71 replies to this topic

[coachx]

Sothron, on 04 February 2011 - 09:00 AM, said:

Bosh and Allen didn't deserve to make the AS in the East and Tim Duncan is flat out LOL worthy to be an All Star.

Coaches reward winners. Duncan's team is now 41-8 after beating he Lakers last year. That team has to have a 2nd allstar.

I agree Love deserves to be in. If you want to get mad then be add at the "fans" who voted in Yao Ming. He is the guy taking the spot of a worthy candidate.

The West has some excellent players being left out: Love, Ellis, Nash, Parker, and Aldridge. You can bet money Stern will put Love in to be Yao's replacement.

[Sothron]

coachx, on 04 February 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

Coaches reward winners. Duncan's team is now 41-8 after beating he Lakers last year. That team has to have a 2nd allstar.

I agree Love deserves to be in. If you want to get mad then be add at the "fans" who voted in Yao Ming. He is the guy taking the spot of a worthy candidate.

The West has some excellent players being left out: Love, Ellis, Nash, Parker, and Aldridge. You can bet money Stern will put Love in to be Yao's replacement.

I don't agree that team records should automatically make people All stars. All Stars is about individual play and performance not a team's performance. Anyone averaging 13 points a game is not even remotely an All Star unless they are pulling in 14-16 Rebounds and blocking 3 or more shots a game at center position.

[dhawk]

Congrats to Al and Joe.  Al's PER being over 22 speaks for itself and with no other center to compete with was a shoe-in.  
2nd best PER on the team Joe closing in on 20 himself and being the 2nd best 2-guard in the EAST and separated himself from Felton in January got him in.

If nothing else, hopefully Al will get more shots within the offense.
I would like to see at this stage of his career where he max's out.  
I still say he would struggle as the focal point, doesn't have that type of game but he deserves an opportunity to shoot more (57% fg).

[dlpin]

Sothron, on 04 February 2011 - 09:36 AM, said:

I don't agree that team records should automatically make people All stars. All Stars is about individual play and performance not a team's performance. Anyone averaging 13 points a game is not even remotely an All Star unless they are pulling in 14-16 Rebounds and blocking 3 or more shots a game at center position.

But performance=/=stats.

It is very easy to put up good numbers on a bad team. Antwan Jamison has made a career of putting up good numbers on bad teams. Same thing for Bargnani, Beasley, and many others who have good numbers on bad teams. On a good team none of these guys would even be on the court for more than 20 minutes a night.

Duncan is playing less than 30 minutes a night to save his legs for the playoffs. But when you look at his shares and percentages instead of total numbers, he is still pretty good. Very good PER, TRB%, ws/48.

Per 36 minutes, his numbers are better than Horford's.

[Sothron]

dlpin, on 04 February 2011 - 10:54 AM, said:

But performance=/=stats.

It is very easy to put up good numbers on a bad team. Antwan Jamison has made a career of putting up good numbers on bad teams. Same thing for Bargnani, Beasley, and many others who have good numbers on bad teams. On a good team none of these guys would even be on the court for more than 20 minutes a night.

Duncan is playing less than 30 minutes a night to save his legs for the playoffs. But when you look at his shares and percentages instead of total numbers, he is still pretty good. Very good PER, TRB%, ws/48.

Per 36 minutes, his numbers are better than Horford's.

I don't put any stock into "advanced" numbers, no offense. If someone is putting up great numbers then they are doing so for a reason. This good numbers on a bad team argument holds no water with me. If anything being the only one or two good player on a bad team means you have to fight more double teams and defensive focus than guys on better teams. That makes their numbers even better by comparison when they can do without much help around them and a team dedicated to just shutting them down.

[AHF]

Sothron, on 04 February 2011 - 11:20 AM, said:

I don't put any stock into "advanced" numbers, no offense. If someone is putting up great numbers then they are doing so for a reason. This good numbers on a bad team argument holds no water with me. If anything being the only one or two good player on a bad team means you have to fight more double teams and defensive focus than guys on better teams. That makes their numbers even better by comparison when they can do without much help around them and a team dedicated to just shutting them down.

