# A more sobering look at Jamaal Magloire



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

For all you who are slobbering yourselves over this trade.

http://www.truehoop.com/free-agents-and-trades-32766-whats-wrong-with-jamaal-magloire.html

The guy has very little offensive game, and is really just a good rebounder. He's not as good as Joel, and will be our backup center. Even LaFrentz might beat him out as the backup center, as the Blazers could really use a big man to draw people out of the middle so Zach has more room.

We could have resigned Blake next year and had a very good backup PG for years to come, but instead we'll most likely see Magilore leave, as someone out there is always willing to over-pay for a big man.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Just a good rebounder....

You do realize we were one of if not the worst rebounding team/s in the league last year.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

However is Portland going to survive the loss of Steve Blake? The franchise has been on such a roll with him here, and finding a capable backup PG is just so hard to do!

Ed O.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

No one with any sense is suggesting Magloire is an all star (as Patterson felt compelled to point out), but he is, IMO, an upgrade over what we gave up. We traded a second stringer, a third stringer and a fourth stringer for a starting quality center. Who is a good defender and a very good rebounder. And he's more durable than any center we've had in a decade (not counting Sheed). This trade is a no-brainer.


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

Hey well at least he has the eyes covered dunk. That has to be worth SOMETHING!


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

He'll help us in the rebounding department, but so will a healthy Joel Pryzbilla. And I doubt Nate would play both of them at the same time, unless Webster, Roy and Jack are on fire.

And solid rebounders are not that hard to find. Vladamir Stephania was a good rebounder. Chris Dudley was a good rebounder.

We may gain rebounding, but we'll lose the other benfits that LaFrentz or Ratliff could offer. He's really not a tremendous upgrade to our team. But the drop off from Blake to Dickau/Rodriguez will but substantial.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Everyone who thought Jamaal Magloire was brought in here to be an offensive juggernaut, raise your hand.

:wait: 

The guy was brought in for his physical presence in the paint and for his rebounding. And that piece does mention he seems to be successful in pick and roll situations, which he'll see plenty of in McMillan's offense.

Look what Nate McMillan did for guys like Jerome James and Reggie Evans up in Seattle. As big of scrubs as those guys are, they were productive players in his offense. I think Magloire is a giant step up from those guys, and he's a similar style of player.

On one hand, I think people are playing up Magloire's recent all-star status too much, but on the other hand, he's easily a top 15 center in this league and completely worth giving up three bench players for him. Especially considering his contract expires at the end of the year.

-Pop


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Ed O said:


> However is Portland going to survive the loss of Steve Blake? The franchise has been on such a roll with him here, and finding a capable backup PG is just so hard to do!
> 
> Ed O.


You're funny, I disagree with almost everything you say, even when you're being sarcastic.

We sucked last year, but Steve Blake was something that was right with our team. PG's like him are hard to find in the NBA these days. Even if Blake and Magilore were equal talents, our chances of retaining Blake were much higher.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Yega1979 said:


> He'll help us in the rebounding department, but so will a healthy Joel Pryzbilla. And I doubt Nate would play both of them at the same time, unless Webster, Roy and Jack are on fire.
> 
> And solid rebounders are not that hard to find. Vladamir Stephania was a good rebounder. Chris Dudley was a good rebounder.
> 
> We may gain rebounding, but we'll lose the other benfits that LaFrentz or Ratliff could offer. He's really not a tremendous upgrade to our team. But the drop off from Blake to Dickau/Rodriguez will but substantial.


Jamaal Magloire has at least three weapons on offense, he has a lefty/righty hook to go with his righty dunk :biggrin: 

Dudley and Stepania couldn't score if their lives depended on it. Magloire is an upgrade over Theo, since he won't get pushed around in the paint and should be healthy.

Dickau can easily fill Blake's shoes.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> The guy was brought in for his physical presence in the paint and for his rebounding. And that piece does mention he seems to be successful in pick and roll situations, which he'll see plenty of in McMillan's offense.
> 
> -Pop


Not to mention the fact that he'sjust 28, he was an all star center just 2 years ago, and we have full Bird rights. The guy has a lot of value to us and to other teams in the league. It's tough losing Blake, but we picked up a valuable asset for a back up PG and two non factors.


----------



## Stugots (Apr 20, 2006)

Yega1979 said:


> For all you who are slobbering yourselves over this trade.
> 
> http://www.truehoop.com/free-agents-and-trades-32766-whats-wrong-with-jamaal-magloire.html
> 
> ...



If he's not as good as Joel, but we were able to afford to keep Joel, why the doom and gloom about the potential of keeping Maglo?

Also, Rebounding is our #1 need.

Also, in what area is Joel P better than Maglo? Pretty much shot blocking and FG % are Joel's only advantages. I would say they are pretty comparable, but Jamaal is *FAR, FAR* more durable/reliable. 

I wasn't happy to see Blake leave either, but this helps to shore up our frontcourt for when Joel inevitably gets injured, as he seems to every year. I know it's an NBA cliche, but when you can trade quality big for small, you always do it.


*
Jamaal Magloire
Milwaukee Bucks
Position: C
Height: 6-11 Weight: 259
College : Kentucky
Player file | Team stats
2005-06 Statistics
PPG	9.2
RPG	9.5
APG	.7
SPG	.35
BPG	.98
FG%	.467
FT%	.535
3P%	.000
MPG	30.1
Games Played:82


Joel Przybilla
Portland Trail Blazers
Position: C
Height: 7-1 Weight: 255
College : Minnesota
Player file | Team stats
2005-06 Statistics
PPG	6.1
RPG	7.0
APG	.8
SPG	.36
BPG	2.32
FG%	.548
FT%	.532
3P%	.000
MPG	24.9
Games Played:56*


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> You're funny, I disagree with almost everything you say, even when you're being sarcastic.


I didn't post sarcastically thinking that you would agree with me. I posted sarcastically because I find your position to be silly.



> We sucked last year, but Steve Blake was something that was right with our team. PG's like him are hard to find in the NBA these days. Even if Blake and Magilore were equal talents, our chances of retaining Blake were much higher.


Are you asserting that Blake, as a benchwarming PG, is a superior talent to Jamaal, who's been a starting center for almost his whole career and made the all-star game two years ago?

Are you claiming that a backup PG (as you claimed Blake would have been in your inition post; I'm not spinning this negatively to make a point) is more valuable than a starting center like Magloire?

I'd certainly take my chances with retaining a superior talent over an inferior one. If we REALLY want Blake back next year, we can throw our whole MLE at him... there'd be little chance of that landing Magloire (since even if he gets that ultimately, he will have several teams offering it, probably).

You're bending over backwards to bash the trade and I don't buy any of the reasons...

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Jeez, nobody's claming he's the second coming of Wilt Chamberlain, just an upgrade over what the Blazers currently have and a valuable trading asset.

As I pointed out yesterday, if Magloire averages 9/9 he will be the first Blazer center to do so since 1998. 10/10 would be a godsend. He's a significantly better rebounder (both total rebounds and reb/40 minutes) than anyone else the Blazers have on the roster and one of the 10 best rebounders in the league - and far more durable than any other Blazers front court player - current or recent.

As I also pointed out a couple days ago, the Blazers were *DEAD LAST IN REBOUNDING LAST YEAR* and this was one of the major reasons they had the worst record in the league. Rebounding may not get you featured on the nightly edition of SportsCenter, but it wins basketball games. Any coach at any level will tell you if you constantly get hammered on the boards, like the Blazers did last year, you won't win very many basketball games.

I am a big fan of Steve Blake, but at the same time I also realize this was a VERY good trade for the Blazers.

BNM


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

It sounds like most are being pretty reasonable with the expectations.

Let's hope JM is on the same page. It's his contract year and although it sounds like most of us don't expect him to shoot a lot, I fear that his mentality will be he has to put up double double numbers.

The knock I heard about him is the same I just read . . . outside of dunking, he can't shoot. The Bucks board was commenting on how they would cringe when he would take a two foot shot.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

Yega1979 said:


> The guy has very little offensive game, and is really just a good rebounder. He's not as good as Joel, and will be our backup center.


What about Joel's offensive game?



Blazer Maven said:


> Dickau can easily fill Blake's shoes.


Let's hope so, but I don't think it's as obvious as you seem to.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Yega1979 said:


> He'll help us in the rebounding department, but so will a healthy Joel Pryzbilla.


And when, exactly, can we expect to see this *healthy* Joel Pryzbilla???? To the best of my knowledge, to date, no such person exists. Do you somehow think Joel, who without Magloire, would be our starting center and playing major minutes, will somehow be healthier than when he was an often injured back-up playing limited minutes.



Yega1979 said:


> And solid rebounders are not that hard to find. Vladamir Stephania was a good rebounder. Chris Dudley was a good rebounder.


Vladamir Stepania in his best season ever averaged 5.6 points and 7.0 rebounds. Compare that to Magloire's best of 13.6 ppg and 10.3 rpg. Dudley was a good rebounder, but in 16 seasons, his career best was 9.3 rpg. And you don't even want to compare scoring. Jamaal Magloire has scored over 500 more points in his first six years than Dudley did in 16 and scored more points during the 2004 season alone than Stepania did during his entire 6 year NBA career. Beside, what's the point of comparing Magloire to those guys? Neither is still in the league and even if they were, they are both far inferior to Magloire in all aspects of the game. 



Yega1979 said:


> We may gain rebounding, but we'll lose the other benfits that LaFrentz or Ratliff could offer.


