Knicks · wow...melo carrying usa team (page 3)

IrishKnickFan wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

IrishKnickFan wrote:I dont know what i hate more melo haters or melo fanboys. Im just rooting for melo because im a knick fan and he gives us a better chance to win

I'd say if he plays intelligently on offense and tries hard on defense, he does.

You dont have to love melo but i think you take it too far. Belive me melo has things to prove to us this year and beyond but you cant keep on hating the guy just like others cant keep defending him all the time

Well I've mentioned that some of my comments (like calling him Mr. .470) are just tongue in cheek. I stand by my criticisms of him but I take it too far for entertainment purposes at times and don't always insert the tongue in cheek emoticon.

Melo will probably have to carry that team a few more times. The starting center is awesome, but I'm not a big fan of those other bums on the team.

Bonn1997 wrote:

IrishKnickFan wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

IrishKnickFan wrote:I dont know what i hate more melo haters or melo fanboys. Im just rooting for melo because im a knick fan and he gives us a better chance to win

I'd say if he plays intelligently on offense and tries hard on defense, he does.

You dont have to love melo but i think you take it too far. Belive me melo has things to prove to us this year and beyond but you cant keep on hating the guy just like others cant keep defending him all the time

Well I've mentioned that some of my comments (like calling him Mr. .470) are just tongue in cheek. I stand by my criticisms of him but I take it too far for entertainment purposes at times and don't always insert the tongue in cheek emoticon.

Smart guys don't usually troll as much and are a bit "fewer " infantile, so the Mr. .470 stuff was a bit odd

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:What is that evidence? I am filing a motion for discovery.

If you look up "actuarial vs. clinical assessment" or "statistical vs. intuitive assessment" and use related terms, you'll find a huge body of research. Most of it is in the context of predicting violent behavior but some of it is in other contexts and the same general pattern emerges - actuarial (or statistical) approaches do best but clinical or intuitive ones do add a little.

Those assessments are mostly focused on Life Insurance policy/expectancy or similar assessments.

In sports, knowledge and understanding statistics will support intuition with the data in hand.

Both are important - not sure which one is more important but I would say stats but then, stats/people can delve deeper and deeper and I am not sure that there is a return at that point, and, when this happens, they start watching fewer and fewer games.

Risk assessment is the most commonly but definitely not the only area studied. The more important point though is that every uses statistics to evaluate players - Melo's strongest supporters cite points per game and rebounds. Without recorded stats, we'd have a lot of difficulty knowing who was good and who wasn't. The mind can't keep track of every player on every team for every game well enough to distinguish a .270 from a .300 hitter or a 17 from a 20 PPG player. The debate really is not about how important stats in general are to assessing players but rather is about *which* statistics to use (simple ones like PPG or more complex sabermetrics).

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

IrishKnickFan wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

IrishKnickFan wrote:I dont know what i hate more melo haters or melo fanboys. Im just rooting for melo because im a knick fan and he gives us a better chance to win

I'd say if he plays intelligently on offense and tries hard on defense, he does.

You dont have to love melo but i think you take it too far. Belive me melo has things to prove to us this year and beyond but you cant keep on hating the guy just like others cant keep defending him all the time

Well I've mentioned that some of my comments (like calling him Mr. .470) are just tongue in cheek. I stand by my criticisms of him but I take it too far for entertainment purposes at times and don't always insert the tongue in cheek emoticon.

Smart guys don't usually troll as much and are a bit "fewer " infantile, so the Mr. .470 stuff was a bit odd

Well it's only part tongue in cheek. It's tongue in cheek not because it's wrong but because it's an exaggeration. I genuinely do believe that Melo has never consistently helped his teams win games.

My biggest issue with a number of the "new" stats is that people seem to overvalue them and view them as or close to absolute. I still think these stats don't show context such as poor (IQ) teammates, team injuries, coaching style/effectiveness, high volume vs low volume scorers and how it relates to opponents defensive strategy, diminishing returns for high/low volume scorers, overall defensive stats ...

Will a player play worse on worse team? Will his numbers go down with the lack of support? How about WS and WP on a bad team? You will probably say that it adjusts appropriately but I don't buy or see it.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

IrishKnickFan wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

IrishKnickFan wrote:I dont know what i hate more melo haters or melo fanboys. Im just rooting for melo because im a knick fan and he gives us a better chance to win

I'd say if he plays intelligently on offense and tries hard on defense, he does.

You dont have to love melo but i think you take it too far. Belive me melo has things to prove to us this year and beyond but you cant keep on hating the guy just like others cant keep defending him all the time

Well I've mentioned that some of my comments (like calling him Mr. .470) are just tongue in cheek. I stand by my criticisms of him but I take it too far for entertainment purposes at times and don't always insert the tongue in cheek emoticon.

Smart guys don't usually troll as much and are a bit "fewer " infantile, so the Mr. .470 stuff was a bit odd

Well it's only part tongue in cheek. It's tongue in cheek not because it's wrong but because it's an exaggeration. I genuinely do believe that Melo has never consistently helped his teams win games.

A career WS of .129 is not contributing to wins?

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

IrishKnickFan wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

IrishKnickFan wrote:I dont know what i hate more melo haters or melo fanboys. Im just rooting for melo because im a knick fan and he gives us a better chance to win

I'd say if he plays intelligently on offense and tries hard on defense, he does.

You dont have to love melo but i think you take it too far. Belive me melo has things to prove to us this year and beyond but you cant keep on hating the guy just like others cant keep defending him all the time

Well I've mentioned that some of my comments (like calling him Mr. .470) are just tongue in cheek. I stand by my criticisms of him but I take it too far for entertainment purposes at times and don't always insert the tongue in cheek emoticon.

Smart guys don't usually troll as much and are a bit "fewer " infantile, so the Mr. .470 stuff was a bit odd

Well it's only part tongue in cheek. It's tongue in cheek not because it's wrong but because it's an exaggeration. I genuinely do believe that Melo has never consistently helped his teams win games.

A career WS of .129 is not contributing to wins?

It's what a player who's above average but nothing special contributes. And that's just Melo's win shares value. There are other sabermetrics that show a less flattering picture.

mrKnickShot wrote:My biggest issue with a number of the "new" stats is that people seem to overvalue them and view them as or close to absolute.

That may be an issue with few people but the much more common scenario giving no weight at all to the sabermetrics and basing their opinion entirely on what they see and maybe one one or two simple stats like PPG and steals.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:My biggest issue with a number of the "new" stats is that people seem to overvalue them and view them as or close to absolute.

That may be an issue with few people but the much more common scenario giving no weight at all to the sabermetrics and basing their opinion entirely on what they see and maybe one one or two simple stats like PPG and steals.

How do you feel about Rodman's PER 14.6?

Or that Shawn Kemp has a higher defensive rating than Rodman?

Can sabermetrics look into a college kids eyes and see the fire, pain and drive and know where he should be drafted?

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:My biggest issue with a number of the "new" stats is that people seem to overvalue them and view them as or close to absolute.

That may be an issue with few people but the much more common scenario giving no weight at all to the sabermetrics and basing their opinion entirely on what they see and maybe one one or two simple stats like PPG and steals.

How do you feel about Rodman's PER 14.6?

I feel indifferent since I do not think PER is a good stat.

Or that Shawn Kemp has a higher defensive rating than Rodman?

It doesn't sound right but I'd have to see what data you're referring to. You're actually getting at an important issue though - there's still a lot of room for improvement in how effectiveness on defense is measured. I think most sabermetricians would acknowledge that the statistics are much better for offense than defense currently.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:My biggest issue with a number of the "new" stats is that people seem to overvalue them and view them as or close to absolute.

That may be an issue with few people but the much more common scenario giving no weight at all to the sabermetrics and basing their opinion entirely on what they see and maybe one one or two simple stats like PPG and steals.

How do you feel about Rodman's PER 14.6?

I feel indifferent since I do not think PER is a good stat.

Or that Shawn Kemp has a higher defensive rating than Rodman?

It doesn't sound right but I'd have to see what data you're referring to. You're actually getting at an important issue though - there's still a lot of room for improvement in how effectiveness on defense is measured. I think most sabermetricians would acknowledge that the statistics are much better for offense than defense currently.

Did you refer to/praise Lin's PER?

Bonn1997 wrote:Anyone have a video of the highlights from this game?

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:My biggest issue with a number of the "new" stats is that people seem to overvalue them and view them as or close to absolute.

That may be an issue with few people but the much more common scenario giving no weight at all to the sabermetrics and basing their opinion entirely on what they see and maybe one one or two simple stats like PPG and steals.

How do you feel about Rodman's PER 14.6?

I feel indifferent since I do not think PER is a good stat.

Or that Shawn Kemp has a higher defensive rating than Rodman?

It doesn't sound right but I'd have to see what data you're referring to. You're actually getting at an important issue though - there's still a lot of room for improvement in how effectiveness on defense is measured. I think most sabermetricians would acknowledge that the statistics are much better for offense than defense currently.

Did you refer to/praise Lin's PER?

no

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:My biggest issue with a number of the "new" stats is that people seem to overvalue them and view them as or close to absolute.

That may be an issue with few people but the much more common scenario giving no weight at all to the sabermetrics and basing their opinion entirely on what they see and maybe one one or two simple stats like PPG and steals.

How do you feel about Rodman's PER 14.6?

I feel indifferent since I do not think PER is a good stat.

Or that Shawn Kemp has a higher defensive rating than Rodman?

It doesn't sound right but I'd have to see what data you're referring to. You're actually getting at an important issue though - there's still a lot of room for improvement in how effectiveness on defense is measured. I think most sabermetricians would acknowledge that the statistics are much better for offense than defense currently.

