[dynamite140]

Do you think Clippers would beat the Lakers or Heat in the playoffs?

The only thing that is ignorant is you BigDofBA. I have seen a couple of your whining threads and you starting to sound like no coin. Creating threads about fouling at end of games but only if you had a bet on the game.

If you think the Clippers are a solid PLAYOFF team, you don't know basketball inside out. Watching espn will do that to you though.

[dynamite140]

You make good arguments in your word explanation but what you are stating is the obvious. I wanted to see more numbers that you are talking about. The stats you give are pretty vanilla and obvious.

Yes i know he averages more steals than turnovers and averages close to 50 percent fg percentage. Yes he is efficient since he takes about 12-13 shots a game. But he is a liability on defense. To me, that is the reason why he isn't a tier 1 PG in the nba.

Raymond Felton is better than Ty Lawson by the way. Only reason why George Karl didn't make Felton starter was because Lawson was already the starting PG for a few games into the season in the Nuggets and he didn't want to change the chemistry of the team.

[YOUSENKO]

yo dynamite why the hate on clippers? You are Lakers fan?

[NB-Ace]

Do you think Clippers would beat the Lakers or Heat in the playoffs?

The only thing that is ignorant is you BigDofBA. I have seen a couple of your whining threads and you starting to sound like no coin. Creating threads about fouling at end of games but only if you had a bet on the game.

If you think the Clippers are a solid PLAYOFF team, you don't know basketball inside out. Watching espn will do that to you though.

^I think they would beat the Lakers in a 7 game series, yes. Bynum, Gasol and Kobe is an incredible trio, but they are FAR too reliant on those 3 players. McRobers, Blake and Barnes are nice role players I like, Fisher tries really hard, Murphy is just decent at this stage of his career and Artest (I refuse to call him "World Peace" lol) is a shell of his former self.. this Laker team lacks the necessary DEPTH (especially at the wings) and athleticism to compete for a title at this point. I think the Blazers, Nuggets, Clippers, Thunder and Spurs at least are better than the Lakers.. and the Grizzlies with a healthy Zach Randolph probably are too.

As far as the Heat go.. that would be one hell of a series (Clippers/Heat).. I think it would go to 7, and I'd lean ever so slightly towards the Heat.


The Clippers are definitely a solid playoff team though. Best PG in the league, a strong bench, guys who can create their own shot on the wings (Caron Butler, Mo Williams, Chauncey Billups, etc.), athletic bigs who can run the floor and wreak havoc on both ends (Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan).. this team is well put together and should only improve as the season wears on.

[NB-Ace]

You make good arguments in your word explanation but what you are stating is the obvious. I wanted to see more numbers that you are talking about. The stats you give are pretty vanilla and obvious.

Yes i know he averages more steals than turnovers and averages close to 50 percent fg percentage. Yes he is efficient since he takes about 12-13 shots a game. But he is a liability on defense. To me, that is the reason why he isn't a tier 1 PG in the nba.

Raymond Felton is better than Ty Lawson by the way. Only reason why George Karl didn't make Felton starter was because Lawson was already the starting PG for a few games into the season in the Nuggets and he didn't want to change the chemistry of the team.

^Well I had to "state the obvious" because you were completely disregarding it in your dismissal of CP3. And you're pinning your entire position on this assertion that CP3 is a liability on defense. How on earth do you come up with THAT conclusion? Paul is one of the better defenders in the league at his position.. he has ridiculously quick hands, great reaction time/lateral quickness, and gives high effort on that end of the floor. There was actually a sequence last week where an opposing SG was torching them (I forget who), and CP3 walks over to Vinny Del Negro between an opponent's FT shots and TELLS HIS COACH "I'm guarding him now".. he then proceeds to shut him down TWICE in a row. making the game-winning defensive play the second time.

This is just one example of Paul's excellence on defense.. claiming that he's a "liability" on that end is just silly

[YOUSENKO]

PGs are supposed to be small men who bounces the ball low and guard the other team's PG. Being small is not a liability if he is fast and steals a lot from his opposing counterpart. A bigger PG dosen't mean he has any advantage at all. If size matters its at center position not PG. Kobe is small SG and bigger SGs cannot guard him.

[dynamite140]

If the Heat played the Clippers in a 7 game series, they could sweep the series. But of course this won't happen since James love to hide in the 4th quarter for some reason. But James wouldn't struggle against a Clippers team because this team isn't deep like the Mavericks and has no defense. Lakers would take care of Clippers in a hard fought series but it would be no worst than 4-2 Lakers.

This Clippers team has got to be the most overrated and hyped team in NBA history. There really isn't a close NBA team that gotten this much hype before and will be gone in the 1st round. This team won't make the playoffs in the future with just these 2 players.

Caron Butler is a poor man Shawn Marion. Mo Williams is a nobody without Lebron. Billups will retire soon.

[dynamite140]

PGS are suppose to be small. However, CP3 is very undersized for a starting PG in the NBA. He is listed at 6'0 but is around 5'11.5. He's just barely taller than Allen Iverson except Iverson can attack the hoop.

Rondo is listed at 6'1 but he's 6'2.
Westbrook is 6'2
Rose is more 6'2 though listed at 6'3
Williams is 6'2.5


The only guy CP3 is taller than that starts as a PG in the NBA is Jameer Nelson.

You can't really be an elite PG in the NBA if you are undersized. I mean, look at Brandon Knight. He is 5'10 and a solid backup PG but thats all. CP3 will be a Brandon Knight in a couple of years when he loses his speed.

Besides A.I who was a SG, no guard in nba history will be considered elite when they are undersized by a lot for a PG.

[Speedy88]

If the Heat played the Clippers in a 7 game series, they could sweep the series. But of course this won't happen since James love to hide in the 4th quarter for some reason. But James wouldn't struggle against a Clippers team because this team isn't deep like the Mavericks and has no defense. Lakers would take care of Clippers in a hard fought series but it would be no worst than 4-2 Lakers. This Clippers team has got to be the most overrated and hyped team in NBA history. There really isn't a close NBA team that gotten this much hype before and will be gone in the 1st round. This team won't make the playoffs in the future with just these 2 players. Caron Butler is a poor man Shawn Marion. Mo Williams is a nobody without Lebron. Billups will retire soon.

LOL how do you make that argument when they just lost to the Clippers a few days ago.

[PR9]

^

Have you ever played a competitive sport before? How old are you? I can't stop laughing..

Look man.. I've played bball since I was 6.. played 4 yrs of HS ball.. played pickup games against D1 players, beat a D1 player 1 on 1 once, and still play recreationally in leagues and tournaments today.. I also watch tons of NBA basketball, study advanced metrics (and on a related note, have developed a comprehensive point-based fantasy scoring system for the NBA using box score statistics that IMO comes as close as is possible with counting stats to measuring the true positive or negative impact a player had during any given amount of time on the floor) and am basically a devout fan and player of the game. Anyone who knows me knows I don't walk around tooting my own horn at all, but I say all that to say this -- you have no idea what you're talking about.

Not only is CP3 still probably the best PG on earth (only Derrick Rose has an argument against that), but between 2008 and 2010 he was the best ever (in pretty much a dead heat with Magic Johnson's peak). He carried those Hornet teams on his back when they had no business even being near the playoffs. CP3 singlehandedly beat the Los Angeles Lakers TWICE in the playoffs last year.

Watch that series and tell me he wasn't the best PG on earth.


Now.. he's still phenomenal, but I think he's fallen off from that level ever so slightly cuz of injury.. and I'm not sure we'll ever see it again.. but still, 85-90% of his 2008-2010 is still at least tied for best PG in the league..

Finally a logical Post in this thread. Question, is your formula related to PER ? It sounds like it could be similar.

CP3 is listed quite high in all-time NBA efficiency rating (advanced metrics)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...er_career.html

In 09 CP3 had one of the best all around seasons I have ever seen from the position. One of the best all-around performance seasons of all-time

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...er_season.html

His 09 season DESTROYS whatever Rose did last year. Both Wade and CP3 were the 2 best all-aroundf players in the NBA that season despite lebron winning MVP. MVP is only given to the best player on the top 3 or 4 teams, not the best actual player

The OP is just clueless about the game with such comments. Either that or he's just a hater who craves attention. ignore him

.

[NB-Ace]

Finally a logical Post in this thread. Question, is your formula related to PER ? It sounds like it could be similar.

^I'm sure that it bears some similarity to PER simply because Hollinger is an intelligent guy and the aim of PER is similar to the goal of my formula, but no, I didn't base it off of his work. I basically wanted a fantasy scoring system for my league that wasn't rife with irrational arbitrage and that did as good a job as possible awarding points to players who brought real productivity to the table, regardless of how said productivity was achieved.

I developed it by first building a consensus list of the top 100 players in the NBA as of last season. I averaged the following inputs in a spreadsheet:

2x - Zach Lowe of SI.com's Top 100 NBA Players list (scouting)
3x - ESPN TrueHoop's Top 100 NBA Players list (scouting)
1x - Adjusted +/- (statistical)
1x - Adjusted Win Score (statistical)
1x - Adjusted PER (statistical)
1x - Win Shares per 48 mins (statistical)
1x - Win Shares

I weighted "eyeball test" scouting based on human observation/estimation equally with the various statistical models, simply because I believe both sides have deficiencies that are remedied by their counterpart. I weighted ESPN's list over Zach Lowe's because the former was done via consensus whereas the latter was compiled by an individual (albeit a very intelligent and knowledgeable one).

I then used the resulting average composite list as my basis for constructing the scoring system. Basically, the closer I could get the scoring system's Top 100 list (based on how it sorted the 2010-2011 season rankings) to resemble the "master" list I created in the spreadsheet, the better I judged the scoring system to be, no matter how wacky the inputs may have ended up seeming.

I spent about a month on this, and have used it for my fantasy league this season with great success.


The formula is as follows:

Minutes Played (MIN) -0.3
Field Goals Attempted (FGA) -1.2
Field Goals Made (FGM) 1.5
Free Throws Attempted (FTA) -1
Free Throws Made (FTM) 1.5
3-point Shots Attempted (3PTA) -0.5
3-point Shots Made (3PTM) 1.5
Points Scored (PTS) 1.5
Offensive Rebounds (OREB) 0.7
Total Rebounds (REB) 0.7
Assists (AST) 2
Steals (ST) 3.5
Blocked Shots (BLK) 3
Turnovers (TO) -3.5
Technical Fouls (TECH) -1.5

[dynamite140]

^I'm sure that it bears some similarity to PER simply because Hollinger is an intelligent guy and the aim of PER is similar to the goal of my formula, but no, I didn't base it off of his work. I basically wanted a fantasy scoring system for my league that wasn't rife with irrational arbitrage and that did as good a job as possible awarding points to players who brought real productivity to the table, regardless of how said productivity was achieved.

I developed it by first building a consensus list of the top 100 players in the NBA as of last season. I averaged the following inputs in a spreadsheet:

2x - Zach Lowe of SI.com's Top 100 NBA Players list (scouting)
3x - ESPN TrueHoop's Top 100 NBA Players list (scouting)
1x - Adjusted +/- (statistical)
1x - Adjusted Win Score (statistical)
1x - Adjusted PER (statistical)
1x - Win Shares per 48 mins (statistical)
1x - Win Shares

I weighted "eyeball test" scouting based on human observation/estimation equally with the various statistical models, simply because I believe both sides have deficiencies that are remedied by their counterpart. I weighted ESPN's list over Zach Lowe's because the former was done via consensus whereas the latter was compiled by an individual (albeit a very intelligent and knowledgeable one).

I then used the resulting average composite list as my basis for constructing the scoring system. Basically, the closer I could get the scoring system's Top 100 list (based on how it sorted the 2010-2011 season rankings) to resemble the "master" list I created in the spreadsheet, the better I judged the scoring system to be, no matter how wacky the inputs may have ended up seeming.

I spent about a month on this, and have used it for my fantasy league this season with great success.


The formula is as follows:

Minutes Played (MIN) -0.3
Field Goals Attempted (FGA) -1.2
Field Goals Made (FGM) 1.5
Free Throws Attempted (FTA) -1
Free Throws Made (FTM) 1.5
3-point Shots Attempted (3PTA) -0.5
3-point Shots Made (3PTM) 1.5
Points Scored (PTS) 1.5
Offensive Rebounds (OREB) 0.7
Total Rebounds (REB) 0.7
Assists (AST) 2
Steals (ST) 3.5
Blocked Shots (BLK) 3
Turnovers (TO) -3.5
Technical Fouls (TECH) -1.5

very Nice.

[Dark Horse]

Nice.

[PR9]

^I'm sure that it bears some similarity to PER simply because Hollinger is an intelligent guy and the aim of PER is similar to the goal of my formula, but no, I didn't base it off of his work. I basically wanted a fantasy scoring system for my league that wasn't rife with irrational arbitrage and that did as good a job as possible awarding points to players who brought real productivity to the table, regardless of how said productivity was achieved.

I developed it by first building a consensus list of the top 100 players in the NBA as of last season. I averaged the following inputs in a spreadsheet:

2x - Zach Lowe of SI.com's Top 100 NBA Players list (scouting)
3x - ESPN TrueHoop's Top 100 NBA Players list (scouting)
1x - Adjusted +/- (statistical)
1x - Adjusted Win Score (statistical)
1x - Adjusted PER (statistical)
1x - Win Shares per 48 mins (statistical)
1x - Win Shares

I weighted "eyeball test" scouting based on human observation/estimation equally with the various statistical models, simply because I believe both sides have deficiencies that are remedied by their counterpart. I weighted ESPN's list over Zach Lowe's because the former was done via consensus whereas the latter was compiled by an individual (albeit a very intelligent and knowledgeable one).

I then used the resulting average composite list as my basis for constructing the scoring system. Basically, the closer I could get the scoring system's Top 100 list (based on how it sorted the 2010-2011 season rankings) to resemble the "master" list I created in the spreadsheet, the better I judged the scoring system to be, no matter how wacky the inputs may have ended up seeming.

I spent about a month on this, and have used it for my fantasy league this season with great success.


The formula is as follows:

Minutes Played (MIN) -0.3
Field Goals Attempted (FGA) -1.2
Field Goals Made (FGM) 1.5
Free Throws Attempted (FTA) -1
Free Throws Made (FTM) 1.5
3-point Shots Attempted (3PTA) -0.5
3-point Shots Made (3PTM) 1.5
Points Scored (PTS) 1.5
Offensive Rebounds (OREB) 0.7
Total Rebounds (REB) 0.7
Assists (AST) 2
Steals (ST) 3.5
Blocked Shots (BLK) 3
Turnovers (TO) -3.5
Technical Fouls (TECH) -1.5

WOW !


SUPERB !!

[GTS925]

I stopped reading when I read "Rose, Williams, Westbrook, Rondo are all better than CP3."

[NB-Ace]

WOW !


SUPERB !!

^lol, thanks bro. In case it's of any interest, here are the league leaders in fantasy points per game thus far this season:

[Love The Action]

^I'm sure that it bears some similarity to PER simply because Hollinger is an intelligent guy and the aim of PER is similar to the goal of my formula, but no, I didn't base it off of his work. I basically wanted a fantasy scoring system for my league that wasn't rife with irrational arbitrage and that did as good a job as possible awarding points to players who brought real productivity to the table, regardless of how said productivity was achieved.

I developed it by first building a consensus list of the top 100 players in the NBA as of last season. I averaged the following inputs in a spreadsheet:

2x - Zach Lowe of SI.com's Top 100 NBA Players list (scouting)
3x - ESPN TrueHoop's Top 100 NBA Players list (scouting)
1x - Adjusted +/- (statistical)
1x - Adjusted Win Score (statistical)
1x - Adjusted PER (statistical)
1x - Win Shares per 48 mins (statistical)
1x - Win Shares

I weighted "eyeball test" scouting based on human observation/estimation equally with the various statistical models, simply because I believe both sides have deficiencies that are remedied by their counterpart. I weighted ESPN's list over Zach Lowe's because the former was done via consensus whereas the latter was compiled by an individual (albeit a very intelligent and knowledgeable one).

I then used the resulting average composite list as my basis for constructing the scoring system. Basically, the closer I could get the scoring system's Top 100 list (based on how it sorted the 2010-2011 season rankings) to resemble the "master" list I created in the spreadsheet, the better I judged the scoring system to be, no matter how wacky the inputs may have ended up seeming.

I spent about a month on this, and have used it for my fantasy league this season with great success.


The formula is as follows:

Minutes Played (MIN) -0.3
Field Goals Attempted (FGA) -1.2
Field Goals Made (FGM) 1.5
Free Throws Attempted (FTA) -1
Free Throws Made (FTM) 1.5
3-point Shots Attempted (3PTA) -0.5
3-point Shots Made (3PTM) 1.5
Points Scored (PTS) 1.5
Offensive Rebounds (OREB) 0.7
Total Rebounds (REB) 0.7
Assists (AST) 2
Steals (ST) 3.5
Blocked Shots (BLK) 3
Turnovers (TO) -3.5
Technical Fouls (TECH) -1.5

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I am going to play around with this....

[NB-Ace]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I am going to play around with this....

^Yeah, please do. I don't see any glaring deficiencies at this point but if it can be refined for next season I'm open to it. Any system using box score stats is always going to be inherently flawed as exact distinctions can't be made on a micro level between truly productive plays and plays that are simply masquerading as productive, but I think on a macro level after the decent sized sample of data, the end result is fairly accurate..

[Donkeys2012]

Who dominated the game last night ? The Soft Lakers allowed one of the worst rebounding teams in the league to outrebound them which is absolutley pathedic. Lakers should keep Bynum and Gasol and trade that ballhogging selfish Kobe.