Author Topic: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger  (Read 2502 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2013, 10:53:28 AM »

Online LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9107
  • Tommy Points: 681
Per-48 stats is the stupidest thing ever.

Imagine if I played 2mpg and got 2pts, 1ast and 1rb, I would average 48pts/24ast/24rb. So no, it's stupid.

Per minute stats provide for better context than per game stats.  Not perfect context, but better and you still have to have some degree of intelligence to understand the numbers.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2013, 11:00:04 AM »

Offline LB3533

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3900
  • Tommy Points: 301
I like Sulli, but he ain't no star, probably not a rotational player on a championship team.

He's Ryan Gomes part deux with less physical gifts and increased problematic medical history.

You don't win championships with guys like Sulli as part of your main core.

Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2013, 11:19:17 AM »

Offline mgent

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5529
  • Tommy Points: 592
Hey Clearance Weatherspoon did 23/11 as a rookie per 48.  Don Reid did 13/10.  Former Celtic Brandon Hunter did 15/14.  Jason Collins even did 11/10.  Vitaly Potapenko did 18/8.  Travis Knight did 14/13.  Mike Sweetney did 17/15.  Marcus Fizer did 21/9.  Corlis Williamson did 21/9.

Drawing conclusions from Per-48 numbers isn't going to get you anywhere.

This.

Per-48 stats is the stupidest thing ever.

Imagine if I played 2mpg and got 2pts, 1ast and 1rb, I would average 48pts/24ast/24rb. So no, it's stupid.

And to not quite the extreme but on the same wave length of this poster...This.
It's not for comparing 15mpg players and 35mpg players.  It's meant to compare 35mpg players and 28mpg players.  Or 15mpg players and 22mpg players.

It's only a dumb stat because it's self-explanatory.  Obviously two guys grabbing the same amount of rebounds in a different number of minutes aren't equal.  Obviously a guy grabbing 5 rebounds in 15mpg is a good rebounder, but people will still say he sucks because he's only averaging 5rpg.  Enter per xMP.
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale

Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2013, 11:23:10 AM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17975
  • Tommy Points: 634
Per-48 stats is the stupidest thing ever.

Imagine if I played 2mpg and got 2pts, 1ast and 1rb, I would average 48pts/24ast/24rb. So no, it's stupid.

Per minute stats provide for better context than per game stats.  Not perfect context, but better and you still have to have some degree of intelligence to understand the numbers.

I think you need both to really make sense of it.  You need to know what players are doing per game, to get a better idea what their role is, in order to project anything from their per minute stats. 

But anyways, my problem with this thread isn't as much about the per minute stats, it is the combination of per minute stats, and cherry picking guys who were successful and had similar per minute stats, when there were just as many guys who had much less success in their career, but had decent stats as a rookie. 

Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2013, 06:14:07 PM »

Offline Who

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30189
  • Tommy Points: 1258
I don't know what to make of Sully yet. I want to see him look for his own offense more. Try to create in the post a bit more and be more aggressive with that jump-shot of his.

Sully is still too passive offensively.

Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2013, 06:59:45 PM »

Offline snively

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5372
  • Tommy Points: 383
The early returns on his rebounding are rock solid if unspectacular.  A good rebounder on both ends.

His offensive potential is still so murky.  He's had what, 10 post ups all season?  He's playing too much like a garbage man/5th option offensively to get a read on how his post skills and all-around offensive skills will translate into NBA production.  One thing is for sure - he's too talented and too weak defensively to pattern his offensive game off of Dale Davis.  Needs to take more of a featured role offensively - we can afford to spend a few less possessions on Jeff Green isos from the top of the circle.
Pick 2 Team: Rockets (McHale)
PG M. Chalmers ($4 mil) SG J. Harden ($5.8 mil) SF W. Chandler ($5.9) PF Nene ($13) C S. Hawes ($6.5) 6th man: Ginobli ($14.1) 7th man: Marv Williams ($8.3) Enforcers: F. Ezeli ($1), C. Hayes ($5.5) Bench Marksman: A. Morrow ($4) Young Gun: R. Jackson ($1.2) Greybeard: P. Prigioni ($.5) Towel-Waver: Mike Scott ($.5)

Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2013, 07:59:04 PM »

Offline triboy16f

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5899
  • Tommy Points: 186
Sullinger has to figure out other ways to score outside of garbage baskets. He has a nice shooting stroke but not from garnett land. His post moves are scary to watch since it could be blocked. I thought he was al jefferson crafty from the post but as i see more and more pre nba highlights, he pretty much bulldozed most of his points near the basket.

Because of his lack of athleticism he has trouble making hook shots or acrobatic shots around the basket. 

He has to perfect the jumper this off season to keep his opponents on their toes.

really unfortunate he is not a few inches taller or can jump better. He would then be a dominant player. His iq and motor for such a young player is off the charts
« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 08:04:57 PM by triboy16f »
Surprising players happen all the time -- that's why they're called surprises.

Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2013, 08:02:59 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7481
  • Tommy Points: 439
He is a decent player but some people think he is going to be a perennial all star.  I want him to succeed but he projects as a Big Baby level guy.  This is not a bad thing BBD contributed here and Sully should be a better rebounder and more efficient.  But some here think he is the second coming, I swear.

Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2013, 08:16:39 PM »

Offline triboy16f

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5899
  • Tommy Points: 186
from si article over the summer

"Yet Sullinger measured 6-9 in shoes while weighing 268.2 pounds, with a body fat of 10.7 percent that wasn't anywhere near the Oliver Miller territory that some had predicted. His body fat was the sixth worst at the combine, but there were eight players with body fat of 10 percent or higher.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/06/08/predraft.notebook/index.html#ixzz2GxsXr07i"

He is 260 pounds now, which i'm guessing , makes his body fat % in the high 9, instead of high 10. Nobody wants him to lose his strength, but what if he maintains his strength while shedding his body fat level to less than 8 percent. I wonder how much quicker and/or how much more lift he will get. I mean look at Kevin Love and what a more shredded body has done for him the last couple of years.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 08:22:14 PM by triboy16f »
Surprising players happen all the time -- that's why they're called surprises.

Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2013, 08:23:28 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7846
  • Tommy Points: 502
Sullinger has to figure out other ways to score outside of garbage baskets. He has a nice shooting stroke but not from garnett land. His post moves are scary to watch since it could be blocked. I thought he was al jefferson crafty from the post but as i see more and more pre nba highlights, he pretty much bulldozed most of his points near the basket.

Because of his lack of athleticism he has trouble making hook shots or acrobatic shots around the basket. 

He has to perfect the jumper this off season to keep his opponents on their toes.

really unfortunate he is not a few inches taller or can jump better. He would then be a dominant player. His iq and motor for such a young player is off the charts

if he was taller/more athletic than there's no way he falls to us at 21.
Michael Jordan: It's a man's game, and you can't play.
 Bill Murray: It's 'cause I'm white, isn't it?
Michael Jordan: No. Larry's white, so what?
Bill Murray: Larry's not white. Larry's clear.

Quote
Can't read the entire thread but cone people.

Re: Statistical comparisons to Sullinger
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2013, 09:17:33 PM »

Offline ScottHow

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1710
  • Tommy Points: 354
  • It's what I do! It's who I am!
    • Sports Paintings
I really think if he loses 10 lbs it will change his game a ton for the better.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog