<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Is Magloire getting any PT for the Nets? He should certainly shore up the interior defense, but has to really work to score. I'm OK with Malik Allen in certain roles, but he's not your full-time answer. Collins? Your grandmother is an upgrade.</div> The problem is that the Nets get left with Boone, Williams and Krstic. Foul trouble would be a big problem.
So stand pat. You can have 6 turds to polish instead of 3. There is a guy who's flown under everyone's radar who doesn't make a big salary. I dunno if he's available for trade, but it'd be worth looking into (and for the Lakers, too). McRoberts. The guy has skills and size. He's buried behind the bigs in Portland, and it's only going to get worse when Oden returns. He was a great BPA pick for the Blazers, but maybe he could be had for small change and a draft pick or two.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So stand pat. You can have 6 turds to polish instead of 3. There is a guy who's flown under everyone's radar who doesn't make a big salary. I dunno if he's available for trade, but it'd be worth looking into (and for the Lakers, too). McRoberts. The guy has skills and size. He's buried behind the bigs in Portland, and it's only going to get worse when Oden returns. He was a great BPA pick for the Blazers, but maybe he could be had for small change and a draft pick or two.</div> He may have looked decent in summer league, but he has a long way to go to be even a decent backup. He isn't buried at all, rather he is getting the playing time he deserves. He is also very good friends with Oden and isn't going anywhere in a trade.
wow--there's so much in this thread now, someone pinch me. oh, let's see, off the top of my head: (1) total rebounds is a totally meaningless statistic. (2) PER? I have a rule: If you don't know what a number represents, you can't use it. I DEFY you to describe how PER is calculated, as well as the correlation between a team's total PER and its record (as well as total league standings). I'll wait. (3) Josh McRoberts was a mid-second round pick (nearly), has shown nothing, and you are advocating trading a "draft pick or two" for him? I assume you mean a single mid-second round pick. (4) Let's assume for the moment that we all agree that Randolph would be a good acquisition. Acquiring Randolph without giving up Williams, Boone and/or Krstic has got to be the most counter-productive idea I've heard in a while.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jan 16 2008, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>(2) PER? I have a rule: If you don't know what a number represents, you can't use it. I DEFY you to describe how PER is calculated, as well as the correlation between a team's total PER and its record (as well as total league standings). I'll wait.</div> I'll second this rule as a long time opponent of this joke of a statistic. Hell, I'll post the formula and it still won't help. where Not done, yet! I, too, will wait.
LOL PER is based upon that complicated looking formula, but I do understand it well enough to use it (and then some). And, no, I suggest the Nets stand pat. They're obviously better than their sub .500 record suggests and would fare better with 6 turds at the PF/C positions than just 3 (and Randolph). Why would you want to consider shaking things up?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is a per-minute rating developed by ESPN.com columnist John Hollinger. In John's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." It appears from his books that John's database only goes back to the 1988-89 season. I decided to expand on John's work and calculate PER for all players since minutes played were first recorded (1951-52). All calculations begin with what I am calling unadjusted PER (uPER). The formula is: <pre> uPER = (1 / MP) * [ 3P + (2/3) * AST + (2 - factor * (team_AST / team_FG)) * FG + (FT *0.5 * (1 + (1 - (team_AST / team_FG)) + (2/3) * (team_AST / team_FG))) - VOP * TOV - VOP * DRB% * (FGA - FG) - VOP * 0.44 * (0.44 + (0.56 * DRB%)) * (FTA - FT) + VOP * (1 - DRB%) * (TRB - ORB) + VOP * DRB% * ORB + VOP * STL + VOP * DRB% * BLK - PF * ((lg_FT / lg_PF) - 0.44 * (lg_FTA / lg_PF) * VOP) ] </pre> Most of the terms in the formula above should be clear, but let me define the less obvious ones: factor = (2 / 3) - (0.5 * (lg_AST / lg_FG)) / (2 * (lg_FG / lg_FT)) VOP = lg_PTS / (lg_FGA - lg_ORB + lg_TOV + 0.44 * lg_FTA) DRB% = (lg_TRB - lg_ORB) / lg_TRB I am not going to go into details about what each component of the PER is measuring; that's why John writes and sells books. Problems arise for seasons prior to 1979-80: * 1979-80 — debut of 3-point shot in NBA * 1977-78 — player turnovers first recorded in NBA * 1973-74 — player offensive rebounds, steals, and blocked shots first recorded in NBA The calcuation of uPER obviously depends on these statsitics, so here are my solutions for years when the data are missing: * Zero out three-point field goals, turnovers, blocked shots, and steals. * Set the league value of possession (VOP) equal to 1. * Set the defensive rebound percentage (DRB%) equal to 0.7. * Set player