Knicks · What is really wrong with RJ Barrett? Is there a deeper problem? (page 8)
Regarding RJ, he can be extremely frustrating to watch at times. For me it really comes down to his inability to hit hit the open 3 in rhythm and/or some of his bad looking turnovers. My thoughts on his 3 point shooting is that the issue is between his ears as he was able to shoot at a .400 clip 2 years ago. Turnovers are a concern but have been helped a bit by him getting more calls from the refs when he attacks the rim. He has a propensity to get hacked and on the past not get the benefit of calls.
A few comments on advanced stats....
Basketball is a frenetic system with a significant amount of co-dependencies which impact individual success or failure. Examples .... a teammates pass made timed appropriately, in rhythm and on target will increase chance of shot execution of the recieving player. A proper box out by a teammate may lead to a defensive rebound by different player. A properly executed pick increases another players drive or open look. A missed defensive rotation might mean a teammate gets scored on. An opponent defender misses an assignment. An opponent makes a shot even when defended well.
That all being said, beyond FT% I'm not sure I'm smart enough to cherry pick which advanced stats are a function of pure individual performance and which are a function of how well oiled 5 players are in a system against continually variable sets of 5 other players who may or may not be as effective. I'm not seen any discussion here that addresses these continual statistical variations on individual player performance metrics.
foosballnick wrote:What I'm having trouble understanding is how all the armchair Knicks fan GMs/Coaches reconcile the Barrett ineptitude against Thibs playing him (still) almost 30 minutes per game. After all, why wouldn't Thibs also have to be inept to give a player such a significant role when he is his 8th offensive option (as one poster ranked RJ) and also a shitty ass defender who's been also labeled as "poor at everything"?Regarding RJ, he can be extremely frustrating to watch at times. For me it really comes down to his inability to hit hit the open 3 in rhythm and/or some of his bad looking turnovers. My thoughts on his 3 point shooting is that the issue is between his ears as he was able to shoot at a .400 clip 2 years ago. Turnovers are a concern but have been helped a bit by him getting more calls from the refs when he attacks the rim. He has a propensity to get hacked and on the past not get the benefit of calls.
A few comments on advanced stats....
Basketball is a frenetic system with a significant amount of co-dependencies which impact individual success or failure. Examples .... a teammates pass made timed appropriately, in rhythm and on target will increase chance of shot execution of the recieving player. A proper box out by a teammate may lead to a defensive rebound by different player. A properly executed pick increases another players drive or open look. A missed defensive rotation might mean a teammate gets scored on. An opponent defender misses an assignment. An opponent makes a shot even when defended well.
That all being said, beyond FT% I'm not sure I'm smart enough to cherry pick which advanced stats are a function of pure individual performance and which are a function of how well oiled 5 players are in a system against continually variable sets of 5 other players who may or may not be as effective. I'm not seen any discussion here that addresses these continual statistical variations on individual player performance metrics.
Reasonable people can differ in how they would handle situations. A lot of us argued about Evan Fournier's role on the team and it took Thibs longer to reach the same conclusion. I don't know if Thibs has a mandate from upstairs to start folks. I also don't have to travel and live with these guys and manage interpersonal relationships. I have the luxury of critiquing from afar and giving plain critique based on stats. With a young player, the move from the starting lineup to the second unit or the bench might impact them more mentally than we would like. See Reddish, Cam. Maybe Thibs is giving him time to figure it out, but is not suing him in crunch time. Last playoffs, Elf essentially got benched despite starting all year. There are a ton of valid reasons outside of the efficiency arguments to leave Barrett where he is.
In terms of interaction with the rest of the team, I agree with you. That synergy is important. Personally, I think that swapping IQ and Barrett in the starting unit is best for everyone involved if we are only discussing winning this playoff series. That's my opinion. I don't know that Thibs does this. And maybe Thibs sticks with Barrett and he has his Wiggins moment in the playoffs, setting him up for an all-star year next year. I don't think that 22 year old Barrett is dead in the water, he's just gotta do better on offense.
Barrett is at 105. I think their analysis is pretty spot on. They erroneously list him as a Nugget unless they know something we don't. But basically, he needs to work on his jumper and could use better spacing to help his efficiency. Sounds right.
foosballnick wrote:What I'm having trouble understanding is how all the armchair Knicks fan GMs/Coaches reconcile the Barrett ineptitude against Thibs playing him (still) almost 30 minutes per game. After all, why wouldn't Thibs also have to be inept to give a player such a significant role when he is his 8th offensive option (as one poster ranked RJ) and also a shitty ass defender who's been also labeled as "poor at everything"?
We understand that as a pick #3 RJ still has enough of a ceiling that you want to play him enough minutes? There is a ton of grey area there but development is still going on?
For me, even though Brunson is probably THE best clutch performer in the league - or in the top 10 or whatnot - there is still REALLY good reasons to give Randle and RJ the ball at the end of non-playoff games? We understand why, right?
EwingsGlass wrote:the bold... any by alot man. It aint close.joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:fishmike wrote:joec32033 wrote:poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.Jmpasq wrote:joec32033 wrote:Jmpasq wrote:joec32033 wrote:ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.
Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?
He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley
So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?
Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.
How exactly is he a bad fit?Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"
Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?
How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?
On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..
RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).
No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.
All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.
You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.
RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.
The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.
But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...
I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.
Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.
I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.
If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).
Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can fuck right the fuck off.
I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.
Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.
You do what you got to do, brother.
You've kind of made it plain: "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care."
What other response are you looking for? I am literally just saying what you are reiterating back to me. You don't have a grasp of Advanced Stats, which you are in agreement with, and I stopped responding. Plus, in that thread, you are kind of conflating 3 different points and I didn't think it was worthwhile to engage past that.
You have an eye test. All of us do. There is not much after that if that is what you are heavily relying on.
I don't know why you have to say "No bias", cause that's literally what it is, your bias masked as your eye test.
I said "no bias" because Fish brought up not being biased in the origional post I quoted. And I said no bias....meaning no bias, it is my honest opinion.
fishmike wrote
poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"
Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?
How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?
Just because I have seen enough advanced stats-some that contradict each other-to feel that advanced stats are a good tool for comparison but not to say players are the same-it was in the RJ-Kobe thread. I have said before, they should never be the end all be all.They aren't but they are a good starting point. But it's difficult if you also say, "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care.". I get that maybe some of the stats are hard to interpret - I don't get RAPTOR or WAR but know enough that something like PER sucks. But you kinda went to an extreme?
For me, it's difficult to the point of almost useless to compare players from different eras while using baseline stats to compare them. Different rules (like hand checking) and completely different games (the 3 point spacing is a good example of that over the last 5+ years) enough so that spacing in this current form creates something totally different for a player like RJ than for Kobe or Jordan before him when going to the rim - in the 90's you just couldn't get to rim without a ton of hand-checking on top of the lack of spacing created by the deluge of 3point spacing in today's more modern game. In the 90's, when the paint was more packed, there is just no way RJ makes it there unabated in the way he does today.
At an extreme, we KNOW we can't compare eFG% of Mitch and Steph, right? It's just stupid. For me, comparing RJ FG% to Kobe may not be as egregious but they are enough apples and oranges that it's not worth the effort when you are doing an across the board comparison.
I agree with almost everything you said.
The reason I came so hard on not caring about the advanced stats is, at least in almost every argument I've made about RJ, is " but advanced stat x says..."
I said it before advanced stats are better for game planning then they are for player x is better than player y. But that is all that is being used now. I remember when I posted my cross era comparison, RJ had a efg of 47. Grimes had one of like 55. Jskinny said it a couple posts up. About RJ not adjusting well. Looking at the stats RJ attempted .5 less 3 pt attempts this year compared to last. And he made .3 less per game. That resulted in the drop from 34% to 31%. Putting aside that I feel that is eminently fixable, I can draw, imo, better conclusions from that than any advanced stat.
When I made that post I figured the tougher defense on the easier shots offset the wild dependence of the lower percentage shot of the modern game. No, it's not perfect, but that was my reasoning.
Advanced stats can be a good starting point as you said (depending on where you want to start, mind you) but no matter what there othe so many other factors that I think each individual advanced stat kind of has a limited spectrum of usefulness
Classic "Moneyball" vs "Trouble With the Curve" argument. "Moneyball" focuses on the role of data and statistics in modern baseball, while "Trouble with the Curve" explores the importance of experience and human judgment in evaluating talent. There is validity to your point, but now that we are focused on advanced metrics, I don't think you can take one without the other. I don't think there is a substitute for boots on the ground, but advanced metrics help avoid emotional biases by quantifying results and giving them ascertainable meaning.
Stats are tricky because they are painful when used incorrectly. "Bob is a great person. He's only killed one human being. That's 1 out of 7 billion. That's a really low percentage of all people." "Bob is horrible. He killed over 10,000 living beings last summer." Not a big deal if Bob works for a mosquito exterminator, but pretty horrifying if he is committing genocide. How we frame the stats can create odd outcomes if we don't give them meaning through proper comparison and identification. Advanced stats give the other volume stats more meaning because they otherwise don't have context.
We can say "Bob is a great salesman. He broke the all-time used car sales record for the Company" which objectively sounds fantastic until we learn "Bob's net profit margin on those sales was negative. He sold cars at a loss because he realized he didn't have to charge for upgrades in sales system". Bob isn't objectively a good salesperson if he isn't profitable on those sales. Adding a net profit component to a volume sales record gives real meaning.
RJ is a volume scorer. But he isn't getting those points efficiently. Adding eFG to the analysis of his scoring totals is like adding Net Profit to analysis of Bob's sales performance. RJ sells a lot of cars, but he's not profitable. Grimes sells less cars, but man, he is profitable when he does. Its possible Grimes is getting wide open shots while RJ is consistently double and triple teamed. Need boots on the ground to see the differences there. But objectively and unemotionally, Barrett's efficiency is below average.
EwingsGlass wrote:https://nbarankings.theringer.com/to be honest what really has me down on RJ's development is his handle. This is a pure effort thing. His handle stinks and its cause he's not putting in the work. IQ's has wildly improved. Randle's has. Grimes.... meh. McBride DEF has. Even Mitch has improved.... RJ simply cant use the dribble to get to his spots. His only move is to bulldoze his way there protecting the ball with his body which as we see barely puts him in position to score and NEVER puts him into position to pass. He's got scoring chops in the paint but he's a mess when he gets there. Its basic stuff like defensive awareness and being able to get to his spots to score that have me thinking this guy just isnt getting it. He's just not improving like the other guys on the team. Maybe Thibs is a bad fit. IDK man... just what I see. I just wanna get better and I think we have guys that deserve a shot at those minutes who help us win NOWBarrett is at 105. I think their analysis is pretty spot on. They erroneously list him as a Nugget unless they know something we don't. But basically, he needs to work on his jumper and could use better spacing to help his efficiency. Sounds right.
martin wrote:foosballnick wrote:What I'm having trouble understanding is how all the armchair Knicks fan GMs/Coaches reconcile the Barrett ineptitude against Thibs playing him (still) almost 30 minutes per game. After all, why wouldn't Thibs also have to be inept to give a player such a significant role when he is his 8th offensive option (as one poster ranked RJ) and also a shitty ass defender who's been also labeled as "poor at everything"?We understand that as a pick #3 RJ still has enough of a ceiling that you want to play him enough minutes? There is a ton of grey area there but development is still going on?
For me, even though Brunson is probably THE best clutch performer in the league - or in the top 10 or whatnot - there is still REALLY good reasons to give Randle and RJ the ball at the end of non-playoff games? We understand why, right?
I certainly understand that. Apparently others here who are tossing bombs into the discussion are having a difficult time with the concept and encapsulate the entire situation neatly onto 4 or 5 advanced metrics. Do you not see that in thses discussions?
fishmike wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:https://nbarankings.theringer.com/to be honest what really has me down on RJ's development is his handle. This is a pure effort thing. His handle stinks and its cause he's not putting in the work. IQ's has wildly improved. Randle's has. Grimes.... meh. McBride DEF has. Even Mitch has improved.... RJ simply cant use the dribble to get to his spots. His only move is to bulldoze his way there protecting the ball with his body which as we see barely puts him in position to score and NEVER puts him into position to pass. He's got scoring chops in the paint but he's a mess when he gets there. Its basic stuff like defensive awareness and being able to get to his spots to score that have me thinking this guy just isnt getting it. He's just not improving like the other guys on the team. Maybe Thibs is a bad fit. IDK man... just what I see. I just wanna get better and I think we have guys that deserve a shot at those minutes who help us win NOWBarrett is at 105. I think their analysis is pretty spot on. They erroneously list him as a Nugget unless they know something we don't. But basically, he needs to work on his jumper and could use better spacing to help his efficiency. Sounds right.
I think he billed up too much and want to see him cut weight this offseason. If there is any place I am cutting him slack, it’s due to the bulk. Could see him come back down 20 lbs next season, keeping the strength but dropping the bulk, with his legs under him and being a force. He just doesn’t have it right now.
Here's the thing, I actually find Thibs to be pretty no nonsense. Regardless of fans' takes on thses boards it takes a lot of balls to bench an $18M per year free agent signing player to essentially DNP status ever game. Thibs also essentially banished previous high draft picks Knox and Frank. He benched Kemba pretty early after his signing. He benched Cam right away and then benched him again after a string of games played. He is giving another fairly high draft pick Obi very limited minutes. Why would he do all that and choose to do the opposite with RJ? This FO nor coach did not draft RJ. But yet when they took over they played him extended minutes and even extended his contract. Reasonably they can't be that blind.....meaning they evaluated and understand the kid has enough talent and work ethic. While others here are sh1tting on him, Thibs knows what he is doing from my perspective
foosballnick wrote:martin wrote:foosballnick wrote:What I'm having trouble understanding is how all the armchair Knicks fan GMs/Coaches reconcile the Barrett ineptitude against Thibs playing him (still) almost 30 minutes per game. After all, why wouldn't Thibs also have to be inept to give a player such a significant role when he is his 8th offensive option (as one poster ranked RJ) and also a shitty ass defender who's been also labeled as "poor at everything"?We understand that as a pick #3 RJ still has enough of a ceiling that you want to play him enough minutes? There is a ton of grey area there but development is still going on?
For me, even though Brunson is probably THE best clutch performer in the league - or in the top 10 or whatnot - there is still REALLY good reasons to give Randle and RJ the ball at the end of non-playoff games? We understand why, right?
I certainly understand that. Apparently others here who are tossing bombs into the discussion are having a difficult time with the concept and encapsulate the entire situation neatly onto 4 or 5 advanced metrics. Do you not see that in thses discussions?
well, I'm not saying RJ doesn't suck 
martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:I agree with almost everything you said.The reason I came so hard on not caring about the advanced stats is, at least in almost every argument I've made about RJ, is " but advanced stat x says..."
I said it before advanced stats are better for game planning then they are for player x is better than player y. But that is all that is being used now. I remember when I posted my cross era comparison, RJ had a efg of 47. Grimes had one of like 55. Jskinny said it a couple posts up. About RJ not adjusting well. Looking at the stats RJ attempted .5 less 3 pt attempts this year compared to last. And he made .3 less per game. That resulted in the drop from 34% to 31%. Putting aside that I feel that is eminently fixable, I can draw, imo, better conclusions from that than any advanced stat.
When I made that post I figured the tougher defense on the easier shots offset the wild dependence of the lower percentage shot of the modern game. No, it's not perfect, but that was my reasoning.
Advanced stats can be a good starting point as you said (depending on where you want to start, mind you) but no matter what there othe so many other factors that I think each individual advanced stat kind of has a limited spectrum of usefulness
I don't get the planning part. For me, advanced stats give us a better or deeper understanding of what the player is doing and then a better way to compare those two players, not player X is better than player Y. It's a nuance but it's the comparison part that is usually more important.
So, instead of just FG%, we know that eFG% is better when considering shooters in the modern game. It's not the whole story but it gets us to a better understanding of the story, and then you can compare.
I don't really understand your JSkinny scenario and how you are using stats in that instance; it doesn't make sense to me.
In regards to the planning part.
I think advanced stat better can show where players should be, what shots they are more effective taking, what combinations may be working better, what defenses may be working against what offenses.
Ok. Let's take your efg%. The formula is: (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. It gives 3 pointers more value because they are worth more, but assigning a value of .5 more to 3 pointers seems random to me when measuring the difficulty of the shot vs the point value of the shot. FG% has nothing to do with points the shot is worth. Half court shots are worth the same as corner 3's. The average NBA 3P% is 36. The average NBA 2P% is about 55% (I couldnt find the exact number so I looked https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/tw... and picked the 15 ranked team. That means a 3 pointer is 19% harder to make. Why is that value not used? To me it would make more sense.
Another one I posted the equation for was points per posession. the equation is: PPP = Points ÷ (Field Goal Attempts + (0.44 x Free Throw Attempts) + Turnovers). In this instance turnovers are measured are factored in. Why are steals and rebounds not? At the very least if you are counting turnovers, you should factor in steals somehow, imo.
Maybe I am being too nitpicky with this, but this is why I advanced stats as malleable. Assigning values really irks me. Not looking at all aspects of what is being measured does too.
I don't think any regular stat or advanced stat will ever tell the whole story, which is why you also have to watch and know what you are looking at to apply these numbers. I don't think saying player X has a 1.07 PPP so they are so much better than a player with a 1.02 PPP.
Like I said maybe it's just me, but that is really how I look at it.
EwingsGlass wrote:joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:fishmike wrote:joec32033 wrote:poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.Jmpasq wrote:joec32033 wrote:Jmpasq wrote:joec32033 wrote:ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.
Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?
He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley
So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?
Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.
How exactly is he a bad fit?Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"
Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?
How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?
On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..
RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).
No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.
All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.
You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.
RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.
The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.
But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...
I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.
Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.
I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.
If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).
Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can fuck right the fuck off.
I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.
Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.
You do what you got to do, brother.
You've kind of made it plain: "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care."
What other response are you looking for? I am literally just saying what you are reiterating back to me. You don't have a grasp of Advanced Stats, which you are in agreement with, and I stopped responding. Plus, in that thread, you are kind of conflating 3 different points and I didn't think it was worthwhile to engage past that.
You have an eye test. All of us do. There is not much after that if that is what you are heavily relying on.
I don't know why you have to say "No bias", cause that's literally what it is, your bias masked as your eye test.
I said "no bias" because Fish brought up not being biased in the origional post I quoted. And I said no bias....meaning no bias, it is my honest opinion.
fishmike wrote
poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"
Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?
How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?
Just because I have seen enough advanced stats-some that contradict each other-to feel that advanced stats are a good tool for comparison but not to say players are the same-it was in the RJ-Kobe thread. I have said before, they should never be the end all be all.They aren't but they are a good starting point. But it's difficult if you also say, "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care.". I get that maybe some of the stats are hard to interpret - I don't get RAPTOR or WAR but know enough that something like PER sucks. But you kinda went to an extreme?
For me, it's difficult to the point of almost useless to compare players from different eras while using baseline stats to compare them. Different rules (like hand checking) and completely different games (the 3 point spacing is a good example of that over the last 5+ years) enough so that spacing in this current form creates something totally different for a player like RJ than for Kobe or Jordan before him when going to the rim - in the 90's you just couldn't get to rim without a ton of hand-checking on top of the lack of spacing created by the deluge of 3point spacing in today's more modern game. In the 90's, when the paint was more packed, there is just no way RJ makes it there unabated in the way he does today.
At an extreme, we KNOW we can't compare eFG% of Mitch and Steph, right? It's just stupid. For me, comparing RJ FG% to Kobe may not be as egregious but they are enough apples and oranges that it's not worth the effort when you are doing an across the board comparison.
I agree with almost everything you said.
The reason I came so hard on not caring about the advanced stats is, at least in almost every argument I've made about RJ, is " but advanced stat x says..."
I said it before advanced stats are better for game planning then they are for player x is better than player y. But that is all that is being used now. I remember when I posted my cross era comparison, RJ had a efg of 47. Grimes had one of like 55. Jskinny said it a couple posts up. About RJ not adjusting well. Looking at the stats RJ attempted .5 less 3 pt attempts this year compared to last. And he made .3 less per game. That resulted in the drop from 34% to 31%. Putting aside that I feel that is eminently fixable, I can draw, imo, better conclusions from that than any advanced stat.
When I made that post I figured the tougher defense on the easier shots offset the wild dependence of the lower percentage shot of the modern game. No, it's not perfect, but that was my reasoning.
Advanced stats can be a good starting point as you said (depending on where you want to start, mind you) but no matter what there othe so many other factors that I think each individual advanced stat kind of has a limited spectrum of usefulness
Classic "Moneyball" vs "Trouble With the Curve" argument. "Moneyball" focuses on the role of data and statistics in modern baseball, while "Trouble with the Curve" explores the importance of experience and human judgment in evaluating talent. There is validity to your point, but now that we are focused on advanced metrics, I don't think you can take one without the other. I don't think there is a substitute for boots on the ground, but advanced metrics help avoid emotional biases by quantifying results and giving them ascertainable meaning.
Stats are tricky because they are painful when used incorrectly. "Bob is a great person. He's only killed one human being. That's 1 out of 7 billion. That's a really low percentage of all people." "Bob is horrible. He killed over 10,000 living beings last summer." Not a big deal if Bob works for a mosquito exterminator, but pretty horrifying if he is committing genocide. How we frame the stats can create odd outcomes if we don't give them meaning through proper comparison and identification. Advanced stats give the other volume stats more meaning because they otherwise don't have context.
We can say "Bob is a great salesman. He broke the all-time used car sales record for the Company" which objectively sounds fantastic until we learn "Bob's net profit margin on those sales was negative. He sold cars at a loss because he realized he didn't have to charge for upgrades in sales system". Bob isn't objectively a good salesperson if he isn't profitable on those sales. Adding a net profit component to a volume sales record gives real meaning.
RJ is a volume scorer. But he isn't getting those points efficiently. Adding eFG to the analysis of his scoring totals is like adding Net Profit to analysis of Bob's sales performance. RJ sells a lot of cars, but he's not profitable. Grimes sells less cars, but man, he is profitable when he does. Its possible Grimes is getting wide open shots while RJ is consistently double and triple teamed. Need boots on the ground to see the differences there. But objectively and unemotionally, Barrett's efficiency is below average.
I get everything you are saying and you are not wrong. I have never said RJ was efficient (I have tried to show that RJ's inefficiency was not as uncommon as most people are making it out to be however.) RJ is lierally 1 make per game (or 2 less shots per game with the same amount of makes) from being a 50% FG shooter. My point is that is fixable. Now his 3 point shooting isn't the best but even in that case he is one make a game away from (at the same shooting rate of 5.3 a game) from being a 50% 3 point shooter. If he takes one more shot and makes it, that would be 2.7/6.3 (42% shooting). I'm not saying it is definately going to happen but it doesn't seem like it is impossible for him to improve.
And Bob needs to chill out and have a Mai Tai. It ain't that serious.
foosballnick wrote:What I'm having trouble understanding is how all the armchair Knicks fan GMs/Coaches reconcile the Barrett ineptitude against Thibs playing him (still) almost 30 minutes per game. After all, why wouldn't Thibs also have to be inept to give a player such a significant role when he is his 8th offensive option (as one poster ranked RJ) and also a shitty ass defender who's been also labeled as "poor at everything"?Regarding RJ, he can be extremely frustrating to watch at times. For me it really comes down to his inability to hit hit the open 3 in rhythm and/or some of his bad looking turnovers. My thoughts on his 3 point shooting is that the issue is between his ears as he was able to shoot at a .400 clip 2 years ago. Turnovers are a concern but have been helped a bit by him getting more calls from the refs when he attacks the rim. He has a propensity to get hacked and on the past not get the benefit of calls.
A few comments on advanced stats....
Basketball is a frenetic system with a significant amount of co-dependencies which impact individual success or failure. Examples .... a teammates pass made timed appropriately, in rhythm and on target will increase chance of shot execution of the recieving player. A proper box out by a teammate may lead to a defensive rebound by different player. A properly executed pick increases another players drive or open look. A missed defensive rotation might mean a teammate gets scored on. An opponent defender misses an assignment. An opponent makes a shot even when defended well.
That all being said, beyond FT% I'm not sure I'm smart enough to cherry pick which advanced stats are a function of pure individual performance and which are a function of how well oiled 5 players are in a system against continually variable sets of 5 other players who may or may not be as effective. I'm not seen any discussion here that addresses these continual statistical variations on individual player performance metrics.
We won 47 games with RJ getting 30+ minutes a night. If RJ was benched like a lot of these guys are salivating for maybe we win 60 games?
joec32033 wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:fishmike wrote:joec32033 wrote:poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.Jmpasq wrote:joec32033 wrote:Jmpasq wrote:joec32033 wrote:ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.
Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?
He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley
So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?
Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.
How exactly is he a bad fit?Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"
Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?
How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?
On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..
RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).
No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.
All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.
You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.
RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.
The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.
But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...
I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.
Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.
I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.
If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).
Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can fuck right the fuck off.
I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.
Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.
You do what you got to do, brother.
You've kind of made it plain: "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care."
What other response are you looking for? I am literally just saying what you are reiterating back to me. You don't have a grasp of Advanced Stats, which you are in agreement with, and I stopped responding. Plus, in that thread, you are kind of conflating 3 different points and I didn't think it was worthwhile to engage past that.
You have an eye test. All of us do. There is not much after that if that is what you are heavily relying on.
I don't know why you have to say "No bias", cause that's literally what it is, your bias masked as your eye test.
I said "no bias" because Fish brought up not being biased in the origional post I quoted. And I said no bias....meaning no bias, it is my honest opinion.
fishmike wrote
poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"
Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?
How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?
Just because I have seen enough advanced stats-some that contradict each other-to feel that advanced stats are a good tool for comparison but not to say players are the same-it was in the RJ-Kobe thread. I have said before, they should never be the end all be all.They aren't but they are a good starting point. But it's difficult if you also say, "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care.". I get that maybe some of the stats are hard to interpret - I don't get RAPTOR or WAR but know enough that something like PER sucks. But you kinda went to an extreme?
For me, it's difficult to the point of almost useless to compare players from different eras while using baseline stats to compare them. Different rules (like hand checking) and completely different games (the 3 point spacing is a good example of that over the last 5+ years) enough so that spacing in this current form creates something totally different for a player like RJ than for Kobe or Jordan before him when going to the rim - in the 90's you just couldn't get to rim without a ton of hand-checking on top of the lack of spacing created by the deluge of 3point spacing in today's more modern game. In the 90's, when the paint was more packed, there is just no way RJ makes it there unabated in the way he does today.
At an extreme, we KNOW we can't compare eFG% of Mitch and Steph, right? It's just stupid. For me, comparing RJ FG% to Kobe may not be as egregious but they are enough apples and oranges that it's not worth the effort when you are doing an across the board comparison.
I agree with almost everything you said.
The reason I came so hard on not caring about the advanced stats is, at least in almost every argument I've made about RJ, is " but advanced stat x says..."
I said it before advanced stats are better for game planning then they are for player x is better than player y. But that is all that is being used now. I remember when I posted my cross era comparison, RJ had a efg of 47. Grimes had one of like 55. Jskinny said it a couple posts up. About RJ not adjusting well. Looking at the stats RJ attempted .5 less 3 pt attempts this year compared to last. And he made .3 less per game. That resulted in the drop from 34% to 31%. Putting aside that I feel that is eminently fixable, I can draw, imo, better conclusions from that than any advanced stat.
When I made that post I figured the tougher defense on the easier shots offset the wild dependence of the lower percentage shot of the modern game. No, it's not perfect, but that was my reasoning.
Advanced stats can be a good starting point as you said (depending on where you want to start, mind you) but no matter what there othe so many other factors that I think each individual advanced stat kind of has a limited spectrum of usefulness
Classic "Moneyball" vs "Trouble With the Curve" argument. "Moneyball" focuses on the role of data and statistics in modern baseball, while "Trouble with the Curve" explores the importance of experience and human judgment in evaluating talent. There is validity to your point, but now that we are focused on advanced metrics, I don't think you can take one without the other. I don't think there is a substitute for boots on the ground, but advanced metrics help avoid emotional biases by quantifying results and giving them ascertainable meaning.
Stats are tricky because they are painful when used incorrectly. "Bob is a great person. He's only killed one human being. That's 1 out of 7 billion. That's a really low percentage of all people." "Bob is horrible. He killed over 10,000 living beings last summer." Not a big deal if Bob works for a mosquito exterminator, but pretty horrifying if he is committing genocide. How we frame the stats can create odd outcomes if we don't give them meaning through proper comparison and identification. Advanced stats give the other volume stats more meaning because they otherwise don't have context.
We can say "Bob is a great salesman. He broke the all-time used car sales record for the Company" which objectively sounds fantastic until we learn "Bob's net profit margin on those sales was negative. He sold cars at a loss because he realized he didn't have to charge for upgrades in sales system". Bob isn't objectively a good salesperson if he isn't profitable on those sales. Adding a net profit component to a volume sales record gives real meaning.
RJ is a volume scorer. But he isn't getting those points efficiently. Adding eFG to the analysis of his scoring totals is like adding Net Profit to analysis of Bob's sales performance. RJ sells a lot of cars, but he's not profitable. Grimes sells less cars, but man, he is profitable when he does. Its possible Grimes is getting wide open shots while RJ is consistently double and triple teamed. Need boots on the ground to see the differences there. But objectively and unemotionally, Barrett's efficiency is below average.
I get everything you are saying and you are not wrong. I have never said RJ was efficient (I have tried to show that RJ's inefficiency was not as uncommon as most people are making it out to be however.) RJ is lierally 1 make per game (or 2 less shots per game with the same amount of makes) from being a 50% FG shooter. My point is that is fixable. Now his 3 point shooting isn't the best but even in that case he is one make a game away from (at the same shooting rate of 5.3 a game) from being a 50% 3 point shooter. If he takes one more shot and makes it, that would be 2.7/6.3 (42% shooting). I'm not saying it is definately going to happen but it doesn't seem like it is impossible for him to improve.
And Bob needs to chill out and have a Mai Tai. It ain't that serious.
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/rj-barr...
Okay. Let’s objectively define “good” or “average” even. If a players shoots above the league average for a specific shot he can be “good” at that shot. If he shoots below league average for a particular shot, he is not good at that shot. A good player takes shots he is good at. A bad players takes shots he is bad at. Which of these two shot charts looks better?
Philc1 wrote:foosballnick wrote:What I'm having trouble understanding is how all the armchair Knicks fan GMs/Coaches reconcile the Barrett ineptitude against Thibs playing him (still) almost 30 minutes per game. After all, why wouldn't Thibs also have to be inept to give a player such a significant role when he is his 8th offensive option (as one poster ranked RJ) and also a shitty ass defender who's been also labeled as "poor at everything"?Regarding RJ, he can be extremely frustrating to watch at times. For me it really comes down to his inability to hit hit the open 3 in rhythm and/or some of his bad looking turnovers. My thoughts on his 3 point shooting is that the issue is between his ears as he was able to shoot at a .400 clip 2 years ago. Turnovers are a concern but have been helped a bit by him getting more calls from the refs when he attacks the rim. He has a propensity to get hacked and on the past not get the benefit of calls.
A few comments on advanced stats....
Basketball is a frenetic system with a significant amount of co-dependencies which impact individual success or failure. Examples .... a teammates pass made timed appropriately, in rhythm and on target will increase chance of shot execution of the recieving player. A proper box out by a teammate may lead to a defensive rebound by different player. A properly executed pick increases another players drive or open look. A missed defensive rotation might mean a teammate gets scored on. An opponent defender misses an assignment. An opponent makes a shot even when defended well.
That all being said, beyond FT% I'm not sure I'm smart enough to cherry pick which advanced stats are a function of pure individual performance and which are a function of how well oiled 5 players are in a system against continually variable sets of 5 other players who may or may not be as effective. I'm not seen any discussion here that addresses these continual statistical variations on individual player performance metrics.
We won 47 games with RJ getting 30+ minutes a night. If RJ was benched like a lot of these guys are salivating for maybe we win 60 games?
OK, but we were struggling to stay over .500 for a good while until the Hart trade. Notice how the Knicks took off and went on a pace to win 50+ plus wins when they were able to replace a portion of RJ's wing minutes with a guy who gave them above average minutes at the wing.
BigDaddyG wrote:Philc1 wrote:foosballnick wrote:What I'm having trouble understanding is how all the armchair Knicks fan GMs/Coaches reconcile the Barrett ineptitude against Thibs playing him (still) almost 30 minutes per game. After all, why wouldn't Thibs also have to be inept to give a player such a significant role when he is his 8th offensive option (as one poster ranked RJ) and also a shitty ass defender who's been also labeled as "poor at everything"?Regarding RJ, he can be extremely frustrating to watch at times. For me it really comes down to his inability to hit hit the open 3 in rhythm and/or some of his bad looking turnovers. My thoughts on his 3 point shooting is that the issue is between his ears as he was able to shoot at a .400 clip 2 years ago. Turnovers are a concern but have been helped a bit by him getting more calls from the refs when he attacks the rim. He has a propensity to get hacked and on the past not get the benefit of calls.
A few comments on advanced stats....
Basketball is a frenetic system with a significant amount of co-dependencies which impact individual success or failure. Examples .... a teammates pass made timed appropriately, in rhythm and on target will increase chance of shot execution of the recieving player. A proper box out by a teammate may lead to a defensive rebound by different player. A properly executed pick increases another players drive or open look. A missed defensive rotation might mean a teammate gets scored on. An opponent defender misses an assignment. An opponent makes a shot even when defended well.
That all being said, beyond FT% I'm not sure I'm smart enough to cherry pick which advanced stats are a function of pure individual performance and which are a function of how well oiled 5 players are in a system against continually variable sets of 5 other players who may or may not be as effective. I'm not seen any discussion here that addresses these continual statistical variations on individual player performance metrics.
We won 47 games with RJ getting 30+ minutes a night. If RJ was benched like a lot of these guys are salivating for maybe we win 60 games?
OK, but we were struggling to stay over .500 for a good while until the Hart trade. Notice how the Knicks took off and went on a pace to win 50+ plus wins when they were able to replace a portion of RJ's wing minutes with a guy who gave them above average minutes at the wing.
Let's assume everyone is right for a moment. Seriously. Its possible the only flaw Barrett has is that he doesn't fit well with this starting 5. The Knicks 5-man lineup has RJ as incredibly effective in the lineup with
McBride, Hart, Barrett, Toppin and Hart. You put Toppin and Hart out of the paint and Barrett has a lot more room to work.
https://www.nba.com/stats/lineups/advanc...
That's not a guaranty, but it might help him to get him better spacing.
BigDaddyG wrote:Philc1 wrote:foosballnick wrote:What I'm having trouble understanding is how all the armchair Knicks fan GMs/Coaches reconcile the Barrett ineptitude against Thibs playing him (still) almost 30 minutes per game. After all, why wouldn't Thibs also have to be inept to give a player such a significant role when he is his 8th offensive option (as one poster ranked RJ) and also a shitty ass defender who's been also labeled as "poor at everything"?Regarding RJ, he can be extremely frustrating to watch at times. For me it really comes down to his inability to hit hit the open 3 in rhythm and/or some of his bad looking turnovers. My thoughts on his 3 point shooting is that the issue is between his ears as he was able to shoot at a .400 clip 2 years ago. Turnovers are a concern but have been helped a bit by him getting more calls from the refs when he attacks the rim. He has a propensity to get hacked and on the past not get the benefit of calls.
A few comments on advanced stats....
Basketball is a frenetic system with a significant amount of co-dependencies which impact individual success or failure. Examples .... a teammates pass made timed appropriately, in rhythm and on target will increase chance of shot execution of the recieving player. A proper box out by a teammate may lead to a defensive rebound by different player. A properly executed pick increases another players drive or open look. A missed defensive rotation might mean a teammate gets scored on. An opponent defender misses an assignment. An opponent makes a shot even when defended well.
That all being said, beyond FT% I'm not sure I'm smart enough to cherry pick which advanced stats are a function of pure individual performance and which are a function of how well oiled 5 players are in a system against continually variable sets of 5 other players who may or may not be as effective. I'm not seen any discussion here that addresses these continual statistical variations on individual player performance metrics.
We won 47 games with RJ getting 30+ minutes a night. If RJ was benched like a lot of these guys are salivating for maybe we win 60 games?
OK, but we were struggling to stay over .500 for a good while until the Hart trade. Notice how the Knicks took off and went on a pace to win 50+ plus wins when they were able to replace a portion of RJ's wing minutes with a guy who gave them above average minutes at the wing.
That is part of it. the 3-4 minutes less does aggregate but hard to decipher the exact contribution and deletion of RJ.
Where did the minutes come from? Some from RJ, some from Grimes, Some from Quick, and deuce was out.
Ihart also really came on also.
But one has to also look at RJ spending more time with the second unit and thats were Jhart was. One might add they play well together also. I'd also add Brunson missed some time there, and Randle minutes also got cut a bit. Jhart was a missing piece and completes the rotation for the team.
This was not a 5th seed team until Jhart came aboard. Knicks for the most part did very well injury wise for most of the season.
What is hard to quantify is the process that is RJ Barrett and what the coaches ultimately want him to be.
EwingsGlass wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:Philc1 wrote:foosballnick wrote:What I'm having trouble understanding is how all the armchair Knicks fan GMs/Coaches reconcile the Barrett ineptitude against Thibs playing him (still) almost 30 minutes per game. After all, why wouldn't Thibs also have to be inept to give a player such a significant role when he is his 8th offensive option (as one poster ranked RJ) and also a shitty ass defender who's been also labeled as "poor at everything"?Regarding RJ, he can be extremely frustrating to watch at times. For me it really comes down to his inability to hit hit the open 3 in rhythm and/or some of his bad looking turnovers. My thoughts on his 3 point shooting is that the issue is between his ears as he was able to shoot at a .400 clip 2 years ago. Turnovers are a concern but have been helped a bit by him getting more calls from the refs when he attacks the rim. He has a propensity to get hacked and on the past not get the benefit of calls.
A few comments on advanced stats....
Basketball is a frenetic system with a significant amount of co-dependencies which impact individual success or failure. Examples .... a teammates pass made timed appropriately, in rhythm and on target will increase chance of shot execution of the recieving player. A proper box out by a teammate may lead to a defensive rebound by different player. A properly executed pick increases another players drive or open look. A missed defensive rotation might mean a teammate gets scored on. An opponent defender misses an assignment. An opponent makes a shot even when defended well.
That all being said, beyond FT% I'm not sure I'm smart enough to cherry pick which advanced stats are a function of pure individual performance and which are a function of how well oiled 5 players are in a system against continually variable sets of 5 other players who may or may not be as effective. I'm not seen any discussion here that addresses these continual statistical variations on individual player performance metrics.
We won 47 games with RJ getting 30+ minutes a night. If RJ was benched like a lot of these guys are salivating for maybe we win 60 games?
OK, but we were struggling to stay over .500 for a good while until the Hart trade. Notice how the Knicks took off and went on a pace to win 50+ plus wins when they were able to replace a portion of RJ's wing minutes with a guy who gave them above average minutes at the wing.
Let's assume everyone is right for a moment. Seriously. Its possible the only flaw Barrett has is that he doesn't fit well with this starting 5. The Knicks 5-man lineup has RJ as incredibly effective in the lineup with
McBride, Hart, Barrett, Toppin and Hart. You put Toppin and Hart out of the paint and Barrett has a lot more room to work.https://www.nba.com/stats/lineups/advanc...
That's not a guaranty, but it might help him to get him better spacing.
Small sample size, but an idea worth exploring. The thing really sticks out for me is how insane the def rating for the team is with McBride in the Randle - M. Robinson - Q. Grimes - I. Quickley - M. McBride and the I. Hartenstein - J. Hart - R. Barrett - O. Toppin - M. McBride groupings.
joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:I agree with almost everything you said.The reason I came so hard on not caring about the advanced stats is, at least in almost every argument I've made about RJ, is " but advanced stat x says..."
I said it before advanced stats are better for game planning then they are for player x is better than player y. But that is all that is being used now. I remember when I posted my cross era comparison, RJ had a efg of 47. Grimes had one of like 55. Jskinny said it a couple posts up. About RJ not adjusting well. Looking at the stats RJ attempted .5 less 3 pt attempts this year compared to last. And he made .3 less per game. That resulted in the drop from 34% to 31%. Putting aside that I feel that is eminently fixable, I can draw, imo, better conclusions from that than any advanced stat.
When I made that post I figured the tougher defense on the easier shots offset the wild dependence of the lower percentage shot of the modern game. No, it's not perfect, but that was my reasoning.
Advanced stats can be a good starting point as you said (depending on where you want to start, mind you) but no matter what there othe so many other factors that I think each individual advanced stat kind of has a limited spectrum of usefulness
I don't get the planning part. For me, advanced stats give us a better or deeper understanding of what the player is doing and then a better way to compare those two players, not player X is better than player Y. It's a nuance but it's the comparison part that is usually more important.
So, instead of just FG%, we know that eFG% is better when considering shooters in the modern game. It's not the whole story but it gets us to a better understanding of the story, and then you can compare.
I don't really understand your JSkinny scenario and how you are using stats in that instance; it doesn't make sense to me.
In regards to the planning part.
I think advanced stat better can show where players should be, what shots they are more effective taking, what combinations may be working better, what defenses may be working against what offenses.
Ok. Let's take your efg%. The formula is: (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. It gives 3 pointers more value because they are worth more, but assigning a value of .5 more to 3 pointers seems random to me when measuring the difficulty of the shot vs the point value of the shot. FG% has nothing to do with points the shot is worth. Half court shots are worth the same as corner 3's. The average NBA 3P% is 36. The average NBA 2P% is about 55% (I couldnt find the exact number so I looked https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/tw... and picked the 15 ranked team. That means a 3 pointer is 19% harder to make. Why is that value not used? To me it would make more sense.