Did you refer to/praise Lin's PER?

no

Sorry. Thought you did. I am pretty sure you were quoted though. How does it feel to be quoted?

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:My biggest issue with a number of the "new" stats is that people seem to overvalue them and view them as or close to absolute.

That may be an issue with few people but the much more common scenario giving no weight at all to the sabermetrics and basing their opinion entirely on what they see and maybe one one or two simple stats like PPG and steals.

How do you feel about Rodman's PER 14.6?

I feel indifferent since I do not think PER is a good stat.

Or that Shawn Kemp has a higher defensive rating than Rodman?

It doesn't sound right but I'd have to see what data you're referring to. You're actually getting at an important issue though - there's still a lot of room for improvement in how effectiveness on defense is measured. I think most sabermetricians would acknowledge that the statistics are much better for offense than defense currently.

Did you refer to/praise Lin's PER?

no

Sorry. Thought you did. I am pretty sure you were quoted though. How does it feel to be quoted?

I feel special!

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:My biggest issue with a number of the "new" stats is that people seem to overvalue them and view them as or close to absolute.

That may be an issue with few people but the much more common scenario giving no weight at all to the sabermetrics and basing their opinion entirely on what they see and maybe one one or two simple stats like PPG and steals.

How do you feel about Rodman's PER 14.6?

I feel indifferent since I do not think PER is a good stat.

Or that Shawn Kemp has a higher defensive rating than Rodman?

It doesn't sound right but I'd have to see what data you're referring to. You're actually getting at an important issue though - there's still a lot of room for improvement in how effectiveness on defense is measured. I think most sabermetricians would acknowledge that the statistics are much better for offense than defense currently.

Did you refer to/praise Lin's PER?

no

Sorry. Thought you did. I am pretty sure you were quoted though. How does it feel to be quoted?

I feel special!

Oh, you are definitely special.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Anyone have a video of the highlights from this game?

Since when do you look at footage?

Its all in the numbers, my friend

You've misinterpeted me - at least, there is no currently available form of sabermetrics that explains 100% of the variance in team wins. In almost every field, statistical forms of assessment work best but intuition then makes a slight but meaningful additional contribution. Even if I did think it was all in the currently available numbers, though, I could still watch footage just for enjoyment.

Would you enjoy seeing Melo play well or will that just infuriate you ?

I would love it. That's why I wanted to see the footage. I already know the evidence is clear that statistical approaches to assessment have more explanatory power than intuition does. One case does not change that. If melo proved me wrong, it wouldn't change the general conclusion in the area of assessment. It would just make the Knicks a more exciting team.

I think stats are great but they don't tell the whole story. For example, calling Melo a horrible passer and a selfish player last year is not accurate. Statistics may lead you to make that assumption, but no one keeps statistics on how many times Melo found wide open teammates who bricked wide open shots. And no one keeps stats on how competitive overdrive kicks in and he tries to do it himself when the offense doesn't have it going. The Knicks as a team were the second worst perimeter shooting team in the league. You could find that out by looking at the stats, but watching the games would make that clear as well.

I'm not a Melo fanboy. I think he has a lot to prove in terms of leadership and defense. But his offensive game is up there with the best in the sport. To exclusively use stats and not watch the games closely when judging a player is not the right way to go about it.

His career assists were 3.0

This past season it was 3.6 and could have easily been 5.0 if there were fewer brickers.

So there was definitely improvement. I am hoping for 4.5 this season.

MSG3 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Anyone have a video of the highlights from this game?

Since when do you look at footage?

Its all in the numbers, my friend

You've misinterpeted me - at least, there is no currently available form of sabermetrics that explains 100% of the variance in team wins. In almost every field, statistical forms of assessment work best but intuition then makes a slight but meaningful additional contribution. Even if I did think it was all in the currently available numbers, though, I could still watch footage just for enjoyment.

Would you enjoy seeing Melo play well or will that just infuriate you ?

I would love it. That's why I wanted to see the footage. I already know the evidence is clear that statistical approaches to assessment have more explanatory power than intuition does. One case does not change that. If melo proved me wrong, it wouldn't change the general conclusion in the area of assessment. It would just make the Knicks a more exciting team.

I think stats are great but they don't tell the whole story. For example, calling Melo a horrible passer and a selfish player last year is not accurate. Statistics may lead you to make that assumption, but no one keeps statistics on how many times Melo found wide open teammates who bricked wide open shots. And no one keeps stats on how competitive overdrive kicks in and he tries to do it himself when the offense doesn't have it going. The Knicks as a team were the second worst perimeter shooting team in the league. You could find that out by looking at the stats, but watching the games would make that clear as well.

I'm not a Melo fanboy. I think he has a lot to prove in terms of leadership and defense. But his offensive game is up there with the best in the sport. To exclusively use stats and not watch the games closely when judging a player is not the right way to go about it.

I'm not sure who you're arguing against.

He's right stats won't show the great pass that led to a Landry Fields brick. You have to watch the games