SI: Top 100 players in the NBA
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3182

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:06 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:


I understand it’s arbitrary. I was simply pointing out that he had historic numbers. I guess you could say MCW had historical stats his rookie year too if your statement is true. I never said he was as good as those guys.

With that said, it’s no more arbitrary than saying he sucks simply because of his shooting percentages. That statement and mine ignore huge aspects of basketball.


Yup, in Carter-Williams rookie season he was one of only three guys to average 16-6-6. Simmons joined them this year. I wouldn't call that "historic" in the way most people use the term (an event that is consequential or significant). However, it's a fun statistical curiosity. Anyway, I don't want to devolve into a semantics debate, so I will leave it at that.
no its historic.

just because C-will didnt turn into anything doesnt make what he did that rookie season less spectacular. Why didnt Cwill turn into the baller he seemed he was going to be? once the scouts got a hold of tape on him he was cooked. But thats his choice not to work like crazy to get counter moves and counter skills to beat the scouts. thats a choice all players make the moment they show they have real high level talent then the scouts try to tear their game apart and send guys after them game in and game out. can you mentally deal with that reality that you have to play nba chess and have a great work ethic to end up back to where you were that season which is being better than most of your peers?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 21168

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:51 am    Post subject:

splashmtn wrote:
activeverb wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:


I understand it’s arbitrary. I was simply pointing out that he had historic numbers. I guess you could say MCW had historical stats his rookie year too if your statement is true. I never said he was as good as those guys.

With that said, it’s no more arbitrary than saying he sucks simply because of his shooting percentages. That statement and mine ignore huge aspects of basketball.


Yup, in Carter-Williams rookie season he was one of only three guys to average 16-6-6. Simmons joined them this year. I wouldn't call that "historic" in the way most people use the term (an event that is consequential or significant). However, it's a fun statistical curiosity. Anyway, I don't want to devolve into a semantics debate, so I will leave it at that.
no its historic.

just because C-will didnt turn into anything doesnt make what he did that rookie season less spectacular. Why didnt Cwill turn into the baller he seemed he was going to be? once the scouts got a hold of tape on him he was cooked. But thats his choice not to work like crazy to get counter moves and counter skills to beat the scouts. thats a choice all players make the moment they show they have real high level talent then the scouts try to tear their game apart and send guys after them game in and game out. can you mentally deal with that reality that you have to play nba chess and have a great work ethic to end up back to where you were that season which is being better than most of your peers?


About 20 years ago, Bill James wrote a book called The Politics of Glory about the Baseball Hall of Fame. It was later retitled Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame, or something like that. James, in his brilliantly nerdy way, parsed through all of the different arguments that we hear for why Player X should be in the Hall of Fame and why Player Y doesn't deserve it.

James addressed the "statistical set" argument, and it stuck with me. The argument goes like this: Player X had a .300 batting average, 350 home runs, 100 steals, 270 doubles, and 40 triples (I am just making these numbers up for purposes of the illustration). The only players who had those numbers are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Joe DiMaggio (again, I am just making this up for purposes of the illustration). Therefore, Player X had an historic career, right? You can make the same argument at the single season level.

As James points out, the first question is not whether Player X falls into the group, but whether he is a typical member of the group. Using the set of stats above, Ruth had a .342 career average, 714 home runs, 123 steals, 506 doubles, and 136 triples. Player X is not comparable to Babe Ruth (or Ted Williams, or Willie Mays) just because you can find a way to put them in the same group.

Applying this logic to the current discussion, the fact that MCW averaged 16/6/6 as a rookie, and that only two other players have achieved those numbers, does not make it an historic achievement. The fact that you can group him with the rookie seasons of Oscar and Magic does not mean that his rookie season was comparable. There is nothing magical about 16/6/6 -- none of those numbers are a recognized benchmark. His numbers are not even as good as Simmons (15.8/8/8), and Simmons did not have a legendary rookie season. The same reasoning applies to Ball's rookie season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 26754

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:23 am    Post subject:

^
I've read James book, and that was what I was alluding to.

It's just a statistical trick to make a guy's accomplishments seem bigger than they actually are.

You set an arbitrary stat line that allows you to "group" a player with guys whose stats are actually far superior to him, while separating the player from others whose stats are a little below the arbitrary thresholds.

It's hard to make a case that MCW had a "historic" rookie season when about 20% of ROY voters put Victor Oladipo, Trey Burke, Mason Plumbee, and Tim Hardaway above him. As rookies of the year go, MCW was probably middle of the pack among all the winners.

Here is the best way to expose the trick: Look how close the player in question is to the arbitrary thresholds. Chances are if the groupings seem illogical the player in question will be just barely over some or all of the thresholds, demonstrating that you really have to carefully choose some odd thresholds to force him into "the group."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 33123
Location: Torrance

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:23 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
splashmtn wrote:
activeverb wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:


I understand it’s arbitrary. I was simply pointing out that he had historic numbers. I guess you could say MCW had historical stats his rookie year too if your statement is true. I never said he was as good as those guys.

With that said, it’s no more arbitrary than saying he sucks simply because of his shooting percentages. That statement and mine ignore huge aspects of basketball.


Yup, in Carter-Williams rookie season he was one of only three guys to average 16-6-6. Simmons joined them this year. I wouldn't call that "historic" in the way most people use the term (an event that is consequential or significant). However, it's a fun statistical curiosity. Anyway, I don't want to devolve into a semantics debate, so I will leave it at that.
no its historic.

just because C-will didnt turn into anything doesnt make what he did that rookie season less spectacular. Why didnt Cwill turn into the baller he seemed he was going to be? once the scouts got a hold of tape on him he was cooked. But thats his choice not to work like crazy to get counter moves and counter skills to beat the scouts. thats a choice all players make the moment they show they have real high level talent then the scouts try to tear their game apart and send guys after them game in and game out. can you mentally deal with that reality that you have to play nba chess and have a great work ethic to end up back to where you were that season which is being better than most of your peers?


About 20 years ago, Bill James wrote a book called The Politics of Glory about the Baseball Hall of Fame. It was later retitled Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame, or something like that. James, in his brilliantly nerdy way, parsed through all of the different arguments that we hear for why Player X should be in the Hall of Fame and why Player Y doesn't deserve it.

James addressed the "statistical set" argument, and it stuck with me. The argument goes like this: Player X had a .300 batting average, 350 home runs, 100 steals, 270 doubles, and 40 triples (I am just making these numbers up for purposes of the illustration). The only players who had those numbers are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Joe DiMaggio (again, I am just making this up for purposes of the illustration). Therefore, Player X had an historic career, right? You can make the same argument at the single season level.

As James points out, the first question is not whether Player X falls into the group, but whether he is a typical member of the group. Using the set of stats above, Ruth had a .342 career average, 714 home runs, 123 steals, 506 doubles, and 136 triples. Player X is not comparable to Babe Ruth (or Ted Williams, or Willie Mays) just because you can find a way to put them in the same group.

Applying this logic to the current discussion, the fact that MCW averaged 16/6/6 as a rookie, and that only two other players have achieved those numbers, does not make it an historic achievement. The fact that you can group him with the rookie seasons of Oscar and Magic does not mean that his rookie season was comparable. There is nothing magical about 16/6/6 -- none of those numbers are a recognized benchmark. His numbers are not even as good as Simmons (15.8/8/8), and Simmons did not have a legendary rookie season. The same reasoning applies to Ball's rookie season.


This sounds like every soliloquy penned the last 3 years about Russell and Randle.
_________________
Smash-mouth basketball - Alive and kicking (2018-).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 2932

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:43 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:


Only 4 players have averaged 10/7/7. One is a HOFer, one is the best player in the world, one was the rookie of the year, and the other is Lonzo. Fairly historic. And I’m not even gonna get into defense if that is your opinion. Guys his own size aren’t the ones who give him issues.



Yeah, but that's just playing with numbers.

The other rookies were:

Ben Simmons 18-8-8
Oscar Robertson 30-10-10
Magic Johnson 18-8-7

Ball didn't have a rookie season close to any of those guys. You are just making an arbitrary cutoff of 10-7-7 to group him with those three.

Heck, you make the cutoff 17-6-6 and suddenly Michael Carter-Williams is one of the four. I could make a billion different cutoffs like that, but there is nothing magical about 10-7-7.


Very good point regarding MCW
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 2932

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:45 pm    Post subject:

Inspector Gadget wrote:
I agree that he came no where close to the Impact Magic and Robertson had as a rookie, but still Impressive what he did, we probably make the playoffs if he plays at least 65 games, that’s Impressive..


We make the playoffs if he played 65 games?

Dang!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cyborgspider
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 21 Sep 2017
Posts: 829

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:54 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
Inspector Gadget wrote:
I agree that he came no where close to the Impact Magic and Robertson had as a rookie, but still Impressive what he did, we probably make the playoffs if he plays at least 65 games, that’s Impressive..


We make the playoffs if he played 65 games?

Dang!!


Your passive aggressive trolling isn't cute, funny, or productive, guy. Just a friendly heads-up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 3217

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:53 pm    Post subject:

ive been going through this thread, and it still puzzles me at how people gloss over lonzo's shot like it's a minor thing that can be fixed with a quick visit to MWP's psychiatrist.

I think anyone doing rankings would be justified putting any NBA player ahead of Lonzo if he simply shot ft's and jump shots better.
_________________
U+1F49C
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Judah
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2015
Posts: 3949

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:57 pm    Post subject:

SuperboyReformed wrote:
ive been going through this thread, and it still puzzles me at how people gloss over lonzo's shot like it's a minor thing that can be fixed with a quick visit to MWP's psychiatrist.

I think anyone doing rankings would be justified putting any NBA player ahead of Lonzo if he simply shot ft's and jump shots better.


_________________
“Christ did not die to forgive sinners who go on treasuring anything above seeing and savoring God. And people who would be happy in heaven if Christ were not there, will not be there."
- John Piper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 5375

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:16 pm    Post subject:

SuperboyReformed wrote:
ive been going through this thread, and it still puzzles me at how people gloss over lonzo's shot like it's a minor thing that can be fixed with a quick visit to MWP's psychiatrist.

I think anyone doing rankings would be justified putting any NBA player ahead of Lonzo if he simply shot ft's and jump shots better.


It puzzles me how many people really don’t understand how Lonzo impacts the game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 16922

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:21 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
Inspector Gadget wrote:
I agree that he came no where close to the Impact Magic and Robertson had as a rookie, but still Impressive what he did, we probably make the playoffs if he plays at least 65 games, that’s Impressive..


We make the playoffs if he played 65 games?

Dang!!

Your passive aggressive trolling is cute, funny, and productive, buddy. Just a friendly note.
_________________
Banana Head
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 21168

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:54 pm    Post subject:

SuperboyReformed wrote:
ive been going through this thread, and it still puzzles me at how people gloss over lonzo's shot like it's a minor thing that can be fixed with a quick visit to MWP's psychiatrist.


Nice line.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Runway8
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 18584
Location: La Jolla, San Diego

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:54 pm    Post subject:

I wouldn't take anybody they've named ahead of Kyrie (17) besides for a healthy Kawhi (12). PG13 at 11 is a joke. I think he's benefiting from the effects of the "I turned down the Lakers" street cred.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 26754

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:29 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
activeverb wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:


Only 4 players have averaged 10/7/7. One is a HOFer, one is the best player in the world, one was the rookie of the year, and the other is Lonzo. Fairly historic. And I’m not even gonna get into defense if that is your opinion. Guys his own size aren’t the ones who give him issues.



Yeah, but that's just playing with numbers.

The other rookies were:

Ben Simmons 18-8-8
Oscar Robertson 30-10-10
Magic Johnson 18-8-7

Ball didn't have a rookie season close to any of those guys. You are just making an arbitrary cutoff of 10-7-7 to group him with those three.

Heck, you make the cutoff 17-6-6 and suddenly Michael Carter-Williams is one of the four. I could make a billion different cutoffs like that, but there is nothing magical about 10-7-7.


Very good point regarding MCW


Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 2062

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:38 pm    Post subject:

Lonzo is a consistent 3pt shot (35%+) away from being a top 8 PG in the league. If he can improve his FT shooting too to be at least 65% we're talking about a possible 3rd team All NBA level guy. He does almost everything at a damn near elite level except scoring/shooting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 16922

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:43 pm    Post subject:

SuperboyReformed wrote:
ive been going through this thread, and it still puzzles me at how people gloss over lonzo's shot like it's a minor thing that can be fixed with a quick visit to MWP's psychiatrist.

I think anyone doing rankings would be justified putting any NBA player ahead of Lonzo if he simply shot ft's and jump shots better.

If you think his form is ugly, but can be effective as it was at lower levels, then it's not as concerning.

If you think he won't have success shooting without overhauling his jumper, then it's a more concerning, long-term fix with a lower probability of working out.

It sounds like you're in the latter camp. Many are in the former. We'll see how it works out.
_________________
Banana Head
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 26754

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:33 am    Post subject:

Runway8 wrote:
I wouldn't take anybody they've named ahead of Kyrie (17) besides for a healthy Kawhi (12). PG13 at 11 is a joke. I think he's benefiting from the effects of the "I turned down the Lakers" street cred.


SI said the thing that kept Irving out of the top 10 was his injury history and questions about whether he'd be able to stay on the court. Given that he's missed 21% of his teams regular season games during his career, I think that's a fair reason to downgrade someone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB