Is Melo in the top 5? Top 10? How high is he?
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 2:08 PM EDT
Email
Print
For several days as board has been debating the value of Carmelo Anthony as a basketball player. Is he a top five player? Top ten? Is he a gold, silver, or bronze level superstar? I'm going to approach this question strictly from statistics. It doesn't matter (for these purposes) that Melo has never gotten a ring. It doesn't matter how many times he's been an All-Star. It doesn't matter how famous he is and it doesn't matter that he was a legend as a college player. All that matters here is what he has been contributing that shows up in the box score. Now, it may seem that he should do well here, because he is always among the league leaders in points per game. But how do we balance his high scoring, low assist rate, fair rebounding, and so on? Glad you asked J
Over the past few years a number of statistics have sprung up that claim to measure the approximate value of a player with one number, much as on-base % plus slugging % serves as a shorthand for a baseball player’s value on offense. The basic idea behind composite statistics like Kevin Pelton’s WARP or Dave Berri’s Win Shares is to start with the team’s won-lost record. Then find the relationship between that and the team statistics that also appear next to a player's name: FG, FGA, assists, steals, rebounds, etc. It turns out that these statistics are a very good predictor of wins and losses. Then the statisticians make something of a leap: they assume that an individual player's statistics (at least on offense) represents their proportionate part of the team’s record. There is no way to prove that this is the case, but it does make sense. Maybe if we look at the top players in the league it will jibe with what we believe about who is the best. If it does, then we got what the statheads would call convergent validity-- multiple methods of measurement that come out with the same result
So let's look at who the best players in the league are according to WARP (Wins Above Replacement Player). This formula is designed to measure exactly what it says: how many wins will accrue to a team who uses this player as the replacement for someone who is good enough to have a starting job, but is no better than that. I've chosen to use the *total* WARP scores from the past two years, so as not to excessively penalize someone who missed significant time (Melo, Devin) and not to excessively reward someone who just happen to have their career year in 2009-10. It definitely hurts Kevin Durant, as he was much better last year than the year before, but so be it. Let's start with the top five:
1-- James 52.2 WARP
2-- Wade 44.4
3-- Howard 40.2
4-- Paul 36.8
5-- Duncan 31.4
Nothing surprising to anyone about the top three or the order in which they are ranked. CP3 may be a bit of a surprise to some considering that he was out most of last year, but WARP rewards things like a shooting percentage better than .500, along with 23 ppg, 11 assists, and 5.5 rebounds, along with being the league leader in steals. On to the next five:
6-- P. Gasol 28
7-- Rondo 28
8-- Bosh 26.8
9-- Durant 26.2
10-- Bryant 25.6
Deron Williams is #11. Pau may be a little higher than some of you expect, but it's not really surprising that the best team in the league would have the 6th and 10th best players. Rondo was something of a surprise to me, but like CP3, he shoots better than 50% and dishes out and hellacious number of assists. I'd say that's pretty much the top 10 players in the league contained in those 11 slots. Well, except those of you who believe that Melo should be up there.
So where’s Melo? Now let me admit that I may have missed someone along the way: my method was to take the 40 best players I could think of and do the arithmetic with their numbers.
Using that, in total wins over the past two years, Melo comes in 32nd with 15.4 WARP. That's not a typo. OK, but he missed some time last year. Maybe he moves up if we look at his record on a per minute basis. In fact, he does: to 31st. FWIW, on a per 48 minutes basis the top 10 are:
1-- James 0.416
2-- Paul 0.375
3-- Wade 0.365
4-- Howard 0.341
5-- Duncan 0.304
6-- Ginobli 0.264
7-- P. Gasol 0.249
8-- Camby 0.248
9-- Rondo 0.240
10-- Bosh 0.236
Yes, Marcus Camby. Let it rip on this one. WARP does put a high valuation on rebounds, because a rebound means an extra possession, which is usually expected to be worth a little over a point.
Finally, a little somethin’ somethin’ for those who just have to see a Net in the stat line:
Troy Murphy, 17.5 wins, .174 per 48
Brook Lopez, 15.9 wins, .164 per 48
Devin Harris, 15.7 wins, .160 per 48.
Now, individual statistics don't tell the whole story, they don't count who defended you or how well you set picks. But I suggest you ask yourselves: why do the stats do right by all the other superstars, but not Melo?
---------------------------------------------------------
Some technical junk at the end:
Some of you may prefer to use John Hollinger's PER. Please don't. There are three points to make about that:
1-- PER is the only commonly used composite statistic that is not based originally in the team's wins.
2-- I’ll let Dave Berri say it for me:
“Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points.
“Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA played does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots.”
Clearly, someone hitting 30% of his shots is hurting his team by shooting. PER doesn't see it that way.
3-- as a result, PER often wildly disagrees with WARP and Win Shares, while those two are generally in good agreement. Convergent validity.
WARP scores can be looked up at http://www.basketballprospectus.com/cardindex.php
(This post is dedicated to Andres B, to whom I was very harsh during a certain draft-related debate. Apologies)
UPDATE: for reasons known only to the gremlins in my brain, I forgot to include Brandon Roy in my analysis. Move Melo to 33rd overall, 32nd per 48 minutes.
202 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Lebron, Wade, Kobe, KD, Melo.
I dont need a calculator to tell me how good a player is.
by Tim823 on Aug 19, 2010 2:20 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Lol. Toast you know people aren’t gonna appreciate what you just laid out because it’s gonna go over their heads, but nonetheless — good analysis.
BTW WARP is a flawed statistic when it comes to basketball, but that’s a different discussion, so I’ll leave it alone.
Promoting a grenade-free America.
No, its because there are other variable that numbers cant account for. BIG variables. Like team makeup, coach, playbook, play style, team need. Kidd has a different role on the Mavs then he had on the Nets would you agree? His ‘calculations’ would then change, but the player is still the same. These numbers that are always thrown around are eye candy, nothing else.
