Semi-OT: Hollinger talks about Durant

Yeah, we really missed out, especially with Oden looking good

 

The Thunder went on a nice winning streak when Durant was out last year. It could just be that his teammates step up when he's not there instead of leaning on him.

 

Yeah, you aren't kidding, look at how much they relied on him


http://www.82games.com/0809/0809OKC.HTM

 

A good article on the disconnect between Durant's terrible +/- and the observational data and production-based data (like PER).

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-45-35/The-Kevin-Durant-Conundrum.html

 

Very interesting that Hollinger would admit to being confused by new stats.

 

The history of the NBA is littered with great scorers who never won a ring. Unless he's traded, or OKC gets a dominant rebounder/defender to pair with him, Durant will be another.

I said it when we won the lottery, and I still believe it as much today as I did then. Defense and rebounding wins championships. Oden gives you both. Durant gives you neither.

BNM

 

I love Wayne Winston more the more I read of him:

Here's my latest analogy for Durant: a 6'10" Kevin Martin.

 

Winston is one of those guys that thinks Dirk is better than Shaq in his prime. He's one of the worst stat people out there.

The more I read about him the more pointless it is, even Hollinger doesn't buy into this stat completely.

I'd rather go to 82games.

 

Reminds me of a debate several years ago on a baseball site. The author was arguing that Boggs was a "great" player and a HOFer, while Tony Gwynn was not. His proof? Boggs coat-tailed his way to a ring, and Gwynn didn't. You could make the same argument to say that Clyde was a greater player than Stockton.

Great players sometimes don't win rings - crappy players do "win" rings. Titles only measure *team* success...they tell us very little about most individual players.

(and yes, I care more about the titles - I would trade every individual accolade ever won by a Blazer player for a trophy)

 

I can see it so far in his career. However, it is clear that he is young enough that there is a good chance he will become more than that.

I think however that if Durant ever had the good luck of being drafted by Portland - Nate would have made him work hard to overcome his issues and play right and while some of our forum would pull their hair out how stupid he (Nate) is - it probably would have made him a much better player...

Somewhat related - why the Thunder (and Memphis) are not going to make the playoffs this year:

http://www.blueblitz.net/2009100924...the-playoffsand-neither-will-the-thunder.html

 

That was way too many words wasted in an article about why the Thunder and Grizzlies aren't going to make the playoffs.

 

Indeed. A couple of thousand words to say "They won't make the playoffs because they both suck."

 

It seems to me that people are confusing causation with correlation with these numbers.

You can't assume these other players play worse when Durant is on the floor because of Durant. That would be causation.

The correlation here says that when Kevin Durant is on the floor with that select combinations of a very small subset of all basketball players on a particular team, those combinations of players on that team tend to be play poorer then they do when Durant is not on the floor. They don't say anything else. Not only that, they don't give you any reasons for this correlation. There could be any number of factors that account for this that having nothing at all to do with Durant. Maybe the coach's playcalling is different with him off the floor. Maybe other teams play better defense when he is on the floor as opposed to off.

There is a reason for the phrase Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.

Even that Winston guy admitted his stuff should only be used as a guideline and not gospel.

The world is full of nonsensical correlations. IIRC the book Freakanomics is full of them.

 

It could be, and it also very easily could be that other players are not able to get into a flow and rhythm with him on the court. That other players stand around and watch when he is on the floor, and that they are not allowed to play to the top of their abilities because of him.

 

so, uh, durant's pretty good

 

But is this nonsensical? That's the question. It's definitely a correlation but, at a trivial level, everything is. Even something as obvious as a person throwing a ball and the ball moving through the air is a correlation...it's just a correlation with such a predictable result that we feel comfortable saying that the throw caused the ball sailing through the air.

+/- (or, rather, the superior Adjusted +/-) is a lot more abstract, so it's not clear what the causation is. But that doesn't mean the data is valueless. The question, really, is how predictive it is. Does this tell us anything about how teams will perform in the future with Durant (or any other player, like Battier--an adjusted +/- superstar)?

That's hard to say and there's plenty of controversy. The downside of it is that it's an indirect measure of the player, rather than a direct measure like ones that use tangible production (points, rebounds, assists, etc). The upside is that it takes into account defense, any intangibles...anything that impacts the score should be affecting +/-.

Like anything else, it's a good idea to be skeptical but not dismiss it. I think it's an interesting measure to look at alongside everything else. When one doesn't know the full value of a measure, it's best to view it as piece of a the uncertain task of evaluating players...not the end-all/be-all or completely useless.

 

your sig doesn't say anything useful.

 

I can see this argument after one year. But when it happens for two years in a row... the red flags are there.

I guess that we will have a much better idea if it happens for the 3rd year in a row... - but it could be argued that in a way it already happened in college - the LMA Texas team (year before) and the DJ Texas team (year after) were both better than the Durant Texas team..

 

Durant came out of the game when they were losing by 20 and scrubs from both teams played even quite a bit I would guess