Roy Stepping Up Could End Up Being Key

[oldmangrouch]

Don't defend Outlaw against criticism.

I think that one was grandfathered in from BBF!

 

[STOMP]

dude, take some deep breaths before your panties get into a tighter knot. It's only a chat room.

pot/kettle... can you tell me that your stuff here isn't one condescending swipe after another? It's like you're looking for a fight.

That was a nice little rambling session about something unrelated to the original statement that we are questioning. Go ahead and post your observations, and stick to what you wrote. It doesn't have much to with with your original assertion. I never said that Joel was a better player than Greg, but thanks for the irrelevant individual stats comparison.

Your assertion was that the team plays better when Oden is available, NOT, "Greg is a better player than Joel". The team being better is measured by wins / losses, not trips to the foul line, not rebounding rate, not the ability of LA to leak out on the break, etc. Wins and losses.

I posted a stat directly related to wins / losses. Jayps posted another stat directly related to wins losses. Both are valid, which means, that your original statement of "the team is better with Oden" is not obvious.

my position that the team plays better with Greg can't be supported by individual stats in categories I've laid out as key to winning basketball??? Since when? Jayps had already shot your initial "not based on any fact or truth" assertion down in flames so I was giving some additional statistical support. That interior D and rebounding the ball helps produce wins seems pretty obvious to me anyways... umpteen interviews with HOF coaches helped form that opinion.

Anyways, Minstrel was right that I was talking about this being obvious in the subjective sense of what most here seem (to me) to share... he was also right that I was talking about the club being better with Greg then without, which is something I'd also say about Joel and about 4-5 others on the team.

Why would I tell you that? Why are you building a strawman? I said it isn't obvious that Greg makes the team better. I didn't say Greg's effect on the game isn't significant.

see above

STOMP

 

[STOMP]

Wow. The list of subjects some posters object to is getting longer every day.

Don't talk about injuries. (unless you are an MD)
Don't talk about team dynamics. (unless you attend team meetings)
Don't be critical of Oden.
Don't compliment Roy.

Cripes folks! This is an internet *discussion* board.

speaking of strawmen... geez

If posters want to talk about team dynamics & speculate about what might be, I certainly won't be voicing an objection... I might wade in with my own guesses. Posters can also claim to understand the team dynamics in the locker room and pontificate on how it is and who is doing the talking. But if in fact they've never been in the locker room and are just talking out their ass regurgitating some discredited local blowhard's take, someone will probably tell them they're full of it. The world is going to spin and orbit regardless.

We get all kinds here. The dreamers who want to believe every rumor, the sticklers for the details, the , the internet tough guys, and of course the heavily medicated. Various posters are going to clash just because of the different ways they enjoy the game. After all, this is an internet *discussion* board.

STOMP

 

[ABM]

.....We get all kinds here. The dreamers who want to believe every rumor, the sticklers for the details, the , the internet tough guys, and of course the heavily medicated. Various posters are going to clash just because of the different ways they enjoy the game. After all, this is an internet *discussion* board.

STOMP

Speaking of which, I'd be at least curious as to where you place yours truly in that illustrious group?

 

[STOMP]

Speaking of which, I'd be at least curious as to where you place yours truly in that illustrious group?

I wasn't trying to list every possible one, mostly I was trying to end with a laugh. But of these options #2 would be my best guess... I want to know as much about whats what as possible while keeping the facts separated from speculations.

STOMP

 

[blazerboy30]

my position that the team plays better with Greg can't be supported by individual stats in categories I've laid out as key to winning basketball???

My point is that you are using indirect methods (individual stats) to try to evaluate if a team is better or not. I'm saying that the direct measure, wins/losses doesn't support the claim of "obviousness".

Since when? Jayps had already shot your initial "not based on any fact or truth" assertion down in flames so I was giving some additional statistical support.

No, he didn't shoot anything down in flames. He produced a counter example, which I acknowledged as a good data point. Which then proved my point, again, that we are not obviously better with Greg playing. We have reasonable, valid stats which suggest completely different things. That seems like the complete opposite of "obvious".

That interior D and rebounding the ball helps produce wins seems pretty obvious to me anyways... umpteen interviews with HOF coaches helped form that opinion.

I agree that with everything else equal, better interior D and better rebounding would help a team win. But, when you give Joel more playing time because Greg isn't there, then everything else is not equal. I said before that I think Joel is a significantly better 1-on-1 defender, and light-years better at defending the pick-and-roll. Add all those up, and it isn't completely obvious that our wins / losses would get better with Greg playing more.

Anyways, Minstrel was right that I was talking about this being obvious in the subjective sense of what most here seem (to me) to share... he was also right that I was talking about the club being better with Greg then without, which is something I'd also say about Joel and about 4-5 others on the team.

STOMP

I guess I'm just confused. I don't see how something can be obvious, subjectively or objectively, if there are contradicting stats and easily viewable pieces of data, based on the direct measure of what you are comparing: wins/losses.

As I stated before, my gut tells me that we are better with Greg playing, but it isn't "obvious".

 

[gatorpops]

I wasn't trying to list every possible one, mostly I was trying to end with a laugh. But of these options #2 would be my best guess... I want to know as much about whats what as possible while keeping the facts separated from speculations.

STOMP

I don't get into many discussions but when I do I like to go by my impressions and speculations. I speculate that the Blazers will challenge for the WCF to the seventh game.

 

[Minstrel]

I guess I'm just confused. I don't see how something can be obvious, subjectively or objectively, if there are contradicting stats and easily viewable pieces of data, based on the direct measure of what you are comparing: wins/losses.

Well, since I used the term "subjectively obvious," I feel compelled to defend/explain it. Subjectively obvious is an assertion of the form "It is clear to me..." while objectively obvious is an assertion of the form "Based on the logic and data, a coherent argument cannot be formed against this..."

I think it is possible for STOMP to find it obvious to him that Oden makes the team better, despite the record. The record can be viewed as countering evidence, but considering it's such a small sample size, it's not going to be compelling to everyone. The record factoid could easily be due to quality of competition. Meanwhile, seeing how the team plays, visually, combined with the generally accepted fact that more good players makes a team better can quite easily lead to an "obvious" conclusion that the Blazers are better with Oden than without.

It is obvious to me. Oden and Przybilla is a much better pair of players than Przybilla and Frye, and when I watch the team with Oden, the team looks much better. Therefore, I view the team's record without him to be a statistical oddity based on small sample size. There were seasons during the Shaq/Kobe run when the Lakers, in small sample sizes, had a better record when missing either Shaq or Kobe. I don't think anyone would look at that as credible evidence that the Lakers were better off without Shaq or Kobe.

 

[blazerboy30]

Well, since I used the term "subjectively obvious," I feel compelled to defend/explain it. Subjectively obvious is an assertion of the form "It is clear to me..." while objectively obvious is an assertion of the form "Based on the logic and data, a coherent argument cannot be formed against this..."

I think it is possible for STOMP to find it obvious to him that Oden makes the team better, despite the record. The record can be viewed as countering evidence, but considering it's such a small sample size, it's not going to be compelling to everyone. The record factoid could easily be due to quality of competition. Meanwhile, seeing how the team plays, visually, combined with the generally accepted fact that more good players makes a team better can quite easily lead to an "obvious" conclusion that the Blazers are better with Oden than without.

It is obvious to me. Oden and Przybilla is a much better pair of players than Przybilla and Frye, and when I watch the team with Oden, the team looks much better. Therefore, I view the team's record without him to be a statistical oddity based on small sample size. There were seasons during the Shaq/Kobe run when the Lakers, in small sample sizes, had a better record when missing either Shaq or Kobe. I don't think anyone would look at that as credible evidence that the Lakers were better off without Shaq or Kobe.

Hmmm. I guess it is just semantics (objective / subjective). To me, it is a strange position to have something like: Despite valid data suggesting the opposite, it is obvious that <insert assertion here>.

I am OK with you saying that Oden being out is a small sample size, but 14-7 isn't THAT small of a sample compared to how many games Oden has played minutes in. Both samples are equally small. It seems a little silly to dismiss one set because the sample size is too small, but use the other small sample to support the position.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I wasn't trying to list every possible one, mostly I was trying to end with a laugh. But of these options #2 would be my best guess... I want to know as much about whats what as possible while keeping the facts separated from speculations.

STOMP

Can I be part of the heavily medicated??

 

[Minstrel]

Hmmm. I guess it is just semantics (objective / subjective). To me, it is a strange position to have something like: Despite valid data suggesting the opposite, it is obvious that <insert assertion here>.

But we don't all agree that it is valid data. (By "valid," I mean useful, not whether the data is accurate.)

I am OK with you saying that Oden being out is a small sample size, but 14-7 isn't THAT small of a sample compared to how many games Oden has played minutes in. Both samples are equally small. It seems a little silly to dismiss one set because the sample size is too small, but use the other small sample to support the position.

But I don't use win/loss records with Oden playing, either. I agree that that's too small a sample size, as well.

14-7 is quite small, to tell something like this. In addition, quality of competition over those games seems like something that could completely overwhelm Oden's impact, as a factor.

 

[STOMP]

My point is that you are using indirect methods (individual stats) to try to evaluate if a team is better or not. I'm saying that the direct measure, wins/losses doesn't support the claim of "obviousness".

proving subjective is not really possible... it's also near impossible to disprove. This is getting tiresome.

No, he didn't shoot anything down in flames. He produced a counter example, which I acknowledged as a good data point. Which then proved my point, again, that we are not obviously better with Greg playing. We have reasonable, valid stats which suggest completely different things. That seems like the complete opposite of "obvious".

he absolutely shot you down in flames. When you claim "not based on any fact or truth" and then a clear fact is provided, your claim is in flames. I gave stats to provide context as to how Greg contributes to the club's better play.

I agree that with everything else equal, better interior D and better rebounding would help a team win. But, when you give Joel more playing time because Greg isn't there, then everything else is not equal. I said before that I think Joel is a significantly better 1-on-1 defender, and light-years better at defending the pick-and-roll. Add all those up, and it isn't completely obvious that our wins / losses would get better with Greg playing more.

again I was talking subjectively. I've explained this repeatedly now... you're free to disagree, but I think most here would agree that the club is better with Greg then without.

Besides, it's not like Greg has been regularly cutting into Joel's PT. JP is averaging about 1 minute less per game this year compared to last when there was no Greg at all... dude gets into foul trouble.

I guess I'm just confused. I don't see how something can be obvious, subjectively or objectively, if there are contradicting stats and easily viewable pieces of data, based on the direct measure of what you are comparing: wins/losses.

thats the measure you've decided on as the end all. Like any statistical measure at this point I think this is a flawed one with as small as sample of games Greg has played in and that he's been coming back the foot strain as well as the knee... those wins and losses are far from equal.

My measure is my impression of the collective pulse of posters here. I noted this in my initial comments. You're free to disagree but I think most here view Greg as a big positive in the lineup

As I stated before, my gut tells me that we are better with Greg playing, but it isn't "obvious".

noted

STOMP

 

[blazerboy30]

But we don't all agree that it is valid data. (By "valid," I mean useful, not whether the data is accurate.)



But I don't use win/loss records with Oden playing, either. I agree that that's too small a sample size, as well.

14-7 is quite small, to tell something like this. In addition, quality of competition over those games seems like something that could completely overwhelm Oden's impact, as a factor.

When I mentioned the size of the other sample, I'm saying that Oden hasn't really played that much. The sample size of Oden's minutes played is pretty small as well.

 

[blazerboy30]

proving subjective is not really possible... it's also near impossible to disprove. This is getting tiresome.

he absolutely shot you down in flames. When you claim "not based on any fact or truth" and then a clear fact is provided, your claim is in flames. I gave stats to provide context as to how Greg contributes to the club's better play.

again I was talking subjectively. I've explained this repeatedly now... you're free to disagree, but I think most here would agree that the club is better with Greg then without.

Besides, it's not like Greg has been regularly cutting into Joel's PT. JP is averaging about 1 minute less per game this year compared to last when there was no Greg at all... dude gets into foul trouble.

thats the measure you've decided on as the end all. Like any statistical measure at this point I think this is a flawed one with as small as sample of games Greg has played in and that he's been coming back the foot strain as well as the knee... those wins and losses are far from equal.

My measure is my impression of the collective pulse of posters here. I noted this in my initial comments. You're free to disagree but I think most here view Greg as a big positive in the lineup

noted

STOMP

Are we even discussing the same thing here? It seems you keep thinking I am challenging your statement that we are better with Oden than without. That isn't what I am challenging. I agree that the team subjectively seems to be better with Oden.

I am putting out some data to show that our intuition isn't "obviously" and undeniably correct. The data I used doesn't disprove what we already both agree on, but it can challenge our position. If you don't want to look at the other side of the coin, that is certainly up to you.

I am challenging the statement that it is "obvious" that we are better when Oden plays. If it is obvious, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You can call data that I present as "too small of a sample" but doing so doesn't justify your position on the "obvious" front.

 

[STOMP]

Are we even discussing the same thing here? It seems you keep thinking I am challenging your statement that we are better with Oden than without. That isn't what I am challenging. I agree that the team subjectively seems to be better with Oden.

I am putting out some data to show that our intuition isn't "obviously" and undeniably correct. The data I used doesn't disprove what we already both agree on, but it can challenge our position. If you don't want to look at the other side of the coin, that is certainly up to you.

I am challenging the statement that it is "obvious" that we are better when Oden plays. If it is obvious, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You can call data that I present as "too small of a sample" but doing so doesn't justify your position on the "obvious" front.

we've been arguing different things for some time now. I've laid out my position enough times and would only be inventing ways to not completely repeat myself word for word answering your latest post.

take it easy

STOMP

 

[Minstrel]

When I mentioned the size of the other sample, I'm saying that Oden hasn't really played that much. The sample size of Oden's minutes played is pretty small as well.

True enough. But the sample size for Oden's individual numbers doesn't need to be as large because every minute is a direct measure of his individual impact...while games played is only an indirect measure. For an indirect measure, you need much more sample size (a key point about +/-, another indirect measure of individual impact).

So, I think Oden's numbers are a more confident measure of his impact than win/loss records. Win/loss records are more "bottom line" but also very tenuous to connect to a single player.

 

[ABM]

Blazers by double figures tonight. Watch, you'll see.