Jespher
Starter
Here is the difference between John Salmons and Andres Nocioni...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
No Stat All Stars
- Thread starter Jespher
- Start date
Sptsjunkie
Starter
I think he was just referring to the fact that Noc is a team player and defender who does things that are not reflected in the traditional box score, while Salmons is known for being all about stats.
Kingsroots
G-League
I think he just means that having guys that play with heart, hustle, and desire to win do more for a team than produce stats. Salmons was more of a me guy where as Noc is more of a team guy. That's how I Interpret it anyway.
P
PoundForPound
Guest
owned.
TaxMan
Starter
huh?
On some boards, it's considered extremely hilarious for the more juvenile members of the forum to post "owned" to indicate that one member has humiliated another. I suspect that was the intention in this case...
Unfortunately, much like sarcasm in general, it's an endeavor that is all too often appreciated by only the poster himself.
Jespher
Starter
I enjoyed this article as it demonstrated the limitations of the current box score to convey the effectiveness of players and how they help or hurt their teams chances of winning. This article really touched in detail on the intangibles that Shane Battier has brought to his teams to allow them to win, and how misleading current statistics in basketball are to this end. All of the measured statistics, even PER and +/-, are biased to things and decisions that could be detrimental to the team. I loved the comparison to Kobe scoring 30 points to Shane's 0 in the game without McGrady. Sure, Kobe was filling the stat sheet, and he had 30+ points, but it was on around 30 shots, and he was remarkably less efficient than Battier.
As it pertains to the Kings, I believe this is why Petrie traded for Andres Nocioni, as he has the intangibles in his game to make his teammates more efficient, and make his opponents less efficient. That should be the most important stat kept, and is why, ultimately, basketball superstars are measured more on winning, than what stat lines they produced. John Salmons has a valuable contract, and he put up pretty good stats, however, he made his teammates less efficient. His man defense was pretty good, but his team defense was horrendous, and led to the Kings allowing Orlando to break the single game 3-pointer record, along with the miriad of 100+ point games for Kings opponents this season.
As it pertains to the Kings, I believe this is why Petrie traded for Andres Nocioni, as he has the intangibles in his game to make his teammates more efficient, and make his opponents less efficient. That should be the most important stat kept, and is why, ultimately, basketball superstars are measured more on winning, than what stat lines they produced. John Salmons has a valuable contract, and he put up pretty good stats, however, he made his teammates less efficient. His man defense was pretty good, but his team defense was horrendous, and led to the Kings allowing Orlando to break the single game 3-pointer record, along with the miriad of 100+ point games for Kings opponents this season.
Last edited:
nebs
Starter
PFFFFFFFFF LOL. I think that's the first time I've ever seen someone use that here.
And I'm glad to have Nocioni and his positive team attitude on board our team.
This is a really good article. Someone posted a link to it on one of the Oakland A's fan boards (it's by Michael Lewis, the guy who wrote Moneyball) and I really appreciated the behind the scenes look at what Battier's thought process is. I remember watching that Houston-Lakers game the article talks about. Nocioni does have a lot of the same hustle no-stat qualities, though I don't know if he takes preperation to the insane level that Battier does. I don't know if anyone does. I'd be curious to see an article comparing Artest's defensive strategy with Battier's actually, especially considering they play on the same team now and both are known for their defense.
Now this I understand. I just skimmed the article the first time looking for a Salmons or Nocioni reference. Had I bothered to actually read it, I would have seen what you were getting at. Thanks for the clarification.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
Anyone that uses the term "owned", or even better "pwned", is automatically "pwned" by default.
This was a fascinating article. Thanks Jespher.
P
PoundForPound
Guest
I did not intend to offend anyone by using the word. However, if I have, I do sincerely apologize. I was simply referring to John Salmons not getting much love from this thread. Maybe I should have been a little clearer. Again, I regret my using of the word and am deeply sorry. This is just a misunderstanding, it will not happen again.
Last edited by a moderator:
Amory
Bench
Mad D
Starter
I think Poundforpound was referring to John Salmons being 'owned' and I think VF thought that Poundforpound was referring to her and I think Taxman thought that what Sportsjunkie said was directed to VF but instead VF thought that Taxman was thinking that he did not know what 'owned' meant instead of thinking that she was thinking that he was thinking that Salmons was owned.
It's all a big misunderstanding.
It's all a big misunderstanding.
jalfa
Starter
As much as I liked and still like the article, it has to be read with some perspective. Now, I appreciate that most of the points brought up by TPFS don't necessarily devalue those aspects that pertain to Nocioni and the Kings, it's just that the Lewis article has been decried the end all of advanced statistics in basketball and it just shouldn't be.
Jespher
Starter
That is an interesting critique of the above article, however, it doesn't really add any additional points to the argument. It is critical of the writing style and the substance of the initial article, but it fails to add any statistical talking points, or make any commentary on the NBA on its own merit. The reason that I like the moneyball piece, is that it allows fans to look at players and quantify their value in a different way than the traditional box score stats allow. It may be skewed towards the unathletic players, but it is certainely useful in understanding which combination of talent would make your team more cohesive and effecient (especially defensively). There is a great deal of mental effect on team sports, and offensive and defensive efficiency measures seem to quantify that well (along with winning percentage over a career).
I think you win the thread.
bozzwell
Starter
That was a great article. I read it in a single breath and was dissappointed when it was over, I wanted more. I was always aware of the "shadow" stats whether while watching an NBA game or playing in a pickup game, and fans always talk about glue guys and team-first guys, but the article references pros who look at those stats scientifically. I'd love to hear more about stats that are collected and algorithms used to evaluate those stats. First thing I'd do with it is watch tapes of 98-04 Kings and figure our "shadow" box score for Webber, Vlade and Doug. Specifically Webber before injury, as I don't think that there are many star players in the league who do well with with intangibles of this kind. Yes, they all make the game easier for their teammates but how many actually do some of the stuff that article talks about on regular basis? Garnett and who else?
As for Noce, yes he is an anti-Salmons in a sense that he works hard for his team, but I wouldn't go as far as to compare him to Battier. Noce will have games (at least he had them with the Bulls) where he will shoot ball 20 times, score 30 points in playoffs (if we ever get there) or dissapear altogether, or even worse become a black hole and take quick 3's for no reason wahtsoever like Artest did. He does get frustrated like that and his normal game goes out of the window. Point about Battier and similar player is that they do their thing no matter what and that makes them really special.
As for Noce, yes he is an anti-Salmons in a sense that he works hard for his team, but I wouldn't go as far as to compare him to Battier. Noce will have games (at least he had them with the Bulls) where he will shoot ball 20 times, score 30 points in playoffs (if we ever get there) or dissapear altogether, or even worse become a black hole and take quick 3's for no reason wahtsoever like Artest did. He does get frustrated like that and his normal game goes out of the window. Point about Battier and similar player is that they do their thing no matter what and that makes them really special.
I think that comparing Battier to Kobe (and Webber and others) was something of an extreme example to illustrate how something like sabermetrics/moneyball is being applied to the NBA game. The Talking Points guy does a fair job of deconstructing parts of the article, but even he acknowleges before the critique that there are "stars" that are merely beneficiaries of circumstance and there are hardworking underappreciated players that are the true glue for their team. Comparing Noce to Salmons is a more realistic example of this principle - a hustle player vs. a stats first player. However a Salmons vs. Noce article is never going to merit two paragraphs in the NYT, let alone Lewis's novella.
jalfa
Starter
Yes, I agree with you. The only thing that I wanted to point out was that there is something lacking in the Lewis' article. It wouldn't be worth the bother of going through this, if it wasn't for the whole basketball blogosphere deitifying the moneyball piece.
As I wanted to say with my second sentence, the things that you can take away from Lewis' article, because they are relevant to Nocioni and the Kings, hold true regardless of the TPFS criticism. It's just that I wouldn't want anybody to read the article without being aware of its shortcomings.
Hey, he spent 1500 words on Shane Battier. Anything's possible.
He spent 1500 words on why a 30+ point performance by Kobe wasn't as valuable as a 3 point night by Battier, and that Kobe's game winning bucket was actually perfectly played defense resulting in a less than 1 in 5 chance of sinking and that night it just happened to drop. Battier was the focus of the article, but the interesting part of it was comparing him to an established superstar, which neither Salmons or Noce happen to be. Well maybe Salmons is in his own mind.
Similar threads
