Well, we lost a game we weren't supposed to win.
- Thread starter pegs
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
J.S
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 855
- Likes
- 3
- Points
- 18
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aurelino)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Wright played great defense on Allen all game. He should have been more aggressive on offense though. You have to give credit to Boston. They played great defense. Everything was one on one early on for the Nets. Boki and Allen were terrible as well. At least you could see Boki. Allen was invisible. Kidd looked as if he was dog tired in the 4th. You wouldn't see him lose a rebound and put a hand on his hip otherwise.</p></div>
</p>
just not in shape yet.
Wright played great defense on Allen all game. He should have been more aggressive on offense though. You have to give credit to Boston. They played great defense. Everything was one on one early on for the Nets. Boki and Allen were terrible as well. At least you could see Boki. Allen was invisible. Kidd looked as if he was dog tired in the 4th. You wouldn't see him lose a rebound and put a hand on his hip otherwise.</p></div>
</p>
just not in shape yet.
soul driver
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,347
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
jarkid, I understand and appreciate your enthuaism. let's just relax for a bit. we'll take it easy, bring it home on Friday and Saturday and get two wins, regardless of what Collins does. we will get two wins.
jarkid
Sean The Answer to Nets Big Men
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,386
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (soul driver)</div><div class='quotemain'>jarkid, I understand and appreciate your enthuaism. let's just relax for a bit. we'll take it easy, bring it home on Friday and Saturday and get two wins, regardless of what Collins does. we will get two wins.</div></p>
</p>
Dwight and Lewis will kill the Nets.</p>
And we don't know whether Wade will put 35 points on us.</p>
</p>
Dwight and Lewis will kill the Nets.</p>
And we don't know whether Wade will put 35 points on us.</p>
soul driver
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,347
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
Dwight and Lewis will kill the Nets...but Sean and RJ will kill the Magic even more! Miami got blown out tonight, they aren't that good at the moment. we can take advantage of that.
Teaneck_Armory_Guy
Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
- Messages
- 150
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
Why do I bother.</p>
</div></p>
Well. I dunno. I admire your attempts but to find a true answer to your query, try following the yellow brick road:</p>
http://www.manatee.k12.fl.us/sites/element...causeeffect.htm</p>
Your journey may enlighten you.</p>
</p>
Why do I bother.</p>
</div></p>
Well. I dunno. I admire your attempts but to find a true answer to your query, try following the yellow brick road:</p>
http://www.manatee.k12.fl.us/sites/element...causeeffect.htm</p>
Your journey may enlighten you.</p>
</p>
J.S
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 855
- Likes
- 3
- Points
- 18
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jarkid)</div><div class='quotemain'>
I promise if Collins is playing with the scrubs, his +/- will be -99999999.... -infinite.</p></div>
</p>
I think to get an infinite minus it would be a very long game. I think -99999999 would be if we played Boston and they went on a run for 115 days straight. That's 3,450 games to get some stops. So I guess you're over reacting a bit, but who knows anything can happen ;P
I promise if Collins is playing with the scrubs, his +/- will be -99999999.... -infinite.</p></div>
</p>
I think to get an infinite minus it would be a very long game. I think -99999999 would be if we played Boston and they went on a run for 115 days straight. That's 3,450 games to get some stops. So I guess you're over reacting a bit, but who knows anything can happen ;P
Jizzy
Capo Status
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,613
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
I'm not to disappointed. This team is what it is, an inconsistent sqaud that looks good on some nights and downright dreadful on others. They have no identity, so some nights, you'll see the defesne stand out and rarely you'll see the offense blow anyone away. We have the worst frontcourt in the league, which is pretty much proven.</p>
Jizzy
Capo Status
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,613
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jarkid)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
Collins played less than four minutes of the second half. Krstic did not play at all in the second half. I wonder why. When Collins was taken out, it was a six-point game. While Collins was in the game, Garnett had two points and three rebounds.</p>
Also, on Wright, he played pretty good defense on Ray Allen. He may have just been focusing on the derfensive end, who knows.</p>
</div></p>
</p>
You are really a big fan of Collins, yeah, he only played 9 minutes tonight.</p>
You can keep saying when Collins is in the game, blah blah blah... And sorry, we still lost the game.</p>
</p>
</div></p>
</p>
we were going to lose regardless since Carter is out. However, with Collins, you don't have to double Garnett, and since Jefferson, Wright, and Kidd are all superior defenders, you should be able to keep Pierce and Ray Allen in check. We beat Toronto in the playoffs in partbecause Collins was able to neutralize Bosh by himself. Let's look at the numbers. When Kidd, Wright, Jefferson, and Collins and [someone] were in the game together, the Nets were outscored just 14-13 in roughly ten minutes. During those ten minutes, the Celtics were 5-12 from the field (42%) and had one offensive rebound. While those four were in the game together, the Nets had four offensive rebounds.</p>
Do the math. How did the Nets do when someone other than Collins was in the game?</p>
</div></p>
</p>
No, you're wrong on the Chris Bosh segment. Kidd cheated off TJ Ford and Calderon to double Bosh and rush back to try and contest the shot but was late which resulted in wide open shots for the Raptors PGs. KG was 8-15 in this game and had a great game before this one when he played in Jersey. The only person Collins has really slowed down on single coverage is Shaq.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jarkid)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
Collins played less than four minutes of the second half. Krstic did not play at all in the second half. I wonder why. When Collins was taken out, it was a six-point game. While Collins was in the game, Garnett had two points and three rebounds.</p>
Also, on Wright, he played pretty good defense on Ray Allen. He may have just been focusing on the derfensive end, who knows.</p>
</div></p>
</p>
You are really a big fan of Collins, yeah, he only played 9 minutes tonight.</p>
You can keep saying when Collins is in the game, blah blah blah... And sorry, we still lost the game.</p>
</p>
</div></p>
</p>
we were going to lose regardless since Carter is out. However, with Collins, you don't have to double Garnett, and since Jefferson, Wright, and Kidd are all superior defenders, you should be able to keep Pierce and Ray Allen in check. We beat Toronto in the playoffs in partbecause Collins was able to neutralize Bosh by himself. Let's look at the numbers. When Kidd, Wright, Jefferson, and Collins and [someone] were in the game together, the Nets were outscored just 14-13 in roughly ten minutes. During those ten minutes, the Celtics were 5-12 from the field (42%) and had one offensive rebound. While those four were in the game together, the Nets had four offensive rebounds.</p>
Do the math. How did the Nets do when someone other than Collins was in the game?</p>
</div></p>
</p>
No, you're wrong on the Chris Bosh segment. Kidd cheated off TJ Ford and Calderon to double Bosh and rush back to try and contest the shot but was late which resulted in wide open shots for the Raptors PGs. KG was 8-15 in this game and had a great game before this one when he played in Jersey. The only person Collins has really slowed down on single coverage is Shaq.</p>
jarkid
Sean The Answer to Nets Big Men
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,386
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
But Collins helped theopponents guards to score so much.</p>
He can't stop the guards or SFs who are running to the paint, he is not intimidating at all. No blocking ability, slow.</p>
The only thing he can do is slipping down, and let them make a three point play.</p>
He can't stop the guards or SFs who are running to the paint, he is not intimidating at all. No blocking ability, slow.</p>
The only thing he can do is slipping down, and let them make a three point play.</p>
pegs
My future wife.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 12,079
- Likes
- 12
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
as i said, garnett had two points when collins was in the game.</p>
</div></p>
</p>
Meanwhile, our perimeter players were trying to help out guarding KG, and their perimeter players were having a field day.</p>
as i said, garnett had two points when collins was in the game.</p>
</div></p>
</p>
Meanwhile, our perimeter players were trying to help out guarding KG, and their perimeter players were having a field day.</p>
lukewarmplay
Hired Goons
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,000
- Likes
- 2
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jarkid)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
But Collins helped theopponents guards to score so much.</p>
He can't stop the guards or SFs who are running to the paint, he is not intimidating at all. No blocking ability, slow.</p>
The only thing he can do is slipping down, and let them make a three point play.</p>
</div></p>
So is your argument that when Collins is in the game, the Nets are outscored? Or that another player, taking his place with the starters, would do better?</p>
</p>
But Collins helped theopponents guards to score so much.</p>
He can't stop the guards or SFs who are running to the paint, he is not intimidating at all. No blocking ability, slow.</p>
The only thing he can do is slipping down, and let them make a three point play.</p>
</div></p>
So is your argument that when Collins is in the game, the Nets are outscored? Or that another player, taking his place with the starters, would do better?</p>
</p>
jarkid
Sean The Answer to Nets Big Men
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,386
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jarkid)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
But Collins helped theopponents guards to score so much.</p>
He can't stop the guards or SFs who are running to the paint, he is not intimidating at all. No blocking ability, slow.</p>
The only thing he can do is slipping down, and let them make a three point play.</p>
</div></p>
So is your argument that when Collins is in the game, the Nets are outscored? Or that another player, taking his place with the starters, would do better?</p>
</p>
</div></p>
</p>
when he is in the game, he doesn't help the team big,</p>
I don't like to say when who is in the game, this team is always ..blah blah blah.</p>
Because maybe he sucks, but the other teammates could make over the decifit, then you can see why he starts with the big four.</p>
Against the mediocre team, it seesm ok, but when we are playing the elite team just like Heat, Cavs, or Celtics, he just sucks.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jarkid)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
But Collins helped theopponents guards to score so much.</p>
He can't stop the guards or SFs who are running to the paint, he is not intimidating at all. No blocking ability, slow.</p>
The only thing he can do is slipping down, and let them make a three point play.</p>
</div></p>
So is your argument that when Collins is in the game, the Nets are outscored? Or that another player, taking his place with the starters, would do better?</p>
</p>
</div></p>
</p>
when he is in the game, he doesn't help the team big,</p>
I don't like to say when who is in the game, this team is always ..blah blah blah.</p>
Because maybe he sucks, but the other teammates could make over the decifit, then you can see why he starts with the big four.</p>
Against the mediocre team, it seesm ok, but when we are playing the elite team just like Heat, Cavs, or Celtics, he just sucks.</p>
ghoti
A PhD in Horribleness
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 5,516
- Likes
- 14
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jarkid)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jarkid)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
But Collins helped theopponents guards to score so much.</p>
He can't stop the guards or SFs who are running to the paint, he is not intimidating at all. No blocking ability, slow.</p>
The only thing he can do is slipping down, and let them make a three point play.</p>
</div></p>
So is your argument that when Collins is in the game, the Nets are outscored? Or that another player, taking his place with the starters, would do better?</p>
</p>
</div></p>
</p>
when he is in the game, he doesn't help the team big,</p>
I don't like to say when who is in the game, this team is always ..blah blah blah.</p>
Because maybe he sucks, but the other teammates could make over the decifit, then you can see why he starts with the big four.</p>
Against the mediocre team, it seesm ok, but when we are playing the elite team just like Heat, Cavs, or Celtics, he just sucks.</p>
</div></p>
Dumpy is killing your argument with his pesky facts.</p>
His point is that the Nets are best with Collins and Williams in the game - and the other big men are all terrible - which is pretty obvious for those watching the game without an agenda.</p>
</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jarkid)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
But Collins helped theopponents guards to score so much.</p>
He can't stop the guards or SFs who are running to the paint, he is not intimidating at all. No blocking ability, slow.</p>
The only thing he can do is slipping down, and let them make a three point play.</p>
</div></p>
So is your argument that when Collins is in the game, the Nets are outscored? Or that another player, taking his place with the starters, would do better?</p>
</p>
</div></p>
</p>
when he is in the game, he doesn't help the team big,</p>
I don't like to say when who is in the game, this team is always ..blah blah blah.</p>
Because maybe he sucks, but the other teammates could make over the decifit, then you can see why he starts with the big four.</p>
Against the mediocre team, it seesm ok, but when we are playing the elite team just like Heat, Cavs, or Celtics, he just sucks.</p>
</div></p>
Dumpy is killing your argument with his pesky facts.</p>
His point is that the Nets are best with Collins and Williams in the game - and the other big men are all terrible - which is pretty obvious for those watching the game without an agenda.</p>
</p>
Teaneck_Armory_Guy
Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
- Messages
- 150
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
[quote name='ghoti']</p>
[quote name='jarkid']</p>
[quote name='lukewarmplay']</p>
[quote name='jarkid']</p>
But Collins helped theopponents guards to score so much.</p>
He can't stop the guards or SFs who are running to the paint, he is not intimidating at all. No blocking ability, slow.</p>
The only thing he can do is slipping down, and let them make a three point play.</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
So is your argument that when Collins is in the game, the Nets are outscored? Or that another player, taking his place with the starters, would do better?</p>
</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
</p>
when he is in the game, he doesn't help the team big,</p>
I don't like to say when who is in the game, this team is always ..blah blah blah.</p>
Because maybe he sucks, but the other teammates could make over the decifit, then you can see why he starts with the big four.</p>
Against the mediocre team, it seesm ok, but when we are playing the elite team just like Heat, Cavs, or Celtics, he just sucks.</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
Dumpy is killing your argument with his pesky facts.</p>
His point is that the Nets are best with Collins and Williams in the game - and the other big men are all terrible - which is pretty obvious for those watching the game without an agenda.</p>
</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
Sorry. Look, I'm a pretty analytical guy and stats can enlighten you to things you may have missed in the game. So, I'm all for Dumpy going for it. But his understanding of statistical analysis are really lacking imho. Nets only down 6 (or whatever) in 9 minutes of Collins play? Geez...what's that over a 48 minute game? A 33 point loss, no. You've got to have at least a basic understanding of things like, oh, the law of large numbers, cause and effect, correlation coeficients, Bayesian statistics and a whole lot of other things before you put out this latest fad as any kind of meaningful measure. It becomes just that much more misinformation after a while. And, well, it seems to me that you're just reinforcing it.</p>
Looking at these *#&$@ silly plus/minus. Jarkid has actually hit on it many times. Here's the deal. 1st: you need to look at any stat in the long run. So. We've got a good sampling over the course of the year for each player. Individual +/-. Fair enough. But then ask yourself what it's correlated against. Well, how are you going to deny it's dependent on the play of 4 other guys? Perform a simple thought experiment. Take a mediocre player. Put him in a lineup with good players. Take him out when the good players are seeding the second units. Watch as the good players get worse +/- as a result of playing with 2, 3 scrubs at a time. Watch the mediocre player ...in the long run...racking up good +/-. The truly good players get their plusses dampened by the lower proportion of quality that they have around them. Meanwhile, other mediocre players truly suffer by comparison. Not only don't they get the benefit of player with the same % of quality players; they lag behind because of things like lake of confidence, undefined roles, and the like. Who sits at the top or near the top of the plus/minus game? Mr. Mediocre.</p>
O.K. Now let's take a peek at the 2,3,4,5 player combos. I've done a little looking at some of ol' "Professor" Leveno, lenevo or whatever the bejesus his name is. Most of the combos are pretty damn statistically insignificant. Random fluctuations rear their ugly heads. (Example: a team plays it's starting lineup in the 1st game of a playoff series. They get blown out. But next game they win in a rout. Things like that can only balance in the long run.) Worse yet, these combo stats are relative to the competition.</p>
You can prove almost anything with statistics. Just ask any politician.</p>
Not trying to get on your case or Dumpys but please....</p>
</p>
[quote name='jarkid']</p>
[quote name='lukewarmplay']</p>
[quote name='jarkid']</p>
But Collins helped theopponents guards to score so much.</p>
He can't stop the guards or SFs who are running to the paint, he is not intimidating at all. No blocking ability, slow.</p>
The only thing he can do is slipping down, and let them make a three point play.</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
So is your argument that when Collins is in the game, the Nets are outscored? Or that another player, taking his place with the starters, would do better?</p>
</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
</p>
when he is in the game, he doesn't help the team big,</p>
I don't like to say when who is in the game, this team is always ..blah blah blah.</p>
Because maybe he sucks, but the other teammates could make over the decifit, then you can see why he starts with the big four.</p>
Against the mediocre team, it seesm ok, but when we are playing the elite team just like Heat, Cavs, or Celtics, he just sucks.</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
Dumpy is killing your argument with his pesky facts.</p>
His point is that the Nets are best with Collins and Williams in the game - and the other big men are all terrible - which is pretty obvious for those watching the game without an agenda.</p>
</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
Sorry. Look, I'm a pretty analytical guy and stats can enlighten you to things you may have missed in the game. So, I'm all for Dumpy going for it. But his understanding of statistical analysis are really lacking imho. Nets only down 6 (or whatever) in 9 minutes of Collins play? Geez...what's that over a 48 minute game? A 33 point loss, no. You've got to have at least a basic understanding of things like, oh, the law of large numbers, cause and effect, correlation coeficients, Bayesian statistics and a whole lot of other things before you put out this latest fad as any kind of meaningful measure. It becomes just that much more misinformation after a while. And, well, it seems to me that you're just reinforcing it.</p>
Looking at these *#&$@ silly plus/minus. Jarkid has actually hit on it many times. Here's the deal. 1st: you need to look at any stat in the long run. So. We've got a good sampling over the course of the year for each player. Individual +/-. Fair enough. But then ask yourself what it's correlated against. Well, how are you going to deny it's dependent on the play of 4 other guys? Perform a simple thought experiment. Take a mediocre player. Put him in a lineup with good players. Take him out when the good players are seeding the second units. Watch as the good players get worse +/- as a result of playing with 2, 3 scrubs at a time. Watch the mediocre player ...in the long run...racking up good +/-. The truly good players get their plusses dampened by the lower proportion of quality that they have around them. Meanwhile, other mediocre players truly suffer by comparison. Not only don't they get the benefit of player with the same % of quality players; they lag behind because of things like lake of confidence, undefined roles, and the like. Who sits at the top or near the top of the plus/minus game? Mr. Mediocre.</p>
O.K. Now let's take a peek at the 2,3,4,5 player combos. I've done a little looking at some of ol' "Professor" Leveno, lenevo or whatever the bejesus his name is. Most of the combos are pretty damn statistically insignificant. Random fluctuations rear their ugly heads. (Example: a team plays it's starting lineup in the 1st game of a playoff series. They get blown out. But next game they win in a rout. Things like that can only balance in the long run.) Worse yet, these combo stats are relative to the competition.</p>
You can prove almost anything with statistics. Just ask any politician.</p>
Not trying to get on your case or Dumpys but please....</p>
</p>
Jizzy
Capo Status
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,613
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
I'd just like to add that, as much as Dumpy and Ghotivalue Collins, Thorn and company have been tring to trade him for 2 years now. The lakers deal was killed because of Collins, as was the Pacers deal and face truth, no teams wants Twin.</p>
Thing is, Collins get so much leeway from little Frank. If Magloire or SWat had made that horrible mistake at the end of the Hornets game, they'd never play again but it's Collins and he getsa pass. Collinsis okplayer through three quarters but not someone you want in the fourth.</p>
Why not give Magloire the start? Give him a chance to play good minutes and see what he can do.</p>
Thing is, Collins get so much leeway from little Frank. If Magloire or SWat had made that horrible mistake at the end of the Hornets game, they'd never play again but it's Collins and he getsa pass. Collinsis okplayer through three quarters but not someone you want in the fourth.</p>
Why not give Magloire the start? Give him a chance to play good minutes and see what he can do.</p>
Dumpy
Yi-ha!!
