Knicks · There Are People Here Who Don't Watch Every Minute Of Every Game??? (page 3)
CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:Minimally watch the games or quantify your analysis by saying you haven't but the numbers appear this way. There is no stat for Shump's dunk the other night other than pts and field goal percentage but plays like that are momentum changers. I just don't see stats fitting basketball like they do other sports and I think using them without watching the games doesn't paint an accurate picture.CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:Not true. For instance there is a big stats guy here that has posted he will watch the knicks when they are worth his time. I think he watches more games now but he is a harsh critic of some players. Just one example. I know there are others.CrushAlot wrote:fishmike wrote:Its pretty basic. Watch the games. If you want to interpret numbers after you have seen guys play and they fit what you see then go there. Otherwise what you are referencing might be very different then what happened on the court in the flow of the game.CrushAlot wrote:you mean like when your main scorer has a bad night, shoots 3-15 but finishes the game by hitting his last three shots and people come on and say "the guy shot 6-18 and was terrible"mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:It's a great group of fans here and the knick talk is good in my opinion. I don't care how often someone watches the Knicks but I do hate when someone praises or trashes a guy based on the box score and stats. There is too much that happens on the court during the game to evaluate guys without seeing them play.It gets me more mad when people think their eyes are enough (since they are so smart) and don't look at the actual numbers being produced.
I disagree. Maybe some balance is needed but some here post about things they haven't seen. There is an ebb and flow to a basketball game. Not everything shows up in a box score.That kind of thing?
The statheads around here suck. BB is the least structured sport and involves more in game creativity on a play by play basis than any other sport... but yea... just look at the #s. Thats all that matters.
we all pretty much watch the games (not like FireWoody though) and we think we have great eyes.
stats may lie in a game but in the long run, bad stats are bad.
the main issue with stats though is that it does not show positive / negative defensive contribution.
Find me a player who has bad stats and is a really good player. Very hard to find unless the guy is a big defensive contributor.
You don't need to watch the games and count THJ's rebounds to know that he is a horrible horrible rebounder. BEING DEAD LAST IN THE LEAGUE IN REBOUNDS SHOULD GIVE YOU A HINT.
People used to watch AI all the time and revel in how great he was. YES! WE WERE ALL FOOLED BY FOOLISH FLARE. HOW MANY OF US ACTUALLY IGNORED ALL THE MISSED SHOTS?
and how many dopes (who watch the games ... every minute/second perhaps) say dumb things like "Do you know how many points he scored/scores?"
The numbers are like coin flips. Short term anomalies perhaps but in the long run ...
A dunk can be a momentum changer in a game. However, with a large "sample size" a dunk will not make much of a difference.
Name me a player who has weak stats that you think does not paint a true picture and we can discuss/dissect further.
I am not a big stats guy other than for fantasy basketball. I can name a guy that was mentioned as being very efficient when what I saw was poor play and that would be Tyson last year.
Tyson was who I was hoping that you would not bring up 
There was nobody who was more against him than me. I hated the move from the start and I was very vocal about it, not just last year when everyone jumped of his wagon.
Was Tyson not giving his all defensively or offensively?
And ... I still argue diminished returns with him though it may be a weak argument that has been dis proven by the sabermetric world.
mreinman wrote:He is the guy that I could think of. Honestly I like to watch basketball especially the knicks. When I join fantasy leagues I look at the scoring settings and sometimes get guys that get points in particular area but usually go by strengths I know from watching them. The stat movement is big and has a following here so I try not to be ignorant of it but I still say you need to watch the games.CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:Minimally watch the games or quantify your analysis by saying you haven't but the numbers appear this way. There is no stat for Shump's dunk the other night other than pts and field goal percentage but plays like that are momentum changers. I just don't see stats fitting basketball like they do other sports and I think using them without watching the games doesn't paint an accurate picture.CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:Not true. For instance there is a big stats guy here that has posted he will watch the knicks when they are worth his time. I think he watches more games now but he is a harsh critic of some players. Just one example. I know there are others.CrushAlot wrote:fishmike wrote:Its pretty basic. Watch the games. If you want to interpret numbers after you have seen guys play and they fit what you see then go there. Otherwise what you are referencing might be very different then what happened on the court in the flow of the game.CrushAlot wrote:you mean like when your main scorer has a bad night, shoots 3-15 but finishes the game by hitting his last three shots and people come on and say "the guy shot 6-18 and was terrible"mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:It's a great group of fans here and the knick talk is good in my opinion. I don't care how often someone watches the Knicks but I do hate when someone praises or trashes a guy based on the box score and stats. There is too much that happens on the court during the game to evaluate guys without seeing them play.It gets me more mad when people think their eyes are enough (since they are so smart) and don't look at the actual numbers being produced.