Huh???? You realize that Theo no longer plays for the Blazers. He's no longer an option. Given the fact that he was traded over a month ago, in the deal that brought them LaFrentz, I don't see how he's relevant. And, even if he was, he's not nearly the rebounder, or even the scorer that Magloire is - even when healthy, which he never is.

Your arguments make no sense. You're comparing Jamaal Magloire, a 28 year starting center who is one of the 10 best rebounders in the entire NBA to guys who were never as good as he is and are out of the league or playing for other teams. Magloire is an upgrade to anyone the Blazers have had at center since Sabonis was in his prime back in 1998 - the last time a Blazer center averaged more than 10 ppg or 9 rpg.

BNM


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Yega1979 said:


> For all you who are slobbering yourselves over this trade.
> 
> http://www.truehoop.com/free-agents-and-trades-32766-whats-wrong-with-jamaal-magloire.html
> 
> The guy has very little offensive game


He may have very little offensive game, but he's a big improvement over Joel in that department.



> and is really just a good rebounder.


So he's better than Joel offensively and at rebounding.



> He's not as good as Joel


I hope you meant to say "at blocking shots" because if you didn't then you are wrong. Blocking shots is the only thing that Joel is better at. Explain to me how Joel is a better all around player than Jamaal.



> Even LaFrentz might beat him out as the backup center


Dude, now you're just sounding crazy. Just get over yourself and stop hating on Magloire. If you don't see the need for another good center other than the likely to get injured Joel then you have no business talking about basketball. 

Joel is great, but his minutes should be limited and he should be used in a way where he can focus his energy primarily on defense. Magloire allows the Blazers to do that.


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> Even if Blake and Magilore were equal talents, our chances of retaining Blake were much higher.


I'm not so sure. Steve would likely be backing up JJ. He'll be a UFA after next season. He could get offers from teams that would give him the opportunity to start. We don't have his bird rights, so we can't offer any more than another team....so the chance to start could be the deciding factor for him. Or, he could simply go to a team with more of a chance of winning. (I will concede, though, that SB sounded like he wanted to be here....but talk is cheap.)

OTOH, we have full Bird rights on JM. *IF* the Blazers choose to do so, they can offer him more money than any other team, regardless of cap space. Money usually talks.

Go Blazers


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> However is Portland going to survive the loss of Steve Blake? The franchise has been on such a roll with him here, and finding a capable backup PG is just so hard to do!


Good point.  It's not like we're going to be any WORSE because of this trade.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I didn't post sarcastically thinking that you would agree with me. I posted sarcastically because I find your position to be silly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Blake didn't warm the bench last year, he started the majority of the season for us. He's definitly earned more respect in the NBA than the lable of 'bench warmer'. Now who's being silly?

Jamaal's all-star appearance should not even be brought up. It was like...uhh every center in the East sucks, let's put on one of the only guys averaging over 10 ppg. His selection was widely regarded around the league as an example of how weak the East was at center.

Blake's career is just getting started and due to his age, has more potential upside than Magliore who is in his prime. Still, I think this trade is ok, but the basic point of my post was as the title says, sober people who are think we've just landed some all-star caliber player.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

blakejack said:


> What about Joel's offensive game?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hope so, but I don't think it's as obvious as you seem to.


Joel and Jamaal have the same offensive game. Dunks off pick and rolls and put backs. But Joel is one of the top shot blockers in the league and a big intimidator inside. Jamaal is a good rebounder and post defender, but I don't think he's a better center than Joel.

We'll be gaining in some aspects by playing Jamaal over LaFrentz, but we'll also be losing having a center with an outside shooting touch, which is also something that could really help our team.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> the basic point of my post was as the title says, sober people who are think we've just landed some all-star caliber player.


how could anyone take issue with that?

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> Blake's career is just getting started and due to his age, has more potential upside than Magliore who is in his prime.


Blake is 26. He's right near his prime...he doesn't have appreciable "upside." He is what he is: a mediocre backup point guard who managed to start for the worst team in basketball with an unsettled point guard situation.



> Still, I think this trade is ok, but the basic point of my post was as the title says, sober people who are think we've just landed some all-star caliber player.


That's a strawman argument, though. No one thinks the team just landed an "All-Star center." The team did pull off a steal, picking up a good starting-caliber center in return for replacement level talent.

Magloire is almost as good as Przybilla. Slightly better at individual defense, slightly worse in rebounding, better on offense and a significantly worse at team defense. Przybilla, Magloire and LaFrenz give Portland one of the better and deepest center rotations in the league, though none are incredible players.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

The only way I can see Joel starting over Magloire is if we have no intention of resigning Jamaal next year. 

Magloire, while not very good offensively, is still a slightly better shooter, passer, dribbler, etc. Joel is a better shot blocker, that's about it. 

To be completely honest, if I knew we were going to get Magloire, I wouldn't have wanted us to sign Joel to a long-term contract.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I would be thrilled if Pryzbilla outplays Mag this year because it would probably mean that we have two top 15 centers.

I think people denigrate Mag because they don't realize the scarcity of good centers nowdays, especially in the west.

My rankings in the West.

1) Yao Ming
2) Dampier
3) Brad Miller
4) Chris Kaman
5) Camby
6) Magloire

Outside of Yao, there really aren't any superstars. In fact, if Mourning were in the west, I could make a case for him as the 2nd best center.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Yega1979 said:


> Joel and Jamaal have the same offensive game. Dunks off pick and rolls and put backs. But Joel is one of the top shot blockers in the league and a big intimidator inside. Jamaal is a good rebounder and post defender, but I don't think he's a better center than Joel.


Joel is indeed a better shot blocker, but the Big Cat is a better scorer, better rebounder and better post defender. He's one of the few players in the league who isn't afraid to go toe-to-toe with Shaq or anybody else looking to get physical in the post. Joel is quicker, longer and a better leaper - all which make him a better shot blocker, but he lacks the bulk, strength and durability to bang down low like Magloire. Magloire has played all 82 games four times in his six year career. Joel has only broken 70 games twice in the same six years. Another way to look at it is they've both been in the league six years - Joel has played 5542 and Magloire has played 11034 - nearly twice as many minutes. He's MUCH more durable. You really don't want to rely on Joel to play 30 mpg over an entire 82 game schedule. He's proven for six years in a row he's just not physically up to such a demanding task. Look at it this way - they compliment each other well and having TWO capable centers is a huge plus. There will be little or no drop off when your starting center is on the bench resting or in foul trouble. Plus, it's great insurance against injury - always a big concern with Joel. 



Yega1979 said:


> We'll be gaining in some aspects by playing Jamaal over LaFrentz, but we'll also be losing having a center with an outside shooting touch, which is also something that could really help our team.


Magloire won't be playing 48 minutes a night. There will be plenty of opportunities for Raef to come in and knock down some shots when the situation calls for it. Also, both Magloire and LaFrentz can play the 4. With that much versatility there will be times when both Magloire and Joel are on the floor together, as well as times when Magloire and LaFrentz or Joel and LaFrentz will be in the game at the same time. Joel and Jamaal will be our best defensive combo at the 5/4 spots. For more offense, mix in Zach and Raef as needed. The combinations are many. In close games, you can even alternate offensive and defensive combinations on each possession change. 

This surplus of capable big men is something the Blazers haven't had in several years - I'm thinking back to the days when we had Sabonis, Sheed, BGrant and Jermaine back in 2000 when they took the Lakers to seven games in tthe WCF. I'm not saying this combo is as good as that one, but it's the strongest group of 4s/5s we've had since we traded BGrant for an over-the-hill, overweight, drug addicted Shawn Kemp and sent Jermaine to Indy for DD. It definitely gives us many good combinations of offense, defense and rebounding - much better than what we've had over the last few years, that's for sure.

BNM


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> My rankings in the West.
> 
> 1) Yao Ming
> *2) Dampier*
> ...


:laugh:

_Wow..._ :whofarted


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Magloire is almost as good as Przybilla. Slightly better at individual defense, slightly worse in rebounding...


Actually, Magloire is a better rebounder. Better in total rebounds, better in rebounds per game and better in rebounds/40 minutes - and he does it for a full 82 games. That's true for both their career numbers and last season. Other than 2004-2005 when Magloire suffered his one and only injury (a broken finger) Magloire has been one of the top 10 rebounders in the league since he became a starter in 2002-2003. 

Magloire was 10th in total rebounds in 2003, 7th in 2004 and 7th in 2006. Joel's best is 30th in 2005. He was 79th in total rebounds last year.

In terms of rebounds per game, Magloire was 16th in 2003, 9th in 2004 and 10th in 2006. Joel's best, again in 2005 was 35th.

When healthy, Joel is a very good rebounder. Jamaal is an excellent rebounder who is much more likely to be healthy.

Personally, I'm glad we have both as it means no drop off in rebounding with the second unit and good insurance in case of injury. Not only was Theo just as injury prone as Joel, he was a very weak rebounder for a center.

BNM


----------



## ThereIsNoTry (Oct 23, 2005)

Either way whoever is coming off the bench will be good..
Is our best position CENTER?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Tince said:


> To be completely honest, if I knew we were going to get Magloire, I wouldn't have wanted us to sign Joel to a long-term contract.


Maybe you share with me the opinion that the full MLE contract JP signed was a reasonable rate for him in todays NBA economics? If so, why would you be opposed to the club attaining Magliore as well? Put his desirable 8Mil+ expiring deal on top of the general scarcity of decent bigs and Portland is in the catseat with an extra decent big to deal. 

I feel it's best to use this as another building/transistion year with the roster anyways... let the guys gather experience without undo expectations. Hopefully we'll be surprised at how well they do from the get go but I do think they need to obtain a star and the 2007 draft projects to have a few who'd fit in nice. Of course there are many other ways that JM or Joel could fetch value in a trade as well, but I'd prefer to roll the dice.

STOMP


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

There is now question that this was a usable talent for uasable talent trade the benefitted both teams financially and balance rosters.

The Blazers were so bad last year that is doesn't matter who plays PG as long as they follow the game plan. When noone can shoot, what does it matter if the PG distributes. We had way to many garanteed contracts and had limited bargaining tools. Now IMO, every player on our roster has some value, with the exception of Dixon and Dickau. Miles and Zach may not be reahing the 'potential' but they are still capable players in the front court.

We needed to trade lesser players for a bigger commodity, hence I understand why this was orchestrated by Patterson. Gaining Bird Rights on an 8mil/year capable center is worth every penny if you are shedding three contracts of players that are not the future. JM's minutes basically would have been split between Ha and Skinner, so this is much more balanced.

Sad to see Steve go, but like others have said, he is a FA again next season and we can make an offer. We now have some trading chips in Jamal, Miles, Raef, and Dixon that IMO would work in some trades with weak teams to get the #1 pick or a true All-Star. We can now do what Milwaukie just did and shed capable big men for a more promising small.

Win, win and it appears we are more on the track to just that.

I don't understand what the argument is here.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Since this is supposed to be a negative thread towards Jamaal Magloire, here's an intereseting stat...

Of the players in the NBA who played more than 41 games last season and averaged over 20 minutes/game, only two players averaged more turnovers than assists+steals+blocks:

Eddie Curry (Worst in the league for a 4th straight year):
19 assists, 28 steals, and 56 blocks / 179 turnovers = 0.58:1 postive/negative ratio

Jamaal Magloire (The only other player to have a ratio below 1)
56 assists, 29 steals, and 80 blocks / 166 turnovers = 0.994:1 positive/negative ratio

I'm really impressed at how big of gap there is between the two players, considering Magloire's numbers aren't very good.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Good loard, I knew Curry was bad, but 19 assissts in almost 1900 minutes (1869 to be exact). With 56 assists in 2467 minutes, Jamaal Magloire looks like a point guard by comparison. Jeez, even Zach, who most people consider a black hole had 144 assists in 2546 minutes.

Minutes played per Assist:
Eddy Curry - 98.4
Jamaal Magloire - 44.1
Joel Przybilla - 32.4
Zach Randolph - 17.7

Also, Curry's 0.106 assist/TO ratio has to be one of the lowest I've ever seen from someone who is a starter and plays major minutes. Of the "top" 100 in TOs last year, only 8 players had fewer than 100 assists. As you might have guessed all were centers. Here's they are with their assists TOs and A/TO ratios. Yeah, I know they are centers and aren't really expected to rack up assists, but 19 assists to 179 TOs is phenomenally bad.

Eddy Curry: 19/179 = 0.106
Jamaal Magloire: 56/166 = 0.337
Chris Kaman: 79/176 = 0.449
Mark Blount: 99/194 = 0.510
Yao Ming: 85/147 = 0.578
Zydrunas Ilgauskas: 91/155 = 0.587
Tyson Chandler: 81/123 = 0.659
Nenad Krstic: 88/133 = 0.662

So, Magloire is a bad passer, even for a center, but Curry is downright pathetic. Throw in the fact that he's also an awful rebounder for his size/position AND the Knicks gave up a 2006 lottery pick AND the rights to swap picks in 2007 (another lottery pick, no doubt) to get him AND gave him a $60 million contract in spite of a bad heart and it's no wonder the Knicks are so awful - and will continue to be for years.

BNM


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

great post, BNM. 

makes you realize that Randolph suffers a similar problem as Portland Sheed--he's paid too much for his talent, but there's no denying he has talent. 

if Zach were making $8 mil/year, I doubt he'd have much of a reputation at all as a black hole. especially on a crappy team like ours where assists are hard to come by. 

Curry's assist numbers are mind-blowing. 19 assists in 1900 minutes. hell, you'd probably get that many assists just by the ball randomly ricocheting off your head into the hands of a shooter. thank god we never traded for him. I still remember the day he was drafted and people said he had the potential to be a mini-Shaq in a few years. what a joke. 

seems like every draft there's a Kwame or a Curry or a Kandi--some big man with tons of "upside" that in retrospect has no business being a top 5 pick. hopefully, Aldridge isn't that guy for this year. from interviews I've read it doesn't seem likely. he's got the height and the skills of those other big man, but also the great attitude and work ethic that is missing. hopefully Thomas or Williams is that guy this year. guess we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Let's not be TOO hard on Curry... he shot 56% from the floor last year and he was only 22 years old. The Shaq comparisons were always ridiculous, but he's still a reasonably good player and starter even at a pretty darn young age... his PER was 17 last year, for example, while Brad Miller's was 17.4 and Magloire's was 11.1...

But as for his passing/assist abilities: they're amazingly impressively bad  He had 19 assists in 1869... almost a hundred minutes for each assist!

Now consider Yinka Dare... the late Mr. Dare played a bit over 1000 career minutes and finished with FOUR assists. In 1996 he played over 600 minutes without getting a single assist... *that* is unbelievable.

Ed O.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Magloire has played all 82 games four times in his six year career. Joel has only broken 70 games twice in the same six years. Another way to look at it is they've both been in the league six years - Joel has played 5542 and Magloire has played 11034 - nearly twice as many minutes. He's MUCH more durable. You really don't want to rely on Joel to play 30 mpg over an entire 82 game schedule. He's proven for six years in a row he's just not physically up to such a demanding task. Look at it this way - they compliment each other well and having TWO capable centers is a huge plus. There will be little or no drop off when your starting center is on the bench resting or in foul trouble. Plus, it's great insurance against injury - always a big concern with Joel.
> BNM


You and others seem to keep implying that Joel broke down every year of those six he's played.

I'd be interested to see how many years he "broke down" due to injury and how many he just didn't play that many games. Remember until a late season bloom with Atlanta the year before we signed him, Joel wasn't considered an asset at all.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Actually, Magloire is a better rebounder. Better in total rebounds, better in rebounds per game and better in rebounds/40 minutes - and he does it for a full 82 games. That's true for both their career numbers and last season.


Well, I was judging by their Rebound Rates:

Przybilla by year:

2000-01: 14.9
2001-02: 14.5
2002-03: 15.6
2003-04: 18.1
2004-05: 18.3
2005-06: 16.9

Magloire by year:

2000-01: 13.5
2001-02: 18.8
2002-03: 15.4
2003-04: 16.5
2004-05: 12.9
2005-06: 11.1

At Magloire's peak, he was a similar rebounder to Przybilla, but over the past three seasons Przybilla has been easily the better rebounder. Hopefully, Magloire can experience a resurgance on the boards.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Let's not be TOO hard on Curry... he shot 56% from the floor last year and he was only 22 years old.


Curry's one saving grace is he's an efficient scorer. His high FG% is a direct result of the fact that he rarely shoots further than 5 ft. from the basket - hey, a man needs to know his limits. Good thing to, only 15% of his field goal attempts last year were actually jump shots more than five feet from the basket and his eFG% on those attempts was 12.6% - and he also had had 15% of his jump shots blocked. Thankfully, on the other 85+% of his shots (dunks - 25%, close - 56%, tips - 5%) he shot 63.8%. So, he's a good, efficient scorer, but not a good shooter. Which is fine, he's a center. As long as he resists the temptaion to shhot more than 5 ft. from the basket, he's an offensive asset.

Unfortunately, he's also very efficient at giving up points. His team was outscored by 10.0 points per 48 minutes when Eddy was on the floor, compared to being outscored by 3.0 when Eddy wasn't in the game. So, as bad as the Knicks were last year over all, in terms of point differential, they were actually 7 points per game worse when he was on the floor than when he wasn't.

I'm not saying he's the worst player ever, or even the worst current player, or even the most overpaid player, but to give up two high picks (2nd over all in 2006 and barring some miraculous turnaround, likely another high lottery pick in 2007) and giving him a $60 million dollar contract shows just how incompetent Isiah Thomas really is - and it's not like he was some unproven draft pick he took a chance on. Eddy Curry was a known quantity. Isiah had the benefit of four years worth of data and observations, and he still thought Eddy Curry, bad ticker and all, was worth all that. It's not like he was a good player who suddenly got worse. Isiah knew what he was getting and actually liked it enough to mortgage the future of his franchise. Can't really blame Eddy for that, but man his passing and rebounding sure are pathetic.

BNM


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

Wow, I wouldn't have guessed that this would turn into an interesting thread.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Well, I was judging by their Rebound Rates:
> 
> Przybilla by year:
> 
> ...



Very, VERY misleading and basically useless stat. How can you possibly say that someone who gets 1/2 the total rebounds, averages fewer reb/game AND fewer reb/40 minutes is the better rebounder??? Magloire is better in in all these categories - the things that actually count:

Rebounds/40 minutes
Przybilla by year:

2000-01: 10.5
2001-02: 10.0
2002-03: 10.6
2003-04: 12.8
2004-05: 12.7
2005-06: 11.2
Career: 11.5

Magloire by year:

2000-01: 10.8
2001-02: 11.9
2002-03: 11.9
2003-04: 12.2
2004-05: 11.7
2005-06: 12.6
Career: 12.0

Rebounds/Game
Przybilla by year:

2000-01: 2.2
2001-02: 4.0
2002-03: 4.5
2003-04: 6.5
2004-05: 7.7
2005-06: 7.0
Career: 5.6

Magloire by year:

2000-01: 4.0
2001-02: 5.6
2002-03: 8.8
2003-04: 10.3
2004-05: 8.9
2005-06: 9.5
Career: 7.8

Total Rebounds
Przybilla by year:

2000-01: 71
2001-02: 283
2002-03: 145
2003-04: 111
2004-05: 588
2005-06: 391
Career: 1589

Magloire by year:

2000-01: 295
2001-02: 461
2002-03: 724
2003-04: 847
2004-05: 205
2005-06: 778
Career: 3310

Yes, Magloire plays more minutes (mostly becuase Joel is always injured), but he also averages more reb/40 minutes than Joel. In terms of reb/game and total rebounds, it's no contest. Joel has never grabbed more than 600 rebounds in a season. Magloire has grabbed more than 700 three times. Joel has never averaged more than 7.7 rebounds per game, Magloire has averaged at least 8.8 reb/game each of the last four years. They've both been in the league six seasons, but Magloire has grabbed over twice as many rebounds. One big reason is Joel's almost contant injury problems. However, even if Joel had been healthy and played just as many minutes as Magloire he still would have grabbed about 150 fewer rebounds. Problem is, Joel has never been healthy enough, long enough to come close to Magloire's rebounding numbers. In terms of raw numbers, Magloire is a MUCH better rebounder than Joel, largely due to vastly superior durability. Reb/40 minutes is much closer, but even in this category, Magloire wins. Magloire is clearly the better rebounder.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Very, VERY misleading and basically useless stat.


You seriously think that Rebound Rate is a useless and misleading stat? Wow.

It's the most essential single stat to measure rebounding ability that exists. It factors in several key factors, including normalizing for pace and minutes played.

I suppose if you have it set in your mind that Magloire is a better rebounder, and RR shows that to be wrong, it might be "useless and misleading", but otherwise it's a very nice metric to compare players and their ability to rebound given the teams they were on.

Ed O.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

I have made several posts already concerning Magloire and how much I dislike him, but i am one of the few people posting on this site that had the "honor"of watching both Pryzbilla and Magloire. While neither player is very exciting or very good they are both above average centers. Offensively neither player is a very good option. Jamaal has stone hands and takes too many bad shots, his size being a plus gets him to the line alot and if he can manage to shoot better than 50% from the line this year his numbers will return to what they were three years ago (13 and 10). Joel is the kinda guy you dont want touching the ball unless its a wide open dunk. Joel is a better defensive player because he is a defensive play maker, in his time in Milwaukee the only thing you could count on him was some timely blocked shots and good hustle. Jamaal is just wide and takes up space, he is a few donuts away from being Oliver Miller, he is amazingly unathletic and doent jump well. He will have problems with quicker centers and big man that can shoot from 8 feet away from the basket. Both are about equal rebounders. Based on intangibles Pryz is more coachable and has a better attitude about being in Portland he hustles more and gets up and down the floor better than Jamaal. One of the worst things in regards to Magloire last year was he appeared lazy and didnt run the fast break.

If you want someone that will give you modest inside scoring i would start Jamaal. If you want someone that will be more of a role player and do the dirty work I would start Joel. If I was Nate Mcmillan I would go with pryz based on his desire to stay with team and his positive on court attitude (I cant speak for off court) over Jamaal because the bulk of your inside scoring will be Zachs and most teams would love a selfless player that doesnt care about his numbers to do all the dirty work

-roux


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Very, VERY misleading and basically useless stat.


Based on what? Other than "It doesn't agree with the statistics I use." It accounts for pace, minutes played and rebounding chances. How are those not logical factors to account for?

I'll note that Rebounds/40 Min accounts for minutes played, and that makes a huge difference in how the comparison looks. Why is it tough to accept that pace and rebounding chances (teams that shoot better create fewer rebound opportunities) would also change things significantly?


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> You seriously think that Rebound Rate is a useless and misleading stat? Wow.
> 
> It's the most essential single stat to measure rebounding ability that exists. It factors in several key factors, including normalizing for pace and minutes played.
> 
> ...


No it's just a BS stat that has absolutely no use at all. It adjusts for things that might or could happen, but really didn't happen. Just like PER it's useless and no real experts even glance at them. Stop posting fake stats, how about we look at what players ACTUALLY did in an ACTUAL game. None of these absolutely ridiculous adjusted stats.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Based on what? Other than "It doesn't agree with the statistics I use." It accounts for pace, minutes played and rebounding chances. How are those not logical factors to account for?
> 
> I'll note that Rebounds/40 Min accounts for minutes played, and that makes a huge difference in how the comparison looks. Why is it tough to accept that pace and rebounding chances (teams that shoot better create fewer rebound opportunities) would also change things significantly?


 The stats are pretend and based off of would have/could have, not what actually happened.

Use real stats.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazed said:


> No it's just a BS stat that has absolutely no use at all. It adjusts for things that might or could happen, but really didn't happen. Just like PER it's useless and no real experts even glance at them. Stop posting fake stats, how about we look at what players ACTUALLY did in an ACTUAL game. None of these absolutely ridiculous adjusted stats.


You're ignorant. Sorry to be so blunt, but you are.

Both about what the stat means and whether any "real experts" glance at them.

I bet that you think that park-adjusted stats in baseball is bunk, too. Or maybe OPS and all that newfangled stuff aren't "real stats", either? After all, RBI and clutch hits happen in games, right? Batting average and GWRBI ("why did they ever get rid of that as a stat," you might be asking the world, "when it represents what players ACTUALLY did in ACTUAL games...") are probably the best stats to use.

Right?

I would bet you don't know much about baseball and sabremetrics, or else you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss stats like Rebound Rate. 

But like I said: ignorant.

Ed O.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Ed O said:


> You seriously think that Rebound Rate is a useless and misleading stat? Wow.
> 
> It's the most essential single stat to measure rebounding ability that exists. It factors in several key factors, including normalizing for pace and minutes played.
> 
> Ed O.


Ed is right, Rebounding Rate is the best stat when trying to determine who's a better rebounder. A teams style of play, roster makeup, etc. don't make the stat perfect, but it's the best thing one can use. 

Since Portland has terrible rebounders on their team, it will help Joel's numbers a little. My guess is that the two are equal when it comes to rebounding.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> You're ignorant. Sorry to be so blunt, but you are.
> 
> Both about what the stat means and whether any "real experts" glance at them.
> 
> ...


I don't give a rip about baseball stats and you shouldn't either because their irrelevant to a discussion about BASKETBALL. Park adjusted stats are relevant in baseball because the park doesn't change. It stays the same game after game. Adjusted stats in basketball are ridiculous because they pretend to account for things, but they really don't. 

Adjusted stats in basketball are useless because there are too many subjective variables that cannot be tracked. Are the stats adjusted to tell you who player x was guarded by or guarding? How many minutes they played against player x or backup player y? Do they adjust to the skill differences of player x or y? Did player x get 10 rebounds playing against Shaq or playing against Kandi-man? Was team a playing their best game when they played player x and y or were they playing completely different games? Those are things adjusted stats don't take into consideration and become useless because of it.

The stats Minstrel is using are VERY INCOMPLETE AND SUBJECTIVE and are not statistics, they are theory. They're for fans, not for experts.

Magloire is a better rebounder because he's able to be on the floor more than Joel is. Joel is an offensive liability and the team cannot keep him on the floor as much as they can keep the more well rounded Magloire.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Based on what? Other than "It doesn't agree with the statistics I use." It accounts for pace, minutes played and rebounding chances. How are those not logical factors to account for?


You failed to answer my very simple question: "How can you possibly say that someone who gets 1/2 the total rebounds, averages fewer reb/game AND fewer reb/40 minutes is the better rebounder???"

OK, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE Joel could get as many rebounds as Magloire *IF* he could manage to stay healthy enough to play as many minutes and *IF* he could stay out of foul trouble long enough to stay on the floor (when healthy) for 30 minutes per game for a full 82 game schedule. This is what Rebound Rate tells us. Problem is, he cannot do either, therefore his (supposed) higher Rebound Rate is misleading. It tells us what might happen. I prefer to consider what actually did happen. Therefore, I put a lot more stock in the FACT that Magloire has grabbed *over twice as many ACTUAL rebounds* over the exact same six year time span, has averaged more rebounds per game and has averaged more rebounds per 40 minutes than Joel. That is why I think Magloire is and has been a better rebounder in the actual games his team plays over the course of a season. 

The highest Rebound Rate in the world is useless if you sitting behind the bench in street clothes - as Joel often is - on the bench in foul trouble - as Joel often is - or just so horrid at the other aspects of the game that you can't get off the bench period. I'll take actual performance in real games over theoretical performanace any day. If you use Rebound Rate as your only statistic to determine who the better rebounder is, and totaly ignore actual performance you would come to the conclusion that Jamal Sampson, Marty Andriuskevicius and Pavel Podkolzin were the best rebounders in the entire NBA last year. Absurd, isn't it? I thought so.

*And FINALLY and this is the clincher that once and for all solidly establishes the fact that Jamaal Magloire is, beyond ALL doubt, a better reboulder than Joel Przybilla - YOUR DATA IS WRONG!!! You compared Joel's RbR to Jamaal's PER. Jamaal Magloire actually has a higher RbR, both career and last season than Joel. I won't bother to post season-by-season, but career-wise, Jamaal Magloire has a RbR of 17.5 and Joel's is 16.7. Last year, for players who played more than 1000 minutes Jamaal Magloire was 9th in the league with a RbR of 18.74. Joel Przybilla was 20th at 16.85.*.

I rest my case.

BNM


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Blazed said:


> I don't give a rip about baseball stats and you shouldn't either because their irrelevant to a discussion about BASKETBALL. Park adjusted stats are relevant in baseball because the park doesn't change. It stays the same game after game. Adjusted stats in basketball are ridiculous because they pretend to account for things, but they really don't.
> 
> Adjusted stats in basketball are useless because there are too many subjective variables that cannot be tracked. Are the stats adjusted to tell you who player x was guarded by or guarding? How many minutes they played against player x or backup player y? Do they adjust to the skill differences of player x or y? Did player x get 10 rebounds playing against Shaq or playing against Kandi-man? Was team a playing their best game when they played player x and y or were they playing completely different games? Those are things adjusted stats don't take into consideration and become useless because of it.
> 
> ...


On the one hand, Blazed is actually correct. The term statistic is a little misleading because statistic tends to be linguistically confused with fact, which these numbers are not. But the values you (Minstrel/Ed) present ARE statistics. And Blazed is correct in that these don't really have a quantifiable way of proving an absolute correctness. They may indicate a trend or an extrapolation, but are not really black-and-white measurable.

On the other hand, there really is no way to exactly measure the realized potential or ability of a player considering that there are numerous factors in play, such as team chemistry, quality of team and individual opponent, effects of illness or lingering injury, etc. But I think that these stats present at least an attempt at approximating the effect of some factors and therefore have some merit. It would take further analysis of each individual routine used to produce these statistics to identify potential weaknesses in both logic and formulation.

Whether an individual chooses to apply these stats or even believe them is an exercise best left to the reader, but I don't believe anybody can really state their position is absolute.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> *And FINALLY and this is the clincher that once and for all solidly establishes the fact that Jamaal Magloire is, beyond ALL doubt, a better reboulder than Joel Przybilla - YOUR DATA IS WRONG!!! You compared Joel's RbR to Jamaal's PER. Jamaal Magloire actually has a higher RbR, both career and last season than Joel. I won't bother to post season-by-season, but career-wise, Jamaal Magloire has a RbR of 17.5 and Joel's is 16.7. Last year, for players who played more than 1000 minutes Jamaal Magloire was 9th in the league with a RbR of 18.74. Joel Przybilla was 20th at 16.85.*.
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> BNM


*I CAN USE BOLD AND CAPS BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE MY ARGUMENT ANY MORE IMPRESSIVE!*

You're still not taking into account, as I previously posted, the fact that Joel hasn't been an established starter in the league till the end of the season before he got to PDX. He wasn't even given a real bevy of minutes for most of those years. So, career wise, I can't really value that comparison. I don't know much about Jamall's playing history.

Last year, Joel was plagued by the tendinitis problem. He also played for the worst team in the NBA and one of the worst rebounding teams in the NBA. You'd think this would inflate his numbers, but when you think about it, if the 4 other guys aren't boxing out, that actually means less opportunities for you.

So actually, I would request that you pull up the RbR from the year previous.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Tince said:


> Ed is right, Rebounding Rate is the best stat when trying to determine who's a better rebounder. A teams style of play, roster makeup, etc. don't make the stat perfect, but it's the best thing one can use.


Good! Thank goodness this theoretical stat confirms what I already knew - that the player with twice as many rebounds, more reb/game and more reb/40 min. is actually the better rebounder (imagine that).

Still, I prefer to use actual performance rather than annoint Jamal Sampson and his impressive RbR of 26.96 as the rebounding king of the NBA.

Chose any stat you want. Jamaal wins on all counts. He is, in fact, the better rebounder.

P.S. In spite of this ridiculous argument, where *ALL* the data points to the same conclusion, I'm glad the Blazers have both Magloire and Przybilla. You may not be able to tell it from my strong stance on this issue, but Joel is actually my favorite Blazer and has been since he joined the team. That said, I refuse to let my high opinion of Joel cloud the facts. I still like him, his hustle, effort, attitude and character, just as much as before the Blazers got Magloire. The fact that Magloire is a better rebounder, has not changed my high opinion of Joel. It's great to have TWO centers who can rebound.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> You failed to answer my very simple question: "How can you possibly say that someone who gets 1/2 the total rebounds, averages fewer reb/game AND fewer reb/40 minutes is the better rebounder???"


Any rebounder-- even great rebounders--only get a certain percentage of available missed shots. They don't get X number of rebounds per minute irrespective of the opportunities.

A player that plays on a team with a higher pace (more possessions, more missed shots at both ends, more rebounding opps) is going to get more rebounds than the same player would on a team with a slower pace.

More rebounds per game and per minute.

Joel has been injured a lot, and Jamaal has hardly been injured... those things are important when determining how much value a player has to his team. But it doesn't impact whether a player is a better rebounder or not.

So the stats that you cite just aren't that important to me nor, IMO, important to the discussion here. I'm more concerned with how players, when they're on the floor in the same system, will perform (based on historical performance, which clearly isn't always indicative). 

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

yakbladder said:


> You're still not taking into account, as I previously posted, the fact that Joel hasn't been an established starter in the league till the end of the season before he got to PDX. He wasn't even given a real bevy of minutes for most of those years. So, career wise, I can't really value that comparison. I don't know much about Jamall's playing history.


Actually, he was a starter his second year in the league when he started 62 of 71 games. I'm not sure why this is relevant, but Joel was actually an established starter BEFORE Magloire, who didn't become a starter until his third season. The fact that Joel then lost his starting job has no bearing on the RbR and reb/40 minute numbers, which both favor Magloire.

Magloire plays more games, more minutes per game, grabs more total rebounds, more rebounds per 40 minutes, and more rebounds per game. How exactly does that make Joel the better rebounder? Because you want to think he is? Do you have ANY data to actually support the conclusion that Joel is a better rebounder??? Any at all??? I sure can't find any.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> So the stats that you cite just aren't that important to me nor, IMO, important to the discussion here.


So, in your opinion, which stats are important. I see NO stats that show Joel is a better rebounder than Jamaal Magloire. Please provide those stats and tell my why THEY are the ones that are important.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Chose any stat you want. Jamaal wins on all counts. He is, in fact, the better rebounder.


Sampson played 39 minutes last year. Statistically insignificant. He's played 506 minutes in his career. Too little to really tell.

That you would bring it up as a sarcastic attempt to undermine the value of Rebound Rate shows you're either incapable of understanding or simply unwilling to learn.

With that being said: maybe he IS a better rebounder than either Joel or Jamaal. The data just isn't robust enough to support it.

Ed O.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

What I'd like to know is, how did some blogger become the expert on NBA players?
Anyone can post anything in a blog.
That does not make him/her an authority.
Some anonymous authority says the team made a mistake, on the other hand we have McMillan, Patterson, Pritchard. I mean, if the blogger is such an expert, why isn't he/she a GM?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> So, in your opinion, which stats are important. I see NO stats that show Joel is a better rebounder than Jamaal Magloire. Please provide those stats and tell my why THEY are the ones that are important.


I've posted several posts about Rebound Rate and why it's the most important stat that indicates rebounding ability.

But I'm not claiming that Joel is superior. I see them as pretty even.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> You failed to answer my very simple question: "How can you possibly say that someone who gets 1/2 the total rebounds, averages fewer reb/game AND fewer reb/40 minutes is the better rebounder???"


Because they may play fewer minutes, play on a team that play at a slower pace (leading to less shots and thus less rebounds), etc.



> OK, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE Joel could get as many rebounds as Magloire *IF* he could manage to stay healthy enough to play as many minutes and *IF* he could stay out of foul trouble long enough to stay on the floor (when healthy) for 30 minutes per game for a full 82 game schedule. This is what Rebound Rate tells us.


Right, what Rebound Rate tells us is who the better rebounder is, for the time they play. Who can play more minutes is a different "skill." There's no point conflating the two.



> And FINALLY and this is the clincher that once and for all solidly establishes the fact that Jamaal Magloire is, beyond ALL doubt, a better reboulder than Joel Przybilla - YOUR DATA IS WRONG!!! You compared Joel's RbR to Jamaal's PER.


Damn, sorry. I need to get more sleep.

Okay, Magloire is the better rebounder. But Rebound Rate is still the best masure of rebounding.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> You're still not taking into account, as I previously posted, the fact that Joel hasn't been an established starter in the league till the end of the season before he got to PDX. He wasn't even given a real bevy of minutes for most of those years. So, career wise, I can't really value that comparison. I don't know much about Jamall's playing history.


All you're saying is that Joel hasn't had as successful of a career. Even if he did somehow figure to be a better rebounder after accounting for him not being either good enough or available enough to be out on the floor - what's the point? 



> Last year, Joel was plagued by the tendinitis problem. He also played for the worst team in the NBA and one of the worst rebounding teams in the NBA. You'd think this would inflate his numbers, but when you think about it, if the 4 other guys aren't boxing out, that actually means less opportunities for you.


