Minnesota Sports Forum

Coolbreeze44 wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 11:19 am

kekgeek wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 9:52 am

Coolbreeze44 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 10:16 pm Brunson is what DLO could be if he had a fully functioning brain.

I don’t know Q. Dlo is a +35 in these playoffs and Brunson is a -4. Just think how good the Knicks would be if they get rid of that negative player in Brunson and add that massive impactful player in Dlo

Kek, I hope this is sarcasm

Yes it is. I’m going to kill the single game +\- stat one example at a time. Haha

kekgeek wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 11:27 am

Coolbreeze44 wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 11:19 am

kekgeek wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 9:52 am

I don’t know Q. Dlo is a +35 in these playoffs and Brunson is a -4. Just think how good the Knicks would be if they get rid of that negative player in Brunson and add that massive impactful player in Dlo

Kek, I hope this is sarcasm

Yes it is. I’m going to kill the single game +\- stat one example at a time. Haha

No argument there, but I'm with FNG - It is very meaningful over a large sample size relative to players on the same team.

Coolbreeze44 wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 11:58 am

kekgeek wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 11:27 am

Coolbreeze44 wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 11:19 am

Kek, I hope this is sarcasm

Yes it is. I’m going to kill the single game +\- stat one example at a time. Haha

No argument there, but I'm with FNG - It is very meaningful over a large sample size relative to players on the same team.

Don’t disagree with you there. Large sample lineup data can be useful. Obviously I use it all the time. Single game/small sample is irrelevant

My favorite part about that bucks game was the hecklers that came through the broadcast. Some really loud Indiana fan had some zingers:
“Dame your tattoos are only ok!”
“Bobby portis, your eyes are slightly too large for your head!”
And the one where bev threw the ball at the fan was as they were getting ready to break out of the huddle putting their hands and dude goes “1 2 3 Cabo!”

kekgeek wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 12:21 pm

Coolbreeze44 wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 11:58 am

kekgeek wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 11:27 am

Yes it is. I’m going to kill the single game +\- stat one example at a time. Haha

No argument there, but I'm with FNG - It is very meaningful over a large sample size relative to players on the same team.

Don’t disagree with you there. Large sample lineup data can be useful. Obviously I use it all the time. Single game/small sample is irrelevant

Not sure it's completely irrelevant in small sample sizes. Often it's a true reflection of crappy or outstanding play by that particular player, but you have to combine it with box score stats and other contextual info that isn't contradictory to come to that conclusion.

As for DLO, I don't think as poorly of him as an asset as I did under his prior contract with the Wolves. I think he could be a good 6th man. Once he accepts that as his ultimate role and isn't expected to be a leader of any kind, he and the team he's with will be better for it.

Q-is-here wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 11:32 am

kekgeek wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 12:21 pm

Coolbreeze44 wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 11:58 am

No argument there, but I'm with FNG - It is very meaningful over a large sample size relative to players on the same team.

Don’t disagree with you there. Large sample lineup data can be useful. Obviously I use it all the time. Single game/small sample is irrelevant

Not sure it's completely irrelevant in small sample sizes. Often it's a true reflection of crappy or outstanding play by that particular player, but you have to combine it with box score stats and other contextual info that isn't contradictory to come to that conclusion.

As for DLO, I don't think as poorly of him as an asset as I did under his prior contract with the Wolves. I think he could be a good 6th man. Once he accepts that as his ultimate role and isn't expected to be a leader of any kind, he and the team he's with will be better for it.

I could make a case that any stat is irrelevant in a small sample size (like one game). The stat most often cited in a post game analysis is points scored, and I never hear any call it irrelevant for that night. But if you're Jordan Poole for instance, and one night you score 30 but the Wizards get badly outscored while you're on the court (compared to when you're off). What's more relevant...the fact that he scored 30, or the fact that his team did worse when he was on the court than off? I don't have a clear answer, but I think his points scored is less relevant in that instance.

Context matters. During the disastrous 5 minutes in the second quarter, both Naz and NAW were a -16. But although he missed a shot and turned the ball over, most fans' eye test would say he was playing much better than Naz...who was hurting us at both ends of the court. So yeah, any stat can be deemed irrelevant in a small sample size. To Q's point, you need to consider the entire box score as well as the eye test to truly evaluate a player's performance. That said, we're all going to have our personal prejudices as to which stats are most relevant for them.

Love the fact that the so-called "super teams" that ESPN fawns over that were built through ring-chasing free agents and forced trades by egotistical malcontents are now out of the Playoffs: Lakers, Clippers, and Phoenix are the teams I'm thinking most about. In addition, highly unlikeable teams like Golden State and Philadelphia are out of it. Even the Bucks sort of got what they deserved after trading Jrue Holiday to chase after a superstar.

davemang wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 10:16 am My favorite part about that bucks game was the hecklers that came through the broadcast. Some really loud Indiana fan had some zingers:
“Dame your tattoos are only ok!”
“Bobby portis, your eyes are slightly too large for your head!”
And the one where bev threw the ball at the fan was as they were getting ready to break out of the huddle putting their hands and dude goes “1 2 3 Cabo!”

Now, this is why I show up here.

Q-is-here wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 11:04 am Love the fact that the so-called "super teams" that ESPN fawns over that were built through ring-chasing free agents and forced trades by egotistical malcontents are now out of the Playoffs: Lakers, Clippers, and Phoenix are the teams I'm thinking most about. In addition, highly unlikeable teams like Golden State and Philadelphia are out of it. Even the Bucks sort of got what they deserved after trading Jrue Holiday to chase after a superstar.

I share your joy in what has transpired beyond the Wolves advancing. Good point about the Bucks.

There’s a lesson on all of this. Ring-chasing pursuit of older, high-priced stars almost never pays off. Arguably, the Wolves did that in the Rudy deal, but he was the only player they pursued, was still only 30 years old at the time and they got him without giving up any part of their organically-grown core. Giving up Holiday to get Lillard was doomed at the outset.

You know who received a lot of hype and praise at the beginning of the year and then really tapered off? Tyrese Haliburton. He's not who you thought he was.