Knicks · OT:The Westgate Las Vegas SuperBook has released its 2015-16 NBA season win totals.. (page 4)
mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.
Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:I think that if Melo had a good WS then you would love the stat.It seems that many of your arguments have a strong melo factor.
just my take ...
I promise u that the first time I looked at Melo's WS was to add the total WS of last year's team to make sure it makes sense in that aspect..That's about two weeks ago..I could care less about Melo's WS..
so which advanced stats do you follow?
I don't follow it..I looked at a few formulas to see if the make sense..Mqny are so convoluted that I think it done that way intentionally..But honestly those I examined didn't shed any new light in the game for me..I don't think looking at one number to describe an individual doesn't tell any sort of story..Like the discussions we have had in the past about Harden..I find the traditions stats tell me how a player get his point and how he is effective more so than ts%..But that's just me..
you were wrong about harden. WS48 is a far better predictor than we are.
its strange how you can look at a formula, understand all of its components and foundations and so easily dismiss. Its a bit simple minded, no?
Not at all..Can u explain why a guy shooting 90% ft is more efficient than a guy shooting 100% fg ?? Even though fg score more points?..How could you not understand why I would dismiss it after seeing that..My question is why would u not dismiss it after seeing that?
I have read the arguments and don't wish to regurgitate. Anyway, how does that nullify the whole thing? I am not gonna nix a girl for having a bad looking belly button.
holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:I think that if Melo had a good WS then you would love the stat.It seems that many of your arguments have a strong melo factor.
just my take ...
I promise u that the first time I looked at Melo's WS was to add the total WS of last year's team to make sure it makes sense in that aspect..That's about two weeks ago..I could care less about Melo's WS..
so which advanced stats do you follow?
I don't follow it..I looked at a few formulas to see if the make sense..Mqny are so convoluted that I think it done that way intentionally..But honestly those I examined didn't shed any new light in the game for me..I don't think looking at one number to describe an individual doesn't tell any sort of story..Like the discussions we have had in the past about Harden..I find the traditions stats tell me how a player get his point and how he is effective more so than ts%..But that's just me..
you were wrong about harden. WS48 is a far better predictor than we are.
its strange how you can look at a formula, understand all of its components and foundations and so easily dismiss. Its a bit simple minded, no?
Not at all..Can u explain why a guy shooting 90% ft is more efficient than a guy shooting 100% fg ?? Even though fg score more points?..How could you not understand why I would dismiss it after seeing that..My question is why would u not dismiss it after seeing that?I have read the arguments and don't wish to regurgitate. Anyway, how does that nullify the whole thing? I am not gonna nix a girl for having a bad looking belly button.
That not a belly button issue..she has a dck..Which is all good too, if that's what u like..
mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
yes ... of course he was and rightfully so. Kemba was atrocious and was pretty much a negative sum player.
points and fg are the 2 dumbest stats in all sport but glad you have not cracked their formulas.
mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
yes ... of course he was and rightfully so. Kemba was atrocious and was pretty much a negative sum player.
points and fg are the 2 dumbest stats in all sport but glad you have not cracked their formulas.
So if team wins is part of the formula, not a problem?
holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
yes ... of course he was and rightfully so. Kemba was atrocious and was pretty much a negative sum player.
points and fg are the 2 dumbest stats in all sport but glad you have not cracked their formulas.
So if team wins is part of the formula, not a problem?
is it alex english' fault that he did not play with shaq?
WS48 does a decent job adjusting as opposed to other like PER that don't.
No stat is perfect. No players have perfect teammates. Nothing is worse than PPG and FG though.
mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
yes ... of course he was and rightfully so. Kemba was atrocious and was pretty much a negative sum player.
points and fg are the 2 dumbest stats in all sport but glad you have not cracked their formulas.
So if team wins is part of the formula, not a problem?
is it alex english' fault that he did not play with shaq?
WS48 does a decent job adjusting as opposed to other like PER that don't.
No stat is perfect. No players have perfect teammates. Nothing is worse than PPG and FG though.
Total bs.. Fg and .fg%, ft and ft%, 3pt% and 3pt tells me all I need to know offensively..Please just tell me what I'm missing looking at those?
holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
yes ... of course he was and rightfully so. Kemba was atrocious and was pretty much a negative sum player.
points and fg are the 2 dumbest stats in all sport but glad you have not cracked their formulas.
So if team wins is part of the formula, not a problem?
is it alex english' fault that he did not play with shaq?
WS48 does a decent job adjusting as opposed to other like PER that don't.
No stat is perfect. No players have perfect teammates. Nothing is worse than PPG and FG though.
