Ric Bucher Likes OKC Over Blazers In A Few Years

[PapaG]

I don't understand what you want me to answer.

Are your questions rhetorical?

Ed O.

Well, since I already defeated you, it's time to pick on a new target.

 

[Ed O]

did you really waste your time defending that statement?

Well, I know it's pretty elementary but I wasn't not sure you understood it.

Are you mocking me for pointing out the obvious, or mocking me for explaining something you disagree with?

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. In fact, I know it's not. Here's his exact words:



So, how many top 10 seasons has Durant had? ZERO. Roy's currently having ONE. If you buy his whole track record argument, Roy is clearly closer to being a superstar than Durant, yet he argues the opposite.

BNM

I'm wondering when Minstrel stops throwing good money after bad tonight at Ed.

 

[rocketeer]

By your definition. A lot of people (not just Ed) don't think one season cements status like "superstar."

I think there's a balance. I think Roy has played like a superstar this year, but I'd also like to see more than one season of it before I label him a definitive superstar.

i didn't mention the word superstar in the post you quoted.

 

[rocketeer]

Well, I know it's pretty elementary but I wasn't not sure you understood it.

Are you mocking me for pointing out the obvious, or mocking me for explaining something you disagree with?

Ed O.

if i'm mocking you, it's because your statement that any single season is likely a fluke is ridiculous.

 

[Ed O]

Thank you. I'm glad we don't have to dance around that.

No problem. I don't see him crashing back to earth, and I don't EXPECT him to be worse. I just have doubts that he'll take another step up.

Hope I'm wrong.

Ed O.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I do love how this turned into an argument over how awesome the team is... except for PapaG, who's arguing with random people about how awesome *he* is... but anyway.

It's a great situation to be in, arguing over whether Roy is awesome, or super-duper awesome.

 

[rocketeer]

No problem. I don't see him crashing back to earth, and I don't EXPECT him to be worse. I just have doubts that he'll take another step up.

Hope I'm wrong.

Ed O.

have you had those same doubts the past two seasons? and if you don't expect him to be worse and you do expect him to continue to put up top 10 production, at what point does that top 10 production turn him into a top 10 player?

 

[Ed O]

if i'm mocking you, it's because your statement that any single season is likely a fluke is ridiculous.

You think that any single season is indicative of a player's true capabilities? Really?

Do you think any single game is indicative? Or any given week? Or a given month?

A season is very arbitrary and while it's a good place to collect data and examine, I don't think that there's much evidence that a single season worth of stats is more valuable than, say, three seasons.

Ed O.

 

[Boob-No-More]

By your definition. A lot of people (not just Ed) don't think one season cements status like "superstar."

I think there's a balance. I think Roy has played like a superstar this year, but I'd also like to see more than one season of it before I label him a definitive superstar.[/QUOTE]

And exactly how many top 10 seasons has Kevin Durant had? Ed labeled him a much more likely superstar than Brandon Roy, but his own "track record" argument refutes that claim.

If Roy can't be considered a superstar (or potential superstar) after one top 10 season, how can Durant be consider a likely superstar with even less of a "track record"?

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. In fact, I know it's not. Here's his exact words:



So, how many top 10 seasons has Durant had? ZERO. Roy's currently having ONE. If you buy his whole track record argument, Roy is clearly closer to being a superstar than Durant, yet he argues the opposite.

BNM

You're mis-reading him. He said that Durant has a better chance of being a top-5/10 player and that being a top-5/10 player is a pretty good definition of being a superstar. He wasn't saying that that better chance makes Durant a superstar now, but that Durant has a better chance of someday meeting that definition of superstar than Roy does.

There are three claims implicit:

1. A "superstar" is a top-5 or top-10 players
2. Neither Roy nor Durant is one right now
3. Durant has the better chance of becoming one

 

[PapaG]

I do love how this turned into an argument over how awesome the team is... except for PapaG, who's arguing with random people about how awesome *he* is... but anyway.

It's a great situation to be in, arguing over whether Roy is awesome, or super-duper awesome.

Reminding those who argued vehemently against me is now saying I am calling myself "awesome".

You're a trip, Caravan.

 

[Ed O]

have you had those same doubts the past two seasons?

I expected him to improve after his rookie season. I expected him to improve after his second season.

I have doubts, though, that he will improve next year for two reasons:

1. I had doubts after each of his first two seasons, as well. My confidence was not 100% that he would overcome injuries and improve on the floor when he was healthy to be markedly better. Even if it was 80%, though, level of confidence, that leaves 20% of "doubts".

2. Improving from near-all-star to all-star is a difficult jump, and Roy was able to do it. Improving from all-star to superstar, though, is a more difficult proposition. He could have another EXCELLENT season next year and still not be as good as he has been this year.

and if you don't expect him to be worse and you do expect him to continue to put up top 10 production, at what point does that top 10 production turn him into a top 10 player?

I don't have a "three year rule" or anything. I don't KNOW who the top 10 players in the NBA are... that's why I had the list of definite "top 7" players and a cloud of other guys after that in an earlier post. I would have more confidence in Roy's status as an NBA elite if he's able to put up another year as good as this one.

Ed O.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

As this thread has shown PapaG, it's all about perspective.

 

[BengalDuck]

You think that any single season is indicative of a player's true capabilities? Really?

Do you think any single game is indicative? Or any given week? Or a given month?

A season is very arbitrary and while it's a good place to collect data and examine, I don't think that there's much evidence that a single season worth of stats is more valuable than, say, three seasons.

Ed O.

This is silly. And Minstrel originally made this point, and it was silly then.

To discuss the best current players (and note I'm not using the term "superstar" because that's an arbitrary label...even more arbitrary than a player rankings), it is simply outrageous to use the current performance of said players. And the best measure of current performance is performance in the current season.

Why would you look back 3 years instead of 5? And 3 instead of 30? Why isn't Shaq, T-Mac, Gilbert Arenas, et al? These guys over the last few years have been dominant.

 

[Minstrel]

i didn't mention the word superstar in the post you quoted.

Okay. A "top ten player in the game" then. We agree Roy is a top ten player this year. Whether that makes him a top-ten player in the game is different. Every night, there are top ten player for this night...that clearly doesn't make them all top ten players in the game. How long does one have to be a top ten player to be one of the "top ten players in the game?" A full season exactly (which Roy hasn't yet met)? A half season? A game? Three seasons? I'd say that's pretty up for debate.

 

[rocketeer]

You think that any single season is indicative of a player's true capabilities? Really?

Do you think any single game is indicative? Or any given week? Or a given month?

A season is very arbitrary and while it's a good place to collect data and examine, I don't think that there's much evidence that a single season worth of stats is more valuable than, say, three seasons.

Ed O.

any single season is indicative of that player's capabilities that season. this season is indicative of a player's current capabilities. being a top 10 player this season would mean that a player is currently a top 10 player.

and what about a season is so arbitrary? three seasons give you a good indication of how good a player was over a three season period. one season is a good indicator of how good that player was over that specific season.

 

[PapaG]

As this thread has shown PapaG, it's all about perspective.

Cheers back at you!

 

[Minstrel]

To discuss the best current players (and note I'm not using the term "superstar" because that's an arbitrary label...even more arbitrary than a player rankings), it is simply outrageous to use the current performance of said players. And the best measure of current performance is performance in the current season.

Why is the best measure of current performance the current season? Why not the current game? Why are you using a performance lag, which you feel is silly?

 

[Minstrel]

and what about a season is so arbitrary?

Because why not use the current month? What you choose for a sample size is entirely arbitrary.

 

[Ed O]

If Roy can't be considered a superstar (or potential superstar) after one top 10 season, how can Durant be consider a likely superstar with even less of a "track record"?

Minstrel makes points consistent with what I was asserting, but as to this SPECIFIC question: Durant is nearly as good as Roy is now and he's over four years younger.

I believe that his ceiling is higher than Roy's, and given where he is now, I think he's more likely to be a superstar than Roy.