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,231
- Likes
- 24
- Points
- 38
[quote name='Teaneck_Armory_Guy']</p>
[quote name='ghoti']</p>
[quote name='jarkid']</p>
[quote name='lukewarmplay']</p>
[quote name='jarkid']</p>
But Collins helped theopponents guards to score so much.</p>
He can't stop the guards or SFs who are running to the paint, he is not intimidating at all. No blocking ability, slow.</p>
The only thing he can do is slipping down, and let them make a three point play.</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
So is your argument that when Collins is in the game, the Nets are outscored? Or that another player, taking his place with the starters, would do better?</p>
</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
</p>
when he is in the game, he doesn't help the team big,</p>
I don't like to say when who is in the game, this team is always ..blah blah blah.</p>
Because maybe he sucks, but the other teammates could make over the decifit, then you can see why he starts with the big four.</p>
Against the mediocre team, it seesm ok, but when we are playing the elite team just like Heat, Cavs, or Celtics, he just sucks.</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
Dumpy is killing your argument with his pesky facts.</p>
His point is that the Nets are best with Collins and Williams in the game - and the other big men are all terrible - which is pretty obvious for those watching the game without an agenda.</p>
</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
Sorry. Look, I'm a pretty analytical guy and stats can enlighten you to things you may have missed in the game. So, I'm all for Dumpy going for it. But his understanding of statistical analysis are really lacking imho. Nets only down 6 (or whatever) in 9 minutes of Collins play? Geez...what's that over a 48 minute game? A 33 point loss, no. You've got to have at least a basic understanding of things like, oh, the law of large numbers, cause and effect, correlation coeficients, Bayesian statistics and a whole lot of other things before you put out this latest fad as any kind of meaningful measure. It becomes just that much more misinformation after a while. And, well, it seems to me that you're just reinforcing it.</p>
Looking at these *#&$@ silly plus/minus. Jarkid has actually hit on it many times. Here's the deal. 1st: you need to look at any stat in the long run. So. We've got a good sampling over the course of the year for each player. Individual +/-. Fair enough. But then ask yourself what it's correlated against. Well, how are you going to deny it's dependent on the play of 4 other guys? Perform a simple thought experiment. Take a mediocre player. Put him in a lineup with good players. Take him out when the good players are seeding the second units. Watch as the good players get worse +/- as a result of playing with 2, 3 scrubs at a time. Watch the mediocre player ...in the long run...racking up good +/-. The truly good players get their plusses dampened by the lower proportion of quality that they have around them. Meanwhile, other mediocre players truly suffer by comparison. Not only don't they get the benefit of player with the same % of quality players; they lag behind because of things like lake of confidence, undefined roles, and the like. Who sits at the top or near the top of the plus/minus game? Mr. Mediocre.</p>
O.K. Now let's take a peek at the 2,3,4,5 player combos. I've done a little looking at some of ol' "Professor" Leveno, lenevo or whatever the bejesus his name is. Most of the combos are pretty damn statistically insignificant. Random fluctuations rear their ugly heads. (Example: a team plays it's starting lineup in the 1st game of a playoff series. They get blown out. But next game they win in a rout. Things like that can only balance in the long run.) Worse yet, these combo stats are relative to the competition.</p>
You can prove almost anything with statistics. Just ask any politician.</p>
Not trying to get on your case or Dumpys but please....</p>
</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
</p>
You are completely misstating my position on Collins and the value of the plus-minus figures. But because it seems to be on topic, I'm going to paste in a portion of an e-mail I sent to a friend the other day:</p>
I'm actually more interested in a different sort of problem. I personally think that measuring plus-minus of individual players incorporates too many variables to have much value. I do, however, really like looking at plus-minus of three, four, and five-man combinations. For instance, you could look at the Kidd-Carter-Jefferson-Krstic-Collins lineup and see that they are plus-ten in 150 minutes. I think THAT number needs adjustment, though, to account for the level of the opposition. What I'd do is look at the plus-minus per minute of each five-man unit they face on the court to see how effective they are. For instance, if the Celtics' lineup of Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Garnett-Perkins is plus-600 in 600 minutes over the course of the year, or plus-one per minute, and they outscore the Nets' starting five by 10 points in twenty minutes, I'd award the Nets' unit a plus-ten even though they are losing. Over the course of the year, you'd have a relative value of which five-man units are most effective.</p>
Does that answer your question? It is something no one has ever done. You'd need a heck of a lot of data and some pretty good programming skills, which I don't have.</p>
My point with Collins is more that of logical analysis. Collins is on the team; he does some things well, and some things terrible. Given that he will play 15-25 minutes a night, when should he be used to be most effective, and with which teammates? I personally believe that a Kidd-Carter-Jefferson-Sean-Collins unit would utilize Collins the best. When either Carter or RJ is out of the game, I'd replace Collins with a big man who could score. It's that simple. I've NEVER argued that Collins should play 30 or 35 minutes a game. That would be silly. I don't care whether a player is starting or not. The key question is how to use your assets most effectively. You don't use a hammer to paint a wall even if it is a $100 hammer, and your favorite tool. You have to use your tools in the way that they'd be the most effective. I feel that if Collins played on a unit with the reserves, that unit would be terrible . . . but if Krstic played with the reserves, both the starting unit and the reserve unit would be improved. </p>
and as for my understanding of statistical analysis . . . do you want to see my resume? I'm not going to spend all week on this stuff, you know.</p>
[quote name='ghoti']</p>
[quote name='jarkid']</p>
[quote name='lukewarmplay']</p>
[quote name='jarkid']</p>
But Collins helped theopponents guards to score so much.</p>
He can't stop the guards or SFs who are running to the paint, he is not intimidating at all. No blocking ability, slow.</p>
The only thing he can do is slipping down, and let them make a three point play.</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
So is your argument that when Collins is in the game, the Nets are outscored? Or that another player, taking his place with the starters, would do better?</p>
</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
</p>
when he is in the game, he doesn't help the team big,</p>
I don't like to say when who is in the game, this team is always ..blah blah blah.</p>
Because maybe he sucks, but the other teammates could make over the decifit, then you can see why he starts with the big four.</p>
Against the mediocre team, it seesm ok, but when we are playing the elite team just like Heat, Cavs, or Celtics, he just sucks.</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
Dumpy is killing your argument with his pesky facts.</p>
His point is that the Nets are best with Collins and Williams in the game - and the other big men are all terrible - which is pretty obvious for those watching the game without an agenda.</p>
</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
