Pork was right

[Brooklyn_Wolves [enjin:14608167]]

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2016/sort/WINS
If he was absent from games entirely and we deduct his wins, Wolves would be 18-19 win ball club instead of 29. Seems spot on to me

in 2013-2014 http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2014/sort/WINS
if we deduct his WINS the team with Love going apeshit and Barea's erratic play would struggle to reach 30 wins. Again ESPN's estimation seems spot on to me.

As I've written many times... there are stats out there to argue almost any angle. And convincingly at times.

According to that link... Rubio was more instrumental in wins for the "disappointing" 40 - 42 Wolves than James Harden was for the surprising 54 - 28 Rockets. So was Channing Frye.

Furthermore, the Wolves had two of the top 15 players... and 4 of the top 66 players... and still finished under .500.


[Note: All stats have merit. That's not one of my favorites considering some of the anomalies it creates.]

[AbeVigodaLive]

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2016/sort/WINS
If he was absent from games entirely and we deduct his wins, Wolves would be 18-19 win ball club instead of 29. Seems spot on to me

in 2013-2014 http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2014/sort/WINS
if we deduct his WINS the team with Love going apeshit and Barea's erratic play would struggle to reach 30 wins. Again ESPN's estimation seems spot on to me.

As I've written many times... there are stats out there to argue almost any angle. And convincingly at times.

According to that link... Rubio was more instrumental in wins for the "disappointing" 40 - 42 Wolves than James Harden was for the surprising 54 - 28 Rockets. So was Channing Frye.

Furthermore, the Wolves had two of the top 15 players... and 4 of the top 66 players... and still finished under .500.


[Note: All stats have merit. That's not one of my favorites considering some of the anomalies it creates.]

I'm happy you brought up Frye (10 wins) because it helps my case. He was so good and important for 13-14 Suns that they won 48 games. Next season he was off the team and...BOOM...they fell to 39 without him. See Abe, it works.

Edit:

As for you Harden remark; you're telling me Rockets with Howard, healthy Parsons, Lin, Asik etc wouldn't have won 44 games? Come on.

And 13-14 Wolves relied on those 2 players heavily. Their bench was rock bottom.

[Brooklyn_Wolves [enjin:14608167]]

@ Abe

I see that you choose to have a very closed-minded approach to this and it makes up for a useless argument with you or a waste of time really.

[AbeVigodaLive]

@ Abe

I see that you choose to have a very closed-minded approach to this and it makes up for a useless argument with you or a waste of time really.

I'm not following you on that angle. At all.

I try to remain open minded on most issues... sometimes, to a fault. If I'm wrong here for suggesting Real Plus-Minus should not be used as the one and only stat as opposed to one stat among many other stats... so be it.

[Brooklyn_Wolves [enjin:14608167]]

@ Abe

I see that you choose to have a very closed-minded approach to this and it makes up for a useless argument with you or a waste of time really.

I'm not following you on that angle. At all.

I try to remain open minded on most issues... sometimes, to a fault. If I'm wrong here for suggesting Real Plus-Minus should not be used as the one and only stat as opposed to one stat among many other stats... so be it.

Ok , I'll try. You say that you have a tough time with this Harden vs. .... thing. But you seem to think of his offensive contributions and not think of his defensive warts, but it brings down his total impact on his team. Likewise K-Mart on the wolves was 2nd best scorer but only distant 5th (KL 13.5, RR. 10.7, Pek 6.5, Brew 6, KM 2.2) in total contribution because we was a defensive black hole. And the rest of the team contributed next to nothing or even brought negative effect on the team.

[AbeVigodaLive]

@ Abe

I see that you choose to have a very closed-minded approach to this and it makes up for a useless argument with you or a waste of time really.

I'm not following you on that angle. At all.

I try to remain open minded on most issues... sometimes, to a fault. If I'm wrong here for suggesting Real Plus-Minus should not be used as the one and only stat as opposed to one stat among many other stats... so be it.

Ok , I'll try. You say that you have a tough time with this Harden vs. .... thing. But you seem to think of his offensive contributions and not think of his defensive warts, but it brings down his total impact on his team. Likewise K-Mart on the wolves was 2nd best scorer but only distant 5th (KL 13.5, RR. 10.7, Pek 6.5, Brew 6, KM 2.2) in total contribution because we was a defensive black hole. And the rest of the team contributed next to nothing or even brought negative effect on the team.

I'm simply saying... as I have every single time we have a discussion on that stat... I think it's full of anomalies. And I'm saying that because there are so many statistics to grab nowadays... we can make almost any argument about almost anything with a stat to support our take.

As such... each stat should be taken with a grain of salt. Or, collectively. Or whatever.

[Monster]

@ Abe

I see that you choose to have a very closed-minded approach to this and it makes up for a useless argument with you or a waste of time really.

I'm not following you on that angle. At all.

I try to remain open minded on most issues... sometimes, to a fault. If I'm wrong here for suggesting Real Plus-Minus should not be used as the one and only stat as opposed to one stat among many other stats... so be it.

Ok , I'll try. You say that you have a tough time with this Harden vs. .... thing. But you seem to think of his offensive contributions and not think of his defensive warts, but it brings down his total impact on his team. Likewise K-Mart on the wolves was 2nd best scorer but only distant 5th (KL 13.5, RR. 10.7, Pek 6.5, Brew 6, KM 2.2) in total contribution because we was a defensive black hole. And the rest of the team contributed next to nothing or even brought negative effect on the team.

