Author Topic: Kyrie > Rondo  (Read 13344 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22144
  • Tommy Points: -29459
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #150 on: January 23, 2013, 03:39:19 PM »
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:

Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds

And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.

Kyrie might be better in:

3PFG%
Points
Clutch

Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.

When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?

I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.

Kyrie Irving:

10-to-15 feet:  48%
16-to-23 feet:  49.2%
Combined:  48.7% on 220 attempts

Rajon Rondo: 

10-to-15 feet:  30.8%
16-to-23 feet:  50.8%
Combined:  47.2% on 148 attempts

Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them.  My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too.  Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.

So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.

What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting?  How many guards actually take many shots from this range?  Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?

I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.

Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.

Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.

And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting.  At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.

Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots.  Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low.  All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.

Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.

Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not.  I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft.  That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.

Well, the midway point between the basket and the 3PT line is 12.5 feet, so I think 10-to-15 feet falls pretty squarely in the "mid-range" spectrum.

But regardless, that's why I looked at all those jumpers combined, and calculated the overall percentage.  Kyrie is a more frequent shooter, and a better one, although the difference is slighter than a lot of folks might have imagined.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #151 on: January 23, 2013, 03:40:50 PM »
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:

Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds

And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.

Kyrie might be better in:

3PFG%
Points
Clutch

Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.

When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?

I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.

Kyrie Irving:

10-to-15 feet:  48%
16-to-23 feet:  49.2%
Combined:  48.7% on 220 attempts

Rajon Rondo: 

10-to-15 feet:  30.8%
16-to-23 feet:  50.8%
Combined:  47.2% on 148 attempts

Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them.  My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too.  Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.

So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.

What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting?  How many guards actually take many shots from this range?  Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?

I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.

Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.

Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.

And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting.  At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.

Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots.  Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low.  All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.

Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.

Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not.  I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft.  That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.

All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.

Offline BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21114
  • Tommy Points: 944
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #152 on: January 23, 2013, 03:42:54 PM »
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.

  Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.

  I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.

  Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than scoring does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
First, his name is Kyrie.

Second, if this is the metric you're choosing, it (the bolded) is precisely the issue. Even if we stipulate that a triple double is marginally more impactful than 25+ points (2.7 extra wins per 10 games vs. 1.9 extra wins per 10 games), this doesn't answer who the more impactful _player_ is. And given that Irving scores 25+ in ~30% of his games, and Rondo triple-doubles in about 5% of his, you do the math.

   No, those were numbers chosen arbitrarily to come up with a similar sample size (25). I had to choose a number that Irving hit about 4-5 times as often as Rondo gets triple doubles or I'd have ended up looking at 4-5 high scoring games for Kyrie.

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #153 on: January 23, 2013, 03:47:11 PM »
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.

  Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.

  I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.

  Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than scoring does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
First, his name is Kyrie.

Second, if this is the metric you're choosing, it (the bolded) is precisely the issue. Even if we stipulate that a triple double is marginally more impactful than 25+ points (2.7 extra wins per 10 games vs. 1.9 extra wins per 10 games), this doesn't answer who the more impactful _player_ is. And given that Irving scores 25+ in ~30% of his games, and Rondo triple-doubles in about 5% of his, you do the math.

   No, those were numbers chosen arbitrarily to come up with a similar sample size (25). I had to choose a number that Irving hit about 4-5 times as often as Rondo gets triple doubles or I'd have ended up looking at 4-5 high scoring games for Kyrie.

25 is an incredibly small sample size to draw any definitive conclusions, regardless of how misguided they may be. Even a high school stats class would encourage you to draw no conclusions from that data.

Offline BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21114
  • Tommy Points: 944
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #154 on: January 23, 2013, 03:51:56 PM »
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.

  Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.

  I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.

  Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.

So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?

If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.

Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.

  You're uncertain because 1) you don't have any idea about whether my claim holds true for larger sample sizes, 2) that you don't understand math well enough to see why I'd disagree with Roy, and 3) fail to understand that if I want similar sample sizes out of unequal amounts of total games I need to choose a sample that happens more often for the player with fewer games. If I chose a different (arbitrary) number that Irving hit as often as Rondo had triple doubles his sample size would be 4-5 times as small.

Offline BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21114
  • Tommy Points: 944
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #155 on: January 23, 2013, 03:55:58 PM »
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.

  Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.

  I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.

  Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than scoring does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
First, his name is Kyrie.

Second, if this is the metric you're choosing, it (the bolded) is precisely the issue. Even if we stipulate that a triple double is marginally more impactful than 25+ points (2.7 extra wins per 10 games vs. 1.9 extra wins per 10 games), this doesn't answer who the more impactful _player_ is. And given that Irving scores 25+ in ~30% of his games, and Rondo triple-doubles in about 5% of his, you do the math.

   No, those were numbers chosen arbitrarily to come up with a similar sample size (25). I had to choose a number that Irving hit about 4-5 times as often as Rondo gets triple doubles or I'd have ended up looking at 4-5 high scoring games for Kyrie.

25 is an incredibly small sample size to draw any definitive conclusions, regardless of how misguided they may be. Even a high school stats class would encourage you to draw no conclusions from that data.

  Widen the sample size to include the entire league over a number of years. You'll see similar results.

 

Offline BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21114
  • Tommy Points: 944
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #156 on: January 23, 2013, 04:00:41 PM »
So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?

If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.

Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.

Whenever he actually brings facts to the argument, it becomes unclear whether he is actually arguing for Kyrie or Rondo.
You can't really treat percentage increases the way Roy is trying to spin them.

It's no less legitimate than using the winning percentages in the first place.

Kyrie has a much lesser cast of players around him.  However, Kyrie's high-scoring games are able to elevate this really poor team.  If Kyrie goes for 25+ points, it almost doubles his team's chances of winning.

Why ignore the baseline -- like Tim is -- and disregard the fact that the Celtics have a much better team?  If Rajon Rondo was on the Cavs, I'm pretty skeptical that they'd be winning 88% of their games when Rondo drops a triple-double.

  Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #157 on: January 23, 2013, 04:10:53 PM »
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.

  Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.

  I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.

  Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.

So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?

If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.

Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.

  You're uncertain because 1) you don't have any idea about whether my claim holds true for larger sample sizes, 2) that you don't understand math well enough to see why I'd disagree with Roy, and 3) fail to understand that if I want similar sample sizes out of unequal amounts of total games I need to choose a sample that happens more often for the player with fewer games. If I chose a different (arbitrary) number that Irving hit as often as Rondo had triple doubles his sample size would be 4-5 times as small.

I find it hilarious that you, of all people, question my understanding of math.  This is all while you try to draw conclusions about the overall quality of two players while using 5% of the games of one of those players as the sample.  How about the other games (95%) in which Rondo doesn't have a triple double?


All this proves is that speculatively, the best 5% of Rondo games are slightly better than the best 30% of Kyrie games.  Which, in essence, proves nothing.

Offline BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21114
  • Tommy Points: 944
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #158 on: January 23, 2013, 04:13:47 PM »
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:

Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds

And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.

Kyrie might be better in:

3PFG%
Points
Clutch

Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.

When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?

I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.

Kyrie Irving:

10-to-15 feet:  48%
16-to-23 feet:  49.2%
Combined:  48.7% on 220 attempts

Rajon Rondo: 

10-to-15 feet:  30.8%
16-to-23 feet:  50.8%
Combined:  47.2% on 148 attempts

Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them.  My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too.  Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.

So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.

What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting?  How many guards actually take many shots from this range?  Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?

I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.

Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.

Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.

And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting.  At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.

Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots.  Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low.  All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.

Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.

Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not.  I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft.  That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.

All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.

  Another strategy often taken by other teams is to leave KG completely open from this range. Watch any Celtics game and you'll see him take plenty of uncontested shots from this range. Does that make him a lesser shooter/scorer?

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #159 on: January 23, 2013, 04:16:01 PM »
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:

Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds

And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.

Kyrie might be better in:

3PFG%
Points
Clutch

Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.

When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?

I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.

Kyrie Irving:

10-to-15 feet:  48%
16-to-23 feet:  49.2%
Combined:  48.7% on 220 attempts

Rajon Rondo: 

10-to-15 feet:  30.8%
16-to-23 feet:  50.8%
Combined:  47.2% on 148 attempts

Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them.  My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too.  Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.

So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.

What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting?  How many guards actually take many shots from this range?  Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?

I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.

Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.

Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.

And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting.  At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.

Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots.  Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low.  All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.

Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.

Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not.  I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft.  That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.

All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.

  Another strategy often taken by other teams is to leave KG completely open from this range. Watch any Celtics game and you'll see him take plenty of uncontested shots from this range. Does that make him a lesser shooter/scorer?

It makes him a lesser shooter than someone who makes contested shots at the same rate as KG makes uncontested shots. Definitely.

Contested shots are tougher than uncontested shots.  I'd say this is obvious but your comprehension of basketball and math has come into question.

Online foulweatherfan

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11776
  • Tommy Points: 1393
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #160 on: January 23, 2013, 04:25:52 PM »
I was bored so I ran a quick chi-square test on the Rondo/Irving big game thing.

Basically, the difference in winning % is statistically significant for Rondo's triple-doubles (p=.005) but not for Irving's 25+ point games, though it's close (p=.070).  This is mostly a sample size issue, especially since the effect size for Irving's 25+ pt games is higher than for Rondo's triple-doubles (phi=.199 vs .129).  Both are squarely in the small effect size range.

I hope this has sufficiently clouded the issue further  ;)

Offline BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21114
  • Tommy Points: 944
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #161 on: January 23, 2013, 04:28:29 PM »
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.

  Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.

  I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.

  Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.

So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?

If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.

Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.

  You're uncertain because 1) you don't have any idea about whether my claim holds true for larger sample sizes, 2) that you don't understand math well enough to see why I'd disagree with Roy, and 3) fail to understand that if I want similar sample sizes out of unequal amounts of total games I need to choose a sample that happens more often for the player with fewer games. If I chose a different (arbitrary) number that Irving hit as often as Rondo had triple doubles his sample size would be 4-5 times as small.

I find it hilarious that you, of all people, question my understanding of math.  This is all while you try to draw conclusions about the overall quality of two players while using 5% of the games of one of those players as the sample.

  I didn't draw conclusions about the overall quality of two players based on that sample size, I just disputed someone's claim that Rondo's impact is on the stat sheet, not the game. Should I question your reading comprehension as well?

  If you look at last night's game, Irving (arguably the best game of his career) had the better night. One could argue, though, had the Celts had close to an average shooting night and Rondo had another 3-4 assists (and the win) the scales might have tipped the other way.

Offline BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21114
  • Tommy Points: 944
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #162 on: January 23, 2013, 04:44:52 PM »
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:

Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds

And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.

Kyrie might be better in:

3PFG%
Points
Clutch

Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.

When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?

I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.

Kyrie Irving:

10-to-15 feet:  48%
16-to-23 feet:  49.2%
Combined:  48.7% on 220 attempts

Rajon Rondo: 

10-to-15 feet:  30.8%
16-to-23 feet:  50.8%
Combined:  47.2% on 148 attempts

Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them.  My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too.  Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.

So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.

What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting?  How many guards actually take many shots from this range?  Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?

I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.

Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.

Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.

And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting.  At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.

Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots.  Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low.  All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.

Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.

Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not.  I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft.  That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.

All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.

  Another strategy often taken by other teams is to leave KG completely open from this range. Watch any Celtics game and you'll see him take plenty of uncontested shots from this range. Does that make him a lesser shooter/scorer?

It makes him a lesser shooter than someone who makes contested shots at the same rate as KG makes uncontested shots. Definitely.

Contested shots are tougher than uncontested shots.  I'd say this is obvious but your comprehension of basketball and math has come into question.

  Yes, you're still stuck on reading comprehension. You're answering a comparison that I didn't ask about and gloating that I couldn't answer a question that nobody had asked. Oh, and if you could ratchet up your comprehension of basketball, you might learn that something called "shot selection" is often considered when comparing players. The fact that a player jacks up contested, low percentage shots isn't seen as a favorable trait for shooters as much as you'd think.

 

Offline kozlodoev

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8779
  • Tommy Points: 469
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #163 on: January 23, 2013, 04:46:21 PM »
Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.
No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading.

Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point games (based on how frequently both of these have occurred over their careers so far).

So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's -- Rondo's triple-doubles will be worth about 1 extra win, and Irving's 25+ games will be worth ~5 wins.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 04:52:03 PM by kozlodoev »
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Offline BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21114
  • Tommy Points: 944
Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #164 on: January 23, 2013, 04:52:17 PM »
Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.
No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.

  No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog