Minnesota Sports Forum

Posted: **Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:36 pm**

JJ Barea for Gary Neal is a trade I would like to see us explore.

Barea's inconsistent play really hurts this team.

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:23 am**

markkbu wrote:
Doper, thank you for the compliment and you are correct, I am not a statistician by profession. I could be, due to the multiple quantitative analysis courses that I have taken at the masters level though. You know, stuff like stats, decision modeling, regression analysis and the like. But, starting businesses is much more fun for me than limiting myself to quantitative analysis so I chose not to pursue the profession of statistician.

If you will look at the conclusions that I draw, it is merely looking at, and acknowledging, trends as they occur, which takes no statistical training given the tools that stats oriented websites (like hoopsstats) provide.

For example, by looking at the website that you have referenced numerous time, it is easy to tell that the Wolves are 27th in scoring per minute over the entire season. By altering 1 dropdown box, I can tell that over the past 10 games the Wolves are 18th in the NBA per minute. By altering the same dropdown box I can see that the Wolves are 4th in scoring per minute over the last 5 games. Again, same dropdown box shows me that over the past 3 games, the Wolves are 4th in scoring per minute.

Also, saying that the Wolves are 4th in the league in scoring per minute over the past 5 games is not interpretation. It is a fact. Pointing out the relative improvement (to other teams) is not interpretation, it too is fact.

One can do the exact thing with Rebounds, assists, FG%, 3pt%, steals and the like.

All one has to do is to be able to note that being 4th in scoring per minute is better than being 18th in scoring per minute , which is better than being 27th in scoring per minute. The consistency of the trends assist in determining their validity and allows logical conclusions to be drawn.

None of this is high level analysis.

I get your point, you keep repeating it. I have never disagreed with your citations from the website. Only disagreed with the point that they represent anything statistically relevant like a "trend" that would merit an explanation (ie the Derrick Williams trade). Too big of a jump from too small of a sample size particularly to single out one player move with a small impact on the data set as a major factor. It's basic statistical analysis that should be recognized by someone as well educated as yourself.

In all of those sample sets (overall, last 10, last 5, last 3) it should be noticed that we are a minus defensive efficiency, which plain and simple means our bench is getting beat. Granted various levels of getting beat (anywhere from dead last to middle of the pack) . All this even though half of these games were wins. To me if our bench is consistently getting beat even when they are "improving" really doesn't cut it. If they are always getting beat (even in wins) how is it ridiculous to cite them as the problem?

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:55 am**

Keep working at it.........If you spend a bit of time you will understand. I have faith in you Doper!

Posted: **Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:05 pm**

Remember how a few of us, myself included, proposed a Courtney Lee trade and some (can't remember who) shot it down with some back and forth?

Since Memphis acquired him and gave him minutes (4 games):

- 26 mins, 12 pts, 5-10 FG, 2-5 3P, 2 reb, 1 blk, 1 ast, 1 stl.

- 29 mins, 8 pts, 2-6 FG, 0-1 3P, 4-4 FT, 6 reb, 2 ast, 1 stl.

- 32 mins, 15 pts, 7-12 FG, 1-3 3P, 1 reb, 2 ast, 2 blk, 2 stl.

- 32 mins (game still going), 22 pts, 9-15 FG, 2-3 3P, 2-2 FT, 5 reb, 2 stl.

So far, seems like he would have been a pretty damn good pickup.

Posted: **Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:28 pm**

We've played 37 games. It is completely wrong on any statistical level to say the bench isn't a problem anymore just because they haven't been a problem for 5-10 of those games. That's using 27% of the available information and statistics to prove a point. No statistician uses that low of a sample size as way to draw conclusions on anything. Some of us are saying the bench has been bad as a whole this year which is statistically proven by the fact that they are 27th overall even with a 27% seasonal stretch of strong play. We have a right to complain about the bench because they have only played well for a very small sample size of games. A 5 game sample size out of 37 is not enough to say they have turned the corner and we have nothing to worry about. At the end of the day, if we aren't winning, it seems to either be on the starters or the bench and this year it has been because of the bench way more often than the starters, regardless of a good 5 game stretch. Playing well for 5 games doesn't just make up for being bad for a lot more.

Posted: **Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:28 am**

I was one of those who wanted us to deal for Courtney Lee. I would be really pissed at Flip if I were to learn that we could have gotten Lee straight up in exchange for Williams or for Williams and a future 2nd round pick. Given the fact that Lee wasn't playing much in Boston and the fact that the Celtics ultimately swapped Lee for Bayless suggests that Boston might have swapped Lee for Derrick and a 2nd round pick. I'm also disappointed we didn't release or buy-out Price or Hummel and sign Barbosa. And of course I'm disappointed we ended up with Shabazz instead of CJ McCollum, the Greek Freak, Hardaway Jr., Trey Burk, or Carter-Williams in last summer's draft.

Posted: **Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:57 am**

"Boston has traded guards Jordan Crawford and Marshawn Brooks to Golden State, league sources tell Yahoo Sports."

I'm gonna be real pissed if GS got them for cheap cheap.

I feel like we definitely could have gotten Lee or Crawford for D-Will or something of that nature.

Posted: **Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:14 am**

This is what I'm seeing.

GS: Crawford, Brooks
BOS: Anthony, 1st rounder (MIA)
MIA: Douglas

Sooo... the Wolves couldn't have gotten involved somehow?

Posted: **Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:12 pm**

khans2k5 wrote:We've played 37 games. It is completely wrong on any statistical level to say the bench isn't a problem anymore just because they haven't been a problem for 5-10 of those games. That's using 27% of the available information and statistics to prove a point. No statistician uses that low of a sample size as way to draw conclusions on anything. Some of us are saying the bench has been bad as a whole this year which is statistically proven by the fact that they are 27th overall even with a 27% seasonal stretch of strong play. We have a right to complain about the bench because they have only played well for a very small sample size of games. A 5 game sample size out of 37 is not enough to say they have turned the corner and we have nothing to worry about. At the end of the day, if we aren't winning, it seems to either be on the starters or the bench and this year it has been because of the bench way more often than the starters, regardless of a good 5 game stretch. Playing well for 5 games doesn't just make up for being bad for a lot more.

~

:-)

Posted: **Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:10 pm**

Camden wrote:This is what I'm seeing.

GS: Crawford, Brooks
BOS: Anthony, 1st rounder (MIA)
MIA: Douglas

Sooo... the Wolves couldn't have gotten involved somehow?

I don't like any of the players involved and don't really see any of them fitting on the Wolves roster. Crawford is a high volume, low percentage shooter. Brook's hasn't proved anything. Douglas is a journeyman for a reason and Anthony is a poor man's Ronny Turiaf without the dancing skills.

Minnesota Sports Forum

The Bench

Re: The Bench

Re: The Bench

Re: The Bench

Re: The Bench

Re: The Bench

Re: The Bench

Re: The Bench

Re: The Bench

Re: The Bench

Re: The Bench