The True Value of BBD ?

[Fafnir]

In the words of Mark Twain, "There are liars, [dang]ed liars and statisticians"

"Lies, [dang]ed lies, and statistics" and it was a Benjamin Disraeli quote that Twain popularized.  And there's a big difference between the type of stats that get thrown around in the public realm and legitimate statistical analysis.  I've worked with and am friends with a lot of statisticians and every last one of them has been absolutely OCD about proper methodology and drawing valid conclusions.

Back on topic though, while BBD will be the 4th big man next year if we sign him, he'll be crucial if any of our bigs are injured.  More importantly, Sheed is not a part of our long-term plans, but Baby would be.  We need to develop a core going forward as well.  At a few million a year, a signing would put us a big baby step closer to that goal too.

I think a three year deal is pretty long term in today's NBA.

[GKC]

In the words of Mark Twain, "There are liars, [dang]ed liars and statisticians"

"Lies, [dang]ed lies, and statistics" and it was a Benjamin Disraeli quote that Twain popularized.  And there's a big difference between the type of stats that get thrown around in the public realm and legitimate statistical analysis.  I've worked with and am friends with a lot of statisticians and every last one of them has been absolutely OCD about proper methodology and drawing valid conclusions.

Back on topic though, while BBD will be the 4th big man next year if we sign him, he'll be crucial if any of our bigs are injured.  More importantly, Sheed is not a part of our long-term plans, but Baby would be.  We need to develop a core going forward as well.  At a few million a year, a signing would put us a big baby step closer to that goal too.

I think a three year deal is pretty long term in today's NBA.

Following that sentiment, I feel like BBD's career would be long-term decent bench guy for a good team or starter on a bad team. I feel even KG at 36 might be a better starter, and if the celt's long term plans include finding a new definite starter at the PF position it better not be BBD.

call me cynical i guess.

[BballTim]

  He should not be overpaid for, and contrary to what people think $4-5million/year will most definitely negatively affect the Celtics budget next year... especially considering he's a backup to a backup.

  I'm not a huge Baby fan, but he's a backup to a backup at 2 spots. You need 4 bigs that are capable of playing decently in the playoffs. What if Perk hurts his shoulder? What if we have foul problems? What if Sheed gets suspended for a game for too many techs? Having Wallacs diminishes what we'll need from Baby because he's so versatile. But it doesn't take away the need for that 4th big. Since you can't approach quality nba players and tell them that we'll pay them half of what they are worth because we need them as much for insurance as for production, we pretty much have to overpay. The spot will require a better player than the number of minutes will, if you get my drift.

[Fafnir]

In the words of Mark Twain, "There are liars, [dang]ed liars and statisticians"

"Lies, [dang]ed lies, and statistics" and it was a Benjamin Disraeli quote that Twain popularized.  And there's a big difference between the type of stats that get thrown around in the public realm and legitimate statistical analysis.  I've worked with and am friends with a lot of statisticians and every last one of them has been absolutely OCD about proper methodology and drawing valid conclusions.

Back on topic though, while BBD will be the 4th big man next year if we sign him, he'll be crucial if any of our bigs are injured.  More importantly, Sheed is not a part of our long-term plans, but Baby would be.  We need to develop a core going forward as well.  At a few million a year, a signing would put us a big baby step closer to that goal too.

I think a three year deal is pretty long term in today's NBA.

Following that sentiment, I feel like BBD's career would be long-term decent bench guy for a good team or starter on a bad team. I feel even KG at 36 might be a better starter, and if the celt's long term plans include finding a new definite starter at the PF position it better not be BBD.

call me cynical i guess.

I don't think its cynical. BBD's body type and his first two year's performance seems to indicate he's a below average starting big and average bench big. You really don't plan your team around that level of player.

[Spilling Green Dye]

Following that sentiment, I feel like BBD's career would be long-term decent bench guy for a good team or starter on a bad team. I feel even KG at 36 might be a better starter, and if the celt's long term plans include finding a new definite starter at the PF position it better not be BBD.

call me cynical i guess.
[/quote]

I'm in agreement, which I think is where I was going with my original post.  Sorry if I never got there.  The signing of BBD has more to do with all of the seasons after next than it does next season.  I'm not sure if many people take that into consideration, but he is not a career starter on a good team, which the Celtics will be.  Every year there's a new crop of young guys around the league, and I'm not sold on pushing for BBD to have a lengthy career with the C's.  The financial and production results would likely suffer.

That said, I agree that it'd be nice to have him has a backup to backup to backup or whatever he'd be next season.  The more insurance we have the better.

[Chris]

In the words of Mark Twain, "There are liars, [dang]ed liars and statisticians"

"Lies, [dang]ed lies, and statistics" and it was a Benjamin Disraeli quote that Twain popularized.  And there's a big difference between the type of stats that get thrown around in the public realm and legitimate statistical analysis.  I've worked with and am friends with a lot of statisticians and every last one of them has been absolutely OCD about proper methodology and drawing valid conclusions.

Close enough.  TP for the correction though.  And speaking as someone who works a lot with statisticians in research, you are right, most real statisticians are very good about the proper methodology and the validity of their conclusions (mainly because they won't get anything into a good journal if they don't do it right).

But my real point is that sports stats have very little validity when it comes to projecting a players future productivity, and how they play at a certain position.  Particularly in basketball.  And guys like John Hollinger make a living off of throwing out stats, and drawing conclusions from them that would never be published by a reputable journal.  

And don't get me wrong, I think there can be helpful stats out there, but to take them too seriously, you need to get much deeper, and take into account much more variables than are available in most of the stats we see.

[BballTim]

"Lies, [dang]ed lies, and statistics" and it was a Benjamin Disraeli quote that Twain popularized.  And there's a big difference between the type of stats that get thrown around in the public realm and legitimate statistical analysis.  I've worked with and am friends with a lot of statisticians and every last one of them has been absolutely OCD about proper methodology and drawing valid conclusions.

  For these stats, though, a big issue is granularity. I can get something of a read on how good a defender KG is by either how the team does when he plays or the production of his opponent when he plays. But I have to guess whether that production is better or worse than typical and it's  just a measure of what an opposing player does during that stretch of the game whether KG's guarding him or not. The Celts can tell you how well he defends on a posession by posession basis, get the actual fg% of shots taken against KG, and compare it to an overall average fg% based on the fg% of the person taking each shot.

[fairweatherfan]

In the words of Mark Twain, "There are liars, [dang]ed liars and statisticians"

"Lies, [dang]ed lies, and statistics" and it was a Benjamin Disraeli quote that Twain popularized.  And there's a big difference between the type of stats that get thrown around in the public realm and legitimate statistical analysis.  I've worked with and am friends with a lot of statisticians and every last one of them has been absolutely OCD about proper methodology and drawing valid conclusions.

Close enough.  TP for the correction though.  And speaking as someone who works a lot with statisticians in research, you are right, most real statisticians are very good about the proper methodology and the validity of their conclusions (mainly because they won't get anything into a good journal if they don't do it right).

But my real point is that sports stats have very little validity when it comes to projecting a players future productivity, and how they play at a certain position.  Particularly in basketball.  And guys like John Hollinger make a living off of throwing out stats, and drawing conclusions from them that would never be published by a reputable journal.  

And don't get me wrong, I think there can be helpful stats out there, but to take them too seriously, you need to get much deeper, and take into account much more variables than are available in most of the stats we see.

No worries, there are many statisticians who I have a lot of respect for, and they all both hate and agree with that quote.  Many people (not you specifically) who dump on stats do it because they just want to disregard them entirely in favor of their own pet opinions.  That's the only attitude I really have any problem with.

You're absolutely right that sports stats are more often on the misleading or misunderstood side - Hollinger's a great example: his stats by themselves are actually pretty good, especially relative to what else is out there.  But his conclusions are often ridiculous, doubly so with the smug tone he tends to add to them.  The stats in the OP, like I said, would need a lot of context and assessment to be really clear about Baby's effectiveness, and even then might not say much about his future performance.  But what is there is a valid addition to the debate.  Knowing Danny, he has a far more advanced battery of data on Baby and is including it in his considerations. 

[Casperian]

No worries, there are many statisticians who I have a lot of respect for, and they all both hate and agree with that quote.  Many people (not you specifically) who dump on stats do it because they just want to disregard them entirely in favor of their own pet opinions.  That's the only attitude I really have any problem with.

You're absolutely right that sports stats are more often on the misleading or misunderstood side - Hollinger's a great example: his stats by themselves are actually pretty good, especially relative to what else is out there.  But his conclusions are often ridiculous, doubly so with the smug tone he tends to add to them.  The stats in the OP, like I said, would need a lot of context and assessment to be really clear about Baby's effectiveness, and even then might not say much about his future performance.  But what is there is a valid addition to the debate.  Knowing Danny, he has a far more advanced battery of data on Baby and is including it in his considerations. 

This forces me to quote the co-winner of my "Make me laugh"-TP contest.

This made me laugh hysterically, but then again, I'm kind of a dork.

[fairweatherfan]

No worries, there are many statisticians who I have a lot of respect for, and they all both hate and agree with that quote.  Many people (not you specifically) who dump on stats do it because they just want to disregard them entirely in favor of their own pet opinions.  That's the only attitude I really have any problem with.

You're absolutely right that sports stats are more often on the misleading or misunderstood side - Hollinger's a great example: his stats by themselves are actually pretty good, especially relative to what else is out there.  But his conclusions are often ridiculous, doubly so with the smug tone he tends to add to them.  The stats in the OP, like I said, would need a lot of context and assessment to be really clear about Baby's effectiveness, and even then might not say much about his future performance.  But what is there is a valid addition to the debate.  Knowing Danny, he has a far more advanced battery of data on Baby and is including it in his considerations. 

This forces me to quote the co-winner of my "Make me laugh"-TP contest.

This made me laugh hysterically, but then again, I'm kind of a dork.

Awesome - I love that one, TP for reposting.

[KelticFan]

In the words of Mark Twain, "There are liars, [dang]ed liars and statisticians"

"Lies, [dang]ed lies, and statistics" and it was a Benjamin Disraeli quote that Twain popularized.  And there's a big difference between the type of stats that get thrown around in the public realm and legitimate statistical analysis.  I've worked with and am friends with a lot of statisticians and every last one of them has been absolutely OCD about proper methodology and drawing valid conclusions.

It may not have been Disraeli. From the editor of the Yale Book of Quotations in the following blog post:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/our-daily-bleg-uncovering-more-quote-authors/#more-4175

The earliest version that has been discovered (by Stephen Goranson, who has done considerable research on this quotation) is in The National Observer, June 13, 1891: “It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a ‘fib,’ the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics.”

I don't have access to the YBoQ, so I don't know if Disraeli was a link in the chain in getting it to Twain.

[dmopower]

I still think he is going to be better than average.
I will admit that it all comes down to conditioning.
He is in great shape for a football player, but needs to realize that BBall requires much better conditioning than he has shown.
I think he has the ability to lose 25 to 35 pounds of fat.
This alone would make a huge difference in his game.
His BBall IQ is high, and he plays smart on defense, and rotates well and quick.
If he addressed this fault, it could dramaticaly improve his game.
He would shoot atleast a little better, finish at least a little better, rebound a little better, and still be strong enough to play the 4 and 5 for spells.
I would offer him a contract with a weight clause, 270 max, or pay the penalty.
JMO.