This is why adjusted stats can get you into trouble... so he was on a bad rebounding team, so we should adjust his numbers - make them higher. So now you have this great rebounder according to your adjusted statistic, a league standout. But how can you have a league-leading rebounder on the worst rebounding team? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

You can get yourself into all kinds of trouble over-adjusting for this, under-adjusting for that, forgetting to adjust for this - in the end, you end up with some kind of number. But where is the reality anymore?

From my experience with math models in engineering, the simplest models and codes built from basic physics tend to work the best and have the most real world meaning. You can get into a lot of trouble when you start drilling down to the details, because once you take some small trend into account, you have to factor in every other trend at that scale. That's why I tend to agree with the sentiment here of - hey, let's take the most stock in the numbers that actually happened, or in the very simple extrapolations like per 40 minutes statistics.

Once you start getting into pace, and number of opportunities, you're opening up a whole can of worms. What about level of competition, number of good rebounders on the same team (then how do you adjust their ratings relative to each other?), easy rebound and difficult rebounds (boards that just bounce your way or that you have to fight for), etc.

I'm not saying that rebound rate specifically is a bad stat. 

I'm just saying (as BNM pointed out) that putting too much stock in a particular extrapolation and ignoring the actual hard data can get you into trouble. The more things you adjust for, the higher the risk of adjusting away reality.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> That you would bring it up as a sarcastic attempt to undermine the value of Rebound Rate shows you're either incapable of understanding or simply unwilling to learn.


I was just trying to show that RbR alone, is not the only statistic that should be considered.

OK, I'll be as blunt as possible:

Jamaal Magloire 2005-2006 - Career:
TRB = 778 - 3310
RPG = 9.5 - 7.8
R/40 = 12.6 - 12.0
RbR - 18.7 - 17.4

Joel Przybilla 2005-2006 - Career:
TRB = 391 - 1589
RPG = 7.0 - 5.6
R/40 = 11.2 - 11.5
RbR - 16.9 - 16.7

Do you still claim Joel Przybilla is the better rebounder? If so, what is the basis for this conclusion?

BNM


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Good! Thank goodness this theoretical stat confirms[ what I already knew - that the player with twice as many rebounds, more reb/game and more reb/40 min. is actually the better rebounder (imagine that).


True, but Rebound Rate does show that they're not that far apart as rebounders. They're actually quite similarly good.



> Still, I prefer to use actual performance rather than annoint Jamal Sampson and his impressive RbR of 26.96 as the rebounding king of the NBA.


Statistics are only meaningful over statistically significant sample size. Sampson doesn't meet that criteria, anymore than a batter in baseball getting 5 at-bats in a season, getting hits in all of them and finishing the season with a 1.000 batting average.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> True, but Rebound Rate does show that they're not that far apart as rebounders.


No, but it does show that Magloire IS the better rebounder. Throw in the fact that he is also far, FAR more durable and a "better" offensive threat (better and threat are relative terms when used in the context of this discussion) makes him an upgrade over Joel as a starting center. This whole thread started with the following quote:

_"The guy has very little offensive game, and is really just a good rebounder. He's not as good as Joel, and will be our backup center."_

It devolved into who is the better rebounder. My position has been consistant and backed by every stat anyone has thrown out. Jamaal Magloire is a better rebounder, both in absolute terms and rebounding rate.

Like I said, I'm glad to have them both. Nice to have some depth at center for a change.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Statistics are only meaningful over statistically significant sample size. Sampson doesn't meet that criteria, anymore than a batter in baseball getting 5 at-bats in a season, getting hits in all of them and finishing the season with a 1.000 batting average.


In case there was any doubt, I was being sarcastic. I don't do those little smiley things - too many to keep track of. Please insert "sarcastic smiley" in appropriate places.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazed said:


> I don't give a rip about baseball stats and you shouldn't either because their irrelevant to a discussion about BASKETBALL. Park adjusted stats are relevant in baseball because the park doesn't change. It stays the same game after game.


But if Larry Walker spends half of a year in Coors field, are his home runs less impressive than someone who spends half of a year in Chavez Ravine? Adjustments for parks would say "yes", if I remember those parks' attributes correctly.

As for not giving a rip about baseball stats: there's a certain level of grasping the role that statistics play in professional sports, and baseball has laid the groundwork for quantitative analysis in basketball very, very well. That you fail or refuse to see that is too bad.



> Adjusted stats in basketball are useless because there are too many subjective variables that cannot be tracked. Are the stats adjusted to tell you who player x was guarded by or guarding? How many minutes they played against player x or backup player y? Do they adjust to the skill differences of player x or y? Did player x get 10 rebounds playing against Shaq or playing against Kandi-man? Was team a playing their best game when they played player x and y or were they playing completely different games? Those are things adjusted stats don't take into consideration and become useless because of it.


That's ridiculous. Statistics like Rebound Rate aren't drowned out by the noise of the unknown... certainly there are a LOT of things that we don't know, but much of that comes out in the wash.

Statistics could be better, but that doesn't mean they're worthless.

Comparing "Rebounds" "Rebounds per game" to "Rebound Rate", though, means that this argument you've made has no merit... we know even LESS about players' ability to get a certain number of "Rebounds per game".

Player A: 200 career rebounds
Player B: 240 career rebounds

Who's the better rebounder? I suppose B, right?

Let's factor in (adjust) for how many games they've played...

Player A: 5 rebounds a game
Player B: 4 rebounds a game

Who's the better rebounder? Based on what we know, Player A.

Now, this:

Player A: 5 rebounds a game, 40 minutes a game
Player B: 4 rebounds a game, 20 minutes a game

NOW who's the better rebounder? I think that it's fair to say Player B. We have the extra dimension of knowing how many minutes the players got, which levels the playing field.

Rebound Rate adds more dimensions, accounting for the number of chances a player got in his time on the floor and how many chances he took advantage of by pulling down a rebound.



> The stats Minstrel is using are VERY INCOMPLETE AND SUBJECTIVE and are not statistics, they are theory. They're for fans, not for experts.


Again: you show your ignorance on the use of quantitative NBA analysis. Dean Oliver was hired by the Sonics and Mark Cuban has hired statisticians, as well. I would be shocked if more NBA teams don't have people looking at numbers this way to help them make more sense of the stats.

Are the stats "incomplete"? Sure. More complete than "Career Rebounds" or "Rebounds Per Game" or "Rebounds per 48"? Absolutely.

There's no subjectivity involved. Every player's statistic is determined the same way.

Reb% = Reb / (((TmReb + OppReb)/TmMin)*Min) 

Where's the subjectivity?



> Magloire is a better rebounder because he's able to be on the floor more than Joel is. Joel is an offensive liability and the team cannot keep him on the floor as much as they can keep the more well rounded Magloire.


Ah... THERE'S the subjectivity! Joel is a worse rebounder because he's an offensive liability. Nice work!

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Do you still claim Joel Przybilla is the better rebounder? If so, what is the basis for this conclusion?


Did I *ever* claim that Joel was the better rebounder?

I think that the closest I came was that they're the same. 16.7 and 17.4 (career Rebound Rates) are pretty similar.

Fortunately for me, since I was relying on Minstrel's (faulty) data 

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> In case there was any doubt, I was being sarcastic. I don't do those little smiley things - too many to keep track of. Please insert "sarcastic smiley" in appropriate places.
> 
> BNM


But what was the point of the sarcasm? I know you weren't actually saying Jamal Sampson was the best rebounder in the NBA, but sarcastic shots like that are usually meant to discredit the target (in this case, RbR). But, obviously, it doesn't have any bearing on RbR's value because insignificant sample sizes don't illustrate anything about any statistic.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> This is why adjusted stats can get you into trouble... so he was on a bad rebounding team, so we should adjust his numbers - make them higher. So now you have this great rebounder according to your adjusted statistic, a league standout. But how can you have a league-leading rebounder on the worst rebounding team? Doesn't make a lot of sense.
> 
> You can get yourself into all kinds of trouble over-adjusting for this, under-adjusting for that, forgetting to adjust for this - in the end, you end up with some kind of number. But where is the reality anymore?
> 
> ...


Great post, BR. I've experienced very similar things as a part-time sales data analyst. The more you try to take into account difficult-to-quantify variables, the more out-of-touch the numbers can get from reality. 

I'm not really familiar with the methodology used to calculate rebound rate, but frankly I find it a little fishy. I'd rather just see the basic stats, watch the players play with my own eyes, and draw my own conclusions. 

From what little I've seen Magloire play, I think Przybilla, when in top form, is a superior rebounder. On a given night when both are healthy and both are playing equal minutes on the Blazers, I suspect Joel will net more boards. However, since Przybilla often plays hurt (something no rebounding stat can really show), I also suspect Magloire will get more total rebounds than Joel as long as he's a Blazer.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Actually, he was a starter his second year in the league when he started 62 of 71 games. I'm not sure why this is relevant, but Joel was actually an established starter BEFORE Magloire, who didn't become a starter until his third season. The fact that Joel then lost his starting job has no bearing on the RbR and reb/40 minute numbers, which both favor Magloire.
> 
> Magloire plays more games, more minutes per game, grabs more total rebounds, more rebounds per 40 minutes, and more rebounds per game. How exactly does that make Joel the better rebounder? Because you want to think he is? Do you have ANY data to actually support the conclusion that Joel is a better rebounder??? Any at all??? I sure can't find any.
> 
> BNM


First of all, I never said Joel was the better rebounder. I said your arguments are flawed because they are looking at effects and ignoring cause.

Secondly, I was referring to the fact that you say Joel is continually injured. Okay, how many years was he injured and how many games did he miss due to injury?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> All you're saying is that Joel hasn't had as successful of a career. Even if he did somehow figure to be a better rebounder after accounting for him not being either good enough or available enough to be out on the floor - what's the point?


What I am responding to is the insinuation made by some that Joel is constantly injured and bringing up the fact that "Joel only played in X games!!!!" argument, which is false. The missed games were not entirely due to injury. However, what I am also getting at is sure the average is going to be mitigated if you take some guy's worst years into account, especially if those worst years are half his career. At some point Joel figured it out. Maybe not All-Star figured it out, but definitely in a way that improved his style of play dramatically. It's like saying some 10 year old scored 120 on an IQ test but averaged 15 over the course of his life. Well, duh, of course his average will be low if you include earlier and IMO, irrelevant years. The subjective part comes in determine which years are "relevant".



> This is why adjusted stats can get you into trouble... so he was on a bad rebounding team, so we should adjust his numbers - make them higher. So now you have this great rebounder according to your adjusted statistic, a league standout. But how can you have a league-leading rebounder on the worst rebounding team? Doesn't make a lot of sense.


That's exactly the opposite of what I said. We should make his numbers lower.



> You can get yourself into all kinds of trouble over-adjusting for this, under-adjusting for that, forgetting to adjust for this - in the end, you end up with some kind of number. But where is the reality anymore?


Look, from my experience with statistical analysis, you CAN get into trouble with over-adjusting, under-adjusting, etc. But throwing out all extrapolations or "trends" will get you into even more trouble. If you are making product X and you find out that product X seems to appeal more to 18-25 year old males, wouldn't you move you marketing in that direction in order to increase sales? (Unless of course that wasn't your target market) even if it weren't exact? As I said earlier, it's up to the reader to determine whether or not to apply some extrapolation, but I think that simply ignoring all extrapolations is like sticking your head in the sand. Especially if you were a gambling man making bets on point spreads for every game. But I digress.... :biggrin:


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Yega1979 said:


> We sucked last year, but Steve Blake was something that was right with our team. *PG's like him are hard to find in the NBA these days.* Even if Blake and Magilore were equal talents, our chances of retaining Blake were much higher.


 :laugh: 

Good one. Thanks for the laugh.

No offense to Blake, he's a good guy and a good basketball player, but he's far from being a 'rare' talent in the NBA.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> I was just trying to show that RbR alone, is not the only statistic that should be considered.
> 
> OK, I'll be as blunt as possible:
> 
> ...


i just read this whole thread. he never once said pryz was a better rebounder. you need more sleep just like the other guy! so do i.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

yakbladder said:


> Secondly, I was referring to the fact that you say Joel is continually injured. Okay, how many years was he injured and how many games did he miss due to injury?


I don't have time to look at every single game since Joel came into the league to see which games he didn't play were due to coach's decisions vs. injuries. I can tell you this though, Joel has spent time on the injured list in every single season he's been in the NBA - including major portions of at least three of the six. Like I said, I don't have the time to look up every injury Joel has had, but believe me they are numerous. Here's just a few of the many possible examples:

_Nov. 3, 2002 - For budgetary reasons, originally the Bucks planned to keep just 12 players on the active roster and store no one on the injured list. But when the season rolled around and center Joel Przybilla had not fully recovered from ankle surgery, it was necessary to put him on the injured list._

_Oct. 27, 2003 - Milwaukee places Joel Przybilla (right knee patellar tendon strain) on the injured list._

_March 16, 2004 - Atlanta Hawks injury-plagued center Joel Przybilla was placed on the injured list Monday with tendinitis in his left knee. Przybilla played just 12 minutes in Friday's 138-124 win over the Washington Wizards and an MRI revealed the injury after swelling developed in the knee. He is expected to miss four to six weeks. Przybilla was acquired by the Hawks from the Milwaukee Bucks on February 15 in a three-team trade also involving the New York Knicks. A knee injury in the preseason limited him to five games with the Bucks before the trade._ Note, this injury would prove to be season-ending.

And here's the summary of his injuries since he cam to the Blazers - the *healthiest* two year stretch of his career:

Nov 3, 2004: Sprained left ankle, day-to-day.
Nov 13, 2004: Missed 5 games (sprained left ankle).
Feb 13, 2006: Knee injury, inactive list.
Mar 14, 2006: Missed 15 games (knee injury).
Apr 8, 2006: Knee injury, day-to-day.
Apr 19, 2006: Missed the last 8 games of the regular season (knee injury).

I didn't list most of his injuries from his early days with the Bucks, but even without those, I think it's clear that Joel has a rather substantial history of injuries. Over his six years in the league, he has suffered an assortment of knee, ankle and foot injuries. It is not just my opinion that Joel is injury prone, it is supported by the facts. Back in 2003 and 2004, he was constantly referred as "often injured" and "injury-plagued". He was Milwaukie's starting center back in 2002, but lost his starting job due to an injury. He also started all 12 games he played for the Hawks, but again lost that starting job and the rest of the seaon due to an injury. He missed 26 games last year due to an assortment of injuries. When he's healthy, he's a valuable contributor. I really like Joel's hustle and effort. The problem is, he's rarely been healthy for an extended period of time during his six years in teh NBA. The closest he came was two years ago in his first season as a Blazer. I'd love to see him get healthy and stay healthy. It would be a very pleasant surprise.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

ZBoFanatic said:


> i just read this whole thread. he never once said pryz was a better rebounder. you need more sleep just like the other guy! so do i.


You're right (on both counts). I incorrectly lumped Ed in with those arguing Joel is a better rebounder because he has a higher RbR (which he doesn't).

Sorry about that Ed.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> But what was the point of the sarcasm? I know you weren't actually saying Jamal Sampson was the best rebounder in the NBA, but sarcastic shots like that are usually meant to discredit the target (in this case, RbR). But, obviously, it doesn't have any bearing on RbR's value because insignificant sample sizes don't illustrate anything about any statistic.


I was just trying to flippantly point out that you need to consider AT LEAST two statistics when using RbR to determine who is the better rebounder: RbR and minutes played.

Then the question becomes what is a significant sample size.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Fortunately for me, since I was relying on Minstrel's (faulty) data


I almost let him get away with it too. RbR, since it takes into account factors like game pace, FG%, etc. can be a useful tool for comparing players from different eras. This makes up for the differences in possible rebounds for players from an era were teams missed an average of 70 shots per game compared to a player who played in an era when teams only averaged 50 missed shots per game.

However, for players of the same era, RbR and reb/40 minutes should have a very tight correlation. Given that Joel and Jamaal both came into the league in the same season, and both played on some pretty bad teams, it bugged the heck out of me that Magloire had a higher reb/40 minutes, but Minstrel's data showed Joel with a higher RbR. It just didn't make sense to me. That's what prompted me to go back and re-examine the data.

BNM


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

ProZach said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Good one. Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> No offense to Blake, he's a good guy and a good basketball player, but he's far from being a 'rare' talent in the NBA.



Ok, name a few point guard similar to Steve Blake. There are few pure point guards in the league anymore. But a lot of little fireplugs that want to be SG's.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

See, we have a Bucks fan here, who has seen Jamaal play many more times than anyone else on this board, saying Joel is a better player, even though he probably witnessed Joel BEFORE he became as good as he is today.

Jamaal won't intimidate other players from driving to the hoop like Joel does. It's nice that he's durable, and that he is a good rebounder, he's just not as good as Joel Pryzbilla, and isn't some savior for the Blazers. Again, this post was just meant to 'sober' people up who thought we just stole an 'all-star' center from the Bucks.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> Ok, name a few point guard similar to Steve Blake. There are few pure point guards in the league anymore. But a lot of little fireplugs that want to be SG's.


Luke Ridnour, Brevin Knight, Jarrett Jack, Delonte West, Chauncey Billups, Dan Dickau, Kirk Hinrich, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Eric Snow, Lindsey Hunter, Tony Parker...


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

guys just wait till the season starts. My money is on Mags playing better than joel in all catagories except for blocks. I like Joel but if i were a betting man i would put my money on mags having a better rebounding/assist/point output than joel


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Luke Ridnour, Brevin Knight, Jarrett Jack, Delonte West, Chauncey Billups, Dan Dickau, Kirk Hinrich, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Eric Snow, Lindsey Hunter, Tony Parker...


Dickau, Snow, Billups? I can see Steve described as a poor man's Kirk Hinrich(he's actually pretty close to Kirk though), but many of those guys don't have games similar to Blake, and the ones that do aren't attainable, though the little ghetto ball SG wanna-be's are a dime-a-dozen.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> I almost let him get away with it too.


Get away with what? It was an honest mistake, one column next to the other. Your implication that I was trying to pull one over is fairly uncalled for.



> RbR, since it takes into account factors like game pace, FG%, etc. can be a useful tool for comparing players from different eras. This makes up for the differences in possible rebounds for players from an era were teams missed an average of 70 shots per game compared to a player who played in an era when teams only averaged 50 missed shots per game.
> 
> However, for players of the same era, RbR and reb/40 minutes should have a very tight correlation.


Not necessarily. Teams within the same era can often play at very different paces. Both RbR and Per-40 were close, with each showing the other with a slight lead. That difference could very easily have existed.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> Dickau, Snow, Billups? I can see Steve described as a poor man's Kirk Hinrich(he's actually pretty close to Kirk though), but many of those guys don't have games similar to Blake, and the ones that do aren't attainable, though the little ghetto ball SG wanna-be's are a dime-a-dozen.


