JJ or Matt?

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

quote:

Originally posted by PEC:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

quote:

Originally posted by KandiKane:

Yet again another stat that does not show the full picture. He does share the court with Gortat much of the time, unlike the starters who share the court with Howard. And that makes a difference.

 

Stats aint everything, watch an analyse some game tape and the effort and chase Redick puts in is above average, just because he is white and under 6'6 does not mean he is not a good defender. I agree he is not an excellent one, but I think he is an average or above one. And I used to not like J.J the player.

 

Who did Barnes have to play with ?? Howard. Thats why he is above Pietrus and Redick. If you can show me VISUAL evidence then go for it, but I will just come back with footage of Barnes getting beat by his player many a times. Lucky he had Howard looking after the ring.... right?

 

Good ridence Barnes, enjoy playing for min. on some other team

 

You know what another word for statistic is? Fact.

 

And yes. Barnes DID play a majority of his minutes next to Dwight. About 3/4 of them.

 

Of course, JJ played roughly the same percentage of HIS minutes next to Dwight too, but don't let those pesky facts ruin your (nonexistent) argument.

 

The notion that JJ is an above average defender is laughable.

 

And what do you mean "VISUAL evidence"? You want me to just find videos of JJ being beaten by his man? What the hell would that prove? I can find videos of Dwight being beaten by HIS man. Do you think Dwight is a bad defender?

 

I guess living in Baltimore you missed a lot of games because if you had watched you would have seen that Redick played a lot of his minutes with Gortat not Howard. While Barnes played almost all of his minutes with Howard.

 

So no matter how you cut it your stats are just that stats and not the full picture.

 

Guess you are a box score kind of person after all.

 

JJ played 375 minutes with gortat

 

JJ played 811 minutes with dwight.

 

JJ played about 70% of his minutes with dwight. Also Gortat probably didn't play poorly (in comparison to dwight) at least 50% of the time That 15% shouldn't be enough to skew any of redick's data like you're insinuating.

[gporter 5]

Here is to hoping we get Dooling as a 3rd PG for the sake of JEC

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by PEC:

I guess living in Baltimore you missed a lot of games because if you had watched you would have seen that Redick played a lot of his minutes with Gortat not Howard. While Barnes played almost all of his minutes with Howard.

 

So no matter how you cut it your stats are just that stats and not the full picture.

 

Guess you are a box score kind of person after all.

 

It's always fun watching people look into the face of irrefutable fact and claim they're wrong anyway. Ok, I've got 2 minutes to waste making you look stupid.

 

82games keeps track of each player's top 20 5-man units, including how many minutes a given player played in each 5-man unit.

 

In JJ's top twenty 5-man units, Dwight was in the game for 13 of them, or for at total of 821 minutes. Gortat was in 7 of them, for a total of 375 minutes.

 

So of the 1196 minutes we have data for, JJ had Dwight playing next to him 68.65% of the time. That means that if Dwight was off the court for every single one of the unaccounted for minutes that JJ played, a notion that is actually statistically impossible given the number of minutes Dwight played, JJ would still have played JUST BARELY less than half of his minutes next to Dwight.

 

This doesn't even consider the fact that Redick and Barnes spent a great deal of time on the court together, both with Dwight and without.

[jack l j 0]

i am a huge jj fan, everyone knows that, however everyone should know barnes is a better defender than jj as well as many others. this should not even be a decussion. jj's value to the magic covers many areas. not just covering the 2 guards in the nba. is he worth the chicago offer, who knows. we will find out soon. i think the magic should be more concerned about what to do with vc and gortat.

[Murphy13 185]

Barnes can guard a wider variety of players than Redick can, thats not even a contest. Extreme Redick fans find the need to bring down every other player to his level-even the other player's strengths.

 

In reality, the only thing Barnes has on Redick is defensive (and rebounding) ability. Thats it. No reason to try to take that away from Barnes, who is a very good defender for the most part.

 

I would still rather have Redick as he has a more well rounded game than Barnes, but this argument about Redick being a better defender is plain dumb.

