Zach Randolph?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr. J @ Jan 16 2008, 04:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Basically, we add salary and get nothing tangible in return.</div>

Isn't that what Isiah does best?
 
My goodness, math is a scary bad thing. Regardless of the complexity of the formula, it is one statistic among many, and it's function is to normalize the players' overall production in a way that is useful and interesting to compare the overall performance of any two players, regardless of position, and even two players of different seasons or eras.

I guess 97 (or whatever it is) triple doubles doesn't require so much math, so it must be a more meaningful number.

Though I'm not as impressed by those things... it's the 18-19 / 12.5 GB that matters at this point.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jan 16 2008, 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In other words, everyone has to resort to the formula in order to describe it. it is just nonsense. I can come up with a formula, too.</div>

No, I don't need to resort to the formula. However, I posted the information from b-r because jigga's graphics were crappy looking

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>By the way, there are roughly ten rating systems that apply a linear weight to up to ten events that could occur on a basketball court. I've never seen any proof that Hollinger's is better than the others, or that it correlates to overall team performance. Dave Berri's Individual Wins stats is probably best at that. FWIW, I prefer Dean Oliver's method, which is also summarized at basketball-reference, cpaw.</div>

They are all tools and I've certainly never claimed that the bald buffoon's method is better than any of the other "respected" methods. They are tools for analyzing players and they should be used after what you see with your eyes.

Everyone has their preferences. I'm pretty anti-wages of wins on principal, but I don't wish to get into that discussion again. Besides my objections on principal, fundamentally, I don't believe that you can correlate any statistical tool to overall team performance and use that as a means to compare players on different teams. And yes, I'm well aware of what Mr. Kubatko has in his glossary.
 
I think Denny Crane has done a good analysis, except not mentioning that Randolph gets his 16.8 ppg and 10 rpg in 31.8 mpg.

His TOpg is not that bad, He averaged 2.94 TOpg, a player who is considered efficient is Tim Duncan at 2.34 TOpg. So Randolph averages 0.6 TOpg more.

His negative points is his low bpg, 0.1 bpg is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely terrible for a 6-9 PF. 45.6% FG% is an ok average for a big.

His contract is a bad, he should probably get 9 or 10 mill not 13 and increasing.

Although I liked Denny Crane's analysis, and bring some valuable points to the other side, I wouldn't do this trade due to the salary that would be taken on.
 
Why was 3 pt. percentage even being brought up? If Randolph is being counted on for long-range shooting, something is very wrong with your team.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So stand pat. You can have 6 turds to polish instead of 3.


There is a guy who's flown under everyone's radar who doesn't make a big salary. I dunno if he's available for trade, but it'd be worth looking into (and for the Lakers, too).

McRoberts. The guy has skills and size. He's buried behind the bigs in Portland, and it's only going to get worse when Oden returns. He was a great BPA pick for the Blazers, but maybe he could be had for small change and a draft pick or two.</div>
0 - 6 from the feild. 5 turnovers to go along with that. 12 rebounds is a positive but we can find better talent in the D-League without making a trade.

Funny guy though.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jan 16 2008, 02:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why was 3 pt. percentage even being brought up? If Randolph is being counted on for long-range shooting, something is very wrong with your team.</div>

You realize we're talking about the Nets, right?

 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 03:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They will be for guys like them for the length of Randolph's contract.

I'm looking at the makeup of the team and what's out there. You really need a guy like Allen or Redd (not that they're available), but you don't have a place to play them big minutes. You can make up for it with a 4 or 5 who can shoot for a decent enough percentage. Like I said, you get a 46% shooter who hits 30% from 3pt in Randolph, plus you get a guy who's physical enough to get his share of boards for the position.

Is Magloire getting any PT for the Nets? He should certainly shore up the interior defense, but has to really work to score. I'm OK with Malik Allen in certain roles, but he's not your full-time answer. Collins? Your grandmother is an upgrade.

Look at Kidd's link again.

Collins PER 2.11 (that has to be an all-time kind of record)
Allen PER 10.38
Magloire PER 2.12
Add it up: 14.61

Randolph has a PER of 17.07 (Kidd's is 16.90, FWIW), which is impressive enough.</div>

Your example perfectly illustates why PER is a worthless piece of shit.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jan 16 2008, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 03:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They will be for guys like them for the length of Randolph's contract.

I'm looking at the makeup of the team and what's out there. You really need a guy like Allen or Redd (not that they're available), but you don't have a place to play them big minutes. You can make up for it with a 4 or 5 who can shoot for a decent enough percentage. Like I said, you get a 46% shooter who hits 30% from 3pt in Randolph, plus you get a guy who's physical enough to get his share of boards for the position.

Is Magloire getting any PT for the Nets? He should certainly shore up the interior defense, but has to really work to score. I'm OK with Malik Allen in certain roles, but he's not your full-time answer. Collins? Your grandmother is an upgrade.

Look at Kidd's link again.

Collins PER 2.11 (that has to be an all-time kind of record)
Allen PER 10.38
Magloire PER 2.12
Add it up: 14.61

Randolph has a PER of 17.07 (Kidd's is 16.90, FWIW), which is impressive enough.</div>

Your example perfectly illustates why PER is a worthless piece of shit.

</div>

My bad. Collins is the most amazing thing I ever saw in the frontcourt. The 2.11 PER doesn't begin to describe how he's helped the Nets to an undefeated season so far.

/sarcasm
 
You can't just add PER's as a way of comparing the value that 1 person has to three.
 
I know you can't add PERs as a way of comparing, but it is an indication of how high Randolph's PER is and how low all three of the Nets' players are.


I mean, Randolph is a top 100 player in the league. Those other guys aren't in the top 300.
 
A normalized piece of nonsense is still nonsense. Again, I have NEVER seen any evidence that there is ANY correlation between PER and a team's record. Given that points scored is a major element of PER, one would think that there is SOME correlation, but again, it's not like we're talking about a trained statistician here. What he's doing is coming up with a comparative value of points, steals, blocks, rebounds, assists, etc. and adding them up to get a "value." Why are his linear weights better than anyone else's? I imagine that he ran a regression analysis once, which is why he ended up with such a ridiculous formula, but whatever.

and cpaw, Dean Oliver is not the "wages of wins" guy, as far as I know. One of Oliver's points that I totally agree with is that offensive rebounding is an OFFENSIVE skill, while defensive rebounding is a DEFENSIVE skill, which is why it doesn't make sense to just add up total rebounds to measure a player's skill. They are two different things. My view can be stated as follows: Boone is a tremendous offensive rebounder, and his primary job on the other end is just to PREVENT the other team from getting offensive rebounds, and it doesn't matter who gets them. Thus, in my world, if a guard like Kidd gets a defensive rebound, then the frontcourt players should get partial credit for it, because they have to do their job for that to happen.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jan 16 2008, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A normalized piece of nonsense is still nonsense. Again, I have NEVER seen any evidence that there is ANY correlation between PER and a team's record. Given that points scored is a major element of PER, one would think that there is SOME correlation, but again, it's not like we're talking about a trained statistician here. What he's doing is coming up with a comparative value of points, steals, blocks, rebounds, assists, etc. and adding them up to get a "value." Why are his linear weights better than anyone else's? I imagine that he ran a regression analysis once, which is why he ended up with such a ridiculous formula, but whatever.

and cpaw, Dean Oliver is not the "wages of wins" guy, as far as I know. One of Oliver's points that I totally agree with is that offensive rebounding is an OFFENSIVE skill, while defensive rebounding is a DEFENSIVE skill, which is why it doesn't make sense to just add up total rebounds to measure a player's skill. They are two different things. My view can be stated as follows: Boone is a tremendous offensive rebounder, and his primary job on the other end is just to PREVENT the other team from getting offensive rebounds, and it doesn't matter who gets them. Thus, in my world, if a guard like Kidd gets a defensive rebound, then the frontcourt players should get partial credit for it, because they have to do their job for that to happen.</div>

I know who Dean Oliver is and I didn't call him the wages of wins guy. The wages of wins guy is the other person you mentioned in your post, David Berri. FWIW, Dean Oliver works for the Nuggets and joined the team last season.

