Why I like the Clippers/Celtics Rumored Trade

[Celtics Insider]

But, really, who cares HOW he scores or WHY teams sag off on him? They do, and the stats show that he delivers. If you need points, give him the ball in his optimal zone. Just like in the movie "Moneyball", Brad Pitt basically implies that a single is no different than a walk. Who cares HOW they get on base, as long as they DO get on base?

If he has a lot of FT opportunities, and misses, the increased amount of FTAs still has a positive effect on his zPPS.

Fafnir's comment carries a lot of weight for me. How and Why are much bigger factors in basketball than baseball. The more team-oriented sport, especially when considering offensive production, will create a lot more variability in your data. The conditions upon which these events are occurring (e.g., defenders playing Jordan a certain way) would likely change if Jordan was put in a new setting. Those moderators, in turn, could drastically change the stats you're interested in.

In a nutshell, Jordan could likely be a different player on a different team... so any predictions for his production for the Celts, based on these stats, may not be too accurate.

That could be said about any player in any sport. But I'd rather go by statistical facts than intuition.

[tarheelsxxiii]

But, really, who cares HOW he scores or WHY teams sag off on him? They do, and the stats show that he delivers. If you need points, give him the ball in his optimal zone. Just like in the movie "Moneyball", Brad Pitt basically implies that a single is no different than a walk. Who cares HOW they get on base, as long as they DO get on base?

If he has a lot of FT opportunities, and misses, the increased amount of FTAs still has a positive effect on his zPPS.

Fafnir's comment carries a lot of weight for me. How and Why are much bigger factors in basketball than baseball. The more team-oriented sport, especially when considering offensive production, will create a lot more variability in your data. The conditions upon which these events are occurring (e.g., defenders playing Jordan a certain way) would likely change if Jordan was put in a new setting. Those moderators, in turn, could drastically change the stats you're interested in.

In a nutshell, Jordan could likely be a different player on a different team... so any predictions for his production for the Celts, based on these stats, may not be too accurate.

That could be said about any player in any sport. But I'd rather go by statistical facts than intuition.

Basketball is a game of intuition. And if you're not considering a million moderating variables, your stats are going to be meaningless. Again, what he is in one situation may be completely different from what he may be in another. So where does your confidence in the stats come from?

[CelticConcourse]

But, really, who cares HOW he scores or WHY teams sag off on him? They do, and the stats show that he delivers. If you need points, give him the ball in his optimal zone. Just like in the movie "Moneyball", Brad Pitt basically implies that a single is no different than a walk. Who cares HOW they get on base, as long as they DO get on base?

If he has a lot of FT opportunities, and misses, the increased amount of FTAs still has a positive effect on his zPPS.

Fafnir's comment carries a lot of weight for me. How and Why are much bigger factors in basketball than baseball. The more team-oriented sport, especially when considering offensive production, will create a lot more variability in your data. The conditions upon which these events are occurring (e.g., defenders playing Jordan a certain way) would likely change if Jordan was put in a new setting. Those moderators, in turn, could drastically change the stats you're interested in.

In a nutshell, Jordan could likely be a different player on a different team... so any predictions for his production for the Celts, based on these stats, may not be too accurate.

That could be said about any player in any sport. But I'd rather go by statistical facts than intuition.

Basketball is a game of intuition. And if you're not considering a million moderating variables, your stats are going to be meaningless. Again, what he is in one situation may be completely different from what he may be in another. So where does your confidence in the stats come from?

Known will always be better than the unknown.

Stats are the known.
Intuition... not so much.

[CelticConcourse]

You forgot half the game.

Ever heard of "defense"?

[connor]

Except the reason that Jordan gets an above average amount of points in the paint is that he's a complete non-threat other than to dunk the ball.

Same as Perk, it's a start and he is a better overall rebounder if you look at there first five years of play he compares favorably in  FG, REB, Fouls and PPG.  Perk was better at BPG and FT and APG.   But for all purposes the first five years they are almost a wash.

Jordan would be better with some polished offensive guys to play off of, if he is the low post threat, Wiggins here we come!

I would rather get something than nothing folks.   This may be the best deal we get.  It beats starting over with nothing.

Would you like to pay Perkins 10+ million dollars a year even at his peak if he was a poor defender? Because for all his blocks and rebounds Jordan is a poor defender.

Offensively Jordan is similar to Perk's peak value (pre-knee injury). Except Perkins was actually more valuable because he is/was a much more physical and effective screener.

Perkins was frequently benched because he was killing the C's offense even at his best too....

I don't know, he's only got a couple of years left on his contract. If he is a total disaster, we can trade him as an expiring after next season. He showed the potential to demand his current contract [GS proved they would pay that amount]. I understand his liabilities, but I would love to see him play with Rondo [yes, over Paul] and acquiring Bledsoe and picks are really the best part.

I'm starting to warm to the idea of Jordan as our center if the deal goes through.

Yes he has some major flaws to his game, but its not like we are going to be competing for a championship straight away after jettisoning KG and PP. This would still be a rebuild, albeit a sped up one, but a rebuild nonetheless.

That means taking on some guys who have talent, but aren't exactly there yet. Jordan could be a defensive force and rim protecter (he isn't that now, but he has the talent and size). I'm not sure how much his offensive game could develop, but he is only 24 so there is still time to grow and learn how to score on plays that aren't just dunks.

And as jambr said we can always move him if it really doesn't pan out, height is always at a premium and after next season he would be a hefty expiring deal. Some team will befall an injury to their front court and he could bring back a nice return at the trade deadline next year if we wanted (there is like a 65% Bogut doesn't make it to the all-start break with his glass everything). 

Realistically this is the best deal we are going to get and unless we can put together a package for a guy like Cousins (who is supposedly off the trading block for now) we might as well go with the young talent.

[greenhead85]

I like this trade proposal for the simple thought that it might be the game changer in the West. Dwight might go to Clippers land to play alongside CP3, KG and possibly PP under the stewardship of Doc. Man, this team will be instant title contender. Lebron will be smashed to the ground. LOL.

[taskmangler]

I was sufficiently intrigued by your post that I decided to finally join after some months of lurking. So hi.

What I do think you're doing is explaining exactly how modern basketball is coached, however. You are though, IMO, missing a couple of points and I'm curious as to how you'd deal with them.

1) Take Ray Allen (yeah, booo etc.) You would assume that under that system he would -only- take 3s. You could argue, however, that the only reason he doesn't do so already is because he's both playing against a defender AND a shot clock. You can't expect the defender to stand still no more than you can keep passing indefinitely until he has the exact shot you want him to take. Hence he is going to have to take inferior shots eventually.

2) Keep with the previous example, but let's say the shot clock and the opponent aren't factors. You can say that Ray Allen's best shot is the 3 based on FG% but that doesn't really tell you the whole story. His exact best shot could be the Left Corner 3 but his 2nd best shot could be the the Top-Right Long 2 (not saying it is, just an example). FG% doesn't tell you that. Coaches, however, do seem to take that into account when drawing up plays, though.

3) The whole system is based on player analysis upfront. You're assuming you already know what shots the player is best at when he joins the team. But, realistically, you can't know that about all the players. What happens when you draft a kid, or you trade for a young player who hasn't played much? How are you going to find out their best shot if you keep forcing them to shoot their best shot from within a previous limited sample? How could he develop alternatives?

Very interesting post, in all.

[tarheelsxxiii]

But, really, who cares HOW he scores or WHY teams sag off on him? They do, and the stats show that he delivers. If you need points, give him the ball in his optimal zone. Just like in the movie "Moneyball", Brad Pitt basically implies that a single is no different than a walk. Who cares HOW they get on base, as long as they DO get on base?

If he has a lot of FT opportunities, and misses, the increased amount of FTAs still has a positive effect on his zPPS.

Fafnir's comment carries a lot of weight for me. How and Why are much bigger factors in basketball than baseball. The more team-oriented sport, especially when considering offensive production, will create a lot more variability in your data. The conditions upon which these events are occurring (e.g., defenders playing Jordan a certain way) would likely change if Jordan was put in a new setting. Those moderators, in turn, could drastically change the stats you're interested in.

In a nutshell, Jordan could likely be a different player on a different team... so any predictions for his production for the Celts, based on these stats, may not be too accurate.

That could be said about any player in any sport. But I'd rather go by statistical facts than intuition.

Basketball is a game of intuition. And if you're not considering a million moderating variables, your stats are going to be meaningless. Again, what he is in one situation may be completely different from what he may be in another. So where does your confidence in the stats come from?

Known will always be better than the unknown.

Stats are the known.
Intuition... not so much.

That isn't addressing my comments at all. I live/work in a world of stats... there are too many moderating variables at play within the situation discussed here. How can you address that? They're flawed stats; so your argument comes down to... flawed stats are better than no stats? Not sure how you'd defend that...

[CelticConcourse]

But, really, who cares HOW he scores or WHY teams sag off on him? They do, and the stats show that he delivers. If you need points, give him the ball in his optimal zone. Just like in the movie "Moneyball", Brad Pitt basically implies that a single is no different than a walk. Who cares HOW they get on base, as long as they DO get on base?

If he has a lot of FT opportunities, and misses, the increased amount of FTAs still has a positive effect on his zPPS.

Fafnir's comment carries a lot of weight for me. How and Why are much bigger factors in basketball than baseball. The more team-oriented sport, especially when considering offensive production, will create a lot more variability in your data. The conditions upon which these events are occurring (e.g., defenders playing Jordan a certain way) would likely change if Jordan was put in a new setting. Those moderators, in turn, could drastically change the stats you're interested in.

In a nutshell, Jordan could likely be a different player on a different team... so any predictions for his production for the Celts, based on these stats, may not be too accurate.

That could be said about any player in any sport. But I'd rather go by statistical facts than intuition.

Basketball is a game of intuition. And if you're not considering a million moderating variables, your stats are going to be meaningless. Again, what he is in one situation may be completely different from what he may be in another. So where does your confidence in the stats come from?

Known will always be better than the unknown.

Stats are the known.
Intuition... not so much.

That isn't addressing my comments at all. I live/work in a world of stats... there are too many moderating variables at play within the situation discussed here. How can you address that? They're flawed stats; so your argument comes down to... flawed stats are better than no stats? Not sure how you'd defend that...

I'd take flawed stats over intuition because at least they're based off something. If stats were useless, we wouldn't be using them. We are using them.

[tarheelsxxiii]

But, really, who cares HOW he scores or WHY teams sag off on him? They do, and the stats show that he delivers. If you need points, give him the ball in his optimal zone. Just like in the movie "Moneyball", Brad Pitt basically implies that a single is no different than a walk. Who cares HOW they get on base, as long as they DO get on base?

If he has a lot of FT opportunities, and misses, the increased amount of FTAs still has a positive effect on his zPPS.

Fafnir's comment carries a lot of weight for me. How and Why are much bigger factors in basketball than baseball. The more team-oriented sport, especially when considering offensive production, will create a lot more variability in your data. The conditions upon which these events are occurring (e.g., defenders playing Jordan a certain way) would likely change if Jordan was put in a new setting. Those moderators, in turn, could drastically change the stats you're interested in.

In a nutshell, Jordan could likely be a different player on a different team... so any predictions for his production for the Celts, based on these stats, may not be too accurate.

That could be said about any player in any sport. But I'd rather go by statistical facts than intuition.

Basketball is a game of intuition. And if you're not considering a million moderating variables, your stats are going to be meaningless. Again, what he is in one situation may be completely different from what he may be in another. So where does your confidence in the stats come from?

Known will always be better than the unknown.

Stats are the known.
Intuition... not so much.

That isn't addressing my comments at all. I live/work in a world of stats... there are too many moderating variables at play within the situation discussed here. How can you address that? They're flawed stats; so your argument comes down to... flawed stats are better than no stats? Not sure how you'd defend that...

I'd take flawed stats over intuition because at least they're based off something. If stats were useless, we wouldn't be using them. We are using them.

So the Celtics are using them, in this situation... to decide whether to trade for DeAndre Jordan?