In depth team by team previews

Shaq is said to nail 75-80% in practice.

Proof? Source? benji, you know better than posting something without proof, or else no one will believe you. Other than that...

i also hear ben wallace hits 50% of his 3's in practice!

...lol

assuming a players skill is based purley on stats is complete ludacris. bruce bowen dosent average a steal of block per game but he has been one of the premier defenders in the league for years, you would only ever garner this information having actually watched him in a game.

I don't buy into the mass stats thing either, but this comment is just stupid. Have you not read what is being posted? It's not based on just steals or blocks. I can't think of anyone who would use those as a pure statistical measure of how good a defender is, statistics have progressed ALOT over the last few years.

Well, the guy has the right idea, but he just posted a very stupid example. Even with the advanced statistical methods, a skill like defense is really hard to calculate, because a lot of outside factors contribute, and it requires the ability to do more than just one thing (blocking, stealing, holding ground, etc.). It's way easier to use stats to find who is the better blocker, thief, etc...but with so many variables it's difficult to find the right scale of importance between the skills. Some people may think blocking is more important, while others may think causing turnovers is more important, but some of it depends on the position the defender plays.

It's all subjective. What one person calls a good defender isn't necessarily the same as what someone else would classify a good defender as, then there are those with limited knowledge who base the players defensive ability purely from SPG/BPG. That being said, I really don't think the more advanced statistics can just be thrown out the window either. Obviously you'll never 100% accurately measure how good a player is at something purely by some numbers, but you'll never get that exact measurement by watching them either because everyone sees things differently and has varying pre-determined views.

Anyway, I'm still enjoying the debate involved.

^Exactly. Nothing can actually effectively calculate a stat like defense, because it has opinions involved and other skills that pure stats cannot tell the story. In theory, a mix of opinions and stats and common sense is the best, but again, it goes back to the dilemma of what is the standards for naming someone to be a good defender. Which what I think is the whole problem of all this: a lack of the "line", the point between good and bad. No one can tell where or what it is, what I think might be the exact opposite of what someone else thinks.

To say that stats are irrelavant is ludicrous, considering that essentially they are a quantifiable translation of, in fact, "watching a player play" - and the closest thing to objective that you will ever get. After all, in order for a stat to be taken, a statician, a human being, must watch a player play, not unlike yourselves; its not like they (stats) just magically appear.

Then again, to say that stats are the be all and end all is also ludicrous. Their are singular, less holistic cases that can be sometimes perhaps relavant: who the defender guards, the defensive system his team plays on (i.e. having a great defensive big to shore up his mistakes - though this too can be distinguished through statistics, the momentum and rythm of playing with such a player I think cannot be defined, etc., etc.).

Personally I side more on benji's case, considering that all the opposition has really countered with is "No! I watched him play!" I too have watched hinrich play, and laugh at the idea that he is the second best defensive point guard in the nba. The question should be, rather, how do I judge how "good" YOU are at perceiving what you watch? Do I just trust that you have particular insight into he game that I don't? How do I quantify how inclined you are towards hinrich? That is, we all have our favorite players, or players we like, that when we watch we simply glorify every small thing they do. Similarly, we also all have the same thing for players we hate. And we all have friends who do this, at which we shake our heads at their ignorace. How do I define how much YOU are inclined towards either side? in turn, who defines how well I define YOU? and so on and so forth...

It is not unreasonable to make grand statements and not back it up with any form of factual proof. What is unreasonable is countering an argument with proof, with even more grand statements. Which is why benji is making shorter and shorter posts, considering the defense simply reiterates the general statements they initially state, simply throwing aside anything the opposition says as irrelevant.

edited repost

Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Brown-Wallace = eFGA% of 52%! thats an eFGA of 52% for your most played starting 5... not good. not even close to comparable to the championship san antonio spur's eFGA of .454% for their most used starting 5. nor eastern conference champion cav's eFGA of .481 for their most used starting 5.