As far as rebounding, I prefer to look look at a team's offensive and defensive rebounding % when a player is on and off the court. That way it is pace adjusted.
 
Who said there was a correlation between PER and a team's record? Though it would be a fair assumption that a team starting 5 players with PER of 30 would be pretty tough to beat.

One thing is certain: the fellow with the 17 PER is head and shoulders better than the one with the 2 PER.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 08:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Who said there was a correlation between PER and a team's record? Though it would be a fair assumption that a team starting 5 players with PER of 30 would be pretty tough to beat.

One thing is certain: the fellow with the 17 PER is head and shoulders better than the one with the 2 PER.</div>

Haha looking at the PER formula above, I'd say its anything but certain.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MyNetsForLife @ Jan 16 2008, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Have you ever seen the man play defense?</div>

He keeps stripers from leaving his pad so that his boys can get laid

Does that count as defense?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 07:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jan 16 2008, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 03:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They will be for guys like them for the length of Randolph's contract.

I'm looking at the makeup of the team and what's out there. You really need a guy like Allen or Redd (not that they're available), but you don't have a place to play them big minutes. You can make up for it with a 4 or 5 who can shoot for a decent enough percentage. Like I said, you get a 46% shooter who hits 30% from 3pt in Randolph, plus you get a guy who's physical enough to get his share of boards for the position.

Is Magloire getting any PT for the Nets? He should certainly shore up the interior defense, but has to really work to score. I'm OK with Malik Allen in certain roles, but he's not your full-time answer. Collins? Your grandmother is an upgrade.

Look at Kidd's link again.

Collins PER 2.11 (that has to be an all-time kind of record)
Allen PER 10.38
Magloire PER 2.12
Add it up: 14.61

Randolph has a PER of 17.07 (Kidd's is 16.90, FWIW), which is impressive enough.</div>

Your example perfectly illustates why PER is a worthless piece of shit.

</div>

My bad. Collins is the most amazing thing I ever saw in the frontcourt. The 2.11 PER doesn't begin to describe how he's helped the Nets to an undefeated season so far.

/sarcasm
</div>

Because he averages 20/10 and he has a higher PER than Jason Kidd that makes Zach Randolph is such an amazing player and everyone knows the Blazers were so stupid to trade him to the Knicks for nothing. Everyone knows when you trade someone with amazing stats like that you automatically become a weaker team. Oh wait...
 
First, they didn't trade him for nothing.

Second, the guy who took his place in the lineup has a 19 PER

But PER doesn't translate into more wins. I get it.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 09:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First, they didn't trade him for nothing.

Second, the guy who took his place in the lineup has a 19 PER

But PER doesn't translate into more wins. I get it.</div>

I'm not trying to argue that.

I'm saying the PER is a worthless piece of shit.

Jason Collins has a 2 PER, but he's a role player who comes off the bench, so comparing him to Randolph is futile IMO.

Zach Randolph may put up these stats and may have a higher PER than even Jason Kidd, but would any sane person take Zach Randolph over Jason Kidd?
 
How can it? Look at that thing. It's 3 times longer than my desktop resolution
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jan 16 2008, 06:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 09:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First, they didn't trade him for nothing.

Second, the guy who took his place in the lineup has a 19 PER

But PER doesn't translate into more wins. I get it.</div>

I'm not trying to argue that.

I'm saying the PER is a worthless piece of shit.

Jason Collins has a 2 PER, but he's a role player who comes off the bench, so comparing him to Randolph is futile IMO.

Zach Randolph may put up these stats and may have a higher PER than even Jason Kidd, but would any sane person take Zach Randolph over Jason Kidd?
</div>

Comparing him to Collins is exactly the point. One of those 6 turds you need to polish.

The only good argument anyone's made against the Nets going for Randolph is salary considerations. The only arguments made against PER has been "the forumla is complicated" (which isn't an argument against it, at all) and "it's a worthless piece of shit" which is an assertion without any supporting argument.

And you did say that Portland traded Randolph for nothing.
 
Aside from his ridiculous salary, I'd be hesitant about bringing in Randolph because:

- His defense is absolutely atrocious
- He's too slow to run the floor effectively
- He brings off-the-court baggage
- He's a black hole on offense that turns it over frequently
 
The current alternative is big man by committee. Interestingly, the Knicks are at New Jersey tonight, leading by 10 as I type this, and Randolph has 20/10 and 4 assists, 1 turnover, 1 blocked shot, 8-15 FG, and a +/- for the night of +19.
 
For the record, I think the Nets need to rebuild. That's the main reason why I wouldn't take on Randolph and his gigantic contract. I don't think he's a player you can build around (shown in Portland) and he's certainly not a complimentary piece given how overpaid he is.
 
Ah...

I wouldn't trade for Randolph except if you want to keep the current big 3 together. He is complementary in that he gives the Nets post presence, rebounding, and scoring from a position they're currently challenged at. Just having Collins and Kidd out there, you are almost playing 3 on 5 when it comes to shooting and scoring.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 09:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jan 16 2008, 06:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 16 2008, 09:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First, they didn't trade him for nothing.

Second, the guy who took his place in the lineup has a 19 PER

But PER doesn't translate into more wins. I get it.</div>

I'm not trying to argue that.

I'm saying the PER is a worthless piece of shit.

Jason Collins has a 2 PER, but he's a role player who comes off the bench, so comparing him to Randolph is futile IMO.

Zach Randolph may put up these stats and may have a higher PER than even Jason Kidd, but would any sane person take Zach Randolph over Jason Kidd?
</div>

Comparing him to Collins is exactly the point. One of those 6 turds you need to polish.

The only good argument anyone's made against the Nets going for Randolph is salary considerations. The only arguments made against PER has been "the forumla is complicated" (which isn't an argument against it, at all) and "it's a worthless piece of shit" which is an assertion without any supporting argument.

And you did say that Portland traded Randolph for nothing.
</div>

Channing Frye? Good player. Steve Francis? Gone the next day. For a 20/10 player I thought they would get more.

There's plenty of good arguments against NJ going against Zach Randolph. First off, if you're going to make a move, you make one that makes your team an elite team. I don't see how bringing in an immature big man who albeit puts up stats, but doesn't play any defense and has a laundry list of off the court problems does that.

The other option for the Nets is to blow it up and rebuild, which would eliminate any need to go after Zach Randolph.

Also, I'm sure the Nets are pleased with the development of both Sean Williams and Josh Boone, and want to seem them both in the lineup. If they both keep getting better (Sean Williams is going to be really, really good in this league), why would we trade for someone with the problems of Zach Randolph and the contract he carries? Especially when we have FA concerns this season and in the coming years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hunter
Nets Declined Randolph for Carter
Replies
2
Views
540
Jizzy
Jizzy
NJNetz
Zach: I'm Not Eddy's Problem
Replies
1
Views
694
pegs
pegs
Shapecity
Knicks Shop Randolph to Bucks & Nets
Replies
1
Views
204
cpawfan
cpawfan
CelticKing
Randolph misses game vs. Heat
Replies
0
Views
284
CelticKing
CelticKing
Mr. J
Webber Being Discussed?
Replies
7
Views
832
KnicksUK
KnicksUK

Users who are viewing this thread

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