Dwight Discussion: Griffin for Dwight?... Naaaa (1011)

last stand wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/howardw01.html

Thought this was interesting. His usage rate is actually barely below his career average.

4 points in usage rate is actually a lot. And his last 4 seasons in Orlando he was 4 up on what he is now. Though his health is a big factor

Just 3 of the last 4, no need to exaggerate.

You're right though, 4pts may not be completely meaningless, but it also not huge. Especially considering he's coming to a team with other scorers from a team literally built for him.

I just disagree that Dwights problems are due to touches.

Totally agree that his health still isnt there. I'll see flashes where he looks like his old self, but he's not back yet.

phoenixrisingla wrote:

last stand wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/howardw01.html

Thought this was interesting. His usage rate is actually barely below his career average.

4 points in usage rate is actually a lot. And his last 4 seasons in Orlando he was 4 up on what he is now. Though his health is a big factor

Just 3 of the last 4, no need to exaggerate.

You're right though, 4pts may not be completely meaningless, but it also not huge. Especially considering he's coming to a team with other scorers from a team literally built for him.

I just disagree that Dwights problems are due to touches.

Totally agree that his health still isnt there. I'll see flashes where he looks like his old self, but he's not back yet.

4 percentage points is HUGE. Why would you say it is not huge.

To put it in to perspective, the difference between Kobe's sophomore season when he came off the bench, played 26 mins/game and shot 11.6 times per game, and this season when he is just about leading the league in scoring, is 5.5 percentage points.

I don't think the issues are touches either

1. He's not healthy. I watched a lot of Orlando over the years. And Dwight's not himself. At his best right now he's close but that's like 1 game every 10. He can't sustain it physically.

2. The offense sucks for him. He was scoring and defending much better in the Princeton. Why? A slower pace conserves energy. He can get back because the lakers wouldn't be shooting deep 3s forcing running. I've seen Dwight trot up the court more this year than his entire career. He gets tired quicker because of the injury and offense

3. Mental instability. The back has him frustrated. Earlier in the season he looked like he was one missed dunk from jumping off staples center. It obviously frustrates him when he tries to do something and it doesn't happen.

Those are all bigger reasons than touches. Truth is the touches he's getting aren't in great spots and on top of that his body isn't letting him do what he wants with those touches. Therefore it's a huge slap in the face and makes his touches "seem" more scarce because he's not doing as much with them

JGC wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:

last stand wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/howardw01.html

Thought this was interesting. His usage rate is actually barely below his career average.

4 points in usage rate is actually a lot. And his last 4 seasons in Orlando he was 4 up on what he is now. Though his health is a big factor

Just 3 of the last 4, no need to exaggerate.

You're right though, 4pts may not be completely meaningless, but it also not huge. Especially considering he's coming to a team with other scorers from a team literally built for him.

I just disagree that Dwights problems are due to touches.

Totally agree that his health still isnt there. I'll see flashes where he looks like his old self, but he's not back yet.

4 percentage points is HUGE. Why would you say it is not huge.

To put it in to perspective, the difference between Kobe's sophomore season when he came off the bench, played 26 mins/game and shot 11.6 times per game, and this season when he is just about leading the league in scoring, is 5.5 percentage points.

Can either one of you explain what "Usage Rate" has to do with anything remotely close to playing a team sport and winning a championship?... rear looking "designer" stat to somehow verify what we did or didn't see......

btw the difference from high to low for Howard in that useless stat is about 15.8%.....

Usage rate is a stat that shows touches and how much of the offense is run through a player. It isn't used to describe winning a championship. It's used to display the use of a player. Your hating on one of the more interesting basketball stats.

^^Yes....... yes I am.....

It's worthless as a predictor of anything other than fantasy ranking.....

There are literally a thousand variables that go into why and why not players get "touches".....

Of course. You can make that claim about every stat. Doesn't change that it's an interesting tell, especially when discussing point guards. It's best used with guards. Less so with bigs but it's still interesting

^^All sports stats are pretty worthless other than contests in the categories themselves. Points, rebounds, assists etc. are all pretty easily understood yet none really tell the story of a players total effectiveness on the floor.

For example.... is it "useful" to have Howard with the ball down 2 with 13 seconds on the clock?..... if you say no.... then who made the mistake? Howard or another player?

Was it "useful" to have Nash with the ball a lot against Miami the other night?.... Was it "useful" against NY?....

The pure Triangle offense should create 4 or 5 players with very similar usage rates..... now put Nash in the Triangle and compare his career usage rate with a year in a system like the Triangle....

I could go on but I think you can see from these fairly simple examples why I don't really like these for putting together my opinion of a player....

last stand wrote:Usage rate is a stat that shows touches and how much of the offense is run through a player. It isn't used to describe winning a championship. It's used to display the use of a player. Your hating on one of the more interesting basketball stats.

Well, I should add... that is shows you how much of the offense is run through a player when he is on the floor. Just want to highlight that because if a player comes in for 1 play, gets the ball and shoots and then goes back to the bench and never plays again, his usage rate I believe would be 100% or possibly 50% (half credit goes to player who passed him the ball).

It doesn't directly speak to winning championships, but no single stat does. It should be used to look at whether a player is over or under utilized.

Rooscooter wrote:^^All sports stats are pretty worthless other than contests in the categories themselves. Points, rebounds, assists etc. are all pretty easily understood yet none really tell the story of a players total effectiveness on the floor.

For example.... is it "useful" to have Howard with the ball down 2 with 13 seconds on the clock?..... if you say no.... then who made the mistake? Howard or another player?

Was it "useful" to have Nash with the ball a lot against Miami the other night?.... Was it "useful" against NY?....

I could go on but I think you can see from these fairly simple examples why I don't really like these for putting together my opinion of a player....

Well, people use stats because while the observational method can also be effective, few people have the ability to watch every single minute of every game ever played season after season.

If there was a stat that showed you that Dwight Howard scores 100% of the time when we are down 2 with 13 seconds on the clock over an extended range of occurrences, and Steve Nash scored 0% of the time when we are down 2 with 13 seconds on the clock over an extended range of occurrences, it doesn't mean that Dwight WILL score, it just means he's been more effective in that particular situation and one might be best suited to TRY to recreate it.

Rooscooter wrote:^^Yes....... yes I am.....

It's worthless as a predictor of anything other than fantasy ranking.....

There are literally a thousand variables that go into why and why not players get "touches".....

You kinda took that in a whole other direction man.

We were just discussing IF Dwight was getting the touches and using usage rate to help determine that. Which it is an EXCELLENT stat for.

Predicting championships? Not sure where you pulled that from...

sports stats are useless? so when there's a technical free throw, why not just draw a number to see who goes to shoot it?

well, it's cause nash is a better shooter than dwight as the FT % stat shows.

hey, look, we found a use for a stat!

Pig Miller wrote:sports stats are useless? so when there's a technical free throw, why not just draw a number to see who goes to shoot it?

well, it's cause nash is a better shooter than dwight as the FT % stat shows.

hey, look, we found a use for a stat!

You'll find there's a sub-set of posters on here who "Dont believe in stats".

Obviously they can't account for everything, but they are useful in that they are recordings of events that actually occurred and cant be disputed. Sports are so emotional its nice to have something more concrete to help balance out what your eyes are tell you you're seeing.

phoenixrisingla wrote:

Pig Miller wrote:sports stats are useless? so when there's a technical free throw, why not just draw a number to see who goes to shoot it?

well, it's cause nash is a better shooter than dwight as the FT % stat shows.

hey, look, we found a use for a stat!

You'll find there's a sub-set of posters on here who "Dont believe in stats".

Obviously they can't account for everything, but they are useful in that they are recordings of events that actually occurred and cant be disputed. Sports are so emotional its nice to have something more concrete to help balance out what your eyes are tell you you're seeing.

As the duly appointed spokesperson of the "sub set" I have this response to both of the above posts.....

Trying to infer Howard's touches, as recorded by that stat, is fairly useless on the face of it. Teammates, game situations and opponents played all factor into who gets the ball and when.... I posted examples above.... just using something that happened in total and running it through a factor to include the two players involved in a transaction that took 2 seconds of game time seems to me to be pretty useless.

Change the teammates and system and it's all out the window as being something one could compare from one season to another.

Put Howard in the Triangle and his touches would go down even more. A ball sharing system like that dictates that everyone touches the ball..... Put him in a traditional pick and roll offense with a guy like Nelson and guess what?... it would go up.

We don't have the same teammates.... we don't run the same system..... so how could this stat be used to evaluate anything other than the fact two different situations are in fact....... different.

As for the FT stat..... if the coach and players don't know who is the best free throw shooter on a team..... well I don't even need to finish that one do I?

JGC wrote:If there was a stat that showed you that Dwight Howard scores 100% of the time when we are down 2 with 13 seconds on the clock over an extended range of occurrences, and Steve Nash scored 0% of the time when we are down 2 with 13 seconds on the clock over an extended range of occurrences, it doesn't mean that Dwight WILL score, it just means he's been more effective in that particular situation and one might be best suited to TRY to recreate it.

If?..... you're arguing a point by starting with the word "if"?

A stat as you suggested cannot exist by definition of probability laws. By their very definition stats are statistical calculations of rearward looking data points of a specific situation (made field goal for example). They don't carry any more weight than the data used to create them.

Rooscooter wrote:

phoenixrisingla wrote:

Pig Miller wrote:sports stats are useless? so when there's a technical free throw, why not just draw a number to see who goes to shoot it?

well, it's cause nash is a better shooter than dwight as the FT % stat shows.

hey, look, we found a use for a stat!

You'll find there's a sub-set of posters on here who "Dont believe in stats".

Obviously they can't account for everything, but they are useful in that they are recordings of events that actually occurred and cant be disputed. Sports are so emotional its nice to have something more concrete to help balance out what your eyes are tell you you're seeing.

As the duly appointed spokesperson of the "sub set" I have this response to both of the above posts.....

Trying to infer Howard's touches, as recorded by that stat, is fairly useless on the face of it. Teammates, game situations and opponents played all factor into who gets the ball and when.... I posted examples above.... just using something that happened in total and running it through a factor to include the two players involved in a transaction that took 2 seconds of game time seems to me to be pretty useless.

Change the teammates and system and it's all out the window as being something one could compare from one season to another.

Put Howard in the Triangle and his touches would go down even more. A ball sharing system like that dictates that everyone touches the ball..... Put him in a traditional pick and roll offense with a guy like Nelson and guess what?... it would go up.

We don't have the same teammates.... we don't run the same system..... so how could this stat be used to evaluate anything other than the fact two different situations are in fact....... different.

As for the FT stat..... if the coach and players don't know who is the best free throw shooter on a team..... well I don't even need to finish that one do I?

Are you part of that sub set?

I agree about most of what you said I guess.

It still seems like your trying to say that we're using this information to guarantee predicting future behavior which no one is saying. Most stats just give us SOME insight into what a player is doing. We have to fill in the blanks by actually watching the games.

Pig Miller wrote:sports stats are useless? so when there's a technical free throw, why not just draw a number to see who goes to shoot it?

well, it's cause nash is a better shooter than dwight as the FT % stat shows.

hey, look, we found a use for a stat!

you dont need stats to see who has a shooting stroke or not, u can just see it when u play pick up basketball as well.

i dont believe in stats either, its [Swearing is not permitted at Clublakers. You must edit this post prior to submitting.]

^^Howard has been yappin' about touches.... this stat is about touches.... seems like someone was using it for something......

As for being part of the Sub Set.... I AM the Sub Set....

Actually I do a lot of work with statistics, demographics and models that use thousands of data points as part of what I do on the other screen when I'm posting here.....

^^ Ha, nice. I'm part of the dual monitor (work on one, CL on the other) club as well.

Psychobroker wrote:

thisbjgz wrote:

J.A. Adande ‏@jadande

Lakers say Dwight Howard is cleared to play after his right shoulder was examined today.

So WTF did he leave the game then??

Because he is 180 degrees opposite of what our real franchise player is about. Kobe played through separated shoulder, effed up ankles, fingers, blown tendons, everything. To be fair though Dwight is like everyone else in the league especially in a contract/career decision year. It hurt and he knew it was already "torn" so being prudent. Kobe is one of a kind in that regard.

LTLakerFan wrote:

Psychobroker wrote:

thisbjgz wrote:

J.A. Adande ‏@jadande

Lakers say Dwight Howard is cleared to play after his right shoulder was examined today.

So WTF did he leave the game then??

Because he is 180 degrees opposite of what our real franchise player is about. Kobe played through separated shoulder, effed up ankles, fingers, blown tendons, everything. To be fair though Dwight is like everyone else in the league especially in a contract/career decision year. It hurt and he knew it was already "torn" so being prudent. Kobe is one of a kind in that regard.

The only other that I can think of is "Crash"......

at the risk of derailing the thread, i'm probably a "sub-set" member, and like roo, i work with stats all the time as part of my job (prof). most people i know that know a fair amount about stats know when to ignore them, or how to determine when comparisons of various numbers make sense (or if the numbers themselves make sense). i wouldn't say that all sports statistics are useless, but i would say a fair amount of "advanced stats" give us very little useful information beyond what our eyes can tell us. it behooves a subset of the sports media to sell the public on this snake oil because it keeps them all in business and creates jobs where there were none (see hollinger, john; patron saint of useless analysis).

again, i'm not a philistine when it comes to these matters, but numbers presented as truth without the proper context annoy me profoundly. if people weren't tripping over themselves trying to prove counter-intuitive points, i might have less of a reaction, but when a cottage industry starts over trying to demonstrate that kobe bryant is a poor clutch player, i feel like somebody needs to intervene.

rant over.

phoenixrisingla wrote:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/howardw01.html

Thought this was interesting. His usage rate is actually barely below his career average.

There's a big flaw in this stat. It doesn't take into account how many times a player touches the ball that doesn't lead to a FGA, FTA or TO.

For instance. Kobe's is between 33-35%. Lebron in his CLE days is 32-33%. Problem is, anyone who watches basketball knows that the ball is in Lebron's hands for at LEAST 10-15 seconds per play on EVERY play. Kobe, not so much. Not even close to that.

So Lebron's usage percentage is totally inaccurate. Everything goes through and gets done via Lebron being on the ball.

So when I refer to touches for D12, I don't necessarily want it to lead to a shot or FTA, no need to mention TO's...who the hell wants that. What I want is for the ball to be in D12's hands most. Collapse the middle draw the defense in and pass out for open looks.

We aren't doing this. Everything is in Nash's hands which is fine IF we have a legit PnR guy. We don't. Let's try to run our offense INSIDE out. D12 can pass the ball out of double teams and do it quite well.

Weren't Bynum supporters and Pau supporters asking for the same thing in season's past? PJ wanted it too.

Why not now?

Rooscooter wrote:

JGC wrote:If there was a stat that showed you that Dwight Howard scores 100% of the time when we are down 2 with 13 seconds on the clock over an extended range of occurrences, and Steve Nash scored 0% of the time when we are down 2 with 13 seconds on the clock over an extended range of occurrences, it doesn't mean that Dwight WILL score, it just means he's been more effective in that particular situation and one might be best suited to TRY to recreate it.

If?..... you're arguing a point by starting with the word "if"?

A stat as you suggested cannot exist by definition of probability laws. By their very definition stats are statistical calculations of rearward looking data points of a specific situation (made field goal for example). They don't carry any more weight than the data used to create them.

What is your point? You're just repeating what I said. Why, who knows.

Unfortunately, in the real world (as opposed to the hypothetical world), people see the same thing and come to different conclusions. So stats (when used appropriately) can be an effective measure for looking beyond the observation which is more prone to bias.

But let's not pretend that stats are completely meaningless. You can go re-watch every single Laker game this season and study hours upon hours of tape over and over again and then sit in an armchair and replay them. I can look at a stat sheet for 2 seconds. We're both going to pick Steve Nash if the team needs a free throw made.

Sometimes you got to look beyond the stats. And sometimes, the stats are plenty enough to draw conclusions.

.