Total bs.. Fg and .fg%, ft and ft%, 3pt% and 3pt tells me all I need to know offensively..Please just tell me what I'm missing looking at those?
don't you hate combined stats? FG combines 2's and 3's which is as dumb as you get.
mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
yes ... of course he was and rightfully so. Kemba was atrocious and was pretty much a negative sum player.
points and fg are the 2 dumbest stats in all sport but glad you have not cracked their formulas.
So if team wins is part of the formula, not a problem?
is it alex english' fault that he did not play with shaq?
WS48 does a decent job adjusting as opposed to other like PER that don't.
No stat is perfect. No players have perfect teammates. Nothing is worse than PPG and FG though.
Total bs.. Fg and .fg%, ft and ft%, 3pt% and 3pt tells me all I need to know offensively..Please just tell me what I'm missing looking at those?don't you hate combined stats? FG combines 2's and 3's which is as dumb as you get.
What are you talking about combined stat?..you can see the 3pt%..TS% combines everything..2s, 3s, fts..
holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
yes ... of course he was and rightfully so. Kemba was atrocious and was pretty much a negative sum player.
points and fg are the 2 dumbest stats in all sport but glad you have not cracked their formulas.
So if team wins is part of the formula, not a problem?
is it alex english' fault that he did not play with shaq?
WS48 does a decent job adjusting as opposed to other like PER that don't.
No stat is perfect. No players have perfect teammates. Nothing is worse than PPG and FG though.
Total bs.. Fg and .fg%, ft and ft%, 3pt% and 3pt tells me all I need to know offensively..Please just tell me what I'm missing looking at those?don't you hate combined stats? FG combines 2's and 3's which is as dumb as you get.
What are you talking about combined stat?..you can see the 3pt%
so you can look at 2% and 3% but you cant look at fg% which combines the 2.
if a guy shoots 38% but they are all 3's then that is pretty damn good.
mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
yes ... of course he was and rightfully so. Kemba was atrocious and was pretty much a negative sum player.
points and fg are the 2 dumbest stats in all sport but glad you have not cracked their formulas.
So if team wins is part of the formula, not a problem?
is it alex english' fault that he did not play with shaq?
WS48 does a decent job adjusting as opposed to other like PER that don't.
No stat is perfect. No players have perfect teammates. Nothing is worse than PPG and FG though.
Total bs.. Fg and .fg%, ft and ft%, 3pt% and 3pt tells me all I need to know offensively..Please just tell me what I'm missing looking at those?don't you hate combined stats? FG combines 2's and 3's which is as dumb as you get.
What are you talking about combined stat?..you can see the 3pt%
so you can look at 2% and 3% but you cant look at fg% which combines the 2.
if a guy shoots 38% but they are all 3's then that is pretty damn good.
TS% combines all three with arbitrary multipliers .
holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
yes ... of course he was and rightfully so. Kemba was atrocious and was pretty much a negative sum player.
points and fg are the 2 dumbest stats in all sport but glad you have not cracked their formulas.
So if team wins is part of the formula, not a problem?
is it alex english' fault that he did not play with shaq?
WS48 does a decent job adjusting as opposed to other like PER that don't.
No stat is perfect. No players have perfect teammates. Nothing is worse than PPG and FG though.
Total bs.. Fg and .fg%, ft and ft%, 3pt% and 3pt tells me all I need to know offensively..Please just tell me what I'm missing looking at those?don't you hate combined stats? FG combines 2's and 3's which is as dumb as you get.
What are you talking about combined stat?..you can see the 3pt%
so you can look at 2% and 3% but you cant look at fg% which combines the 2.
if a guy shoots 38% but they are all 3's then that is pretty damn good.
TS% combines all three with arbitrary multipliers .
everything is arbitrary. It is the gold standard for a reason. You have a right to ignore all advanced stats but there is a reason why every team has bought into them. They add tremendous value and teams can't win without them anymore.
How about shot charts? Do you ever look at them?
mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
yes ... of course he was and rightfully so. Kemba was atrocious and was pretty much a negative sum player.
points and fg are the 2 dumbest stats in all sport but glad you have not cracked their formulas.
So if team wins is part of the formula, not a problem?
is it alex english' fault that he did not play with shaq?
WS48 does a decent job adjusting as opposed to other like PER that don't.
No stat is perfect. No players have perfect teammates. Nothing is worse than PPG and FG though.
Total bs.. Fg and .fg%, ft and ft%, 3pt% and 3pt tells me all I need to know offensively..Please just tell me what I'm missing looking at those?don't you hate combined stats? FG combines 2's and 3's which is as dumb as you get.
What are you talking about combined stat?..you can see the 3pt%
so you can look at 2% and 3% but you cant look at fg% which combines the 2.
if a guy shoots 38% but they are all 3's then that is pretty damn good.
