Magic ''Anticipate'' Keeping Carter...

[EnFuego 1]

quote:

Originally posted by ticks:

 

The frequency with which an individual scores is far less relevant than the efficiency with which the task is accomplished.

 

A new Messiah has arrived.

 

I only wish Robotmaster was here to see this.

[ticks 0]

quote:

Originally posted by ButterMilkPancakes:

 

per36 is rather flawed, but even with the .4 pt differential (which is rather insignificant), CLee still shot the ball at a much better percentage. The biggest reason for his low assist numbers were because of his low USG% (lower than Redick's), and his defense was noticeably better than Redick's. You can't even compare Redick's defense to Clee's last year, except on maybe Ray Allen. This isn't to say he's a lockdown defender, but the numbers you're using to talk about impact are ridiculous. Defense is much more than 1 on 1, and NJ probably played defense for an average of 15 minutes per game.

 

 

Also, CLee's PER was higher than Redick's, and he did much better against opposing PGs and SGs than Redick did (PER + 13.7 at PG vs Redick's -8.8 at PG and the important one, -3.0 at SG vs Redick's -4.1 at SG).

 

 

 

And if none of that is good enough, CLee's DRTg were better, as well as win shares.

 

Of course it is flawed. Every metric is flawed. Every metric must be viewed within the narrow window of what it actually measures. In this case, the entire point is that despite Courtney Lee's superior shooting percentages last year, his PPS was still inferior to that of Redick. If you are to make the argument that Lee is a superior offensive player to Redick, his shooting percentages last year are the only evidence you can find to support such a claim. However, that is completely nullified by his inability to get to the free throw line (which is one of the most important attributes of an effective offensive player).

 

As stated previously, Lee filled the same role as Pietrus and Bogans. Both of these players also experienced a renaissance in their 3-point field goal rates performing the exact same role. Lee demonstrated that he is a superior shooter to Pietrus and Bogans in that role, but that is actually not a major achievement considering their career numbers. Suffice it to say, the regression by Lee this year was altogether expected. You can cherry pick last year to support the claim that Lee is a better shooter, but there is plenty of evidence to indicate that while Lee is a good shooter, Redick is better. Lee's inability to draw fouls means that he has to shoot a higher percentage than Redick to equal his efficiency.

 

Assists have nothing to do with usage. Usage itself is nothing more than a modifier to shooting efficiency metrics. If you shoot a high percentage, then a high usage is terrific. If you shoot a low percentage, then a high usage is terrible. Essentially, shooting percentage is a measure of shot selection, while usage is a measure of how often you shoot.

 

PER is a poor metric. It is an attempt to determine a general player value by creating one all-encompassing metric. The problem is that it is comprised of flawed metrics that are better measured on their own under the exact same scrutiny that you applied to per 36 minute figures. The primary issue is that there are no good defensive metrics for individual players. None. One can easily determine the efficiency of a team. Which is precisely what I did. It is easily demonstrable that whatever advantage Lee has defensively (which I would concede) is negligible.

 

You won't find me defending many of the moves Otis has made, but this trade is one that I defend. Anderson is a far better prospect than Lee. Redick is a better player than Lee. This trade was a net gain. Losing Turkoglu was a separate transaction, and it is unlikely that the net gain exceeded the loss of Turkoglu. But that doesn't mean the decisions made were not correct.

 

Lee was not the reason Orlando made the finals last year. Garnett's injury was.

[Captain Hindsight 50]

quote:

Originally posted by ticks:

quote:

Originally posted by ButterMilkPancakes:

 

per36 is rather flawed, but even with the .4 pt differential (which is rather insignificant), CLee still shot the ball at a much better percentage. The biggest reason for his low assist numbers were because of his low USG% (lower than Redick's), and his defense was noticeably better than Redick's. You can't even compare Redick's defense to Clee's last year, except on maybe Ray Allen. This isn't to say he's a lockdown defender, but the numbers you're using to talk about impact are ridiculous. Defense is much more than 1 on 1, and NJ probably played defense for an average of 15 minutes per game.

 

 

Also, CLee's PER was higher than Redick's, and he did much better against opposing PGs and SGs than Redick did (PER + 13.7 at PG vs Redick's -8.8 at PG and the important one, -3.0 at SG vs Redick's -4.1 at SG).

 

 

 

And if none of that is good enough, CLee's DRTg were better, as well as win shares.

