• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official 2018 NBA Offseason Thread: the preseason cometh

You are making a decision of a vast difference without doing so.

If you use your stats, they are within any rational margin of error in the Less than 5' (less than 1 make in every 100 shots taken) and 15-19' ranges (about one make in ever 40 taken). Without any question, if you are being unbiased, you have to call these a wash. It's very logical that with even marginally better teammates the positions on those could switch or at worst be dead even.

I think it's also logical to think, if they directly switched teammates, Kuzma's would be better.

Tatum's numbers at 5-9' and 15-19' are better, but how much would having top defenders like Smart, Brown and Horford as help defenders change these? This is the level that having that help makes the most difference.

For about the 4th or 5th time, I'm not saying Tatum isn't a very good defender. I'm saying the difference is much, much less than the raw numbers show.
 
RJKarl said:
You are making a decision of a vast difference without doing so.

If you use your stats, they are within any rational margin of error in the Less than 5' (less than 1 make in every 100 shots taken) and 15-19' ranges (about one make in ever 40 taken). Without any question, if you are being unbiased, you have to call these a wash. It's very logical that with even marginally better teammates the positions on those could switch or at worst be dead even.

I think it's also logical to think, if they directly switched teammates, Kuzma's would be better.

Tatum's numbers at 5-9' and 15-19' are better, but how much would having top defenders like Smart, Brown and Horford as help defenders change these? This is the level that having that help makes the most difference.

For about the 4th or 5th time, I'm not saying Tatum isn't a very good defender. I'm saying the difference is much, much less than the raw numbers show.
Click to expand...

some thoughts:

1.) There's a reason that opposing shooting percentage is the last thing I pulled-- it's the metric with the murkiest definitions around it (I have no idea how they consider help defenders, for example), and the metric with the most (by far, the most) noise attached to it. Yes, they were a wash at the ranges that you specify.

2.) I agree that if you gave Kuzma "Smart, Brown, and Horford", his defensive numbers would likely improve, though it's also likely that teams would target Kuzma and exploit the C's new weakness on defense.

3.) You're theorycrafting around the idea that the stats deserve skepticism, which is fine, but it means that you're not actually offering any evidence to support your argument. Maybe the difference is "much less than the raw numbers show". But you have just as much evidence to say that as I do that Smart, Brown, or Horford's numbers are equally benefiting from Tatum's presence on D. Who's to say Tatum isn't the missing link to take the Lakers from being a terrible defensive team to the best in the league? (He isn't, but go with me, here.) You can't just say that things would be much different if they switched, and argue that your point has as much relevance as things that actually happened. The Celtics defense, as a team, was good. Jayson Tatum played 60+% minutes of the Celtics' season. Maybe the Celtics defense being good had something to do with that? Maybe the Lakers defense being bad had something to do with a guy who played the second most minutes on their team?

4.) I will admit that Kuzma and Tatum being rookies makes them considerably harder to analyze defensively. There is, as I've said, a decent amount of noise in these stats (which is why it's impressive that Tatum performs so well in all of them-- you may have noticed some of his teammates did not), and that noise does tend to get filtered out when you look over multiple years of data. It's the reason nobody is arguing against, say, Smart or Horford's rankings in those metrics, because the statistical pedigree and #eyetest reputation is already there.
 
Last edited:
Okay so Pippen didn't shat the bed and I was wrong. Pippen > the Shrimpster, the German pogo stick, Sir Detlef Schremp-f.

However, that playoff thing was super fucked up. The only thing comparative I can think of is Kawhi this year.
 
Last edited:
Also, Kuzma's defense was enough of a question mark this season that Luke Walton publicly called on him to improve it in December.

Kuzma also answered questions about his defensive struggles in January.

Back before the season, this DraftExpress profile of him was less than complimentary of his defense, too:
On the defensive end, Kuzma shows flashes of versatility, but his effort level is inconsistent and his awareness can be poor. He has shown the potential to switch ball screens using his agility and quickness to contain on the perimeter, but his one on one and team defense remain a work in progress. He lacks the physicality to handle bigs down low, and doesn't provide much rim protection as a help side defender. He averaged just .8 blocks and .6 steals per 40 minutes, both of which are extremely low numbers for someone with the above average length and athletic ability that he possessesa clear cut red flag. His physical tools give him potential on the defensive end so long as he can buy into competing and playing his role in a team oriented defensive unit, but NBA teams will ask why that didn't happen at Utah and how much things will change as a 22-year old rookie.
Click to expand...

I srsly didn't think I was going to spend a couple of hours today arguing that Kyle Kuzma's defense isn't good, because I assumed that was a Known Thing, and yet here we are.
 
RedSoxFaithful said:
some thoughts:

1.) There's a reason that opposing shooting percentage is the last thing I pulled-- it's the metric with the murkiest definitions around it (I have no idea how they consider help defenders, for example), and the metric with the most (by far, the most) noise attached to it. Yes, they were a wash at the ranges that you specify.

2.) I agree that if you gave Kuzma "Smart, Brown, and Horford", his defensive numbers would likely improve, though it's also likely that teams would target Kuzma and exploit the C's new weakness on defense.

3.) You're theorycrafting around the idea that the stats deserve skepticism, which is fine, but it means that you're not actually offering any evidence to support your argument. Maybe the difference is "much less than the raw numbers show". But you have just as much evidence to say that as I do that Smart, Brown, or Horford's numbers are equally benefiting from Tatum's presence on D. Who's to say Tatum isn't the missing link to take the Lakers from being a terrible defensive team to the best in the league? (He isn't, but go with me, here.) You can't just say that things would be much different if they switched, and argue that your point has as much relevance as things that actually happened. The Celtics defense, as a team, was good. Jayson Tatum played 60+% minutes of the Celtics' season. Maybe the Celtics defense being good had something to do with that? Maybe the Lakers defense being bad had something to do with a guy who played the second most minutes on their team?

4.) I will admit that Kuzma and Tatum being rookies makes them considerably harder to analyze defensively. There is, as I've said, a decent amount of noise in these stats (which is why it's impressive that Tatum performs so well in all of them-- you may have noticed some of his teammates did not), and that noise does tend to get filtered out when you look over multiple years of data. It's the reason nobody is arguing against, say, Smart or Horford's rankings in those metrics, because the statistical pedigree and #eyetest reputation is already there.
Click to expand...

It’s not worth it.
 
RedSoxFaithful said:
If you want to argue that LeBron has more resources available to understand his defensive strengths/weaknesses, or to understand his opponents' strengths/weaknesses, which gives him some sort of handicap to account for, then fine, I can get on board with that.

But I don't think he's out there trying to fine-tune his defensive win shares or whatever.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's what I'm arguing. If his metrics aren't strong, he can change his play to address his weaknesses. MJ didn't have that.

Now it would be interesting to see if how metrics compare with awards now vs. back then before the metrics actually existed.
 
RedSoxFaithful said:
If you want to argue that LeBron has more resources available to understand his defensive strengths/weaknesses, or to understand his opponents' strengths/weaknesses, which gives him some sort of handicap to account for, then fine, I can get on board with that.

But I don't think he's out there trying to fine-tune his defensive win shares or whatever.
Click to expand...

The rest of the league has access to those resources too though. The only advantage modern players have is resources to maintain longevity. Lebron spending $1 million a year on cutting edge techniques to keep his body in basketball shape is a real advantage over “had to fly coach for most of his career” Kareem when it comes to cumulative stats. It’s one that isn’t cancelled out by the rest of the league going through the same thing.

Not really an issue in the Jordan/Lebron debate though since Jordan’s shorter career was a choice unrelated to his body breaking down.
 
PhDeac said:
Now it would be interesting to see if how metrics compare with awards now vs. back then before the metrics actually existed.
Click to expand...

They don't, because most of the voters for these awards tend to be RJ-like in their attitudes towards advanced stats.