I do think you have to adjust for rate.  For example, guys who play for Mike D'Antoni have to be scrutinized beyond the raw pg numbers due to his system.  Obviously, defense isn't remotely captured except in the "advanced" numbers (such as defensive win shares).  All stats have their uses and limitations.

I think the more fundamental issue for you with All-Star selections is that coaches take into account reputation and team record way more than you would like to see.

[coachx]

Sothron, on 04 February 2011 - 11:20 AM, said:

I don't put any stock into "advanced" numbers, no offense. If someone is putting up great numbers then they are doing so for a reason. This good numbers on a bad team argument holds no water with me. If anything being the only one or two good player on a bad team means you have to fight more double teams and defensive focus than guys on better teams. That makes their numbers even better by comparison when they can do without much help around them and a team dedicated to just shutting them down.

Even though you put up a brick wall I will say one more thing.

When Ray Allen went from the Sonics to the Celtics his ppg went from 26.4 down to 17.4. Allen went from bad team to Championship Ring but he gave up 9 ppg scoring to do it.

Paul Pierce ppg went from 25.0 down to 19.6 ppg when the big 3 joined him.

KG went from 22.4 ppg to 18.8 ppg when moving to the Celtics. His rebounds also took a major hit b/c he was playing by Perkins and was no longer forced to play 40 mpg.

There is only 1 ball and X amount of shots.

Edited by coachx, 04 February 2011 - 11:43 AM.

[AHF]

SI's Zach Lowe says Smith is the only legit snub in the East, but not a slam dunk snub:

Quote

The last spot went to Allen, and that’s the one that will irk people. But if you’re going to bash the Allen selection, you have to provide an alternative. And no matter how much you look around, you won’t find an obvious one. It would be a different story had Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah not missed significant chunks of time, but that isn’t the world we live in. In the real world, Boozer has missed more than one-third of the season, and that matters when it comes to honoring people for their achievements over the first half of the season — if that’s the criteria you prefer (and I do). And before you mention the nine games Dirk Nowitzki missed, understand two things: 1) Carlos Boozer is not Dirk Nowitzki; 2) Boozer has missed nearly twice as many games as Nowitzki, and that’s a huge difference in this small sample size.

Raymond Felton? He has regressed toward his career norms over the last month, and those career norms are not All-Star-caliber.

Andrew Bogut? My love for Bogut’s game is well-documented, but he’s shooting 49 percent from the field and 41 percent from the line, and he hasn’t been a consistent offensive weapon for the Bucks.

Luol Deng? He’s having a nice season carrying a heavy load in Chicago, and we should commend him for developing a reliable three-point shot he can unleash in high volumes. But he’s shooting 45 percent, his rebounding numbers are down and his PER is league-average. That’s not good enough for the All-Star Game.

Josh Smith? I wouldn’t mind him getting Allen’s spot, actually, considering he outranks Allen by a fair margin in PER and is a solid two-way player for the Hawks. If there’s a real snub here, it’s probably Smith, though his effort and concentration on both ends wanes more than I’d like.

That about covers it. There isn’t a guy here that has an air tight case to make it over Ray Allen.

[dlpin]

Sothron, on 04 February 2011 - 11:20 AM, said:

I don't put any stock into "advanced" numbers, no offense. If someone is putting up great numbers then they are doing so for a reason. This good numbers on a bad team argument holds no water with me. If anything being the only one or two good player on a bad team means you have to fight more double teams and defensive focus than guys on better teams. That makes their numbers even better by comparison when they can do without much help around them and a team dedicated to just shutting them down.

First, number "by 36 minutes" aren't really advanced. Duncan is playing only 29 minutes a night not because he doesn't deserve more minutes, but because they are trying to keep him fresh. In any case, his rebounding numbers are comparable and blocks are better than Horford's even without adjusting for minutes.

