Started By
Message

re: Proof that Chris Jackson was the greatest college player (other than Pete)

Posted on 12/26/16 at 6:17 pm to
Posted by kylesch87
Member since Dec 2015
280 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 6:17 pm to
quote:

Serious question: in your statistical analysis, when Shaq gets an offensive rebound and slams it for two points-- how many points do you give him?

I submit, in that case, if you give him any points for the rebound, your system is unfairly skewed to reward big men and not point guards.


Well than your submission is wrong. He gets credit for the rebound because he collected the rebound, then he gets credit for the points because he scored the points. You want to deny him the credit for the rebound because he ALSO scored? Why? Had he gotten the rebound and then passed the ball he would get credit for the rebound. If someone else got the rebound and passed it to him for the score he would get credit for the score. So if he both gets the rebound and scores he gets credit for both.


quote:

I'll do an analysis like you did. CJ had 7.4 more points a game and 1.9 more assists per game. Assuming every assist results in 2 points and not 3 - this gives CJ 4 additional points per game. So, CJ accounted for 11.5 more points per game than Shaq. And yes I rounded up bc at least one assist per game was a 3 point score.


With you so far.


quote:

Shaq had 10.5 more rebounds per game. Since roughly 1/2 were on offensive side where he slammed them back


This is just ridiculous. First of all, offensive rebounds generally account for about 25-30 percent of all rebounds, not really all that close to 50%. Second of all, you're saying that EVERY ONE of Shaq's offensive rebounds led to an immediate dunk? I guarantee that is not true.


quote:

-- points have already been accounted for in his points per game.


I discussed this above already; it is not double-counting to give credit for both the rebound and the put-back. It is giving Shaq credit for two distinct parts of the play. Just because he is capable of fulfilling both aspects of the play doesn't mean you discount one of them.


quote:

This means 6 rebounds more per game were on the defensive side. If I give a generous point for each, Shaq closes the point gap to 5.5 points-- CJ still leads.


Well, I already showed that 6 rebounds is too few. I would say one point per rebound is fairly low, not generous. Defensive rebounds are generally more valuable than in-bounding the ball, both because it can lead to a fast break more easily and because it prevents the other team from getting a quick put-back on the offensive rebound. Therefore a rebound should be worth somewhat more than a standard possession (which in college is usually around 1 point per possession national average). 1 point may be in the ballpark, but it isn't generous.


quote:

With a 4.5 block per game lead-- I give Shaq 4 points. This is calculated bc most players shoot less than 50%-- so more than half the blocks would have been missed anyway. So only 2 shots would have scored.


OK, so, most shots that the center is in position to block are much higher-percentage shots than average. If two blocks per game are on lay-ups, those are 95% shots without the block. If another two are on 5-10 footers, those are probably 75% shots or so without the block. If the final .5 blocks are on 15 footers, yeah, those shots are probably 50% to be made. If you think an average blocked shot is on a shot with a 50% chance to be made without the block I would say you probably haven't watched ANY basketball games, let alone every game Shaq and CJ played.


quote:

CJ was refined and polished. Shaq was raw.


This sounds more like you're reviewing brands of sugar than talking about basketball players.


quote:

So by my accounting-- CJ wins.


Yeah, and all you had to do was randomly erase some of Shaq's stats, understate the value of others, and talk about sugar for a while.

If you'd like to see some numbers that are actually based in reality, here's a link to an article including a regression for box score stats against team performance with and without the player: LINK /
In the regression, found values are:
Points - 1 point per point
Rebounds - 1.7 points per rebound
Assists - 2.2 points per assist
Turnovers - 5.4 points per turnover
Blocks - 6.1 points per block
Steals - 9.1 points per steal

When you plug Shaq and CJ into this formula, you get 38.66 for CJ, and 69.45 for Shaq.
Posted by beauxroux
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Nov 2010
2144 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 6:48 pm to
And you thought my formula was random.
quote:

ollinger weights each stat in his formula based on his informed estimation of its intrinsic value.

