The numbers don't lie
Here are Ricky Rubio's Euro numbers during the first 5 years of his professional basketball career:
|
Age |
Team |
Pts |
eFG% |
Rebs |
Stls |
Asts |
TOs |
|
15 |
DKV |
10.8 |
57 |
5.2 |
3.9 |
3.9 |
4.3 |
|
16 |
DKV |
7.9 |
44 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
4.3 |
2.6 |
|
17 |
DKV |
14.5 |
48 |
4.9 |
3.4 |
6.3 |
3.4 |
|
18 |
DKV |
14.3 |
45 |
4.2 |
3.5 |
9.1 |
4.8 |
|
19 |
Barca |
12.2 |
52 |
4.9 |
3.2 |
7.8 |
3.5 |
|
20 |
Barca |
9 |
38 |
5.2 |
2.6 |
6.4 |
3.6 |
|
All statistics are per 36 minutes and pace-adjusted |
|||||||
Back in June, I used those numbers to try and predict what kind of player Ricky Rubio will be with the Wolves. Here is what I wrote:
NBA/EURO statistical conversion values [2]:
Pts
3PtA
3Pt%
eFG%
FTA
FT%
Rebs
Asts
Stls
Blks
TOs
PFs
0.75
0.73
0.88
0.88
0.95
1.00
1.18
1.31
0.80
1.43
0.79
0.85
The conversion value for points, eFG%, rebounds, and assists are taken directly from Hollinger. Hollinger used a superior method to identify these conversion formulas, so I use his values where I can. I am still building a data-set that will allow me to find solid conversions for the other statistics. However, until I have enough data to actually look at all player transfers from Europe to the NBA, I need to improvise. So instead, I simply took the mean values from all players in both the NBA and Europe across 3 seasons, and divided the NBA mean by the Euro mean for each statistic.
This might seem like a poor methodology given that it ignores the superior skill and athleticism of the opponents a European encounters after crossing the pond. However, I have some reason for tentative confidence in these values. Primarily because this method almost perfectly recovered the conversion values that Hollinger found for both assists and rebounds. Rebounding and distributing seem to be skills that players either have or don't have. This may or may not be true for some of the other non-scoring statistics (Stls, Blks, TOs PFs), but for now these conversion values are the best I have.
and later
"The conversion values for steals, turnovers, and personal fouls were obtained using my inferior method. In addition, the skills that lead to these three statistics are not necessarily the same in the NBA as in other leagues. The r^2 for steals, turnovers, and personal fouls NCAA to NBA are 0.60, 0.45, and 0.44 respectively [3]. Thus, even if we have perfect trust in my conversion value, our prediction for these statistics has quite a bit of error in it (note: this error could go either up or down with equal likelihood.) So, Ricky could definitely put up over 2 Stls, 2.5 TOs, and 3Pfs per 36 minutes next year, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
The conversion value for points and eFG% were both obtained using Hollinger's method. This means that we can be comfortable with the values above as the anchor for projecting Rubio's scoring statistics. However, both scoring and scoring efficiency are extremely difficult to predict across leagues (r^2 = 0.34 and r = 0.24 NCAA to NBA respectively, [3,5]) This means that Rubio's actual scoring and scoring efficiency could be considerably higher or considerably lower than the stats projected above.
Now that Rubio has played 14 games in the NBA, we can start to see how well that simple conversion formula predicted Rubio's performance. Below is a table showing the Euro-to-NBA stats I posted for Rubio in June, with Rubio's NBA performance thus far on the bottom line:
|
Age |
Team |
Pts |
eFG% |
Rebs |
Stls |
Asts |
TOs |
|
15 |
DKV |
8.1 |
50 |
6.2 |
3.1 |
5.1 |
3.4 |
|
16 |
DKV |
5.9 |
39 |
5.5 |
3.7 |
5.7 |
2.1 |
|
17 |
DKV |
10.9 |
42 |
5.8 |
2.7 |
8.3 |
2.7 |
|
18 |
DKV |
10.8 |
40 |
5 |
2.8 |
11.9 |
3.8 |
|
19 |
Barca |
9.1 |
46 |
5.8 |
2.6 |
10.2 |
2.8 |
|
20 |
Barca |
6.7 |
33 |
6.1 |
2.1 |
8.4 |
2.5 |
|
21 |
Wolves |
12.1 |
47 |
5.2 |
2.6 |
9.4 |
3.7 |
|
All statistics are per 36 minutes and Euro are pace-adjusted |
|||||||
As you can see. Rubio's season thus far is almost perfectly in line with his track-record. He has remained steady in his performance along all of the predictable metrics, and thankfully, we have thus far caught the up-side of the large variance in scoring performance.
Using basketball references season finder function I arrived at the following conclusion:
Rondo, McMillan, and Kidd have all proven to pass and rebound as good as anyone in the NBA throughout their careers. Interestingly, all three are also extremely talented ball-thieves, something that they share with Rubio, but not something that I included in the player comparison search. There really seems to be some underlying ability that helps produce assists, steals, and rebounds which all four of these players share. The other trait shared by Rubio's three player comparisons is defense. Rondo, McMillan, and Kidd are each arguably the best defensive point-guard of their respective generations. Their outstanding stealing and rebounding prowess likely has a lot to do with this, but each is also well regarded as a man defender. Scouts have lauded Rubio's man defense in Spain, but it remains to be seen if he is all-NBA defense material.
Physically, Rubio has a lot in common with both Kidd and McMillan. All three are tall for point guards at around 6'4". Rubio is clearly the skinniest of the three, but he has put on some bulk since he was drafted, and is likely to continue to fill-out. All three players are considered excellent athletes. Unfortunately, it is hard to identify how well they match up in terms of speed and quickness without combine numbers, and that data isn't available for any of them. Rondo is clearly the shortest of the four players at 6'1", but his freakishly long arms and unequaled quickness likely limit the importance of that distinction.
Each of these three players would be a really exciting outcome for Rubio, and based on his projected NBA statistics, each of these three players is also well within his reach. Even at 18 years old Rubio was putting up numbers that place him in the same class as the 21 year old Jason Kidd, and the 22 year old Nate McMillan and Rajon Rondo. His assists rebound and steals are consistently as good or better than each of these three players. His scoring volume is right in the same range, but he will need to improve on his efficiency to reach even the low bar set be this trio.
So while Ricky Rubio himself may think he is, "Ricky Rubio", and "not like anyone else", the numbers tell a different story. Rubio may actually be the latest incarnation of a particular player-type that comes along once every generation. The defensive point guard who generates possessions by collecting rebounds and steals better than anyone else in the league, and maintains possessions through upper-echelon ball-handling and passing.
Now that Ricky has played some NBA games, we can test this projection with the "player-comparison" function, also at basketball-reference:
| Per 36 Minutes | ||||||||||||||||
| Rk | Player | Age | FGA | 3PA | 3P% | FTA | FT% | ORB | DRB | TRB | AST | STL | BLK | TOV | PF | PTS |
| 1 | Jason Kidd | 21 | 12 | 3.5 | 0.27 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 2.1 | 3.8 | 5.8 | 8.2 | 2 | 0.3 | 3.4 | 2 | 12.4 |
| 2 | Nate McMillan | 22 | 5.5 | 0.1 | 0 | 2.6 | 0.62 | 1.8 | 4.2 | 6 | 10.6 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 2.8 | 4.3 | 6.8 |
| 3 | Rajon Rondo | 21 | 11 | 0.3 | 0.26 | 2.7 | 0.61 | 1.2 | 3.8 | 5 | 6.1 | 2 | 0.2 | 2.3 | 2.9 | 12.7 |
| 4 | Ricky Rubio | 21 | 9.7 | 2.2 | 0.41 | 3.8 | 0.79 | 0.6 | 4.6 | 5.2 | 9.4 | 2.6 | 0.2 | 3.7 | 2.7 | 12.1 |
| Advanced | ||||||||||||||||
| Rk | Player | Age | PER | TS% | eFG% | ORB% | DRB% | TRB% | AST% | STL% | BLK% | TOV% | USG% | ORtg | DRtg | WS/48 |
| 1 | Jason Kidd | 21 | 15 | 0.47 | 0.43 | 5.8 | 11.9 | 8.7 | 33.2 | 2.9 | 0.6 | 20.4 | 19 | 103 | 109 | 0.07 |
| 2 | Nate McMillan | 22 | 14 | 0.51 | 0.48 | 5.6 | 12.8 | 9.2 | 35.5 | 3 | 1.3 | 29.9 | 10.3 | 111 | 108 | 0.1 |
| 3 | Rajon Rondo | 21 | 16 | 0.52 | 0.5 | 4.3 | 11.9 | 8.3 | 28.2 | 3 | 0.5 | 15.7 | 18.9 | 107 | 98 | 0.15 |
| 4 | Ricky Rubio | 21 | 18 | 0.53 | 0.47 | 1.8 | 14 | 8 | 44.3 | 3.7 | 0.3 | 24.6 | 18.8 | 105 | 97 | 0.16 |
Thanks to Ricky's (relatively) prolific scoring, he may quickly outpace any comparison to Nate Mcmillan, but Rondo and Kidd could hardly be better comps. We knew what we had, now we know what we have. let's get excited.
BTW;
Gloating was certainly part of the impetus for this post, but more importantly, I wanted to issue a reminder. Players who rebound, block shots, steal the ball, and distribute assists, seem to do it wherever they go. This fact is very under-appreciated by "talent-evaluators", and because of that, easy picks like Kawhi Leonard and Kenneth Faried slip further than they should year after year, and disrespected talents like Greg Stiemsma often don't catch on (even when they are on the practice squad of a team in need of a solid, efficient-scoring, defensive center.) Instead, teams invest all of their scouting resources towards identifying "scorers". In doing so, they make the projection process look much more difficult than it is. Scorers are important, but more often than not, they just happen. Rebounders, shot-blockers, distributors, and ball-thieves don't just happen, but are easily identifiable.
267 comments
|
24 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rec!
Well done.
In some ways, as prospects, Rubio and Jonny Flynn were opposites in this regard. Flynn was a very nice scorer at Syracuse who had more than a few red-flags in his off-the-ball numbers (3 rebs per 40, a so-so steal rate). Flynn’s assist/turnover numbers—which were good—unfortunately didn’t translate. In any event, Flynn the prospect was primarily valued for his offense/scoring.
Denver Nuggets might be the poster child for this type of evaluation, particularly post-Melo. They find little urgency to finding go-to guys and instead stuff the roster to the rafters with versatile/rounded players. Seems to be working out for them.
As far as small markets go, it might not be as sexy a model as, say, San Antonio/OKC, where you house superstars in 3 or 4 drafts in a short period, but it’s probably a model that’s easier to duplicate.
