Lillard overrated?

[SlyPokerDog]

How do you argue with this awesome logic.

It's a perfect example of a strawman.

I never argued you couldn't go to college and be an all-time great. Yet you stand up that argument and raise me what?

Facepalm.

My IQ goes down like 75 points when I read this kind of shit.

How dare you Denny! This is a Blazer forum and the only acceptable facepalm in a Blazer forum is this one -

 

[Denny Crane]

Go hide in a corner and learn the game

When logic isn't on your side, pound the table.

Another well known logic fault.

 

[Denny Crane]

How dare you Denny! This is a Blazer forum and the only acceptable facepalm in a Blazer forum is this one -

Nice! I actually looked for a shatner meme but couldn't easily find it

 

[magnifier661]

When logic isn't on your side, pound the table.

Another well known logic fault.

Thanks. Good thing you take your own advice. Otherwise, life would move a little too fast for you

 

[BlazerCaravan]

The guy gulping in the upper left hand corner SLAYS me!

 

[Masbee]

19 points, 4 rebounds and 9.3 assists? That's not better than Lillard?

Hollow stats.

I laughed when he won, and was horrified when we traded for him.

How did he turn out?

Was I right, or was I right?

 

[magnifier661]

Hollow stats.

I laughed when he won, and was horrified when we traded for him.

How did he turn out?

Was I right, or was I right?

That's not the point. You said Lillard had better stats in the stats that count. Doesn't ppg, rebounds and assists count? He had a higher per too.

Now don't get me wrong... I would much rather have Lillard than Damon, but your statement was false.

 

[Masbee]

That's not the point. You said Lillard had better stats in the stats that count. Doesn't ppg, rebounds and assists count? He had a higher per too.

Now don't get me wrong... I would much rather have Lillard than Damon, but your statement was false.

Oh Geez.

I said Joe Smith had a better year than Damon. Joe Smith should have won Rookie of the Year.

I said Damon did not have a better year than Lillard. That is not the same thing as saying Lillard had a better year.

Damon PER 16.7 over Lillard 16.4. That is effectively the same.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stoudda01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lillada01.html
PPG: Damon 19 vs 19

Lillard TS% .55% over Damon .53%
Lillard eFG% of .50% over Damon .48%

Am I missing something? How is that "BETTER"?

Answer. It is not better. Not at all. Not in the least. I stand by my original post.

Additionally, there are two sides of the court. Lillard was pretty bad defensively. He even admits he has a lot of work to do on that end of the court. As bad as Lillard was, Damon was godawful.

Stat that matter: Win Shares: Lillard 5.8. Damon 4.3

Damon's team won 21 games. That team just sucked, and the opponents didn't take them seriously. It was the NBA equivalent of a night off. Lillard's team (with no bench and in the brutal West) 33 wins. And, until the end of the season tank, we were in real games.

And Damon only played 70 games. Lillard played all 82 games and most minutes in the NBA (inducing fatigue driven reduction in his efficiency).

Per game statistically they were roughly equal: See PER. The difference was in defense and wins.

You could make the argument that Lillard had a better season, and not be a fool. I don't see how anyone could argue that Damon had a better season. There is nothing to support that claim.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Nah. More like of all the HS to pro guys, 1/3 were at least as good as Jermaine O'Neal. If you look at the guys who went to college for 4 years, you won't find 33% were as good as Jermaine O'Neal. Not even close.

oh, so you are saying that players good enough to be drafted at 17 are by percentage better than those who arent

groundbreaking stuff

 

[magnifier661]

oh, so you are saying that players good enough to be drafted at 17 are by percentage better than those who arent

groundbreaking stuff

Tell me about it.... Seems Denny is doing a lot of face palming in this thread.

 

[magnifier661]

Oh Geez.

I said Joe Smith had a better year than Damon. Joe Smith should have won Rookie of the Year.

I said Damon did not have a better year than Lillard. That is not the same thing as saying Lillard had a better year.

Damon PER 16.7 over Lillard 16.4. That is effectively the same.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stoudda01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lillada01.html
PPG: Damon 19 vs 19

Lillard TS% .55% over Damon .53%
Lillard eFG% of .50% over Damon .48%

Am I missing something? How is that "BETTER"?

Answer. It is not better. Not at all. Not in the least. I stand by my original post.

Additionally, there are two sides of the court. Lillard was pretty bad defensively. He even admits he has a lot of work to do on that end of the court. As bad as Lillard was, Damon was godawful.

Stat that matter: Win Shares: Lillard 5.8. Damon 4.3

Damon's team won 21 games. That team just sucked, and the opponents didn't take them seriously. It was the NBA equivalent of a night off. Lillard's team (with no bench and in the brutal West) 33 wins. And, until the end of the season tank, we were in real games.

And Damon only played 70 games. Lillard played all 82 games and most minutes in the NBA (inducing fatigue driven reduction in his efficiency).

Per game statistically they were roughly equal: See PER. The difference was in defense and wins.

You could make the argument that Lillard had a better season, and not be a fool. I don't see how anyone could argue that Damon had a better season. There is nothing to support that claim.

Dude first off; I've clearly explained that Lillard is better than Damon. I'm just pointing out that your statement that Lillard was better in the statistics that matter is wrong. And if you think a 0.02% in eFG and tS% is a "lock-like" reason; you are going full "mags" on me.

The win share is the key. I would say that is your only argument. But Damon had more points, much better PER, better rebounds, and many more assists to Lillard.

Also, who gives a fuck about smith? I never claimed Damon won ROY by a landslide. You must have me confused with someone else.

But I will repeat it again, since you don't seem to pay attention to this part of my comment.

"I would take Lillard over Damon a hundred times over". Just stating your "beyond a shadow of a doubt statistic that Lillard was better than Damon his rookie year" was clearly wrong.

 

[Masbee]

Dude first off; I've clearly explained that Lillard is better than Damon. I'm just pointing out that your statement that Lillard was better in the statistics that matter is wrong. And if you think a 0.02% in eFG and tS% is a "lock-like" reason; you are going full "mags" on me.

The win share is the key. I would say that is your only argument. But Damon had more points, much better PER, better rebounds, and many more assists to Lillard.

Also, who gives a fuck about smith? I never claimed Damon won ROY by a landslide. You must have me confused with someone else.

But I will repeat it again, since you don't seem to pay attention to this part of my comment.

"I would take Lillard over Damon a hundred times over". Just stating your "beyond a shadow of a doubt statistic that Lillard was better than Damon his rookie year" was clearly wrong.

Dude, what the hell?

You have to quote me now, because you are claiming I said something I never did. You are getting this all wrong.

I never said Lillard had better stats than Damon. NEVER.

I said Damon did not have better stats THAT MATTER than Lillard.

You can argue that my Stats That Matter choices are wrong if you like. But I never, never said Damon's bloated stats were inferior to Lillard's.

That is a big difference.

Let me explain carefully: I don't give a fuck about Damon's PPG, RPG and APG.

Did you watch him in his rookie season?

He had the ball - all the time. He played virtually the entire game. And, Damon in his career was always a decent jump shooter and decent rebounder for a guard. Being the primary ball-handler who hogs the ball and playing monster minutes leads to large point and assist totals.

BFD. Watch the game. I did, and didn't like it.

That is why those are stats that DON'T matter.

 

[Masbee]

Mags: Define "much better PER"

 

[magnifier661]

Mags: Define "much better PER"

Well that was a mistake. He only had a 0.7 higher per; but the difference was better than the 0.02 difference you tried explaining how Lillard was much better in the TS% or eFG%.

 

[magnifier661]

Dude, what the hell?

You have to quote me now, because you are claiming I said something I never did. You are getting this all wrong.

I never said Lillard had better stats than Damon. NEVER.

I said Damon did not have better stats THAT MATTER than Lillard.

You can argue that my Stats That Matter choices are wrong if you like. But I never, never said Damon's bloated stats were inferior to Lillard's.

That is a big difference.

Let me explain carefully: I don't give a fuck about Damon's PPG, RPG and APG.

Did you watch him in his rookie season?

He had the ball - all the time. He played virtually the entire game. And, Damon in his career was always a decent jump shooter and decent rebounder for a guard. Being the primary ball-handler who hogs the ball and playing monster minutes leads to large point and assist totals.

BFD. Watch the game. I did, and didn't like it.

That is why those are stats that DON'T matter.

What?

No.

It was not better than Lillards.

Not by any stat metric that matters.

And - Damon won Rookie of the Year, but he shouldn't have. He had competition. Joe Smith had a better rookie campaign.

Lillard, ran away with the award.

Are you sure? I said "I'm just pointing out that your statement that Lillard was better in the statistics that matter is wrong." <-- That is exactly the the case. Sorry but the stat metric of PER, Points, Rebounds (added plus), Assists are "STATS THAT MATTER" for a PG.

 

[Denny Crane]

oh, so you are saying that players good enough to be drafted at 17 are by percentage better than those who arent

groundbreaking stuff

Fantastic. You get it. But some guys do go to college. It's not such a bad idea to get an education.

So much for Mags' "so many of them failed" idea, eh? They succeeded at better rates the earlier they got into the NBA.

When I was in school, there was a second league called the ABA.

The ABA tried to compete with the NBA by drafting the same players as NBA teams out of college, and signing NBA stars (like Rick Barry) as free agents.

The ABA also allowed a few players to be drafted as undergraduates or out of High School, as "hardship" cases. The NBA did not follow suit for about a decade. Not even allowing undergrads to be drafted. For the most part, the ABA guys who came out of HS to the Pros were similar to LeBron's situation - hometown guy goes to hometown team. George McGinnis, for example, was an Indiana guy who was going to go to Indiana, but signed to play for the Pacers.

The NBA ultimately had to take hardship cases, or else the ABA would steal guys before they graduated.

At one point, the NBA tried to make a big deal out of this guy Bill Willoughby, who went from HS to pro in the NBA. One of the first. He was a miserable failure. Darryl Dawkins was king of the chocolate thunder dunk for Dr. J's 76ers, but was more of a man child who never really developed into a quality player. The early returns were that going from HS to pro in the NBA were a disaster.

But lo and behold, the age of the top draft picks decreased and the number of elite players increased, mostly from that pool of talent. Guys like Drexler, Hakeem, Karl Malone, Shaq, Magic, Isaiah Thomas, Jordan, Worthy, Dominique Wilkins, Adrian Dantley, defied the NBA's wisdom that hardship would doom the players coming out early. Not only did it defy this theory, but the teams got good at training the players younger, and the players' skills advanced by playing against NBA pros instead of against Texas A&M's backup shooting guard who never played again after college.

There is no magic bullet when it comes to drafting players. Kobe was drafted out of HS. Think about all those foolish GMs who passed on him - he lasted until the 13th pick. If he played a year in college, he might have gone #1.

And most certainly seeing a guy play 4 years of college ball doesn't help you draft smarter either. LaRue Martin, Sam Bowie, Goose Givens, and many other guys have been outright busts but sure fire #1 picks.

Ultimately, if you got to choose a player, you'd go for the HSer and train him. By the time he's a 4 year veteran, he'd otherwise be a rookie college grad. And the percentages show it. As you and I agree.

And for Mags' benefit, you didn't make a strawman argument. You asked me to state my case (again), I did, you repeated it.

 

[magnifier661]

BOOM Denny! Guess your College degree failed you brother. I was waiting for you to try and hyperbole again.

http://basketball-statistics.com/collegeexperiencesecondlook.html

Senior Lottery picks have an offensive rating of 104.68 and high schoolers of 103.4. But anything outside of lottery is where the discrepancy is huge. 101.61 to 98.6; which only supports that most the lottery high schoolers are soooo talented, that its much harder for them to bust.

Lets look at the deviation now. Seniors at 5.53 compared to the 7 of high schoolers. And lets look at the BUST comparison. If the high schooler isn't a lotto pick; 25 highschoolers to every 7.5 seniors. Looks like the metric supports me once again. Basically explaining that high schoolers have a much higher chance of busting; like I said (Wrong again Denny).


And the study quote

The point is this: the younger guys with more potential are more likely to develop into superstars that carry the workload for their teams. The older guys are more likely to develop into solid role-players that compliment those superstars. For a team that is struggling and looking for a new identity, it makes more sense to take a risk on an international or young college player, evidenced by the PER study. For a team looking to add to an already talented group of players, it makes more sense to take a polished and efficient senior, evidenced by this offensive rating study.

 

[Denny Crane]

BOOM!

The point is this: the younger guys with more potential are more likely to develop into superstars that carry the workload for their teams. The older guys are more likely to develop into solid role-players that compliment those superstars.

 

[Denny Crane]

Guess what mags, you finally won.

You found an argument that wasn't a strawman and argued in favor of it. it was MY argument.

Glad you found your way to reason. It took long enough.

 

[magnifier661]

BOOM!

LMAO, guess you haven't been paying attention once again Denny...

Certain players can handle the pressure of the nba, but the majority can't. College helps to grow a player and teach them to know the game at a higher level; without the nba pressure.

There are more busts than gems because of this. Nate does have a point for the average players like Gibson. They do reach their peak, but are nba ready and can contribute right out of the gate. There are players like Roy, drexler and countless others that have played 4 years and became superstars.

It's about drive + talent; not experience, IMO.

Seniors at 5.53 compared to the 7 of high schoolers. And lets look at the BUST comparison. If the high schooler isn't a lotto pick; 25 highschoolers to every 7.5 seniors. Looks like the metric supports me once again. Basically explaining that high schoolers have a much higher chance of busting; like I said (Wrong again Denny).

 

[Denny Crane]

Go ahead and find more scholarly research and argue against that, too.



I'm going to name that smiley : mags :

 

[magnifier661]

Go ahead and find more scholarly research and argue against that, too.



I'm going to name that smiley : mags :

Funny how you bounce around with your arguments, and now discrediting the scholastic research. Wasn't it you that tried using the "Graduated College" argument? But yeah you should change the smiley to me, cause thats all I do when you use hyperbole.

 

[Denny Crane]

Funny how you bounce around with your arguments, and now discrediting the scholastic research. Wasn't it you that tried using the "Graduated College" argument? But yeah you should change the smiley to me, cause thats all I do when you use hyperbole.

The article you posted agreed with me.

Didn't you even read what you blindly pasted as your money quote?


: mags :



It is soooo gonna happen.

 

[magnifier661]

The article you posted agreed with me.

Didn't you even read what you blindly pasted as your money quote?


: mags :



It is soooo gonna happen.

Did you not read when I said that "certain players can handle the pressure of the nba"? And do you not agree that non-lotto high schoolers turn out as busts mores than seniors?

 

[Denny Crane]

Did you not read when I said that "certain players can handle the pressure of the nba"? And do you not agree that non-lotto high schoolers turn out as busts mores than seniors?

Yeah. It was so absurd it's funny.

It's in direct contrast to your money quote.

You almost got it right earlier. With only ~80 guys in history drafted as hardships and 20,000 as 4-year graduates, duh! The vast majority of journeyman NBA players are college guys. And since there are only about 450 players in the whole NBA, the vast majority of those who play basketball, period, don't make it. Heck, I wasn't drafted, so I'm a bust, too.

And that's what your money quote says.

 

[magnifier661]

Yeah. It was so absurd it's funny.

It's in direct contrast to your money quote.

You almost got it right earlier. With only ~80 guys in history drafted as hardships and 20,000 as 4-year graduates, duh! The vast majority of journeyman NBA players are college guys. And since there are only about 450 players in the whole NBA, the vast majority of those who play basketball, period, don't make it. Heck, I wasn't drafted, so I'm a bust, too.

And that's what your money quote says.

You should read what you just wrote. You thought you were arguing a point that I never made. You've agreed with me because you thought I said something else.

Then you used my "way more seniors than high schoolers" metric to now come back at me? You called that a strawman and now used it?! Lmao at you brother. It seems you argued with yourself! Haha

For a geek that believes in mathematics; you really gone off the deep end Denny.

1.) the ratio of nba players that played a full tenure of college is much larger than that of high schoolers. Therefor there is a likelier chance of mediocre talent numbers.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

de-fense (clap clap)

 

[Denny Crane]

You should read what you just wrote. You thought you were arguing a point that I never made. You've agreed with me because you thought I said something else.

Then you used my "way more seniors than high schoolers" metric to now come back at me? You called that a strawman and now used it?! Lmao at you brother. It seems you argued with yourself! Haha

I've really been trying to be nice to you, mags. By no measurement does college prepare a player better, nor does going from HS to pros give you a better chance to be a bust.

You made both those claims by pulling them out of your ass. When you actually did a little bit of intellectual work to google for that article you didn't read, it refutes both those statements.

The end.

 

[magnifier661]

I've really been trying to be nice to you, mags. By no measurement does college prepare a player better, nor does going from HS to pros give you a better chance to be a bust.

You made both those claims by pulling them out of your ass. When you actually did a little bit of intellectual work to google for that article you didn't read, it refutes both those statements.

The end.

25 high schoolers compared to 7 seniors bust in the nba, next.

Seniors still have better offensive ratings than high schoolers in the nba, next.

The end.

 

[Denny Crane]

25 high schoolers compared to 7 seniors bust in the nba, next.

Seniors still have better offensive ratings than high schoolers in the nba, next.

The end.

Yep mags. The best 400 out of a pool of 20,000 will put up slightly better advanced stats than the best 20 out of a pool of 80.

See, you made a strawman and got me to argue it. Your logic hurts to read that bad.