I was concerned that AA would b worn out by the end of the season the way he was playing for a while, but he has almost completely stopped going to the paint. I think he has developed Shumpert's syndrome. Another Knick guard who has grown allergic to the rim.
GustavBahler wrote:I was concerned that AA would b worn out by the end of the season the way he was playing for a while, but he has almost completely stopped going to the paint. I think he has developed Shumpert's syndrome. Another Knick guard who has grown allergic to the rim.
offense can come and go but defense should be consistent... unless you are a poor defender. the problem with afflalo is that he is not merely inconsistent on offense but he is a constant liability on defense. i urge you and others to focus on afflalo's defense next time.
Cartman718 wrote:affalo has not lived up to expectation at all. you'd think he'd be the 2nd highest scorer behind melo...not a rookie
who's expectations? Afflalo is exactly what afflalo always was.
mreinman wrote:Cartman718 wrote:affalo has not lived up to expectation at all. you'd think he'd be the 2nd highest scorer behind melo...not a rookie
who's expectations? Afflalo is exactly what afflalo always was.
Agrred, a decent offensive player at times that is highly overrated as a defender. I just hope he has trade value like he had in the past. Last year he played worst and still had value.
dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:I was concerned that AA would b worn out by the end of the season the way he was playing for a while, but he has almost completely stopped going to the paint. I think he has developed Shumpert's syndrome. Another Knick guard who has grown allergic to the rim.
offense can come and go but defense should be consistent... unless you are a poor defender. the problem with afflalo is that he is not merely inconsistent on offense but he is a constant liability on defense. i urge you and others to focus on afflalo's defense next time.
We have one of the worst starting PGs in the league, I "urge" you to look at our record when AA doesnt score 20pts a game.
GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:I was concerned that AA would b worn out by the end of the season the way he was playing for a while, but he has almost completely stopped going to the paint. I think he has developed Shumpert's syndrome. Another Knick guard who has grown allergic to the rim.
offense can come and go but defense should be consistent... unless you are a poor defender. the problem with afflalo is that he is not merely inconsistent on offense but he is a constant liability on defense. i urge you and others to focus on afflalo's defense next time.
We have one of the worst starting PGs in the league, I "urge" you to look at our record when AA doesnt score 20pts a game.
well although i can't stand him because of his defense, the fact is that he isn't the worst-- the point of the opening post and the stats provided is that he is actually almost holding his own for the knicks, as counterintuitive as that is. with both "real plus-minus" and WS48 calderon is about average, give or take.... just as the knicks are about average give or take.
add to that the fact that calderon's average minutes per game is only 28 minutes, fisher is limiting the damage as much as he can. however, fisher is not limiting afflalo's minutes nearly enough. thirty-three minutes a game for a player of afflalo's caliber is too many minutes. the most respected numbers on the guy are just not good at all.
GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:I was concerned that AA would b worn out by the end of the season the way he was playing for a while, but he has almost completely stopped going to the paint. I think he has developed Shumpert's syndrome. Another Knick guard who has grown allergic to the rim.
offense can come and go but defense should be consistent... unless you are a poor defender. the problem with afflalo is that he is not merely inconsistent on offense but he is a constant liability on defense. i urge you and others to focus on afflalo's defense next time.
We have one of the worst starting PGs in the league, I "urge" you to look at our record when AA doesnt score 20pts a game.
also, you have to realize afflalo is a terrible passer or a non-passer so he doesn't actually help generate points for others. if you take this into account and realize what he gives up defensively, he is the sort of player whose points are empty calories, ie they seem valuable but are not actually making the team better.
GustavBahler wrote:dk7th wrote:GustavBahler wrote:I was concerned that AA would b worn out by the end of the season the way he was playing for a while, but he has almost completely stopped going to the paint. I think he has developed Shumpert's syndrome. Another Knick guard who has grown allergic to the rim.
offense can come and go but defense should be consistent... unless you are a poor defender. the problem with afflalo is that he is not merely inconsistent on offense but he is a constant liability on defense. i urge you and others to focus on afflalo's defense next time.
We have one of the worst starting PGs in the league, I "urge" you to look at our record when AA doesnt score 20pts a game.
I looked at it for when he scores 15 or more versus less than 15. It seems like 15 was the number they throw out there during games. The Knicks are 11-3 when Afflalo scores 15 or more. They are 7-17 when he scores under 15. Also, I believe one or two of the three loses for when he scored 15+came when Melo was out. The Knicks haven't won without Melo in the four games he has been out.
dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.
is that not enough and if not, how not?
dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.
is that not enough and if not, how not?
what are you comparing side by side?
mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.
is that not enough and if not, how not?
what are you comparing side by side?
espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48
dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.
is that not enough and if not, how not?
what are you comparing side by side?
espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48
I know but are you just comparing a couple of players to see how they measure up with the 2 stats?
mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.
is that not enough and if not, how not?
what are you comparing side by side?
espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48
I know but are you just comparing a couple of players to see how they measure up with the 2 stats?
