ESPN is trolling again

[Natebishop3]

"Another top rookie deserves the award..."

 

[TripTango]

Drama Manufacturing 101

 

[Natebishop3]

Ethan Strauss ‏@SherwoodStrauss

New Rule: If you're in my mentions, yelling about how Davis shouldn't be ROY, you must reveal how many Hornets games you saw this year.

I guess he's catching hell, as he should.

 

[BrianFromWA]

20. He didn't play in any of them.

 

[Rhal]

I guess he's catching hell, as he should.

He wrote the worst article i'v ever read on ESPN, he should be called out.

 

[TripTango]

I guess he's catching hell, as he should.

I'd wager money that Strauss was browbeaten by ESPN into taking his controversial position just to stir up drama.

 

[Natebishop3]

He wrote the worst article i'v ever read on ESPN, he should be called out.

I don't have Insider so I couldn't read it.

Has anyone ever heard of this bozo?

 

[NOVoodoo]

I don't have Insider so I couldn't read it.

Has anyone ever heard of this bozo?

I had to look him up, because I was wondering who the fuck he was too. Apparently he used to write on Bleacher Report, so that should be a tip-off right there.

He was probably just trying to make a name for himself by taking a controversial stance, but he wound up just looking like a dumbass.

Like I've said before, in today's era of blogging and ESPN pulling guys straight off these half-ass websites, it's becoming harder and harder to trust anyone's opinions on ESPN. I know two former fraternity brothers who write for an ESPN affiliate, and their stuff's always getting on the ESPN main page. One of the guys didn't even really start watching basketball more than casually until college though. Didn't you used to have to have a reputable journalism degree and years of experience working in the industry before breaking through to ESPN?

 

[Rhal]

I had to look him up, because I was wondering who the fuck he was too. Apparently he used to write on Bleacher Report, so that should be a tip-off right there.

He was probably just trying to make a name for himself by taking a controversial stance, but he wound up just looking like a dumbass.

Like I've said before, in today's era of blogging and ESPN pulling guys straight off these half-ass websites, it's becoming harder and harder to trust anyone's opinions on ESPN. I know two former fraternity brothers who write for an ESPN affiliate, and their stuff's always getting on the ESPN main page. One of the guys didn't even really start watching basketball more than casually until college though. Didn't you used to have to have a reputable journalism degree and years of experience working in the industry before breaking through to ESPN?

That hits a big problem in Sports blogging now. To many guys who use weird ass stats to make an argument instead of using stats to back up an argument.

 

[Natebishop3]

I had to look him up, because I was wondering who the fuck he was too. Apparently he used to write on Bleacher Report, so that should be a tip-off right there.

He was probably just trying to make a name for himself by taking a controversial stance, but he wound up just looking like a dumbass.

Like I've said before, in today's era of blogging and ESPN pulling guys straight off these half-ass websites, it's becoming harder and harder to trust anyone's opinions on ESPN. I know two former fraternity brothers who write for an ESPN affiliate, and their stuff's always getting on the ESPN main page. One of the guys didn't even really start watching basketball more than casually until college though. Didn't you used to have to have a reputable journalism degree and years of experience working in the industry before breaking through to ESPN?

I'm sure at one point, but when the internet went big in the late 90s early 2000s that changed everything. ESPN.com used to suck in terms of breaking news. The website that I started writing for, Sportstalk.com, was one of the game changers for online journalism. Unfortunately the big crash in 2001 caused Sportstalk to basically give itself to ESPN for free and Chad Ford (one of the founders of Sportstalk) got a big contract and moved to Bristol. That's where ESPN Insider got its start. A chosen few of the Sportstalk staff went on to ESPN and started Insider. Most of them had zero experience in sports (including Ford). Chad Ford was a lawyer. He and Jason Peery started the website and brought it to prominence. I worked for ESPN from 2001 until 2006, but not as a writer. Insider changed editors in 2003 I think, and the new editor wouldn't let me write. He didn't like the idea of someone in their basement writing for ESPN

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'm sure at one point, but when the internet went big in the late 90s early 2000s that changed everything. ESPN.com used to suck in terms of breaking news. The website that I started writing for, Sportstalk.com, was one of the game changers for online journalism. Unfortunately the big crash in 2001 caused Sportstalk to basically give itself to ESPN for free and Chad Ford (one of the founders of Sportstalk) got a big contract and moved to Bristol. That's where ESPN Insider got its start. A chosen few of the Sportstalk staff went on to ESPN and started Insider. Most of them had zero experience in sports (including Ford). Chad Ford was a lawyer. He and Jason Peery started the website and brought it to prominence. I worked for ESPN from 2001 until 2006, but not as a writer. Insider changed editors in 2003 I think, and the new editor wouldn't let me write. He didn't like the idea of someone in their basement writing for ESPN

Wow! I used to love NBAtalk.com those were the crazy years of sports forums! So much fun.

 

[Natebishop3]

Wow! I used to love NBAtalk.com those were the crazy years of sports forums! So much fun.

It was a fun place to work, and Jason Peery is an awesome guy. Just loves sports.

 

[Natebishop3]

So in a nutshell, this is the dudes argument.

