Tommy on Olynyk

[mmmmm]

Red like Forte too and drafted Michael Smith too.   Everyone gets them wrong once in a while.

Oly could be an improved version of Michael Smith.

Among qualified rookies, KO is

That is like saying among toddlers.  That BPG of 0.5 is really 9th among rooks, wow.   I take back all the things I have said about him.  6.6 PPG means he is heading to Cooperstown.   All among rookies is a clever way to frame it so he doesn't look a disaster.   It is still not good by any means.   This last draft looks to be a weak one one year out.

his per 36 stats are 13.1 points, 8.5 boards and 3.0 assists;

PER 36 is a silly stat considering it is nothing more than a projection of their potential and not an actual stat produced by a player.   He plays half of that in reality with 18.1 MPG.  In that time he averages 3.1 PF.

  Per36 isn't a projection of potential, it's an actual stat produced by a player. It simply normalizes minutes for (fairly) apples to apples comparisons, to avoid claims that someone who gets 15ppg in 35 minutes a game scores a lot more than someone  who gets 11 ppg in 15 minutes a game. It's per minute production. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes and no.  It allows normalization for comparisons, as you suggest.  It's still a projection, though, and a faulty one.  It suggestions that someone who performs at a certain level at 18 minutes would perform at the exact same level over 36 minutes; the production would exactly double, in a linear fashion.

For a lot of players, that's simply not true, whether it be due to quality of competition, a player's conditioning, his foul rate, etc., etc.

The per-36 stat doesn't suggest anything.  It simply represents the rate of production per a normalized unit of time.    It accurately represents the rates for that player during his time on the floor.

Some people may, of course, infer the things you suggest.

Other people realize that those rates were produced in different contexts.    And that context matters.

At any rate, there is nothing unreasonable about using it as a rough comparison tool when looking at how all the various rookies are doing, since most of them are probably operating under similar usage constraints and hindered by the same limited experience.

[kozlodoev]

He has to stop commenting Olynyk will be a great player in the league. It isn't fair to fans nor Kelly. Guys at the local YMCA have high bball IQ as well. Think great careers in the NBA require a bit more than that (i.e., not being a stiff, physically incompetent defender at his position).

Tommy has, in recent years, given up completely the pretense that he actually provides objective basketball commentary. It's now painfully clear that he says a lot of what he says because of the expectations about his shtick.

It's actually a little painful to watch -- much like an old boxer going through the same motions that got him titles early on, but no clearly no longer packs the same power in his punch.

Needless to say, I don't usually put too much stock in what he says. I hope they let him retire gracefully, and put Max in his spot. He has a decent chemistry with Gorman.

[D.o.s.]

No thanks on Max. I'd rather listen to PJ.

[CFAN38]

Tommy is the ultimate homer, nothing wrong with that but its the truth. However I am finding it hard to listen to as time goes on.


I do think Kelly will be fine. He may never live up to the hype that was built for him after the summer league but he will be ok. I think KO has a ceiling of Mehmet Okur. If he hits that ceiling id be thrilled even if he falls short he becomes a nice 3rd big off the bench

[kozlodoev]

No thanks on Max. I'd rather listen to PJ.

I find PJ a particularly unpleasant combination of bland and not very insightful. Also, he doesn't have the voice for the job.

[D.o.s.]

No thanks on Max. I'd rather listen to PJ.

I find PJ a particularly unpleasant combination of bland and not very insightful. Also, he doesn't have the voice for the job.

You don't think the "pouring gravel down a smoker's larynx" goes over well?

I bet you don't like Tom Waits, either.

[Celtics4ever]

  Per36 isn't a projection of potential, it's an actual stat produced by a player

Not if they don't play 36.   There is no accounting for fatigue or the like.   If they play 36 minutes fine bu other than that is a projection of their projection.

Stats to me are numbers you earn, per 36 is abstract and a projection.   Guys often do not live up to their per 36.

[Fafnir]

  Per36 isn't a projection of potential, it's an actual stat produced by a player

Not if they don't play 36.   There is no accounting for fatigue or the like.   If they play 36 minutes fine bu other than that is a projection of their projection.

Stats to me are numbers you earn, per 36 is abstract and a projection.   Guys often do not live up to their per 36.

Its not a projection, its a rate statistic. It has the same meaning as points per minute or rebounds per minute. They just use 36 because of convention.

If my car traveled a mile in a minute that doesn't make its speed of 60 MPH a projection just because I didn't drive for an hour.

Secondly guys typically do live up to their per 36 numbers when they get that many minutes. Multiple studies have shown that player production is pretty consistent on a per minute basis.

[kozlodoev]

No thanks on Max. I'd rather listen to PJ.

I find PJ a particularly unpleasant combination of bland and not very insightful. Also, he doesn't have the voice for the job.

You don't think the "pouring gravel down a smoker's larynx" goes over well?

I bet you don't like Tom Waits, either.

I have no idea who Tom Waits is (well, *had*, that's what Google is for).

But I do like this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPC42JWBPvI

[kozlodoev]

If my car traveled a mile in a minute that doesn't make its speed of 60 MPH a projection just because I didn't drive for an hour.

Right, but it does make the expectation that you'll travel 60 miles in 60 minutes a projection.

[fairweatherfan]

If my car traveled a mile in a minute that doesn't make its speed of 60 MPH a projection just because I didn't drive for an hour.

Right, but it does make the expectation that you'll travel 60 miles in 60 minutes a projection.

Per-36 for a lower minutes guy is more like making two (or more) 30 mile trips at an average of 30 minutes each.  It's not a projection to say you drove 60 MPH for those trips - you have at least one hour's worth of actual data - but it would be to conclude that if your trip length doubled your average speed would stay the same.

[BballTim]

Red like Forte too and drafted Michael Smith too.   Everyone gets them wrong once in a while.

Oly could be an improved version of Michael Smith.

Among qualified rookies, KO is

That is like saying among toddlers.  That BPG of 0.5 is really 9th among rooks, wow.   I take back all the things I have said about him.  6.6 PPG means he is heading to Cooperstown.   All among rookies is a clever way to frame it so he doesn't look a disaster.   It is still not good by any means.   This last draft looks to be a weak one one year out.

his per 36 stats are 13.1 points, 8.5 boards and 3.0 assists;

PER 36 is a silly stat considering it is nothing more than a projection of their potential and not an actual stat produced by a player.   He plays half of that in reality with 18.1 MPG.  In that time he averages 3.1 PF.

  Per36 isn't a projection of potential, it's an actual stat produced by a player. It simply normalizes minutes for (fairly) apples to apples comparisons, to avoid claims that someone who gets 15ppg in 35 minutes a game scores a lot more than someone  who gets 11 ppg in 15 minutes a game. It's per minute production. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes and no.  It allows normalization for comparisons, as you suggest.  It's still a projection, though, and a faulty one.  It suggestions that someone who performs at a certain level at 18 minutes would perform at the exact same level over 36 minutes; the production would exactly double, in a linear fashion.

For a lot of players, that's simply not true, whether it be due to quality of competition, a player's conditioning, his foul rate, etc., etc.

  It's not a projection at all. It's a normalized way of expressing the per minute production of a player. It's a measure of what player does and not at all a suggestion that a player would maintain their current level of production in they were placed in different situations. That's just a relatively common misuse of the statistic(s).

[slamtheking]

No thanks on Max. I'd rather listen to PJ.

I find PJ a particularly unpleasant combination of bland and not very insightful. Also, he doesn't have the voice for the job.

agreed -- not a fan of PJ at all for the reasons you mentioned.  he's a coaches version Donny Marshall.  All about his experiences and how it relates to him. 

I like Max a lot better.  didn't care for him much at first but have warmed up to him.  Really wish Scal would follow after Tommy.

[byennie]

It's also worth noting that:

a) 18 minutes per game is a pretty solid sample size for per36 numbers
b) Some players become more efficient with bigger minutes, some less - but it can go either way depending on usage & development

Obviously per-minute numbers can be misused. But they aren't useless at all,

[kozlodoev]

It's also worth noting that:

a) 18 minutes per game is a pretty solid sample size for per36 numbers
b) Some players become more efficient with bigger minutes, some less - but it can go either way depending on usage & development

Obviously per-minute numbers can be misused. But they aren't useless at all,

They're not. But it's inherently broken to expect someone who's getting 2 6-minute stretches per game against the other team's backups to be operating under the same conditions when inserted for 36 minutes in the starting lineup.