Ed O.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

When Ed started making his case, I thought he was being contrary, fringing on lunatic. But I see his stance now. Maybe a 2-year running average is a decent predictor (the league is very much a what have you done for me lately league, so going back much farther leads to irrelevance a bit). A next-year Roy at this level would definitely push him into the spotlight further. There's not too much more he can do by way of personal achievements (other than winning a playoff series) that would garner attention, so sustained performance has to be the key.

That said, if Batum defends Durant every night, Durant's in the D-League.

 

[PapaG]

Why is the best measure of current performance the current season? Why not the current game? Why are you using a performance lag, which you feel is silly?

Oh, the Minstrel soft landing toward a compromise. Well played!

Roy is a solid Top 10 player, NOW, in the NBA. Ed disagrees. How long can we go on in circles?

 

[rocketeer]

Okay. A "top ten player in the game" then. We agree Roy is a top ten player this year. Whether that makes him a top-ten player in the game is different. Every night, there are top ten player for this night...that clearly doesn't make them all top ten players in the game. How long does one have to be a top ten player to be one of the "top ten players in the game?" A full season exactly (which Roy hasn't yet met)? A half season? A game? Three seasons? I'd say that's pretty up for debate.

if roy is a top ten player this season, that makes him currently a top ten player in the league. would you disagree with that?

 

[PapaG]

Minstrel makes points consistent with what I was asserting, but as to this SPECIFIC question: Durant is nearly as good as Roy is now and he's over four years younger.

I believe that his ceiling is higher than Roy's, and given where he is now, I think he's more likely to be a superstar than Roy.

Ed O.

Based on stats. So where does that put Z-Bo when he's healthy?

 

[rocketeer]

Because why not use the current month? What you choose for a sample size is entirely arbitrary.

do they give out new championships every month? using a season as the sample size isn't arbitrary at all. seasons are what everything in basketball is based on.

 

[Ed O]

any single season is indicative of that player's capabilities that season. this season is indicative of a player's current capabilities. being a top 10 player this season would mean that a player is currently a top 10 player.

I disagree. A player could have been hurt for half of the season and be a better player than someone who has not been hurt. A player could have been traded mid-season and had to adjust to his new teammates. He could have had a new coach come on with a new system.

Statistical production is an attempt to capture how good a player is, but is not always directly correlated with how good a player actually is.

Ed O.

 

[BengalDuck]

Why is the best measure of current performance the current season? Why not the current game? Why are you using a performance lag, which you feel is silly?

I guess unlike you, I will answer your question.

Using the current season provides enough data points where the variability in one's performance can be appropriately averaged.

Using the last ten years of data to approximate these performances allows for too much change in said player's performance. For example, considering Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Tim Duncan (not yet... but soon IMHO) as CURRENT top 10 players fails to account for the drop in their performance recently. Using just the current season helps ignore these drops, as a player's decline is hardly noticeable over a few months rather than a few years.

 

[PapaG]

I have to say that it is a bit weird that 2/3 of our "Producers" are challenging Blazer fans for daring to thing that 7th-best scorer and 2-time All-Star Brandon Roy is a top 10-player in the NBA. I mean, it's not like his team is 5th in point differential right now.

Of course, neither of the two live in Portland. Does that matter?

 

[Boob-No-More]

...the implication being that Ed doubts that Roy can improve or even keep this up next season.

Absolutely I do.

Based on what? Roy has shown improvement in each of his three seasons in the league. Why do you consider this season a "fluke" for Roy, but not Durant? What has Durant proven that Roy hasn't?

Even though Roy is statistically superior to Durant at this point in time, I don't think that's the biggest Roy is/will be a superstar. Roy has proven he can win at this level. Durant hasn't. There's your "track record".

Roy has lead his team to significantly more wins in each of his three seasons in the league. Where has Durant led his team? Back to the lottery, that's where.

Roy's team won 11 more games his rookie year than the season before. Durant's team lost 11 more games his rookie year than the season prior. Roy's 2nd season, the Blazer won 9 additional games. Durant's 2nd season isn't over, but his team will be lucky to win 4 more games (25 wins vs. 41 wins for the Blazers in Roy's 2nd season) than during his rookie year. In his 3rd season, Roy is leading the Blazers to 50-plus wins. In his 3rd season, will Durant's team finally break 30 wins? It's yet to be seen.

BNM