Now let's see the numbers when you take out one of either gordon or hinrich:
Duhon-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni-Wallace = eFGA of .475%
Duhon-Hinrich-Deng-Brown-Wallace = eFGA of .471%
Duhon-Hinrich-Deng-Nocioni-Wallace = eFGA of .498

Now lets see when you take out hinrich and insert duhon:
Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Brown-Wallace = eFGA of .520
vs
Duhon-Gordon-Deng-Brown-Wallace = eFGA of .428

Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni-Wallace = eFGA of .503
vs
Duhon-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni-Wallace = eFGA of .475

The only anomaly in both theses cases is the insertion of thomas, at which point the tables turn.

In response to gordon's defense improving "dramatically":

gordon during the 07 season has an eFGA of .474
gordon during the 06 season has an eFGA of .459

gordon, defensively, points per 100 possesions on the court for 07 is 101.7. when he's off the court it is 98.2.
gordon, defensively, points per 100 posessions on the court for 06 is 105.5 vs off court 103.4.

it does not seem like a grand improvement judging from the stats, though I do admit he has improved, but not vastly as skyle's quote implies.

quantifiable translation of, in fact, "watching a player play" - and the closest thing to objective that you will ever get.

Yes, but only the result of that play. To see how a player did it is a different story. Was it really good defence or did he just get lucky?

Anyway, I'll take watching a player over stats anyday. If I'm gonna analyze a player, I'd put probably 60% into watching him, and 40% in his statistical production. Looking at the numbers is one thing, looking at the player is another. Just because Chris Duhon stopped his man 3.4% more than Hinrich this past season doesn't make him a better defender. Watch them both and you will quickly see the little things Hinrich does that caused him to get this reputation. Thing's that stats can't record.

60%? are you sure? I don't think I can agree with you unless I watch you watch a game. What about all the intangibles? Like when you get up to drink a beer and miss a play? Or when you need to go to the bathroom? Or when someone calls you?

Your statement implies that I don't watch the players play. I do, have made up my mind, and am using statistics to back up my decision; things like "the little things" are implicit.

Dreadfully long...

to suggest you can evaluate every player and every game from a box score is stupid, its the combination of stats and in actual game analysis that one could arive at a conclusion.

In theory, a mix of opinions and stats and common sense is the best

I am not suggesting that we should completely ignore any studying of the games visually. I am stating the truth that watching the games is in no way superior to having actual hard data. Watching the games is a method of gathering data, using stats is simply taking data someone else already gathered for us. Yes, using them together is better, because, wait for it, you have even more data.

The point of my position in this thread, is simple. No one on this forum has watched enough games to accurately quantify the defensive, or any other, production of any player in the league. Therefore we all must use data that has been gathered regarding the players to provide evidence for our arguments on the forum. I am also contending the insane claims that "watching players is better than looking at data 10 out of 10 times" or that "defense cannot be measured" that have been presented.

Proof? Source? benji, you know better than posting something without proof, or else no one will believe you.

I figured this was common knowledge, it is not like the commentators do not mention it every single game. Hence why I said "it is said" as I did not consider it a worthwhile mission to unearth online recordings of these second-hand claims. But here is from the first page of results for "Shaq free throws practice" on Google.

Second, the fact that Shaq shoots a respectable percentage in practice may have persuaded Riley that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with his technique or delivery. If so, let's count Riley among the many coaches who have yet to figure out that everyone - even Wilt and Big Ben - shoots reasonably well in practice.

Saunders said that Wallace's free-throw shooting is baffling because he has decent form on the shots and in practice, he makes 70 and 80 percent of them.

Shaq wants badly to do better. He makes 100 extra free throws after every practice and returns to the Lakers' gym many nights and makes another 300. Sometimes he shoots them with his eyes closed. Sometimes he lies on his back and shoots them. Sometimes he shoots them while his free-throw-shooting guru, Ed Palubinskas, stands in the lane and screams at him to distract him. "I swear, we're shooting about 84 percent in practice," says Palubinskas, "and better than 50 percent with his eyes closed."

Anyway.

