A Special 10k Post, Tuesday Edition of Case Of The Mondays: Who is DoM hating now?

[A Better DJ & Photographer 461]

Once again great work DOM. I for one totally respect your ability for gathering facts regardless of how you preset them LOL

 

One thing that can't show in the stats though is how many of Monta Chucker's misses is Dwight going to be able to clean up and put back and as someone mentioned would his stats be better with another player drawing a lot of the D?

 

Another question DOM.. do you think the MAGIC will be better with Reddick, Anderson and whoever we can get for Dwight or with Dwight, Monta, and whatever we have left?

[BMP 424]

When did the assumption on this forum become "if you use stats to back up your position, you have not watched the games themselves". Is this some strange alternate universe where you can't possibly watch a player, make an assumption about his game based on your observations, and then look to the statistical evidence to see if your position is supported?

 

Yep, I've always hated that stance. Apparently saying that Nick Young is a bad scorer because I see him play and he shoots a lot and doesn't make many shots is better than saying Nick Young is a bad scorer because of his .512 TS% and .467 eFG%, barely averaging 17pts on 15 attempts a game.

[Zara 74]

When did the assumption on this forum become "if you use stats to back up your position, you have not watched the games themselves". Is this some strange alternate universe where you can't possibly watch a player, make an assumption about his game based on your observations, and then look to the statistical evidence to see if your position is supported?

 

No, it's just that a lot of people go (or like going) with their gut feeling on sports. Fans. Coaches. GMs. Scouts.

Some people just see, others watch, certain few see through. It's what we call a "soft skill".

 

A def leopard ( :headbang: ) could make a statistically watertight argument a couple of months ago that Jeremy Lin is a waste of bench.

 

To the "assumption of this forum", that statement would be so non-idiotic.

 

And yet, it would be so wrong.

 

To quote prof. Martin Stopford, statistics is like a bikini. What it reveals is important, what it conceals is vital.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

No, it's just that a lot of people go (or like going) with their gut feeling on sports. Fans. Coaches. GMs. Scouts.

Some people just see, others watch, certain few see through. It's what we call a "soft skill".

 

A def leopard ( :headbang: ) could make a statistically watertight argument a couple of months ago that Jeremy Lin is a waste of bench.

 

To the "assumption of this forum", that statement would be so non-idiotic.

 

And yet, it would be so wrong.

 

To quote prof. Martin Stopford, statistics is like a bikini. What it reveals is important, what it conceals is vital.

 

You couldn't have said anything about Lin months ago outside of "we haven't seen enough/there isn't enough data to make any real assumption about him as a player at this point".

 

It's just as ignorant to rely solely on what you would call a "soft skill" without verifying statistically as it is to rely on statistics alone without any empirical data to verify. Which, since you didn't really bother reading my previous post, was my point. Dismissing the statistical data because it doesn't support your opinion is foolish, and that is generally what happens on this forum when people start tossing around their "stats don't tell the whole story" lines.

 

I believe it was Stan himself that said he likes to form his own opinion based on watching the team, but then he hits the stats to see if his feelings are supported. The general consensus here is "discredit the stats if they don't say what we want them to say", which is completely idiotic.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

When did the assumption on this forum become "if you use stats to back up your position, you have not watched the games themselves". Is this some strange alternate universe where you can't possibly watch a player, make an assumption about his game based on your observations, and then look to the statistical evidence to see if your position is supported?

 

It's a total straw man.

 

NO ONE actually just uses stats without watching games. I mean literally, no one does that. It's just a nonsensical way of trying to undercut the other person's point without having to make any kind of real point about it.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I lol'ed at being 22 y.o. in 2008.

 

You laughed out loud at my age?

 

Really?

[jec 427]

I particularly enjoyed the caption under Stackhouse's picture.

[30Assists 342]

....So what do you have against corgis?

[Franchero MVP 391]

Well, this thread is now moot, isn't it?

[m1magic 27]

Any long time poster on this board will know a few simple but significant truths:

 

1. When it comes to basketball knowledge, I'm near the top of this board.
2. I got tired of pretending I wasn't around early 2009.
3. When it comes to finding an example of a player who scored a lot, but did it so inefficiently that they didn't help their team win, my go-to example is the 00-01 season, when Jerry Stackhouse scored a ton of points on ghastly percentages and his team badly missed the playoffs.