So, what exactly is your definition of a pure point guard then? I don't really see Dickau or Snow ever playing much at shooting guard. Billups, maybe.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Get away with what? It was an honest mistake, one column next to the other. Your implication that I was trying to pull one over is fairly uncalled for.


Jeez, I guess I really do have to start using those insipid little smiley things. Relax Minstrel. I know it was an honest mistake. I was just joking around. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :joke: :joke: :joke: :joke: :joke: :joke: 

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Not necessarily. Teams within the same era can often play at very different paces. Both RbR and Per-40 were close, with each showing the other with a slight lead. That difference could very easily have existed.


But they didn't. Using the correct data, Magloire was 4.3% better in reb/40 and 4.2% better in RbR - a difference of 0.1% betwwen teh two stats. This is exactly the type of correlation I would have expected given they played in the exact same era, against the same opponents and on teams with very similar aggregate won/loss records. The incorrect numbers you posted would have given Joel an 12.1% higher RbR for a discrepancy of 16.4% rate between Magloire's reb/40 and Joel's RbR. This combination of reb/40 and RbR would be almost impossible for two players playing during the same era.

Now, if one of them had constantly played on teams near the top of the league in scoring and FG% and the other had played on teams constantly near the bottom of the league in scoring and FG%, then it would be possible for the player A to have a higher reb/40 and player B to have a higher RbR. However, while possible, that was not the case. 

For example, this year Joel's Blazers were the lowest scoring team (88.8 ppg) in the league and in 2004-2005, Magloire's Hornets were the lowest scoring team in the league (88.4 ppg). You could go back and do a year-by-year comparison, factoring FG% and opponents FG%, and the games each player actually played in, etc., but that's the whole purpose of RbR. So, you would come to the same results in a more tedious way. Knowing that both players played in the exact same era, and played for teams with similar won/loss records, lead me to conclude that there should be a tight correlation between their reb/40 and RbR numbers - as, in fact, there are.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> But they didn't. Using the correct data, Magloire was 4.3% better in reb/40 and 4.2% better in RbR - a difference of 0.1% betwwen teh two stats. This is exactly the type of correlation I would have expected given they played in the exact same era, against the same opponents and on teams with very similar aggregate won/loss records. The incorrect numbers you posted would have given Joel an 12.1% higher RbR for a discrepancy of 16.4% rate between Magloire's reb/40 and Joel's RbR. This combination of reb/40 and RbR would be almost impossible for two players playing during the same era.


This is flawed thinking. Eras aren't determinative at all. Pace changes through eras as a general matter, but pace between teams in the same era (and same year) varies, too.

BWallace/SMarion: 15.41/14.05 R/48 (Wallace + 9.7%)
BWallace/SMarion: 19/16.3 R/48 (Wallace + 16.6%)
That's a 6.9% difference right there. 

Another one, between Dampier and Marion
Dampier/Marion: 15.93/14.05 R/48 (Dampier +13.3%)
Dampier/Marion: 20/16.3 RbR (Dampier +22.7%)
Difference: 9.3%

Comparing Amare from last year to, a player from this year (certainly the same era, I would think):
Dirk/Amare05: 11.34/11.83 R/48 (Amare + 4.4%)
Dirk/Amare05: 14.2/13.2 RbR (Dirk +7.6%)
Difference: 11.9%

Heck... for grins let's compare this year's Dirk to last year's Dirk
Dirk06/Dirk05: 11.34/12.03 R/48 (Dirk05 +6.1%)
Dirk06/Dirk05: 14.2/14.0 RbR (Dirk06 +1.4%)
Difference: 7.5%

That's not a 16% swing, but I didn't look for the most extreme examples I could find, either. I would not be surprised in the least if 16% deviations between the two are relatively common.

You can also see how Dallas's change in pace (from 9th in the NBA last year to 25th this year) impacted Dirk's numbers... his RbR stayed pretty constant while his R/48 went down because there were fewer rebounds for him to grab this year due to slower pace and fewer possessions in his games.

These are all players from good teams in the same era. I've simply taken prominent rebounders from slow-paced teams (Detroit, Dallas) and fast-paced teams (Phoenix the past two years, Dallas in 2005) to show that your assumption about tight correlation between RbR and Rebounds per 48 (which would seem to render RbR less valuable than it actually is) is flawed.

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> That's not a 16% swing, but I didn't look for the most extreme examples I could find, either. I would not be surprised in the least if 16% deviations between the two are relatively common.


The point is you'd have to use extreme examples to get the >16% discrepancy. My whole point all along has been that Joel Przybilla and Jamaal Magloire are not extreme examples. They are similar rebounders who have played the same position, during the same era and have played on teams of similar quality/style during the majority of their six year careers. Both entered the league at the same time and started out as back-up centers on play-off teams. Both eventually became the starting center on the lowest scoring team with the worst record in the league. Until last year, their career paths (other than injuries) has been about as close as you can get.



Ed O said:


> These are all players from good teams in the same era. I've simply taken prominent rebounders from slow-paced teams (Detroit, Dallas) and fast-paced teams (Phoenix the past two years, Dallas in 2005) to show that your assumption about tight correlation between RbR and Rebounds per 48 (which would seem to render RbR less valuable than it actually is) is flawed.


It was never my assertion/assumption that there will always be a tight correlation between RbR and reb/40. I was only claiming that for these two specific players, given their striking similarities (same era, same position, similar rebounding ability, playing on teams of similar quality, etc.) that I would expect there to be a tight correlation between *their* RbR and reb/40 numbers. If Minstel's incorrect data had shown a less extreme discrepancy I probably would have just accepted it as correct and never bothered to check it. However, since the discrepancy was so large (16.4%), for two very similar players in very similar situations, it just didn't look right to me. The actual data (0.1% discrepancy) shows my hunch was right.

BNM


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> But they didn't.


I agree that they didn't. I'm simply saying that I disagree that RbR only differs from Rebounds Per 40 across eras. Such a difference as I thought the data had between Przybilla's and Magloire's Per-40 and their RbRs could easily have existed. But yes, it turned not to.



> Knowing that both players played in the exact same era, and played for teams with similar won/loss records, lead me to conclude that there should be a tight correlation between their reb/40 and RbR numbers


If you know that _every_ factor RbR controls for was, in fact, already equal, then sure...Rebound Rate tells you nothing more than Rebounds Per 40. At the time of the discussion, that wasn't established at all. It may be that they have, in fact, played in identical environments, but until that was shown through the statistics, it wasn't at all impossible that there could be pacing differences that would change the outlook, even for players of the same era.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> I agree that they didn't. I'm simply saying that I disagree that RbR only differs from Rebounds Per 40 across eras. Such a difference as I thought the data had between Przybilla's and Magloire's Per-40 and their RbRs could easily have existed. But yes, it turned not to.
> 
> If you know that _every_ factor RbR controls for was, in fact, already equal, then sure...Rebound Rate tells you nothing more than Rebounds Per 40. At the time of the discussion, that wasn't established at all. It may be that they have, in fact, played in identical environments, but until that was shown through the statistics, it wasn't at all impossible that there could be pacing differences that would change the outlook, even for players of the same era.


Jeez, you guys are reading way too much into what I wrote. As I said in my response to Ed, based on the striking similarities between Joel Przybilla and Jamaal Magloire, it seemed odd that there would be such and extreme discrepancy between their RbR and reb/40 numbers. Call it a hunch, call it intuition, call it a lucky guess. It doesn't matter. I'm not claiming it's impossible for two players from the same era to have such a large discrepancy (16.4%) between RbR and reb/40, just that for these two specific players, knowing what I know about them and the teams they've played on, it seemed unlikely that such a large discrepancy would occur. It just didn't seem to make sense, so I went back and re-checked the data and found the actual data made a lot more sense and showed the tighter correlation between RbR and reb/40 that I would have expected for these two specific players. That's all. Nothing more.

BNM


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

BNM,

I was originally contesting this statement by you:



> RbR, since it takes into account factors like game pace, FG%, etc. can be a useful tool for comparing players from different eras. This makes up for the differences in possible rebounds for players from an era were teams missed an average of 70 shots per game compared to a player who played in an era when teams only averaged 50 missed shots per game.
> 
> However, for players of the same era, RbR and reb/40 minutes should have a very tight correlation.


It seemed more general than what you're saying now, which I have no issues with.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> BNM,
> 
> I was originally contesting this statement by you:
> 
> ...


I should have said "style of play" rather than era. I was thinking of how league scoring has changed over the last 20 - 25 years - specifically about high scoring teams like the Showtime Lakers and the old Denver Nuggets teams of the same era. Back then, most teams averaged between 110 and 120 ppg, and a few team averaged over 120 ppg . Compare this to general league scoring during the late 1990s and early 2000s when most teams were scoring in the 90s and some even the 80s. But as Ed pointed out pace and style of play can vary considerably betweens teams of the same era or even same season - not every team from the 1980s scored like the Showtime Lakers - nor did every team from 1999/2000 score in the low 80s like the Chicago Bulls.

This is what I get for making sweeping generalizations and posting on too little sleep.

None of this chages the fact the Joel and Jamaal are both good rebounders and I'm glad we have them both. Hopefully, rebounding will now be a team strength rather than a team weakness.

BNM


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> None of this chages the fact the Joel and Jamaal are both good rebounders and I'm glad we have them both. Hopefully, rebounding will now be a team strength rather than a team weakness.


Agreed.


----------