Yeah.
The Nuggets had it up to their necks with go-to scorers in Melo and AI, and they know where that got them. Their current approach is better (IMHO) and much more endearing (not that that’s terribly important to anyone but me).
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Jan 19, 2012 1:54 PM CST up reply actions
It's a balance
Will the Nuggets ever win a title with their approach (current grouping of players)? I would bet heavily on no. And that doesn’t mean I don’t think they are a good team, but when they have to go up against OKC, Miami even Dallas they are gonna be facing teams that are generally just as good as they are on the math side of things….yet they have cold blooded scores that can put the ball in the hole on anyone in any situation.
I think the Nuggets need a guy like that and ultimately if the Wolves have title aspirations down the line, they are gonna wanna find a guy like that.
I for the record don’t believe it HAS to be your franchise guy, so there is no reason to not sign Love for example to a MAX deal just cause he isn’t that guy. I think the Spurs are a really good example of a team who’s volume scorers where their 2nd and 3rd best players in Parker and Ginobli…Parker could get to the line like a mad man and Ginobli is Ginobli…one of the better “plays within the game” scorers of the last 10 years…
Eric Gordon would be a nice start if that fantasy could become reality, maybe it’s Dthrill and he can play the SF spot…
Or maybe it’s just something we worry about down the line…
But I’ve always felt the best team (or let’s go with starting 5) is 4 low volume, low usage, high efficiency players with 1 guy who is in the volume/high usage category…but he’s a guy who is also cool playing within a team too.
Volume carries a really bad connotation, and understandably so….but the kind of player it generally defines, the good version of that player is a guy who will make life a lot easier for a KLove and Rubio
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
i think the nugs had "a guy like that"
by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 19, 2012 7:43 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
How did that work out for them?
Ooooohhh, that’s right. They improved when he left.
by vjl110 on Jan 19, 2012 7:49 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't have any animosity for Melo as a person,
but the way in which his playing style is impugned in the Nuggets’ success and the Knicks’ failure since the trade makes me giddy.
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Jan 19, 2012 7:53 PM CST up reply actions
I have the same view
but I don’t let it inhibit my animosity for Melo as a person.
by zebano on Jan 20, 2012 7:48 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
depends on how you view improvement
they certanily “look” like a better basketball team, but they did fail to win in the playoffs last year w/o Melo vs the exact kind of team I mentioned in my original post that would be tough for them to beat in the OKC thunder.
They won a bunch of playoff games with Melo and even went to the WCF when they put the right players around him (Billups in his prime, Nene i.e. 4 “efficiency” king type players).
Maybe they win a playoff series this year, maybe they don’t. I don’t know, but I’d rather have that type of guy and work around him, than not.
Now, Melo is not my preferred player. I take him if he’s on my team, but I’m not begging the Wolves to get him.
A team can win a title with a KLove as their best player….they still gotta find a guy who can score at a volume pace with reasonable efficiency when the need arises, cause in the playoffs almost every game there is a need for that kinda player
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
Heh.
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Jan 19, 2012 9:06 PM CST up reply actions
I rec'd it.
Got me to laugh
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
RE: Scoring
Very nicely put. Guys who can really score the ball on their own are pretty damn rare. In order to be reasonably confident about a college player scoring in the NBA they have to score at ridiculously efficient levels and with a big ol usage rate. It’s just not something you can reasonably bank on, let alone hope that it will develop in players who show “potential” on that front.
This is especially grating in regards to Wes Johnson. They wanted a guy who could hit open 3s, rebound, defend, etc, and they chose a guy who really didn’t have a good track record of producing off the ball.
Meanwhile, a guy like Leonard was staring them in the face (I’ll gloat a bit, too ;)):
9- Kawhi Leonard, wing:
If you cannot find a player who can carry a high usage rate while scoring efficiently and not turning it over, the next best thing you can hope for is a guy with a lower usage rate who can really produce off the ball while not turning it over. Leonard isn’t going to win any shooting awards but he will rebound the hell out of the ball, defend multiple positions, and be a decent passer.
Of all the players I put into the spreadsheet, Leonard carries the 4th highest reb/40 mark (13) behind Markeiff Morris, Kenneth Faried, and Thomas Robinson. Throw in his age (19), ridiculous measurements (7’3" wingspan, gigantic hands), and solid net production and you have a guy that you can pair with Wes Johnson (who, for better or worse, seems to be a part of this team’s long term core) at the ⅔. The team would still need a high-usage point guard to bring it all on home, but they certainly could do a lot worse at this point in the draft by passing on the top ranked wing player in the 11/12 class. Oh, he can’t shoot a lick….so there’s that.
This team will likely have drafted 2 versions of Wes Johnson in Malcolm Lee and Wayne Ellington. It’s not hard to find guys like that.
Ugh.
by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 19, 2012 1:47 PM CST reply actions 3 recs
So do you think Williams low college usage rate
was a good or bad thing when projecting his NBA upside?
I had always imagined it was a good thing cause that meant the shots he was taking in college (3’s and lane shots) were similar to the one’s he was gonna take in the pro’s and that he was scoring within the flow of an offense
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
Something something williams
something something wes, something paul george something something….
BTW: I read this over at the Pistons site
"At the end of the day, that guy has to decide, every day he wakes up, that he wants to be great," Dumars said. "I don’t think you can find that in any kind of testing or metrics or stat or anything else. He has to have it in him and those two guys have it in them."
Have fun with that, Detroit fans. When actual production can be measured, you have a guy putting things together with the whispers of motivation fairies.
When I was over at their site checking out the game thread
I saw a lot of “Fire JOD!” posts. He’s gone from icon to albatross over there.
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Jan 19, 2012 1:56 PM CST up reply actions
It is amazing how much money NBA owners spend on ignorance.
I am reminded of that every time those “GM surveys” come out. The vast majority of NBA decision makers are about as well informed as the average ESPN forum commenter. They just have a better pedigree.
I study evolution...
and am very partial to “efficient market” kinds of ideas… I am really drawn to the idea that when some currency is at stake, be it fitness, cash, or calories, the system will eventually converge on some sort of optimum and you can safely assume rational and efficient behavior.
Nothing confounds this perspective like the combination of huge piles of money and complete irrational ignorance we see in NBA management. How do guys like Joe Dumars still have jobs? You could easily get someone to make vastly better decisions on a quarter of the salary. I just don’t understand.
The best theory I can come up with is that these rich guys are paying as much to chum it up with "basketball folk’ as they are for wins and return on their investment.
by vjl110 on Jan 19, 2012 2:10 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I think predictability and a realistic scale (i.e. fairness) are key
To use broad tax policy as an example, I don’t think it matters a whole lot whether the top tax rate is 34% or 70% as long as it is predictable as well as equitable (i.e. not having a lot of loopholes, as well as it being based on the ability to pay in relation to disposable income [scale]). This way people can better predict, prepare, and measure…you know, act rationally towards the most efficient ends.
I will never get how guys like Dumars or Kahn expect reproducible results when they talk about things that simply cannot be measured with a solid correlation to any number of good things (mostly wins). You build player ratings systems because they are somewhat predicable and for whatever flaws they may have, you can always measure performance against that system in order to a) get good players and b) make your system better.
I think your last paragraph gets it half right. There is definitely some of that (I’ve seen it up close with Glen and Rambis), but I think it is much more to do with the rich people running the team not really knowing much about basketball so they hire “basketball experts” who are able to talk about the game in ways that seem smart and are identifiable to anyone who has heard a sports cliche or two.
...
…but I think it is much more to do with the rich people running the team not really knowing much about basketball so they hire "basketball experts" who are able to talk about the game in ways that seem smart and are identifiable to anyone who has heard a sports cliche or two.
I think I am with you here. All “basketball experts” need to do is woo a pool of about 30 very rich men that is replaced at a very slow rate. You could go the route of describing how you can achieve success using relatively simplistic statistical methods. However, with a market that small and stagnant, you are better off going the religion route. Convince the buyers that managing basketball requires secret knowledge that can only be obtained by being involved in the basketball-people cult for X years. That way you don’t need to worry about getting fired because some kid who just graduated from the U will do your job for half as much money.
BTW.. this is what is so baffling about Kahn. He isn’t in the basketball cult and he has no idea how basketball works. Hell… he isn’t even a charismatic speaker. inexplicable.
Another thing to remember about "experts"
is that those who can communicate well to non-experts are usually not as expert as the experts who lack the all-important ability to “suck up.”
In almost every field of endeavor there are those who make money doing something, as opposed to those who do something well. The overlap between the two groups is embarrassingly small.
Yo ho ho and a FirstRow stream!
I used to think it was "sucking up"
before I learned more about emotional intelligence and persuasion.
by Black Jack Davy on Jan 20, 2012 5:55 AM CST up reply actions
Networking
is both a dirty word and a legitimate path to a successful career.
And by legitimate, I mean putting people in a position to both easily claim the successes of others as their own and also to pawn off their failures on underlings.
This back and forth between SnP and vj110
Is like a roundtable dissertation of basketball if MSNBC did it.
Fascinating as always boys.
Don’t agree with everything, but still cool to read.
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
I realize I presumed you were both boys
my bad (if there are female posters who would be offended at my presumption), didn’t mean it like that. Girls can like (and know more than I) basketball too!
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
Yes Yes YEs
I deal a lot more with baseball statistics. And old-school baseball people HATE stats like WAR. They hate that you took all the numbers and combined them into one number.
But at the end of the day, when they make their MVP vote, they do the same thing! They might not realize that they are doing it, but they’re taking all the information they have, (and all of their biases), and ranking the top players to fill out their ballots.
Obviously no stat is going to have all the information. But, at the end of the day, you need a way to decide that you want to pick player A over player B, and the more objective and logically put together your system of doing that is, the more often you’re going to be right.
"Pinch-bunters don't have a ton of value, even with the Twins"
by Steven Ellingson on Jan 19, 2012 3:11 PM CST up reply actions
On tax policy, as long as Stop-n-Pop brought it up...
I had the opportunity to sneak into a presentation by Paul Kasriel, chief economist for Northern Trust, a big Chicago bank catering to wealthy clients. He talked about tax policy.
He said, in a way that was somewhat of a challenge to the audience, that if Obama raises taxes, it will not slow the economy down. He gave the example of Clinton raising taxes in 1993, his 1st year, and the economy took off. Then Bush dropped taxes in 2001, and the economy tanked.
What can we conclude from that, he asked?
1st, Clinton might have been the luckiest president in history, in more than one way.
2nd, raising & lowering taxes has little to do with economic growth or lack of it. Kasriel said that it is a fraction of 1%, according to his stats.