 

On a separate note I am of the belief that statistics are helpful, but not the full determinant of a player's worth to a team. A player's simple role can completely change the statistical output on a game/season, and vice versa. I believe Redick in particular has been a victim of these circumstances for a couple years-especially the year that Lee was here. And on the flip side, I believe that while Lee is certainly quicker than Redick that Lee benefitted more statistically from the certain minutes he played. To suggest that some minutes arent more beneficial than others over the course of the game is simply untrue. On the Magic, a SG on the starting unit will get more open opportunities with less hinderence compared to a SG off the bench, for example. Thats why when people bring arguments there needs to be more than stats involved unless we are talking about comparing players that are always on the floor. The less a player actually plays, the less accurate a representation his stats are of his worth as a player, imo.

[Murphy13 185]

Statistics are a funny thing, you can find any to support whatever your opinion is...and there are always caveats that come with each statistic. For example, according to 82games-The SG spot had the highest PER on our team next to C. On the other hand, the SF spot was the lowest. Does that mean that our SG's rocked and our SF's sucked?

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

quote:

Originally posted by murphy13:

Statistics are a funny thing, you can find any to support whatever your opinion is...and there are always caveats that come with each statistic. For example, according to 82games-The SG spot had the highest PER on our team next to C. On the other hand, the SF spot was the lowest. Does that mean that our SG's rocked and our SF's sucked?

 

well, PER measures efficiency so no it doesn't mean that either sucked.

 

Though it is nice to know that our SF's played the best defensively, holding opponents to a 13.9 PER

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by murphy13:

Statistics are a funny thing, you can find any to support whatever your opinion is...and there are always caveats that come with each statistic. For example, according to 82games-The SG spot had the highest PER on our team next to C. On the other hand, the SF spot was the lowest. Does that mean that our SG's rocked and our SF's sucked?

 

Statistics are incredibly useful as long as you understand what the statistic is saying and what the statistic's limitations are.

 

The problem on this board seems to be that people will adopt the stance of: "I don't understand what this stat means, therefore it is wrong" or "I don't understand what this stat means, therefore it is beyond EVERYONE's understanding"

 

Both ideas are completely ridiculous.

[Murphy13 185]

I understand your position DOM, and my comment wasnt directed at your previous thoughts. This board has been beleaguered by short sighted statistical analysis just as much as it has by people basing their opinions on groundless speculation.

 

You missed the point, LewisFTW. But you are correct, our SF's did a very good job on defense last season-as did our SG's apparently. And through all this our SG spot did come out on top in overall effectiveness behind the C position obviously.

[BMP 424]

quote:

Originally posted by ezzzp:

I don't see how we're gonna be under the tax in 2011/12:

 

Lewis: 22M

Dwight: 18M

Jameer: 7.3M

Gortat: 7.3M

Pietrus: 5.3M

Bass: 4M

Duhon: 3M

Richardson: 3M

Anderson: 2.25M

Orton: 1M

 

Total = around $73M for 10 roster spots - and thats without JJ's contract

 

This year the cap is $58M and tax $70M

 

No, you're right, completely went over my head we still needed to sign two vets (or a vet and Sticks) and thought Pietrus was a team option.

 

 

But at the same time, if DeVos claims not to care, wants to win now, and really doesn't care about spending money, I wouldn't doubt JJ would be matched. Is he worth the approximate $30 mil we'd pay being over the cap? No, but if his mentality is "**** it", mine certainly isn't going to be different, especially since none of it is my money.

[Murphy13 185]

I dont know the scale of NBA finances, but I have a feeling a new arena alone would line RDV's pockets enough to make Redick's contract worthwhile.

 

Throw in a deep playoff run(again) next year and thats like free money to an NBA owner.

 

I think we will be just fine, and we can always dump Vince and get just below the LT threshold if ownership changes their mind.

[magicLA 57]

quote:

Originally posted by ButterMilkPancakes:

 

But at the same time, if DeVos claims not to care, wants to win now, and really doesn't care about spending money, I wouldn't doubt JJ would be matched. Is he worth the approximate $30 mil we'd pay being over the cap? No, but if his mentality is "**** it", mine certainly isn't going to be different, especially since none of it is my money.

 

I wouldn't be mad if he came back either. But if I'm Otis, I'm picking my battles. In Q's press conference, Otis made various statements indicating that if he chose to ask Devos to sign JJ they would have to make that decision. I took that as he's not sure he wants to ask for that money because he's not sure that its worth it. To me that indicates that this move will have repercussions on further moves. If he asks to overspend for JJ he may not be able to ask to overspend later.