#1 "If 80 percent of life is showing up, as Woody Allen claims, then that does much to explain why Damian Lillard has a firm grasp on this season's rookie of the year award voting."

#2 "The two main advanced statistics, Player Efficiency Rating (PER) and Win Shares, both dramatically prefer Davis on a possession-to-possession basis. Based on PER, Davis is leading Lillard 21.8 to 16.6, an enormous advantage. In Win Share average, Davis nearly doubles Lillard .159 to .091."

#3 "Davis was billed as a defensive force, and his team has remained bad at defense. These are facts, and they might disqualify him in the minds of some voters, since he's not great on the end of the floor that made him famous. But I believe he should win this award for providing superior offense to Lillard's. What little improvement New Orleans has experienced has come at the offensive end. It has leapt from a 26th ranking in offensive efficiency last season to a league-average 15th. Much of that has to do with AD's efficient, effective play and his ability to pressure defenses with the threat of the lob dunk. His ability at the rim is no small thing, and his ability to make that part of the game look easy shouldn't work against him."

 

[VanillaGorilla]

There's no way this guy can believe the bullshit he's spouting.

 

[Natebishop3]

There's no way this guy can believe the bullshit he's spouting.

He is trying so hard to defend it on twitter too. It's like he thinks that Dame is getting the ROY nod simply because he played a lot of minutes and started every game.

 

[NOVoodoo]

He is trying so hard to defend it on twitter too. It's like he thinks that Dame is getting the ROY nod simply because he played a lot of minutes and started every game.

Well, there's a reason he played the minutes and started. I'm not over here arguing for Wroten to be ROY on the grounds that he could have had better games if he played minutes. This guy's arguments are weak as fuck.

He's trying to make a name for himself, but well, I guess it's worked, because now I know who he is, even if it's because I think he's a total dumbass.

 

[jlprk]

I worked for ESPN from 2001 until 2006, but not as a writer.

Were you a researcher, feeding information to writers?

 

[huevonkiller]

So in a nutshell, this is the dudes argument.

#1 "If 80 percent of life is showing up, as Woody Allen claims, then that does much to explain why Damian Lillard has a firm grasp on this season's rookie of the year award voting."

#2 "The two main advanced statistics, Player Efficiency Rating (PER) and Win Shares, both dramatically prefer Davis on a possession-to-possession basis. Based on PER, Davis is leading Lillard 21.8 to 16.6, an enormous advantage. In Win Share average, Davis nearly doubles Lillard .159 to .091."

#3 "Davis was billed as a defensive force, and his team has remained bad at defense. These are facts, and they might disqualify him in the minds of some voters, since he's not great on the end of the floor that made him famous. But I believe he should win this award for providing superior offense to Lillard's. What little improvement New Orleans has experienced has come at the offensive end. It has leapt from a 26th ranking in offensive efficiency last season to a league-average 15th. Much of that has to do with AD's efficient, effective play and his ability to pressure defenses with the threat of the lob dunk. His ability at the rim is no small thing, and his ability to make that part of the game look easy shouldn't work against him."

Indeed, a priori arguments are extremely important. Not EVERYTHING is about statistics, but that said stats are important.

My opinion is that I like to look at even more advanced metrics than just WS/PER/etc. 82games.com supports Lillard but Davis wins in the other metrics IIRC.

There's nothing trollish about Strauss's position though, and people get a little too enamored with offensive players.

 

[Natebishop3]

Well, there's a reason he played the minutes and started. I'm not over here arguing for Wroten to be ROY on the grounds that he could have had better games if he played minutes. This guy's arguments are weak as fuck.

He's trying to make a name for himself, but well, I guess it's worked, because now I know who he is, even if it's because I think he's a total dumbass.

The thing for me is, nobody is arguing that Davis won't be a really good player, with the caveat that he has to be able to stay healthy. Greg Oden put up some amazing numbers when he actually played as well. It's the "staying healthy" thing that seems to get in the way.

And I can't argue that Davis has a better PER, but to try to say that Davis is the superior offensive player is just asinine. Lillard has almost scored twice as many points as Davis this season. 1499 to 867. He's averaging nearly 5.5 points per game more than Davis. He neglected to mention that in his article. And, here's the best part, this bozo likes to talk about win shares but Damian has an offensive win share of 5.0 while Davis only has an OWS of 3.7.

Davis has missed almost a quarter of the games. You simply can't give the ROY to a guy who has missed 20 games. It's ridiculous. This guy has it all mixed up. The fact that Lillard has consistently put up his numbers over 79 games is MORE impressive than Davis putting up decent stats over 64 games.

Who knows, Davis might have the last laugh in the long run. He might turn out to be the better player before it's all said and done, but there's a reason why Lillard is the undisputed ROY right now and it certainly isn't because he "showed up".

 

[Natebishop3]

Indeed, a priori arguments are extremely important. Not EVERYTHING is about statistics, but that said stats are important.

My opinion is that I like to look at even more advanced metrics than just WS/PER/etc. 82games.com supports Lillard but Davis wins in the other metrics IIRC.