The big thing for economic growth is the rate of bank lending. And it is turning up, finally, after the recent debacle. So whoever gets elected in 2012, pub or dem, will be gifted a growing economy — according to Paul Kasriel.
He also predicted (last week) that China would introduce a more accommodative economic policy which would help to spur growth. Guess what, this week they did.
Just what you wanted to hear on a basketball blog, hey?
by timmuggs on Jan 19, 2012 6:30 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
If the economist didn't say we are all screwed no matter what
then he was wrong
Rome wasn't built in a day
You've got to believe!!!
The tinkerbell economy will continue for the next 4 years, IMHO.
Apre moi, le deluge.
Wait
Bush spoke French? Or was that Cheney?
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Jan 19, 2012 10:12 PM CST up reply actions
Had to be Cheney
with his hand up Bush’s ass, making it look like Bush spoke French.
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Jan 19, 2012 10:23 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
i just read a study that suggested the optimal top tax rate is 70%
i think the big deal is, as you allude to with the banks, keeping money moving. taxing money that just sits there imight be a good incentive for it to be spent. we have a ginormous economy with more than enough money. distribution and the way it flows seem to be a large part of the current problem.
Money velocity is an effect of the underlying economic systems
In itself, it does not convey whether real economic value is actually being created. But it can be an indicator that our systems are not working.
The problem is that we have a centrally-planned money supply, resulting in artificially low interest rates. When a central agency – and not the market – is setting prices, which in this case is the cost of renting money, you can be sure they will fail. And unfortunately, this usually results in unintended but very damaging consequences.
Tom Woods explains it eloquently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=541bajR4k8g#t=902s
by Black Jack Davy on Jan 20, 2012 6:51 AM CST up reply actions
Hayek
price theory is valuable and the importance of using markets to set (most) prices should not be forgotten. It’s difficult to argue, however, that low interest rates are to blame for financial crises. But, we won’t settle this here.
Too hot to handle, too cold to hold
They're called the Ghostbusters and they're in control
by littleboxes on Jan 20, 2012 10:25 AM CST up reply actions
Hayek won the Nobel Prize in part for this work on business cycle theory
So I don’t think it’s overly difficult to make that case. But you’re right, perhaps this is not the right place.
If you have some resources you want to point me to with counter arguments I’d love to check them out. I’m always looking for new perspectives I haven’t heard before.
by Black Jack Davy on Jan 20, 2012 5:52 PM CST up reply actions
My old man made a spreadsheet of historical tax rates and gdp performance pretty recently...
…and found almost the same thing. Higher top tier taxation rates were corrolary with increased GDP performance. And his conclusion was just the same as you mention: a successful economy is one where as much money changes hands as much as possible (the most people get the benefit of any single dollar through multiple uses).
Here’s the paper (pdf) I mentioned. Marginal dollars to the wealthy don’t matter as much as we like to pretend…at least not compared to how that dollar could be put to use by someone with considerably less money.
Ten Years After-
“Tax the rich, Feed the poor,
Til there are no rich no more.”
The thing about giving money to the poor is the rich will have it all back in five minutes anyhow.
"pokin' the animals at the Canis Hoopus zoo"
by pastyearsears on Jan 20, 2012 4:59 PM CST up reply actions
...
As a rabid Georgist, I feel obligated to point out a couple great anecdotes from a Churchill speech about this sort of thing…
Some years ago in London there was a toll bar on a bridge across the Thames, and all the working people who lived on the south side of the river had to pay a daily toll of one penny for going and returning from their work. The spectacle of these poor people thus mulcted of so large a proportion of their earnings offended the public conscience, and agitation was set on foot, municipal authorities were roused, and at the cost of the taxpayers, the bridge was freed and the toll removed. All those people who used the bridge were saved sixpence a week, but within a very short time rents on the south side of the river were found to have risen about sixpence a week, or the amount of the toll which had been remitted!
And a friend of mine was telling me the other day that, in the parish of Southwark, about 350 pounds a year was given away in doles of bread by charitable people in connection with one of the churches. As a consequence of this charity, the competition for small houses and single-room tenements is so great that rents are considerably higher in the parish!
And you have that exactly right.
The rich will always get it back, just letting it cycle a bit ends up being better for the economy as a whole. Not necessarily the rich, but honestly rich never seem to stop being rich. They are too good at it.
You're probably right about that
But I think we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Spending is out of control.
Why? Because we can create money out of thin air via fractional reserve banking. And because we’re the reserve currency for the world, no one can call us on our bs. At least, not yet.
by Black Jack Davy on Jan 20, 2012 5:58 PM CST up reply actions
I disagree on the spending problem bit. We certainly have a revenue problem (it has collapsed since 2000). We certainly have problems with containing the cost of health care, but I’m not sure that means we have a spending problem. The deficits of the past few years could be wiped out in short order with some very simple tax adjustments and not fighting two wars at a time. We know that the largest contributors to the recent deficits have been, in order, the tax cuts, the bad economy, the wars, and then the stimulus package.
Nobody is going to call our BS. It would be disaster for everyone involved. We lucked out on being the reserve currency during the time where the world became completely interconnected. We also have lots of guns.
That being said, something has to give in terms of revenue and the price of health care. Health care costs continue to rise. Either they will come out of the government’s coin purse or out of grandma and grandpa’s back pockets.
The "two wars" thing
can’t be overstated. One was completely pointless and the other was horribly mismanaged while we concentrated for years on the pointless one.
And a return to Clinton-era (or even Reagan-era) tax rates would mostly erase the problem.
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Jan 20, 2012 8:58 PM CST up reply actions
We spend about 60% more than we take in. No problem.
Trees don’t grow to the sky.
that is true, but.....
…numbers don’t lie. revenues have collapsed. both with tax cuts and a bad economy.
And now Obama
is going to bail out the mortgage industry with our equity.
Frankly, I cannot believe how insanely hard the GOP is working to reelect Obama, a guy who right now couldn’t beat Jimmy Carter in ’80.
Yo ho ho and a FirstRow stream!
It really is amazing...
…that any party, regardless of ideology, is fiddling with even thinking about nominating someone with…well, this:

I get that people are angry, but electing what amounts to a middle-finger to a growing number of Americans isn’t a very solid strategy (or outlet for that anger, for that matter).
I think GMs in the past have been very successful
in convincing owners that talent evaluation is an art, not a science. That has several important implications:
- It is a self-preservation and salary tactic. “You can’t replace me with some bean counter. Finding the right draft pick is an ART, depending on background checks, personal interviews, my vast personal experience in the field, etc.”
- Results in a big pushback on metrics. If metrics make the job more of a science, then the art disappears. That means there are potentially lots of guys who can do the job better than the current guy.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Jan 19, 2012 5:29 PM CST up reply actions
BTW...
The Joe Dumars management story is amazing. Somehow he stumbled into a championship with a team focused on defense, rebounding, and efficient scoring, and then turned around and burnt all of his assets on guys like Ben Gordon, Rodney Stuckey, and Charlie Villenueva. That requires a complete inability to reject facts sitting right in front of you, as long as they don’t conform to your prior conception.
And all the while...
….he’ll talk about players in terms of desire, physical characteristics, and so on and so forth.
That moment, with Charlie V. and Ben Gordon, could not have been a starker departure.
Even the most casual NBA fan, if they were paying any attention at all, had the thought: “Hey, those guys don’t look like the Pistons.”
"Opinion ...a confession."
Yeah, I couldn't figure out if
Joe wanted to establish a new team identity, had FA money burning a hole in his pocket and all the good players turned him down, or ? Really weird signings for too much money.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Jan 19, 2012 5:30 PM CST up reply actions
Yep. Charlie V. is probably the worst player in the league making that type of money
I watched an international game in which the Dominican Republic was stacked with players, but were losing. Charlie V. just through a fit and basically robbed them of any chance of a comeback.
Horford on the other hand was awesome and was the only guy on that team still trying to win.
I would love to get Horford, even he was not already getting paid like he is.
by Tollysnipes on Jan 20, 2012 12:30 PM CST up reply actions
The irony of this is...
Horford’s dad had oodles of talent, but his mentality was weak. I’d love to hear the full story of father and son.
You can't...dust...for vomit.
you've misinterpreted his statement
Rubio and Love have exceeded expectations based on something within them that is unmeasurable. That is his point. I think you strongly undervalue the psychology of sport.
I was thinking this same thing about Darko except just the opposite. He lacks the desire to be great. He can put up some fine stats for a game or even a few. Tests out physically on the uber level for his size. He lacks the drive, the desire, the fortitude. Its why he’s such a darn tease. He just doesnt care about being great. Rubio’s and Love’s transcendent success is driven from within.
Dumars is not ignoring testing and metrics, he’s telling you the really great ones have to want to be great. He’s right, and he should know. While Love’s metrics indicated future success he sure wouldn’t turns many heads at a combine.
And again Love’s actual production could be measured but nobody predicted THIS.
Was Ricky’s impact determinable based on last year’s Euro numbers? Weren’t you among the many who wrote how the pick had lost value? I was.
Dumars was a star who played in the greatest era in NBA history. Zeke, Bird, Magic, Michael. And your very own Rodman. I’m going to defer to him on transcendent greatness.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 7:07 AM CST up reply actions
No I don't (re: psychology of sport)
I just don’t pretend it can be measured. You are deferring to something that simply doesn’t exist. Throw in an appeal to authority and have fun with the greatness of Charlie V.
All those players you mentioned have something in common: actual production. I’ll leave it to others to measure the motivation fairies.
It doesn’t matter why Darko can’t produce. He might simply suck. That is just as good a reason as “not being motivated”. Again, these things simply do not matter. If someone is motivated and great, chances are very high it shows up in their actual production and has for quite some time.
by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 20, 2012 7:33 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
we're not talking about player whispering. We're talking about mental and emotional dominance.
Darko again is a prime example. you are beating your head against the wall with him because you (the coach) want it more than he does. This is where I move on with my own players (hs aged). That stated coaches can have enormous impact on players who want to be great, and this at any level.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 8:01 AM CST up reply actions
eventually
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 8:50 AM CST up reply actions
Can mental dominance exist in players who suck?
Even better. The correlation between that made-up and immeasurable concept and winning is low. Very low. I think people with big ears have a higher correlation to greatness.
yes, they can suck.
There are obviously multiple factors, including physical attributes.
The worst player on my 4th grade basketball team plays as if he’s the best player. I’ve nicknamed him Luke.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 9:05 AM CST up reply actions
no one is saying it's measurable
And my 4th grader has chutzpah. I will suggest that while he may never be great, he will far surpass others with the same physical attributes ans skill set.
I will say I had a 4th grade AAU girl who was also my worst player at one point and played the same way. Either this season or last she was the captain of the women’s team at Emory.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 9:26 AM CST up reply actions
This sentence made me smile.