Baseball awards/HOF votes have long since had a very similar issue.
 
PhDeac said:
Yes. That's what I'm arguing. If his metrics aren't strong, he can change his play to address his weaknesses. MJ didn't have that.

Now it would be interesting to see if how metrics compare with awards now vs. back then before the metrics actually existed.
Click to expand...

I’m sure he’s using second spectrum data to fine tune his game and preparation for specific opponents but he’s not using publicly available advanced metrics to measure his game, nor should he.
 
I mean Kobe was on a million all defense teams, even when he was legit bad on D toward the end of his career. Voters I think are a little better now, but it's not exactly the best metric.
 
Also worth mentioning that a lot of athletes (across sports) are super weird about advanced data, too. There are some guys who eat up every bit of preparation/advanced scouting, and guys who don't use it at all, and I'm not sure how much correlation there is between those things and individual success. I'm sure there are elite athletes who don't like looking at that data for fear of getting in their heads, and I'm positive there are organizations that don't push data at their athletes.
 
RedSoxFaithful said:
Also worth mentioning that a lot of athletes (across sports) are super weird about advanced data, too. There are some guys who eat up every bit of preparation/advanced scouting, and guys who don't use it at all, and I'm not sure how much correlation there is between those things and individual success. I'm sure there are elite athletes who don't like looking at that data for fear of getting in their heads, and I'm positive there are organizations that don't push data at their athletes.
Click to expand...

And to the extent NBA players are looking at data, they certainly aren’t looking at win shares or box plus minus or PER.
 
Could argue either way on Bron versus Jordan on D. I'd probably slight lean Bron because he can guard more positions and I think his peak is a little higher, but during the regular season he takes tons of plays off.
 
tiltdeac said:
Could argue either way on Bron versus Jordan on D. I'd probably slight lean Bron because he can guard more positions and I think his peak is a little higher, but during the regular season he takes tons of plays off.
Click to expand...

Lecruise through the regular season. While true, Lebron knows exactly what he's doing. As long as he makes it to the playoffs, he's good to take his game up to the next level during the postseason.
 
RedSoxFaithful said:
They don't, because most of the voters for these awards tend to be RJ-like in their attitudes towards advanced stats.

Baseball awards/HOF votes have long since had a very similar issue.
Click to expand...

Wait a second, didn't someone say Simmons was ranked ahead of Tatum on D? He also scored more, got 60% more rebounds and times as many assists.

RSF can't show why Tatum had a better season than Simmons other than he's a Celtic.
 
YoungBuck95 said:
Lecruise through the regular season. While true, Lebron knows exactly what he's doing. As long as he makes it to the playoffs, he's good to take his game up to the next level during the postseason.
Click to expand...

So the GOAT takes the regular season off to save up for the postseason in which he's lost more Finals than he's won.
 
Statistical Peak: Lebron and Jordan are roughly even

Career averages: even, though Jordan will eventually come out ahead as I think Lebron will taper off eventually but loves the game too much to quit while he is still useful.

Winning: Jordan. 6>3, but Lebron doesn’t need 6 ships to match Jordan here since he has fewer losing seasons (1 vs 4), more finals (8 to 6), conference finals (10 to 8), and conference semis appearances (13 to 10).

Durability/Longevity: Already Lebron and the gap is only going to widen.


As of today I’d probably still go Jordan but outside of a career ending injury before 2020 it’s hard to imagine Lebron not overtaking him.
 
RedSoxFaithful said:
Also worth mentioning that a lot of athletes (across sports) are super weird about advanced data, too. There are some guys who eat up every bit of preparation/advanced scouting, and guys who don't use it at all, and I'm not sure how much correlation there is between those things and individual success. I'm sure there are elite athletes who don't like looking at that data for fear of getting in their heads, and I'm positive there are organizations that don't push data at their athletes.
Click to expand...

was thinking about Shane Battier the other day, remembering him as one of the first ones to talk about how advanced metrics impacted his game; also remembering him as one of the prototype modern 3-and-D guys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top