Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?

[clover]

Im pretty suprised that so many people think that Stiemsma can be as good or better than Kareem Abdul Perkins.  

Well, Stiemsma already has better defensive efficiency ratings than Perk ever has during his career. Granted, it's on a small sample size, but that's still pretty impressive.

Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed.  I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.

I think you're forgetting how many shots the Stiemer blocks or alters.

I realize how many he blocks/alters.   I think your forgetting about the years where perk averaged 8ppg 8 rpg and 2 blks.

Perk also altered alot of shots and did things that don't show up on the stat sheet

Perk was my favorite Celtic every year he was on the team.  But he only averaged 8 8 2 one year: '08-'09. 

He's also never averaged more than 0.4 steals per game.  Stiemer's 50% higher than Perk's peak at that playing 12 minutes per game.

RyeNye said that Steamer has better defensive stats than Perk at any point his career.  I only needed one year to prove my point.  And the year after that Perk average 10 ppg, 7.6 rpg and 1.7 blk, again, not too shabby.

Your claim about "all those years" wasn't true, and somehow my guess is RyeNye wasn't just talking about rebounds and blocks per game.  PPG isn't a defensive stat and Stiemer clearly already has better stats on blocks than Perk ever had.

[SHAQATTACK]

Yup , reading these posts , we  fans are starved for another true big tuff 5 Big man.   KG does good filling in , but , we really need a Marc Gasol type player to anchor the boat inside or start for us.  Perk and SG are bench players with some decent skills, but neiher are starting material.

We need to use our drafting power to land a nice young center.

[Rondo2287]

Im pretty suprised that so many people think that Stiemsma can be as good or better than Kareem Abdul Perkins.  

Well, Stiemsma already has better defensive efficiency ratings than Perk ever has during his career. Granted, it's on a small sample size, but that's still pretty impressive.

Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed.  I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.

I think you're forgetting how many shots the Stiemer blocks or alters.

I realize how many he blocks/alters.   I think your forgetting about the years where perk averaged 8ppg 8 rpg and 2 blks.

Perk also altered alot of shots and did things that don't show up on the stat sheet

Perk was my favorite Celtic every year he was on the team.  But he only averaged 8 8 2 one year: '08-'09. 

He's also never averaged more than 0.4 steals per game.  Stiemer's 50% higher than Perk's peak at that playing 12 minutes per game.

RyeNye said that Steamer has better defensive stats than Perk at any point his career.  I only needed one year to prove my point.  And the year after that Perk average 10 ppg, 7.6 rpg and 1.7 blk, again, not too shabby.

Your claim about "all those years" wasn't true, and somehow my guess is RyeNye wasn't just talking about rebounds and blocks per game.  PPG isn't a defensive stat and Stiemer clearly already has better stats on blocks than Perk ever had.

Would he have those stats if he knew he had to be out there for 28-30 mpg?  Doubt it?  Much easier to rack of blks when you don't have to worry abou staying out of foul trouble

[RyNye]

Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed.  I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.

Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."

EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"

[Rondo2287]

Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed.  I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.

Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."

EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"

Right because stats that say the Jacoby Ellsbury is a subpar defensive centerfielder hold alot of water.

If you wanna tell me how much better Stiemsas Ultimate Zone Rating is than Perkins, I'll listen, but im telling you any stats that say that Stiemsma is better defender than perk is just foolishness.

[Rondo2287]

Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed.  I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.

Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."

EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"

Or how about this one,

Under the Total QBR, Tim Tebow performed better on Sunday than Aaron Rodgers.

Rodgers, whose Packers won at the Georgia Dome, completed 26 of 39 passes for 396 yards and two touchdowns.  His Total QBR was 82.1.

Tebow, whose Broncos lost at home to the Chargers, completed four of 10 passes for 79 yards and a touchdown.  And he ran the ball six times for 38 yards and a touchdown.  And his Total QBR was 83.2.

my eyes tell me that Rodgers is a better QB than Tebow, but how can I ignore this EVIDENCE!?!?!?!

[BballTim]

Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed.  I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.

Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."

EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"

  I use stats all the time in my arguments but they aren't the be all and end all. The same numbers can mean different things to different people and many of them are dependent on who you play with.You can't completely ignore stats but they don't always agree with the eyeball test, and neither one is always right.

[Fafnir]

Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed.  I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.

Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."

EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"

Right because stats that say the Jacoby Ellsbury is a subpar defensive centerfielder hold alot of water.

