Wages of Wins argues gap between L*kers and Blazers Closing

3 months ago jaywalker 27 comments 2 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Proves that stats lie

He argues that simply on the basis of veteran players, we are about even with the L@kers.

We may catch or even pass them, but if so it will require significant improvement from our young players.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Aug 7, 2009 6:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure how it proves that stats lie

Totally agree about stats lying when used improperly, but he makes enough stipulations that he’s barely saying anything, which makes it hard to lie.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Aug 7, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's what I've been saying!!!

In sum, despite what happened in the playoffs, Portland was the second best team in the Western Conference during the 2008-09 regular season.

This is what I’ve been saying, and people look at me like I’m nuts. I actually believe Houston is up there and I’d argue that THEY are the second best team with Yao. they just matched up against us well.

It underlines what I’ve been saying though… minus houston the blazers could have run deep or won it all. Ah well.

I think people forget the late season groove/tear that Houston was able to stomp on. Other teams, i think, wouldn’t have been as lucky.

"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.

But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html

by ratbastird on Aug 7, 2009 8:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

this is true

but the Houston series also exposed at least 3 things that needed to be updated with the roster, regardless of the 54 wins and the team’s regular season success

Steve Blake isn’t a starting PG on a championship ballclub (hello, Andre Miller)

Travis Outlaw should not be getting major rotation PT at the forward position on a playoff team

Channing Frye was not “the answer” at backup PF/C for a playoff team (you need more than 3 big guys)

points 2 and 3 have not yet been addressed, but they should be before next April

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Aug 7, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would argue

That the Blazers potentially addressed needs 2 and 3 through the draft with the Pendergraph pick, and that there is no reason to think that Pendergraph could not be playing significant minutes at the four, especially when Travis is overmatched. Pender can be the banger backup we need. We don’t need our backup four to be a focus on offense (sorry Travis), just solid on rebounding and defense (again, sorry Travis).

Kermit on the inbounds play, inbounds....
BATES at the horn, HE SCORES!! HE SCORES!!!!

And they are all over Billy Ray Bates! My, oh my!!!

by blazer91 on Aug 7, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly, the rook can play 5 mins a game average

which means he plays no time against opponents that TO matches well with, and he plays many minutes against opponents TO doesn’t match up with. He won’t hurt us in a far back back up role.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Aug 7, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pendergraph is a rookie, and a 2nd round draft choice

Jeff can be expected to be a regular season contributer, but there was an injury to Greg/Joel/LMA he would be overexposed if he had to play 25+ mpg on a contending team. Then in the playoffs, rookie big men tend to be “schooled” by experienced pros

A 4th veteran big man is still a necessity, think of Pend/’Ham as replacements for Shav and Ruffin

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Aug 7, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

injury is the real risk

Which is why I expect a trade of Travis for a backup PF/C before the deadline. Maybe Travis and change.

You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.

by austinpwnz on Aug 7, 2009 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How was Portland better than Denver during the regular season? I'm not buying this logic.

The Chicago Bulls.....the more profitable Los Angeles Clippers.

by Ozzie Montana on Aug 7, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We had a better point differential

Which means a better pythagorean record.

by senormateo on Aug 7, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would say Denver was clearly better

until the last 20 games, and then we got rolling. We were clearly better over the last 20 games.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Aug 7, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder what Odom looks like next year...

seems to me like a guy with a history of not trying hard that just got his last big pay day and just got disrespected by his employer. Seems like a bad combination for the Lakers.

by Escrote on Aug 7, 2009 8:32 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

and then there's the Ron-Ron factor

I’m hoping this duo will become agent provocateurs who will undermine the L*ker’s success, going forward

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Aug 7, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm surprised by how

few wins LA has produced.

The Kings have the best bench I’ve seen. There are easily 14 guys on this team good enough for every bench in the league. Now if we could only get some starters, I’d totally jizz in my pants.

Kings fan

by dyshooter182 on Aug 7, 2009 9:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

LMA comes out really low on Wages of Wins every year.

He doesn’t rebound much for his position and his shooting efficiency is pretty low for his position since he’s not great in the low post and he relies a lot on his long 2 point jumper.

Wages of Wins focuses on efficiency over everything else, and that focus is expressed in two different dimensions – the ability of individual players to expand the pool of shot attempts (i.e. rebounds, steals, turnovers) and the player’s scoring efficiency (overall percentage, 3point percentage and attempts relative to overall attempts, ability to get to the line, etc). LMA is poor in both of these areas.

by howlingfantods on Aug 7, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Easily my favorite part of statistical discussions on BE

is seeing someone argue about how incredible WoW is because it measures “what really matters in winning” after they see one of Berri’s posts about how Joel and Oden are two of the most productive guys in the league and then having to argue that LMA are Trout actually better than the average and below average players that WoW says they are.

As just an example of how vastly WoW overrates some of these things, 2 years ago, Berri had Andrew Bynum as the 2nd most productive player in the league (by WP/48) before his injury, behind only Chris Paul and ahead of KG, Kobe, Gasol, Duncan, Dwight, and LeBron.

It’s useful, but his system is just as guilty of overrating certain stats as things like PER are, just different stats.

by Royster on Aug 7, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Bynum's case is just an example of what a small sample size will do for you

As since then Bynum’s stats have dropped to good but not great.

I know, Royster, that we’ve argued about WoW before, so I’m not going to get into that. But I am going to say that WoW shows that LMA is improving. I think we can all agree that he produced below expectations for the first half of the season, and his WP48 improved all season if you look at the different times Berri mentions him. LMA isn’t a particularly efficient scorer but I think we give him the ball in volume because he is in fact still improving.

You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.

by austinpwnz on Aug 7, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just to clarify, I don't think it's worthless

I completely agree that traditional stats undervalue a lot of these guys, but that doesn’t mean the solution is to overvalue them elsewhere. Joel does contribute a lot more to wins than traditional stats (or something like PER says), but that doesn’t mean he was worth roughly as many wins as Deron Williams was to the Jazz in 07/08.

My main issue with Berri is that every other statistician openly admits the limits of their models and addresses what they are, while he continually insists WoW is the only model of basketball that matters in spite of some absurd non sequiturs (Sergio was worth roughly as many wins last year as Trout in half the time? Really?) There is absolutely a place for possession-based metrics in basketball, and maybe they’re somewhat better than a stat like PER, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have flaws.

As for Bynum, he played 1000 minutes that year, which is a decent sample size. No doubt some of his monstrous WP score was due to the smallish sample size, but given how much better the Lakers were once Gasol replaced him, I find it hard to believe that he was playing 150% better than Pau played for the Lakers.

by Royster on Aug 7, 2009 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is where these kinds of stats are really useful

When you compare a guy’s performance over two periods of time, all the overvaluing or undervaluing of particular stats evens out. You can say, “Yes, he’s improving,” or “He regressed.”

It showed the progress over the course of the season. If we get end-of-season LMA all year, that alone is going to add a couple wins to our total.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Aug 8, 2009 3:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Lakers have two, maybe at most three years

Left before they will likely take a pretty hard drop with a lot of their players retiring or declining.

"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely

by skywaker9 on Aug 7, 2009 10:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The only guys that rely somewhat on athleticism at this juncture are bynum and odom.

Bynum’s probably going to develop a more well-rounded game, since he’s still young, and he’s got a good head on his shoulders, fine footwork, and a nice stroke. Odom’s got great all-around skills to complement his athleticism. If his quickness goes, so what? He’s still 6’10, long, and strong.

Kobe and Pau rely on skill, mainly. Artest isn’t an athlete, and strength endures. The core of the team is going to age gracefully.

These guys aren’t going anywhere for 5 or 6 yrs.

"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."

by ignign*kt on Aug 7, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Kobe will decline sooner rather than later

he’s got a lot of miles on those legs especially from when he was the only good player on his team. He doesn’t even have to decline that sharply for the Lakers to fall out of contention. They need him to be a top 10 player

"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"

by Magnum on Aug 7, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He already started to adapt, developing more of a mid-range and post-up game, not taking as many acrobatic drives that endanger him crashing to the floor, etc. He will fade, but not crash and burn any time soon.

"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw

by Norsktroll on Aug 7, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

There have been speculation about the inevitable decline of Kobe Bryant for awhile now. He is too skilled to see a precipitous drop in production anytime soon. His athletisim has been fading as he doesn’t attack the rim as often and draws less FTA ever since he drew a career high 819 in the 2005-06 season. The Lakers will not go away quietly as they always have shown an incredible ability to reload like a college football factory.

by TappedPotential on Aug 7, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"The Lakers... always have shown an incredible ability to reload..."

Translation: Lady Luck is a Laker.

by MiledAnimal on Aug 9, 2009 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see the L@kers being a contender for 4-5 years

but they may see some marginal decline over that time.

The big risk for them is injury. As guys get older, the chance of major injury can increase. And the loss of Kobe would finish them, the loss of Pau would drop them into the second tier of contenders.

They could probably afford to lose just about anyone else and still be able to contend. If Oden becomes a monster, they probably need Bynum, as well.

I don’t see Artest being a major contributor for more than 2-3 years, but he’s not the key to the team, anyway. They’ll come up with someone else to fill that role.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Aug 8, 2009 3:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder

What are the comparisons using his stat formulas of the Blazers versus eastern teams like the Cavs and Orlando. The Cavs and Orlando and the Celtics all had gains and losses of players— whats their differential compared to ours? We definitely got better signing the Penguin, but I think we still have a couple of moves to make.

The Dude: Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!

by cavejunctionblazer on Aug 7, 2009 10:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs