Why Overpay For Smoove...

[mrhonline]

i watched the games, i saw what happened, i saw who had the most influence on most games.

Well, it was Ex who brought stats into this, not me. :jeer:

So, to respond non-statistically, I think one would be fooling himself to think that Al Horford did not have a HUGE impact on the Hawks' success.

There's more to basketball than weak-side shotblocking, slashing, and above-the-rim play (although those certainly have their merit). Al brought more to the table in terms of leadership, anchoring the post, shooting efficiency, and rebounding than Smith brought in any of his four seasons.

I'd rather not do without either player, but let's not shortchange Al here.

[HawkNJersey]

Well, it was Ex who brought stats into this, not me. :jeer:

So, to respond non-statistically, I think one would be fooling himself to think that Al Horford did not have a HUGE impact on the Hawks' success.

There's more to basketball than weak-side shotblocking, slashing, and above-the-rim play (although those certainly have their merit). Al brought more to the table in terms of leadership, anchoring the post, shooting efficiency, and rebounding than Smith brought in any of his four seasons.

I'd rather not do without either player, but let's not shortchange Al here.

I don't think Al's getting shortchanged here....exaggerated maybe, but certainly not shortchanged

[Joker]

You're barking up the wrong tree here. You're not going to convince me that PER is all that useful as a stat. It certainly doesn't hurt, but IMO you can tell more by looking at a column of stats.

There's just no unifying stat that exists in basketball. If you want a simplification, I think that Dean Oliver's "Four Factors" make the most sense:

Shooting efficiency (Horford)

Rebounding (Horford)

Ballhandling (Push)

Gettting to/Efficiency at FT line (Push)

http://www.nba.com/wizards/news/statprimer_051122.html

Ballhandling isn't a push, Smith can't dribble up the court without looking like a TO machine. Al could and never put us in a bad place with his ballhandling. I know your going by stats from Dean Oliver but watching the games it wasn't even close.

[exodus]

Fair enough:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm...o03&y2=2008

Per36, based on their most recent season (Smith's 4th, Horford's 1st):

TS% - Horford

eFG% - Horford

FT% - Horford

OReb% - Horford

Dreb% - Horford

Ast% - Smith

Stl% - Smith

Blk% - Smith

Tov% - Horford

PF - Smith

ORtg - Horford

DRtg - Horford

OWS - Horford

DWS - Smith

WSAA - Horford

Your argument still holds no weight.

It was Al who was playing out of position, and it was Al who hadn't played in the NBA for the past three seasons. Yet he still managed to be more efficient.

Then don't make this argument:

Smith is better than Horford by any statistical measure you want to use

Having followed the game for awhile i have never heard of WSAA which is probably an indication of how useful it is. any stat that has a 10 ppg player rated higher on offense than a 17 ppg player isn't of much use.

So, to respond non-statistically, I think one would be fooling himself to think that Al Horford did not have a HUGE impact on the Hawks' success.

First of all the fact that you call the season a success shows that we definitely aren't on the same page.

Secondly the Hawks had fewer injuries this past season, added two lottery picks, and their young guys had a year more experience yet they won only 7 more games. I am not seeing the impact.

Al brought more to the table in terms of leadership, anchoring the post, shooting efficiency, and rebounding than Smith brought in any of his four seasons.

If standing around with the ball for several seconds on offense shows leadership then Horford definitely had the edge. If making impact plays in crunch time shows leadership then Smith blows him away.

How does Al anchor the post when he gets scored on so easily?

It isn't hard to shoot efficiently when you rarely shoot unless you are wide open.

"It was Al who was playing out of position, and it was Al who hadn't played in the NBA for the past three seasons. Yet he still managed to be more efficient."

Being more efficient and being better are two different things. Childress was more efficient than JJ but no way was he better.

"Gettting to/Efficiency at FT line (Push)"

Horford only got to the line twice a game in 30 minutes even though he was defended by much slower guys. That is lame.

[mrhonline]

Having followed the game for awhile i have never heard of WSAA which is probably an indication of how useful it is. any stat that has a 10 ppg player rated higher on offense than a 17 ppg player isn't of much use.

Or it's an indication that you don't know as much about basketball statistics as you think you do. I'll let you decide. :)

Regardless, both WSAA and PER take efficiency into consideration. They just weigh things differently. I'm not a big fan of either one, to be honest. I would've mentioned PER, but you already had.

First of all the fact that you call the season a success shows that we definitely aren't on the same page.

I didn't say that. Read my sentence more closely.

Being more efficient and being better are two different things. Childress was more efficient than JJ but no way was he better.

Which is why you can't rely solely on shooting efficiency. You have to look at other stats, as I said.

You're not arguing with me at this point. You're arguing with some imaginary argument.

[exodus]

LOL here is another WSAA comparison.

Childress > JJ

Childress has a WSAA of 6 for this past season while JJ's WSAA is somehow -3.

Edited August 1, 2008 by exodus

[mrhonline]

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2008/Hawks.htm

ESPN

Childress also had a higher PER than JJ, so what's your point?

Edited August 1, 2008 by ifthenwouldi

[exodus]

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2008/Hawks.htm

Childress also had a higher PER than JJ, so what's your point?

Childress PER was about 3% higher than JJ. His WSAA totally dominates JJ. Now i know why i haven't heard of it.

[EazyRoc]

So they are both inaccurate. One just slightly more than the other..

[mrhonline]

Childress PER was about 3% higher than JJ.

So, he's a superior player, right? Isn't that how PER works?

His WSAA totally dominates JJ. Now i know why i haven't heard of it.

So you understand the scale for WSAA, right? Mind telling me what it is...?

I've said all along that I'm not basing my argument on one column, and provided a number of statistical areas where Horford is superior to Smith.

Your response? To ignore all but one.

[mrhonline]

So they are both inaccurate. One just slightly more than the other..

When used by themselves? Absolutely.

[exodus]

So, he's a superior player, right? Isn't that how PER works?

So you understand the scale for WSAA, right? Mind telling me what it is...?

I've said all along that I'm not basing my argument on one column, and provided a number of statistical areas where Horford is superior to Smith.

Your response? To ignore all but one.

My response was to do my own comparison. I gave you the link using the same site you used. All the stats are there and they are self explanatory.

Edited August 1, 2008 by exodus

[exodus]

Since you want me to list them all out

TS% - Childress

eFG% - Childress

FT% JJ

OReb% - Childress

Dreb% - Childerss

Ast% - JJ

Stl% - Childress

Blk% - Childress

Tov% - JJ

PF - JJ

ORtg - Childress

DRtg - JJ

OWS - Childress

DWS - JJ

WSAA - Childress

[Cwell]

Ballhandling isn't a push, Smith can't dribble up the court without looking like a TO machine. Al could and never put us in a bad place with his ballhandling. I know your going by stats from Dean Oliver but watching the games it wasn't even close.

oh the same Smith can't dribble myth around here. Oh I guess no matter what people will say he can't dribble unless he starts doing Hot Sauce moves. If u keep control of the ball and don't lose it your handle is fine,like Smith. When u trip over your feet and dribble off your foot everytime u try,like Marvin,your handle needs serious work.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Cwell

[crimedog]

Fair enough:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm...o03&y2=2008

Per36, based on their most recent season (Smith's 4th, Horford's 1st):

TS% - Horford

eFG% - Horford

FT% - Horford

OReb% - Horford

Dreb% - Horford

Ast% - Smith

Stl% - Smith

Blk% - Smith

Tov% - Horford

PF - Smith

ORtg - Horford

DRtg - Horford

OWS - Horford

DWS - Smith

WSAA - Horford

Your argument still holds no weight.

It was Al who was playing out of position, and it was Al who hadn't played in the NBA for the past three seasons. Yet he still managed to be more efficient.

Then don't make this argument:

Smith is better than Horford by any statistical measure you want to use

Hey MrH. I respect you a lot but you are so wrong here its funny.

You are so desperate to come up with statistical validation for your argument that you are using stats that you quite obviously don't understand. Drtg is the stat that is better if it is lower... you gave it to Horford even though it is very very very strongly in Smith's favor.

By the way, ex', WSAA is one of those stats that was in the other thread where I said that you should know what a comprehensive stat does before you use it. It is one of those that believes that scoring efficiency holds constant over volume AND offensive rebounding is the most important stat. According to WSAA, Joe Johnson is our second worst player and Josh Childress is 3 times better than anyone else on the team.

Judging by the two most commonly accepted stats, PER (which is on the site but MrH ignored) and +/- which is quite simply how much better you make your team, Smith is a lot better.

