So Dame Lillard scores 71 points tonight and is +21. Cam Reddish scores 7 but is +30. How can you take +/- seriously?
KnickDanger wrote:So Dame Lillard scores 71 points tonight and is +21. Cam Reddish scores 7 but is +30. How can you take +/- seriously?
Highly dependent on who else is on the floor at the same time.
But if your +/- is consistently bad… where there’s smoke there’s fire.
I believe the Knicks won the trade deadline by acquiring Hart but man……Lakers are a close second with Vanderbilt. Dude has been fantastic for them so far.
For my BBall enthusiast, check out last nights game Lakers/Dallas (specifically the second half). He did a great job defending Doncic
Swishfm3 wrote:I believe the Knicks won the trade deadline by acquiring Hart but man……Lakers are a close second with Vanderbilt. Dude has been fantastic for them so far.For my BBall enthusiast, check out last nights game Lakers/Dallas (specifically the second half). He did a great job defending Doncic
I don’t know all the cap ramifications of the Lakers moves but this is kind a hot topic for me because I was really hoping Knicks could get Vanderbilt.
At a high level — the Knicks traded Cam and our lottery protected #1 pick this year and we get just Hart.
The Lakers brought in Hachimura, Russell, Bamba, Beasley and VANDERBILT and I think when you net it all out with picks back and forth it cost them the corpse of Westbrook, a top 5? Protected #1 and 2 seconds.
So 5 playable players for a top 5 protected and 2 seconds vs Knicks give up top 14 protected plus Cam for just J hart (who I love).
How did the Jazz, Wizards or T-Wolves not at least squeeze A-Reeves or L Walker out of LA at a minimum.
Just seems like price for LA was VERY LOW
LivingLegend wrote:Swishfm3 wrote:I believe the Knicks won the trade deadline by acquiring Hart but man……Lakers are a close second with Vanderbilt. Dude has been fantastic for them so far.For my BBall enthusiast, check out last nights game Lakers/Dallas (specifically the second half). He did a great job defending Doncic
I don’t know all the cap ramifications of the Lakers moves but this is kind a hot topic for me because I was really hoping Knicks could get Vanderbilt.
At a high level — the Knicks traded Cam and our lottery protected #1 pick this year and we get just Hart.
The Lakers brought in Hachimura, Russell, Bamba, Beasley and VANDERBILT and I think when you net it all out with picks back and forth it cost them the corpse of Westbrook, a top 5? Protected #1 and 2 seconds.
So 5 playable players for a top 5 protected and 2 seconds vs Knicks give up top 14 protected plus Cam for just J hart (who I love).
How did the Jazz, Wizards or T-Wolves not at least squeeze A-Reeves or L Walker out of LA at a minimum.
Just seems like price for LA was VERY LOW
Knicks tax vs Lakers discount.
LivingLegend wrote:Swishfm3 wrote:I believe the Knicks won the trade deadline by acquiring Hart but man……Lakers are a close second with Vanderbilt. Dude has been fantastic for them so far.For my BBall enthusiast, check out last nights game Lakers/Dallas (specifically the second half). He did a great job defending Doncic
I don’t know all the cap ramifications of the Lakers moves but this is kind a hot topic for me because I was really hoping Knicks could get Vanderbilt.
At a high level — the Knicks traded Cam and our lottery protected #1 pick this year and we get just Hart.
The Lakers brought in Hachimura, Russell, Bamba, Beasley and VANDERBILT and I think when you net it all out with picks back and forth it cost them the corpse of Westbrook, a top 5? Protected #1 and 2 seconds.
So 5 playable players for a top 5 protected and 2 seconds vs Knicks give up top 14 protected plus Cam for just J hart (who I love).
How did the Jazz, Wizards or T-Wolves not at least squeeze A-Reeves or L Walker out of LA at a minimum.
Just seems like price for LA was VERY LOW
bunch are free agents after this year. So is potentiall Jhart but......There likly was a price discussed prior that we'd meet to bring him back.
Lakers needed volume short term. We don't.
Lakers maintain cap space to sign Kyrie.
