|
Moe_Rahn posted:do you also feel this way about every other team relocation/renaming that has taken place in the hundred-plus years of north american professional sports No, I care deeply about every relocation/renaming of any professional sports team internationally. When I heard the Warriors left Philly to go to San Francisco a single tear rolled out my cheek, only to meet the others that came from hearing the news that Minneapolis, Rochester and Fort Wayne had previously suffered the same fate. Occasionally you will see my bravely wearing my Portsmouth Spartans jersey to Ford Field - a silent protest that I hope encourage others (even Staley fans!) to speak up. But nothing will ever top coming to the realisation that Wimbledon F.C was now Milton Keyes. I just think they should keep the records separate. Declan MacManus posted:the thunder is our team, ours Pretty much this. Speewah fucked around with this message at Apr 26, 2012 around 02:29 |
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 02:26 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 15:38 |
|
|
Moe_Rahn posted:do you also feel this way about every other team relocation/renaming that has taken place in the hundred-plus years of north american professional sports Yeah. I get the frustration in Seattle, but probably... the majority of the teams in the NBA aren't where they started and lay claim to the records of those old city's teams. The circumstances of the Thunder/Sonics don't really change anything. And I think the deal is when Seattle gets another team, they the Sonics name, uniform, records, and stuff back, which seems like a good deal.
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 02:27 |
|
|
I think as time passes the Thunder and Sonics will be looked at as two separate entities, and if Seattle ever gets a team back, they'll retain the old records and the Thunder will be looked at the same way the Ravens are in the NFL. That's probably a long way off, though.
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 03:45 |
|
|
Speewah posted:When I heard the Warriors left Philly to go to San Francisco a single tear rolled out my cheek I first read this and thought you meant you were actually alive when it happened. We almost had someone in SAS older than Det.
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 03:49 |
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:If they don't want Harden, I can think of 29 other teams that could use the best 6th man in the league Beware the curse of Odom
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2012 13:04 |
|
|
Does any site list which announcers will be handling which games? Or which announcers called past games? Is it all network based? I'm listening to Kevin Calabro call the Hawks Celtics first round game and he is pretty sweet, I'd probably watch old games if I knew he called them.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 00:46 |
|
|
H-Tail posted:Beware the curse of Odom Somewhere an E! executive just got a terrible idea
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 01:03 |
|
|
Kicked Throat posted:Does any site list which announcers will be handling which games? Or which announcers called past games? Is it all network based? I'm listening to Kevin Calabro call the Hawks Celtics first round game and he is pretty sweet, I'd probably watch old games if I knew he called them. Fang's Bites is good for stuff like this. Here's ABC/ESPN's schedule, here's NBA-TV's and here's TNT's. Does anyone read The Wages of Wins Journal? I was looking at their advanced box scores, but I'm not sure how much faith I should put into it. Is it any better or worse than the boxes available on Basketball Reference or Popcorn Machine?
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 01:12 |
|
|
barkingclam posted:Does anyone read The Wages of Wins Journal? I was looking at their advanced box scores, but I'm not sure how much faith I should put into it. Is it any better or worse than the boxes available on Basketball Reference or Popcorn Machine? I prefer BBR because they make all their data easily available and searchable. I haven't seen enough WP48/WP/POP data. It seems like all value stats have decided to go with approximating wins to efficiency rather than actual wins. It'd be my preference to see all these value stats have two versions available (one tied directly to wins and one connected to offensive/defensive efficiency) and let people draw their own conclusions.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 04:39 |
|
|
barkingclam posted:Fang's Bites is good for stuff like this. Here's ABC/ESPN's schedule, here's NBA-TV's and here's TNT's. I'm not a fan of Wages of Wins because Berri's a bit of a cock and Wins Produced doesn't seem like a very good measure to me. BBR doesn't have WoW's colors, though, so any graphs you'll find there are prettier (though the page you linked to looks pretty daunting). No box score is inherently better than one another, but BBR's includes the most common advanced stats, while I think Wages uses Wins Produced and doesn't include Win Shares or PER. I could get into why I don't like Wins Produced, but that isn't what you asked.  TL;DR: Stick with BBR, those are the stats that most people around here are familiar with and the ones that will crop up the most
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 04:48 |
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:I could get into why I don't like Wins Produced, but that isn't what you asked. Why don't you like Wins Produced?
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 05:28 |
|
|
jyrka posted:Why don't you like Wins Produced? Well, here's the formula for it: http://wagesofwins.com/wins-produce...-wins-produced/ Wins Produced tries to be a catch-all stat, like Win Shares (which also has flaws), but in the process, it weighs efficiency metrics very heavily without taking usage into account. It also penalizes you for missing a shot more than making one, and 3 pointers are worth twice as much as a standard field goal. Wins Produced is also a composite score of offense and defense, and it calculates defense by measuring raw opponent production when a player is on the court, which doesn't account for things like defensive switches or fast break opportunities. It also counts defensive rebounds as equally valuable to steals, and offensive rebounds equal to defensive ones. These are things that Dean Oliver has pretty convincingly proved are inaccurate. It also takes defensive rebounding very heavily into account. Defensive rebounding (and more importantly, preventing your opponent from grabbing offensive rebounds) is very important, but the way Berri goes about measuring this is weighing individual defensive rebounds versus team defensive rebounds (or in other words, a more convoluted version of DRB%) without context. A defensive rebound in itself isn't very useful if your teammate could have grabbed it and you snatched it from him (as Dennis Rodman was purported to do on occasion). Someone else would've gotten it, and that's what's important: that the team secures it, and not necessarily which player does so. Interestingly, this philosophy (who does x does not matter as long as the team gets it done) crops up in Wins Produced to justify why missed field goals are penalized harshly: quote:For example, consider field goal attempts. Estimating the above model for field goal attempts indicates a one-unit increase in the teammate’s field goal attempts per minute will reduce a player’s field goal attempts per-minute by 0.833. In other words, most of a player’s shot attempts come at the expense of his teammates. And this is why players should not be given credit for taking shots (see Player Efficiency Rating and NBA Efficiency for two metrics where such credit is given). In other words, shooting efficiency – not total points scored — is the primary determinant of a player’s offensive effectiveness. The logical extreme of this is that shots be distributed along the lines of efficiency rather than skill/offensive dynamic. Finally, it's a very complicated formula that relies on a number of variables + counting stats. It's also a slog to get through, and the results don't seem congruent with, you know, reality. Of course, statistics are important and should challenge preconceived notions of value and skill, but, just for example... http://wagesofwins.com/wins-produce...-produced-2011/ These are the leaders in Wins Produced for 2011. First place is Chris Paul, which is understandable, and second is Dwight Howard. Third place is Kevin Love, which is a little bit weird. Then Lebron, Wade, Pau, Nash, then Landry Fields comes in as the eighth most productive player in the NBA. Landry "Third or fourth option on this team" Fields. Jason Kidd is in 12th, Kris Humphries is 17th, and way down at 24th is Kevin Durant. Kobe Bryant is 59th, between Marcin Gortat and Amir Johnson. I mean, poo poo, in 2000 Bo Outlaw was the third most productive player in the NBA using Wins Produced. Bo Outlaw took less than 5 shots per game in 2000. In 2004, Erick Dampier, Donyell Marshall, and James Posey are all in the top 10 (and ahead of an in-his-prime Shawn Marion). Berri's response to situations like these isn't that these players are statistical outliers or that there might be some sort of flaw in his method. Instead, these players are underappreciated by traditional metrics and Wins Produced reveals their true value.  So that's more than you needed to know about my thoughts on Dave Berri and Wins Produced.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 06:04 |
|
|
Pre Wages of Wins, Berri wrote an academic article for some journal arguing that Rodman, not Michael Jordan, was the MVP of the 1998 season. It is this kind of insight you get at Wages of Wins.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 12:46 |
|
man
|
So if I have this right, Dave Berri:Baskeball::Dave Cameron:Baseball?
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 14:24 |
|
|
Groucho Marxist posted:So if I have this right, Dave Berri:Baskeball:: Dave Cameron:Baseball? That sounds about right. Does Dave Cameron ever cite his own book in a scholarly manner without any hint of irony?
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 14:56 |
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:That sounds about right. Does Dave Cameron ever cite his own book in a scholarly manner without any hint of irony? I liked the citation to NBA.com.
|
| # ? May 2, 2012 16:15 |
|
|
serious question: is there anything in the NBA rulebook that would prohibit LeBron from wearing a toupee on the court to cover his receding hairline? maybe some kind of blanket ban on non-standard headgear?
|
| # ? May 7, 2012 03:27 |
|
|
Not off the top of my head. Bill Simmons jokes that Rick Barry wore one and it wouldn't surprise me
|
| # ? May 7, 2012 03:52 |
|
|
Speewah posted:I just think they should keep the records separate. "Should"? Sure. But Clay Bennett owns the rights to all past Sonics history/memorabilia and will make sure that any incoming Sonics expansion owner who wants it back will give him a cut in perpetuity. It's not going to be as good as the Silna's TV deal but I'm sure he'll have his fingers in that pie.
|
| # ? May 7, 2012 04:00 |
|
|
I can't find any sort of official breakdown of what is or isn't allowed (the NBA rules are very general about it). I don't know where this came from but here are some uniform guidelines that seem credible to me. Nothing about hats or toupees, though: http://benmaller.com/2010/11/nbas-4...layer-uniforms/
|
| # ? May 7, 2012 04:27 |
|
|
Rick posted:I can't find any sort of official breakdown of what is or isn't allowed (the NBA rules are very general about it). I see no reason that LeBron should not wear his Miami Floridians afro every single night.
|
| # ? May 7, 2012 04:46 |
|
|
Boozer put shoe polish in his head that one time.
|
| # ? May 7, 2012 05:00 |
|
|
cisneros posted:Boozer put shoe polish in his head that one time. If this is true I would love to see a picture of this.
|
| # ? May 7, 2012 10:51 |
|
|
thisdude23 posted:If this is true I would love to see a picture of this.  It was pretty disturbing.
|
| # ? May 7, 2012 12:08 |
|
|
This reminds me, what is the best or favorite NBA game ever? Mine would be: NBA Live 1999, turning off ALL the rules, pure jungle ball!
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 02:12 |
|
|
Bill Laimbeer's Combat Basketball. I don't even have to think about it.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 02:14 |
|
|
illcendiary posted:
Hahaha. Now we need the picture of how he looked near the end of the game
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 02:15 |
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Bill Laimbeer's Combat Basketball. Hahaha no loving way.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 02:20 |
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Bill Laimbeer's Combat Basketball. Double Dribble or as the speech synth in the game says "GRUBBLE GRIBBLE"
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 02:34 |
|
|
Yinzer posted:This reminds me, what is the best or favorite NBA game ever? Mine would be: NBA Live 1999, turning off ALL the rules, pure jungle ball! Either NBA Jam TE or NBA Hangtime. Perfect 2 on 2 games.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 02:36 |
|
|
Whichever NBA Live had Antoine Walker doing the shimmy. I think it was 99. I always traded for him just to see him do it Also, NBA Showtime (I think?) for the Dreamcast. It was basically updated NBA Jam
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 02:36 |
|
|
Still the best: So realistic.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 03:01 |
|
|
spamman posted:Either NBA Jam TE or NBA Hangtime. Perfect 2 on 2 games. You are 100% correct.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 06:41 |
|
|
Hangtime or like, NBA Live 97.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 06:51 |
|
|
NBA Action 98 on Sega Saturn
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 04:52 |
|
|
What is it about current gen that seemed to set basketball games back?
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 07:55 |
|
|
Rick posted:What is it about current gen that seemed to set basketball games back? For me, at least, the reaction time between the pressing of the button(s) and what happens on the screen. Seems to me that there's much more of a delay than there was :backintheday: .
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 08:00 |
|
|
I think the simulation isn't as tight either. I felt like it was the games that were a gateway into me understanding how basketball plays work (obviously it's still no substitute for observing real life), but I'm not sure the plays actually work in modern games. And the season simulation seems to be two steps back for every one step forward. But the most important thing is, yeah, I don't enjoy actually playing the games anymore. I will spend a solid day setting up the rosters and creating all the players missing in the game, play a few games and then never play again.
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 08:10 |
|
|
Rick posted:I think the simulation isn't as tight either. I felt like it was the games that were a gateway into me understanding how basketball plays work (obviously it's still no substitute for observing real life), but I'm not sure the plays actually work in modern games. Most of the work goes into trying to make everything look good and tinkering with control schemes to make playing one on one work better, but the teams either don't care about or don't understand how 5 on 5 basketball works so they just sort of half rear end it.
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 09:53 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 15:38 |
|
|
If you really think NBA video games were more accurate in the 90s than nowadays then I just don't really know where to go from here
|
| # ? May 17, 2012 11:12 |
|