I disagree. Maybe some balance is needed but some here post about things they haven't seen. There is an ebb and flow to a basketball game. Not everything shows up in a box score.That kind of thing?
The statheads around here suck. BB is the least structured sport and involves more in game creativity on a play by play basis than any other sport... but yea... just look at the #s. Thats all that matters.
we all pretty much watch the games (not like FireWoody though) and we think we have great eyes.
stats may lie in a game but in the long run, bad stats are bad.
the main issue with stats though is that it does not show positive / negative defensive contribution.
Find me a player who has bad stats and is a really good player. Very hard to find unless the guy is a big defensive contributor.
You don't need to watch the games and count THJ's rebounds to know that he is a horrible horrible rebounder. BEING DEAD LAST IN THE LEAGUE IN REBOUNDS SHOULD GIVE YOU A HINT.
People used to watch AI all the time and revel in how great he was. YES! WE WERE ALL FOOLED BY FOOLISH FLARE. HOW MANY OF US ACTUALLY IGNORED ALL THE MISSED SHOTS?
and how many dopes (who watch the games ... every minute/second perhaps) say dumb things like "Do you know how many points he scored/scores?"
The numbers are like coin flips. Short term anomalies perhaps but in the long run ...
A dunk can be a momentum changer in a game. However, with a large "sample size" a dunk will not make much of a difference.
Name me a player who has weak stats that you think does not paint a true picture and we can discuss/dissect further.
I am not a big stats guy other than for fantasy basketball. I can name a guy that was mentioned as being very efficient when what I saw was poor play and that would be Tyson last year.Tyson was who I was hoping that you would not bring up
There was nobody who was more against him than me. I hated the move from the start and I was very vocal about it, not just last year when everyone jumped of his wagon.
Was Tyson not giving his all defensively or offensively?
And ... I still argue diminished returns with him though it may be a weak argument that has been dis proven by the sabermetric world.
CrushAlot wrote:perfect arguement. Tyson. Incredible TS%. Low usage. Defensive metrics say he's an impact player. Oh wait... you WATCHED the games and what? The guy sucks. Maybe sucks is the wrong word.mreinman wrote:He is the guy that I could think of. Honestly I like to watch basketball especially the knicks. When I join fantasy leagues I look at the scoring settings and sometimes get guys that get points in particular area but usually go by strengths I know from watching them. The stat movement is big and has a following here so I try not to be ignorant of it but I still say you need to watch the games.CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:Minimally watch the games or quantify your analysis by saying you haven't but the numbers appear this way. There is no stat for Shump's dunk the other night other than pts and field goal percentage but plays like that are momentum changers. I just don't see stats fitting basketball like they do other sports and I think using them without watching the games doesn't paint an accurate picture.CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:Not true. For instance there is a big stats guy here that has posted he will watch the knicks when they are worth his time. I think he watches more games now but he is a harsh critic of some players. Just one example. I know there are others.CrushAlot wrote:fishmike wrote:Its pretty basic. Watch the games. If you want to interpret numbers after you have seen guys play and they fit what you see then go there. Otherwise what you are referencing might be very different then what happened on the court in the flow of the game.CrushAlot wrote:you mean like when your main scorer has a bad night, shoots 3-15 but finishes the game by hitting his last three shots and people come on and say "the guy shot 6-18 and was terrible"mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:It's a great group of fans here and the knick talk is good in my opinion. I don't care how often someone watches the Knicks but I do hate when someone praises or trashes a guy based on the box score and stats. There is too much that happens on the court during the game to evaluate guys without seeing them play.It gets me more mad when people think their eyes are enough (since they are so smart) and don't look at the actual numbers being produced.
I disagree. Maybe some balance is needed but some here post about things they haven't seen. There is an ebb and flow to a basketball game. Not everything shows up in a box score.That kind of thing?
The statheads around here suck. BB is the least structured sport and involves more in game creativity on a play by play basis than any other sport... but yea... just look at the #s. Thats all that matters.
we all pretty much watch the games (not like FireWoody though) and we think we have great eyes.
stats may lie in a game but in the long run, bad stats are bad.
the main issue with stats though is that it does not show positive / negative defensive contribution.
Find me a player who has bad stats and is a really good player. Very hard to find unless the guy is a big defensive contributor.
You don't need to watch the games and count THJ's rebounds to know that he is a horrible horrible rebounder. BEING DEAD LAST IN THE LEAGUE IN REBOUNDS SHOULD GIVE YOU A HINT.
People used to watch AI all the time and revel in how great he was. YES! WE WERE ALL FOOLED BY FOOLISH FLARE. HOW MANY OF US ACTUALLY IGNORED ALL THE MISSED SHOTS?
and how many dopes (who watch the games ... every minute/second perhaps) say dumb things like "Do you know how many points he scored/scores?"
The numbers are like coin flips. Short term anomalies perhaps but in the long run ...
A dunk can be a momentum changer in a game. However, with a large "sample size" a dunk will not make much of a difference.
Name me a player who has weak stats that you think does not paint a true picture and we can discuss/dissect further.
I am not a big stats guy other than for fantasy basketball. I can name a guy that was mentioned as being very efficient when what I saw was poor play and that would be Tyson last year.Tyson was who I was hoping that you would not bring up
There was nobody who was more against him than me. I hated the move from the start and I was very vocal about it, not just last year when everyone jumped of his wagon.
Was Tyson not giving his all defensively or offensively?
And ... I still argue diminished returns with him though it may be a weak argument that has been dis proven by the sabermetric world.
Iverson is the other end of the coin. Lead the league in usage (and minutes) several times. Horrible FG%s. Massive amounts of TOs. The ultimate chucker. If you looked it at his #s (including the 6-7 times he was top ten in MVP voting and won it one year) you would have to wonder why any coach or team would allow that guy to run amok and dominate the ball the way he did. Then you watch him play and you see why.
mreinman I dont really think you need to defend yourself here, I think people who have read you enough know you watch enough. But just like people "see what they want to see" the statheads have the exact same issue. I mean you look at a guy's #s and THEN start watching and your looking for the part of his game that validate those #s, not whats happening on the floor.
mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:Minimally watch the games or quantify your analysis by saying you haven't but the numbers appear this way. There is no stat for Shump's dunk the other night other than pts and field goal percentage but plays like that are momentum changers. I just don't see stats fitting basketball like they do other sports and I think using them without watching the games doesn't paint an accurate picture.CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:Not true. For instance there is a big stats guy here that has posted he will watch the knicks when they are worth his time. I think he watches more games now but he is a harsh critic of some players. Just one example. I know there are others.CrushAlot wrote:fishmike wrote:Its pretty basic. Watch the games. If you want to interpret numbers after you have seen guys play and they fit what you see then go there. Otherwise what you are referencing might be very different then what happened on the court in the flow of the game.CrushAlot wrote:you mean like when your main scorer has a bad night, shoots 3-15 but finishes the game by hitting his last three shots and people come on and say "the guy shot 6-18 and was terrible"mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:It's a great group of fans here and the knick talk is good in my opinion. I don't care how often someone watches the Knicks but I do hate when someone praises or trashes a guy based on the box score and stats. There is too much that happens on the court during the game to evaluate guys without seeing them play.It gets me more mad when people think their eyes are enough (since they are so smart) and don't look at the actual numbers being produced.
I disagree. Maybe some balance is needed but some here post about things they haven't seen. There is an ebb and flow to a basketball game. Not everything shows up in a box score.That kind of thing?
The statheads around here suck. BB is the least structured sport and involves more in game creativity on a play by play basis than any other sport... but yea... just look at the #s. Thats all that matters.
we all pretty much watch the games (not like FireWoody though) and we think we have great eyes.
stats may lie in a game but in the long run, bad stats are bad.
the main issue with stats though is that it does not show positive / negative defensive contribution.
Find me a player who has bad stats and is a really good player. Very hard to find unless the guy is a big defensive contributor.
You don't need to watch the games and count THJ's rebounds to know that he is a horrible horrible rebounder. BEING DEAD LAST IN THE LEAGUE IN REBOUNDS SHOULD GIVE YOU A HINT.
People used to watch AI all the time and revel in how great he was. YES! WE WERE ALL FOOLED BY FOOLISH FLARE. HOW MANY OF US ACTUALLY IGNORED ALL THE MISSED SHOTS?
and how many dopes (who watch the games ... every minute/second perhaps) say dumb things like "Do you know how many points he scored/scores?"
The numbers are like coin flips. Short term anomalies perhaps but in the long run ...
A dunk can be a momentum changer in a game. However, with a large "sample size" a dunk will not make much of a difference.
