One of the best series ever: Celtics win 4-3

[Andy]

Yeah, I'm starting to resign myself to a 7 game series, which is fine, at best we get embarrassed by Cleveland, so might as well have some fun on the way.

If it goes 7, you win, I think. The Bulls have to win in 6. I think they will, but if they don't win Game 6 I don't think they beat Boston in Boston in a Game 7.

[Mike Aller]

Paul Pierce is one of the 10 best NBA players and has sucked. The C game comment is probably dead on.

Wait, what? Maybe four years ago. He's not close to top 10 now.

 

 

Let's see:

 

LBJ

Kobe

Wade

Paul

Howard

KG--when healthy

Kevin Durant

Brandon Roy

Carmelo Anthony

Yao Ming

 

You're right 1908, Pierce is no longer a Top 10 player. Then when you throw out players like Chris Bosh, Deron Williams, Al Jefferson, Steve Nash, Tim Duncan, Danny Granger, Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, Caron Butler, Shawn Marion, and I don't think Pierce is even a top 30 player at this point in his career.

 

About the "C game" comment, no way that is dead on. Pierce couldn't convince himself with this statement is true, much less people watching in. The "Truth" is, Pierce knows the C's are in trouble and they were bailed out because of stupidity in the 2nd game.

I definitely wouldn't put Pierce in the top 10, but no way would I put guys like Bynum, Butler, and Marion even close to him. They're another tier down.

[Banedon]

Lyndon Johnson is one of the top 10 NBA players eh? :)

 

 

I didn't see much of game 2, but I saw this morning Garnett's reactions at the end of that game...first time I've really disliked the guy. Sticking his chin out and cursing out the Bulls. Yeah, your 3 piece suit did a great job beating the Bulls from the bench. Well played. Sit the hell down.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wait, you named 20 guys, some of which are questionable, and based on that you claim Pierce isn't a top 30 player.

[Derwood]

Rose is winning ROY. It's on pretty much every sports website right now

[wolf stansson]

Wait, you named 20 guys, some of which are questionable, and based on that you claim Pierce isn't a top 30 player.

I'm willing to admit that I pulled top 10 out of thin air for the sake of making the point that Pierce and the Celtics haven't played their best, but some of those names on that list are hilarious.

[1908]

Pierce doesn't crack the top 50 using Hollinger's PER stat.

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?sort=per&pos=all&seasonType=2&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba%2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fsort%3dper%26pos%3dall%26seasonType%3d2

 

I'd rank him higher than that because of his decent plus/minus and his scoring during "clutch" time, http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM But arguing that Pierce isn't a top 30 player at this point in his career is more accurate than hilarious.

[wolf stansson]

Pierce doesn't crack the top 50 using Hollinger's PER stat.

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?sort=per&pos=all&seasonType=2&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba%2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fsort%3dper%26pos%3dall%26seasonType%3d2

 

I'd rank him higher than that because of his decent plus/minus and his scoring during "clutch" time, http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM But arguing that Pierce isn't a top 30 player at this point in his career is more accurate than hilarious.

I said some of the names mentioned were hilarious.

 

 

PER has plenty of flaws as well as Pierce's diminished role with Garnett and Allen on the team and his defensive contributions.

[1908]

PER does have flaws, but one of them isn't accounting for diminished roles in an offense.

[wolf stansson]

PER does have flaws, but one of them isn't accounting for diminished roles in an offense.

"as well as"

[1908]

PER does have flaws, but one of them isn't accounting for diminished roles in an offense.

"as well as"

Yeah, saw that. It just didn't make sense. PER has flaws. Got it. But there's no verb after as well as. His diminished role does what? His defensive contributions mean what? I made the leap that you were suggesting a diminished role hurt Pierce's production, so I pointed out that PER accounts for that.

[wolf stansson]

PER does have flaws, but one of them isn't accounting for diminished roles in an offense.

"as well as"

Yeah, saw that. It just didn't make sense. PER has flaws. Got it. But there's no verb after as well as. His diminished role does what? His defensive contributions mean what? I made the leap that you were suggesting a diminished role hurt Pierce's production, so I pointed out that PER accounts for that.

For the record, I don't like that you make me defend Paul Pierce, an annoying turd of a player who throws Crip signs during NBA games.

 

That said, Paul Pierce is a very good defensive player. PER doesn't account for defense accurately. In fact, the defensive stats it does use, steals and blocks, skew a player's perceived statistical defensive ability (see Thomas, Tyrus and his affect on Derrick Rose's fouls in the first quarter of last game). Evaluating Paul Pierce's rank in the NBA hierarchy based solely on a stat that doesn't factor defense is seriously flawed. As to the diminished role and PER accounting for that, I think it does a bad job. I mean, it still measures the player's per-minute efficiency, but that doesn't accurately reflect the bigger numbers a player like Pierce would put up with the ball in his hand more and a larger offensive role. Pretty obvious to me that, say, Michael Jordan wouldn't put up as high a PER with the Dream Team as he would with the Bulls because his role was diminished. So no, I don't think PER accurately measures a player's ability. It's why the NBA still requires the layman to have a more sophisticated "eye test" than the lay baseball fan who can just rely on advanced statistical analysis and have a better understanding of the value of a player's contributions that someone who just watches the games without paying attention to stats.

 

Keep in mind, I already admitted to assigning Pierce as a "top 10 NBA player" out of laziness to make a point. What I'm speaking to here is purely your use of PER as an indictment on his actual rank in the NBA hierarchy.

[1908]

That said, Paul Pierce is a very good defensive player. PER doesn't account for defense accurately. In fact, the defensive stats it does use, steals and blocks, skew a player's perceived statistical defensive ability (see Thomas, Tyrus and his affect on Derrick Rose's fouls in the first quarter of last game). Evaluating Paul Pierce's rank in the NBA hierarchy based solely on a stat that doesn't factor defense is seriously flawed.

Agreed. This is why I mentioned Pierce's plus/minus above. Which was only fifth best on his own team this year, by the way.

 

As to the diminished role and PER accounting for that, I think it does a bad job. I mean, it still measures the player's per-minute efficiency, but that doesn't accurately reflect the bigger numbers a player like Pierce would put up with the ball in his hand more and a larger offensive role. Pretty obvious to me that, say, Michael Jordan wouldn't put up as high a PER with the Dream Team as he would with the Bulls because his role was diminished.

I don't think that's true. It might feel intuitive to you, but I'd like to see more evidence to support this than hypotheticals.

 

So no, I don't think PER accurately measures a player's ability. It's why the NBA still requires the layman to have a more sophisticated "eye test" than the lay baseball fan who can just rely on advanced statistical analysis and have a better understanding of the value of a player's contributions that someone who just watches the games without paying attention to stats.

Fair enough. I put less faith in basketball metrics than, say, baseball ones because you're right, they still need some tweaking. But I think they provide more value than the "eye test" of the average fan.

 

You might find this useful reading, http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-38-359/PER-on-Trial.html

[David]

Rose press conference going on now

[Guest]

Rose press conference going on now

 

Please post anything of note (if there is any). Thanks.

[David]

Rose press conference going on now

 

Please post anything of note (if there is any). Thanks.

 

 

Too lazy to do that (unless it's something really noteworthy), but here's the link to the RealGM thread where people are giving updates. :)

 

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=899788&sid=53673911937431e00cbdaa619dded6a4

[Guest]

Rose press conference going on now

 

Please post anything of note (if there is any). Thanks.

 

 

Too lazy to do that (unless it's something really noteworthy), but here's the link to the RealGM thread where people are giving updates. :)

 

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=899788&sid=53673911937431e00cbdaa619dded6a4

 

Thanks!

[wolf stansson]

You might find this useful reading, http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-38-359/PER-on-Trial.html

I just read this and I'm curious what you got out of it, because what I got out of it, this part:

We all know, for instance, that both PER and Thibodeau's system reduce that beautiful Celtics' defensive play to the rebound that occurred after the fact -- the meaty parts of the defense aren't even charted. So clearly, such rankings must be consumed with a certain context.

 

Which Hollinger and nearly every stat expert out there -- including your honor the judge -- advocates. Real basketball knowledge is king. Statistical systems like PER are tools to help cut through the reams of available information.

is exactly what I said here:

So no, I don't think PER accurately measures a player's ability. It's why the NBA still requires the layman to have a more sophisticated "eye test"

 

It's a good tool, but it stops far short of telling the whole story when ranking a player if it's the only tool you're going by.

[RedFlash]

Paul Pierce is one of the 10 best NBA players and has sucked. The C game comment is probably dead on.

Wait, what? Maybe four years ago. He's not close to top 10 now.

 

 

Let's see:

 

LBJ

Kobe

Wade

Paul

Howard

KG--when healthy

Kevin Durant

Brandon Roy

Carmelo Anthony

Yao Ming

 

You're right 1908, Pierce is no longer a Top 10 player. Then when you throw out players like Chris Bosh, Deron Williams, Al Jefferson, Steve Nash, Tim Duncan, Danny Granger, Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, Caron Butler, Shawn Marion, and I don't think Pierce is even a top 30 player at this point in his career.

 

About the "C game" comment, no way that is dead on. Pierce couldn't convince himself with this statement is true, much less people watching in. The "Truth" is, Pierce knows the C's are in trouble and they were bailed out because of stupidity in the 2nd game.

I definitely wouldn't put Pierce in the top 10, but no way would I put guys like Bynum, Butler, and Marion even close to him. They're another tier down.

 

Admittedly, mI put some players on that list BASED on potential and what they will be doing now and in the next few yrs .v. Paul Pierce. So feel free to take a few names off the list if you feel it necessarily.

 

With that said, I don't see Pierce as a Top 10 player, anymore. At best he's a Top 20 player who is on the downside of his career. I think it was either Mash or Jalen Rose who said on ESPN telecast that when you see a 6'8 guy like Pierce get a breakaway steal and settle for a layup instead of a dunk, he no longer has the explosiveness to be considered elite player. And I agree. Pierce isn't a bad player by any stretch, but right now, Pierce is barely a Top 20 player, and yes the C's did play their best game in Game 2, contrary to what Pierce said.

[Brian]

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/57/fullj.67ab81d4749cbc68859b9a43f6be7cae/67ab81d4749cbc68859b9a43f6be7cae-getty-86044986sd033_derrick_rose_.jpg

 

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090422/capt.628a14f73db341cb9d91192ed4d51830.nba_rookie_of_year_basketball_ilmg103.jpg

Nice windbreakers Vinny.

[manbearcub]

vinny is a fatty fat fat

[1908]

I just read this and I'm curious what you got out of it

Well, I think I got everything out of it, but this part seemed to speak to your notion that PER does a poor job of measuring a player's ability:

 

The numbers that make up PER are not shots from the hip. They are actually tested and honed. Two years ago Dan Rosenbaum and Dave Lewin wrote a paper (the basics of their presentation are online) where they put several stat systems to the best test imaginable: They went back in time, and cleverly measured how well these systems predicted what would actually happen on the court. As in, before the game, the different systems predicted that this or that team was stronger. After the game, which one had made a more reliable prediction?

 

Of all systems measured -- adjusted plus/minus, Wins Produced, points per game, and several others -- only PER was found to be more useful than crude models of human-based decisions in predicting what would actually happen in games

this part:

We all know, for instance, that both PER and Thibodeau's system reduce that beautiful Celtics' defensive play to the rebound that occurred after the fact -- the meaty parts of the defense aren't even charted. So clearly, such rankings must be consumed with a certain context.

 

Which Hollinger and nearly every stat expert out there -- including your honor the judge -- advocates. Real basketball knowledge is king. Statistical systems like PER are tools to help cut through the reams of available information.

is exactly what I said here:

So no, I don't think PER accurately measures a player's ability. It's why the NBA still requires the layman to have a more sophisticated "eye test"

It's a good tool, but it stops far short of telling the whole story when ranking a player if it's the only tool you're going by.

It's exactly what you said? Really? PER must be consumed using context versus PER doesn't accurately measure a player's ability? I didn't think the article's point was the latter at all.

[wolf stansson]

Heh, exactly was a poor choice of words. My whole point was, PER alone doesn't accurately rank Paul Pierce's value.

[1908]

Heh, exactly was a poor choice of words. My whole point was, PER alone doesn't accurately rank Paul Pierce's value.

That's a fair point and I tried to acknowledge that idea when I wrote:

 

I'd rank him higher than that [top 50] because of his decent plus/minus and his scoring during "clutch" time, http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM

 

Anyway, here's hoping that turd of a player goes 4 for 20 tomorrow night against the Bulls.

[Derwood]

Jesus, Paxson looks OLD