Some people may think blocking is more important, while others may think causing turnovers is more important

Turnovers are ALWAYS more important. They are completely ending the offensive possession, while blocking a shot is recovered by the defense about 30% of the time.

Yes, but only the result of that play.

Which, for the five-thousandth time is all that matters. If a player gets lucky on all 2000 defensive possessions he faces over a three-year span, then that matters far more than his defensive skills. He clearly is using some sort of illegal magical powers, which I would consider a lot more important than good positioning.

If I'm gonna analyze a player, I'd put probably 60% into watching him, and 40% in his statistical production.

Why would you ever use stats? You said watching the players is better 100% of the time. So you are saying that when you analyze a player you are willingly using an entirely worthless method four times out of ten.

Just because Chris Duhon stopped his man 3.4% more than Hinrich this past season doesn't make him a better defender. Watch them both and you will quickly see the little things Hinrich does that caused him to get this reputation. Thing's that stats can't record.

Well, there is three years of aggregate data using different systems and all of them say, Duhon has been more defensively productive over that span. At that point, it kinda becomes a "trend" and not a "fluke due to luck over an entire season", no?

And you have yet to provide evidence Hinrich is the second best defensive point guard in the league. I have shown my data and reasoning why I do not believe Hinrich to be the second best defender in the league. I am still waiting on this evidence that he is.

And to think there's another 29 of them to come

I am also contending the insane claims...that "defense cannot be measured" that have been presented.

Well, the argument can be made that some parts of defense can be measured (such as the apparently very popular SPG and BPG), but it is very difficult as a whole because some parts are intangible and even if all of them can be measured, it incorporates so many variables that it is impossible to find that perfect mix that everyone agrees with. For example,

Turnovers are ALWAYS more important. They are completely ending the offensive possession, while blocking a shot is recovered by the defense about 30% of the time.

Yes, I agree with you that turnovers are more important, but by how much? I might think it is twice as important, but the guy next to me might think it is 10 times as important, and if a formula is made to calculate defense that has turnovers weighed 10 times as good as blocks, then I'm not gonna be happy (and vice versa). I give turnovers an edge, but blocks sometimes swing the momentum of the game and get the crowd going, so it (once again) depends on the situation.

Second, the fact that Shaq shoots a respectable percentage in practice may have persuaded Riley that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with his technique or delivery. If so, let's count Riley among the many coaches who have yet to figure out that everyone - even Wilt and Big Ben - shoots reasonably well in practice.

Saunders said that Wallace's free-throw shooting is baffling because he has decent form on the shots and in practice, he makes 70 and 80 percent of them.

Shaq wants badly to do better. He makes 100 extra free throws after every practice and returns to the Lakers' gym many nights and makes another 300. Sometimes he shoots them with his eyes closed. Sometimes he lies on his back and shoots them. Sometimes he shoots them while his free-throw-shooting guru, Ed Palubinskas, stands in the lane and screams at him to distract him. "I swear, we're shooting about 84 percent in practice," says Palubinskas, "and better than 50 percent with his eyes closed."

Er...uh...okay. Using this scale, I suppose Steve Nash makes every single free throw in practice then? Or does he do the opposite? Maybe Shaq should consider "Rick Barry" style sometime in a game.

If I'm gonna analyze a player, I'd put probably 60% into watching him, and 40% in his statistical production.

Excatly what I mean (not the percentages). No one will ever agree on a percentage of how much consideration should be put on a player's stats and personal views (which is also subject to bias).

If I'm gonna analyze a player, I'd put probably 60% into watching him, and 40% in his statistical production.

Why would you ever use stats? You said watching the players is better 100% of the time. So you are saying that when you analyze a player you are willingly using an entirely worthless method four times out of ten.

Well maybe he was a little persuaded by your arguments, and actually realized that stats, although not all-telling, is useful.

Which, for the five-thousandth time is all that matters. If a player gets lucky on all 2000 defensive possessions he faces over a three-year span, then that matters far more than his defensive skills. He clearly is using some sort of illegal magical powers, which I would consider a lot more important than good positioning.

But the thing is that we are discussing how good a player is, not how lucky. Luck evens out as more and more data comes in, so it can't actually be a plausible arugement, but just for this, assume that I (horrible at defense) get lucky on all 2000 possesions, am I a better defensive player than a NBA player who doesn't have a once-in-infinity kind of luck? No.

Finally...

Dreadfully long...

...it's getting old.

Yes, I agree with you that turnovers are more important, but by how much?

Well, I think I would argue turnovers are worth the value of one possession, while blocks are worth about 70% of one.

Er...uh...okay. Using this scale, I suppose Steve Nash makes every single free throw in practice then? Or does he do the opposite? Maybe Shaq should consider "Rick Barry" style sometime in a game.

I believe he has, but is more concerned about looking cool.

My reason for saying that was that "free throw percentage" is measuring the results of the players free throw shooting, like all other stats. It is not a measure of his skill. We imply skill level from consistant results (like Shaq's low career free throw percentage) over time.

just to keep the stats vs whatever arguement going, i dont see how stats really prove just how good someone is. stats wise wilt chamberlain rapes bill russell, stats wise a shit load of players are better than larry. point is stats mean alot but there is a point where you gotta consider what a player does that is not recorded. john stockton has some pretty damn good stats but his overall performance is better than what his stats suggest. also on the other hand some players have inflated stats but are not as good as thier stats suggest

i dont see how stats really prove just how good someone is

Stats cannot prove anything by themselves, they are evidence to be used to support arguments. They are not arguments in and of themselves, but instead pieces of data. Drawing conclusions is the job of humans.

stats wise wilt chamberlain rapes bill russell

I do not think anyone seriously contends Chamberlain is the better individual player, while Russell is a better team player and likely the greatest defensive player ever.

stats wise a shit load of players are better than larry

Because I do not have time to delve deeper than just loading up the PER. Only 17 players have a higher career PER than Bird. And players ranked 10-19 are basically equal in career PER. Bird has two years leading the league in PER, two more second place finishes and a third place finish all in a five year span. Taking Bird's PER from just 1981-1988 would probably put him in the top 7-8 players PER-wise.

john stockton has some pretty damn good stats but his overall performance is better than what his stats suggest

He is ranked all time behind only Magic and Oscar/West for point guards in career PER.

All of the previews are all going to come in the same post, in fact I'll probably move it all to the 1st post of the thread.

I'll have some time tommorrow, I'll probably be able to get in 2 or 3 more teams.

Why would you ever use stats? You said watching the players is better 100% of the time. So you are saying that when you analyze a player you are willingly using an entirely worthless method four times out of ten

What I meant was, if I'm going to come to a conclusion on how a player did, I would rather watch than see box score stats.

But if I'm analyzing a player over time, I would obviously take stats into big consideration. There is a chance I watch LeBron 20 times and not once does he really show off his scoring ability, which statistics show he definately has.

I don't throw stats away, but I don't agree with putting more on stats that actually watching a basketball game.

Well, there is three years of aggregate data using different systems and all of them say, Duhon has been more defensively productive over that span. At that point, it kinda becomes a "trend" and not a "fluke due to luck over an entire season", no?

And you have yet to provide evidence Hinrich is the second best defensive point guard in the league. I have shown my data and reasoning why I do not believe Hinrich to be the second best defender in the league. I am still waiting on this evidence that he is.

Duhon can stop his man 3.4% more for the rest of their careers and I still won't think he's a better defender. Obviously if he stopped his man more oftenn by a huge margin, we would know he's a better defender anyway because the stats would reflect in his game. But when it's something like 3%, you can't really just say "OK, Chris wins". As I said there are so many things that Kirk does that gave him his reputation as a great defender - thing's that stats can't record, as I said.

As for my evidence, I really don't know what to say. Because Duhon stops his man 3.4% more than Kirk, I could list every defensive play through the season where Kirk showed the little things he does and where he played almost perfect defence, but that wouldn't be enough. You can just go back to that tiny margin and say Kirk's better, because you have shown that when it comes it statistics, you believe they have the final say.

I enjoyed the preview of the Bulls, Indy, though I have to admit I'm skeptical as to whether they can push 60 wins like that. I agree they were better than their record indicated last year as they could have been a 55 win team if not for some noteworthy losses in a handful of very winnable games (blowing the 18 point lead against the Nets to name but one) but I think that's the kind of mark they'll improve to this year. I won't be heartbroken if they exceed it of course.

I should say, I don't know where the 3.4% is coming from. I think you are trying to say 53.4-48.9 = 3.4, but it's 4.5, and considering for 90% of NBA players that particular stat (one I do not prefer as I noted, but since you are using it) is between 42-58, then 3.4 or 4.5 is a huge difference. It's really like a 25% difference then.

As for my evidence, I really don't know what to say. Because Duhon stops his man 3.4% more than Kirk, I could list every defensive play through the season where Kirk showed the little things he does and where he played almost perfect defence, but that wouldn't be enough.

Look, if you could do that for Hinrich, Duhon and everyone else in the league, it would be your evidence and it would be pretty strong. It is what NBA scouts do. (They make videos obviously.) My entire point is that you cannot do that, so we have to use the data we have.

I think you have also changed the argument to be about Duhon vs. Hinrich. I was simply putting up Duhon as he is a better defender production wise on the same team, let alone in the league. The original argument is if Hinrich is better than everyone else save Kidd. I was saying if he is not better than Duhon, he is not better than everyone else. Even if there is evidence Hinrich is better than Duhon, that does not eliminate the other point guards in the league, merely Duhon.

But if I'm analyzing a player over time, I would obviously take stats into big consideration.

Duhon can stop his man 3.4% more for the rest of their careers and I still won't think he's a better defender.

/argument

You refuse to accept data that counters your viewpoint while not presenting any that supports it.

I should say, I don't know where the 3.4% is coming from. I think you are trying to say 53.4-48.9 = 3.4, but it's 4.5, and considering for 90% of NBA players that particular stat (one I do not prefer as I noted, but since you are using it) is between 42-58, then 3.4 or 4.5 is a huge difference. It's really like a 25% difference then.

I'm not having a good day today am I? Excuse my bad math.

Look, if you could do that for Hinrich, Duhon and everyone else in the league, it would be your evidence and it would be pretty strong. It is what NBA scouts do. (They make videos obviously.) My entire point is that you cannot do that, so we have to use the data we have.

I think you have also changed the argument to be about Duhon vs. Hinrich. I was simply putting up Duhon as he is a better defender production wise on the same team, let alone in the league. The original argument is if Hinrich is better than everyone else save Kidd. I was saying if he is not better than Duhon, he is not better than everyone else. Even if there is evidence Hinrich is better than Duhon, that does not eliminate the other point guards in the league, merely Duhon.

My whole argument is that Kirk is a better defender than Duhon. I said the only PG I can name that is a better defender than Hinrich was Kidd, and you said that Hinrich cannot possibly be the 2nd best defender if he isn't even the best on his team. I've been arguing that Hinrich is a better defender than Duhon.

/argument

You refuse to accept data that counters your viewpoint while not presenting any that supports it.

I can't.

I can't really mail you tapes of every single defensive play from Kirk Hinrich to show what the stats do not pick up on, and how those things are a very big part of defence. All I can say is what I think. If I tell you I have seen something many times from Kirk and not from Duhon, I saw it. I just can't back it up, because it involves watching footage and I'd have to get each game, cut them up and send them to you, which would be pretty damn time consuming and really not worth it.

You (and everyone else) have easy access to stats to back up your point. But my opinion comes much more from watching the players than statistics, so it's alot harder to "prove". You keep asking for evidence, and all I can do is give you my word - and those of many NBA Analysts as proof.

I just don't like the idea of putting so much into statistics. Especially with defence. I went to 82games.com and checked out their Defensive Composite Score rankings and was pretty shocked by the results. Thing's like:

- PJ Brown better than Emeka Okafor
- Zydrunas Ilgauskas far, far better than Marcus Camby and Elton Brand, also better than Jermaine O'Neal
- Rafer Alston far ahead of Dikembe Mutombo
- Caron Butler actually having a negative rating
- Rashard Lewis over Travis Outlaw, LaMarcus Aldridge, Ruben Patterson and the entire Memphis Grizzlies team
- Kobe Bryant behind guys like Jamaal Tinsley and Jason Terry
- Andre Iguodala registering a 2.5, behind guys like Michael Redd

The list goes on. Even though you weren't using this particular statistic to prove your point, I think it shows why statistics can't have too much weight when measurig defensive players. As I said, there's just so much more to defence than statistics can measure.

This is turning into something which even I can't figure out. I don't know who to agree with no more.

I just don't like the idea of putting so much into statistics. Especially with defence. I went to 82games.com and checked out their Defensive Composite Score rankings and was pretty shocked by the results. Thing's like:

- PJ Brown better than Emeka Okafor
- Zydrunas Ilgauskas far, far better than Marcus Camby and Elton Brand, also better than Jermaine O'Neal
- Rafer Alston far ahead of Dikembe Mutombo
- Caron Butler actually having a negative rating
- Rashard Lewis over Travis Outlaw, LaMarcus Aldridge, Ruben Patterson and the entire Memphis Grizzlies team
- Kobe Bryant behind guys like Jamaal Tinsley and Jason Terry
- Andre Iguodala registering a 2.5, behind guys like Michael Redd

The list goes on. Even though you weren't using this particular statistic to prove your point, I think it shows why statistics can't have too much weight when measurig defensive players. As I said, there's just so much more to defence than statistics can measure.

This just proves that DCS is not a very solid stat to base your opinions on, not the fact that stats can't measure defense. I agree with you on the point, but not with the proof.

As for my evidence, I really don't know what to say. Because Duhon stops his man 3.4% more than Kirk, I could list every defensive play through the season where Kirk showed the little things he does and where he played almost perfect defence, but that wouldn't be enough.

Unfortunately, even if you can prove all the little things, it would still be up in the air considering it is difficult to get the exact value of the ''little things''.

My entire point is that you cannot do that, so we have to use the data we have.

If you do not have full access to all the data, then why are you arguing that Hinrich isn't a better defender than Duhon? You don't have all the proof, so don't you think making a point that cannot be proven (with the limited data) a bit...uneccessary? If a guy played a single game and got 10 blocks, 10 steals, so on, is that enough to make you say he is a good defender just cause the 10 BPG is the only data you have? I think and hope not.

I enjoyed the preview of the Bulls, Indy, though I have to admit I'm skeptical as to whether they can push 60 wins like that. I agree they were better than their record indicated last year as they could have been a 55 win team if not for some noteworthy losses in a handful of very winnable games (blowing the 18 point lead against the Nets to name but one) but I think that's the kind of mark they'll improve to this year. I won't be heartbroken if they exceed it of course.

I think that the Bulls are a team that relys a lot on game by game momentum. They seem like a team that can swing either direction very easily and rattle off a string of bad games. However, when they win a couple, it seems like their blood starts pumping, and they start beating teams by bigger and bigger margins. The Lakers team was a lot like the Bulls in that sense in the early Kobe/Shaq days before they won a title. Last year the Bulls struggled bad out of the gates. I think these guys know the system now and will get on a roll early.

I would like to see comparisons of all these defensive statistics and see if they match up with who teams actually use defensively. Obviously the Bulls coaching staff agrees with Shannon and I because they use Kirk Hinrich to defend the better player. I'd like like to see if those stats match up with all the other teams, or if according to benji's logic teams should start looking at stats more to determine who their 'best defender' is. Hit us with it Benji.

Ok, i used a stupid example when trying to explain my defence to stats theory i know. but hopefully you got my point where by i dont think a players ability is completely measurable by stats, i mean is there stats for determination, leadership and commitment? or is this part of a players physce (spelling) that is completely immesurable?

one of the things i like about football (soccer) is the fact that there is "no" stats for players other than goals scored. the game is based purley on opinions and by actually watching the game, sometimes when stats are used to too much of a great scale i.e. american sports than i think it takes away slightly from actually watching the game and people having opinions rather than saying oh so and so can shoot 32.45% from 15.6 feet away using his left hand with 3.6 rotations of the ball per second.

If you do not have full access to all the data, then why are you arguing that Hinrich isn't a better defender than Duhon? You don't have all the proof, so don't you think making a point that cannot be proven (with the limited data) a bit...uneccessary?

I have no clue what you are trying to say. That because I do not have all possible data in the universe I should not make a counterclaim, while you consider it alright for Shannon and Indy to make a claim, despite having zero valid data? Or are you arguing that because nothing can be truly proven, why even talk about it on internet forums? If it is the latter, why did you post then?

I've been arguing that Hinrich is a better defender than Duhon.

No, you have not. You have just been claiming that Hinrich is better than Duhon, and that he is better than all other point guards, save Jason Kidd.

And fine, let us ignore Duhon. Baron Davis and Rajon Rondo both are more productive defensive players.

all I can do is give you my word - and those of many NBA Analysts as proof.

So, you have no proof at all. You have a claim, without evidence to support it, except the original claim.

I went to 82games.com and checked out their Defensive Composite Score rankings and was pretty shocked by the results. Thing's like:
-snip-
The list goes on. Even though you weren't using this particular statistic to prove your point, I think it shows why statistics can't have too much weight when measurig defensive players.

No, this does not show any failings in actual data. It shows you that, with this data, and the method used, the results do not jive with your opinions.

What you are doing is dismissing the data because it does not match your predetermined opinion. I have plenty of misgivings with the DCS, tons even. But since you looked at it I will use it here, so I do not want to argue the method it employs. Just to get that clarified.

Let us take the second one alright.

Zydrunas Ilgauskas far, far better than Marcus Camby and Elton Brand, also better than Jermaine O'Neal

You believe, as I do, that Marcus Camby is the better defensive player than Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Because this data and method does not deliver that result you are dismissing any validity it has and finding yourself "shocked" by the results. When I saw it months ago, I did not just dismiss it, I looked deeper into it to see why it gets these results. (It uses a ton of team data, Cavaliers are a good defensive team. Same reason the Grizzlies all come out so poor.) I also allowed for the possibility that perhaps Ilgauskas is indeed superior defensively.

The point I am trying to make is that you are instantly dismissing any contrarian data to your established belief. You refuse to accept any data that runs counter to your belief, dismiss the data as meaningless, and retreat to "what I have seen with my own eyes" when any is presented. I, on the other hand, are entirely open to the possibility that Kirk Hinrich is the second best point guard defensively, but I have yet to see any evidence to support this theory.

Last edited by benji on Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well you keep asking for proof, but I can't give it. You expect me to mail you every Chicago Bulls game since Hinrich and Duhon joined the team? The only evidence I have is footage from games, which I have watched over time and don't actually "have" in my possession.

All I can say is watch for yourself. If you wanna stick to your stats beats footage thing then fine, that's how you like to analyze. But statistics won't change my opinion on this Hinrich/Duhon matter, and as Indy said, it looks like the Bulls coaching staff agrees that Hinrich is the better defender.

No, this does not show any failings in actual data. It shows you that, with this data, and the method used, the results do not jive with your opinions.

When it comes out with results like that, it's a fail.

It's not just my opinion, it's common sense. For instance, everyone knows that Andre Iguodala is a far better defender than Michael Redd. It's not just me and there's no point in looking into further because I know for a fact that Andre is the superior defender, as do most people.

Hehe, what a great thread. To me, skills observed from watching serves as a mere tool to evaluate results (stats). In the end however, only results matter. When I watch a game and think "oh snap, that guy like stays in front of that guy so he must be a good defender!" I catch myself and look into numbers available online and Benji and feel happy if I'm right and cry myself to sleep if I'm wrong.