Name me a player who has weak stats that you think does not paint a true picture and we can discuss/dissect further.
I am not a big stats guy other than for fantasy basketball. I can name a guy that was mentioned as being very efficient when what I saw was poor play and that would be Tyson last year.Tyson was who I was hoping that you would not bring up
There was nobody who was more against him than me. I hated the move from the start and I was very vocal about it, not just last year when everyone jumped of his wagon.
Was Tyson not giving his all defensively or offensively?
And ... I still argue diminished returns with him though it may be a weak argument that has been dis proven by the sabermetric world.
So how do you decide which players do and which don't have valid advanced stats?
I don't think Dallas is regretting their trade with us at all. They're probably laughing at us right now.
Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:Minimally watch the games or quantify your analysis by saying you haven't but the numbers appear this way. There is no stat for Shump's dunk the other night other than pts and field goal percentage but plays like that are momentum changers. I just don't see stats fitting basketball like they do other sports and I think using them without watching the games doesn't paint an accurate picture.CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:Not true. For instance there is a big stats guy here that has posted he will watch the knicks when they are worth his time. I think he watches more games now but he is a harsh critic of some players. Just one example. I know there are others.CrushAlot wrote:fishmike wrote:Its pretty basic. Watch the games. If you want to interpret numbers after you have seen guys play and they fit what you see then go there. Otherwise what you are referencing might be very different then what happened on the court in the flow of the game.CrushAlot wrote:you mean like when your main scorer has a bad night, shoots 3-15 but finishes the game by hitting his last three shots and people come on and say "the guy shot 6-18 and was terrible"mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:It's a great group of fans here and the knick talk is good in my opinion. I don't care how often someone watches the Knicks but I do hate when someone praises or trashes a guy based on the box score and stats. There is too much that happens on the court during the game to evaluate guys without seeing them play.It gets me more mad when people think their eyes are enough (since they are so smart) and don't look at the actual numbers being produced.
I disagree. Maybe some balance is needed but some here post about things they haven't seen. There is an ebb and flow to a basketball game. Not everything shows up in a box score.That kind of thing?
The statheads around here suck. BB is the least structured sport and involves more in game creativity on a play by play basis than any other sport... but yea... just look at the #s. Thats all that matters.
we all pretty much watch the games (not like FireWoody though) and we think we have great eyes.
stats may lie in a game but in the long run, bad stats are bad.
the main issue with stats though is that it does not show positive / negative defensive contribution.
Find me a player who has bad stats and is a really good player. Very hard to find unless the guy is a big defensive contributor.
You don't need to watch the games and count THJ's rebounds to know that he is a horrible horrible rebounder. BEING DEAD LAST IN THE LEAGUE IN REBOUNDS SHOULD GIVE YOU A HINT.
People used to watch AI all the time and revel in how great he was. YES! WE WERE ALL FOOLED BY FOOLISH FLARE. HOW MANY OF US ACTUALLY IGNORED ALL THE MISSED SHOTS?
and how many dopes (who watch the games ... every minute/second perhaps) say dumb things like "Do you know how many points he scored/scores?"
The numbers are like coin flips. Short term anomalies perhaps but in the long run ...
A dunk can be a momentum changer in a game. However, with a large "sample size" a dunk will not make much of a difference.
Name me a player who has weak stats that you think does not paint a true picture and we can discuss/dissect further.
I am not a big stats guy other than for fantasy basketball. I can name a guy that was mentioned as being very efficient when what I saw was poor play and that would be Tyson last year.Tyson was who I was hoping that you would not bring up
There was nobody who was more against him than me. I hated the move from the start and I was very vocal about it, not just last year when everyone jumped of his wagon.
Was Tyson not giving his all defensively or offensively?
And ... I still argue diminished returns with him though it may be a weak argument that has been dis proven by the sabermetric world.
So how do you decide which players do and which don't have valid advanced stats?
I don't think Dallas is regretting their trade with us at all. They're probably laughing at us right now.
Um, you watch the player perform within the context of game situations and you review his advanced stats accordingly. Tyson has no offensive game. He is efficient because his touches are minimized since his teammates avoid him in the flow of the offense unless he is diving towards the rim for a pass/dunk or rebound. His stats may show a semblance of efficiency, but consider that if you had 5 Tysons on the floor at the same time, the team would not be able to pass to one another nor score. He knows his role on offense which is to mostly stay out of the way accept for the infrequent pick and rolls. Watching the game reveals how much of a liability he is on offense.
