Celtics trade for David Lee

[Jayman]

Wait, people think David Lee is washed up?

http://bkref.com/tiny/Mohh1

You're using his numbers from what will be two years ago to prove that he isn't washed up?

Yes. What are you using to prove he sucks?

[Evantime34]

We have no idea if Lee is washed up, but we do know that he is less washed up than Gerald Wallace.

[Granath]

Which I said as a stand alone statement once, in a different thread, and have since explained ad nauseum in at least three threads so far. 

And you haven't said much else beyond unsupported/unsupportable personal assessments. I'll take hard data any day, especially when I can combine that with (1) my own personal assessment from the few games I saw Lee play a couple of years ago; (2) the general consensus opinion of David Lee (he didn't get paid that money by accident) and (3) an assessment of the needs of the team and how he might fill a substantial hole currently on the team.

DOS, you're more than entitled to your opinion. You think David Lee sucks. That's fine. But you can't in good faith sit here and argue that all the statistics are wrong without people here not taking you seriously. It's on par with the "Rondo is better than Chris Paul" discussions over the last year. There's absolutely no way to justify it in any kind of quantitative fashion and the statement is pretty absurd on its face. It's a personal opinion, we get it. But posting it over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

Now you could be right. How? Lee should be on the downhill slide of his career. 32 ain't a spring chicken in the NBA. Maybe there's not much left in the tank. Maybe he comes in and simply can't play anymore. It happens to every vet at some point in their career. But even if it does, what did it really cost the Celtics? Almost nothing - less than $5m in cap space for one year because it's not like Crash was contributing. So the risk is exceptionally small and thus it's most certainly a risk worth taking because there's a fair chance that he could be the best offensive big man on the roster this coming season.

[Jon]

I can't believe this has gone on for 33 pages.  Maybe David Lee regains his form two years ago.  Maybe he's washed up.  Maybe his stats are misleading.  Maybe they're not. 

But Danny Ainge managed to get someone who could be quite useful and is still an expiring contract for someone who was no use and an expiring contract without giving up any assets.  There's nothing to complain about here. 

[D.o.s.]

Which I said as a stand alone statement once, in a different thread, and have since explained ad nauseum in at least three threads so far. 

And you haven't said much else beyond unsupported/unsupportable personal assessments. I'll take hard data any day, especially when I can combine that with (1) my own personal assessment from the few games I saw Lee play a couple of years ago; (2) the general consensus opinion of David Lee (he didn't get paid that money by accident) and (3) an assessment of the needs of the team and how he might fill a substantial hole currently on the team.

DOS, you're more than entitled to your opinion. You think David Lee sucks. That's fine. But you can't in good faith sit here and argue that all the statistics are wrong without people here not taking you seriously. It's on par with the "Rondo is better than Chris Paul" discussions over the last year. There's absolutely no way to justify it in any kind of quantitative fashion and the statement is pretty absurd on its face. It's a personal opinion, we get it. But posting it over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

^No, what you'll take is the hard data that you want to look at, data that apparently you don't understand per the depth of your own analysis. But, of course, people like Goldsberry and Ziller and the Wages of Wins guys aren't experts, according to you, so we can ignore their hard data, right?

You can say that the links I've posted are "nonsense" or "non-qualitative", but that's just you being wrong. I am not saying that data shouldn't be taken seriously: what I am saying is that all analysis is not created equal and you haven't given me anything that's worth taking you or your thinking seriously.

Wait, people think David Lee is washed up?

http://bkref.com/tiny/Mohh1

You're using his numbers from what will be two years ago to prove that he isn't washed up?

Yes. What are you using to prove he sucks?

I have already posted links to the appropriate information in this thread.

The reading comprehension on this blog appears to be painfully low sometimes. Nothing emphasizes this more than the continued insistence that my entire argument consists of "David Lee sucks."

[Granath]

^No, what you'll take is the hard data that you want to look at, data that apparently you don't understand per the depth of your own analysis. But, of course, people like Goldsberry and Ziller and the Wages of Wins guys aren't experts, according to you, so we can ignore their hard data, right?

Ok, now you're blatantly trolling or you're just not very smart. If you don't understand the difference between opinion and quantitative data, there's nothing anyone can help you with.

Also, show where I said they weren't experts. What I said was just because someone has a blog doesn't make them an expert. There's a difference. Learn to read. But I'm not dumb enough to take a handful of articles that take a handful of plays and try to make a sweeping conclusion. YMMV.

You can say that the links I've posted are "nonsense" or "non-qualitative", but that's just you being wrong. I am not saying that data shouldn't be taken seriously: what I am saying is that all analysis is not created equal and you haven't given me anything that's worth taking you or your thinking seriously.

Simply put, if you're not going to take believe every single piece of quantitative data thrown at you, again there's no point for a discussion. You can't have a rational discussion if you're going to sit there with your hands over your ears going LALALALALALALALALA. And that's what you're doing.

So while you're in the stands chanting "David Lee sucks", I'll be rooting for the guy and hoping that he's contributing much needed offense and rebounding to an up-and-coming squad.

[D.o.s.]

The reading comprehension on this blog appears to be painfully low sometimes. Nothing emphasizes this more than the continued insistence that my entire argument consists of "David Lee sucks."

All you have shown me is that you can link to Basketball-Reference and misinterpret the Advanced Stats table. I'm not sure that counts as me  "not going to take believe every single piece of quantitative data" (and, to be honest, I'm not sure what that means since it isn't proper English).

Again, I want to believe David Lee is a good player. I would love to be shown something that displays that David Lee is a good player. Copying and pasting his BBR page or attaching single-word and vacuous assessments of various statistics within does not meet my burden of proof, for reasons I have hopefully already explained by now. Sorry.

edit: quantitative. stupid autocorrect.

[Chris22]

Last year Lee outscored his opponent by 5.1 points per game, and his team was a plus 11.8 with him on the floor.

http://www.82games.com/1314/1314GSW.HTM

[D.o.s.]

Ok, so, from the looks of things the Warriors were in the top 12 for ORtg and top 10 in points scored that season (2013-2014), per BBR. They were also in the top 4 for DRtg

It would also appear that Lee was involved in most of the significant lineups that contributed to the offense:
http://stats.nba.com/league/lineups/#!/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612744&sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=1&CF=GP*GE*5

But it would also appear that much of the defensive impact would be due to Andrew Bogut and Draymond Green's presence in the lineup:
http://stats.nba.com/league/lineups/#!/advanced/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612744&sort=GP&dir=1&CF=GP*G*5

So, in the absence of Bogut and Green (we have neither on the Celtics), can we reasonably expect the same sort of differential to continue in Boston?

[dysgenic]

Ok, so, from the looks of things the Warriors were in the top 12 for ORtg and top 10 in points scored that season (2013-2014), per BBR. They were also in the top 4 for DRtg

It would also appear that Lee was involved in most of the significant lineups that contributed to the offense:
http://stats.nba.com/league/lineups/#!/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612744&sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=1&CF=GP*GE*5

But it would also appear that much of the defensive impact would be due to Andrew Bogut and Draymond Green's presence in the lineup:
http://stats.nba.com/league/lineups/#!/advanced/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612744&sort=GP&dir=1&CF=GP*G*5

So, in the absence of Bogut and Green (we have neither on the Celtics), can we reasonably expect the same sort of differential to continue in Boston?

No, we can't reasonably conclude the same differential. However, we CAN reasonably conclude that he doesn't suck.

[D.o.s.]

 

The reading comprehension on this blog appears to be painfully low sometimes. Nothing emphasizes this more than the continued insistence that my entire argument consists of "David Lee sucks."

[Emmette Bryant]

David Lee becomes part of the Pierce/Garnett trade to Brooklyn, right?

Sorry to thread crap, but can someone point me to a breakdown of Danny's trades and roster building since Brad Stevens became coach? 

[heitingas]

David Lee becomes part of the Pierce/Garnett trade to Brooklyn, right?

Sorry to thread crap, but can someone point me to a breakdown of Danny's trades and roster building since Brad Stevens became coach?

[CelticSooner]

David Lee becomes part of the Pierce/Garnett trade to Brooklyn, right?

Sorry to thread crap, but can someone point me to a breakdown of Danny's trades and roster building since Brad Stevens became coach?

https://twitter.com/dangercart

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJVsHeAXAAA0_Xc.jpg:large

[Emmette Bryant]

Thanks guys.  TP for both of you.