Second, you are wrong on your good number on a bad team analysis. An average player on a bad team might get more double teams and be the focus of the defense more often, but he would also have significantly more opportunities to get the ball in his hands.

If Monta Ellis was traded tomorrow to the lakers, all his numbers would go down even if he played better. as he would not be getting 20 shots a night. Similarly, do you think Kevin Love would be getting 5 offensive rebounds a game if his team wasn't one of the 10 worst shooting teams in the league? Do you think Kevin Love would still be getting 10 defensive boards a game if he was playing alongside good rebounders instead of the softest front court in the league with Milicic and Beasley?

The Paul Pierce who scores 19 points a game on 13 shots and won the championship was a much better player than the Paul Pierce who scored 26 points a game on 20 shots and was in the lottery.

[dlpin]

As for Allen and Josh Smith, I think Allen got the spot more because of being a guard than because of reputation.

There were already 5 forwards on the team with Amare, Lebron, KG, Pierce and Bosh, so I doubt coaches would select a 6th one.  Josh might have been more deserving, but in the end he will not be in for the same reason Tony Parker and Steve Nash are not in on the West: the conference just happen to be loaded with players in the same position.

[niremetal]

AHF, on 04 February 2011 - 11:42 AM, said:

SI's Zach Lowe says Smith is the only legit snub in the East, but not a slam dunk snub:

[/b]

Henry Abbot doesn't even mention Josh among his list of snubs:

Quote

The 2010-11 East All-Stars

Starters
LeBron James
Amare Stoudemire
Dwyane Wade
Derrick Rose
Dwight Howard

Reserves
Ray Allen
Chris Bosh
Kevin Garnett
Al Horford
Joe Johnson
Paul Pierce
Rajon Rondo

Andrew Bogut
One of Andrew Bogut's problems is that he's in the Eastern Conference with Dwight Howard, who is unlikely to ever miss this game, and, now, Al Horford, who is proving to be quite the stud. As an extra annoyance, players like Joakim Noah (whose Bulls are 14 games ahead of the Bucks in the standings) and Brook Lopez also vie for the title of conference's third-best center. Last year when Bogut was on the All-Star bubble, he offered to switch positions. He can play center, but he swears he can also bring the ball up and zing behind-the-back passes. So, maybe that's something to consider next time.

Carlos Boozer
It was 2004 -- a half-century ago in dog years -- that Carlos Boozer offended the NBA by taking the biggest contract he could get. Sometimes it feels like he gets punished anew for that every year. He's a 20 and 10 guy (and the highest-paid player) on a 34-14 Bulls team that is shattering the assumption that the Celtics, Magic and Heat are the East's three candidates to make the Finals.

Joakim Noah
Charles Barkley's favorite NBA player is beautiful to watch, even if you're not captivated by the flowing curls. He has infinite love -- for the game, for winning, for his teammates, for hustle, for the big moments. It's no coincidence he was part of special teams in college and again in the pros. The man plays his heart out, and any league would be wise to reward that. Meanwhile, his team has been as exciting as any in the league this season. The only real drawback to his candidacy: Thanks to injury, he has played just 24 games, and a lot of Chicago's best ball has come with Noah in funky street clothes.

[AHF]

The Bulls have played 48 games and Noah has played 24 of them and he is a snub?  What?  

Let's see what they have done in their minutes on the floor Per 36 minutes:

Noah v. Smith
13.7 pp36 v. 16.7 pp36
11.5 rp36 v. 9.2 rp36
2.7 ap36 v. 3.7 ap36
1.2 sp36 v. 1.4 sp36
1.6 bp36 v. 1.9 bp36

I guess total rebounds are the most important stat to Abbot.  Wait, Josh has more rebounds this year.

I guess rebound rate is the most important stat to Abbot.