if you don't understand that, then just use the same process the author used for his other years. Does his "clutch FG%" stay bad? Or does it simply move closer to his overall FG% as you pull in more data? Q already did that - so we know the answer. "Clutch" is nothing more than a small sample. If Rubio's "clutch" numbers were great - I still wouldn't want him to be our "go to guy" because the bigger bucket of data tells me he's not a good shooter.
The Rage Monster wrote:I still like Rubio, despite the things he can't do he still helps this team win games. If I'm looking at this right Rubio has played in 214 games so far and of those games he's played in the Wolves have won 93. That's a winning percentage of .434, during that same stretch the team's winning percentage is only .336. That's 10 percentage points higher and nearly a 30% increase.
I will take all his flaws, injuries aside, if he's making that kind of difference.
Sure. I think we all will. And I think all (most of us at least) realize Rubio makes the team better. Where we might differ is whether 43.4% is good enough. Or, whether Rubio can help a team win 63.4% of its games.
That's where it gets dicier. Rubio is pretty good while playing for pretty bad teams. Let's hope we get to see how good he is playing for a good team.
I don't get your logic. If Rubio helps a poor team at least play mediocre to average, why wouldn't he help a good team even more?
"Average" is stretching it. Remember, Rubio on a decent team was still under .500.
We just don't know. He hasn't been close to it. I don't think it's quite that clearcut of an argument. Some people could argue that it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games. It's all conjecture. We've never seen a guy shoot as poorly as Rubio. Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him. And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al. Outside of that... it's sort of uncharted waters.
I certainly wouldn't run with "A = A" so "B = B."
[Note: Philosophy aint my bag. So excuse my example.]
"Some people would argue it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games."
Only some people? I'd like to meet the people who say it's easier to win 54 games than be mediocre. I can introduce them to my therapist.
"Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him."
Yes! A great benchmark. What is your argument again?
"And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al."
I suppose so, but they still won a title together with Rondo as their point guard. So how did Rondo hold them back?
Abe, you and I are on the same page on most things. You've got me flummoxed on this one.