Defense is a different story. When healthy and motivated he can be a very good team/help defender. He is not a classic rim protector but has quick feet. I don't generally prefer his tap rebounding style, but it seems to serve him well especially on offensive end.
So his advanced stats are most likely misleading to a degree on offense and support his play on defense.
foosballnick wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:Minimally watch the games or quantify your analysis by saying you haven't but the numbers appear this way. There is no stat for Shump's dunk the other night other than pts and field goal percentage but plays like that are momentum changers. I just don't see stats fitting basketball like they do other sports and I think using them without watching the games doesn't paint an accurate picture.CrushAlot wrote:mreinman wrote:Not true. For instance there is a big stats guy here that has posted he will watch the knicks when they are worth his time. I think he watches more games now but he is a harsh critic of some players. Just one example. I know there are others.CrushAlot wrote:fishmike wrote:Its pretty basic. Watch the games. If you want to interpret numbers after you have seen guys play and they fit what you see then go there. Otherwise what you are referencing might be very different then what happened on the court in the flow of the game.CrushAlot wrote:you mean like when your main scorer has a bad night, shoots 3-15 but finishes the game by hitting his last three shots and people come on and say "the guy shot 6-18 and was terrible"mreinman wrote:CrushAlot wrote:It's a great group of fans here and the knick talk is good in my opinion. I don't care how often someone watches the Knicks but I do hate when someone praises or trashes a guy based on the box score and stats. There is too much that happens on the court during the game to evaluate guys without seeing them play.It gets me more mad when people think their eyes are enough (since they are so smart) and don't look at the actual numbers being produced.
I disagree. Maybe some balance is needed but some here post about things they haven't seen. There is an ebb and flow to a basketball game. Not everything shows up in a box score.That kind of thing?
The statheads around here suck. BB is the least structured sport and involves more in game creativity on a play by play basis than any other sport... but yea... just look at the #s. Thats all that matters.
we all pretty much watch the games (not like FireWoody though) and we think we have great eyes.
stats may lie in a game but in the long run, bad stats are bad.
the main issue with stats though is that it does not show positive / negative defensive contribution.
Find me a player who has bad stats and is a really good player. Very hard to find unless the guy is a big defensive contributor.
You don't need to watch the games and count THJ's rebounds to know that he is a horrible horrible rebounder. BEING DEAD LAST IN THE LEAGUE IN REBOUNDS SHOULD GIVE YOU A HINT.
People used to watch AI all the time and revel in how great he was. YES! WE WERE ALL FOOLED BY FOOLISH FLARE. HOW MANY OF US ACTUALLY IGNORED ALL THE MISSED SHOTS?
and how many dopes (who watch the games ... every minute/second perhaps) say dumb things like "Do you know how many points he scored/scores?"
The numbers are like coin flips. Short term anomalies perhaps but in the long run ...
A dunk can be a momentum changer in a game. However, with a large "sample size" a dunk will not make much of a difference.
Name me a player who has weak stats that you think does not paint a true picture and we can discuss/dissect further.
I am not a big stats guy other than for fantasy basketball. I can name a guy that was mentioned as being very efficient when what I saw was poor play and that would be Tyson last year.Tyson was who I was hoping that you would not bring up
There was nobody who was more against him than me. I hated the move from the start and I was very vocal about it, not just last year when everyone jumped of his wagon.
Was Tyson not giving his all defensively or offensively?
And ... I still argue diminished returns with him though it may be a weak argument that has been dis proven by the sabermetric world.
So how do you decide which players do and which don't have valid advanced stats?
I don't think Dallas is regretting their trade with us at all. They're probably laughing at us right now.Um, you watch the player perform within the context of game situations and you review his advanced stats accordingly. Tyson has no offensive game. He is efficient because his touches are minimized since his teammates avoid him in the flow of the offense unless he is diving towards the rim for a pass/dunk or rebound. His stats may show a semblance of efficiency, but consider that if you had 5 Tysons on the floor at the same time, the team would not be able to pass to one another nor score. He knows his role on offense which is to mostly stay out of the way accept for the infrequent pick and rolls. Watching the game reveals how much of a liability he is on offense.
Defense is a different story. When healthy and motivated he can be a very good team/help defender. He is not a classic rim protector but has quick feet. I don't generally prefer his tap rebounding style, but it seems to serve him well especially on offensive end.
So his advanced stats are most likely misleading to a degree on offense and support his play on defense.
If you use the advanced stats only when they confirm your pre-existing beliefs, then you're never actually using the advanced stats.