offensive rebounds (ORB) equal to 0.3 * TRB. Some of these solutions may not be elegant, but I think they are reasonable. After uPER is calculated, an adjustment must be made for the team's pace. The pace adjustment is: pace adjustment = lg_Pace / team_Pace League and team pace factors cannot be computed for seasons prior to 1973-74, so I estimate the above using: estimated pace adjustment = 2 * lg_PPG / (team_PPG + opp_PPG) To give you an idea of the accuracy of these estimates, here are the actual pace adjustments and the estimated pace adjustments for teams from the Eastern Conference in 2002-03: <pre> Tm Act Est ATL 1.00 0.99 BOS 1.00 1.02 CHI 0.97 0.98 CLE 0.97 0.99 DET 1.05 1.06 IND 0.99 1.00 MIA 1.04 1.08 MIL 1.01 0.96 NJN 0.99 1.03 NOH 1.01 1.02 NYK 1.00 0.98 ORL 0.98 0.97 PHI 1.00 0.99 TOR 1.01 1.01 WAS 1.03 1.03 </pre> For all seasons where actual pace adjustments can be computed, the root mean square error of the estimates is 0.01967. Now the pace adjustment is made to uPER (I will call this aPER): aPER = (pace adjustment) * uPER The final step is to standardize aPER. First, calculate league average aPER (lg_aPER) using player minutes played as the weights. Then, do the following: PER = aPER * (15 / lg_aPER) The step above sets the league average to 15 for all seasons. Those are the gory details. If you have any comments or questions, please send me some feedback</div>
In other words, everyone has to resort to the formula in order to describe it. it is just nonsense. I can come up with a formula, too. By the way, there are roughly ten rating systems that apply a linear weight to up to ten events that could occur on a basketball court. I've never seen any proof that Hollinger's is better than the others, or that it correlates to overall team performance. Dave Berri's Individual Wins stats is probably best at that. FWIW, I prefer Dean Oliver's method, which is also summarized at basketball-reference, cpaw.
Kidd, Isiah would never accept that trade. Basically, we add salary and get nothing tangible in return. The Nets will have to throw in draft picks for the Knicks to even consider making that deal. I don't know how well Zach will fit in with the Nets, especially with your PF's developing. Zach will definitely add a low post presence and can keep the opposing shot blocker out the paint with his jumper. But sometimes he can go a little nut and not pass the rock. Kidd, VC, RJ, and Randolph is intimidating though. But I think Isiah would want something significant in return though. Rumor has it he's after Carter (as he has been for a couple of years now).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Kidd, Isiah would never accept that trade. Basically, we add salary and get nothing tangible in return. The Nets will have to throw in draft picks for the Knicks to even consider making that deal.</div> Yeah, I'm well aware. I wasn't being serious about it, either.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. J @ Jan 16 2008, 04:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Basically, we add salary and get nothing tangible in return.</div> Isn't that what Isiah does best?
My goodness, math is a scary bad thing. Regardless of the complexity of the formula, it is one statistic among many, and it's function is to normalize the players' overall production in a way that is useful and interesting to compare the overall performance of any two players, regardless of position, and even two players of different seasons or eras. I guess 97 (or whatever it is) triple doubles doesn't require so much math, so it must be a more meaningful number. Though I'm not as impressed by those things... it's the 18-19 / 12.5 GB that matters at this point.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jan 16 2008, 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In other words, everyone has to resort to the formula in order to describe it. it is just nonsense. I can come up with a formula, too.</div> No, I don't need to resort to the formula. However, I posted the information from b-r because jigga's graphics were crappy looking <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>By the way, there are roughly ten rating systems that apply a linear weight to up to ten events that could occur on a basketball court. I've never seen any proof that Hollinger's is better than the others, or that it correlates to overall team performance. Dave Berri's Individual Wins stats is probably best at that. FWIW, I prefer Dean Oliver's method, which is also summarized at basketball-reference, cpaw.</div> They are all tools and I've certainly never claimed that the bald buffoon's method is better than any of the other "respected" methods. They are tools for analyzing players and they should be used after what you see with your eyes. Everyone has their preferences. I'm pretty anti-wages of wins on principal, but I don't wish to get into that discussion again. Besides my objections on principal, fundamentally, I don't believe that you can correlate any statistical tool to overall team performance and use that as a means to compare players on different teams. And yes, I'm well aware of what Mr. Kubatko has in his glossary.