Sounds very scientific. If this is your argument basis-- you win. No mas!!!
Posted by kylesch87
Member since Dec 2015
280 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 6:54 pm to
quote:

And you thought my formula was random.


Yeah, only problem is that's a reference to PER, not to the formula I posted. The formula I posted was determined through regression analysis in another part of the article. Nice try, but if you aren't going to bother reading the article than don't bother trying to refute it.
Posted by beauxroux
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Nov 2010
2144 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:04 pm to
And shouldn't Shaq get penalized for missing FT? I mean he missed roughly 43% of those shots. Almost a guaranteed rebound for the other team. That is minus points in your world. Or I bet you don't count those either. See we could do this all day.

Should I believe you or my eyes? I'll choose my eyes over a guy that admittedly never remembers seeing CJ or Shaq playing college ball-- live. And admittedly never watched enough tape to make an informed opinion. You stick with your stats and intrinsic estimation formulas.
This post was edited on 12/26/16 at 7:06 pm
Posted by kylesch87
Member since Dec 2015
280 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:16 pm to
quote:

And shouldn't Shaq get penalized for missing FT? I mean he missed roughly 43% of those shots. Almost a guaranteed rebound for the other team. That is minus points in your world. Or I bet you don't count those either. See we could do this all day.


Of course they count; Shaq had a higher TS% despite the missed free throws. Remember, we already had this conversation? You laughed at the formula for TS%, I pointed out it's basically just points per reboundable shot attempt. The reason I haven't brought it up again is that both players were very close in shooting efficiency, so there isn't much reason to make a big deal about it either way.


quote:

Should I believe you or my eyes? I'll choose my eyes over a guy that admittedly never remembers seeing CJ or Shaq playing college ball-- live. And admittedly never watched enough tape to make an informed opinion.


OK, you do that. Which team employs you as an advance scout, by the way?


quote:

You stick with your stats and intrinsic estimation formulas.


"You stick to your FACTS and RECORD-KEEPING and "DATA"! I'll be over here, remembering things perfectly from 25 years ago!


Also, nice job ignoring my correction of your epic fail of a mistake about the linked article. A+ diversionary tactic.
Posted by beauxroux
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Nov 2010
2144 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:21 pm to
Kills ya not to have the last word?
Posted by kylesch87
Member since Dec 2015
280 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:23 pm to
quote:

Kills ya not to have the last word?


??? My last post was substantive and responsive. Your last post was a lame dig at the fact that I continue having this discussion. 1) You don't get to tell me when to stop replying, and 2) It really comes across as YOU being desperate for the last word when you have (several times now) complained that I keep responding.
Posted by beauxroux
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Nov 2010
2144 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:26 pm to
Tell me more.
Posted by kylesch87
Member since Dec 2015
280 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 7:47 pm to
quote:

Tell me more.


See, this is exactly what I mean. Instead of trying to actually discuss the topic, you're just making weird remarks. I wrote a long post detailing the flaws in your metric, and you responded with two sentences (that were erroneous to boot). I point out that problem, and you restate issues we've already covered. I respond to each of your points, and you complain about the fact that I respond.

If you want to continue the debate, great. If you want to just make weird comments designed to . . . I don't know, upset me I guess? Go ahead, I can't stop you, but it isn't going to affect me. All it does is confirm to me that you know you can't actually bring anything to the debate. When you have points to make, you state them. You retreat into making short potshots when you know you don't have any substantive responses.
Posted by beauxroux
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Nov 2010
2144 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:06 pm to
https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/540/658/5e8.jpg
This post was edited on 12/26/16 at 8:08 pm
Posted by kylesch87
Member since Dec 2015
280 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:21 pm to
So does this somehow not apply to you? I should stop posting, but you should continue to reply to every one of my posts? If you think I should not be posting any more, why do you keep responding?
Posted by Rickdaddy4188
Murfreesboro,TN
Member since Aug 2011
46625 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:48 pm to
quote:

Despite shooting over 1100 FTs, the "requirement" to be included is 1200. CJ finished his career 39 FTs shy of that mark.


Thats a good think or youd have people with 3 or 4 games with per game records.
Posted by Rickdaddy4188
Murfreesboro,TN
Member since Aug 2011
46625 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 8:53 pm to
quote:

With a 4.5 block per game lead-- I give Shaq 4 points. This is calculated bc most players shoot less than 50%-- so more than half the blocks would have been missed anyway. So only 2 shots would have scored. Shaq still behind by 1.5 points.


You have to give points for all blocks. A block is far better than a missed shot. The shot clock isnt reset for block like it is on a missed shot. You have to give points for all blocks just for that little fact.
Posted by MastrShake
SoCal
Member since Nov 2008
7281 posts
Posted on 12/26/16 at 11:35 pm to
i have absolutely no issue with a list that goes...

1. Pistol
2. Chris
3. Shaq
4. Petitt
5. Simmons

if i had to pick Chris or Shaq to play one game, Id pick Shaq, but only because he was a physical behemoth. he was no where close to basketball skills of Chris.

ill even go as far as to say that Shaq wasnt even very good at basketball, he was no where near the pure skill level of an Hakeen or Kareem, or even a David Robinson. could he shoot? not really. did he have a well rounded low post game? not even close. was he fast, was he quick, could he jump high? nope, nope, nope. he was simply a freakishly big and powerful man, on a level no one was even close to matching, and those qualities lent themselves to basketball.

it would be like having the Hulk as a RB. he wouldn't need any moves, he'd just run in a straight line and paralyze anyone who tried to stop him.

as far as Pete, as DenverTigerMan said...

quote:

He is known for his scoring, and he scored more in 3 years than anyone has in 4 years (freshman were not eligible to play varsity ball in those days, so his freshman numbers were not counted). He has scoring records that will never be broken, because anyone good enough today will go pro after their sophomore year.


not just that. his numbers are simply untouchable. here are his averages:

sophomore year: 43.8 ppg
junior year: 44.2 ppg
senior year: 44.5 ppg

and thats before the 3 point line or shot clock. its been said that if he had played with the current 3 point line he'd average around 57 points per game.

heres the NCAA scoring leaders for the past 15 years

2016 - Marcus Keene 31.9 ppg
2015 - James Daniel 27.1
2014 - Tyler Harvey 22.9
2013 - Doug McDermott 26.9
2012 - Erick Green 25.0
2011 - Reggie Hamilton 25.7
2010 - Jimmer Fredette 28.5
2009 - Aubrey Coleman 26.5
2008 - Steph Curry 28.6
2007 - Reggie Williams 27.8
2006 - Reggie Williams 28.1
2005 - Adam Morrison 28.4
2004 - Keekee Clark 25.8
2003 - Keekee Clark 26.7
2002 - Ruben Douglas 28.0
2001 - Jason Conley 29.3

one guy, ONE, is even above 30. thats about half of what Pete would have scored with a 3.

that is fricking insanity.

and one last thing, icydk, Petitt won the very first NBA MVP award and was the All Star MVP 4 times. No one has had more, only Kobe had as many.
Posted by beauxroux
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Nov 2010
2144 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:07 am to
quote:

You have to give points for all blocks. A block is far better than a missed shot. The shot clock isnt reset for block like it is on a missed shot. You have to give points for all blocks just for that little fact.

Except when CJ and Shaq played, theshot clock reset when it left the shooter's hand. The change came about in 1991-92 season-- Shaq's last year.
Posted by cmacatl13
the Berry
Member since May 2014
453 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:14 am to
MastrShake you should watch Shaq's footwork. Learn to appreciate the finer points of the game.
Posted by beauxroux
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Nov 2010
2144 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 8:21 am to
quote:

Thats a good think or youd have people with 3 or 4 games with per game records.

I understand that. But why 1200? Why not 1000? Some may say the NBA picked a random number to exclude CJ bc of his stance on religion and flag. But I digress. . .
Posted by MastrShake
SoCal
Member since Nov 2008
7281 posts
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:04 am to
quote:

MastrShake you should watch Shaq's footwork. Learn to appreciate the finer points of the game.
i have. it is far from great.
Jump to page
Page First 8 9 10
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 10 of 10Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram