"Lies, Damned Lies, and Obama (response to Battier article)

You beat me to it, Stoney. I was going to cite that paragraph as well. Lewis also points out that during the Rockets' 22-game winning streak, they only had Yao and McGrady together for 11 of them. The guy who played the most minutes during the streak: Battier. Funny how that sort of thing gets ignored when people talk of the egregiously flawed statistics.

 

I'm almost aghast at how militantly stupid your post is. Nowehere, nowhere, nowehre have I dismissed the "new metrics." Did you read the profile? and then did you read the critique? Do you have serious comprehension problems? Have you had them a long, long time?

Let me help to walk you through this, as I might do a 3rd grader:

Profile: touts a new system of measuring the vale of a player

critique: is excited about this

profile: gives only a few vague and questionable stats, sort of the opposite of what a new stat -- a stat that improves upon and clarifies an older, outdated stat would do

critique: (here I quote from the critique directly)Lewis and Morey seem to be saying: this player is valuable in ways commonly acknowledged stats can’t measure, but we can prove his value because the stats we’re using to measure it are nuanced, and innovative. Our stats? Intangibles, team win-loss record, mixed heritage, willingness to pore over reports on Kobe Bryant, lack of enjoyment of pre-game rituals, bizarre reluctance to shoot half-court shots at the buzzer, and disdain for the opinion of “the streets.”

what's hard to understand about this? the "new metrics" that "prove" Shane Battier is worth more than you ever imagined, and is the key to playoff teams being playoff teams? The not at all new, problematic +/- rating. Morey and Lewis suggest there are other new methods and stats, but they don't want to reveal Morey's secrets. Then what in the flying holy fvck is the point of the 10,000 word profile I just read?

How is all of this beyond your comprehension?

 

and we can play the same exact "I'm an obtuse man waving my arms and calling it debate" game with someone like Devean George, or from Battier's own teams with Jason Williams (he made the Heat a champion!) and Lorenzen Wright.

Here's how people who aren't utter dunces interpret team success: contextually. The Rockets haven't become more successful with Battier, they've remained exactly as they were. The Memphis Grizzlies went in the tank when they lost Battier, Bobby Jackson, Lorenzen Wright, and only got 29 games from Eddie Jones. That's kind of how it works in the NBA: you gut your starting 5, you lose games. But somehow you're the kind of west point cadet who sees 1/3 of a demolished building, walks over and picks out just one brick, and says "without this important piece that building is a shell of itself." This sort of militant stupidity is shocking.

 

Has a newbie ever established himself as an asshole as quickly as this douchebag?

 

prove to me that you understand +/-. I actually do. If you understood +/- you'd know why Morey's statement is pretty much empty, and just another unprovable claim. You'd also know how problematic a stat it is, and how people who actually understand and love stats are constantly trying to tweak it so that it can become a better, less problematic stat. And you'd know it's not there yet. So your argument boils down to this: Battier (along with several other players) was once part of a 22 game winning streak when Yao and T-Mac only played 11 of those games together. Therefore, Shane Battier=reason for winning streak. Imagine this as a court case, and imagine that as part of your incredibly simplistic closing argument. Now imagine the jurors throwing feces at you and the judge banging himself in the head with his gavel.

 

translation: you're mad.

 

Not only is that not my argument, I've never even mentioned the 22 game streak during this thread. I'm aghast at your militant inability to read.

 

Chris Webber never ever ever won a goddamn thing in his whole career, except the three state championships his high school has been ordered (and refused) to forfeit.

 

Oh, I'm sorry if it offends, but I thought it would save me time if I combined you and the other dolt into one robo-dolt. That allows me to respond to all common stupidity in one fell swoop. That's just the way it is RD. Efficiency. I've found that my +/- for responding to run of the mill stupidity increases this way.

 

Nope he never won a thing. Never took Michigan to an unprecedented back-to-back title games his first two years in college. Wasn't the first option on a team that won over 50 games fr 5 straight seasons. Had no playoff success. Never won a rebounding title. Wasn't one of the best passing big men to play the game. Didn't average nearly 20-10 for his career, with 4.2 assist and 1.4 blocks to boot. Doesn't have 5 top 10 finishes in MVP voting. Didn't start 76 games and average 18 and 9 on a 50 win team as a rookie.

Winner? Shane "10 & 5" Battier. Because: well, he just has that "magical ability" Webber lacked.

 

I don't believe anybody is claiming that Battier is a better player overall than Webber. I think we can all agree that Webber was a more talented player who had superstar type talent that Battier lacked. That fact, however, in no way invalidates the point of Lewis' article about Battier being worth more than his scoring and rebounding stats indicate.

And interesting that college careers are now relevant when Webber comes up. So I guess it's fair game to point out that Battier won a national championship, went to two national championship games, was on three number one seed teams, and collected a mess of ACC titles. Webber and the Fab 5 had a couple great tourney runs (later forfeited for cheating) but they never even won a Big 10 Conference title.

 

Then what is the point of people posting about C. Webb's failures?