i looked at our starters in both statistical models, and i perused various top players as well. what i noticed about real plus minus is that it is more linear from worst/average/best as compared with ws48, which seems more bell curvish, with a greater number of middling players clumped together above and below a median.
dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.
is that not enough and if not, how not?
what are you comparing side by side?
espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48
I know but are you just comparing a couple of players to see how they measure up with the 2 stats?
i looked at our starters in both statistical models, and i perused various top players as well. what i noticed about real plus minus is that it is more linear from worst/average/best as compared with ws48, which seems more bell curvish, with a greater number of middling players clumped together above and below a median.
you are using a quick eye ball test when comparing data that is to be used specifically to avoid failed eye testing 
mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.
is that not enough and if not, how not?
what are you comparing side by side?
espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48
I know but are you just comparing a couple of players to see how they measure up with the 2 stats?
i looked at our starters in both statistical models, and i perused various top players as well. what i noticed about real plus minus is that it is more linear from worst/average/best as compared with ws48, which seems more bell curvish, with a greater number of middling players clumped together above and below a median.
you are using a quick eye ball test when comparing data that is to be used specifically to avoid failed eye testing
or i have better-than-average pattern recognition ability 
dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.
is that not enough and if not, how not?
what are you comparing side by side?
espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48
I know but are you just comparing a couple of players to see how they measure up with the 2 stats?
i looked at our starters in both statistical models, and i perused various top players as well. what i noticed about real plus minus is that it is more linear from worst/average/best as compared with ws48, which seems more bell curvish, with a greater number of middling players clumped together above and below a median.
you are using a quick eye ball test when comparing data that is to be used specifically to avoid failed eye testing
or i have better-than-average pattern recognition ability
thats what they all think
mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.
is that not enough and if not, how not?
what are you comparing side by side?
espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48
I know but are you just comparing a couple of players to see how they measure up with the 2 stats?
i looked at our starters in both statistical models, and i perused various top players as well. what i noticed about real plus minus is that it is more linear from worst/average/best as compared with ws48, which seems more bell curvish, with a greater number of middling players clumped together above and below a median.
you are using a quick eye ball test when comparing data that is to be used specifically to avoid failed eye testing
or i have better-than-average pattern recognition ability
thats what they all think
before they are brought low by those who don't think?
dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.
is that not enough and if not, how not?
what are you comparing side by side?
espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48
Honestly, to have a really good sense of which stats to use requires grad level training in statistics and full-time dedication to learning about all of them. I don't really have that time dedication (thankfully). So I just look at all the major advanced stats: win shares, wins produced, real plus minus (it's OK to look at it), box plus minus, value over replacement, the player tracking data, and more. When I'm too busy for all that, I just look at the win shares but I realize that's not a great approach.
Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.
is that not enough and if not, how not?
what are you comparing side by side?
espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48
Honestly, to have a really good sense of which stats to use requires grad level training in statistics and full-time dedication to learning about all of them. I don't really have that time dedication (thankfully). So I just look at all the major advanced stats: win shares, wins produced, real plus minus (it's OK to look at it), box plus minus, value over replacement, the player tracking data, and more. When I'm too busy for all that, I just look at the win shares but I realize that's not a great approach.
right, and by every measure outside of the eye test afflalo is being awarded too many minutes.
dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:dk7th wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mreinman wrote:why are we looking at RPM when we have WS48 which is a much more respected stat?
Yeah, if you Google "problems with Real Plus Minus" you'll need a few days to read about all its problems.
The biggest problem is that the coefficients are usually statistically insignificant - or in lay terms, there's too much error in the measurement to say that a player's impact is different from zero unless the RPM is very high or very low and based on a huge sample.
what is very high or very low? and what is a large-enough sample? i look at the numbers and they dovetail pretty well with what i am seeing on the court over half a season. also, i could not find a list of win share per 48 to look at for comparison's sake. do either of you have a link for me to examine?
Well, you'd have to actually do the right statistical tests to determine the confidence intervals for each player. I doubt half a season is a large enough sample anyway from what I've read about the stat.
what about using two different statistical models and examining how well they correlate? i liked the real plus minus, mreinman said ws48 was more respected, i examined both-- briefly-- side by side, and saw similar-enough results/measures to feel confident in my conclusion.
is that not enough and if not, how not?
what are you comparing side by side?
espn's real plus minus and your bball ref ws48
Honestly, to have a really good sense of which stats to use requires grad level training in statistics and full-time dedication to learning about all of them. I don't really have that time dedication (thankfully). So I just look at all the major advanced stats: win shares, wins produced, real plus minus (it's OK to look at it), box plus minus, value over replacement, the player tracking data, and more. When I'm too busy for all that, I just look at the win shares but I realize that's not a great approach.
right, and by every measure outside of the eye test afflalo is being awarded too many minutes.
When I last looked at the #s carefully, my conclusion was that all our guards were basically sixth man material and were roughly comparable.