I'm simply saying... as I have every single time we have a discussion on that stat... I think it's full of anomalies. And I'm saying that because there are so many statistics to grab nowadays... we can make almost any argument about almost anything with a stat to support our take.

As such... each stat should be taken with a grain of salt. Or, collectively. Or whatever.

The reality is depending on what role a player plays they can have a very positive impact. On the other hand you couldn't win too many games with 15 Channing Frye type talents on your team unless MAYBE their strengths/flaws perfectly meshed and they had the right coach to make it happen but that's still just a .500 level team. That doesn't mean guys that do well in these stats aren't valuable they are. It's tough to have 5 guys who are used to scoring 20+ppg on the floor at the same time. Having some good complimentary players can really matter and make other players better because they play their role. On the other hand you often need someone to be a focal offensive point. I just watched this first hand yesterday with the Nebraska Women's basketball team playing Cal. They needed a perimeter player that could handle the ball and score. They didn't have it and it got very ugly in no small part because Cal pressed a lot. If NE still had their PG that transferred because NE made a coaching charge...things would be pretty different. As much as their top scorer Jessica Shepard annoys me because she seems to be really poor defender and out of shape they need her to score and be a threat or they might not get 40 points a game.

Abe is saying don't take the stats too seriously he isn't saying throw them out. I don't see any reason to be defending the stats. Abe gets sort of annoyed with the stats as king type of thing but he doesn't consider them useless.

[Coolbreeze44]

@ Abe

I see that you choose to have a very closed-minded approach to this and it makes up for a useless argument with you or a waste of time really.

I'm not following you on that angle. At all.

I try to remain open minded on most issues... sometimes, to a fault. If I'm wrong here for suggesting Real Plus-Minus should not be used as the one and only stat as opposed to one stat among many other stats... so be it.

Ok , I'll try. You say that you have a tough time with this Harden vs. .... thing. But you seem to think of his offensive contributions and not think of his defensive warts, but it brings down his total impact on his team. Likewise K-Mart on the wolves was 2nd best scorer but only distant 5th (KL 13.5, RR. 10.7, Pek 6.5, Brew 6, KM 2.2) in total contribution because we was a defensive black hole. And the rest of the team contributed next to nothing or even brought negative effect on the team.

I'm simply saying... as I have every single time we have a discussion on that stat... I think it's full of anomalies. And I'm saying that because there are so many statistics to grab nowadays... we can make almost any argument about almost anything with a stat to support our take.

As such... each stat should be taken with a grain of salt. Or, collectively. Or whatever.

And if you need more proof or confirmation of what you're saying, check out Q's bench player rankings that have Belly a B+ and Aldrich an A-. Any analysis supported by stats that arrives at those conclusions tells you just how badly you can massage stats to make a point.

[AbeVigodaLive]

.

.

I'm simply saying... as I have every single time we have a discussion on that stat... I think it's full of anomalies. And I'm saying that because there are so many statistics to grab nowadays... we can make almost any argument about almost anything with a stat to support our take.

As such... each stat should be taken with a grain of salt. Or, collectively. Or whatever.

And if you need more proof or confirmation of what you're saying, check out Q's bench player rankings that have Belly a B+ and Aldrich an A-. Any analysis supported by stats that arrives at those conclusions tells you just how badly you can massage stats to make a point.

Maybe. Maybe not.
As noted... depends how you look at it.

Aldrich does have a legit difference making DBPM of 2.6. The best on a team filled with people in the negative. His PER (offensive stat) has him as an "average" player at 14.7. The team's O Rating with him is a team high 128 and he also has a team best D rating of 104. Bjelcia is basically a wash. Maybe a bit on the negative for some of those stats.

The grade part is more subjective. What exactly goes into an "A-" or "B+"

Personally, I don't care. It's a nice starter discussion piece if nothing else. And you're right, it does illustrate the "fun with numbers" thing we can do with virtually anybody. Plus, there's that stuff about what we expect from starters and bench guys...

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

@ Abe

I see that you choose to have a very closed-minded approach to this and it makes up for a useless argument with you or a waste of time really.

I'm not following you on that angle. At all.

I try to remain open minded on most issues... sometimes, to a fault. If I'm wrong here for suggesting Real Plus-Minus should not be used as the one and only stat as opposed to one stat among many other stats... so be it.

Ok , I'll try. You say that you have a tough time with this Harden vs. .... thing. But you seem to think of his offensive contributions and not think of his defensive warts, but it brings down his total impact on his team. Likewise K-Mart on the wolves was 2nd best scorer but only distant 5th (KL 13.5, RR. 10.7, Pek 6.5, Brew 6, KM 2.2) in total contribution because we was a defensive black hole. And the rest of the team contributed next to nothing or even brought negative effect on the team.

I'm simply saying... as I have every single time we have a discussion on that stat... I think it's full of anomalies. And I'm saying that because there are so many statistics to grab nowadays... we can make almost any argument about almost anything with a stat to support our take.

As such... each stat should be taken with a grain of salt. Or, collectively. Or whatever.

And if you need more proof or confirmation of what you're saying, check out Q's bench player rankings that have Belly a B+ and Aldrich an A-. Any analysis supported by stats that arrives at those conclusions tells you just how badly you can massage stats to make a point.

Well, let's hear your assessment of these players then. My grades were made relative to what is expected of them in their roles, i.e. An A- for Aldrich doesn't mean I think he's actually better than any of the starters. I just gave him that grade based on what was expected of him in the role he was assigned. Aldrich is absolutely not the reason we are 6-14 and neither is Bjelica in my opinion.