It'd help if you weren't making up a false example. His defensive numbers are flat out good for every year but one.

Furthermore the eye test fails a ton in baseball because the difference between a great fielder and a terrible one is 30 runs prevented over 100+ games of baseball. How in the world can you truly note that level of defensive record keeping. Instead you notice how fast a guy is or how many memorable plays he makes (which are only tangentially related to his overall defense).

[Rondo2287]

Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed.  I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.

Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."

EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"

Right because stats that say the Jacoby Ellsbury is a subpar defensive centerfielder hold alot of water.

It'd help if you weren't making up a false example. His defensive numbers are flat out good for every year but one.

Furthermore the eye test fails a ton in baseball because the difference between a great fielder and a terrible one is 30 runs prevented over 100+ games of baseball. How in the world can you truly note that level of defensive record keeping. Instead you notice how fast a guy is or how many memorable plays he makes (which are only tangentially related to his overall defense).

Im not making anything up.  please see the attached link, this was a very big deal in boston a few years back.  And was the reasoning for Theo signing a 40 year old center fielder to a 2 year deal.  Please get your facts straight before accusing me of making something up.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/314011-the-limitations-of-defensive-metrics-jacoby-ellsbury

[Fafnir]

Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed.  I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.

Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."

EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"

Or how about this one,

Under the Total QBR, Tim Tebow performed better on Sunday than Aaron Rodgers.

Rodgers, whose Packers won at the Georgia Dome, completed 26 of 39 passes for 396 yards and two touchdowns.  His Total QBR was 82.1.

Tebow, whose Broncos lost at home to the Chargers, completed four of 10 passes for 79 yards and a touchdown.  And he ran the ball six times for 38 yards and a touchdown.  And his Total QBR was 83.2.

my eyes tell me that Rodgers is a better QB than Tebow, but how can I ignore this EVIDENCE!?!?!?!

One statistic has an outlier (in your mind), thus all are invalid. Great logic their Lou.

But lets look more closely at it, this really is a matter of a rate statstic looking strange. QBR is based on yards per play not total prodution:

Rogers was sacked 4 times for 27 yards and lost one yard on a rush attempt. So he produced 368 yards on 44 plays where he passed, dropped back, or ran. Thats around 8.3 yards per action play and he had two touchdowns in 44 plays. Additionally an element of QBR is that YAC aren't weighted as highly as yards through the air so some of those yards are discounted.

Tim Tebow wasn't sacked and had a total of 117 yards on 16 action plays. That's 7.31 yards per action play, and he also produced two touchdowns but in 16 action plays.

So the yards were slightly in Rodgers favor but Tebow produced more scores per play by a wide margin.

If it makes you feel better Tebow ended up with the total QBR near the very bottom and Rodgers was at the very top:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

[Fafnir]

Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed.  I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.

Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."

EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"

Right because stats that say the Jacoby Ellsbury is a subpar defensive centerfielder hold alot of water.

It'd help if you weren't making up a false example. His defensive numbers are flat out good for every year but one.

Furthermore the eye test fails a ton in baseball because the difference between a great fielder and a terrible one is 30 runs prevented over 100+ games of baseball. How in the world can you truly note that level of defensive record keeping. Instead you notice how fast a guy is or how many memorable plays he makes (which are only tangentially related to his overall defense).

Im not making anything up.  please see the attached link, this was a very big deal in boston a few years back.  And was the reasoning for Theo signing a 40 year old center fielder to a 2 year deal.  Please get your facts straight before accusing me of making something up.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/314011-the-limitations-of-defensive-metrics-jacoby-ellsbury

He has had one bad defensive year of his career, the year was 2009. His numbers before that were stellar and the numbers since have been stellar.

You're making up a false example because you're claiming an entire metric is flawed because one player you love had one bad year based on it. In baseball that happens, players have bad defensive or hitting years. Its just with Ellsbury it was his first big inning year and it casued the Red Sox serious concern committing to him long term.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4727&position=OF#fielding

Every statistic needs context of what its measuring, but instead of using outliers to attack their overall validity address things on a case by case basis.

In Steimsma's case its relatively simple in my mind. He's played such a small minute sample size that his defensive numbers aren't reliable yet. Plus I'm curious how good his isolation synergy numbers are, from what I've seen his biggest weakness is that he can be overpowered.

[Rondo2287]

Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed.  I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.

Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."

EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"

Or how about this one,

Under the Total QBR, Tim Tebow performed better on Sunday than Aaron Rodgers.

Rodgers, whose Packers won at the Georgia Dome, completed 26 of 39 passes for 396 yards and two touchdowns.  His Total QBR was 82.1.

Tebow, whose Broncos lost at home to the Chargers, completed four of 10 passes for 79 yards and a touchdown.  And he ran the ball six times for 38 yards and a touchdown.  And his Total QBR was 83.2.

my eyes tell me that Rodgers is a better QB than Tebow, but how can I ignore this EVIDENCE!?!?!?!

One statistic has an outlier (in your mind), thus all are invalid. Great logic their Lou.

But lets look more closely at it, this really is a matter of a rate statstic looking strange. QBR is based on yards per play not total prodution:

Rogers was sacked 4 times for 27 yards and lost one yard on a rush attempt. So he produced 368 yards on 44 plays where he passed, dropped back, or ran. Thats around 8.3 yards per action play and he had two touchdowns in 44 plays. Additionally an element of QBR is that YAC aren't weighted as highly as yards through the air so some of those yards are discounted.

Tim Tebow wasn't sacked and had a total of 117 yards on 16 action plays. That's 7.31 yards per action play, and he also produced two touchdowns but in 16 action plays.

So the yards were slightly in Rodgers favor but Tebow produced more scores per play by a wide margin.

If it makes you feel better Tebow ended up with the total QBR near the very bottom and Rodgers was at the very top:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

Im just saying that in my mind defensive stats in general are flawed and using stats as hard evidence when they don't pass the eye test isn't the correct way to look at things.  

And I don't think I said that because on stat is flawed all are flawed, I just used it as an example to show that they can be flawed and shouldnt be taken as the end all be all.  But I do appreciate the strawman.

[Fafnir]

Im just saying that in my mind defensive stats in general are flawed and using stats as hard evidence when they don't pass the eye test isn't the correct way to look at things.  

And I don't think I said that because on stat is flawed all are flawed, I just used it as an example to show that they can be flawed and shouldnt be taken as the end all be all.  But I do appreciate the strawman.

That's my point though, you can't just say "eye test thus its not worth looking at". All the eye test is at its core is a previously held opinion. Instead look at the overall body of evidence and make your judgments from there. Just saying: the numbers are stupid I know player X is better than player Y is overall awful way to process information.

I mean how many people on this board will defend to the end of their wits Allen Iverson, or Antione Walker? I'm sure they think the eye test is more important than their TS%.

If you're not open to new evidence and examining it then really why involve yourself in the conversation.

Think about baseball and how many innnings and games there are Rondo. The difference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter is a hit a week, just as the difference in a great defender and an average one is an extra run prevented once every 10 games or so. As human beings we just aren't built to process incremental information like that properly.

[Rondo2287]

Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed.  I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.

Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."

EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"

Right because stats that say the Jacoby Ellsbury is a subpar defensive centerfielder hold alot of water.

It'd help if you weren't making up a false example. His defensive numbers are flat out good for every year but one.

Furthermore the eye test fails a ton in baseball because the difference between a great fielder and a terrible one is 30 runs prevented over 100+ games of baseball. How in the world can you truly note that level of defensive record keeping. Instead you notice how fast a guy is or how many memorable plays he makes (which are only tangentially related to his overall defense).

Im not making anything up.  please see the attached link, this was a very big deal in boston a few years back.  And was the reasoning for Theo signing a 40 year old center fielder to a 2 year deal.  Please get your facts straight before accusing me of making something up.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/314011-the-limitations-of-defensive-metrics-jacoby-ellsbury

He has had one bad defensive year of his career, the year was 2009. His numbers before that were stellar and the numbers since have been stellar.

You're making up a false example because you're claiming an entire metric is flawed because one player you love had one bad year based on it. In baseball that happens, players have bad defensive or hitting years. Its just with Ellsbury it was his first big inning year and it casued the Red Sox serious concern committing to him long term.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4727&position=OF#fielding

Well I don't love ellsbury but thats besides the point.  The fact is that he was ranked the 2nd worst centerfielder in 2009 and that just blatantly wasnt true.  


http://www.nesn.com/2009/12/jacoby-ellsbury-proves-defensive-statistics-are-essentially-meaningless.html

Even better the year where the stats said he was the second worst center fielder he was voted defensive player of the year on MLB.com

And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.  

[LooseCannon]

I'm too lazy to do it, but shouldn't someone have posted numbers from MySynergySports.com by now?