It is a stone cold, inarguable fact, that Smith makes a bigger impact on the team (in a positive way) than Al Horford based on whether we outscore the other team with them on the floor or not.

[Zone034life]

In our half court sets, Smoove, Marvin, and Bibby all played pretty equal roles;

This has to be one of the things that stuck out the most when I was reading this thread. You compare Smoove to two stand still jump shooters. Marvin wouldn't have that many attempts if it wasn't for Smoove and JJ's penatration. Bibby was obviously a step slow last season and wasn't the creator Smoove was. Saying we should trade Smoove and replace him next offseason isn't a good plan. What about this season? This won't help in resigning JJ or Al in the near future.

The comparing of Smoove and Big Al seems to be trumping the fact that Al has stated he wants to play with Smoove in the future. It also seems to be being overlooked Al Horford is one of the best things to ever happen to Smoove. He went from being the only viable lost post threat to having someone to watch his back and play with as much fire and passion as he does on the floor.

Bottom line is I don't care which ends up better I just hope they both reach there full potential in a Hawks uniform.

[crimedog]

You're barking up the wrong tree here. You're not going to convince me that PER is all that useful as a stat. It certainly doesn't hurt, but IMO you can tell more by looking at a column of stats.

There's just no unifying stat that exists in basketball. If you want a simplification, I think that Dean Oliver's "Four Factors" make the most sense:

Shooting efficiency (Horford)

Rebounding (Horford)

Ballhandling (Push)

Gettting to/Efficiency at FT line (Push)

http://www.nba.com/wizards/news/statprimer_051122.html

... and, by the way. Shooting efficiency is nice but, as a middle school grad, you should know that efficiency will go down with volume "the law of diminishing returns", Dean Oliver doesn't take that into account which is why it is one of his "four factors" and that is why Andrew Bynum shouldn't be getting more shots than Kobe but Oliver-based analysts think he should.

Getting to/Efficiency at the line isn't a push, adjusting for minutes Smith still gets to the line twice as much because he is a) more aggressive and b) asked to take more difficult shots which might also account for the lower shooting percentage.

[Buzzard]

This has to be one of the things that stuck out the most when I was reading this thread. You compare Smoove to two stand still jump shooters. Marvin wouldn't have that many attempts if it wasn't for Smoove and JJ's penatration. Bibby was obviously a step slow last season and wasn't the creator Smoove was. Saying we should trade Smoove and replace him next offseason isn't a good plan. What about this season? This won't help in resigning JJ or Al in the near future.

The comparing of Smoove and Big Al seems to be trumping the fact that Al has stated he wants to play with Smoove in the future. It also seems to be being overlooked Al Horford is one of the best things to ever happen to Smoove. He went from being the only viable lost post threat to having someone to watch his back and play with as much fire and passion as he does on the floor.

Bottom line is I don't care which ends up better I just hope they both reach there full potential in a Hawks uniform.

I never said I wanted to trade Smoove. That is absolutely not correct. The title of the thread is " why overpay for Smoove". I honestly think Al, Smoove, and Marvin can be a productive front line; but if I have to choose who I would rather keep due to LT and salary cap, I keep Al ....

This is really what my whole post is about...If I have to choose who I am going to overpay it will be Al and not Smoove. My logic is simple. 6'9" scorers are much easier to come by than 6'11" rebounders that have close to a (he is still a rookie) complete game.

I really think the ASG is looking at our team longterm (JJ and AL resignings) and those who want to sign Smoove at all cost are looking at the shortterm...

Edited August 1, 2008 by jamesdcrockett

[Cwell]

I never said I wanted to trade Smoove. That is absolutely not correct. The title of the thread is " why overpay for Smoove". I honestly think Al, Smoove, and Marvin can be a productive front line; but if I have to choose who I would rather keep due to LT and salary cap, I keep Al ....

This is really what my whole post is about...If I have to choose who I am going to overpay it will be Al and not Smoove. My logic is simple. 6'9" scorers are much easier to come by than 6'11" rebounders that have close to a (he is still a rookie) complete game.

I really think the ASG is looking at our team longterm (JJ and AL resignings) and those who want to sign Smoove at all cost are looking at the shortterm...

um Al isn't even 6'10 let alone 6'11

[Buzzard]

um Al isn't even 6'10 let alone 6'11

My bad but he is listed as 6'10"....