What's new
By:

Jazz Getting a New GM?

green said:
Gunther and Graham were talking about the Utes upcoming football season and said this:

"If you knew Utah would beat USC and BYU, but go 8-4, would you say that was a successful season? Today, yes. BUT, if you started off 6-0 having beat BYU and USC then went on to finish 8-4, you would feel the season was a waste and a letdown."

Same with Utah. Going into the season, the 8th seed would have been considered a success. BUT, after seeing the talent this team has, the 8th seed feels like a letdown, especially when you were only 2 games out of the 6th seed, with at least three really, really bad losses.

To say he managed the team as well as anyone....that is being very generous.
Click to expand...

Jazz were starting DeMarre D-Leaguer for life where my only NBA skill is hustle Carroll.
 
GVC said:
Even the stats you've listed barely scratch the surface of what's now available to NBA teams.

Consider, there are 5 players on the court for each team at any one time. Thus, on average, each player is responsible for 1/5 of his team's (terminal) possessions. What is that player doing when he's not either shooting or turning the ball over? What is he doing when he's not grabbing a rebound, blocking a shot or stealing the ball? A lot more of these things are being measured now, with corresponding (proprietary) counterfactual analysis. Unfortunately, this data and analysis is usually either very expensive or completely unavailable to the general public. It's way easier to be a nerdy stat-head baseball fan.
Click to expand...


Statistics are a powerful tool when used properly; most "users" have no idea what they are doing. My old stats professor taught us to plot the data first and then ask, "What do your eyes tell you?"

If your eyes tell you that something is wrong with how the team is executing, then statistics can help you figure out why. But if statistics lead you to a conclusion that contradicts your eye, then you should take your calculations and throw them in the trash.
 
Ellipse said:
But if statistics lead you to a conclusion that contradicts your eye, then you should take your calculations and throw them in the trash.
Click to expand...
Uh, no. Only a complete ****ing moron or narcissist would actually believe that statistics are only useful in confirming what our gut tells us is true. Yikes.
 
Ellipse said:
Statistics are a powerful tool when used properly; most "users" have no idea what they are doing. My old stats professor taught us to plot the data first and then ask, "What do your eyes tell you?"

If your eyes tell you that something is wrong with how the team is executing, then statistics can help you figure out why. But if statistics lead you to a conclusion that contradicts your eye, then you should take your calculations and throw them in the trash.
Click to expand...
With all respect, either that professor must be not a really good professor or you were a not very good student.
 
green said:
To say he managed the team as well as anyone....that is being very generous.
Click to expand...

Except that isn't what I said. I said that he did as well as anyone could have expected. No way am I pretending he's the best coach in the league. He did a good job though with definite room for improvement.
 
mrob said:
Except that isn't what I said. I said that he did as well as anyone could have expected. No way am I pretending he's the best coach in the league. He did a good job though with definite room for improvement.
Click to expand...

I think "good" is getting closer to reality. He did ok. He had a lot of talent. He didn't excel, he didn't do anything tragic either. He just did ok.
 
This is a big time turning point for Corbin. If he replicate his successes and remove a few of his mistakes, then he is on the road to becoming a very good coach. If makes the same mistakes again he probably has taken the Jazz as far as he can take them.
 
green said:
I think "good" is getting closer to reality. He did ok. He had a lot of talent. He didn't excel, he didn't do anything tragic either. He just did ok.
Click to expand...

How many NBA coaches don't screw the pooch? I can only think of few that really add very much.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Take a look for yourself.

https://www.basketball-reference.co...m=0&p1=burksal01&y1=2012&p2=milescj01&y2=2012

And don't look at Burks in the playoffs if you're a Burks fan.
Click to expand...
Your example stretches Burks stats downward to equate with CJ. The other example (I don't remember who brought it up but NBANerd defended it as if Burks was his own child) stretched Burks stats upward to equate with Kobe's rookie year. It's fascinating to me how stats (especially with a little creative license) can be used to prove just about anything you want them to.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Statistically, Burks was a slightly better version of CJ Miles.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but this is a WEAK, BAD argument. You compared Burks to CJ. Let's look at him vs CJ AND Carroll:

https://www.basketball-reference.co...012&p2=milescj01&y2=2012&p3=carrode01&y3=2012

Burks has a better FG% than CJ or Carroll.
Burks has a better 3pt% than CJ. Carroll was better (33% vs 36%)
Burks was better than Carroll getting to the line, statistically equal to CJ.
TO's were equal.

So, Burks is better than or equal to the people that played in front of him...he is younger than the people that played in front of him...you drafted him in the lottery, which I assume means you want him to be an integral part of this team in the future, but you don't play him. Doesn't make sense.

You say he is better to CJ....SO PLAY HIM OVER CJ.

He is younger, he is a part of the future, he has more potential.............DUH.
 
green said:
I am sorry, but this is a WEAK, BAD argument. You compared Burks to CJ. Let's look at him vs CJ AND Carroll:

https://www.basketball-reference.co...012&p2=milescj01&y2=2012&p3=carrode01&y3=2012

Burks has a better FG% than CJ or Carroll.
Burks has a better 3pt% than CJ. Carroll was better (33% vs 36%)
Burks was better than Carroll getting to the line, statistically equal to CJ.
TO's were equal.

So, Burks is better than or equal to the people that played in front of him...he is younger than the people that played in front of him...you drafted him in the lottery, which I assume means you want him to be an integral part of this team in the future, but you don't play him. Doesn't make sense.

You say he is better to CJ....SO PLAY HIM OVER CJ.

He is younger, he is a part of the future, he has more potential.............DUH.
Click to expand...

Don't know the stats 'til the end of the year. Burks was below average. So was Carroll, but a a lower usage rate, so his below average-ness didn't affect the team as much. Burks also played more than Carroll, except in the playoffs, where Carroll was clearly superior. Being drafted isn't a golden ticket to playing time.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Your example stretches Burks stats downward to equate with CJ. The other example (I don't remember who brought it up but NBANerd defended it as if Burks was his own child) stretched Burks stats upward to equate with Kobe's rookie year. It's fascinating to me how stats (especially with a little creative license) can be used to prove just about anything you want them to.
Click to expand...
Well, Mark Twain popularized the phrase, "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Seems we can twist it whichever way the wind is blowing.
 
neither thread stretched burks' production in any way... the problem is just that in one, we're comparing him to an 18-year-old rookie version of kobe bryant and in the other we're comparing him to a 7-year veteran version of cj miles. if we had tried to compare burks to the 25-year-old version of kobe, we wouldn't have liked that comparison.

it's perfectly feasible that burks can have a very solid rookie scoring rate when compared to other rookies and still not eclipse the performance of a veteran bench scorer.

that said, i think the CJ comparison is bunk. yes, their PPM and assist % are very close, but there are some key differences: burks has better FG percentage, got to the line 28% more often, rebounded significantly better and fouled less... and he's a rookie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top