NBA Discussion Thread

[MetSox17]

Originally Posted by Forenci

43% from the field is terrible for a "center." Dude sucks.

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

You know who doesn't suck? Tyson Chandler.

Funny, Cousins has a higher PER than Tyson Chandler and Dwight Howard do.

[scottyboy]

you know who has the highest PER of all centers? Brook Lopez.

booooooooooooooooooooosh

[bigbluedefense]

I never said anything about Cousins. I'm just referring to Chandler bc he's the sex.

Can't do a damn thing on offense other than put backs and alley oops, but he's such a presence on defense. We'd be below .500 without him.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

you know who has the highest PER of all centers? Brook Lopez.

booooooooooooooooooooosh

The Nets sucked then. The Nets suck now. And the Nets will always suck. You can shine up a turd all you want, it's still a turd.

Don't hold your breathe thinking they'll do something in the playoffs.

*resists the urge to drop a hashtag*

[Brodeur]

You kids still think PER is the advanced stat these days, that's so adorable (it doesn't really help my point that Tyson Chandler is the leader in the other advanced stat).

[bigbluedefense]

Speaking of stats, how does everyone feel about the growing usage of moneyball in basketball (and football but we'll save that for the other forum)?

[MetSox17]

Originally Posted by Brodeur

You kids still think PER is the advanced stat these days, that's so adorable (it doesn't really help my point that Tyson Chandler is the leader in the other advanced stat).

Oh snowflake. You'll never get tired of saying snowflakey things.

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Speaking of stats, how does everyone feel about the growing usage of moneyball in basketball (and football but we'll save that for the other forum)?

Bleh, i prefer the eyeball test first and foremost. I'm not like Snowflake that likes to stare at a spreadsheet all day and make analysis like that. You can properly evaluate a player just by watching them play.

[scottyboy]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

The Nets sucked then. The Nets suck now. And the Nets will always suck. You can shine up a turd all you want, it's still a turd.

Don't hold your breathe thinking they'll do something in the playoffs.

*resists the urge to drop a hashtag*

1.5 games back. we're on fire with a real coach who actually plays the right bench guys, Bropez healthy and our back court gelling beautifully.

Check this month, literally nets in 2013.

and moneyball in the NBA is eh. it's a star driven league, but you can win with guys who do their jobs. Cogs in the machine. It's hard without that go to guy or scorer (nearly impossible) but it's proven it can be somewhat effective (ala Memphis, Indy and Philly last year)
And I love Cool, Granger and Iggy but wouldn't put either as a "star" outside of perhaps Iggy.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Oh snowflake. You'll never get tired of saying snowflakey things.



Bleh, i prefer the eyeball test first and foremost. I'm not like Snowflake that likes to stare at a spreadsheet all day and make analysis like that. You can properly evaluate a player just by watching them play.

I agree. Looking at stats makes you do dumb things like trade for Anderson Varajeo.

Then we all laugh at that GM 2 years later for being so stupid after the fact.

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Speaking of stats, how does everyone feel about the growing usage of moneyball in basketball (and football but we'll save that for the other forum)?

It depends on how this season plays out.

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Bleh, i prefer the eyeball test first and foremost. I'm not like Snowflake that likes to stare at a spreadsheet all day and make analysis like that. You can properly evaluate a player just by watching them play.

Yeah, because that's all I do. I didn't praise Drummond after the draft despite his awful stats in college or anything. And as for the Varejao hatred, watching the game makes you realize how much he frustrates opposing centers and how much of an impact he makes on the boards. But that would require BBD either watching a Cavs game (he won't) or looking at the stats in context (he doesn't), so he'll speak out of his ass like usual.

[scottyboy]

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Oh snowflake. You'll never get tired of saying snowflakey things.



Bleh, i prefer the eyeball test first and foremost. I'm not like Snowflake that likes to stare at a spreadsheet all day and make analysis like that. You can properly evaluate a player just by watching them play.

yes yes yes yes yes. this, this and more this.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

1.5 games back. we're on fire with a real coach who actually plays the right bench guys, Bropez healthy and our back court gelling beautifully.

Check this month, literally nets in 2013.

and moneyball in the NBA is eh. it's a star driven league, but you can win with guys who do their jobs. Cogs in the machine. It's hard without that go to guy or scorer (nearly impossible) but it's proven it can be somewhat effective (ala Memphis, Indy and Philly last year)
And I love Cool, Granger and Iggy but wouldn't put either as a "star" outside of perhaps Iggy.

I think it can be effective when building your depth and around your stars. You need stars first and foremost, but getting a good bench helps you in the regular season.

The role of the "role player" is never overstated, but finding that role player is at times. Often we fall in love with a role player and overpay for him just to keep him on the team, which cripples your maneuverability. The smart move is to use a moneyball system that replaces said role player's production for a fraction of the cost.

That's where I see moneyball having value. When it prevents you from making poor financial decisions with the back end of the roster.

[dabears10]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Speaking of stats, how does everyone feel about the growing usage of moneyball in basketball (and football but we'll save that for the other forum)?

As in baseball, it is a tool that you have to use with scouting and coaching. Stats do not show skills they show results. I like looking at the five man on court results and other things of that nature. The best stats are probably inside each organization. I can't imagine what they are doing with the cameras they are installing in arenas now.

As usual the Chicago teams will lag behind the rest of the league in advanced statistics usage. The more information the better, the real tool is being able to use the information successfully.

[Brodeur]

By the way, you idiots that want to dismiss stats: the game tape and obsessive talk during the 2011 draft was how Bismack and Vesely and Tristan had all this natural talent and length, and all this TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL. The stats said that Faried was the best player in the draft. HOW DID THAT WORK OUT?

[thefalconer]

Originally Posted by Brodeur

By the way, you idiots that want to dismiss stats: the game tape and obsessive talk during the 2011 draft was how Bismack and Vesely and Tristan had all this natural talent and length, and all this TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL. The stats said that Faried was the best player in the draft. HOW DID THAT WORK OUT?

[dabears10]

Originally Posted by Brodeur

By the way, you idiots that want to dismiss stats: the game tape and obsessive talk during the 2011 draft was how Bismack and Vesely and Tristan had all this natural talent and length, and all this TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL. The stats said that Faried was the best player in the draft. HOW DID THAT WORK OUT?

But players like Serge Ibaka and Tyson Chandler were players that were all drafted on length and athleticism and become quality players and borderline stars. Both have merits and to call one side stupid is ignorant, no matter your stance.

[Wootylicous]

Stats can't be 100% accurate. Alexandre Daigle had stats. How did that work out ?

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by Brodeur

By the way, you idiots that want to dismiss stats: the game tape and obsessive talk during the 2011 draft was how Bismack and Vesely and Tristan had all this natural talent and length, and all this TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL. The stats said that Faried was the best player in the draft. HOW DID THAT WORK OUT?

Shut up. (10 char)

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by dabears10

But players like Serge Ibaka and Tyson Chandler were players that were all drafted on length and athleticism and become quality players and borderline stars. Both have merits and to call one side stupid is ignorant, no matter your stance.

But those players aren't judged the same. Guys that can be easily predicted as busts (ahem Austin Rivers) can be done by looking at stats.

[MetSox17]

Memphis is a different story, though. They have to all-star caliber players in the post, and that's enough to make you one of the best teams in the West, when you have to fight off teams like the Timberwolves and the Nuggets for the Western Conference ticket. Plus, Z-Bo was playing out of his mind when they nearly made the finals.

Snowflake, the draft works on potential first and foremost. The reason Vesely and Biyombo and Tristan went as high as they did is because they showed athletic ability and skill (sans Thompson, god knows why the Cavs took him 4th overall) that some believed could further grow in the NBA. Faried is good and all, but i'm pretty sure he'll never be more than what he is now. A solid starter. Guys aren't drafted in the lottery for their potential to be solid starters.

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Shut up. (10 char)

I like how you again ignored my valid point about Varejao.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Memphis is a different story, though. They have to all-star caliber players in the post, and that's enough to make you one of the best teams in the West, when you have to fight off teams like the Timberwolves and the Nuggets for the Western Conference ticket. Plus, Z-Bo was playing out of his mind when they nearly made the finals.

Snowflake, the draft works on potential first and foremost. The reason Vesely and Biyombo and Tristan went as high as they did is because they showed athletic ability and skill (sans Thompson, god knows why the Cavs took him 4th overall) that some believed could further grow in the NBA. Faried is good and all, but i'm pretty sure he'll never be more than what he is now. A solid starter. Guys aren't drafted in the lottery for their potential to be solid starters.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by Brodeur

I like how you again ignored my valid point about Varejao.

I wish we were both NBA GMs so I can make trades with you.

"Hey snowflake, I'll trade you this ****** player for a good one"

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Memphis is a different story, though. They have to all-star caliber players in the post, and that's enough to make you one of the best teams in the West, when you have to fight off teams like the Timberwolves and the Nuggets for the Western Conference ticket. Plus, Z-Bo was playing out of his mind when they nearly made the finals.

Snowflake, the draft works on potential first and foremost. The reason Vesely and Biyombo and Tristan went as high as they did is because they showed athletic ability and skill (sans Thompson, god knows why the Cavs took him 4th overall) that some believed could further grow in the NBA. Faried is good and all, but i'm pretty sure he'll never be more than what he is now. A solid starter. Guys aren't drafted in the lottery for their potential to be solid starters.

Keep laughing at the Nuggets and T-Wolves thing, but Minnesota has been a half game better than BEST IN THE WEST Lakers despite their best player having a broken hand all season. Denver is 24-16 with a godawful coach, and has been on fire lately.

[MetSox17]

Cousins is 2nd in Advanced PER among Centers. Say whaaa