Bill Simmons Tweet on Melo for Noah

[Scoot26]

Agreed. However you mention the wings Detroit has and like we already discussed and agreed if you bring in Mel that fills the wing void. Assuming Rose keeps ascending to anything near what Zeke was and melo stays on his path you have two elite level players out front.

True.

I guess...but you're kind of twisting the reality to fit your theory. Duncan Gasol Garnett don't play 80, 90's or 70's center style games. They all have much better perimeter games and up until last season or so Gasol was very soft inside. Garnett fell in love with the 3 pointer at times in Minny and Duncan is the closest to the center style game but has never really truly played the 5.

In a way. Duncan is the closet. The thing with NBA players is they've developed more skills and become all-around players. I mean a guard can post up..but they'll never have a height advantage. KG I have never considered a center. In fact at one point in Minnesota, he was starting at SF. Gasol was actually playing center in Memphis though wasnt he?

Agreed.

And despite what some posters think I don't really hate PaxGormana. I think overall point by point they'd done at least a decent- above average job in overall. I think the drafts have been very good with an exception or so however where they fall falt is free agency(to a certain degree), resiginings, and overvaluing players and not moving assets. As GM's overall I would give them a C+ or B-.

I think they drafted good players. Obviously people wanted Kirk, Gordon, and Deng to become All-Stars and that'll never happen. But all in all they were good players. Every GM has a bad draft pick (Paxson's is Tyrus Thomas) and a bad FA signing (Ben Wallace). They'll also give bad contracts to certain players from time to time (Deng, and if they give in to all in Noah's demands..thats a bad contract). They finally (well hopefully) have a good FA signing in Boozer....What GarPax lacks in is a blockbuster trade..that they have never made, and it might be because they dont want to pay a risk, something they should start doing. The Bulls dont seem to be lucky and can pull off trades like the Lakers do.

 

[FirstTimer]

In a way. Duncan is the closet. The thing with NBA players is they've developed more skills and become all-around players. I mean a guard can post up..but they'll never have a height advantage. KG I have never considered a center. In fact at one point in Minnesota, he was starting at SF. Gasol was actually playing center in Memphis though wasnt he?

Gasol in Memphis was seeing both he was playing along side Lorenzen Wright who was a tweener himself. Wright was playing the more tradition center role though.

I think they drafted good players. Obviously people wanted Kirk, Gordon, and Deng to become All-Stars and that'll never happen. But all in all they were good players. Every GM has a bad draft pick (Paxson's is Tyrus Thomas) and a bad FA signing (Ben Wallace). They'll also give bad contracts to certain players from time to time (Deng, and if they give in to all in Noah's demands..thats a bad contract). They finally (well hopefully) have a good FA signing in Boozer....What GarPax lacks in is a blockbuster trade..that they have never made, and it might be because they dont want to pay a risk, something they should start doing. The Bulls dont seem to be lucky and can pull off trades like the Lakers do.

Exactly. And what's too bad is in many ways the bulls have/had more tradable assets than the other teams that have pulled off miracle deals. I think what explodes PaxGormana's miscues is they were so massive. The whiff on Tyrus for Lamarcus is beyond awful. Aldridge is a budding consistant 20-10 guy in the West at PF and Tyrus is a journeyman leaper. The Wallace signing was a massive whiff as well. Wallace was a locker room issue from day one, wasn't the leader many thought he was, and was aging. I agree every GM has a bad draft pick or so or a bad FA signing but typically those players at least perform a bit. Tyrus and Wallace came here and basically fell on their face and for the most part sucked.

Both were massive miscalculations of what the Bulls needed or wanted at the time.

When the Bulls got Tyrus they needed post scoring. He was raw offensively and made his name dunking and blocking. He still hasn't learned how to play offensive in the NBA.

When the Bulls got Wallace they wanted an on the ball defender in the post, a leader, and a rock. Wallace was always a better off the ball defender in Detroit, was a locker room cancer, and a flake.

The failure were astoundingly bad.

 

[Scoot26]

Exactly. And what's too bad is in many ways the bulls have/had more tradable assets than the other teams that have pulled off miracle deals. I think what explodes PaxGormana's miscues is they were so massive. The whiff on Tyrus for Lamarcus is beyond awful. Aldridge is a budding consistant 20-10 guy in the West at PF and Tyrus is a journeyman leaper. The Wallace signing was a massive whiff as well. Wallace was a locker room issue from day one, wasn't the leader many thought he was, and was aging. I agree every GM has a bad draft pick or so or a bad FA signing but typically those players at least perform a bit. Tyrus and Wallace came here and basically fell on their face and for the most part sucked.

Both were massive miscalculations of what the Bulls needed or wanted at the time.

When the Bulls got Tyrus they needed post scoring. He was raw offensively and made his name dunking and blocking. He still hasn't learned how to play offensive in the NBA.

When the Bulls got Wallace they wanted an on the ball defender in the post, a leader, and a rock. Wallace was always a better off the ball defender in Detroit, was a locker room cancer, and a flake.

The failure were astoundingly bad.

LaMarcus isn't exactly a 20/10 guy. More like a 17/8 guy. Still MUCH better than Tyrus Thomas ever was or will be. I know I was sitting there in 2006 thinking we absolutely would draft Aldridge to compliment Tyson Chandler. Instead Paxson wanted to use the draft to take on a high-risk project instead of addressing that need. Then surprised everyone by signing Ben Wallace. 2006 was essentially the Summer of Fail when looking back on it.

 

[FirstTimer]

LaMarcus isn't exactly a 20/10 guy. More like a 17/8 guy. Still MUCH better than Tyrus Thomas ever was or will be. I know I was sitting there in 2006 thinking we absolutely would draft Aldridge to compliment Tyson Chandler. Instead Paxson wanted to use the draft to take on a high-risk project instead of addressing that need. Then surprised everyone by signing Ben Wallace. 2006 was essentially the Summer of Fail when looking back on it.

I guess I didn't phrase that clearly enough. I meant is is budding(turning) into a 20-10 guy. I think he will get there very soon and hang around those numbers for a while.

 

[Scoot26]

I guess I didn't phrase that clearly enough. I meant is is budding(turning) into a 20-10 guy. I think he will get there very soon and hang around those numbers for a while.

Possibly..looking up his stats...the last three seasons he's basically been at 18/7.5-8.0...I think providing that Greg Oden never becomes anything (which is very probable at this point), that Aldridge makes the next step and becomes that guy.

And speaking of Greg Oden..what a sad story. For Greg himself..and then for the Blazers themselves. Its likes bad shit always happens to them with big men. Luckily they've been okay with Aldridge.

 

[Lefty]

And, Lefty, when I say "apply" them, I meant in-depth to each roster. But I am about to collapse, and I'm done. I'll try to coherently answer that question tomorrow

Ok, so on top of admitting your irrational hope of something you acknowledge isn't probable in the least you also have just admitted that you will not accept statistics until they are "applied in-depth", or to put it another way until "you do something with those numbers that they are not intended for". Dismissing the numbers that prove scoring to be more important than rebounding just because "they aren't applied" is total bullshit because the numbers already came from NBA games. What you treat as a reason to dismiss these statistics (which, coincidentally, prove you wrong) is actually just more bullshit pouring from your mouth and landing on the already gigantic pile of bullshit you have created.

actually you haven't proven anything more than how very badly basketball lends itself to statistics. i think it's far more than evident that scoring is a statistic that lends itself to being mearured more readily than other statistics ie. altering shots/defensive possesions, tipping a ball to a teammate, hitting a pass that would lead to an assist( the so called hockey pass).

Totally right dude, because a .93 R-Squared value as had by the predictive model derived in that study I linked is so way off. I mean, .93 R-Squared? What is that, like a .96 correlation coefficient? Yeah, stats totally don't apply.

And if you are referring to the playoff numbers I ran....what the hell do you want, it's the fucking playoffs! Do you realize the amount of statistical noise created by luck alone in the playoffs? Hell, look at baseball, a sport that we can all agree lends itself the best to statistical analysis: the highest R-squared value of any statistic regressed on PSP values for individual teams was something like 0.2. Whether people want to admit it or not, the playoffs are infused with a whole lot of luck, and that influences how well models we come up with explain what happens in the post-season.

 

[Lefty]

I simply wasnt going to say anything else as most people were just being assclowns.

My assertion that you cannot reasonably draw the conclusions you did from your research because you failed to isolate anything still stands and is valid. :dunno:

 

[PrideisBears]

I'm all for trading Noah if we can have at least a decent Center out there. I like Noah but Melo can score and that's what we need. So are there any decent Centers out there that we can pick up?

 

[Veritas]

Have you guys ever though to just agree to disagree and ignore it. You both have beaten your points to death against each other and are now just wasting your own time trying to convince the other into your opinion on the matter. It has become rather pathetic.

 

[Lefty]

Have you guys ever though to just agree to disagree and ignore it. You both have beaten your points to death against each other and are now just wasting your own time trying to convince the other into your opinion on the matter. It has become rather pathetic.

That's really not at all what happened, but whatever you say, chief.

 

[regoob2]

I have no idea why anyone would give up so much for Melo. I love Melo but he'll be a FA next season. Denver is asking a kings ransom for him.

 

[Lefty]

I have no idea why anyone would give up so much for Melo. I love Melo but he'll be a FA next season. Denver is asking a kings ransom for him.

1) We wouldn't be giving up that much (an overpaid, inconsistent and oft-injured forward and a good defensive and rebounding C that can't score and has bad feet) considering we get a top-10 NBA player (and elite scorer) in return to play alongside our budding superstar PG and our close-to-top-tier 4/5.

2) That's why you sign him to an extension (and still save money in not having to pay Deng his ludicrous contract and Noah's extension). And if you mean the Bulls should wait to go after him, then for the 984238478875397265.2 x 10^26th time on this board: that cannot happen, as the Bulls don't have the cap space to sign him as a FA.

 

[bossdrb]

I can. Because Melo will provide better scoring numbers than the two guys we trade away combined, and since scoring means more as far as winning games goes, and because it correlates with winning better than any other measure around, the team would win more games. How have you not grasped this yet?

Phoenix Suns.

 

[Lefty]

Phoenix Suns.

That's a sample size of what, only 6 seasons of the "score as much as we can and who gives a shit about the rest" basketball started by D'Antoni and continued by Alvin Gentry? And in case you don't remember, 5 of those 6 individual seasons resulted in playoff appearances, 3 of which continuing all the way to the Conference Finals. That's pretty damn good.

2009-10: Lost WCF to the juggernaut Lakers, who while still very good offensively during the season, were an absolutely amazing offensive team in the playoffs, solidifying their position as the best offensive Champion in the last 6 seasons of playoff data, while they were simply a median team on defense.

2005-06: Lost the WCF to the Dallas Mavericks, a team that was there exact equal on offense and defense, and who were the best runners-up offensively in the playoffs in the last 6 years.

2004-05: Lost WCF to the Spurs, an above-average offense that also came to life in the playoffs, with an offense that scored above both the median and mean and were 5% better than the playoff-average over the last 6 seasons (best playoff offense ever was the, you guessed it 2009-10 Suns at 10% above average) and only slightly better than the mean defensively.

So really, what's your point?

 

[bossdrb]

That's a sample size of what, only 6 seasons of the "score as much as we can and who gives a shit about the rest" basketball started by D'Antoni and continued by Alvin Gentry? And in case you don't remember, 5 of those 6 individual seasons resulted in playoff appearances, 3 of which continuing all the way to the Conference Finals. That's pretty damn good.

2009-10: Lost WCF to the juggernaut Lakers, who while still very good offensively during the season, were an absolutely amazing offensive team in the playoffs, solidifying their position as the best offensive Champion in the last 6 seasons of playoff data, while they were simply a median team on defense.

2005-06: Lost the WCF to the Dallas Mavericks, a team that was there exact equal on offense and defense, and who were the best runners-up offensively in the playoffs in the last 6 years.

2004-05: Lost WCF to the Spurs, an above-average offense that also came to life in the playoffs, with an offense that scored above both the median and mean and were 5% better than the playoff-average over the last 6 seasons (best playoff offense ever was the, you guessed it 2009-10 Suns at 10% above average) and only slightly better than the mean defensively.

So really, what's your point?

I'm a firm believer of balanced teams winning championships. However, with Tom as a coach, I believe he would make any player better defensively. I haven't got into the 'Melo & Noah talks, it's stupidity. But I was just mentioning that if the Suns had better defense, they'd be better.

 

[Lefty]

I'm a firm believer of balanced teams winning championships. However, with Tom as a coach, I believe he would make any player better defensively. I haven't got into the 'Melo & Noah talks, it's stupidity. But I was just mentioning that if the Suns had better defense, they'd be better.

Did you read any part of my response? They got beat by better teams with median (at-best) defenses and equal-to or better offenses when they made the WCF 3 times in the last 6 seasons (which is, you know, pretty damn good all by itself). The teams that beat them were also decidedly un-balanced when it came to the allocation of offensive vs. defensive production. Hell, one year they were beaten by their perfect analogue in the regular season.

 

[Scoot26]

Did you read any part of my response? They got beat by better teams with median (at-best) defenses and equal-to or better offenses when they made the WCF 3 times in the last 6 seasons (which is, you know, pretty damn good all by itself). The teams that beat them were also decidedly un-balanced when it came to the allocation of offensive vs. defensive production. Hell, one year they were beaten by their perfect analogue in the regular season.

Offensive Rating (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); for players it is points produced per 100 posessions, while for teams it is points scored per 100 possessions.

Defensive Rating (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); for players and teams it is points allowed per 100 posessions.

2009-10 Suns, #1 offensive rating, #23 defensive rating
Defeated by Lakers, #11 offensive rating, #4 defensive rating

2007-08 Suns #2 offensive rating, #16 defensive rating
Defeated by Spurs, #15 offensive rating, #3 defensive rating

2006-07 Suns #1 offensive Rating, #13 defensive rating
Defeated by Spurs, #5 offensive rating, #2 defensive rating

2005-06 Suns, #2 offensive rating, #16 defensive rating
Defeated by Mavericks, #1 offensive rating, #11 defensive rating

2004-05 Suns, #1 offensive rating, #17 defensive rating
Defeated by Spurs, #8 offensive rating, #1 defensive rating

Seems to me they were beaten by a top 5 defense in every year except when they played their counter-part in the Mavericks.

 

[Lefty]

Offensive Rating (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); for players it is points produced per 100 posessions, while for teams it is points scored per 100 possessions.

Defensive Rating (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); for players and teams it is points allowed per 100 posessions.

2009-10 Suns, #1 offensive rating, #23 defensive rating
Defeated by Lakers, #11 offensive rating, #4 defensive rating

2007-08 Suns #2 offensive rating, #16 defensive rating
Defeated by Spurs, #15 offensive rating, #3 defensive rating

2006-07 Suns #1 offensive Rating, #13 defensive rating
Defeated by Spurs, #5 offensive rating, #2 defensive rating

2005-06 Suns, #2 offensive rating, #16 defensive rating
Defeated by Mavericks, #1 offensive rating, #11 defensive rating

2004-05 Suns, #1 offensive rating, #17 defensive rating
Defeated by Spurs, #8 offensive rating, #1 defensive rating

Seems to me they were beaten by a top 5 defense in every year except when they played their counter-part in the Mavericks.

Good thing I know what "mean", "median" and "standard deviation" mean, seemingly unlike you. Putz.

 

[Lefty]

2005-10 NBA Playoffs DRtg

Mean: 109.074
Median: 108.35
Standard Deviation: 5.372

Now, in every year save for one, the Suns lost to a team that was within one standard deviation of the mean DRtg. What does that mean? It means that that the teams they lost to weren't any great shakes defensively in the playoffs despite their rank for that season (I'll ignore for the moment how completely fucking erroneous listing a team's rank in one playoff year is given the small sample sizes). They weren't more than 4% better than the the average for all of those years.

Scoot, do yourself a favor and take a break from trying to draw conclusions from data sets. You're really bad at it.

 

[Lefty]

And because I know you're having trouble with this, I'll explain it to you further: rankings among other data points means less and less as the standard deviation represents a lower and lower percentage of the mean. For the playoff DRtg data, the standard deviation is about 4% of the mean. That means that 95% of the data set is within 8% of the mean, for better or worse. Think about that. Would you really go lauding the accomplishments of a 100 OPS+ hitter in baseball over those of a hitter with a 92 OPS+?