It's not just me and there's no point in looking into further because I know for a fact that Andre is the superior defender, as do most people.

No, you do not know for a fact that Iguodala is better, you believe Iguodala is better. There is also plenty of statistical evidence to support a claim that Iguodala is the better defender, providing evidence to support such a claim.

It's not just my opinion, it's common sense.

See, you are dismissing any evidence that runs counter to your predetermined opinion. If it does not agree with your opinion, then it is suddenly not common sense.

All I can say is watch for yourself.

I have, and I have seen absolutely nothing to believe Kirk Hinrich is the second best defender in the league. And I do not have to use "just watch" as the evidence for any case I would make to support a counterclaim.

Well you keep asking for proof, but I can't give it.

My point exactly. Your claim cannot be defended. (At least with the method you are using. There is of course, arguments you can make with actual data to make the same claim.) My counterclaim can be defended.

and as Indy said, it looks like the Bulls coaching staff agrees that Hinrich is the better defender.

Two things.

One, the decision of the Bulls coaching staff does not prove anything regarding who is the better defender. It is possible for NBA coaches and GMs to be wrong.

Two, Kirk Hinrich is the better offensive player and does more "other things", therefore plays more minutes, and he is a better defender than Ben Gordon. Duhon, also does not possess the size to defend two guards.

All of that may have made Hinrich the more important defensive player last season, something I believe, but it is not evidence he is the better defensive point guard, or the second best in the league.

If I make the claim that Darko Milicic is the greatest player in the history of the sport, you will want proof. You will not just trust me, you will not accept me telling you to just watch it, that you will see, and if you do not, then you do not understand basketball.

But statistics won't change my opinion on this Hinrich/Duhon matter

As I have said, because you have already decided what you believe, and dismiss any data that contradicts what you this belief. If it does not agree with you, it must be wrong and there is no possiblity it can be right. Leading to my unspoken claim, that anything you say is specious.

No, you do not know for a fact that Iguodala is better, you believe Iguodala is better. There is also plenty of statistical evidence to support a claim that Iguodala is the better defender, providing evidence to support such a claim.

I've watched both guys play alot, and I know Andre is the better defender. Unless my eyes have been showing me a completely different image to what the screen shows and the Defensive Composite Score is the be all end all of player evaluation.

See, you are dismissing any evidence that runs counter to your predetermined opinion. If it does not agree with your opinion, then it is suddenly not common sense.

So you think Redd is a better defender? He's not. Everyone knows that. Common sense.

I have, and I have seen absolutely nothing to believe Kirk Hinrich is the second best defender in the league. And I do not have to use "just watch" as the evidence for any case I would make to support a counterclaim.

Ok, but I have. That's why I believe he is a better defender than Chris Duhon and the only point gaurd I can name right now that is a better defender is Jason Kidd.

Two things.

One, the decision of the Bulls coaching staff does not prove anything regarding who is the better defender. It is possible for NBA coaches and GMs to be wrong.

Two, Kirk Hinrich is the better offensive player and does more "other things", therefore plays more minutes, and he is a better defender than Ben Gordon. Duhon, also does not possess the size to defend two guards.

Doesn't that give Kirk an edge defensively?

See, some things stats don't measure are big parts of defence. Did the fact that Kirk gaurds two positions (one being a position Duhon doesn't gaurd - the SG - arguably the most talent-filled position in basketball, especially offensively)?

If I make the claim that Darko Milicic is the greatest player in the history of the sport, you will want proof. You will not just trust me, you will not accept me telling you to just watch it, that you will see, and if you do not, then you do not understand basketball.

The difference is, I am actually stating something that is pretty damn believable and is widely accepted. Like visa.

As I have said, because you have already decided what you believe, and dismiss any data that contradicts what you this belief. If it does not agree with you, it must be wrong and there is no possiblity it can be right. Leading to my unspoken claim, that anything you say is specious.

I'll stick to my current opinions if it means seeing the "facts" (aka stats) results in a pathetic claim like Michael Redd is a better defender than Andre Iguodala.