Another one I posted the equation for was points per posession. the equation is: PPP = Points ÷ (Field Goal Attempts + (0.44 x Free Throw Attempts) + Turnovers). In this instance turnovers are measured are factored in. Why are steals and rebounds not? At the very least if you are counting turnovers, you should factor in steals somehow, imo.
Maybe I am being too nitpicky with this, but this is why I advanced stats as malleable. Assigning values really irks me. Not looking at all aspects of what is being measured does too.
I don't think any regular stat or advanced stat will ever tell the whole story, which is why you also have to watch and know what you are looking at to apply these numbers. I don't think saying player X has a 1.07 PPP so they are so much better than a player with a 1.02 PPP.
Like I said maybe it's just me, but that is really how I look at it.
Without getting into the details, your take on these stats are different than what they mean to show, it's just that simple, give or take.
Most will generally accept a baseline from which stats come from and you have chosen to not start there, so your interpretation will not be comparable to everyone else (and you haven't really laid out that baseline enough for others).
For example, 3 points are just worth more when you make them, thus the formula, but you don't start there. Everyone wants to start talking about oranges and you have your own apple to discuss without any regards to oranges. After that, your back and forth with ANYONE regarding anything to do with stats will not be worth it, and that's not me trying to be sarcastic or down-putting, you are just literally talking about something else that is not equitable.
To have a meaningful discussion, you at least have to have a baseline assumption of things and work from there?
martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:martin wrote:joec32033 wrote:I agree with almost everything you said.The reason I came so hard on not caring about the advanced stats is, at least in almost every argument I've made about RJ, is " but advanced stat x says..."
I said it before advanced stats are better for game planning then they are for player x is better than player y. But that is all that is being used now. I remember when I posted my cross era comparison, RJ had a efg of 47. Grimes had one of like 55. Jskinny said it a couple posts up. About RJ not adjusting well. Looking at the stats RJ attempted .5 less 3 pt attempts this year compared to last. And he made .3 less per game. That resulted in the drop from 34% to 31%. Putting aside that I feel that is eminently fixable, I can draw, imo, better conclusions from that than any advanced stat.
When I made that post I figured the tougher defense on the easier shots offset the wild dependence of the lower percentage shot of the modern game. No, it's not perfect, but that was my reasoning.
Advanced stats can be a good starting point as you said (depending on where you want to start, mind you) but no matter what there othe so many other factors that I think each individual advanced stat kind of has a limited spectrum of usefulness
I don't get the planning part. For me, advanced stats give us a better or deeper understanding of what the player is doing and then a better way to compare those two players, not player X is better than player Y. It's a nuance but it's the comparison part that is usually more important.
So, instead of just FG%, we know that eFG% is better when considering shooters in the modern game. It's not the whole story but it gets us to a better understanding of the story, and then you can compare.
I don't really understand your JSkinny scenario and how you are using stats in that instance; it doesn't make sense to me.
In regards to the planning part.
I think advanced stat better can show where players should be, what shots they are more effective taking, what combinations may be working better, what defenses may be working against what offenses.
Ok. Let's take your efg%. The formula is: (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. It gives 3 pointers more value because they are worth more, but assigning a value of .5 more to 3 pointers seems random to me when measuring the difficulty of the shot vs the point value of the shot. FG% has nothing to do with points the shot is worth. Half court shots are worth the same as corner 3's. The average NBA 3P% is 36. The average NBA 2P% is about 55% (I couldnt find the exact number so I looked https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/tw... and picked the 15 ranked team. That means a 3 pointer is 19% harder to make. Why is that value not used? To me it would make more sense.
Another one I posted the equation for was points per posession. the equation is: PPP = Points ÷ (Field Goal Attempts + (0.44 x Free Throw Attempts) + Turnovers). In this instance turnovers are measured are factored in. Why are steals and rebounds not? At the very least if you are counting turnovers, you should factor in steals somehow, imo.
Maybe I am being too nitpicky with this, but this is why I advanced stats as malleable. Assigning values really irks me. Not looking at all aspects of what is being measured does too.
I don't think any regular stat or advanced stat will ever tell the whole story, which is why you also have to watch and know what you are looking at to apply these numbers. I don't think saying player X has a 1.07 PPP so they are so much better than a player with a 1.02 PPP.
Like I said maybe it's just me, but that is really how I look at it.
Without getting into the details, your take on these stats are different than what they mean to show, it's just that simple, give or take.
Most will generally accept a baseline from which stats come from and you have chosen to not start there, so your interpretation will not be comparable to everyone else (and you haven't really laid out that baseline enough for others).
For example, 3 points are just worth more when you make them, thus the formula, but you don't start there. Everyone wants to start talking about oranges and you have your own apple to discuss without any regards to oranges. After that, your back and forth with ANYONE regarding anything to do with stats will not be worth it, and that's not me trying to be sarcastic or down-putting, you are just literally talking about something else that is not equitable.
To have a meaningful discussion, you at least have to have a baseline assumption of things and work from there?
You may be right, but I said before I'm not a guy that is going to come up with an advanced stat equation. I have an idea of what I would put into it. When I look at some (most) of these equations I just know something is off.
For example for the efg you said a 3 pointer is worth more if you make it. And I get that my question is what is that value, how much more? I think it is weighted way too much. And why on a stat that is labeled efg% why does the value of the shot matter? It should be the ahot percentage that matters and if you are going to weight it you need to weight ot correctly. The average NBA 2pt shot % and the average NBA 3pt shot % varied varied by 17 percentage points. So that is what the the 3 point shot should be weighted to off set the difficulty.
I also think if something as basic as turnovers is in your equation you need to include it's exact opposite in that equation (in this case steals, but I would be happy to have a new stat like forced turnovers in football). For the example of PPP counting turnovers in it's equation but not affording for the times that player as caused a turnover. Plus I'm not even sure why turnovers is accounted for in that. I would want to know how many times the player touched the ball in a game (they have to track it...i saw an advanced stat that was points with fewest dribbles that Klay Thompson was good at a few years back), how many points they scored, and start building off that.
I don't know Martin. My thing is finding a starting point is hard when you look at the directions and they don't look right.