They don't change much
Using Win Shares per 48 minutes, JKidd’s production has been between .140 and .163 for 9 of the last 11 years, including 2 in Phoenix. That’s consistent over 3 different offenses. The two outlier years were one high, one low, both in NJ.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Its as simple as Lebron being the top of nearly every list you can get, but flat out, I dont hold him as #1, or even close. So whats the point of this?
2 years ago Lebron being the man, but in my opinion Wade bested him in almost every way. You can cite all the statistics all day long, but it means nothing to me.
Point guards… who do you want? A high WARP for Rondo, but I take Derron any day.
Then Ill repeat: BIG variables. Like team makeup, coach, playbook, play style, team need.
all of these stats can only tell you so much
to me, who is busting whose tail on the court is what matters. Which is why Bryant, James, and Wade are the top three, and Wade might knock Lebron down the ladder since it appears LBJ will defer to Wade since he can’t handle the pressure of being “the man”.
I put Deron Williams over every PG in the league, IMO he’s the league’s 5th best player behind Bryant, James, Wade, and Howard.
"No one stands on the top of the world. Not you, not me, not even gods. But the unbearable vacancy of the throne in the sky is over. From now on...I will be sitting on it."
by MrDollarBills on Aug 19, 2010 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Wade to me just brings it. Smaller then Lebron too so he gets higher props. Ill never forget the game where he blocked Brook over and over and over. Here is this little 2 guard elevating…
Great way to assess talent. I can see where you are coming from.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Honestly I like Wade better for several reasons, but being able to block Brook a bunch of times isn’t one of them.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
And I assessed his talent based on that?
“I’ll never forget,” the block job he did was a microcosm. It symbolizes his effort and hustle on the court, a do it all nature. Doing more with less more then anyone else in the league.
And I assessed his talent based on that?
Well your level of critical analysis seems to be just about at that level:
Lebron, Wade, Kobe, KD, Melo.
I dont need a calculator to tell me how good a player is.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Well your level of critical analysis seems to be just about at that level
Thanks for the insults. I better make sure to spell everything correctly around you, huh?
And no, I dont need anything more then to simply watch games. The fact that some people out there need to see these stats to assess who they think is a good player when they could learn much more from watching a game is silly to me. Basketball is about so much more then statistical analysis.
Now, individual statistics don’t tell the whole story, they don’t count who defended you or how well you set picks
Statistics are PART of the story. They are not “a calculator” telling you how good a player is. A calculator tells you nothing, it calculates.
But if the meaning of your post is merely “I am the definitive judge of talent and any evidence that does not agree with what my eyes tell me since I watch so much basketball and have seen most of every player in the league’s minutes” sure…great point.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Basketball is also about so much more than what you see with your eyes
Why don’t we turn your argument against you then, how can you judge only with what you see when every coach is different, every team need is different, every play style is different? What if a player isn’t fit for that play style? What if he isn’t getting enough minutes? What if he’s not being utilized properly?
Yeah, except I made that point above. Those are things that statistics cant account for, which is why I just assume not pay attention to who John Hollinger thinks is best. You watch the game and you know about a coach, you can see the plays, how the player fits in, how he reacts to teammates, you see what works for them and what doesn’t. You can see if they are paired with a teammate who is taking away from the team and other individual players, you can see things like hockey assists, double screens, intensity, attitude… you can see players like Brook who box out but dont actually get a rebound, but it allows for the boxed out player(best rebounder on other team to not be in play for it). You can see a player calling for the ball in the end of a game, or shying away from it. You can see mistakes, missed coverage, silly fouls(effecting MPG), garbage time buckets… I could go on and on.
And you USE that information about Brook when comparing his rebounding STATISTICALLY to a player that you don’t know as well (unless you watch the entire league). You say, well there are these factors involved in Brook’s stats, are they also present in other players that also are comparable? Do other players have it worse? Or better.
The two go hand in hand.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
The two go hand in hand.
Disagree. I can understand what the stat “RPG” measure, but I can’t understand what WARP uses, ergo it is an irrelevant statistical measure. My logic is irrefutable.
Promoting a grenade-free America.
but I can’t understand what WARP uses, ergo it is an irrelevant statistical measure. My logic is irrefutable.
Are you joking?
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
There are so many crazy people on this site asserting so many crazy things my head spins. Sorry.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
And now you want a second apology. My goodness. Didn’t I give you the golden sombrero of pessimism to wear for a while? Doesn’t that count for something?
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I know, but it was a NICE five minutes you have to admit.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Tim, I’m disappointed in you. You can I usually agree, but you’re showing your ignorance here.
It’s not black and white. Just because you use statistical measures such as WARP and PER doesn’t mean that you are ignoring play on the court, it means that you are using said statistics to help you evaluate players. Almost like a second eye.
Don’t be stubborn.
Promoting a grenade-free America.
Its less of ignoring on the court, and more about the fact that this one particular statistic puts Melow in the 30-40’s according to poster, but you and i, and everyone else… SHOULD… know that when it comes down to it, that he is much more valuable in the real world, which is why I questioned the validity of this stat in the first place.
I asked this in the post, and no one has answered: why are the statistics so unfair to Melo, but not to any other star players? Does he bribe the scorekeepers to credit his rebounds to someone else? Intentionally miss shots when the game isn’t close? Really, why is he well behind Gerald Wallace or Steve Nash or JKidd or Nene or DLee in overall production? Kobe beats them. Gasol beats them. Durant, who Melo is supposed to be so similar to, beats them. Why are the formulae after Melo, and only Melo?
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions
The answer to this is partly, I believe, due to Melo’s lack of focus. He falls out of elite player status perhaps much more than he should. He seems to grow bored and cost a lot of the time, but when he focuses is a very very impactful player. Noe of the the guys you mention above are that sort, they have a certain maturity of play.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
not cost, coast
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Eh, he costs and he coasts. And maturity of play is what you want! Look at the Spurs, look at the Celtics, look at the Lakers, look at the Pistons! These guys don’t have a bit of “hey, watch this move” about them. It’s all: “I am going to beat you any way I can.” Billups is like this, and his playoff performance is always good. Carmelo, apparently, can’t even get up for that.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions
agree
But when Melo puts the pedal to the metal he is VERY good. This is what entices people about him, that there is something there to TAP. There are a lot of other guys that simply don’t have another floor to go to…
…but I’m telling this to a guy who thinks that the very inconsistent Josh Smith is a great player.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Well I think to answer that a big part of it would be what I have been saying, there are other factors at hand. It may be an anomaly. Heck you may be right too.
One thing I would like to see, if this is your field, is for you to come up with a statistic for the people like myself who dont like statistics, instead of just catering to the stat guys. We could come up with something.
One thing I would like to see, if this is your field, is for you to come up with a statistic for the people like myself who dont like statistics, instead of just catering to the stat guys. We could come up with something.
There is such a statistic. Its called “rings”.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
But you haven’t been saying anything other than “it’s more complicated than that.” If you can think of a good reason for Melo to be a low-percentage player, I would genuinely like to hear it. But if it’s his team situation, well, it would seem to be ideal: outstanding PG, team that’s been together for a long time, good big men, future Hall of Fame coach who specializes in ISO sets, no one else needing the ball that much. Conditions are ideal as far as I can see, and he’s still not filling up the sheet except under “points.”
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Well given our team set up, I would take Melo at the 3 over Lebron. I feel like any stat be dammed, Lebron is a ball in hand guy, and dominates everything. When he is out, the whole game changes. With Melo in our lineup at the 3 he is a scorer, who chips in with some boards, and can dish a little bit down low. Granted this is hoping he is a FA and we pick him up for nothing. I think Harris Melo Lopez just fits perfectly.
don’t take this the wrong way, but that’s completely crazy. If there is one thing at which Melo is LeBron’s equal, it is dominating the ball. His Usage % (percent of your team’s possessions that end with you taking a shot or losing the ball) is basically equal to LeBron’s at the very top of the league. Lebron is a vastly superior rebounder and assist man to Lebron
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions
“Lebron is a vastly superior rebounder and assist man to” MELO
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, nice for Devin, but it’ll cost us about 18 victories every year to accommodate him.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Well Devin can and should be used as an asset. You should appreciate him, he got 7 assists a game with the worst shooters in the league.
Oh, I appreciate him, but not to the point of passing over the best player in the game. Who we’re, uh, never getting. What was this about again?
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Despite his assist numbers, he does the wrong things at the wrong time… like slow the game to a half court set instead of use his running team to his advantage.
Granted the argument could be made that the coach should have fixed that and other complaints… so we can end it there… but in a situation where we take coaches out of it, I would take Melo.
come on man. you would take melo over lebron? for our team, for any team, to build a team with one player, to surround a team with the perfect guys made just for melo, lebron would still be the better choice. better defender, rebounder, passer, teammate, scorer. come on
by SadNetsFan on Aug 20, 2010 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah. NBA evaluators are famous for ignoring statistical analysis or input. Great point.
But I didn’t realize that you were one of those in charge of “running things” in the NBA. Maybe everyone around here knows who you are. Are you Isiah?
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
The smart teams (like the team that traded for Battier and the team that traded for Billups) hire professional statisticians.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
The Boston Celtics utilize a "brain doctor"
http://celticsgreen.blogspot.com/2007/06/just-who-is-brain-doctor-anyway.html
Niednagel observes the players and assigns each player to one of 16 different brain types. According to Niednagel, some brain types are more prone to success in the NBA than others. Ainge uses brain-typing as a tool to narrow down the pool of prospects.
NBA teams use EVERYTHING to try and understand players.
Please don’t cite facts or for that matter “reality”.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh jeez
Actually this Niednagel sounds like a quack. He uses personality psychology questionnaires to determine something about the brain? OH NO HE DI’N’T.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
It doesn’t matter, the point is that every available bit of information is valued, even those at the periphery.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh and some people are not actually trying to make intangibles tangible
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1197
Uhhuh, you heard it right, scoring, giving a statistic, a value to INTANGIBLES
Smart’s valuation of intangible relative to tangible skills is, if not necessarily a majority opinion, widely accepted in the coaching and scouting community.
it all comes down to marshmallows. no, really: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
And you USE that information about Brook when comparing his rebounding STATISTICALLY to a player that you don’t know as well (unless you watch the entire league).
How? if you dont know the other player well you wont know if they are comparable unless you watch footage anyway, to see if they actually do do a lot of the boxing a man completely out of the paint stuff. You have to watch, thats what I am saying. You dont need to have the stat…
Its pretty easy. Knowing for instance that boxing out might lead to other players getting rebounds for Brook can give you to LOOK (statistically) at the rebounding performance of lineups that another player plays in.
Come on now, you are telling me that you “watch footage”????
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
How does that answer it? How can you differentiate between the times that Brook will stay to box out, and the times when Brook takes off running on the fast break by looking at other players rebounds?
Nevermind.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Statistics are a tool, they do not tell the whole picture
Much like what you see with your eyes does not always tell the whole picture as well.
You use the two of them together, backing up what you see with your eyes with what you can compute and measure. In unison, you can come to good understandings. Individually, however, you can come up with a lot of false impressions
So why do any numbers matter then?
Why do we keep points per game if every team and every style is different and every coach and every need is different?
There ARE ways to account for different variables, there ARE ways to adjust for them and hold it equal for all players involved.
Understand first what a statistic calculates and how it calculates it so that you can say what it’s leaving out or lacking, instead of generalizing that there’s no way numbers can capture those variables
Otherwise, you just look like the 60 year old guy going, “back in my day, we didn’t have no fancy shmancy numbers or interwebs, why I saw Bob Cousy and I didn’t need no darn calculator to tell me he was good at dribbling the ball”
What is your point?
That Battier sucks because he’s not a scorer?
Or that he’s great but stats don’t detect it?
Neither of those is the case, BTW.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
OK, tell us about Shane Battier. What’’s he like?
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I can’t wait for this.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
On a one year deal, Camby. How much did you watch Camby this last year?
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
How do you know that?
Here you go again, generalizing statistics when YOU DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND THEM.
Make your criticisms after you understand them, not before.
I assume this is what certain people felt during the Dark Ages.
“It’s witchcraft, I say! Witchcraft!”
by muwu on Aug 19, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, I don’t float as well as a duck, so I’m OK.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions
"So whats the point of this?"
Absolutely nothing, to you. I’m trying to make a fairly simple point: that stats, properly used, can help us understand why some teams are better then others in a systematic way. Every business uses statistics to understand what’s going on. Successful sports teams (the Red Sox, Rockets, and Nuggets come to mind) use these types of stats. If you don’t want to know, you don’t have to know.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
As far as I'm concerned
as long as he’s playing for someone else, he’s not a top-10 player. And is barely a top-20 player. The day he signs with the Nets, I elevate him to top-3 with Kobe and LeBron. Easy enough.
this is funny
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Doesthishurt may be the only sane one here.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
You left out crunch time
In my opinion that’s the TRUE measure of how good a player is… how did they play when it matters most to their team.
Melo is 4th in the league:
That's not 4th best
That’s 4th in total points. Which is about where he is just based on his non-clutch scoring output. He also shot .427 from the field and .143 from the 3. He’s not clutch, he’s not a unclutchr, he’s just the guy on the Nuggets who takes >30% of the shots at any given time.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
beautifully said.
he’s just the guy on the Nuggets who takes >30% of the shots at any given time.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Carmelo is a top 10 player, I put him in the 7-10 range. Top 5 is really pushing it.
But he is an elite level player and a scoring machine.
"No one stands on the top of the world. Not you, not me, not even gods. But the unbearable vacancy of the throne in the sky is over. From now on...I will be sitting on it."
Can you give us your top 15 so you we can see the 5-8 players you would put behind him?
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
why?
Who do you think is better than he is?
I can write a list, but IMO once you get past the top 5, they’re all interchangable.
"No one stands on the top of the world. Not you, not me, not even gods. But the unbearable vacancy of the throne in the sky is over. From now on...I will be sitting on it."
by MrDollarBills on Aug 19, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I answered that further down under Claud’s post. But if they are all interchangable after 5, then he really is a top 15 player, not a top 10, and a 7-15 range player, if you don’t feel like specifying who you think he is better than.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
(This post is dedicated to Andres B, to whom I was very harsh during a certain draft-related debate. Apologies)
I can’t tell if you are joking (don’t know the history). But Twill’s WARP is, well…
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
Not joking
I only thought of it because he’s really been carrying the ball on this Melo silliness. God, where is Gina???? She’d be diving in and kicking ass.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Um, meaning no disrespect to you or muwu or i says or….
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Not at all. I just found it humorous that you dedicated a post to a stat to Andres B that puts Andres B’s favorite player below that of a replacement player.
I do agree that Andres B has been carrying the water on Melo Sanity.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, hadn’t thought about TWill. Well, if you extrapolate from his last month-and-a-half he’d probably look pretty good.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I know, and if you take that 12 minute quarter in the 73rd game and extrapolate it out to a 12 year career is the greatest player whoever lived. I like that game.
(But maybe do that for him since you are a little in Andres B debt. I’m sure Net fans all around would like to see a fat TW WARP.)
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions
C’mon. You know that he took a big step forward in understanding how to play the pro game. Maybe not up to that 20 game level, but then again maybe so.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
It really doesn’t do to discuss TW’s late season greatness with Net fans on this site. Its a bit like discussing Jesus’s divinity with born-agains. It digresses into irrationality very, very fast.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey I lived through the CDR Affair and the Favors-Cousins feud.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Top 10 for sure.
Top 5….eh…. it depends on the year i guess.
" I'm really excited to take the worst team in the league and turn it to be the best in the league." --Mikhail Prokhorov.
Players I put ahead of Melo
Kobe
Wade
Durant
Lebron
Dirk
Duncan(Getting older but still a 20/10 player)
Howard
Nash
CP3
Deron Williams
" I'm really excited to take the worst team in the league and turn it to be the best in the league." --Mikhail Prokhorov.
To this I think I would add Roy who can effect both ends of the court, and possibly Gasol (depending on the make up of the team I was adding the player to).
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
OH CRAP
I totally forgot to include Roy in my spreadsheet!!! Melo moves to 33rd best.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Its weird how he is forgotten sometimes. I forget him too.
Honestly though, given the numbers, just where do you put Melo in terms of the league (using your eyes)?
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
As a player to acquire or if everyone played for free? Because I would not trade anything for a high-volume low-percentage shooter. There’s 29 other teams in the league and half of them have GMs who are willing to overpay for that kind of player, and 2 or 3 who would massively overpay. Don’t get into a bidding war with anyone like that. But if we’re just choosing up sides, I’d rate him about tied for 4th at SF with Granger. LeBron is obviously waaaay out in front, then Durant, then Gerald Wallace. But SF is currently the shallowest position in the NBA. Oddly, I think Melo would be a good fit on the Nets, now that they have some outside shooters and they’ve improved their rebounding.
And, of course, he’s younger than a lot of the better players. But there are younger players who don’t outperform him yet but will. Rough figuring: somewhere from 20 to 25 over the next 5 years.
And you?
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
So you are saying that there are 20 to 25 players you would take over Melo?
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Starting a team from scratch? Yes.
Not exactly in order: LBJ, Wade, Howard, Paul, Duncan (yes, still), Kobe, DWilliams, Rondo, Gasol, Brook, Bogut, Roy, Wallace, Josh Smith, Tyreke, JWall, Horford, Bosh, Love, Rubio (if he counts), Bynum (if he recovers), Oden (ditto). So that’s 19 plus 3 with question marks.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, that’s a shame. But consider this: the Nuggets have an excellent team. Billups is a star. Nene is the most efficient scorer in the NBA, and is getting squat from Carmelo dishing. They’ve got Andersen and what’s left of KMart and now they’ve got Lawson. Outside of SF they are at least as good as the Thunder, but Durant is so massively better than Melo that it doesn’t matter. Look at the Bobcats. Their second best player is/was Felton, but they won 44 games. Gerald Wallace is a helluva player, that’s why. But Gerald Wallace will never be considered a better player than Melo by the fans: he doesn’t contend for the scoring title, he wasn’t a college star, he doesn’t get the halo effect of the most famous draft ever, no one cares about defense, and he plays in Charlotte. But he would put more games in the W column than Melo would, for any team.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
So let me get this straight. You would take:
Brook Lopez, Andrew Bogut, Gerald Wallace, Josh Smith, Al Horford, Tyreke Evans, Chris Bosh, Kevin Love, Ricky Rubio, Andrew Bynum and Greg Oden before you take Melo.
Yeah, I’m done.
Promoting a grenade-free America.
Well, I see that I must be wrong. Explain it to me again, though, so I can be sure I understand your reasoning. I was not really serious about Rubio, FWIW.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Of that list there are SERIOUS question marks. You are counting potential as actual against actual which is actual.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m trying to be fair— I’m assuming the older players will decline, otherwise Kidd and Nash and Billups and Nowitzki and Ginobli would all be on it. The youngsters are a calculated gamble, just like any transaction. Rubio was maybe a bridge too far. You may disagree with Tyreke and Wall, but if I said DRose no one would have batted an eye. I happen to like them better than Rose. Brook, Horford, and Love are already better than Melo, besides being younger, and Oden I’ve stipulated he must be healthy. But the times he’s played he has been incredible.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Oden, even when healthy, did not show the game that was anticipated of him. It is pretty unclear if Oden would even be more than a Good player even if his injuries stop happening. And I’m a pretty good fan of Bynum but there are big question marks there as well. When weighing potential you have to factor in missing. I’m big on Wall, he is no lock. Evans is explosive, but so is Melo, in fact Melo is surely a more dominate player.
As for Love, stat guys love Love. I watched him at UCLA and some in the pros, but I don’t find him a cornerstone player. He will only get slower as he ages.
Rose I like, he at least has showed that he CAN and WILL progress in his game.
And Brook, while I would trade Brook for CP3, I don’t think I would for Melo. But that is a good question.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Josh Smith????
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
OK, maybe not him. I’ve kind of been waiting for him to blow up, and he did it last year. But he’s not really proven.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions
He has the same “blow up” disease that Melo has, except Melo actually blows up in a lot of games and a lot of the time.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but Smith doesn’t have to blow up on the offensive end to be a game-changer. He is a defensive monster. Fun fact from Hollinger: “he is the tallest player in the league’s top 10 in steals and the shortest in the top 10 in blocks”
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions
wow, he sounds incredible!
The guy is a losing player who got along for a very long time on sheer athleticism, and just now is starting to find a game. He is a highlight reel guy which means that fans of ESPN love him. He has terrible BBIQ and just as bad game feel. He certainly is better than he was, but geez, he is not a great player by a long stretch. And neither is Horford either (are you an Atlanta fan?) There is a big difference between Good and Great.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, it’s a difference Melo hasn’t ventured across, either.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. But if you put Smith on Denver these last years they wouldn’t have been as good.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but we’re talking about the future.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions
There a year and 7 months separating Smith and Anthony. Anthony’s game is miles ahead of Smiths already.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Josh Smith's jump shot e-percentage was .28.5
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Fine
Josh Smith is cut. That leaves me with 14 guys who I would clearly want before Melo, and another 5 who are in the mix. Let’s say he is no better than 15th, and more like 17th or 18th. Happy now?
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Its fair enough. I guess the only thing that changes things is the kind of pressure he puts on a defense when you have to have points. Its not really quantifiable, and its a rare skill.
But its not something that is valuable to every team in every way. Its something that sets him apart from a lot of the guys on your list.
I’d say were are at least in range of being in agreement.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but you know what else you need at those times? Defensive stops and (especially) takeaways. And I don’t think there’s any evidence that Carmelo is one of those guys who comes through in the clutch. Over the last three years, the Kings of Klutch have been LeBron (by a mile), Ginobli, Nash, Kidd, Howard, Paul, and Caron Butler. http://dberri.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/more-on-the-kobe-bryant-clutch-story-at-slate-com/
And only Ginobli is a classic “break down the defense and take the shot” guy.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions
You can’t use statistics in just that way, the sample is just too small. For instance Kobe lead the league in game ending misses a few years back, and perhaps even this year, but he is THE “closer” of the game. There are several factors involved here. The Closer title is not just a myth, it is an operative fact.
Come on now. Noah is a better closer than Kobe? Its a joke.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, I don’t have the whole league, I just have what’s there, if that’s what you mean by a small sample.
And while everyone knows Kobe is the “Closer,” it doesn’t make it true. Yes, he always calls for the last shot. And when he makes it, it’s on SportsCenter and everyone is reassured that he is the Closer. But it doesn’t mean he’s better at it than, say, Gilbert Arenas. It certainly doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily the best strategy for the team. Kobe is the Closer, Kobe is might be the best player ever, Melo is a superstar. These are actually all empirical questions. That was the whole point of my original post.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions
The refs know he is the closer too. Just like they knew that Jordan was.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions
This is where you lose me with stats for Lebron. The stats dont show when Lebron throws airballs or bricks within the last 2 min of a game, it just shows a make or miss, right?
The only major clutch moments I have seen out of James have been free throws or game-winning or game-tying layups.
I know he had that money shot to beat the Magic last year, but then what? The No. 1 team in the league still ended up losing the series.
Being clutch isn’t about hitting one game-winner a season or one or two huge shots in a series.
It’s about playing on the level of Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan (reverse order, of course). Even Dwayne Wade has shown more clutch ability than James.
The guy is immensely talented, and the best athlete and talent in the world.
But he’s not a true gamer. It’s almost like he’s just a robot who was made perfectly to play the game, but they forgot to insert a soul and humanize the guy.
Everything about his just seems so planned out and routine, from his horrible photos with his team in 2008-09, to his throwing chalk in the air, to his unoriginal break-away dunks.
He’s an amazing player. But he’s not clutch.
He’s obviously had incredible playoff performances. But he hasn’t exuded the insatiable, borderline psychotic desire to win at all costs of a Jordan, Kobe, or even a Durant.
He’s more Shaq than Kobe. Good enough to win on talent alone, but he doesn’t dream in 94×50 ft in 48-minute bursts.
There are a great many out there debating the “clutch gene,” and I have always sided with them. Throwing stats out the window on this one, and the games where he actually did hit game winners, like the Pistons, and the Magic games… he just doesn’t show me that he can win games. Did you watch the Blue and White scrimmage from the Redeem team? Game was tied, or close to it, cant recall, and it basically came down to a clutch off between Lebron and Kobe. Needless to say, Lebron bricked it, and Kobe sank it.
Do you remember all the times Kobe has missed game winners too?
Do you remember all the times Wade has missed game winners?
“The only major clutch moments I have seen out of James have been free throws or game-winning or game-tying layups.”
I want to know who wrote that, because he’s going on the Idiot List. If you’ve got a guy who can get by a double-team and make a layup or get fouled, and do it all the time including at the end of games, that’s the guy you want. The jump shooter is much less likely to get you the win, it’s just prettier when he does.
by calling all toasters on Aug 20, 2010 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
He crumbles under pressure. More so then the others mentioned. We are all witness though right, the anointed one since before ever stepping on the damn court.
It's confusing to me why you're having discussion on James' clutch
Yet you omit the games where he hit game winners. Is it just me, or does that make no sense?
I mean, was he crumbling under pressure when he was scoring Cleveland’s final 25 points and 29 of their last 30 in double overtime against the Pistons in the Eastern Conference Finals? When he hit the game winning layup against Washington? The game winning shot against the Magic?
From 2003-2008, regular season and playoffs, LeBron hit 17 game winners, the most of anyone in the NBA. Game winning shots here defined as “24 seconds or less left in the game, team with the ball is either tied or down by 1 to 2 points.”
Coming in 2nd was Vince Carter with 16
3rd Ray Allen 15
4th Kobe Bryant 14
5th Carmelo Anthony, Allen Iverson 13
Absolutely! He is the best clutch player in the game. But people don’t like him, so they project things onto him that make him look like he has bad “intangibles”: not clutch, doesn’t pass the ball, etc. It’s just not true.
by calling all toasters on Aug 20, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
And, of course, the playoffs...
James’s WS/48 in the playoffs is slightly higher in the postseason than the regular season; Melo’s is much lower than his regular season rate. And, of course, James is starting from a much, much higher point.
by calling all toasters on Aug 20, 2010 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I called him 12 or 13.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve agreed with you mostly but it’s hard to agree with taking Tyreke, JWall, Love, Rubio, Bynu, or Oden in front of Melo.
Those are definitely the most marginal guys, but:
Tyreke’s numbers are better than Melo’s for their rookie years. And he’s anything but one-dimensional.
Bynum, if he recovers, basically matches Brook for age vs. production.
Oden shoots 58% from the field and is one of the top rebounders in the game. Health problems are the only sticking point; without them he’s a star.
Love is the 3rd best rebounder in the game, has a better assist /turnover ratio than Melo, His shooting % needs to improve, but he’s only 21, and lots of players do improve there. If he shoots 50% he’ll be way more valuable than Melo.
Rubio and Wall are where I’m taking a flyer on their potential— but they definitely have the advantage of not letting the team become a “first player to touch the ball shoots” team, which is where Melo really, really hurts you.
by calling all toasters on Aug 20, 2010 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Oden, absolutely. Bynum… for me it’s a coin toss, but maybe that’s because I’m a Nets fan.
by calling all toasters on Aug 20, 2010 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
OK now I agree with almost everything except Love. I don’t think he is athletic enough to be a good defender.
Maybe not. He (like most great rebounders) is more of a “court sense” guy than an athletic guy. He’d be great in a zone, but who plays a zone?
by calling all toasters on Aug 20, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions
For me Melo is a lot more than a high volume shooter. He reminds me of other great scorers in the past, Adrian Dantley, Marc Aquirre, guys who can fill it up from the post on out. These are rare guys, especially if they can get to the FT line. But they are not guys that make their teammates better, and they are not guys who lead teams to championships. They are dynamite if they are the second (or even more preferably third) best players on their team, ON a championship team.
So in one sense he is a top 15 player to me, maybe at 13, just in overall talent, and the effect he has on the game. But I also am of the school that a certain kind of superstar is needed for a Championship team, and that your whole team’s strategy should be getting that kind of player – and Anthony is not that kinda guy. In fact, when the Knicks get him they will be adding him to another superstar who is not that kinda guy, which means they are locking themselves out of a championship type team.
So, given his salary I’m not even sure I would want him on the team if he locked up too much flexibility for future moves.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I see what you’re saying, but I’m going to go another way. I think these guys do best when they are on a crappy team, when everyone else is fine with them taking the shot because they have no game, and when the only reason to watch is to find out whether ‘our star’ put up 40 points. Defense and teamwork get you over the top in the playoffs, and these guys don’t have much of either. And think of what would happen if they’re told to hold it to 12 shots a night. Oy. Although I do think you’re dissing Dantley— he was much better than Melo. Bernard King, OTOH, might be the exact same player.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I think these guys do best when they are on a crappy team, when everyone else is fine with them taking the shot because they have no game, and when the only reason to watch is to find out whether ‘our star’ put up 40 points.
How do you match this with TW’s so-called “breakout” on the worst team of the league last year, for a short amount of time, which supposedly you feel is a sign of a very good ball player.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
TWIll got a lot of assists (dishing to crappy shooters) and a lot of rebounds (on a team with no system).
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Wait, you are telling me he got rebounds on a team of crappy shooters???!!! That’s incredible.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Um, you know most rebounds are defensive, right?
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure. He’s a great rebounder on a terrible team. Incredible. Its amazing that his WARP was a minus.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions
What the hell is wrong with you? Why are you picking a fight over TWill?
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nevermind.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, and the Nets actually started winning some at the end.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah. Denver didn’t ever really win much with Melo.
Your critical logic leaves you when talking about the Nets.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Jesus, you’re acting like I think TWill is the next superstar. All I said was that he clearly advanced at the end of the season and that I felt it was due to having the kind of breakthrough that a lot of young players have, that he started to ‘get it.’ His shooting % improved, his rebound, steal, and assist rates all improved, his scoring rate improved. And at the same time, the Nets improved. Now that could be attributed to a lot of factors, but none come to mind other than TWill turning into a productive player.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sure. But he did it on the worst team in the league.
Some people see this as a sign of being a winning player. To me it is the opposite.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Although I do think you’re dissing Dantley— he was much better than Melo.
I’m not dissing AD, I’m complimenting CA. Both are very good players, but AD was not a championship talent end of story. He was very, very good, and some what under appreciated. King is an interesting comparison.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but Dantley was a lifetime .540 shooter, Melo’s at .459. That’s a gigantic difference.
by calling all toasters on Aug 19, 2010 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
the guy made 2nd team all NBA like twice in his entire extremely long career (if I remember).
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
AD lived in the post where he was pretty much unstoppable. Melo lives outside at least right now.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 19, 2010 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Melo
A Dynasty needs a player that can grab the ball and score.
Melo is that kind of scorer.
Dont forget Melo is a champion!
As a rook he led a very young Syracuse team to a NCAA Championship.
There was a game vs Lebron last year where Melo had the ball unnder 30 seconds Melo kills Lebron with a 18footer.
It would be great if the Nets can get Melo without giving up Favors, TWill,Lopez, or Devin.
The Nets could give up picks, expiring contracts, and young players. but the trade has to wait until December
What if… KiKi gets re hired in Denver? Does he help the Nets land Melo after Prohky told KikI he wasnt coming back on the radio?
MBA MATERIAL!
Pretty cool stuff. Thanks for the interesting reading. I just love this place!
Paul from Delray Beach
melo could
lift up the spirit of the team… but dont trade him for a bunch of future stars.. denver would love that..
Thanks Calling All Toasters. Great article. Melo is extremely overrated. While numbers don’t tell the whole story, I actually watch a ton of Nuggets games because I loved Melo at Syracuse. He COULD be one of the biggest offensive threats in the game, instead he is just an extremely inefficient scorer with vast amounts of talent and great physical tools.
yup
he is taking away chances from the rest of that exquisitely constructed roster with its offensive powerhouses like KMart, Nene, Anderson, nutjob criminal J.R. Smith.
Nene shoots 60% from the field, 15% better than Melo. Of course, that’s why Melo doesn’t pass it to him— it would help the team but lower his ppg. Billups shoots 39% from the 3 and 89% from the line. Lawson is an excellent all-around offensive player.
by calling all toasters on Aug 20, 2010 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
How was that even a response to what I said? I said he is extremely inefficient and could be one of the biggest threats in the game.
Just because J.R Smith is a criminal and a ‘nut job’ does not mean that Melo doesn’t take on 3 defenders most of the time instead of passing to him for an open J. And just because the Nuggets roster isn’t “exquisitely constructed” (they did reach the WCF 2 years ago…) doesn’t mean Melo doesn’t miss open passing opportunities ALL the time to KMart, Nene, or Anderson.
Besides that, Melo takes fadeaways and jump shots more than should, and drives a ton less. He could post up virtually every time (people have the same complaint about LeBron, but he is highly efficient, and Baron Davis, but he is on the Clippers so who cares). Taking a shot at the rest of the roster (that did get to the WCF…) and sarcastically making fun of them doesn’t take away from the point that Melo is an inefficient scorer.
Again, if you can, read Tom Haberstroh’s “Carmelo is not an elite player” on ESPN insider.
Dave Berri is not God
he has no experience in an NBA front office.
To suggest that ANthony is the 32nd best player in the NBA is pure bull.
Actually, this is from Pelton’s formula, although Berri’s comes out pretty much the same. And NBA front offices hire guys who do this analysis, like in Denver, who relied on Dean Oliver’s analysis to trade Iverson for Billups. (They trade FOR Iverson came before Oliver was hired) Denver got better, Detroit got worse— the exact opposite of what the Iverson fanboys predicted. And they used the exact same arguments as the Melo maniacs are using now: “He’s a superstar!” “Have you ever seen him play?” etc.
This is why Denver is definitely trading Melo rather than trying to hang on— they know they’re likely to get better from whatever the eventual trade is.
by calling all toasters on Aug 20, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Iverson is was a quintessential “have you seen him play” guy. At the top of their game these kinds transcend the game (Iverson almost stole a championship out of nowhere), but most of the time when not in their peak they are a drag on the team. The one difference or thing to note is that Melo has not reached the prime of his career, so there are probably a few “have you seen him play” transcedence ahead of him. But certainly not something to hook your horse and salary cap to.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 20, 2010 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I understand why people are drawn to these guys. When you’re watching a game, where are you looking? Most people look at the guy with the ball and the guy covering him. And we can all identify with one-on-one games. So anyone who shakes defenders a lot seems like the best player; he’s certainly the guy the kids want to imitate. Who do you think buys all these Kobe and Melo and AI (and Nate!) jerseys?
And, yeah, Melo may have one big whoppin’ season in him, like Iverson in 2001. But then again, he may not.
by calling all toasters on Aug 20, 2010 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
But you are missing, and statistics are missing, the way in which this psychological effect (the one you understand) AFFECTS the game itself. It effects the players (both the defenders who feel helpless, and the teammates who are buoyed). And it can have a tremendous effect on a game, on a series, on a season. This is the ONE thing you are missing.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 20, 2010 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
And it psychologically affects the refs.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 20, 2010 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Here is an anecdotal example of what I mean, to the extreme.
Kobe is “the closer”, the most feared closer in basketball (despite the fact that by statistical analysis he is not). It is a reputation he has earned in any number ways, much of this the theater of his late game performances. Like it or not, rational or not, he puts fear into his opponents when he has the ball at the end of the game, or in very important games. He just might “go off”. He puts tremendous pressure on his opponents, much of this cannot be statistically measured other than very loosely in wins and losses. His team wins because he has sculpted out “greatness”. It has a very real effect, and its part of the reason why you want him on your team. There is room for the “heroic” in basketball.
Now take the Finals. Artest who was the MAN on the team (I mean this in terms of toughness), who for a while had locked down the one great scorer the Celtics had, was being frozen out of the offense. He had lost all confidence and mid-series his defense was even suffering, in fact part of it was because Kobe was a ball hog and wouldn’t even pass Artest the ball. It looked like Kobe was ruining the chemistry. In game 7 Kobe was jack knifing and double pumping into miss after miss. He was “choking” he wanted it so much. But what happened? Partly due to Jackson’s expert manipulation of Artest, when Kobe finally passed Artest the ball at the three, Artest said to himself “Kobe passed me the ball! Kobe passed me the ball!” and swished probably the game and Finals deciding shot. This shot came out of the “myth” of Kobe’s greatness. It even came out of the failure of that myth. But Artest was raised up at the last moment by Kobe, even if by accident.
This is exactly the kind of thing that dominance (either real statistical or unreal imaginary) does. Basketball is a psychological game of great intensity, especially in the playoffs, and these psychological differences in very important games actually become much more important than statistical ones, because players are playing in a very different psychological environment. Pressure changes players. The greatness of a player’s dominance can confer greatness by proxy to other players on the team, just as the right moment.
Artest saved Kobe, he saved the Lakers, but it probably would not have happened without the myth of Kobe as the “closer”.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 20, 2010 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s a great post. I think you have it almost exactly right about Kobe, and really about any great leader (Kobe kind of reminds me of Gen. Patton, at least the one in the movie). But Kobe is not entirely about the moves— he, like MJ, is the most intense, demanding player of his time. Sometimes the coach can play that role (Bobby Knight, for instance). And the guy with the moves, while automatically getting street cred, doesn’t necessarily step up to take that role (Bernard King and a cast of thousands). And sometimes it’s the guy who is the role model who leads (Duncan, Willis Reed). So it creates the opportunity to be like Kobe, I guess, but few take it.
And anyway, sometimes that intensity breaks the team apart , like with Kobe and Shaq.
by calling all toasters on Aug 20, 2010 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Agree.
But what players like Iverson (and perhaps Melo) can do is with their unstoppable dominance on offense is just change the whole dynamic. The 76ers had no business being in the Finals in 2001 with that line up, and honestly if they had pulled out the game one victory they might have pushed the Lakers to 7 games. And that team was ALL Iverson. But these kind of guys only have this capacity for a few years (Iverson actually lasted longer than expected). Melo has something in this, you can feel it in the way that other players respect him and his game. He frankly freaks defenders out, they know that when he is hitting there is nothing that can be done. I think that that rare dominance is what is missing in a statistical analysis of Melo, he isn’t even all grow’d up yet.
I perfectly agree with you though that he still is overrated, and that he isn’t a top tier leader, but for a team that just cannot get their hands on Gold level superstar you can see how he is tempting.
And yes, Kobe can tear a team apart. This is where Jackson earns his greatest ever title. He is expert at measuring just how much Kobe is too much Kobe, just at the right time.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
“for a team that just cannot get their hands on Gold level superstar you can see how he is tempting”
Exactly— that’s why I wrote the post. He is tempting.
by calling all toasters on Aug 21, 2010 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions
True. And it was really good analysis (though the conclusion a bit skewed). Its like pointing out that Kobe isn’t really that great in end of game situations, statistically. It doesn’t mean he isn’t great in end of game situations in other ways.
For teams that don’t have Gold level superstars, and really have no foreseeable ways of getting one (their draft position is falling, the salary cap shrinking), longer shot talent like Melo might, and I say might be the only way forward.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
Melo is in the Top 5 but
this thread is in the bottom 5.
Seriously, the hours alone spent trying to selectively choose stats that fit some kind of spiteful attitude towards Carmelo.
Maybe you are a Kansas fan?
“Seriously, the hours alone spent trying to selectively choose stats that fit some kind of spiteful attitude towards Carmelo.”
Wow. Just wow. You don’t understand a single thing I wrote, do you? This is a single statistic that measures fairly accurately the player’s overall contribution to wins. All the other stats that are available to us are used to calculate it.
Unlike ppg, or whatever meaningless individual stat you Melo fanboys choose to make him look like a superstar.
by calling all toasters on Aug 21, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Melo fanboy?
Can easily just call you a Melo hateboy.
You like the stats that fit your argument and dislike the ones that don’t. This guy is without question one of the most elite players in the NBA. Where your hatred of his game comes from is baffling.
“You like the stats that fit your argument and dislike the ones that don’t.”
I like the stats that help me evaluate how good a player is and dislike the ones that don’t. I make the argument that Melo isn’t elite because… he isn’t. I really don’t care one way or another about Melo personally. I was happy when the Nets got Damion James (and I was about the only one on this board who was), in part because the stats clearly said he was undervalued. I was unhappy when they got Petro, in part because the stats clearly said Boone is much better.
I have no idea why you love Melo so much, but most people overrate him because they overrate:
1) Guys who were successful in the college game
2) High scorers
3) Players associated with successful groups (2003 draft class, Dream Team)
None of those things will help put more games in the W column for the Nets. Only productivity as a pro does. And his is very good, but not $22 mil per year good.
by calling all toasters on Aug 21, 2010 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Melo is an elite player, end of discussion. Ask any NBA fan. I'd guess that 8 out of 10 say he is elite.
Id say he is top ten in the league. Barely misses the top 5.
Consequences will never be the same.
Nuggets fan here
Hey do me a favor can you post this on Denver Stiffs and see what the Nuggets fans like myself have to say.
OK, but I’m not fighting the good fight in the comments.
by calling all toasters on Aug 23, 2010 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
IMO
Don’t think he is top 5 but defintely top 10….
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
