gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
No I think your hand picking stats to say they are worse. I choose to not believe your hand picked stats. I don't believe the Jazz are worse with those players on the floor.
foye's history at PG
- Thread starter theNBAnerd
- Start date
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Hand picking stats? I'll give you some hand holding stats.
Can't go worse with raw data, right?
Tinsley played 505 minutes last year. During those minutes, the Jazz scored 1044 points. They gave up 1072.
Watson played 1032 minutes last year. During those minutes, the Jazz scored 1995 points. They gave up 1998.
In 2726 minutes Tinsley did not play, the Jazz outscored opponents by 69 total points.
In 2199 minutes Watston did not play, the Jazz outscored opponents by 44 points.
There is absolutely NO denying that out of the three possible scenarios, Tinsley on floor, Watson on floor, neither on floor, Tinsley being on the floor was the worst option. Tinsley<Watson<Neither. This is what you'd expect from backup and third string players.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
LOL. Still just another hand picked stat. Who'd they play with? Who were they against? Who was available when they were playing? I could probably come up with 100 other senario's that make this stat just as irrelevant than any other hand picked stat.
Bottom line when our backup PG's were on the floor the Jazz were outscored by their opponents. Your stats show this to be the case. Since my argument is Burks and/or Foye is better than Tinsley or Watson I hardly see how this stat is refute's that. It actually appears to support my claim as you stated that we are better off with neither of them on the floor.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
No you couldn't, and you're too lazy to try, so screaming "nuh uh" isn't convincing.
Watson by three points. Statistically negligible. But to actually put something on it, the Jazz were outscored by ONE point every 340 minutes Watson played. That's one point every 17 games.
And Foye is better at being the point guard since he can shoot? Without a point guard on the floor, the Jazz best distributor of the basketball would be a guy who's been worse at distributing the ball than Derek Fisher's career, and who might not even be on the floor in this scenario. Next best would be? You want a lineup of Foye, Burks, Ma. Williams, Favors, and Kanter? Not an assist rate of over 10 percent in the bunch aside from the pedestrian 14% Foye has. It's essentially asking C.J. Miles to run the point. Is THAT a good idea?
Twin Towers
Well-Known Member
Darkwing
There are so many different variables that you cannot hold the claim that 1 person is better by stats. Its impossible. Its like in Economics where people try to predict human action when there are too many variables to determine that to prove something as fact. Math doesn't solve problems that have so many variables like this scenario. Can they give us an idea yes of course but you cannot go solely on stats.
Foye
The Jazz don't run the old style play where the point guard dominates the ball. It is different than what Sloan ran. Corbin's offense is spread out like a triangle offense almost when we are not running motion. Which was a lot last year. So comparing point guard play from different teams creates so many variables. Plus that was not Foye's defined role at any time. He was always on teams where they signed him to be the SG. He only played point in rare occasions.
I am not making the claim that your wrong that Foye cannot play the PG position.
But you have to be able to submit that Harris had tons of wide open 3 point shots and missed A LOT! Or that Harris stood on the 3 point line a lot also not doing much. Which is exactly what Foye would be doing in a limited role.
Tinsely vs Watson
A lot of Tinsely's minutes for half the year was playing with our worst players on the bench. He didn't play with the 2nd string at first.
Also Watson had a lot of minutes playing with the starters because of Devin Harris's injuries. So that will boost the point production. While during those injuries Tinsely was playing with the 2nd unit compared to Watson with the 1st.
Stats do not make things black and white. If there are not many variables than stats can be very beneficial. Just like using the scientific(logic) method to determine something. During the hypothesis stage you have to change 1 variable at a time(we cannot do that in this scenario). When you have this many variables you cannot prove it. There is not enough information to come to a conclusion that 1 is better than the other through stats. Its impossible. Just like you cannot say 1 PG is a better passer than the other because they average more assists per game. So many variables that determine that. Now if you had the same point guards playing with the exact same players than you could. But it is all heresay.
My opinion on this matter cannot be proven either though. Its all based on observation and heresay.
Tinsley to me did a better job at shooting from the outside(not much better) while he also ran the pick and roll better and slashing. He seemed to keep the ball moving more.
Watson was a better defender but he lacked the outside shot and he had trouble finishing and he held the ball too much.
But again mine is heresay also. My only objection is using stats as the absolute does not work. Just like my observation is not an absolute either. Never ending discussion.
There are so many different variables that you cannot hold the claim that 1 person is better by stats. Its impossible. Its like in Economics where people try to predict human action when there are too many variables to determine that to prove something as fact. Math doesn't solve problems that have so many variables like this scenario. Can they give us an idea yes of course but you cannot go solely on stats.
Foye
The Jazz don't run the old style play where the point guard dominates the ball. It is different than what Sloan ran. Corbin's offense is spread out like a triangle offense almost when we are not running motion. Which was a lot last year. So comparing point guard play from different teams creates so many variables. Plus that was not Foye's defined role at any time. He was always on teams where they signed him to be the SG. He only played point in rare occasions.
I am not making the claim that your wrong that Foye cannot play the PG position.
But you have to be able to submit that Harris had tons of wide open 3 point shots and missed A LOT! Or that Harris stood on the 3 point line a lot also not doing much. Which is exactly what Foye would be doing in a limited role.
Tinsely vs Watson
A lot of Tinsely's minutes for half the year was playing with our worst players on the bench. He didn't play with the 2nd string at first.
Also Watson had a lot of minutes playing with the starters because of Devin Harris's injuries. So that will boost the point production. While during those injuries Tinsely was playing with the 2nd unit compared to Watson with the 1st.
Stats do not make things black and white. If there are not many variables than stats can be very beneficial. Just like using the scientific(logic) method to determine something. During the hypothesis stage you have to change 1 variable at a time(we cannot do that in this scenario). When you have this many variables you cannot prove it. There is not enough information to come to a conclusion that 1 is better than the other through stats. Its impossible. Just like you cannot say 1 PG is a better passer than the other because they average more assists per game. So many variables that determine that. Now if you had the same point guards playing with the exact same players than you could. But it is all heresay.
My opinion on this matter cannot be proven either though. Its all based on observation and heresay.
Tinsley to me did a better job at shooting from the outside(not much better) while he also ran the pick and roll better and slashing. He seemed to keep the ball moving more.
Watson was a better defender but he lacked the outside shot and he had trouble finishing and he held the ball too much.
But again mine is heresay also. My only objection is using stats as the absolute does not work. Just like my observation is not an absolute either. Never ending discussion.
Depending solely on +/- to make an argument -- much less an "absolutely NO denying" argument -- should be a ban-able offense.
Jazzfanz should count their lucky stars they got rid of this guy: Deron Williams (-181 last year). Makes Tinsley (-34) seem downright sexy. Absolutely NO denying Deron doesn't belong at PG. Maybe his strength is shooting, I dunno.
The statistical ineptitude/laziness has reached a new low in this thread. You're making the sheep cry.
Jazzfanz should count their lucky stars they got rid of this guy: Deron Williams (-181 last year). Makes Tinsley (-34) seem downright sexy. Absolutely NO denying Deron doesn't belong at PG. Maybe his strength is shooting, I dunno.
The statistical ineptitude/laziness has reached a new low in this thread. You're making the sheep cry.
Getting Traded
Banned
I agree that Tinsley is better than Watson and by a good margin. Twin Towers's post makes a lot of sense. Watson did get a lot more minutes with the starters than Tinsley. And when Tinsley started to get some decent minutes, when Earl got injured, his play improved considerably and he was obviously an upgrade over Earl.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Well, if you look at a couple things, they stick out.
One particular 5 man group. ***-Howard-Hayward-Millsap-Jefferson. Third most usage for both Watson and Tinsley. Watson was +16 with that group, Tinsley -2. Almost every single comparison I'm looking at is in favor of Watson. If fact, Tinsley only has positive comparisons with a couple of units that don't have Millsap at the 3. Watson never got to play with that lineup. Carroll-Burks-Favors-Kanter is pretty much a wash. It comes out that Watson played better with the starters, and they were for the most part even when playing with the reserves. That clearly shows Watson>Tinsley.
As for Foye versus Watson/Tinsley, I don't want an Atlanta Hawks offense. Barkley did an Atlanta game and completely trashed the way they play. https://www.hiphopstan.com/charles-barkley-weight-watchers-scam-video/
And that's the kind of offense the Jazz would run if Foye ran the point. He's not a quick decision maker with the ball, and can only make the simple pass, not the strong pass. Hayward is the only non point guard who can make more than a simple pass, and even then, he's still limited. He's still not a great passer in traffic or passer through traffic. Both Tinsley and Watson can make the strong pass through traffic. We're going to have C.J. Miles run the point and the fans here are HOPING for that?
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Amusing.
If you've actually paid attention, I've been quite the advocate against plus minus. It's a relative stat, and acutely relative at that. The actual number is fairly irrelevant. But used as comparison with few to no variables, as has been happening in this thread, then it's useful.
But keep trustin' that eyeball of yours.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Are we trying to prove that actual pg skills aren't really that necessary so long as the 'system' is the pg and the most important attribute of the guy manning the 'position' is that he can score? Because my read on Foye is that ever effort made at making him a pg resulted in everyone realizing he was a 2 guard. I don't think we're going to magically change that.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
By the numbers at 82games, not good. And I don't think anyone is confusing Gary Neal with being a competent point guard. But when your average point differential is 7.2, you can get away with playing Gary Neal at "point." But lets be realistic. Manu played point when Parker was out. He just didn't defend them and therefore Neal listed as having registered minutes at the PG position.
Getting Traded
Banned
Darkwing, your whole analysis is based on stats. Did you watch the guys play? Stats can be deceiving.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Of course I did. Your eyes can be more deceiving. I'm amazed that someone said Tinsley slashes better than Watson. Watson plays defense much, much better than Tinsley. I think Watson is a better passer in traffic than Tinsley. Tinsley is a better open space passer.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
thank you.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
the anti-Watson trend last year was embarrassing. I was getting negged for standing up for him during the Tinsley swoon.
When healthy, there is no question Watson is the better player.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
based on your other post, it sounds like he could be turned into a "PG" if he were paired with a Manu-type guy. Am I wrong?
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Not wrong, but we don't have a Manu or a team that will post a 7.2 next year. So we're going to need a guy with actual pg skills manning the second unit.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
you are definitely right: we don't have a fully developed Manu who will take us to the promise land. Manus have to be groomed. The closest thing to a groom-able Manu in the league right now is Gordon Hayward.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
For my money, Burks is the only guy that has Manu potential (though Manu's so special that it's silly to compare anyone we have to him.) I'll need to see Hayward beat a man off the dribble more than 5 times next year before I start calling him a driver, much less a Manu. But Manu certainly kills in the PnR and Hayward can grow a lot in that department.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
well, then, all hyperbole aside...... we have two guys on our roster that need to be groomed into playmakers at their position. That takes game time and a system dedicated to seeing it through. By extension, that system will likely play a non-traditional PG so that said player can gain experience/grooming.
Disagree?