Minnesota Sports Forum

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Cam, you are like the democrats. You call people out for doing the exact thing you are guilty of doing. You are the absolute king of finding a single stat and building an argument around it. I almost fell out of my chair reading what you wrote above about "always using more than one stat". I'll let you rant and rave about DLO 95% of the time, but I'm not going to let you use revisionist history when you get backed into a corner. Someone has to keep it real here.

The bolded text is laughable, especially from you, and we can prove it right here since you're so resolute about it. What single statistic would that have been? When have I ever built an entire assessment around a single statistic? Provide me a real example of what you're accusing. That should be easy to do considering you presented it like it's a reoccurrence.

Or do I typically rely on multiple measures to come to my conclusions? How else would I maintain any of my positions for anything longer than one debate? Think about that for a moment.

You can disagree with me all you'd like, but at least come correct. Someone does have to keep it real and it's rarely you.

I'm keeping it real because I have had these arguments with you dozens of times. I've called you out on it time and time again. You are famous for finding a stat and having that be your argument. Are you kidding me? You are your own propaganda machine. Just because you say something more often and louder, doesn't make you right. If you want to play the "find me a specific example" card, I am going to call you out every time you say something stupid. I don't generally like to post that much, but if that's what you want, that's what I'm going to do.

If it's something I do repeatedly, then you should have ample examples or evidence of it. And here you are... talking around it, making more accusations without providing anything valid. You are the machine you claim to hate... How about that for a plot twist?

The reality is that what I see take place on the court is the basis of everything, and I look at multiple measures to either confirm or deny that. That doesn't mean I'm always right because I'm definitely not, but it's typically a more complex assessment or process than simply pointing out a player's plus-minus value (or any one statistic) and running with it. Get a grip.

Camden wrote:

Q-was-here wrote:Cam, I agree it can be taken out of context and that in last night's game it should not be used to indicate DLO's performance. My argument is against your complete dismissal of the stat as it relates to an individual over a large sample size.

If we take what you say about it being totally noise, then in DLO's case, it's an incredible streak of bad luck that for 7 out of 8 seasons on three different teams he's had a) crappy team mates starting next to him (thus the negative net rating - after all, it can't be HIS fault his team always scores less points that the opponents when he's on the floor!), and b) really good backups since, amazingly, his team usually outscores their opponents when he's off the floor.

Bottom line...I predict DLO will be a backup PG or 6th man combo guard with someone within the next 1-3 years. It might even be the Wolves!

Q, my stance, as explained above, on plus-minus predates D'Angelo Russell even entering the league. We've often talked about that stat dating back to the days of Ricky Rubio, Kevin Love, and Andrew Wiggins. My feelings on it and how it's used here have largely remained the same. It's definitely been a reoccurring debate here in recent seasons because of Russell, but I would (and have) argue against plus-minus being THE indicator of a player's impact no matter who it is.

I also haven't said that Russell is blameless in anything, but I respect your sarcasm. I just don't think he's the negative impact player he often gets painted as primary because of that stat -- similar to DeMar DeRozan, Zach LaVine, and others. I've explained why here almost to a fault.

Russell played well last night, plus-minus be damned. I think you would agree with that, which only speaks to my feelings on the stat in general. Anyways, on to the next game and the one after that... and the one after that... where we can do this time and time again. Can't wait.

I've never heard you blame Russell for anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZPLtZQlLqg

I was depressed to see the box score, but many of your comments on the good things were uplifting. My Christmas show was not all that inspiring, A Tuna Christmas...

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Cam, you are like the democrats. You call people out for doing the exact thing you are guilty of doing. You are the absolute king of finding a single stat and building an argument around it. I almost fell out of my chair reading what you wrote above about "always using more than one stat". I'll let you rant and rave about DLO 95% of the time, but I'm not going to let you use revisionist history when you get backed into a corner. Someone has to keep it real here.

The bolded text is laughable, especially from you, and we can prove it right here since you're so resolute about it. What single statistic would that have been? When have I ever built an entire assessment around a single statistic? Provide me a real example of what you're accusing. That should be easy to do considering you presented it like it's a reoccurrence.

Or do I typically rely on multiple measures to come to my conclusions? How else would I maintain any of my positions for anything longer than one debate? Think about that for a moment.

You can disagree with me all you'd like, but at least come correct. Someone does have to keep it real and it's rarely you.