 

Of course it is flawed. Every metric is flawed. Every metric must be viewed within the narrow window of what it actually measures. In this case, the entire point is that despite Courtney Lee's superior shooting percentages last year, his PPS was still inferior to that of Redick. If you are to make the argument that Lee is a superior offensive player to Redick, his shooting percentages last year are the only evidence you can find to support such a claim. However, that is completely nullified by his inability to get to the free throw line (which is one of the most important attributes of an effective offensive player).

 

As stated previously, Lee filled the same role as Pietrus and Bogans. Both of these players also experienced a renaissance in their 3-point field goal rates performing the exact same role. Lee demonstrated that he is a superior shooter to Pietrus and Bogans in that role, but that is actually not a major achievement considering their career numbers. Suffice it to say, the regression by Lee this year was altogether expected. You can cherry pick last year to support the claim that Lee is a better shooter, but there is plenty of evidence to indicate that while Lee is a good shooter, Redick is better. Lee's inability to draw fouls means that he has to shoot a higher percentage than Redick to equal his efficiency.

 

Assists have nothing to do with usage. Usage itself is nothing more than a modifier to shooting efficiency metrics. If you shoot a high percentage, then a high usage is terrific. If you shoot a low percentage, then a high usage is terrible. Essentially, shooting percentage is a measure of shot selection, while usage is a measure of how often you shoot.

 

PER is a poor metric. It is an attempt to determine a general player value by creating one all-encompassing metric. The problem is that it is comprised of flawed metrics that are better measured on their own under the exact same scrutiny that you applied to per 36 minute figures. The primary issue is that there are no good defensive metrics for individual players. None. One can easily determine the efficiency of a team. Which is precisely what I did. It is easily demonstrable that whatever advantage Lee has defensively (which I would concede) is negligible.

 

You won't find me defending many of the moves Otis has made, but this trade is one that I defend. Anderson is a far better prospect than Lee. Redick is a better player than Lee. This trade was a net gain. Losing Turkoglu was a separate transaction, and it is unlikely that the net gain exceeded the loss of Turkoglu. But that doesn't mean the decisions made were not correct.

 

Lee was not the reason Orlando made the finals last year. Garnett's injury was.

 

post more. you're a breath of fresh air around here.

[NickAnderson 14]

..................................

[BMP 424]

quote:

Originally posted by ticks:

quote:

Originally posted by ButterMilkPancakes:

 

per36 is rather flawed, but even with the .4 pt differential (which is rather insignificant), CLee still shot the ball at a much better percentage. The biggest reason for his low assist numbers were because of his low USG% (lower than Redick's), and his defense was noticeably better than Redick's. You can't even compare Redick's defense to Clee's last year, except on maybe Ray Allen. This isn't to say he's a lockdown defender, but the numbers you're using to talk about impact are ridiculous. Defense is much more than 1 on 1, and NJ probably played defense for an average of 15 minutes per game.

 

 

Also, CLee's PER was higher than Redick's, and he did much better against opposing PGs and SGs than Redick did (PER + 13.7 at PG vs Redick's -8.8 at PG and the important one, -3.0 at SG vs Redick's -4.1 at SG).

 

 

 

And if none of that is good enough, CLee's DRTg were better, as well as win shares.

 

Of course it is flawed. Every metric is flawed. Every metric must be viewed within the narrow window of what it actually measures. In this case, the entire point is that despite Courtney Lee's superior shooting percentages last year, his PPS was still inferior to that of Redick. If you are to make the argument that Lee is a superior offensive player to Redick, his shooting percentages last year are the only evidence you can find to support such a claim. However, that is completely nullified by his inability to get to the free throw line (which is one of the most important attributes of an effective offensive player).

 

As stated previously, Lee filled the same role as Pietrus and Bogans. Both of these players also experienced a renaissance in their 3-point field goal rates performing the exact same role. Lee demonstrated that he is a superior shooter to Pietrus and Bogans in that role, but that is actually not a major achievement considering their career numbers. Suffice it to say, the regression by Lee this year was altogether expected. You can cherry pick last year to support the claim that Lee is a better shooter, but there is plenty of evidence to indicate that while Lee is a good shooter, Redick is better. Lee's inability to draw fouls means that he has to shoot a higher percentage than Redick to equal his efficiency.

 

Assists have nothing to do with usage. Usage itself is nothing more than a modifier to shooting efficiency metrics. If you shoot a high percentage, then a high usage is terrific. If you shoot a low percentage, then a high usage is terrible. Essentially, shooting percentage is a measure of shot selection, while usage is a measure of how often you shoot.

 

PER is a poor metric. It is an attempt to determine a general player value by creating one all-encompassing metric. The problem is that it is comprised of flawed metrics that are better measured on their own under the exact same scrutiny that you applied to per 36 minute figures. The primary issue is that there are no good defensive metrics for individual players. None. One can easily determine the efficiency of a team. Which is precisely what I did. It is easily demonstrable that whatever advantage Lee has defensively (which I would concede) is negligible.

 

You won't find me defending many of the moves Otis has made, but this trade is one that I defend. Anderson is a far better prospect than Lee. Redick is a better player than Lee. This trade was a net gain. Losing Turkoglu was a separate transaction, and it is unlikely that the net gain exceeded the loss of Turkoglu. But that doesn't mean the decisions made were not correct.

 

Lee was not the reason Orlando made the finals last year. Garnett's injury was.

 

Did you just compare PER to per36?

 

In no way I'm trying to say that this was much better with CLee on either side of the floor, the comparison here is who the better player was between the two, and PER is a great way to compare players, especially players playing in the same position (granted the roles are different).

 

As far as drawing fouls, while CLee may not have drawn as many, he still got to the rim a lot more than Redick (8% of Redick's total shots were from close range, 92% being jump shots), while he himself got inside 29% of the time, 71% being jump shots.

 

So, maybe Redick was better at kicking his feet, pump faking and catching a defender in the air, taking charges, and shooting technical free throws, but that's about it (well, remember I'm only trying to compare the two here from their numbers last year and their contribution. Any other day before last season and after this season, I'd pick Redick as the better shooter 10 times out of 10).

 

 

Defense, on the other hand, is extremely difficult to measure solely with numbers, but the best I could come up with were numbers that showed a player's average PER while he was on the floor against Lee and Redick. This may be a bit inflated because of how Lee played with the starting lineup more, but it's how well both really played. Lee was a more disciplined defender, more athletic, had more length, quicker lateral movements, and stronger. Redick's BB IQ was higher, but his help defense alone was not good enough to match that of Clee's. This may all be opinion but it'd be hard to find someone to agree with you on this.

[ticks 0]

quote:

Originally posted by ButterMilkPancakes:

 

Did you just compare PER to per36?

 

In no way I'm trying to say that this was much better with CLee on either side of the floor, the comparison here is who the better player was between the two, and PER is a great way to compare players, especially players playing in the same position (granted the roles are different).

 

As far as drawing fouls, while CLee may not have drawn as many, he still got to the rim a lot more than Redick (8% of Redick's total shots were from close range, 92% being jump shots), while he himself got inside 29% of the time, 71% being jump shots.

 

So, maybe Redick was better at kicking his feet, pump faking and catching a defender in the air, taking charges, and shooting technical free throws, but that's about it (well, remember I'm only trying to compare the two here from their numbers last year and their contribution. Any other day before last season and after this season, I'd pick Redick as the better shooter 10 times out of 10).

 

 

Defense, on the other hand, is extremely difficult to measure solely with numbers, but the best I could come up with were numbers that showed a player's average PER while he was on the floor against Lee and Redick. This may be a bit inflated because of how Lee played with the starting lineup more, but it's how well both really played. Lee was a more disciplined defender, more athletic, had more length, quicker lateral movements, and stronger. Redick's BB IQ was higher, but his help defense alone was not good enough to match that of Clee's. This may all be opinion but it'd be hard to find someone to agree with you on this.

 

Nope. But I suppose I could have to make the same point. Both are flawed.

 

I'm not going to make this long-winded as I simply do not want to devote the time. Suffice it to say, PER is a seriously flawed metric for what it is designed to do. Among the more glaring problems is that there is a significant mitigating factor to missed field goal attempts. This means you have to shoot an exceedingly low percentage for it to not count as a positive. This is why there is a strong positive correlation between usage and PER. This is entirely counterproductive when the goal is to create an efficiency metric.

 

This is easily exemplified by looking at Rashard Lewis. His efficiency metrics remained very consistent, however, his PER dropped significantly after moving to Orlando. He was the same player before and after the trade, but his PER would lead you to believe he declined significantly immediately after the trade.