Sorry. Look, I'm a pretty analytical guy and stats can enlighten you to things you may have missed in the game. So, I'm all for Dumpy going for it. But his understanding of statistical analysis are really lacking imho. Nets only down 6 (or whatever) in 9 minutes of Collins play? Geez...what's that over a 48 minute game? A 33 point loss, no. You've got to have at least a basic understanding of things like, oh, the law of large numbers, cause and effect, correlation coeficients, Bayesian statistics and a whole lot of other things before you put out this latest fad as any kind of meaningful measure. It becomes just that much more misinformation after a while. And, well, it seems to me that you're just reinforcing it.</p>
Looking at these *#&$@ silly plus/minus. Jarkid has actually hit on it many times. Here's the deal. 1st: you need to look at any stat in the long run. So. We've got a good sampling over the course of the year for each player. Individual +/-. Fair enough. But then ask yourself what it's correlated against. Well, how are you going to deny it's dependent on the play of 4 other guys? Perform a simple thought experiment. Take a mediocre player. Put him in a lineup with good players. Take him out when the good players are seeding the second units. Watch as the good players get worse +/- as a result of playing with 2, 3 scrubs at a time. Watch the mediocre player ...in the long run...racking up good +/-. The truly good players get their plusses dampened by the lower proportion of quality that they have around them. Meanwhile, other mediocre players truly suffer by comparison. Not only don't they get the benefit of player with the same % of quality players; they lag behind because of things like lake of confidence, undefined roles, and the like. Who sits at the top or near the top of the plus/minus game? Mr. Mediocre.</p>
O.K. Now let's take a peek at the 2,3,4,5 player combos. I've done a little looking at some of ol' "Professor" Leveno, lenevo or whatever the bejesus his name is. Most of the combos are pretty damn statistically insignificant. Random fluctuations rear their ugly heads. (Example: a team plays it's starting lineup in the 1st game of a playoff series. They get blown out. But next game they win in a rout. Things like that can only balance in the long run.) Worse yet, these combo stats are relative to the competition.</p>
You can prove almost anything with statistics. Just ask any politician.</p>
Not trying to get on your case or Dumpys but please....</p>
</p>
[/QUOTE]</p>
</p>
You are completely misstating my position on Collins and the value of the plus-minus figures. But because it seems to be on topic, I'm going to paste in a portion of an e-mail I sent to a friend the other day:</p>
I'm actually more interested in a different sort of problem. I personally think that measuring plus-minus of individual players incorporates too many variables to have much value. I do, however, really like looking at plus-minus of three, four, and five-man combinations. For instance, you could look at the Kidd-Carter-Jefferson-Krstic-Collins lineup and see that they are plus-ten in 150 minutes. I think THAT number needs adjustment, though, to account for the level of the opposition. What I'd do is look at the plus-minus per minute of each five-man unit they face on the court to see how effective they are. For instance, if the Celtics' lineup of Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Garnett-Perkins is plus-600 in 600 minutes over the course of the year, or plus-one per minute, and they outscore the Nets' starting five by 10 points in twenty minutes, I'd award the Nets' unit a plus-ten even though they are losing. Over the course of the year, you'd have a relative value of which five-man units are most effective.</p>
Does that answer your question? It is something no one has ever done. You'd need a heck of a lot of data and some pretty good programming skills, which I don't have.</p>
My point with Collins is more that of logical analysis. Collins is on the team; he does some things well, and some things terrible. Given that he will play 15-25 minutes a night, when should he be used to be most effective, and with which teammates? I personally believe that a Kidd-Carter-Jefferson-Sean-Collins unit would utilize Collins the best. When either Carter or RJ is out of the game, I'd replace Collins with a big man who could score. It's that simple. I've NEVER argued that Collins should play 30 or 35 minutes a game. That would be silly. I don't care whether a player is starting or not. The key question is how to use your assets most effectively. You don't use a hammer to paint a wall even if it is a $100 hammer, and your favorite tool. You have to use your tools in the way that they'd be the most effective. I feel that if Collins played on a unit with the reserves, that unit would be terrible . . . but if Krstic played with the reserves, both the starting unit and the reserve unit would be improved. </p>
and as for my understanding of statistical analysis . . . do you want to see my resume? I'm not going to spend all week on this stuff, you know.</p>
Teaneck_Armory_Guy
Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
- Messages
- 150
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
Dumpy,</p>
What you are trying to do in the outline in your email to your friend sure seems like its on the right track. Thanks for sharing it. It'd take a lot of thought and a pretty sophisticated model and a whole lot of time as you say. Not sure, at first take, how to approach it. Statistically insignificant combos would need to be indentified and weeded out. 2,3,4 combo stats seem tougher since there are additional correlations. Not sure what you'd be left with, at this point.</p>
But...</p>
2 points:</p>
- I guess that I do get really flummoxed when people start bringing up the team impact of a player in the short term. It's deceiving and for the most irrelevant. That's what throws me into an analytical tizzy. Everytime I read something like that I go bananas.</p>
- While you're right that Collin's is most likely going to play 15-25 minutes, why does any wished-for adjustment in the lineup have to include a mixture of line-ups but doesn't include the option just playing him less? Why not wish for the absolute optimal. Given the model that needs to prove (or at least support) the hypothesis that he adds so much to a team, as yet, doesn't exist, where does that leave us? Just back to subjective opinions, I guess, and along with it our own particular wish-list line-ups. As for my opinions, I <u>have</u> isolated in on watching the guy several times, and I'm not impressed at all. I suppose because we're back to subjectivity, we'll have to agree to disagree.</p>
And no, I don't want to see your resume. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy; that's enough for me. Glad (I hope) that things are sorted out (or at least will be?).</p>
You take care.</p>
What you are trying to do in the outline in your email to your friend sure seems like its on the right track. Thanks for sharing it. It'd take a lot of thought and a pretty sophisticated model and a whole lot of time as you say. Not sure, at first take, how to approach it. Statistically insignificant combos would need to be indentified and weeded out. 2,3,4 combo stats seem tougher since there are additional correlations. Not sure what you'd be left with, at this point.</p>
But...</p>
2 points:</p>
- I guess that I do get really flummoxed when people start bringing up the team impact of a player in the short term. It's deceiving and for the most irrelevant. That's what throws me into an analytical tizzy. Everytime I read something like that I go bananas.</p>
- While you're right that Collin's is most likely going to play 15-25 minutes, why does any wished-for adjustment in the lineup have to include a mixture of line-ups but doesn't include the option just playing him less? Why not wish for the absolute optimal. Given the model that needs to prove (or at least support) the hypothesis that he adds so much to a team, as yet, doesn't exist, where does that leave us? Just back to subjective opinions, I guess, and along with it our own particular wish-list line-ups. As for my opinions, I <u>have</u> isolated in on watching the guy several times, and I'm not impressed at all. I suppose because we're back to subjectivity, we'll have to agree to disagree.</p>
And no, I don't want to see your resume. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy; that's enough for me. Glad (I hope) that things are sorted out (or at least will be?).</p>
You take care.</p>
Dumpy
Yi-ha!!
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,231
- Likes
- 24
- Points
- 38
My position is that, when you start to discuss average or marginal players, what sets great teams apart from bad ones is that they know the right way to utilize them. Most players in the league have a skill or multiple skills that they're not very good at. Most of that is stuff that I have little knowledge and no experience in, such as what plays to run. But I can imagine what sort of players each player should be surrounded with to make them more effective. Obviously we can agree on what Kidd's skills are and the sorts of players that he needs to play with to be most effective. Putting Magloire and Collins out there at the same time with Kidd probably wouldn't be the best idea.</p>
With Collins, I guess I'm a realist. The Nets aren't going to cut him, and they aren't going to be able to trade him. He's not going to be benched unless the Nets can come up with four bigs that are better than he is and that isn't bloody likely, as pathetic as that sounds. And I think a lot of that is thatCollins doesn't give the ball to the opposition--he doesn't miss field goalattempts (because he doesn't take any, obviously), he doesn't turn the ball over, and offensive rebounds by the opposition are generally lower when he's in the game than when anyone else is in the game. He also doesn't commit many shooting fouls. When you have a couple of other players on the court who are taking most of the shots--and you want them to take most of the shots--you can forgive the fact that Collins can't score to a certain extent. For the past few years the Nets have tried to reduce Collins' minutes. Last year, for instance, they tried, but then Cliff Robinson got hurt, and then was terrible when he returned, and then Krstic got hurt, and Boone took a while to get healthy and get up to speed. Collins is the default.</p>
As for this year, what do they have, exactly? Krstic has been just terrible on both the offensive and defensive ends. Boone has looked awful in his limited minutes, and I suspect that he has looked equally bad in practice. I think Boone's future is the new and improved Collins--a glue guy who plays decent positional defense, but, unlike Collins, can get some offensive boards and score when close to the basket. But something is going on in Boone's head that's holding him back. I think I understand Boone, because I suspect we have the same brain type, and so I think I can understand what he's going through and I wish I could talk to him about it. Regardless, it is clear that Coach Frank has no interest or no ability to help someone like Boone develop further--he'll say it is "up to Boone," without really providing much support or extra help. I could be wrong about that, and if so, I apoligize to Coach Frank, if he's reading this. So who are we left with? Malik Allen. By now it is clear to me that the reason Allen is on the team is that Coach Frank or Thornski or both believe that the team should have a jump-shooting bigman in the startinig lineup, and Allen is essentially Krstic insurance. Allen's minutes have increased as Krstic's has declined, and it was Allen that started the second half against Boston when Krstic was rested. Problem is, Allen just sucks (and I don't see why you need a jump-shooting big man, to be honest. I could see that you want one jump shooter and one post presence in your front court, but while Collins is there, you can't have both anyway. I'd personally prefer a post presence that can rebound and run if I had to choose--hence, Sean Williams). Allen plays poor defense and is shotting something like 30% from the field. He doesn't mesh with Kidd very well, and ain't Mikki Moore (who, for the same reasons, got a big spike in his playing time when Krstic got hurt last year). In short, I see absolutely no benefits to playing him. That leaves one guy, Magloire, who seems to be a decent offensive rebounder, but again, plays below-average defense and is something like 2-17 from the field. he fumbles passes and can't pass. What are you going to do?</p>
Maybe Collins is not a defensive stud, as some believe, but he's not a total waste like others believe, based solely on his non-shooting ability. For instance, one of his abilities is that he pretty effectively keeps opposing big men away from their comfort zone. He could bea useful part if used correctly. And that is the job of the coach--to figure out how to put the players in a position that can best help the team experience success. I'd love to have Boone step up--ultimately, a Boone-Sean Williams front court could probably solve all the problems if and when they can both live up to their potential,but it seems like we're heading towards Krstic-Williams instead. </p>
With Collins, I guess I'm a realist. The Nets aren't going to cut him, and they aren't going to be able to trade him. He's not going to be benched unless the Nets can come up with four bigs that are better than he is and that isn't bloody likely, as pathetic as that sounds. And I think a lot of that is thatCollins doesn't give the ball to the opposition--he doesn't miss field goalattempts (because he doesn't take any, obviously), he doesn't turn the ball over, and offensive rebounds by the opposition are generally lower when he's in the game than when anyone else is in the game. He also doesn't commit many shooting fouls. When you have a couple of other players on the court who are taking most of the shots--and you want them to take most of the shots--you can forgive the fact that Collins can't score to a certain extent. For the past few years the Nets have tried to reduce Collins' minutes. Last year, for instance, they tried, but then Cliff Robinson got hurt, and then was terrible when he returned, and then Krstic got hurt, and Boone took a while to get healthy and get up to speed. Collins is the default.</p>
As for this year, what do they have, exactly? Krstic has been just terrible on both the offensive and defensive ends. Boone has looked awful in his limited minutes, and I suspect that he has looked equally bad in practice. I think Boone's future is the new and improved Collins--a glue guy who plays decent positional defense, but, unlike Collins, can get some offensive boards and score when close to the basket. But something is going on in Boone's head that's holding him back. I think I understand Boone, because I suspect we have the same brain type, and so I think I can understand what he's going through and I wish I could talk to him about it. Regardless, it is clear that Coach Frank has no interest or no ability to help someone like Boone develop further--he'll say it is "up to Boone," without really providing much support or extra help. I could be wrong about that, and if so, I apoligize to Coach Frank, if he's reading this. So who are we left with? Malik Allen. By now it is clear to me that the reason Allen is on the team is that Coach Frank or Thornski or both believe that the team should have a jump-shooting bigman in the startinig lineup, and Allen is essentially Krstic insurance. Allen's minutes have increased as Krstic's has declined, and it was Allen that started the second half against Boston when Krstic was rested. Problem is, Allen just sucks (and I don't see why you need a jump-shooting big man, to be honest. I could see that you want one jump shooter and one post presence in your front court, but while Collins is there, you can't have both anyway. I'd personally prefer a post presence that can rebound and run if I had to choose--hence, Sean Williams). Allen plays poor defense and is shotting something like 30% from the field. He doesn't mesh with Kidd very well, and ain't Mikki Moore (who, for the same reasons, got a big spike in his playing time when Krstic got hurt last year). In short, I see absolutely no benefits to playing him. That leaves one guy, Magloire, who seems to be a decent offensive rebounder, but again, plays below-average defense and is something like 2-17 from the field. he fumbles passes and can't pass. What are you going to do?</p>
Maybe Collins is not a defensive stud, as some believe, but he's not a total waste like others believe, based solely on his non-shooting ability. For instance, one of his abilities is that he pretty effectively keeps opposing big men away from their comfort zone. He could bea useful part if used correctly. And that is the job of the coach--to figure out how to put the players in a position that can best help the team experience success. I'd love to have Boone step up--ultimately, a Boone-Sean Williams front court could probably solve all the problems if and when they can both live up to their potential,but it seems like we're heading towards Krstic-Williams instead. </p>
Jizzy
Capo Status
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,613
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
We've been trying to trade Collins for 2 years?</p>
I mean we got rid of BRob and Illic for 2 roster spots. I think if Thorn wanted to trade him he could do it in 2 years.</p>
</div></p>
</p>
</p>
No he couldn't. Remember, the Blazers wouldn't take Twin for Magloire last season unless we invloved a pick. Thorn offered a second rounder but the Blaze wanted a first. Brob and Mile don't make much, Collins is one of the most overpaid players in the league. You'd be hard pressed to find a team willing to take on Twin's contract unless it's in his final year.</p>
Also remember the Juwan Howard talks?</p>
We've been trying to trade Collins for 2 years?</p>
I mean we got rid of BRob and Illic for 2 roster spots. I think if Thorn wanted to trade him he could do it in 2 years.</p>
</div></p>
</p>
</p>
No he couldn't. Remember, the Blazers wouldn't take Twin for Magloire last season unless we invloved a pick. Thorn offered a second rounder but the Blaze wanted a first. Brob and Mile don't make much, Collins is one of the most overpaid players in the league. You'd be hard pressed to find a team willing to take on Twin's contract unless it's in his final year.</p>
Also remember the Juwan Howard talks?</p>
GMJ
Suspended
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 12,067
- Likes
- 30
- Points
- 0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
No he couldn't. Remember, the Blazers wouldn't take Twin for Magloire last season unless we invloved a pick. Thorn offered a second rounder but the Blaze wanted a first. Brob and Mile don't make much, Collins is one of the most overpaid players in the league. You'd be hard pressed to find a team willing to take on Twin's contract unless it's in his final year.</p>
Also remember the Juwan Howard talks?</p>
</div></p>
Oh I thought the Magloire trade was just a rumor. True enough then, I stand corrected.</p>
Too bad there's no such thing as a waive-and-trade
</p>
</p>
No he couldn't. Remember, the Blazers wouldn't take Twin for Magloire last season unless we invloved a pick. Thorn offered a second rounder but the Blaze wanted a first. Brob and Mile don't make much, Collins is one of the most overpaid players in the league. You'd be hard pressed to find a team willing to take on Twin's contract unless it's in his final year.</p>
Also remember the Juwan Howard talks?</p>
</div></p>
Oh I thought the Magloire trade was just a rumor. True enough then, I stand corrected.</p>
Too bad there's no such thing as a waive-and-trade
</p>
lukewarmplay
Hired Goons
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,000
- Likes
- 2
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>
My position is that, when you start to discuss average or marginal players, what sets great teams apart from bad ones is that they know the right way to utilize them. Most players in the league have a skill or multiple skills that they're not very good at. Most of that is stuff that I have little knowledge and no experience in, such as what plays to run. But I can imagine what sort of players each player should be surrounded with to make them more effective. Obviously we can agree on what Kidd's skills are and the sorts of players that he needs to play with to be most effective. Putting Magloire and Collins out there at the same time with Kidd probably wouldn't be the best idea.</p>
With Collins, I guess I'm a realist. The Nets aren't going to cut him, and they aren't going to be able to trade him. He's not going to be benched unless the Nets can come up with four bigs that are better than he is and that isn't bloody likely, as pathetic as that sounds. And I think a lot of that is thatCollins doesn't give the ball to the opposition--he doesn't miss field goalattempts (because he doesn't take any, obviously), he doesn't turn the ball over, and offensive rebounds by the opposition are generally lower when he's in the game than when anyone else is in the game. He also doesn't commit many shooting fouls. When you have a couple of other players on the court who are taking most of the shots--and you want them to take most of the shots--you can forgive the fact that Collins can't score to a certain extent. For the past few years the Nets have tried to reduce Collins' minutes. Last year, for instance, they tried, but then Cliff Robinson got hurt, and then was terrible when he returned, and then Krstic got hurt, and Boone took a while to get healthy and get up to speed. Collins is the default.</p>
As for this year, what do they have, exactly? Krstic has been just terrible on both the offensive and defensive ends. Boone has looked awful in his limited minutes, and I suspect that he has looked equally bad in practice. I think Boone's future is the new and improved Collins--a glue guy who plays decent positional defense, but, unlike Collins, can get some offensive boards and score when close to the basket. But something is going on in Boone's head that's holding him back. I think I understand Boone, because I suspect we have the same brain type, and so I think I can understand what he's going through and I wish I could talk to him about it. Regardless, it is clear that Coach Frank has no interest or no ability to help someone like Boone develop further--he'll say it is "up to Boone," without really providing much support or extra help. I could be wrong about that, and if so, I apoligize to Coach Frank, if he's reading this. So who are we left with? Malik Allen. By now it is clear to me that the reason Allen is on the team is that Coach Frank or Thornski or both believe that the team should have a jump-shooting bigman in the startinig lineup, and Allen is essentially Krstic insurance. Allen's minutes have increased as Krstic's has declined, and it was Allen that started the second half against Boston when Krstic was rested. Problem is, Allen just sucks (and I don't see why you need a jump-shooting big man, to be honest. I could see that you want one jump shooter and one post presence in your front court, but while Collins is there, you can't have both anyway. I'd personally prefer a post presence that can rebound and run if I had to choose--hence, Sean Williams). Allen plays poor defense and is shotting something like 30% from the field. He doesn't mesh with Kidd very well, and ain't Mikki Moore (who, for the same reasons, got a big spike in his playing time when Krstic got hurt last year). In short, I see absolutely no benefits to playing him. That leaves one guy, Magloire, who seems to be a decent offensive rebounder, but again, plays below-average defense and is something like 2-17 from the field. he fumbles passes and can't pass. What are you going to do?</p>
Maybe Collins is not a defensive stud, as some believe, but he's not a total waste like others believe, based solely on his non-shooting ability. For instance, one of his abilities is that he pretty effectively keeps opposing big men away from their comfort zone. He could bea useful part if used correctly. And that is the job of the coach--to figure out how to put the players in a position that can best help the team experience success. I'd love to have Boone step up--ultimately, a Boone-Sean Williams front court could probably solve all the problems if and when they can both live up to their potential,but it seems like we're heading towards Krstic-Williams instead. </p>
</div></p>
B-b-but Collins sucks! And Williams should get all his minutes!</p>
</p>
My position is that, when you start to discuss average or marginal players, what sets great teams apart from bad ones is that they know the right way to utilize them. Most players in the league have a skill or multiple skills that they're not very good at. Most of that is stuff that I have little knowledge and no experience in, such as what plays to run. But I can imagine what sort of players each player should be surrounded with to make them more effective. Obviously we can agree on what Kidd's skills are and the sorts of players that he needs to play with to be most effective. Putting Magloire and Collins out there at the same time with Kidd probably wouldn't be the best idea.</p>
With Collins, I guess I'm a realist. The Nets aren't going to cut him, and they aren't going to be able to trade him. He's not going to be benched unless the Nets can come up with four bigs that are better than he is and that isn't bloody likely, as pathetic as that sounds. And I think a lot of that is thatCollins doesn't give the ball to the opposition--he doesn't miss field goalattempts (because he doesn't take any, obviously), he doesn't turn the ball over, and offensive rebounds by the opposition are generally lower when he's in the game than when anyone else is in the game. He also doesn't commit many shooting fouls. When you have a couple of other players on the court who are taking most of the shots--and you want them to take most of the shots--you can forgive the fact that Collins can't score to a certain extent. For the past few years the Nets have tried to reduce Collins' minutes. Last year, for instance, they tried, but then Cliff Robinson got hurt, and then was terrible when he returned, and then Krstic got hurt, and Boone took a while to get healthy and get up to speed. Collins is the default.</p>
As for this year, what do they have, exactly? Krstic has been just terrible on both the offensive and defensive ends. Boone has looked awful in his limited minutes, and I suspect that he has looked equally bad in practice. I think Boone's future is the new and improved Collins--a glue guy who plays decent positional defense, but, unlike Collins, can get some offensive boards and score when close to the basket. But something is going on in Boone's head that's holding him back. I think I understand Boone, because I suspect we have the same brain type, and so I think I can understand what he's going through and I wish I could talk to him about it. Regardless, it is clear that Coach Frank has no interest or no ability to help someone like Boone develop further--he'll say it is "up to Boone," without really providing much support or extra help. I could be wrong about that, and if so, I apoligize to Coach Frank, if he's reading this. So who are we left with? Malik Allen. By now it is clear to me that the reason Allen is on the team is that Coach Frank or Thornski or both believe that the team should have a jump-shooting bigman in the startinig lineup, and Allen is essentially Krstic insurance. Allen's minutes have increased as Krstic's has declined, and it was Allen that started the second half against Boston when Krstic was rested. Problem is, Allen just sucks (and I don't see why you need a jump-shooting big man, to be honest. I could see that you want one jump shooter and one post presence in your front court, but while Collins is there, you can't have both anyway. I'd personally prefer a post presence that can rebound and run if I had to choose--hence, Sean Williams). Allen plays poor defense and is shotting something like 30% from the field. He doesn't mesh with Kidd very well, and ain't Mikki Moore (who, for the same reasons, got a big spike in his playing time when Krstic got hurt last year). In short, I see absolutely no benefits to playing him. That leaves one guy, Magloire, who seems to be a decent offensive rebounder, but again, plays below-average defense and is something like 2-17 from the field. he fumbles passes and can't pass. What are you going to do?</p>
Maybe Collins is not a defensive stud, as some believe, but he's not a total waste like others believe, based solely on his non-shooting ability. For instance, one of his abilities is that he pretty effectively keeps opposing big men away from their comfort zone. He could bea useful part if used correctly. And that is the job of the coach--to figure out how to put the players in a position that can best help the team experience success. I'd love to have Boone step up--ultimately, a Boone-Sean Williams front court could probably solve all the problems if and when they can both live up to their potential,but it seems like we're heading towards Krstic-Williams instead. </p>
</div></p>
B-b-but Collins sucks! And Williams should get all his minutes!</p>
</p>
soul driver
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,347
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
I saw Collins running around and hitting some layups and jumpers! Then I realized I was watching highlights of the Jazz game
jarkid
Sean The Answer to Nets Big Men
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,386
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
Stop typing too many words, it's just useless.</p>
I read your article roughly, there are so many errors in there.</p>
First, Collins did make many shooting fouls or personal fouls.</p>
Second, Collins always makes the illegal screen and 3 second violations.</p>
Third, yeah, he didn't miss the shot, because he didn't take, but it forces us to play 4 on 5 basketball game,</p>
and the other big could easily to double RJ, VC, or Kidd.</p>
Fourth, he missed all of his free throws in the crucial time.</p>
Fifth, No, he didturn the ball over.</p>
Sixth, He can not help Jason Kidd to save the stamina. He never rebounds. Maybe he boxes out, but the other big man that he doesn't guard could still rebound that easily.</p>
Seventh, the truth is if Jason Collins is that great, we won't have a losing streak right now. And we don't need to expect so much from Sean Williams.</p>
</p>
Finally, stop typing so many useless words and sentences, basketball is not doing the math or typing the articles, it's about to play a good game.</p>
I read your article roughly, there are so many errors in there.</p>
First, Collins did make many shooting fouls or personal fouls.</p>
Second, Collins always makes the illegal screen and 3 second violations.</p>
Third, yeah, he didn't miss the shot, because he didn't take, but it forces us to play 4 on 5 basketball game,</p>
and the other big could easily to double RJ, VC, or Kidd.</p>
Fourth, he missed all of his free throws in the crucial time.</p>
Fifth, No, he didturn the ball over.</p>
Sixth, He can not help Jason Kidd to save the stamina. He never rebounds. Maybe he boxes out, but the other big man that he doesn't guard could still rebound that easily.</p>
Seventh, the truth is if Jason Collins is that great, we won't have a losing streak right now. And we don't need to expect so much from Sean Williams.</p>
</p>
Finally, stop typing so many useless words and sentences, basketball is not doing the math or typing the articles, it's about to play a good game.</p>
GMJ
Suspended
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 12,067
- Likes
- 30
- Points
- 0
Jarkid I think you use too many absolutes, too many extremes. Collins doesn't always make an illegal screen, or get called for a 3 second violation.</p>
I also wouldn't discredit any poster for putting effort into creating a detailed, and thorough post. If you said you didn't read the entire thing, I don't think you can say that the points you didn't read are useless. After all, how would you know?</p>
I also wouldn't discredit any poster for putting effort into creating a detailed, and thorough post. If you said you didn't read the entire thing, I don't think you can say that the points you didn't read are useless. After all, how would you know?</p>
Teaneck_Armory_Guy
Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
- Messages
- 150
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
B-Ball ain't all about mathmatical stats. (Lord knows, I enjoy it get away from that kinda stuff). But nothin' wrong with forming an opinion and using the stats to support what you think if'n that's all t'is.</p>
Different opinions maketh the world go round...(and my head dizzy).</p>
Different opinions maketh the world go round...(and my head dizzy).</p>