ToddTT wrote:
Hahaha
Interesting that tonight Thibs says we have a team of leaders and gym rats —- wonder where Cam factored into that comment
LivingLegend wrote:ToddTT wrote:
Hahaha
Interesting that tonight Thibs says we have a team of leaders and gym rats —- wonder where Cam factored into that comment
I think at this point we can read the tea leaves and determine there was a work ethic issue with Cam specifically on the Knicks. Won’t speak to the rest of his career.
Nets lose tonight. Knicks have 5th seed all to their lonesome. Two back of Cavs in loss column for 4th 😎
martin wrote:KnickDanger wrote:Nets lose tonight. Knicks have 5th seed all to their lonesome. Two back of Cavs in loss column for 4th 😎
Love this, and wizards win!!
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/3575...Kyrie got a hug. Dude is hyper sensitive. Pattern is he is loved with each new team then the honeymoon is over and when you make tens of millions expectations are become part of it then he seems to express that he is somehow exploited in some ways when the team fails to meet those expectations. Kyrie is not a bad person. He might not be the smartest guy and his does not back down when he might be wrong. I suppose as long as he can play at this level he can keep getting this kind of money and it empowers him. If lakers go after him he then has leverage and perhaps get a 4 year super contract. Not my team, not my problem.
He is an exceptional talent. When that talent leaves him in time he’ll find the true value of his voice.
He is admired by teammates and others in the league for sticking to his values. While I don’t agree with some of his decisions I understand that. What I don’t agree with is that he is not forced to play professional basketball. He chooses this.
Revenue sharing made a big leap from players being treated like “property” and in time they are partners. Not equity partners as they have not paid for the infrastructure but in revenue (not gross profit!) and the league provides them with a platform for endorsements. They need not share that with the league.
Back on point, Kyrie in time if not pampered seems to rebel against:
Lebron
Cav’s
Celtics
Nets
league
Media
Science
Gallileo
KnickDanger wrote:So Dame Lillard scores 71 points tonight and is +21. Cam Reddish scores 7 but is +30. How can you take +/- seriously?
No one who thinks critically takes analytics as seriously as the media does
Philc1 wrote:KnickDanger wrote:So Dame Lillard scores 71 points tonight and is +21. Cam Reddish scores 7 but is +30. How can you take +/- seriously?
No one who thinks critically takes analytics as seriously as the media does
People who think critically understand and properly apply analytics.
The FIRST thing a statistician or trained analyst would tell you is small sample size is not only worthless, it's often misleading.
There is NOTHING wrong with tracking +/- for a game to add to a greater whole
There is EVERYTHING wrong with trying to prove OR dismiss the value of +/- based on one game.
+/- has value in the macro, not the micro, which is universally true of almost any statistical measure.
Knickoftime wrote:Philc1 wrote:KnickDanger wrote:So Dame Lillard scores 71 points tonight and is +21. Cam Reddish scores 7 but is +30. How can you take +/- seriously?
No one who thinks critically takes analytics as seriously as the media does
People who think critically understand and properly apply analytics.
The FIRST thing a statistician or trained analyst would tell you is small sample size is not only worthless, it's often misleading.
There is NOTHING wrong with tracking +/- for a game to add to a greater whole
There is EVERYTHING wrong with trying to prove OR dismiss the value of +/- based on one game.
+/- has value in the macro, not the micro, which is universally true of almost any statistical measure.
Getting pretty windy in here!
KnickDanger wrote:Knickoftime wrote:Philc1 wrote:KnickDanger wrote:So Dame Lillard scores 71 points tonight and is +21. Cam Reddish scores 7 but is +30. How can you take +/- seriously?
No one who thinks critically takes analytics as seriously as the media does
People who think critically understand and properly apply analytics.
The FIRST thing a statistician or trained analyst would tell you is small sample size is not only worthless, it's often misleading.
There is NOTHING wrong with tracking +/- for a game to add to a greater whole
There is EVERYTHING wrong with trying to prove OR dismiss the value of +/- based on one game.
+/- has value in the macro, not the micro, which is universally true of almost any statistical measure.
Getting pretty windy in here!
Light summer breeze at best.