I'm keeping it real because I have had these arguments with you dozens of times. I've called you out on it time and time again. You are famous for finding a stat and having that be your argument. Are you kidding me? You are your own propaganda machine. Just because you say something more often and louder, doesn't make you right. If you want to play the "find me a specific example" card, I am going to call you out every time you say something stupid. I don't generally like to post that much, but if that's what you want, that's what I'm going to do.

If it's something I do repeatedly, then you should have ample examples or evidence of it. And here you are... talking around it, making more accusations without providing anything valid. You are the machine you claim to hate... How about that for a plot twist?

The reality is that what I see take place on the court is the basis of everything, and I look at multiple measures to either confirm or deny that. That doesn't mean I'm always right because I'm definitely not, but it's typically a more complex assessment or process than simply pointing out a player's plus-minus value (or any one statistic) and running with it. Get a grip.

Yeah, I keep a file on my computer - examples of Cam's idiocy. Give me a break. I wouldn't waste 10 seconds trying to prove what anyone with half a brain can easily see. That's your go-to get out of jail free card, find me examples. Yell at your mom from her basement to make you some meatloaf.

Cam is acting like such a Republican and Libertarian in this thread.

:rolls:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Cam is acting like such a Republican and Libertarian in this thread.

:rolls:

How dumb do you feel at this point Biden man?

I'm scratching my head trying to understand how anyone can say a guy whose team was outscored by 16 points in the 36 minutes he was on the court played a good game. And I think I figured it out. If I watched the game intently while the Wolves were on offense, but then turned away and didn't watch when we were on defense, I think I would agree that Russell played a very good game...despite a few careless turnovers. He was our high scorer and did it quite efficiently, making 10 of his 16 shots. While I would like to see my starting PG have more than 6 assists and fewer than 4 turnovers, DLo's scoring and shooting alone would lead anyone to conclude he had a very good game...on offense.

But I think those who find +/- stats irrelevant must be ignoring the TV screen whenever the Wolves are on defense (although it baffles me how anyone who represents himself as an astute basketball analyst can completely ignore eight years of largely negative +/- data!). Defense is 50% of a player's overall performance, and Russell defense was abhorrent on Saturday night...as it often is. Yes, praise him for a fine offensive game by all means. But open your eyes and take some time to understand why he was a -16, and why he habitually ranks near the bottom of the team in this stat. It's way too easy for opponents to score when Russell is out there, and his offense is seldom good enough to make up for his poor defense...even on a good offensive night like Saturday.

Nobody believes on/off and +/- stats are the only stat someone should look at to evaluate a performance...that would be silly, and lazy. But it's also lazy to ignore a stat that repeats itself game after game and year after game. DLo simply needs to dramatically improve his defense (and frankly get more efficient in his shooting...like he was Saturday night). Absent this, the Wolves will continue to get outscored while Russell is on the court...it's that simple.

Going from a strict +/- angle... Gobert is the reason the Wolves lost.

Not just because he was ejected for an egregious and stupid trip... but he was also -11 in only 9 minutes.



[Note: I'd chime in on reasons why +/- for certain players might need some context, but we've been over that too many times now to count. It's just one stat of many, so relying on it as THE stat to judge a player's performance for one specific game... meh.]

I bet there is some correlation between political preferences and basketball analysis. The left and right wingers focus on a few cognitive confirmation biases to support their own preconceived notions. Whatever media source they watch sports on is what they will be programmed to believe in.

While the Libertarians and Anarchists see the entire picture for what it is. They look at every stat, every metric as well as the eye test to form their own opinions. The are not easily manipulated sheep by the large media giants. They understand that defense is part of basketball!!!

WolvesFan21 wrote:I bet there is some correlation between political preferences and basketball analysis. The left and right wingers focus on a few cognitive confirmation biases to support their own preconceived notions. Whatever media source they watch sports on is what they will be programmed to believe in.

While the Libertarians and Anarchists see the entire picture for what it is. They look at every stat, every metric as well as the eye test to form their own opinions. The are not easily manipulated sheep by the large media giants. They understand that defense is part of basketball!!!

The anarchists have always seemed like the most level-headed analytical group.

Personally, I'm in favor of my seemingly one-man-only Pragmatist party. But it means a lot of wishy washiness and to be fair assessments that simply don't play well in acidic online forums.