How to earn $1 Million dollars in 6 seconds - ask Nate

[xmuscularghandix]

Nate Robinson is twice the player Eddie is.

[moiso]

I'd do that trade again today.  Nate may come in handy at some point.  Plus we didn't lose much production.  And we got to have Marcus Landry for a couple weeks!

[Roy Hobbs]

Nate Robinson is twice the player Eddie is.

Has he been twice the player with the Celts, though? 

Here are their stats, per 36 minutes, with the Celts this season:

House:  15.2 pts, 2.0 ast, 2.9 reb, 1.2 stl, 1.1 tov, .500 eFG%

Nate: 16.0 pts, 3.6 ast, 3.6 reb, 2.1 stl, 1.9 tov, .516 eFG%

Nate has been a very slight upgrade statistically.  The question is, was that minor upgrade worth the extra money and Bill Walker?

Also, even though individually House's production has been lower, the team has played better with him on the floor than with Nate:

Team's production with House:

107.5 pts scored per 100 possessions

104.1 pts allowed per 100 possessions

Team's production with Nate:

103.7 pts scored per 100 possessions

110.5 pts allowed per 100 possessions

For whatever reason, then, the team has scored a lot more with Eddie, and given up a lot fewer points.  Eddie's +3.4 point differential is world's better than Nate's -6.8.

Of course, it's a fairly moot point, since Nate isn't in the playoff rotation.  Until he's contributing consistently in the playoffs, there's really no way to say that the trade paid off.

[mobilija]

Nate Robinson is twice the player Eddie is.

Has he been twice the player with the Celts, though?  

Here are their stats, per 36 minutes, with the Celts this season:

House:  15.2 pts, 2.0 ast, 2.9 reb, 1.2 stl, 1.1 tov, .500 eFG%

Nate: 16.0 pts, 3.6 ast, 3.6 reb, 2.1 stl, 1.9 tov, .516 eFG%

Nate has been a very slight upgrade statistically.  The question is, was that minor upgrade worth the extra money and Bill Walker?

Also, even though individually House's production has been lower, the team has played better with him on the floor than with Nate:

Team's production with House:

107.5 pts scored per 100 possessions

104.1 pts allowed per 100 possessions

Team's production with Nate:

103.7 pts scored per 100 possessions

110.5 pts allowed per 100 possessions

For whatever reason, then, the team has scored a lot more with Eddie, and given up a lot fewer points.  Eddie's +3.4 point differential is world's better than Nate's -6.8.

Of course, it's a fairly moot point, since Nate isn't in the playoff rotation.  Until he's contributing consistently in the playoffs, there's really no way to say that the trade paid off.

Hard stats to argue with, however given the sample size (amount of time each player has played with the team)are they really that comparable?

I think the stats are skewed in Eddie's favor due to his comfort and integration into the team, having been with this group since it's creation. And Nate hasn't had that same oppurtunity.

Has Nate even played 100 possesions for this team? (I guess that's a pretty damaging question itself for Nate, but hurts the statistical analysis).

[hwangjini_1]

Nate Robinson is twice the player Eddie is.

unless we are counting height. 

but i do agree that nate is far and away a better player than house. i think after nate learns the offensive and defensive sets he will play much better than he has so far.

and maybe he will learn to NOT run like hell down the court and chuck up a 3 pointers with 18 to 20 seconds left on the shot clock.

[Roy Hobbs]

Nate Robinson is twice the player Eddie is.

Has he been twice the player with the Celts, though?  

Here are their stats, per 36 minutes, with the Celts this season:

House:  15.2 pts, 2.0 ast, 2.9 reb, 1.2 stl, 1.1 tov, .500 eFG%

Nate: 16.0 pts, 3.6 ast, 3.6 reb, 2.1 stl, 1.9 tov, .516 eFG%

Nate has been a very slight upgrade statistically.  The question is, was that minor upgrade worth the extra money and Bill Walker?

Also, even though individually House's production has been lower, the team has played better with him on the floor than with Nate:

Team's production with House:

107.5 pts scored per 100 possessions

104.1 pts allowed per 100 possessions

Team's production with Nate:

103.7 pts scored per 100 possessions

110.5 pts allowed per 100 possessions

For whatever reason, then, the team has scored a lot more with Eddie, and given up a lot fewer points.  Eddie's +3.4 point differential is world's better than Nate's -6.8.

Of course, it's a fairly moot point, since Nate isn't in the playoff rotation.  Until he's contributing consistently in the playoffs, there's really no way to say that the trade paid off.

Hard stats to argue with, however given the sample size (amount of time each player has played with the team)are they really that comparable?

I think the stats are skewed in Eddie's favor due to his comfort and integration into the team, having been with this group since it's creation. And Nate hasn't had that same oppurtunity.

Has Nate even played 100 possesions for this team? (I guess that's a pretty damaging question itself for Nate, but hurts the statistical analysis).

But in evaluating the trade, don't we have to look at the real world situation, in which Nate hasn't necessarily been comfortable and hasn't contributed much?

I mean, I absolutely agree that Nate is a more talented player than House.  He's a better athlete, a more complete scorer, a better passer, etc.  However, on *this* team, can we say that the trade was a positive one?  We traded, at worst, equal production + a cost-controlled young player with potential + money for Nate.  Thus far, that hasn't paid off.

[mobilija]

Nate Robinson is twice the player Eddie is.

Has he been twice the player with the Celts, though?  

Here are their stats, per 36 minutes, with the Celts this season:

House:  15.2 pts, 2.0 ast, 2.9 reb, 1.2 stl, 1.1 tov, .500 eFG%

Nate: 16.0 pts, 3.6 ast, 3.6 reb, 2.1 stl, 1.9 tov, .516 eFG%

Nate has been a very slight upgrade statistically.  The question is, was that minor upgrade worth the extra money and Bill Walker?

Also, even though individually House's production has been lower, the team has played better with him on the floor than with Nate:

Team's production with House:

107.5 pts scored per 100 possessions

104.1 pts allowed per 100 possessions

Team's production with Nate:

103.7 pts scored per 100 possessions

110.5 pts allowed per 100 possessions

For whatever reason, then, the team has scored a lot more with Eddie, and given up a lot fewer points.  Eddie's +3.4 point differential is world's better than Nate's -6.8.

Of course, it's a fairly moot point, since Nate isn't in the playoff rotation.  Until he's contributing consistently in the playoffs, there's really no way to say that the trade paid off.

Hard stats to argue with, however given the sample size (amount of time each player has played with the team)are they really that comparable?

I think the stats are skewed in Eddie's favor due to his comfort and integration into the team, having been with this group since it's creation. And Nate hasn't had that same oppurtunity.

Has Nate even played 100 possesions for this team? (I guess that's a pretty damaging question itself for Nate, but hurts the statistical analysis).

But in evaluating the trade, don't we have to look at the real world situation, in which Nate hasn't necessarily been comfortable and hasn't contributed much?

I mean, I absolutely agree that Nate is a more talented player than House.  He's a better athlete, a more complete scorer, a better passer, etc.  However, on *this* team, can we say that the trade was a positive one?  We traded, at worst, equal production + a cost-controlled young player with potential + money for Nate.  Thus far, that hasn't paid off.

Agreed that the trade looks like a net negative for this Celtics team, at this point. However, Nates skill set may still help us. We may encounter a playoff series where Nate helps us with some match-up or he lites it up and wins a game for us. Though the same thing could be said if Eddie were here. Furtermore having Nate on board could end up good for us in a resigning or sign and trade or something.

Maybe Nate is uncomfortable because he hasn't been given the chance to succed. Is his lack of production, the fact that he hasn't lived up to his abilities, a case of mismanagement? Has Doc utilized him well, has Doc put him in position to be successful?

I think we agree, but your statistics don't hold a lot of water, IMO.