Just look at this *******.

 

Stackhouse made an all-star game that year, and that makes a lot of sense: PER didn't exist yet in 2001, and people still today don't really appreciate how much PER overvalues volume shooters, and NBA fans are, on the whole, stupid creatures who see a name near the top of the NBA's scoring list and immediately shout BEST PLAYER EVER like some kind of Pavlovian response.

 

But lets actually look at what Jerry Stackhouse did that year:

 

29.8 points, 3.9 rebounds, 5.1 assists, 1.2 steals, 0.7 blocks and 4.1 turnovers per game.

Strip those numbers of all context, and those are awesome numbers. Yeah, it's a lot of turnovers, but who cares right? He's giving you almost 30 points and over 5 assists! You can stand a few extra turnovers for that!

 

Ok. Here's some more of what Stackhouse did that year:

24.1 FGAs per game, .402/.351/.822 for an eFG% of .445 and a TS% of .521. And I'm going to go ahead and repeat that .351 number, because he was shooting almost 6 threes a game.

 

 

That is terrible. Adjusting his scoring to account for the whole "taking a shot more than once every 2 minutes of game play" thing, and you're left with a guy scoring just 1.24 points per shot attempt. That's not god-awful, but it's certainly below average.

 

For comparisons sake, here are the NBA's current top 10 scorers' points per shot attempt:

1. Kobe Bryant - 1.21

2. Kevin Durant - 1.42

3. Lebron James - 1.51

4. Kevin Love - 1.37

5. Russel Westbrook - 1.25

6. Derrick Rose - 1.26

7. Deron Williams - 1.25

8. Monta Ellis - 1.15

9. LaMarcus Aldrdige - 1.26

10. Blake Griffin - 1.32

 

That mostly fits with what we know about those players this season. Kobe shoots too much, Westbrook doesn't get to the line enough and shoots too many 3s, Rose shoots way too many 3s, Aldridge shoots too many long 2s, Deron Williams has been horrible for most of the year but better lately, every scorer's efficiency is down this year due to the lockout, and Lebron is having one of the most efficient years imaginable.

 

And then there's Monta Ellis.

 

Ellis, shown here counting the number of shots he's missed this quarter.

 

Saying that Monta Ellis is an inefficient volume shooter is fair.

 

Saying that Monta Ellis is an idiotic chucker who has repeatedly benefited from playing in a wide open offense where he was free to hog the ball, shoot as often as he wanted, never play defense, and inflate his stat totals by playing gargantuan numbers of minutes is cruel.

But also fair.

 

1.15 points per shot attempt is Nick Young-ian, and I don't say that just because I'm a person who has to watch Wizards games and daydreams about roasting marshmallows over Young's burning corpse every time he checks into the game.

 

Nick Young is currently averaging 1.12 points per shot attempt. His career average is 1.16, and that's Nick Young: the worst chucking chucker in the NBA.

Even Nick Young can't believe that a person exists who scores less efficiently than him.

Monta Ellis is a player who has made a name for himself based entirely on his ability to take a whole lot of shots and play a whole lot of minutes. But he's never won anything, and an even cursory examination of his advanced stats explains why.

 

For instance, in 2009-2010, Monta Ellis finished 6th in the NBA in scoring, averaging 25.5 points per game. And that's really good, right up until you look at his advanced stats, which suck out loud.

 

PER, as stated, greatly overvalues volume shooting. So you should keep that in mind when I tell you that his PER that year was 16.7. That's only slightly better than what JJ Redick is putting up this year. Ryan Anderson is putting up 22.3

 

Even more amazing is the number of win shares Ellis put up that season: 1.3, all of them defensive. Actually process that for a second: Monta Ellis didn't finish with a single fraction of an offensive win share in a year he finished 6th in the NBA in scoring. How is that even possible? In the year Orlando lost 18 in a row, Tracy McGrady finished the year with 8 offensive win shares, and that team only won 22 games.

 

I tried to find a picture that was as scary as that Magic team. This will do.

 

This year, yeah, Ellis is a little better. PER of 19 and even a few win shares. Of course, his team is still 3 points better per 100 possessions when he's parked on the goddamned bench. Oh, and even based on PER, he's been the third best player on his team, and 82 games has his Simple Rating at 1.7, good for 7th on his team.

 

He's a volume chucker. He's ALWAYS been a volume chucker. I thought we all knew this. I thought we all knew this.

And yet there I was last night, reading page after page of people waxing idyllic about Monta Ellis, as though they've never seen the guy play before:

" Ellis immediately becomes our second best player, a player that can be considered a cornerstone of the franchise along with Dwight"

 

It makes me wonder if I'm the only one who's watched the NBA before. Ellis isn't the second best player on a team that will most likely miss the playoffs, but he's going to get traded and suddenly become the second best player on a contender and a franchise cornerstone? Is this a prank? Am I on Punk'd right now?

 

Monta Ellis is a volume chucker who plays too many minutes, can't play within any offensive structure at all, and who is due to win a new set of steak knives the next time he actually guards someone, which will be his 10th time ever.

 

And this guy is gonna save our franchise? THIS is a guy you think is better option than planning for a better future with or without Dwight, who we should note can still leave anyway?

 

But that's how it always goes on this board. You dopey assholes work yourselves into a tizzy about how some insider says X, Y and Z are like, totes about to happen, you get excited for no goddamned reason(Monta Ellis? MONTA ELLIS?), then act like you've been let down. Here's an experiment for you: go on any message board about upcoming movies, and see how long it takes for someone claiming to have insider access to Hollywood film executives to show up with some huge movie scoop. You should be waiting, at most, 90 seconds.

 

This is what google thinks Hollywood insiders look like. I believe them.

 

 

Anyone on this board would call bull**** on that garbage immediately, but here? Here you lap it up like Corgi puppies.

 

On the plus side, being so stupid and looking so ridiculous IS kind of adorable.

 

And when it proves to be false, you'll run someone else off the board for telling you the rumors they heard or made up. Remember TheRevTy? He posted on this board for YEARS. Then one day, he posted a rumor he heard about Chris Paul, it proved wrong, and he was run out on a goddamned rail. And you'll do it again.

 

Because if there's one thing I've learned in the 5 and a half years I've posted on this board, it's that people here don't ever get smarter; they just find new and exciting ways to be complete idiots.

 

 

Monta Ellis?!?

As always, I'm Drunk On Mystery, and the knowledge you exist is a burden on my soul.

 

 

wow.............................

 

 

 

 

yawwwnwnnnnnnwnwnwnnnnnnnnnn.................

 

 

 

you must be a Jameer lover. good work on all that research, but all this knowledge and you forget one thing: Ellis is still more consistent than anyone not name Dwight on our team. Ballhog or chucker, he gets it done. I wouldn't trade for him... but dam you a hater bruh.

[Berto 338]

wow.............................

 

 

 

 

yawwwnwnnnnnnwnwnwnnnnnnnnnn.................

 

 

 

you must be a Jameer lover. good work on all that research, but all this knowledge and you forget one thing: Ellis is still more consistent than anyone not name Dwight on our team. Ballhog or chucker, he gets it done. I wouldn't trade for him... but dam you a hater bruh.

 

[the notorious S.A.C. 89]

No, it's just that a lot of people go (or like going) with their gut feeling on sports. Fans. Coaches. GMs. Scouts.

Some people just see, others watch, certain few see through. It's what we call a "soft skill".

 

A def leopard ( :headbang: ) could make a statistically watertight argument a couple of months ago that Jeremy Lin is a waste of bench.

 

To the "assumption of this forum", that statement would be so non-idiotic.

 

And yet, it would be so wrong.

 

To quote prof. Martin Stopford, statistics is like a bikini. What it reveals is important, what it conceals is vital.

 

It certainly explains DOM's statistical analysis of Gortat being a scrub overpaid back up center averaging 4 points and 3 rebounds and not the trade piece that kept Dwight in Orlando past Thursday.