Rumor: Blazers discussions with Suns

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Minstrel said:
One year is just too small a sample. But this is important to point out:

2007-08: 27.6 PER / 28.2 USG%
2008-09: 20.1 PER / 24.4 USG%

His usage rate has fallen dramatically this year. If Phoenix is not putting the ball in his hands as much, due to featuring Shaq, it's not a surprise his productivity dropped. Last season, Phoenix wasn't featuring Shaq...this year, thanks to Kerr's (confused, IMO) philosophies, they are.
Click to expand...
it definitely is a small sample, but it is what we have. do you suggest just completely overlooking this year entirely because the sample isn't large enough?
 
Nate is currently already unwilling to put the ball in Oden's hands a lot. Presumably, he'd trust Amare with the ball. Allowing Roy and Amare to take the lion's share of the shots and leaving Oden to rebound, score on put-backs and play defense could be a pretty successful equation. This year, anyway.
 
rocketeer said:
it definitely is a small sample, but it is what we have. do you suggest just completely overlooking this year entirely because the sample isn't large enough?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I said in a couple of posts that his big drop in PER was concerning. But I'm not willing to count this as Amare's new level of play. Since Amare still has all the abilities he had last year, I'd tend to believe that given the ball more, Amare would produce more. As a rough estimate, I'd at least split the difference and place Amare at 23 PER, which would be a significant improvement on Aldridge, even with the defensive difference. A 23 PER with upside, would be my guess.
 
Ed O said:
No offense, but while you're entitled to your opinion your opinion doesn't really matter much to me.
Click to expand...

Well it mattered enough for you to provoke an emotional response.

He's 26 years old. If you think lots of younger players are going to zoom by him as he enters his prime, then more power to you. I don't find that incredibly likely.
Click to expand...

Players I see ranking higher than Amare in MVP voting over the next 5-10 years:

Lebron, Kobe, Paul, Wade, Howard, Anthony, Roy, Durrant, Rose, Oden... Just off the top of my head

I just don't see Amare as an exceptional enough player to beat out those players for MVP. He doesn't do enough. Scoring isn't enough, it's never been enough. People used to compare Kobe and Vince. What a joke, Kobe always tried to play defense.

If he's a huge downgrade on defense and a huge upgrade overall, then that's just fine.
Click to expand...

This is the NBA so that's not really possible, not if you care about Championships that is, if you're talking fantasy then sure. In the NBA you have to play great defense to win a Championship. In terms of Championships Amare isn't much more valuable than Zach Randolph. They're both black holes. They're both team cancers. They both play a style that has never and will never win a Championship in the NBA.

Amare commands double teams in a way that Aldridge does not.
Click to expand...

So did Zach.

He gets to the line at a high clip and he's a great free throw shooter.
Click to expand...

So did Zach.
 
This really isn't a close call. Amare isn't worth Aldridge let alone adding in RLEC.

PER is a joke and should not be used in evaluating players.
 
Minstrel said:
Not at all. I said in a couple of posts that his big drop in PER was concerning. But I'm not willing to count this as Amare's new level of play. Since Amare still has all the abilities he had last year, I'd tend to believe that given the ball more, Amare would produce more. As a rough estimate, I'd at least split the difference and place Amare at 23 PER, which would be a significant improvement on Aldridge, even with the defensive difference. A 23 PER with upside, would be my guess.
Click to expand...
i don't see it as enough of an upgrade to also give up bayless and raef's contract.
 
I need Nash and Amare back if we're talking about LMA, RLEC and Bayless. probably not worth it when i did a scenario that worked out......
 
Last edited:
We become completey unstoppable offensively if we get Stoudamire. He and Oden, eventually, would dominate in the paint and open up the game for Roy, Blake, Rudy et al.

And, I'm not convinced that he can't become a good defender with the right coaching- unlike Randolph, Stoudamire has the agility to be a good defender if he so chooses.

I would trade Aldridge for Stoudamire in a second and would only hesitate an additional second before throwing any of our point guards in the deal.

Phoenix doesn't have the perimeter players to put around him anymore- we have plenty of players he could kick the ball back out to. In addition, Oden and he could clean each other's missed shots.

As an addded bonus, Stoudamire could help Oden deal with the psychology of coming back from microfracture.

would Stoudamire be happy not being the best player on the team? First, I'm not sure he wouldn't be our best player. Second, he played well while Nash was winning MVPs, so I think this is an indication that he will play well on a team where he isn't the most touted player.
 
MB 21!!!!! wtf is that, i missed that in the thread oh well. who knows. i was pissed after TBpup's last "hold on to your shorts" thread (remember my "Fire Pritchard" thread on BBF. haha)
 
rocketeer said:
that's not true at all.
Click to expand...



Alright, I have a little bit of time on my hands so I'll write out exactly what I have to say. I don't think I've written anything like this on this board, but my feelings are pretty well known.

For those who say that PER works because the top few players are always the top few players in the NBA at the time, that's basically a load of crap. For starters/guys who play 50 minutes a game, you can come up with almost identical results by doing the most rudimentary statistical math. A simple formula like points + rebounds + (assists x 1.5) will spit out almost identical results to PER with exceptions (point guards having big assist numbers usually being the exception). So really PER isn't some revolutionary concept at all, it's basically "best stats wins".

The main problem with PER comes when you try to evaluate a player's worth on it or when you use it compare primary ball handlers with third options or struggling starters with energy guys off the bench. PER *CLAIMS* to be capable of doing things like this, but clearly it fails. Things like Carl Landry as a top 10 player IN THE LEAGUE or Manu Ginobili being top SG (over Kobe during his MVP season) show the failure of PER.

What humans know that machines don't is that a player's worth can't be based on statistics. A guy like Bowen could be useful to a team even if he shoots only a couple times a game, gets a handful of rebounds and a couple steals. His production can't be measured by stats. But even going beyond that:
Assists don't measure passing skill. Generally the person with the highest assists are the best passers, true. But an assist is contingent on another player making a shot. The assist stat doesn't differentiate between a brilliant pass that creates a wide open shot/dunk and a pass you make with the shot clock at 2, where the guy jacks up an awful shot to beat the clock that just happens to go in. Statistical reward is identical in both cases/PER reward is identical. Clearly the eye can differentiate here where statistics cannot. Also, all assists are not created equally. Last year during the Chris Paul for MVP campaign, the author of this blog: http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/ tracked Chris Paul's assists. He found that Paul was being credited with assists in areas that almost every other player in the league was not being given an assist. Official scoring was actually being influenced by reputation! It's like saying "who shot that last shot? Kobe? Well...even though it didn't go in, I'll give him 2 points anyways" or "who got that last board? Wally Z? Well...Lebron was in the area, I'll give Lebron credit instead". Utter ridiculousness and yet something like this was a fundamental of the stat. You cannot create an accurate statistic if fudging like tihs is acceptable.

Then we get to usage and role. Usage is theoretically a part of the PER statistic, however it is not. The players with the highest usage generally tend to have the highest PER. 7 of the top 10 in usage right now are in the top 11 in PER. And 1 of the other (Carmelo) will be at the end of the year. The moral of the story here? The more you have the ball, the more statistics you will accumulate. And that's the moral of PER.

PER claims to be something that accurately measures a player's statistical contribution relative to their role and play time. And this is why it is a failure because it does not do this. The player who handles the ball more, accumulates the most points, assists and rebounds moves to the front of the line.

If you accept the premise that the man who accumulates the most points, assists and rebounds is the best player in the league then fine. But if you think that there's more to the game of basketball and to a player's worth than raw statistical accumulation then you recognize the problem of PER and the problem of assigning worth to a player by stats.
 
Da_O said:
Alright, I have a little bit of time on my hands so I'll write out exactly what I have to say. I don't think I've written anything like this on this board, but my feelings are pretty well known.

For those who say that PER works because the top few players are always the top few players in the NBA at the time, that's basically a load of crap. For starters/guys who play 50 minutes a game, you can come up with almost identical results by doing the most rudimentary statistical math. A simple formula like points + rebounds + (assists x 1.5) will spit out almost identical results to PER with exceptions (point guards having big assist numbers usually being the exception). So really PER isn't some revolutionary concept at all, it's basically "best stats wins".

The main problem with PER comes when you try to evaluate a player's worth on it or when you use it compare primary ball handlers with third options or struggling starters with energy guys off the bench. PER *CLAIMS* to be capable of doing things like this, but clearly it fails. Things like Carl Landry as a top 10 player IN THE LEAGUE or Manu Ginobili being top SG (over Kobe during his MVP season) show the failure of PER.

What humans know that machines don't is that a player's worth can't be based on statistics. A guy like Bowen could be useful to a team even if he shoots only a couple times a game, gets a handful of rebounds and a couple steals. His production can't be measured by stats. But even going beyond that:
Assists don't measure passing skill. Generally the person with the highest assists are the best passers, true. But an assist is contingent on another player making a shot. The assist stat doesn't differentiate between a brilliant pass that creates a wide open shot/dunk and a pass you make with the shot clock at 2, where the guy jacks up an awful shot to beat the clock that just happens to go in. Statistical reward is identical in both cases/PER reward is identical. Clearly the eye can differentiate here where statistics cannot. Also, all assists are not created equally. Last year during the Chris Paul for MVP campaign, the author of this blog: http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/ tracked Chris Paul's assists. He found that Paul was being credited with assists in areas that almost every other player in the league was not being given an assist. Official scoring was actually being influenced by reputation! It's like saying "who shot that last shot? Kobe? Well...even though it didn't go in, I'll give him 2 points anyways" or "who got that last board? Wally Z? Well...Lebron was in the area, I'll give Lebron credit instead". Utter ridiculousness and yet something like this was a fundamental of the stat. You cannot create an accurate statistic if fudging like tihs is acceptable.

Then we get to usage and role. Usage is theoretically a part of the PER statistic, however it is not. The players with the highest usage generally tend to have the highest PER. 7 of the top 10 in usage right now are in the top 11 in PER. And 1 of the other (Carmelo) will be at the end of the year. The moral of the story here? The more you have the ball, the more statistics you will accumulate. And that's the moral of PER.

PER claims to be something that accurately measures a player's statistical contribution relative to their role and play time. And this is why it is a failure because it does not do this. The player who handles the ball more, accumulates the most points, assists and rebounds moves to the front of the line.

If you accept the premise that the man who accumulates the most points, assists and rebounds is the best player in the league then fine. But if you think that there's more to the game of basketball and to a player's worth than raw statistical accumulation then you recognize the problem of PER and the problem of assigning worth to a player by stats.
Click to expand...
obviously there is a lot more to basketball than just per, but that doesn't mean it's useless. it shouldn't be the sole measure used to evaluate players, but it definitely is a tool to be used. i mean i agree with a lot of what you're saying as for reasons that you can't only look at per, but i don't know that i've ever seen someone say that per was perfect and should be the sole measure used in evaluating players.

i don't understand your complaint about usage. the best players in the league should be the guys with the highest usage rate. when you have a great player, why would you not want to use him?
 
the trade with the suns that i would like to see is this

portland would also send their first to phoenix. detroit might as well.
 
Hollinger has even admitted that it's flawed. It's a misleading stat and should not be used for evaluating players.
 
rocketeer said:
obviously there is a lot more to basketball than just per, but that doesn't mean it's useless. it shouldn't be the sole measure used to evaluate players, but it definitely is a tool to be used. i mean i agree with a lot of what you're saying as for reasons that you can't only look at per, but i don't know that i've ever seen someone say that per was perfect and should be the sole measure used in evaluating players.

i don't understand your complaint about usage. the best players in the league should be the guys with the highest usage rate. when you have a great player, why would you not want to use him?
Click to expand...

I'm basically responding to people that were comparing Aldridge's and Amare's PER. If you're going to use a weighted metric use Roland Rating. RR is much more accepted by stat officianado's.
 
free_lafrentz said:
It's odd. This trade isnt completely hogwash; though Portland fleeces both teams it seems....
Click to expand...
i think it's a good deal for both portland and detroit. for the suns, it depends on what they are looking for. obviously if they are looking for aldridge/bayless, this wouldn't be ideal but they'd still end up getting back a decent amount especially if first round picks came from both teams.
 
Da_O said:
I'm basically responding to people that were comparing Aldridge's and Amare's PER. If you're going to use a weighted metric use Roland Rating. RR is much more accepted by stat officianado's.
Click to expand...
but i don't think anyone was comparing their per and then basing their opinion entirely on that. per is simply one aspect of the comparison and it very valid when used in that regard.
 
rocketeer said:
but i don't think anyone was comparing their per and then basing their opinion entirely on that. per is simply one aspect of the comparison and it very valid when used in that regard.
Click to expand...

You and Ed O used it in an argument in this thread. I'm going to go on more of a PER rant that I went on in a different thread on a different site because I'm bored and am tired of people using it. Now please forgive me as most of these statements have been taken out of context.

How about just giving up on the notion that ONE number can properly compare players since it's based on assumptions about weighting and which metrics to include/exclude?? It's the arrogance of PER and its adherents that's so annoying. When a system designed to measure players doesn't really include defense, winning or clutchness, I wonder what sport is actually being watched

As for defense, there's nothing in PER except for the stats like steals or blocks, neither of which is "proof" that someone's a good defender. Those stats for Bruce Bowen or Shane Battier wouldn't suggest that those are two of the top perimeter defenders in the game even though we KNOW it. The fact that PER doesn't even account for it says something.

Finally, clutchness or if you like, the ability to perform in pressure situations, is a pretty important component of how we evaluate a player. In PER world, a shot taken in the last minute of a 20-point blowout counts exactly the same as a shot taken to win the game. Should they really be weighted evenly if we want to quantify who the best player is??

PER basically is a metric of how large a percentage of a team's official stats you generate while you're on the court and then normalized to the rest of the league. If you want to point out flaws in it, pack a lunch. It'll take some time.

The point is that even using PER lends some credibility to it that it doesn't deserve. It's not an official stat kept by the league or even an unofficial one kept by guys like 82games. It's completely derived based on what one guy thinks are the proper weightings; I think that guy misses the boat on what's important in winning NBA games as evidenced by pimping a metric that excludes three of the critical determinants in evaluating players (winning, defense, clutchness).

It's not that there's nothing better; it's that PER sucks as an analytical tool.

It's not a recorded or observed stat; it's a derived one. There's a big difference. PER is taking a number of recorded stats and using weightings that Hollinger believes provide the best indication of a player's value. I disagree based on the reasons given.
 
Its not enough of an upgrade to the "big 3" to warrant throwing in a guy with skills of Bayless. Aldridge and the expiring? Yay. Bayless included, nay.
 
The rumor Aldridge, Bayless and Raef for Stoudemire was on the ESPN message board and everyone said that if this is offered for PHX they should take it in run, and Portland's GM should be fired. THe ones that agreed w/ it were Nugget fans because they set it would set us back a lot. PHX fans were saying they doubt its true but if it is they better take that offer.

I like Aldridge better than Amare. I think he is better w/ this team, specially on the defensive end. I also think in the future he will be the better compliment to Oden. That doesn't even take into account Amare's attitude, his want to be the #1 option, and him possibly bolting in 2010.

I def. don't want Amare at all.
 
Aldridge AND Bayless???

Those are two guys that Pritchard personally drafted, and whom he thinks have enormous upside. There is no way in hell he would make this deal.

Think about it. Every deal Pritchard has made is lopsided in our favor. This deal would be lopsided in Phoenix' favor. It doesn't even look like a Pritchard deal.
 
there are good players to be had for our scraps and raef, and we get to keep lma.

dont trade lma/roy/oden.

everyone else can be upgraded, but we should grow with those three.
 
I am not super high on Amare... as is mentioned previously in this thread (and supported by both anecdotal and statistical evidence!)- he is a poor defensive player. This team has plenty of those already, what we need isn't more of them. At this point, the Blazers' greatest weakness is Pick and roll and Perimeter Defense, right? Why would we put even more pressure on Greg/Joel by removing one of our few halfway decent (and improving) defenders in Aldridge?

Any trades we do at this point need to be analyzed for:

a)do we improve on D?
b)do we improve at starting PG or SF (esp. on D)?

If not, why make a trade? Aldridge may not be as explosive and dominant offensively as Amare, but he is unquestionably a better defender.

Besides, do you want to make Rebecca Haarlow cry?
 
In order for the trade to work as suggested it looks like Phoenix has to include more (which I think would probably be Barbosa).
 
When thinking about Amare's trade value, it's going to be closer to Pau Gasol's than Jason Kidd's. Phoenix has zero leverage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top