I think Denny Crane has done a good analysis, except not mentioning that Randolph gets his 16.8 ppg and 10 rpg in 31.8 mpg. His TOpg is not that bad, He averaged 2.94 TOpg, a player who is considered efficient is Tim Duncan at 2.34 TOpg. So Randolph averages 0.6 TOpg more. His negative points is his low bpg, 0.1 bpg is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely terrible for a 6-9 PF. 45.6% FG% is an ok average for a big. His contract is a bad, he should probably get 9 or 10 mill not 13 and increasing. Although I liked Denny Crane's analysis, and bring some valuable points to the other side, I wouldn't do this trade due to the salary that would be taken on.
Why was 3 pt. percentage even being brought up? If Randolph is being counted on for long-range shooting, something is very wrong with your team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So stand pat. You can have 6 turds to polish instead of 3. There is a guy who's flown under everyone's radar who doesn't make a big salary. I dunno if he's available for trade, but it'd be worth looking into (and for the Lakers, too). McRoberts. The guy has skills and size. He's buried behind the bigs in Portland, and it's only going to get worse when Oden returns. He was a great BPA pick for the Blazers, but maybe he could be had for small change and a draft pick or two.</div> 0 - 6 from the feild. 5 turnovers to go along with that. 12 rebounds is a positive but we can find better talent in the D-League without making a trade. Funny guy though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jan 16 2008, 02:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why was 3 pt. percentage even being brought up? If Randolph is being counted on for long-range shooting, something is very wrong with your team.</div> You realize we're talking about the Nets, right?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 03:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They will be for guys like them for the length of Randolph's contract. I'm looking at the makeup of the team and what's out there. You really need a guy like Allen or Redd (not that they're available), but you don't have a place to play them big minutes. You can make up for it with a 4 or 5 who can shoot for a decent enough percentage. Like I said, you get a 46% shooter who hits 30% from 3pt in Randolph, plus you get a guy who's physical enough to get his share of boards for the position. Is Magloire getting any PT for the Nets? He should certainly shore up the interior defense, but has to really work to score. I'm OK with Malik Allen in certain roles, but he's not your full-time answer. Collins? Your grandmother is an upgrade. Look at Kidd's link again. Collins PER 2.11 (that has to be an all-time kind of record) Allen PER 10.38 Magloire PER 2.12 Add it up: 14.61 Randolph has a PER of 17.07 (Kidd's is 16.90, FWIW), which is impressive enough.</div> Your example perfectly illustates why PER is a worthless piece of shit.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jan 16 2008, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 03:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They will be for guys like them for the length of Randolph's contract. I'm looking at the makeup of the team and what's out there. You really need a guy like Allen or Redd (not that they're available), but you don't have a place to play them big minutes. You can make up for it with a 4 or 5 who can shoot for a decent enough percentage. Like I said, you get a 46% shooter who hits 30% from 3pt in Randolph, plus you get a guy who's physical enough to get his share of boards for the position. Is Magloire getting any PT for the Nets? He should certainly shore up the interior defense, but has to really work to score. I'm OK with Malik Allen in certain roles, but he's not your full-time answer. Collins? Your grandmother is an upgrade. Look at Kidd's link again. Collins PER 2.11 (that has to be an all-time kind of record) Allen PER 10.38 Magloire PER 2.12 Add it up: 14.61 Randolph has a PER of 17.07 (Kidd's is 16.90, FWIW), which is impressive enough.</div> Your example perfectly illustates why PER is a worthless piece of shit. </div> My bad. Collins is the most amazing thing I ever saw in the frontcourt. The 2.11 PER doesn't begin to describe how he's helped the Nets to an undefeated season so far. /sarcasm