There's nothing trollish about Strauss's position though, and people get a little too enamored with offensive players.

Do they get enamored with healthy players?

 

[KingSpeed]

What was the name of the site for the NBA that listed links to all the NBA Rumor articles on its main page? It must've been like before Google happened?

 

[huevonkiller]

Do they get enamored with healthy players?

How healthy are we talking? There's various degrees.

 

[Natebishop3]

How healthy are we talking? There's various degrees.

At what point do injuries negate someone's claim to an award?

What if they miss 1/4 of the games?

1/2 the games?

What if they only played in 1/4 of the games but they're amazing in those 20 games?

 

[huevonkiller]

At what point do injuries negate someone's claim to an award?

What if they miss 1/4 of the games?

1/2 the games?

What if they only played in 1/4 of the games but they're amazing in those 20 games?

It depends, how efficient is the player they're being compared against?

That's really what it comes down to.

 

[NOVoodoo]

I don't think Anthony Davis missed enough games that it even really alters my opinion of his ROY standing that much. I don't think you even need to factor that into the argument to make a clear-cut case for Lillard as ROY. Davis just straight up didn't have a good of a year as Lillard on the court.

I agree that we tend to overrate offense a lot, but in terms of the ROY race, you might be underestimating what it takes to actually come into the league as a rookie, put a team with no bench on your back, and almost lead them to the playoffs, with some record breaking performances along the way. That, to me, is more impressive than Anthony Davis being able to be a force on the helpside on one of the worst teams in the league while making a minimal impact offensively.

 

[huevonkiller]

The Hornets were a better team defensively with Davis not on the court, this helps Lillard.

I feel I need a bit more data before I come to a final decision though. I'm curious to see RAPM.

 

[NOVoodoo]

The Hornets were a better team defensively with Davis not on the court, this helps Lillard.

I feel I need a bit more data before I come to a final decision though. I'm curious to see RAPM.

That makes sense to me. It's not like everyone's just blinded by Lillard's offense to the point that we're shortchanging a great lockdown defender. He's got great length and anticipation, but he was dominated by some of the league's best big's in the one-on-one situations.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't think Anthony Davis missed enough games that it even really alters my opinion of his ROY standing that much. I don't think you even need to factor that into the argument to make a clear-cut case for Lillard as ROY. Davis just straight up didn't have a good of a year as Lillard on the court.

I agree that we tend to overrate offense a lot, but in terms of the ROY race, you might be underestimating what it takes to actually come into the league as a rookie, put a team with no bench on your back, and almost lead them to the playoffs, with some record breaking performances along the way. That, to me, is more impressive than Anthony Davis being able to be a force on the helpside on one of the worst teams in the league while making a minimal impact offensively.

I don't think Davis did that bad considering how hard it is for big men to come in and adjust to the game. Guys like Blake Griffin are an anomaly. Most big guys take a year or two to adjust to the fouls and the speed of the game. With that said, Lillard did some things this year that haven't been done since Iverson. His PER is lower than it should be, but a lot of that has to do with shitty teammates. I think Lillard should have averaged closer to 8 assists this season, but it's been pointed out before that his teammates just weren't knocking down shots. Next season he needs to get his assists and steals up. I think that would go a long way to bumping up his PER.

 

[THE HCP]

There have been some close ROY races and questionable winners. I'll have to go back and look, but Ron Harper was in a close ROY race with I think Chuck Person if I'm not mistaken. And didn't Mike Miller kinda' win it by default because that rookie class was so weak?

 

[THE HCP]

Some interesting stuff

The National Basketball Association's Rookie of the Year Award is an annual National Basketball Association (NBA) award given since the 1952–53 NBA season, to the top rookie(s) of the regular season. The winner receives the Eddie Gottlieb Trophy, which is named in honor of the Philadelphia Warriors head coach who led the team to the 1946–47 NBA Championship. The winner is selected by a panel of sportswriters throughout the United States and Canada, each of whom casts a vote for first, second and third place selections. Each first-place vote is worth five points; each second-place vote is worth three points; and each third-place vote is worth one point. The player(s) with the highest point total, regardless of the number of first-place votes, wins the award.[1]
The most recent winner of the award is Kyrie Irving. Fourteen of the Rookie of the Year winners have won the NBA Most Valuable Player (MVP) during their careers; Wilt Chamberlain and Wes Unseld both accomplished the feat in the same season. Nineteen of the forty two non-active Rookie of the Year winners have been elected to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. Nineteen winners were drafted first overall. Three seasons had joint winners—Dave Cowens and Geoff Petrie in the 1970–71 season, Grant Hill and Jason Kidd in the 1994–95 season as well as Elton Brand and Steve Francis in the 1999–00 season.[2] Tim Duncan of the United States Virgin Islands, Patrick Ewing of Jamaica, Pau Gasol of Spain and Kyrie Irving of Australia are the only four winners who were not born in the United States. (Duncan is an American citizen, but is considered an international player by the NBA because he was not born in one of the fifty states or Washington, D.C.)[3] Gasol is the only winner who was trained totally outside the U.S.; Duncan played college basketball at Wake Forest, while Ewing immigrated to the Boston area at age 11.