TS% combines all three with arbitrary multipliers .
everything is arbitrary. It is the gold standard for a reason. You have a right to ignore all advanced stats but there is a reason why every team has bought into them. They add tremendous value and teams can't win without them anymore.
How about shot charts? Do you ever look at them?
Yeah..Had to use them to disprove Melo and Aldridge don't occupy the same space in another discussion..
holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
here is the breakdown of how win shares are calculated. there is little here to suggest that a player's win shares are entirely dependent on what team he is playing on. the formula clearly demonstrates an individuals relationship to the league as a whole, which in effect nullifies "what team he plays on" as an independent variable. in fact, as i said earlier, it seems you have the matter reversed: the total number of wins is reflective of the collective win shares of the individuals comprising the team. this is the reason why the author took pains to point out how closely win shares can or should mirror the total number of wins for that team. if that were not the case then the formula would be flawed.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/abou...
as to the justification of my methods of predicting wins for the knicks this season, if i were only using win shares for one season for each player being replaced and then doing the same for the players who replaced them, you could have a point. however, i took a simple average over their entire careers to add wins to the 17 win team of last year to yield a minimum of 27 wins for this coming season, not including anthony or our two rookies. even a bad anthony is good for 4 wins. the rookies is anybody's guess, since they have no nba track record.
dk7th wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
here is the breakdown of how win shares are calculated. there is little here to suggest that a player's win shares are entirely dependent on what team he is playing on. the formula clearly demonstrates an individuals relationship to the league as a whole, which in effect nullifies "what team he plays on" as an independent variable. in fact, as i said earlier, it seems you have the matter reversed: the total number of wins is reflective of the collective win shares of the individuals comprising the team. this is the reason why the author took pains to point out how closely win shares can or should mirror the total number of wins for that team. if that were not the case then the formula would be flawed.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/abou...
as to the justification of my methods of predicting wins for the knicks this season, if i were only using win shares for one season for each player being replaced and then doing the same for the players who replaced them, you could have a point. however, i took a simple average over their entire careers to add wins to the 17 win team of last year to yield a minimum of 27 wins for this coming season, not including anthony or our two rookies. even a bad anthony is good for 4 wins. the rookies is anybody's guess, since they have no nba track record.
oh good stuff, thanks
dk7th wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:holfresh wrote:mreinman wrote:do you think that Kemba's disgusting TS of 46 had anything to do with that? Again, you are being way to black and white.Don't really remember but I thought they shot the same fg?. not sure..again, team win total is part of the formula..
their efficiency numbers were not close. You need to look closer at the numbers before making such arguments. This was quite obvious.
Also, I don't look at WS, I look at WS48.
Either one, I think Butler was higher in both..I guess dk7 went to bed..
here is the breakdown of how win shares are calculated. there is little here to suggest that a player's win shares are entirely dependent on what team he is playing on. the formula clearly demonstrates an individuals relationship to the league as a whole, which in effect nullifies "what team he plays on" as an independent variable. in fact, as i said earlier, it seems you have the matter reversed: the total number of wins is reflective of the collective win shares of the individuals comprising the team. this is the reason why the author took pains to point out how closely win shares can or should mirror the total number of wins for that team. if that were not the case then the formula would be flawed.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/abou...
as to the justification of my methods of predicting wins for the knicks this season, if i were only using win shares for one season for each player being replaced and then doing the same for the players who replaced them, you could have a point. however, i took a simple average over their entire careers to add wins to the 17 win team of last year to yield a minimum of 27 wins for this coming season, not including anthony or our two rookies. even a bad anthony is good for 4 wins. the rookies is anybody's guess, since they have no nba track record.
I have to admit I didn't research this in depth using different teams as I should but my contention is that in this formula and it actually tells you in the title what he is doing:
4. Calculate marginal points per win. Marginal points per win reduces to 0.32 * (league points per game) * ((team pace) / (league pace)). For the 2008-09 Cavaliers this is 0.32 * 100.0 * (88.7 / 91.7) = 30.95.
The .32 is a variable unique only to the Cleveland Cavaliers who won 66 games that year...That number would be .09 for the Wizards in the same year who won 19 games or for the Bulls,.20 who won 41 games that year...So the formula set forth a subtle thing that can be missed or maybe intentionally put in that manner so folks like you will miss it...But this isn't a fixed variable across the board for all players on all teams but a value unique to players of that specific team...I could be wrong, but I will do the math later and I'm willing to bet I'm right...
Looking at the entire formla, it's the only way they could make WS of each player when added, equal to that of the total team wins...There are no other value that corresponds with team wins...
