Ric Bucher Likes OKC Over Blazers In A Few Years

[rocketeer]

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.

you bring up exceptions to a single season being up a good indicator of how good a player is, but that's not what your claim was. your claim was that it is likely that any single season is a fluke.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

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.

And this is more a philosophical discussion, because the statistics (the raw ones, not the hollingerized aggregate stats) are a reflection of actuality. If there's enough not being captured in the stats, if what is actual cannot be quantified, then are we back to comparing gut feelings and opinions?

How can actuality (how good a player actually is) be represented fully without resorting to "he just is better" type of statements?

 

[PapaG]

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.

So, instead, we're left with opinions. Most disagree with your opinion about Brandon Roy.

 

[rocketeer]

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?

the mods are against us. i think it's time we found a new message board.

 

[BengalDuck]

Why aren't McGrady, Shaq, Gilbert Arenas, Allen Iverson, and Amar'e Stoudimire top 10 players? over the last (insert ridiculously extended time lag here) they've been SUPERSTARS!

 

[PapaG]

the mods are against us. i think it's time we found a new message board.

Your sarcasm is duly noted.

 

[Ed O]

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?

Roy has two sub-20 PER seasons. Durant only has one... as a teenager.

Both seasons might be fluky--in either direction. I'm simply not putting as much stock into this year as almost everyone else on the board.

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".

"Proven he can win at this level" means nothing to me. Sorry. I think that all of the "Roy has led his team to more wins" talk is just hot air... the team has improved across the board in the time Roy's been here... his improvement is CERTAINLY a factor in the team's improvement, but I don't think he deserves all--or even most--of the credit.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

you bring up exceptions to a single season being up a good indicator of how good a player is, but that's not what your claim was. your claim was that it is likely that any single season is a fluke.

A "fluke" and "a less than optimal indicator of how good a player is" mean the same thing to me.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Roy has two sub-20 PER seasons. Durant only has one... as a teenager.

Both seasons might be fluky--in either direction. I'm simply not putting as much stock into this year as almost everyone else on the board.



"Proven he can win at this level" means nothing to me. Sorry. I think that all of the "Roy has led his team to more wins" talk is just hot air... the team has improved across the board in the time Roy's been here... his improvement is CERTAINLY a factor in the team's improvement, but I don't think he deserves all--or even most--of the credit.

Ed O.

So then, what does Durant deserve credit for at this stage of his career?

 

[alex42083]

There are very few players in this league I'd trade Brandon Roy for, much less 10. This is crazy talk.

 

[Ed O]

Why aren't McGrady, Shaq, Gilbert Arenas, Allen Iverson, and Amar'e Stoudimire top 10 players? over the last (insert ridiculously extended time lag here) they've been SUPERSTARS!

None of them are having good seasons this year. Why would we include players in the top 10 that aren't playing well when there are so many that are?

Ed O.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Why aren't McGrady, Shaq, Gilbert Arenas, Allen Iverson, and Amar'e Stoudimire top 10 players? over the last (insert ridiculously extended time lag here) they've been SUPERSTARS!

Ironic meta-sarcasm? I'm impressed.

The lag or running average or whatever you want to call it does have to have a limit... it's like analyzing a waveform using a fast fourier transform... if the window's too large, the analysis is useless... same if it's too small. There's a Goldilox conundrum at play...

Damn, I'm tired... my geek filter isn't working anymore.

 

[PapaG]

A "fluke" and "a less than optimal indicator of how good a player is" mean the same thing to me.

Ed O.

Yes, that is your subjective nature. It's odd how strongly you argue subjective opinions, isn't it?

 

[Minstrel]

I guess unlike you, I will answer your question.

Unlike me, what? If I didn't answer a question of yours, it's because I missed it.

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

Flukish seasons are far from uncommon, so I don't agree with your claim that a "current season" (which can range from 1-82 games, depending on when the discussion takes place) is a large enough sample size to remove variability as a factor.

Using the last ten years of data to approximate these performances allows for too much change in said player's performance.

Agreed, but this seems like a strawman, as I haven't seen anyone argue for using a ten-year window. Statistical analysts commonly employ a three year window to get a sample size more resistant to statistical variation but short enough not to be using data that is likely no longer reflective of the player's ability.

Weighting the more recent data is usually a good idea. Then, of course, what weight you use is also a good debate issue.

 

[PapaG]

There are very few players in this league I'd trade Brandon Roy for, much less 10. This is crazy talk.

Don't worry, it's only our head mod swatting down the opinions of those who think Roy is a Top 10 player.

 

[rocketeer]

A "fluke" and "a less than optimal indicator of how good a player is" mean the same thing to me.

Ed O.

that really makes no sense. what is the optimal indicator of how good a player is?

 

[Ed O]

And this is more a philosophical discussion, because the statistics (the raw ones, not the hollingerized aggregate stats) are a reflection of actuality. If there's enough not being captured in the stats, if what is actual cannot be quantified, then are we back to comparing gut feelings and opinions?

The stats are getting more refined, but until we get more data (at least until the data that's collected is more widely available) the stats can only get so good.

I don't think that it will ever be a case where opinion and gut feelings are entirely irrelevant, though.

How can actuality (how good a player actually is) be represented fully without resorting to "he just is better" type of statements?

I dunno. It's a good question.

What is "better"? Is it if they were on a team of entirely average teammates, over the course of a season they'd lead their team to the best record against other teams of entirely average opponents?

Is it that they had the most effective season as we can measure it?

Is it that they were the best player on the best team?

I really don't know.

I guess I look to how big of an impact a player is likely to have in the near future. Not necessarily just next game, and not necessarily over the next three seasons from now.

Ed O.

 

[BengalDuck]

None of them are having good seasons this year. Why would we include players in the top 10 that aren't playing well when there are so many that are?

Ed O.

From a pure production standpoint, Shaq is having a better season than Garnett. His team is far better than Bosh's. He was an all-star/.

 

[mgb]

You're so full of shit it's unbelievable. In THIS THREAD ALONE, you

-- said I "jumped the shark", and
-- said you doubted I followed the team

Hollinger is irrelevant.

Ed O.

Isn't that a personal attack? Not that I disagree with you,,,

 

[Ed O]

that really makes no sense. what is the optimal indicator of how good a player is?

It makes sense to me.

Did you read and understand my analogy about determining expected value from a die with an unknown number of sides?

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

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 think it's the other way around. Blazers fans are challenging Ed for "daring" to think Roy isn't top-ten.

As I said, I think Roy is top-ten. But I don't think the mockery of Ed's position is merited.

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

It matters for some things, but not for others. For example, if I wanted some Tillamook cheddar, it would matter. Wait...I can get that in the supermarket here. Nope, doesn't matter.

 

[PapaG]

Isn't that a personal attack? Not that I disagree with you,,,

What? You think I am full of s**t for correctly predicting that Hollinger was wrong and that Roy is a Top 10 player right now?

 

[Boob-No-More]

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.

Ah, the "upside" argument. All prospects have it, but few realize it.

What guarantee is there that Durant will continue to improve? You are ready to right off Roy's season this year as a fluke that he won't likely repeat, yet you assume Durant will continue to improve.

Remember, right now Durant is putting up his numbers on a crappy team, but Roy is doing it on a team with many other scoring options that's on course to exceed 50 wins.

What's to say Durant's scoring (which is really the only thing he does exceptionally well) won't decrease if he ever gets some more talented teammates that he'll have to share the ball with? It's a lot easier to put up big scoring numbers when you play on a team with few other above average scorers. Until Durant puts up better numbers (and not JUST scoring numbers, PER, ORtg, Win Shares, etc.) than Roy AND does it while leading his team to 50+ wins, I'm not willing to concede, or even consider Durant a "more likely" superstar than Roy.

BNM

 

[Ed O]

There are very few players in this league I'd trade Brandon Roy for, much less 10. This is crazy talk.

Even ignoring your bias as a Blazers fan, you trade based on net present value. You don't trade based on who the best player is.

They're two different things.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

I think it's the other way around. Blazers fans are challenging Ed for "daring" to think Roy isn't top-ten.

Yeah. That's his weird hold over you, isn't it? We don't have the power here.

 

[Ed O]

Ah, the "upside" argument. All prospects have it, but few realize it.

What guarantee is there that Durant will continue to improve? You are ready to right off Roy's season this year as a fluke that he won't likely repeat, yet you assume Durant will continue to improve.

I don't know why you're misreading my argument so badly.

There is NO guarantee that Durant will continue to improve. I make NO assumptions that he will continue to improve.

I am NOT writing Roy's season off as a fluke.

It's amazing how many ways you can misinterpret what I'm saying.

Durant is putting up a better PER--by about two points--than any Roy had put up until this year, and Durant is still two years younger than Roy was before he put on a Blazers' jersey.

Might he backslide? Absolutely. Might he have maxed out his production and potential at his current age? Sure, I guess. I don't find these likely in the long term, though, any more than I felt it was likely after, say, Roy's rookie season.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

Yeah. That's his weird hold over you, isn't it?

What is his weird hold over me? Not immediately clear to me from your post.

We don't have the power here.

Sure you do. The power in any debate is logic. You have just as much ability to utilize logic as anyone else.

 

[PapaG]

I don't know why you're misreading my argument so badly.

There is NO guarantee that Durant will continue to improve. I make NO assumptions that he will continue to improve.

I am NOT writing Roy's season off as a fluke.

It's amazing how many ways you can misinterpret what I'm saying.

Durant is putting up a better PER--by about two points--than any Roy had put up until this year, and Durant is still two years younger than Roy was before he put on a Blazers' jersey.

Might he backslide? Absolutely. Might he have maxed out his production and potential at his current age? Sure, I guess. I don't find these likely in the long term, though, any more than I felt it was likely after, say, Roy's rookie season.

Ed O.

Blah blah blah crap crap crap. Continue to ignore my PM, Ed. You are wrong on this one.

 

[BengalDuck]

So, to recap, as I'm about to leave this discussion...

1. Roy is not a top 10 player, even though he's played like one for the entire season.
2. Durant is not a top 10 player, and has never played like one.
3. Durant is closer to being a top 10 player than Roy, even though by Ed O's own admission he's not.

 

[mgb]

What? You think I am full of s**t for correctly predicting that Hollinger was wrong and that Roy is a Top 10 player right now?

I didn't say the reason you are, if you are it doesn't really matter why. Just in general, but then again I should have said 'not that I necessary disagree'.