The worst player on my 4th grade basketball team plays as if he’s the best player.
"Opinion ...a confession."
Fourth and Fifth graders are great,
Often times the worst players end up being the best scorers, It’s like it has not yet occurred to them that they could miss a shot. Ah, the confidence of youth…
"pokin' the animals at the Canis Hoopus zoo"
by pastyearsears on Jan 20, 2012 5:07 PM CST up reply actions
Piaget stages in basketball player development.
You wouldn’t think it’d be relevant, but then these prospects are pretty young.
"Opinion ...a confession."
do you mean
…that they think they’re the best player, and therefore play in a way that makes them worse on the floor than if they just played within themselves?
If you mean that they produce in the game more than the other players, whether or not you’d pick them first without having seen them play in an actual game, then they’re not your “worst player” at all. Being good at basketball means just that. It doesn’t mean looking like you should be good at basketball.
Measurable in performance
Not as predictable. Again, no one predicted Tom Brandy’s success. No one. All teams passed on him 5 times.
Obviously once a certain level is reached and demonstrated over time the metrics are more predictable. You were unable to predict Rubio’s impact based on last year’s numbers.
To stay on topic, I’m talking about players who exceed expectations and impose their will on the game. I believe this is what Dumars was referring to.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 9:17 AM CST up reply actions
Now you're just arguing with yourself
No one is saying it is a crystal ball. What is being said is that production matters and you have a better chance at finding a correlation between past performance and future success with actual production than you do with divining Tom Brady’s motivation muscle.
And i think you are arguing with yourself
No one is discounting metrics as a measuring tool. I don’t think that was Dumars intention when he spoke about what non tangible attribute Rubio and Love possess.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 9:29 AM CST up reply actions
First, Dumars was talking about Monroe and Knight, not Love and Rubio. Second, this is what he said:
"At the end of the day, that guy has to decide, every day he wakes up, that he wants to be great," Dumars said. "I don’t think you can find that in any kind of testing or metrics or stat or anything else. He has to have it in him and those two guys have it in them."
I guess in fairness to JoeD and your argument, he says you can’t know this until after they’re on the team, so he may not be basing his draft-day decisions on guesses about whether they “have it in them”. But he’s pretty clearly discounting the value of stats in determining future performance. Given that Dumars has handed out some of the worst contracts in recent years, I don’t think he’s the guy we should be pointing to as a guru on the matter, even if he was a damn good NBA player.
wow thats funny
Not seeing the original quote I thought he was talking about our guys. Why didn’t somebody stop me!
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 9:45 AM CST up reply actions
BUT....MY POINT STILL STANDS!!!!
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 9:57 AM CST up reply actions
I think that it is cute that in the thread titled 'the numbers don't lie'
there are people arguing for the value of ‘heart’ and ‘determination’.
THE NUMBERS DON’T LIE!!!
;-)
It was sort of like the Animal House "when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" scene.
Don’t stop him, he’s on a roll. :-)
by Madison Dan on Jan 20, 2012 9:53 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
"i just don't pretend it can be measured"
I think you just agreed with Dumars. That’s all he was saying.
It exists for certain. It cant be measured. But it seperates elite players from great players who may have the same abilities.
He was throwing out the highest praise he knows to these two guys, not making a commentary on metrics.
Here’s the rub. There’s a point in time where the “I want to be great” factor can be measured, because it is reflected in the metrics. However, it is an intangible that cant be as easily measured in projecting success. This is where Rubio and Love, having surpassed expectations and demanding their will on the court qualified for some pretty high praise from someone who knows first hand about greatness.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 7:51 AM CST up reply actions
Also...
…even by your reasoning, the “really great” players have, by your own definition, something extra. They don’t have the “same abilities” if your definition of whatever-it-is is to have any meaning at all…and would therefore be reflected in actual production.
if you don't think a player's performance is impacted by emotional dominance
I think you missed about 8 years of Tiger Woods.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 9:07 AM CST up reply actions
http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/
They exist too. We can look at them and draw conclusions with greater accuracy than we can with how much his fee fees were hurt by Elin’s 9 iron.
Personally
I don’t think there’s any other sport that has a greater mental/emotional aspect than golf. And I’m sure there are others out there who have also broken wedges on trees or hurled putters into not so nearby ponds which would agree!
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 9:43 AM CST up reply actions
I worked as a caddy at Town & Country Club in St. Paul growing up one summer
There were 3 different Iron throwing incidents, one guy who broke a club over his knee and a douche who made my buddy dig through weeds for 5 minutes to find a ball which he gave up on because the group behind them teed off and hit my friend in the ass! Good times…
I can't even remember
I just remember planes and the nasty hill on the back 9 that we had to run up on during x-country races there.
I also personally enjoyed
the courses where you could slice the ball two fairways away and still have an open look at the green.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 2:38 PM CST up reply actions
I kind of miss golfing
I gave it up 2 years ago because it was just too damn expensive of a hobby. Really fun hobby but the prices were getting ridiculous.
I got hooked while stationed at Offutt and I lived a block or two away from the base course where a yearly pass was something like $200.
I've golfed once a summer since my son was born.
When I was avid I golfed about 30 times a summer but it was $60 a round. That $ went straight to Pampers and Similac.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 3:36 PM CST up reply actions
If only...
Last year most my 9 hole rounds were ~$20
My favorite goat ranch was the "18 hole course"
that had 9 greens but two sets of tee boxes at each tee, but at different distances from the pin. That is some creative marketing.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 2:36 PM CST up reply actions
I broke a wedge in half on a tree then kept it in my bag.
When in between clubs I’d say “this looks like about a half wedge”, then pull out the club. Funny gag but I also continued to use it, and with greater success than in its prior life.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 10:11 AM CST up reply actions
someone should write a movie about being a caddy at an exclusive golf club
Too hot to handle, too cold to hold
They're called the Ghostbusters and they're in control
by littleboxes on Jan 20, 2012 10:29 AM CST up reply actions
Sorry to jump in here - and perhaps this comment is useless
But I think the two of you are both making valid points that are not really related to each other.
TD, I agree that a player’s motivation and mental discipline impacts their level of play. I think what SnP is saying is that if it does, that will exhibit itself in the player’s past performance. If they are motivated and mentally tough now, they probably were two years ago. And if those attributes will help them as a player, it likely helped them in the past in way that is measurable.
The troublesome implication of Joe’s comments is that perhaps he thinks that a player who has not been productive in the past will be productive in the future due to their mental toughness. Or something. And that is not a great bet.
Where I will offer a counter argument is that a lot of actions a player takes on the court are not directly reflected in current ‘box score’ metrics. Defense, passes leading to an assists, taking charges, etc. If those things were measured better it would likely capture the contributions of the type of player Joe has in mind. e.g. hard playing team guy who doesn’t necessary score a lot.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Jan 20, 2012 10:13 AM CST up reply actions
The reason I make a big stink about it...
…with guys like Dumars is that you don’t have to search very far and wide to find an athlete or a coach who pulls the “I played the game the right way” card as a measuring stick for selecting players, choosing a style of play, etc.
To me, there is no bigger red flag for identifying someone who is unable to roll with the punches/adjust to the times than a guy who essentially sings Glory Days as a performance strategy. This morning at the gym I saw Jerry Rice on ESPN talk about how he prepared for games and how he thinks that this sort of hard work is a lost art. A 1 second Google search found this article about him applying the same sort of standard to Randy Moss.
I think there is a place for stuff like this. It’s fun to talk about. However, I just cringe when I see it anywhere near personnel decision makers. Motivation, athleticism, desire, etc are just baseline qualifications in that realm.
But there should be room left
for that player to become “mental tough”, no?
I realize basketball is a lot different than life, but I’m roughly the same age as Wes Johnson and I am more mature now than I was last year and the year before ect. I’ve always had the ability to do the job I have now, but had I had to do it 2 years ago when I graduated college I wouldn’t have been able to do it as well cause I wasn’t mature enough/ready to settle into a full-time postion.
I’m not saying Wes (just cause I already used him as an example) has the ability to do the job he is asked to do, but he probably has something in the ability area that made him a productive college player. I don’t expect him to turn it around or “get it” but I do think the “Getting it” factor is dismissed a tad bit too quickly by the “past production” crowd.
I don’t think it’s something you bank on….but it is still a legit thing that does happen to players. Yes, stars like Billups and Randolph on happen very frequently…but it feels like solid role guys happen all the time where they were in a certain situation and asked/expected to produce not in consistency with their actual strengths and they move to a different situation and are able to make good on that.
Antonio Daniels is a good example of a guy who was asked to be the 4th pick in the draft and expected to be a franchise cornerstone type player with the Girzz, was drafted into a bad situation bad fit and played a butt load of starter minutes (I believe as like a combo guard, which wasn’t to his strength) and he struggled with a rookie PER of 9.9
But he gets moved to SAS a better situation and finds a nice niche as a role guy there (after having his minutes reduced and role reduced) has a PER of 16. the rest of his career he has PER’s that hover around 15 and he makes a living as a quality role guy that can contribute.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/daniean01.html
The first half of his story is very similar to Wes’ we drafted him to a poorly coached team, made him play big minutes at a position he wasn’t comfortable with and counted on him to be an offensive option…which he currently is not….and we all wonder why he is both mental fragile and also non-productive.
Now he is on a little better team, situation, and coach. the early returns haven’t been great….and if he gets traded he gets traded….but if I were him I would us AD as the model and become a solid role/rotation guy work on the defense and let that set the tone for your game
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 20, 2012 10:31 AM CST up reply actions
Young guys do get better sometimes...
and it can occasionally be very unpredictable. A few weeks ago we had a back-and-forth about how there are almost no examples of “poor” players who demonstrated no real production for 2+ years turning it on. I still think that is a relatively safe bet, but a pretty powerful counter example is emerging this season.
Spencer Hawes went from bad/terrible (depending on the metric) to super-star overnight. We will see if he holds onto his current production (or hell, even half of it), but if he does, we may have the best crap to star story I can think of.
I was just going to say Hawes
Something weird is happening in Philly. He’s trying to be the real example of what most people mean when they bring up Zach Randolph.
Now, do you or any other stat guy
factor in environment? Is there a way to do that?
It’s not shocking to me that Hawes went from a bad situation to a better one and got better as a result. I think if you are still a young player with talent (like Hawes was a top 10 pick) and you get out of a bad situation in time and too a good one (BJ Mullins?) I think there should always be a little more time on the clock.
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 20, 2012 10:49 AM CST up reply actions
You love it
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 20, 2012 10:59 AM CST up reply actions
Time for a house call
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 2:12 PM CST up reply actions
Scoring
it really isn’t as sexy as it’s made out to be. An offense is predicated on 5 players working together with the intent of creating an ideal scoring opportunity. The person who shoots isn’t always inconsequential, but I feel like this site has done a good job of exposing the fallacy of isolation scoring.
Rebounds, steals, and blocks are mostly done in isolation from teammates and are typically a product of a player’s own instincts and reaction time. Basically, they involve fewer extraneous variables than the ability to score as part of a 5 person team.
Good Stuff
Really appreciate all the work you do around here.
You seem to come to somewhat similar conclusions to me in my recent piece on Ricky Rubio.
What do you think of Ricky’s high turnover rate thus far? It’s the one statistic really holding him back from a WS/48 that would far outpace Rondo. My theory is that the turnover difference is mostly a function of the large disparity in the quality of teammates surrounding Rubio and Rondo. While being supported by quality, intelligent players such as Garnett, Pierce, and Allen, Rondo likely didn’t have to try to force the issue very often and was able to make simple passes more often than Rubio, who the Timberwolves rely so heavily upon to create an open shot for somebody. As the quality of Rubio’s teammates increases, I think we’ll see the turnover rate decline significantly.
by Peter Christensen on Jan 19, 2012 2:02 PM CST reply actions
I'd like to think the TOs will go down...
Rubio does get a little wild at times, but my sense it that most of his TOs are more miscommunication than missing his target or getting tricked by the defense. Some of that should go away with smarter, more veteran, teammates.
Looking at his converted stats his TOs were this high his last year with DKV, which was the last time he was given this much free-reign. I don’t have the numbers, but I think TOs are notorious for declining with age. So he may improve quickly without any change in teammates.
In the past 7 games (1/2 the season)
Rubio’s TOV% is 21.98%. Since moving to the Suns in ‘04, Steve Nash has averaged 20.94%. Last year, when Rondo was asked to take a much more active role with the Celtics, he had a 24.3 TOV% and this year he is averaging 22.1%. Obviously, it helps to be playing Det, Tor, and Cle instead of OKC, Dal, and Mia, but I think we should be satisfied with Rubio’s progression in this regard, especially considering the increased playing time he’s received.
by Mark Blunt on Jan 19, 2012 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Also
at least one turnover a game comes from a teammate not handling a Rubio pass well. As the team syncs with Rubio, Rubio’s TOs will drop.
Yo ho ho and a FirstRow stream!
This would be nice
but I don’t know if panoptic goggles and NFL receiver gloves are legal in the NBA.
He is who we thought he was

He's Ricky Rubio. He’s not like anyone else.
by Facial on Jan 19, 2012 2:47 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Some well deserved gloating!
Of all the things there, it’s Rubio’s TS% that leaps out at me – partly, I must admit, because I was just thinking about it – considering how much “but he can’t score!” we had to listen to in the offseason, his scoring ability has been pretty nice, and sure to improve. Also, Nate McMillan was apparently an amazing guard rebounder.
T'Wolves 2012: Where Bears Are Fought And Unicorns Untamed
Nate McMillan was a very nice "glue guy" PG.
In the latter half of his career he’d become a sort of defensive bench player – but he was always the catcher whom you see becoming a manager, if you know what I mean.
He was an undersold part of the George Karl team in Seattle that played full-court defense for much of the game. Those were among the most fun teams I’ve ever seen. When they went away from Payton or went small, Nate put pressure on.
(It’s odd that Portland plays so slow, given Nate’s background.)
"Opinion ...a confession."
Great Stuff
IMHO the reason there are so many bad picks in the NBA draft is that scouts are still enamored with guys who allegedly have “all the tools.” They will consistently overrate a guy like Harrison Barnes because he, in theory at least, can do everything on the court (when he puts his mind to it). As long as Barnes has a few games where he fills up the stat sheet, NBA scouts are willing to gloss over his record as a whole.
It’s not just scouts though. How many chances has Darko gotten to put all his tools together? AR? It’s always going to be much harder for a guy like Pek, who has one undeniable NBA skill – low post scoring – to get the same opportunities at those guys. In fact, but for Darko’s godawful recent play, we probably wouldn’t even be seeing Pek on the court.
On the topic of predictable euro stats and the ACB...
how had I never heard of Gustavo Ayon until our game against the Hornets. I would have loved to pick him up this summer for the 1-year < 0.5mil contract the Hornets gave him:

by vjl110 on Jan 19, 2012 3:35 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
This is fascinating... nice work!
What’s surprising in all of this was how there wasn’t a lot of talk about what a warrior Rubio is. In fact the last buzz was he was invisible in some big games.
My point is he’s surprised me in his competitiveness and willingness to shoot, and yet there are his numbers, as scheduled.
One thing that seems to get lost
I remember reading that he suffered a number of hand/wrist injuries shortly after we drafted him and that greatly affected his shooting numbers. now that his wrist is all healed, he is shooting much better.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Jan 19, 2012 10:17 PM CST up reply actions
NBA.com love for Rubio
Entitled poetry in motion
Great line at the end of it. If Rubio wins rookie of the year, which is reasonably possible, he will be the 3rd player from his draft class to do so!
by Imyourhuckleberry on Jan 19, 2012 5:30 PM CST reply actions
I can't get enough Ricky.
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Jan 19, 2012 7:51 PM CST up reply actions
Fantastic
I used your arguments for the last six months on anyone that would listen to me at the bar.
You wrote – I believed. Thanks.
by maseshakes on Jan 19, 2012 7:07 PM CST via mobile reply actions
I applaud the effort, but am wary of the results
The numbers don’t lie (except when they do). It’s convenient to point out how the numbers from Rubio’s past predict fairly well what he is doing today. Of course, it’s looking in the rear view mirror. If the numbers didn’t align well, we wouldn’t be hearing about it or a different metric would be stressed. All data is incomplete. All analysis & predictions based on such exhibit an unavoidable bias from the analyzer. It may be subtle or overt.
Joe Dumars comments about players looking inside and deciding if they ‘want’ to be great can’t be dismissed off-hand, either. Many NBA players have surpassing ability and skill. Not so many have the heart of a lion. The comments about the lack of acumen of many owners, GMs, coaches, etc seems equally naive. Do you really think stats wonks could do any better job than most of the people working there now? “Moneyball” was nice, but I don’t remember Oakland winning any World Series’. Improved, yes. Dominating, no. (Possibly statistically insignificant.)
Remember it’s a team game. The coach is trying to coax the best possible outcome from a small group of rich young men with a wide variety of backgrounds and agendas. It can’t be an assist if your teammate doesn’t make the shot.
I’m ecstatic that we not only have Rubio, but that he seems to be panning out. There was such a lag between the initial hype about him and his final NBA debut that there were a lot of doubters. Even here. He plays the kind of basketball I’ve always loved to watch. He seems resilient and level-headed. We will be witness to the next stage of what could be a momentous career. (Or not, who knows?)
The stats debate is great to have. It’s a sports blog. Civil discussions about players’ merits are the standard fare. But let’s remember basketball is not an exact science.
vj predicted it before Rubio played a single game
A large chunk of the article is quoting from that. His prediction was eerily accurate actually.
Sure one annecdote doesn't validate the system...
but the r^2 numbers I used to make these predictions come from a huge number of cases. Sure there are exceptions, but they are few and far between. Look at Faried, Leonard, Morris, Biyombo, and many others… rebounds, blocks, and assists in particular are really easy to predict between leagues.
Joe Dumars comments about players looking inside and deciding if they ‘want’ to be great can’t be dismissed off-hand, either. Many NBA players have surpassing ability and skill. Not so many have the heart of a lion.
I don’t care what it takes. “Lioneart”, “talent”, “flourish”, “work ethic”.. call it whatever the hell you want. It took all those same virtues to be successful in college, in Europe, or in the previous NBA season. I don’t care how a player gets to the production they achieve. The fact is, performance is stable and patterned, and thus predictable. Dumars can hide behind all the verbiage he wants. Guys who produce, produce, guys who don’t, don’t.
Do you really think stats wonks could do any better job than most of the people working there now?
Abso-fuckin-lutely
The stats debate is great to have. It’s a sports blog. Civil discussions about players’ merits are the standard fare. But let’s remember basketball is not an exact science.
This is certainly true. There are always outliers, and those outlier are often explained by factors not captured in simple statistical projections. In the case of things like scoring, the projections (at least those I can conjure with the data available to me) are pretty crappy. However, in some cases it is getting pretty close to exact. The r^2 for blocks between NCAA and NBA is 0.92. 92% of the variation in NBA blocking is explained by college performance… That is hugely predictive. The other 8% is probably something like injuries. That is as close to exact as you will ever see. Rebounding and assisting aren’t that far behind.
"Moneyball" was nice, but I don’t remember Oakland winning any World Series’. Improved, yes. Dominating, no. (Possibly statistically insignificant.)
No… but Boston did.
BTW, One of my favorite ironies in the sabermetric world is that in many ways they work better in basketball than they do in baseball. Nobody wants to believe this, because baseball has this nice little controlled environment and basketball is open and filled with “interactions”. However, baseball is much more random than basketball. Hitters often see huge swing in their annual batting average, pitchers “lose their stuff”. Basketball on the other hand, as long as you focus on the right skills, is ridiculously easy to predict from game to game and year to year.
Baskteball isn’t an exact science, but it is remarkably conducive to making predictions based on past performance.
by vjl110 on Jan 19, 2012 8:07 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Basketball is not built for sabermetrics
Really, its not. I am not that well versed in this stuff but its a team game so there are a ton of variables you are missing when using equations.
Just my two cents.
90% of the crap I say on here is sarcastic
by CoffeeJanitor on Jan 19, 2012 10:38 PM CST up reply actions
Eh....
Here’s the problem. Name a guy that passes your “eye test” and I would bet 90 percent of them pass the math test too.
Some of the stats are pretty cool, I really like the Ortg and Drtg stats. Look em up and read about them, I’m just getting my feet wet. I’ve always considered myself an eye guy but that doesn’t mean you can’t use stats to back up what you are seeing with evidence.
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 19, 2012 10:41 PM CST up reply actions
Voodoo, seeing the light!
Good for you my man. I can remember just over the summer a young, argumentative fella who didn’t know the stats he was debating against. Now, he’s championing them! Outstanding.
by Madsen's 3-Point Barrage on Jan 19, 2012 11:10 PM CST up reply actions
haha
for the record if I were a GM I think, at least from a draft stand point, I could do just fine without them, but I wouldn’t ignore them either
I’ve for the about a year felt that Love was not as bad defensively as everyone makes him out to be and it’s cool to see him put up a 97 Drtg were I can now look to that and be like, “guy’s not TyChandler…I get it, but he’s not a slouch either”
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
I still wouldn't give up on those stats when drafting though
After all, those “D-Will is going to be a star!” affirmations certainly are not looking good right now! (insert emoticon to indicate razzing)
Just teasing you voodoo, I haven’t been around as much lately on CH but it’s still the best site out there and I have always liked your enthusiasm and love of the game.
by Madsen's 3-Point Barrage on Jan 21, 2012 1:10 PM CST up reply actions
I still believe DThrill will be a star
however I’m starting to come around to the idea that it more than likely will not be here.
I think he and Love can play together…but they gotta find the right mix around them and it might just be easier to try and package Thrilla to get an Eric Gordon or James Harden if the Thunder realize they probably won’t be able to keep Harden
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
I'm fine with stats
Its the advanced stats that combine points steals, rebounds etc. that get to me. The way the equations are made up seems completely arbitrary to me. I would rather we just focus on stats that are already there—I’m fine with TS%, rebound % etc because they do not make assumptions and are not arbitrarily made.
If we took a step back and looked at what we were comparing every time we named these statistics, I think it would sound silly. “As you can see, if you add Love’s rebounds and made 2 pointers and divide by his TO’s and his missed FG’s, you will see that he has a higher number of this stat than player X.” If you like these kinds of stats then cool, but to me I just don’t see the point.
Offensive rating doesn’t seem to bad, nor does defensive rating, but both of these would seem to hinge a ton on the system/coach the player plays under. I think its been shown on this site that coaching affects defense more than anything, not individual player ability.
90% of the crap I say on here is sarcastic
by CoffeeJanitor on Jan 19, 2012 11:42 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah...
there are reasons not to take them as the word of god, but they are absolutely not arbitrary.
They are also evolving
as the analysis is refined. WP was tweaked over the offseason and values defensive rebounds slightly less which pretty much account for Love’s drop from #1 in the rankings to merely being top 15 (>100 minutes played)
The eye test is constantly evolving too.
It evolves with each game and each season. With every passing minute, people nudge their rationalizations, adjusting them so as to retain their claims to expertise.
"Opinion ...a confession."
Heh.
Matt Millen can’t even spell “theory.”
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Jan 20, 2012 8:58 PM CST up reply actions
Sure there are plenty of missing variables....
but if you can make correct predictions… how much did they really matter? That is the beauty of it. Reducing all of that complexity into the handful of quantifiables that matter the most. When you model doesn’t make good predictions, you try to figure out why and improve it. That is the fun of it.
I guess its just that I'm coming from a science background
I recently switched to engineering and one thing I noticed was that, for models, my professor made that exact point—that if it works, who cares?
I am currently taking a two stats classes right now so I might have a different opinion on all of this after I’m done
90% of the crap I say on here is sarcastic
by CoffeeJanitor on Jan 19, 2012 11:46 PM CST up reply actions
there are always a ton of variables missing
even in baseball. What was the temperature? What was the visual backdrop (was it cloudy, sunny?). Did the batter sleep well last night? Did he get laid? Is he hungover? Is the pitcher unfocused because of his divorce? Did the pitcher go t college with the player and know all his weaknesses? We will never know all of the variables that affect the outcome of a single at-bat or even the outcomes over an entire season. Yet, someone’s career batting average is a very good predictor of that player’s batting average for next season. Why? How can this be true when there are so many unknowns? Answer this question and you’ve understood statistics and also why it can and does work for basketball.
Too hot to handle, too cold to hold
They're called the Ghostbusters and they're in control
by littleboxes on Jan 20, 2012 10:34 AM CST up reply actions
What's really crazy about basketball stats..
…is that they’re getting more and more detailed. There is a service out there that measures the speed of players, the number of dribbles needed before the shot or pass, what foot they jump off of, etc. I’m waiting for them to roll in the positioning of the refs.
I want data badly...
do you know how to get your hands on some of this data?
Hell I would be happy just to have all of the info in 82 games, hoopdata, and DX in a couple downloadable spreadsheets. Synergy (for both NBA and NCAA) would be great. There are so many question I want to dig into, but just don’t have the data, even though I know they have it out there.
No WAY?
I would be super interested in that.
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 20, 2012 10:50 AM CST up reply actions
one of the tough things about projecting college players on stats is that the system is irregular.
One guy plays on an uptempo team. Another in a Princeton offense. 2/3 zones, match-up zones. Pressing. Vast disparity in abilities of teammates. Coaching disparities. Focus on individual development. Level of competition.
My guess is that due to such lack of standarization all of these statistical categories, while relevant and useful, could provide some misleading evidence. To me that’s why eyeballing will forever be married with consumption of data.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 10:52 AM CST up reply actions
You can knock SnP's statistical college projection all you want
the man is as cold-blooded of a mock drafter as I have seen.
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 20, 2012 10:53 AM CST up reply actions
The guy doesn't even watch college basketball
and can predict pretty accurately at least who will be a productive NBA player or not
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 20, 2012 10:57 AM CST up reply actions
i wasnt knocking it in any way.
I’m suggesting that there are a lot of variables which could impact predictability from college to NBA. SnP has stated himself that there’s no exact science and he’s s been right and he’s been wrong. But frankly I wasn’t even thinking about SNPs projections. Sorry if that’s what was implied.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 11:29 AM CST up reply actions
I'll refer to an article I've..
…often referred to:
Talk of a special sauce makes Hinkie nervous. Yes, he’s a numbers geek and admits it. Yes, he and his staff devour forests of NBA numbers. Yes, he thinks it’s comforting to know that while he can’t personally watch all 1,230 NBA games in a season, his computer can analyze all 1,230 NBA games. But Hinkie doesn’t claim those stats are the gospel. They are just one more piece to a complicated puzzle, and when you’re dealing with players whose multi-million dollar contracts can make or break a franchise, every morsel of information helps. "Every team is looking to beg, borrow or steal any ideas any chance they get, Hinkie said. And don’t think Hinkie studies only computer printouts.
I met Hinkie last December at the All-College Classic. He was scouting, which could get him kicked out of the numbers-geek union. While watching the likes of Oklahoma’s Blake Griffin and Gonzaga’s Jeremy Pargo, here’s what Hinkie looked for. Does he talk to teammates? Does he talk to the crowd? Does he yell back at his coach? Does his coach baby him, and if so why? If he dunks off a lob, is it because the pass was perfect, or the play was a great setup, or did the defense go to sleep, or is the guy athletic enough to dunk without any of the above? "What we try to do is draw a clearer picture,,Hinkie said. The data trend will continue to be a part of our business, along with the judgment of experienced basketball evaluators and the unique chemistry building that coaches can create. This is yet another piece.
I figured the best way to keep up good debate on this site was to forego things we simply do not have access to…stuff like what Hinkie is talking about. Every little bit of info matters. We just don’t have access to anything but Basketball Reference, 82Games, etc ,and the FSN feed.
Nice quote
Chemistry is a biggie too. Whoever mentioned the Red Sox winning didn’t give enough credit to the chemistry the “idiots” had together.
This quote also confirms how baffled I was learning Billy Beane never watches games. You have to watch the games.
And team chemistry is basically a belief thing.
Similar what I mentioned below when discussing Rubio himself. Can faith truly move mountains?
I don't think you need to watch all the games
I think one of the worst things an NBA GM can do is to watch, say, March Madness.
Like say, the regional games at the Metrodome?
And then draft someone who played well in those games. Reminds me of someone.
how sweet would it be if...
Adelman likes Hinkie and Hinkie likes Adelman and Adelman talks to Glen about Hinkie and Glen pays Hinkie and David Kahn rides an exercise bike…
Too hot to handle, too cold to hold
They're called the Ghostbusters and they're in control
by littleboxes on Jan 20, 2012 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Kahn is valuable as the perfect negotiator for us
Simply lock him in the room with an agent, and say they are not allowed to leave until a deal is done. Deals get done surprisingly fast.
From what I can gather
It was two main things
- The team was making trades that Adelman did not believe in. Adelman is about winning now. Losing the very useful Shane B. and acquiring the very useless Thabeet did not go over well with him.
- Someone was trying to tell him which assistant coaches to replace and/or hire. I get the feeling they wanted Rick to put “their guy” on the staff as the guy who would take over at some point. Adelman probably did not appreciate this shot at his age and control over his staff.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Jan 20, 2012 1:24 PM CST up reply actions
"Adelman is about winning now"
You must admit there is some irony in that statement considering he chose instead a team that was one of history’s worst for two years running.
But the darn guy is going to do just that. Get this franchise winning.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 2:16 PM CST up reply actions
He had some quotes re: the wolves last year that were pretty damning to Rambus
I believe they went something like: “they’ve got good players and they perform well but they never seem to win”
I have to think that the rest of the league was laughing every time we did a high post feed to darko and expected him to run the offense.
I generally agree with most of your takes on sabremetrics
and thus why I enjoy reading your work.
I do think there is an un- quantifiable aspect to basketball that can’t be predicted, and stats can’t predict chemistry etc…but it’s no secret that the players that generally pass the VM eye test are the same ones that are Math ballers as well. Guys that play good team games, make and take good shots are the ones that generally look good in sabremetrics too.
I would imagine the perfect front office is one that has a solid mix of eye candy scouting and math balling going on. It seems like Indiana has kinda found that perfect harmony, Bird struggled for a few years there until he got some stats guys in there to help him round out his basketball eye.
I just made up the term “Math Baller” anyone like it for a super efficient basketball player? lol I hope it’s not offensive, meant to be funny.
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 19, 2012 10:38 PM CST up reply actions
I actually thought about old wooden coat closets
when you said Math Baller. Like a place where tall gangley Ivy League professors put their tweed coats before playing a pick up game of basket Ball.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Jan 19, 2012 10:56 PM CST up reply actions
haha
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
"performance is stable and patterned, thus predictable"
Why was Tom Brady a sixth round pick.? Every gm in the NFL missed on him 5 times.
I’ll tell you why. Because Brady wakes up every day wanting to be great (and I hate him for it!).
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 7:36 AM CST up reply actions
I always figured his college teammates couldn't catch.
I’ve always wanted to be a great NFL QB, but I think that being 5’-9" 160 likely takes any effect of “want” out of the equation.
When you don’t have enough data, the first reaction likely shouldn’t be to pin all logic on ‘intangibles’. It’s entirely alright to say ‘who knows’ and perhaps time will sort it out. Ideas like “he wants it more” are pretty silly if you stand back and look at it.
1st...
there are always anomalies. and 2nd, you couldn’t have picked a worse example than NFL QBs.
The success of an NFL QB is notoriously difficult to predict based on NCAA performance.
and NFL QB’s performance is so volatile that it is even extremely difficult to predict from year to year in the NFL.
This might be my favorite reason preferring statistics to mysticism. They even tell you when you are unable to make a safe prediction. Not only is there a measure of “how this guy will look”, there is also a measure of “but don’t take your guess too seriously.”
I have brought this up with scoring in bball a lot, but it is relevant again here. Notice that I am cock-swaggeringly confident about some predictions, but I will never say (or at least should never say) “so and so will never score in the NBA, or vice-verse, so and so just doesn’t have the ability to score efficiently at the next level.” Guesses on these issues are fine and fun, and I hope that with more research, someone will find a way to predict scoring with better confidence, but for now we can only throw our hands up. It is really cool that with stats you know when that is the best you can do.
I think the Brady example is "okay"
Can you quantify “clutchness?” do you even believe it exists is maybe a finer question first…but since I do, I don’t think you can really quantify it. If I remember right for years both the Hornets and Paul were statically the best team in under five minutes of play, which is probably do to the fact their best player is both a guy who can take the shot and is one of the finest passers the league has seen in the past 15 years.
But they’d get into the playoffs and drop eggs generally (I think they had one good run if I remember right). I do believe there is a mental “toughness” I at least associate with “clutchness” and a mental toughness could not be more identifiable between the comparisons between LeBron and Kobe for example….by all accounts LeBron is a much much much better basketball player than Kobe, maybe 3pt% is the only area where Kobe has been better over his career.
But LeBron simply has disappeared time and time again when his team needed him. First in Cleveland we blamed the supporting cast, but then he moves to Miami and disappears again when the stage is the brightest and actually needed the efforts of Wade and Bosh to keep Miami in that series.
Where do you (or anyone that favors sabremetrics) stand on this kind of an argument? Do you believe everything can be predicted? Is there an unmeasurable quality that made Kobe, Kobe, while LeBron is still titleless when he’s had 4 pretty good shots (2 finals trips and two upsets when he was the top seed, once to Orlando the other to Boston)?
I don’t think that means LeBron sucks or I wouldn’t take him 1st in a draft….but it’s still part of his game as of now
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 20, 2012 10:19 AM CST up reply actions
it will be interesting to watch alex smith.
Heard someone close to the team saying how they knew he was good but didn’t know he had “that” in him.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 10:21 AM CST up reply actions
RE: Clutch
A point in the final 5 seconds is worth the same as one in the first 5.
I will never get the fascination with “clutch”. What about players who can play well through pain? What about guys who are really emotionally detached?
There are so many points during a game where pressure is exerted or where “mental toughness” can be applied that I don’t get why it has to be associated with the last few seconds of whatever.
If LeBron scores 40 points with 10 assists and 20 boards in the first half to keep his team in the game and then scores only 4 points in the 4th while missing the winning shot, he didn’t “disappear when his team needed him”, he single handedly kept the game from being a blowout.
by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 20, 2012 10:35 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
you're being way too reasonable
Too hot to handle, too cold to hold
They're called the Ghostbusters and they're in control
by littleboxes on Jan 20, 2012 10:37 AM CST up reply actions
He may have kept his team in the game
But the guys that can finish the games become legends.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 10:39 AM CST up reply actions
Well, you kind of teed that one up for me
http://chasing23.com/kobe-bryant-vs-lebron-james-game-winning-shots/
http://82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm
Production tends to be written down. Memories do not.
(Does this mean Steve Kerr and Pax are Jordan’s legends?)
by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 20, 2012 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
are Steve Kerr and Pax legendary?
The mere fact that you raise
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 10:53 AM CST up reply actions
i hate that
The mere fact that you raised their names says yes.
Are they legendary on the level with Jordan? Neither had the physical attributes to carry a team. Each had ice water in their veins in big shot moments. And Jordan hit huge clutch shots, but that doesn’t mean he played alone.
As a post season player (can you pull that for me) Robert Horry is more legendary than Lebron.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 11:00 AM CST up reply actions
LeBaby
Has the greatest set of skills and physical attributes for his size of anyone who’s ever played. When Jordan goes for 62 the last two are the most relevant. As a playoff participant, LB has come up short.
No one can argue his greatness. And he absolutely carried the Cavs. Thus far (and I am in the I hope he never wins camp) when coupled with other greatness he has deferred.
As I stated, Horry’s postseason legend is greater.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 11:20 AM CST up reply actions
There's an app for that
If we are going to be story telling about legends, I think the legend of LeBron’s “collapse” has already eclipsed Big Shot Bob. You aren’t in a Horry camp. You are with “LeBaby”.
Another assist to SNP
We have a guy who is not anywhere near half the player of LeBron with what 7 or so game winning shots in the playoffs?
That has given Big Shot Bob legendary playoff status that to this point has evaded one of the greatest players to ever live.
LeBron can accumulate forever but cant be talked about with Jordan until he does some of the things Jordan did.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 11:58 AM CST up reply actions
*legend is greater
in your mind.
If you can find some statistic that proves that 2 > 2, I will be in your camp, but until then…
Plus Lebron is fantastic. Like him or not, he is.
I think I'm pretty clear about how fantastic I think LeBaby is (and I don't like him)
Legend is somewhat subjective, true, but not without basis.
Wilt is a pretty good expample of a legend debate.
And I will fully agree that legends grow over time to sometimes unrealistic proportions (goats as well). But we do love our heroes (and goats).
All I know is nothing has occured yet to spur a LeBron playoff conversation thirty years from now. Likely will, but hasn’t yet.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 2:24 PM CST up reply actions
I can only use this example to some extent
as I have not played pro ball or even high level college ball (did play some small college stuff)
But those shots are tough to get in the final minutes of the game. Players play hard all game, but when players know they only have to shut you down once more the go bananas. Everyone is working their balls off to not allow that point so they can go home winners.
Offensively everyone tenses up, most people when they’re shooting in their drive way at home about what it’s like to take the big shot, but it’s a hell of a lot different when you have a guy who is just as good as you, if not better up in your grill. In those situation most players do not want to take that shot, they don’t want to be the guy everyone points to.
In the levels of ball I played it is a real thing. At least I believe it to be true….I can’t imagine it’s any different (probably magnified) at the pro level.
That’s what I go off of on the argument, I was not a clutch scorer and I dearly valued having one on my team, cause they make your world indefinably easier
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 20, 2012 10:40 AM CST up reply actions
What makes your world even easier is having lots of awesome players who kill the other team throughout the game
How are you
gonna play OKC and Miami (or another good team) and ever not come down to the wire without them playing poorly?
I’m not disagreeing with having awesome players…both those teams have awesome players too.
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 20, 2012 10:46 AM CST up reply actions
How many game winning shots do you think are available to a player?
Look at that 82 Games link. 5 playoff and regular seasons with 853 games and Kobe had the most game winning shots with 56. He made 14 of them.
Here are the clutch stats from a few years back:
http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM
4th quarter or overtime with less than 5 minutes left. Who has the highest fg%? Ronny Turiaf. Who has the most points/48? Kobe, LeBron, Melo, Wade, Chris Paul…the list goes on and on with mostly the best players in the game. They get the ball in these situations because they’re awesome. When good teams are pressed, they give the ball to their best player. For the Wolves, this will be Love or Rubio. Hopefully, Love will eventually have 50 chances at game winning shots.
Time will tell
I’d still prefer to have a wing that can do the job in addition to Love (notice all those players are wings).
Eric Gordon/James Harden……would look mighty nice with Love and Rubio all I’m gonna say about that
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
by VoodooMagic on Jan 20, 2012 10:57 AM CST up reply actions
I am thoroughly convinced that clutch is bullshit.
I don’t know specifically about your CP example, but every attempt to identify clutch performance in sports has failed miserably. The “clutch” statistics recorded on 82 games fluctuate completely at random from year to year, players like Kobe who are identified as “last second killers” are worse than average in the waning seconds of a game. An analysis of every single baseball player in history found that only two players hit at statistically significant level above their expected average in “clutch” situations (with that many samples you would expect more simply by accident). Clutch is a fiction created by our little internal narrators.
The LeBron tale is a great example of this. Look at his playoff numbers vs. his regular season. They really aren’t different in aggregate. LeBron could not have been more “clutch” than he was in taking down the Bulls, one F’in series before he “crumbled” against Dallas. He played out of his mind in that series, and made several game winning plays to pull the Heat out of defeat. LeBrons subsequent failure against Dallas wasn’t some feature of his psyche, it was game-planning. Dallas also neutered LeBron in the regular season.

Dallas realized that LeBron doesn’t have a good post game even if you stick a little PG on him. So they stuck little scrappers on him, who he couldn’t get past, and was unwilling to post, and effectively shut him down. No psychological narrative needed, they found his kryptonite.
Is there an unmeasurable quality that made Kobe, Kobe
Lack of shame on his part, and surplus of confirmation bias on everyone else’s.
by vjl110 on Jan 20, 2012 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 4 recs
In hoops I think a clutch go-to guy can be look at as...
Having a combination of three things.
1. The ability to get off a high percentage shot (e.g., create some space and get a shot off, or break down a double team),
2. Having the psychological make up (or at least the desire) to want to take the shot
3. Being cool under pressure at the most important time of the game (not choke)
I think they all can be learned to an extent, but it takes a rare talent who has all three. IMHO every team needs a guy like that. And I would argue you can’t find a NBA title team that doesn’t have one of these players who delivered the goods during a title run.
Regardless, in the best case scenario, you only succeed half the time. One final note is, if you have several decent scorers you can run a play more and not just do the iso thing.
"One final note is, if you have several decent scorers you can run a play more and not just do the iso thing."
and the numbers show that this is really what you should always do. Isolation, simply isn’t a good play unless you have a huge mismatch.
Kind of depends who your players are
But point taken.
I love that the Knicks lead the league in iso plays
After the Rubio-is-ours business, I think they deserve that sh***y team.
They currently have 239 iso plays and they are shooting 29.3% on them. That’s 0.65 ppp. They run this play more than anybody else in the league and they are the 29th most effective team at it. Their 2nd most common play? The spot up. They shoot 34.9% on spot ups with .88 ppp, which is good for 21st in the league. They run the pnr on under 15% of their plays.
It couldn’t happen to a better team.
by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 20, 2012 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
For a comp
The Wolves have run 132 iso plays. They shoot 37.5% on them for .8 ppp. The Wolves run over 20% of their plays on the pnr.
What’s really funny about the Knicks is that 3.3% of their plays are finished by the pnr roll man. I.e. the guy who gets the pass off the pnr. They do this well, with 1.17 ppp. Naturally, what they do well, doesn’t happen a lot. Thanks Melo! Thanks Amare!
Again, it couldn’t happen to a better team.
As a Knicks fan who's suffered for a lifetime
I’m deeply insulted by Knicks bashing. ;-)
It’s the press that’s obnoxious. Not the Knicks. And their bonehead owner sold the farm for Melo when they could have a line up of Felton, Chandler, Gallinari, STAT and Tyson Chandler. Damn you James Dolan. Call Denver’s friggin’ bluff you idiot! We could be waiting for CP3 right now!
That said, I’ve live in MN for a long time and I enjoy my Wolves more than my Knicks.
Baron Davis is their only hope.
STAT is the guy causing them problems right now
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/01/18/is-melo-mad-that-amare-stole-his-playbook/
The basic difference between Melo in New York and Melo in Denver is that the Denver teams have been much better than New York teams. Last season the Knicks got lucky in that Landry Fields played amazingly, Raymond Felton and Chauncey Billups were productive guards and Melo and Gallinari were ok at the small forward spot. This season the old Landry Fields has disapeared, Felton and Billups have been let go, and Melo is still ok at the small forward spot. The Knicks did luck into Tyson Chandler — who is playing amazingly at center — but the problem is that, with only one great player and very weak players at two positions, it’s ridiculous to assume the Knicks can compete.
In the end, Melo is very much getting what he deserves. Another player is using his exact same tricks, but this time Melo is getting the blame instead of the credit. Of course, Melo should still be mad that Amaré forgot to emulate the most important part of the trick of looking productive by scoring lots of points — and that is to have very productive teammates.
Hmm... interesting stuff
Stat needs a PG bad. I am a Melo fan. He’s fun to watch. Just not a trade-the-farm-for-Melo fan.
Those two jagoffs deserve one another like nobody's business
They are the Kardashians of the NBA. Reality wannabes who value looks over substance. Have fun with your pretty points, New York.
by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 20, 2012 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I like Melo's game
but have never bought into Amare’s. Take away Nash and see how his career goes.
90% of the crap I say on here is sarcastic
by CoffeeJanitor on Jan 20, 2012 2:51 PM CST up reply actions
It also happens...
to be awful basketball to watch.
The Knicks offense is just terribly boring and awkward.
If you put RA and Ricky on that team, they'd be sick
But we’ve got them! Yes!
Actually I'm not even sure if that's true
The STAT / Melo redundancy is problematic. If you traded one of them for CP3, they’d be sick.
And I agree
They are not fun to watch, until the last minute of a tight game when Melo is in iso.
I can't take any credit for the LeBron vs. Dallas story...
I got all of that from an article (which I can’t locate) on “Silly Little Stats” by the very awesome Arturo Galletti, who now writes for Wages of Wins.
Yes.
Bron had some bad games in the playoffs, but people forget his off the charts ones as well.
I think people just like things as simple as possible and thus say LeBron hasn’t done anything, when in fact that is not true at all.
90% of the crap I say on here is sarcastic
by CoffeeJanitor on Jan 20, 2012 2:46 PM CST up reply actions
"was unwilling to post"
Is pyschological narrative.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 3:01 PM CST up reply actions
Is it not up to LeBron to adjust his game?
At the highest level of competition he couldn’t fight through the matchup and adjust his game?
I think that falls under the category of “crumbling when the pressure is on” I don’t think Kobe would have let a coaching maneuver stop him for 7 games without him adjusting.
I don't know what an art house is, I don't know what goes on in an art house, I have never been in an art house, and I can't imagine it's any place I ever want to be.
The guy has a limitation.
He is probably the best player in basketball, but his post game isn’t very good. It has nothing to do with “crumbling”. He was simply forced to do something he isn’t good at. If you want to argue that Kobe doesn’t have a similar limitation I would agree. He has a pretty nice all-around game, and doesn’t have any clear weaknesses that a defense can take advantage of. That is very different from “clutchness” however.
I would agree that 'favorites' win more often in the NBA
than in baseball. How else to explain the ‘87 Twins? It is one of baseball’s charms. Boston (and others) are in part successful because they, too, can execute the analysis of Billy Beane. That’s the way it goes.
Basketball almost always rewards the power teams. My opinion still stands (at least, as my opinion). I’m happy Rubio has played up to expectations. Care to enlighten us about anyone you felt similar about, who didn’t? As to the geeks running the show… it’s a closed world, open to those with fabulous wealth (owners) or those whose athletic ability enabled them to play on that exclusive stage. That leaves out virtually all fans. I hope your opinion of your own predictive abilities gets you the opportunity to actually care it out. I really do (not sarcastically, either).
From this fan’s perspective, unpredictability is not what people worry about. Most folks would not have predicted Tim Tebow’s late game victory streak, or the Packers losing at home this past weekend. Those who did can gloat a bit, but it really misses the point. The game is more entertaining with that unpredictability. And it provides more hope for teams on the down side, like the Wolves. And even with Love and Rubio, we are a long way from being a contender in the NBA. We need more.
I always knew Ricky would be wonderful
just like I knew Beasley would be great. And Love. And Darko. And Pek. And Flynn. And Wes. And Candy. And Sasha. And Stewie and Wellington and JJ and Lazar and Wally and Corey. Nemanja and Henk too.
I’m a homer.
I believe.
I also believe that for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows.
Yo ho ho and a FirstRow stream!
by TMiss on Jan 19, 2012 9:21 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Hehe.
It’s said that every cynic is an optimist who’s been disappointed one time too many . . .
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Jan 19, 2012 10:13 PM CST up reply actions
I remember the original post,
And I was convinced by it.
Now, can we get you a job in the Wolves scouting department?
Live And Stupid From England
by JonesTheCat on Jan 20, 2012 7:52 AM CST via mobile reply actions
A question. What is it that makes Rubio "great". (To vjl110)
I love the analysis comparing him to others but I think a more interesting question is why is he so good? You’ve obviously been paying a lot of attention to him so I was wondering if you could offer up some analysis as to the why. I think the answer lies between his ears.
a man after my own heart
PS. Please return my tinkerbell doll.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 10:13 AM CST up reply actions
A bit more on "between his ears."
I don’t think it’s just his BBIQ that makes him great or his desire to win. More than anything, I think it’s that he “believes” he can do it. He never seems to give up on a play. The things he says also seem to be in alignment with this philosophy. He talks a lot about getting better. Doubt doesn’t seem to play a large part in his life
Rubio understands what's going on
I think when he looks at the court he doesn’t just see where everyone is, he sees their momentum and fields of vision and instantly understands where the passing lanes are. It’s not a thinking thing so much as a recognition thing, like a big hesitating underneath the basket to create a little space. It’s just that Rubio recognizes the entire court, and not just the space he’s in relative to the basket.
Luke, otoh, seems to think about what he’s doing, and that let’s opponents anticipate him. With Rubio, they guess. With Luke, they know. Call it court awareness or whatever, Rubio does something Chris Paul and Jason Kidd and Steve Nash do. It’s a rare skill and he’s a very special player.
Yo ho ho and a FirstRow stream!
Sorry
“lets” not “let’s.” (Someone has to be a hypergrammarian around here.
Yo ho ho and a FirstRow stream!
Aware(ness). That would the exact word I would use to describe Ricky's play.
Very unusual quality indeed.
I think he's essentially a magician
Not in the sense of conjuring shit; rather, someone who has perfected the sleight of hand. He disguises everything. I think he’s the basketball equivalent of this</a. He’s an optical illusion to the guy guarding him.
Base Skills Essential too
Step back from the awareness, the vision, the misdirection and the magic… and there’s an incredible foundation of capability and control at a base level. Ricky is in full control of his own movements, handling the ball, using his body to shield the defender. The ball seems like a natural extension of his body, as the cliche goes.
If he didn’t have that control/handle, he wouldn’t be able to add on those special layers which make him great. He’d be too concerned about Westbrook or Paul picking him to work his magic, see the floor, anticipate and find the passing lanes. While he has natural advantages (size, IQ), building that PG foundation likely took a lot of work.
I suppose the great magicians are like that too. Unknown hours honing a craft, mixed with their god-given gifts (hand-speed, control, creativity) allow the best to win the respect of their peers and wow the crowds.
Don Godofredo Montego de Montevideo
My favorite is the fake pass layup move
When you see the replays you see how many guys get faked out of their shorts by it.
Fake Pick Request / Alley-Oop Combo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hqr1XWg7T-k
At the 1:46 mark, Rubio points towards Love, seemingly calling for a pick, before tossing a one-handed oop to Randolph.
Don Godofredo Montego de Montevideo
Jack Nicklaus was asked how he made so many putts
He said, “Because I visualize the ball going in the hole before I putt.”
Right now, I’m guessing Wes is visualizing the opposite.
I’m too lazy to dig them up, but there are studies where people were asked to visualize the result and no practice. And they performed better than the players who practiced alone.
Sure you need a level of proficiency as a base, but the point is human performance is a very mysterious thing.
lol Definitely
But Jack was giving us a little peak under the hood. To be completely absorbed in nothing but the result is where peak performance lies.
That’s why running around trying to figure out a triangle is never a good idea. ;-)
I'll add a little to my thoughts of "between his ears".
I don’t think it’s just his BBIQ that makes him great or his desire to win. More than anything, I think it’s that he “believes” he can do it. He never seems to give up on a play. The things he says also seem to be in alignment with this philosophy. He talks a lot about getting better. Doubt doesn’t seem to play a large part in his life.
you banged it
Players who get in a zone are so focused they are able to eliminate all distraction. The greatest of these is self doubt.
How many times have you seen the 92% free throw shooter miss the one and one with a one point lead late? He’s the same guy, with the same stroke, who made 92% of his prior attempts.
Wolves 2011-12: Crossing the Rubikahn....alea iacta est...... " et tu Ricky?"
by Tangerine dream on Jan 20, 2012 11:10 AM CST up reply actions
I swear I've seen that at least 7 or 8 percent of the time.
by Madison Dan on Jan 20, 2012 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 8 recs
You stole my response!
It’s amazing how sometimes, when continent, 0.92 = 1.00
continent?
WTF spellcheck, you lead me much further astray.
All I know is that when incontinent you get 2.00
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Jan 20, 2012 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
Ha!
"Of what use is a philosopher who does not hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes of Sinope
by Cynical Jason on Jan 20, 2012 5:22 PM CST up reply actions
My favorite continent
is antarctica
90% of the crap I say on here is sarcastic
by CoffeeJanitor on Jan 20, 2012 2:57 PM CST up reply actions
I was worried that I somehow inadvertently made another post about poop.
continent? incontinent? There’s got to be some permutation of those letters that will spell the word ‘convienent’ (which I still am incapable of spelling).
This Rubio talk of why he is good makes me think of this Freedarko article
It’s about aspects of athleticism as it relates to basketball. I see lots of parallels to Steve Nash (Article wise).
http://freedarko.blogspot.com/2009/12/got-to-get-off-this-never-ending.html

by 