 

As for the comparison between Redick and Lee, where the shots are taken from is largely irrelevant. Shooting metrics reflect shot selection. There is no difference between shooting 50 percent from 2 feet or from 12 feet.

 

How frequently a player goes to the free throw line is extremely relevant. Shooting 80 percent from the free throw line is the equivalent of shooting 80 percent from the field, so the percentage of a player's points that are scored from the free throw line is extremely important in determining how efficient a player is at shooting. Neglecting this fact would be the same as neglecting the difference between a 2-point field goal and a 3-point field goal. This is where TS% comes in. Redick had the higher TS%. Redick was the better shooter.

 

I am curious... what is the point of limiting the scope of such a comparison to last season only? Cherry picking data only leads to false conclusions.

[TreyTime 3]

quote:

Originally posted by M4G1C:

quote:

Originally posted by ticks:

quote:

Originally posted by ButterMilkPancakes:

 

per36 is rather flawed, but even with the .4 pt differential (which is rather insignificant), CLee still shot the ball at a much better percentage. The biggest reason for his low assist numbers were because of his low USG% (lower than Redick's), and his defense was noticeably better than Redick's. You can't even compare Redick's defense to Clee's last year, except on maybe Ray Allen. This isn't to say he's a lockdown defender, but the numbers you're using to talk about impact are ridiculous. Defense is much more than 1 on 1, and NJ probably played defense for an average of 15 minutes per game.

 

 

Also, CLee's PER was higher than Redick's, and he did much better against opposing PGs and SGs than Redick did (PER + 13.7 at PG vs Redick's -8.8 at PG and the important one, -3.0 at SG vs Redick's -4.1 at SG).

 

 

 

And if none of that is good enough, CLee's DRTg were better, as well as win shares.

 

Of course it is flawed. Every metric is flawed. Every metric must be viewed within the narrow window of what it actually measures. In this case, the entire point is that despite Courtney Lee's superior shooting percentages last year, his PPS was still inferior to that of Redick. If you are to make the argument that Lee is a superior offensive player to Redick, his shooting percentages last year are the only evidence you can find to support such a claim. However, that is completely nullified by his inability to get to the free throw line (which is one of the most important attributes of an effective offensive player).

 

As stated previously, Lee filled the same role as Pietrus and Bogans. Both of these players also experienced a renaissance in their 3-point field goal rates performing the exact same role. Lee demonstrated that he is a superior shooter to Pietrus and Bogans in that role, but that is actually not a major achievement considering their career numbers. Suffice it to say, the regression by Lee this year was altogether expected. You can cherry pick last year to support the claim that Lee is a better shooter, but there is plenty of evidence to indicate that while Lee is a good shooter, Redick is better. Lee's inability to draw fouls means that he has to shoot a higher percentage than Redick to equal his efficiency.

 

Assists have nothing to do with usage. Usage itself is nothing more than a modifier to shooting efficiency metrics. If you shoot a high percentage, then a high usage is terrific. If you shoot a low percentage, then a high usage is terrible. Essentially, shooting percentage is a measure of shot selection, while usage is a measure of how often you shoot.

 

PER is a poor metric. It is an attempt to determine a general player value by creating one all-encompassing metric. The problem is that it is comprised of flawed metrics that are better measured on their own under the exact same scrutiny that you applied to per 36 minute figures. The primary issue is that there are no good defensive metrics for individual players. None. One can easily determine the efficiency of a team. Which is precisely what I did. It is easily demonstrable that whatever advantage Lee has defensively (which I would concede) is negligible.

 

You won't find me defending many of the moves Otis has made, but this trade is one that I defend. Anderson is a far better prospect than Lee. Redick is a better player than Lee. This trade was a net gain. Losing Turkoglu was a separate transaction, and it is unlikely that the net gain exceeded the loss of Turkoglu. But that doesn't mean the decisions made were not correct.

 

Lee was not the reason Orlando made the finals last year. Garnett's injury was.

 

post more. you're a breath of fresh air around here.

 

I hope to Tebow that was sarcasm.

[Captain Hindsight 50]

quote:

Originally posted by TreyTime:

quote:

Originally posted by M4G1C:

quote:

Originally posted by ticks:

quote:

Originally posted by ButterMilkPancakes:

 

per36 is rather flawed, but even with the .4 pt differential (which is rather insignificant), CLee still shot the ball at a much better percentage. The biggest reason for his low assist numbers were because of his low USG% (lower than Redick's), and his defense was noticeably better than Redick's. You can't even compare Redick's defense to Clee's last year, except on maybe Ray Allen. This isn't to say he's a lockdown defender, but the numbers you're using to talk about impact are ridiculous. Defense is much more than 1 on 1, and NJ probably played defense for an average of 15 minutes per game.

 

 

Also, CLee's PER was higher than Redick's, and he did much better against opposing PGs and SGs than Redick did (PER + 13.7 at PG vs Redick's -8.8 at PG and the important one, -3.0 at SG vs Redick's -4.1 at SG).

 

 

 

And if none of that is good enough, CLee's DRTg were better, as well as win shares.

 

Of course it is flawed. Every metric is flawed. Every metric must be viewed within the narrow window of what it actually measures. In this case, the entire point is that despite Courtney Lee's superior shooting percentages last year, his PPS was still inferior to that of Redick. If you are to make the argument that Lee is a superior offensive player to Redick, his shooting percentages last year are the only evidence you can find to support such a claim. However, that is completely nullified by his inability to get to the free throw line (which is one of the most important attributes of an effective offensive player).

 

As stated previously, Lee filled the same role as Pietrus and Bogans. Both of these players also experienced a renaissance in their 3-point field goal rates performing the exact same role. Lee demonstrated that he is a superior shooter to Pietrus and Bogans in that role, but that is actually not a major achievement considering their career numbers. Suffice it to say, the regression by Lee this year was altogether expected. You can cherry pick last year to support the claim that Lee is a better shooter, but there is plenty of evidence to indicate that while Lee is a good shooter, Redick is better. Lee's inability to draw fouls means that he has to shoot a higher percentage than Redick to equal his efficiency.

 

Assists have nothing to do with usage. Usage itself is nothing more than a modifier to shooting efficiency metrics. If you shoot a high percentage, then a high usage is terrific. If you shoot a low percentage, then a high usage is terrible. Essentially, shooting percentage is a measure of shot selection, while usage is a measure of how often you shoot.

 

PER is a poor metric. It is an attempt to determine a general player value by creating one all-encompassing metric. The problem is that it is comprised of flawed metrics that are better measured on their own under the exact same scrutiny that you applied to per 36 minute figures. The primary issue is that there are no good defensive metrics for individual players. None. One can easily determine the efficiency of a team. Which is precisely what I did. It is easily demonstrable that whatever advantage Lee has defensively (which I would concede) is negligible.

 

You won't find me defending many of the moves Otis has made, but this trade is one that I defend. Anderson is a far better prospect than Lee. Redick is a better player than Lee. This trade was a net gain. Losing Turkoglu was a separate transaction, and it is unlikely that the net gain exceeded the loss of Turkoglu. But that doesn't mean the decisions made were not correct.

 

Lee was not the reason Orlando made the finals last year. Garnett's injury was.

 

post more. you're a breath of fresh air around here.

 

I hope to Tebow that was sarcasm.

 

you don't think this guy's got a stew going? he's at least providing a decent discussion. i'll take that over all the cp3, amare and bosh talk.

[jack l j 0]

at the end of the day if you owned an nba team and you could pick either jj of lee to start your team who would it be?

[Soul Bro 1,419]

quote:

Originally posted by jack l j:

at the end of the day if you owned an nba team and you could pick either jj of lee to start your team who would it be?

 

Wow. I still give the nod to Lee because of his upside. However, JJ has earned his stripes and closed the gap. Every team would want either guy.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

quote:

Originally posted by Soul Bro:

quote:

Originally posted by jack l j:

at the end of the day if you owned an nba team and you could pick either jj of lee to start your team who would it be?

 

Wow. I still give the nod to Lee because of his upside. However, JJ has earned his stripes and closed the gap. Every team would want either guy.

 

Honestly i think it depends on who you have at PG. For our team i say Lee because he's defensive, can do some of the things JJ does, and guard point guards that trouble jameer.

 

A team like Boston, Utah, OKC, or NO might want JJ for his offense.

[ManuGinobili 0]

Courtney Lee is 5 times better than JJ, in my opinion.

 

He is better defender, better slasher and his jump shot will progress a lot in his career.

 

JJ is only better in the 3pt attempts, but that is it.

 

I think Redick will be a career back up, while Lee may be a one time All Star someday.