It isn't just straight numbers though because that doesn't account for minutes played.
Here is the total series analysis for the "big 4" and the 3 best bench players for the Cavs.
James -7, 212, lost 1 point every 30.29 minutes
Irving -32, 202, lost 1 point every 6.31 minutes
Love -35, 161, lost 1 point every 4.6 minutes
Thompson -41, 132, lost 1 point every 3.22 minutes
Korver -5, 97, lost 1 point every 19.4 minutes
Jefferson -3, 83, lost 1 point every 27.67 minutes
Deron -7, 61, lost 1 point every 8.71 minutes
Golden State scored 608 points, the Cavs scored 574, so a difference of 34 which over the 240 minutes equates to GS gaining 1 point every 7.06 minutes. So the 3 bench players actually did better than the Cavs team as a whole and Irving, Love, and Thompson were well below the team average.
Korver, Jefferson, and even Deron all took longer to lose a point then Irving, Thompson, and Love. That certainly doesn't mean the former 3 are better than the latter 3 (they are not), but it does show their overall effectiveness in the series. And actually watching the series, I could have told you that Thompson was the least effective player without looking at those numbers as Thompson was terrible virtually the entire series. Love was also all over the board with some strong games and some awful games. Irving was downright terrible in the first two games of the series before finally picking it up some in game 3 (though he was on the floor for the collapse at the end and not really on it when they built their lead). The +- generally support those statements and this notion that Korver is terrible, is just silly.
And of course you are correct that a big run one way or the other will greatly alter those numbers, especially with a limited sample size, but it still doesn't change those numbers or make them meaningless. At the end of the day Korver was on the floor for 97 minutes and the Cavs were outscored by just 5 points. In the 143 minutes Korver was on the bench, the Cavs were outscored by 29 points.
Your metric shows that Deron Williams performed better than Irving and Love over the course of this series. Williams played so bad in this series he has been unable to even secure a contract this offseason and this was made about his play over the 5 games:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/06/cleveland-cavaliers-nba-finals-deron-williams-mixtape-lowlights-sad-video
If this metric you have chosen shows that Deron Williams performed better than Love, Irving and Thompson and that 37 year old Richard Jefferson was the second most effective player can you PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD just be an adult and say, yeah, your right. This is kind of a pointless metric for 5 games and it has been proven repeatedly here...
You do some posts that show smart analysis so I don't think you are a flat out moron. However, you are the most stubborn person I have encountered on this forum. You took a stab at trying to show Korver wasn't that bad in this series and it was a miss cause the metric has been shown to be absurdly flawed over such a small sample size (I actually went through each game and explained where the bench did better) You can just admit that and let people go on about their day or you can do your standard introduce more noise and nonsense until nobody knows what we are talking about...
TP, though you are wasting your time.
90% of the human population will not admit when they are wrong, regardless of the evidence.
Thanks for the TP and one back at you. I agree with you on that in general, and it is even more pronounced on message boards. That being said most people on this board do occasionally admit when they were wrong on something or at least admit their mind has changed a little bit.
To give you an example of this from myself a few days ago my general thought process was that Brandon Bass was totally cooked. A few posters and an article that really dug into his per minute stats last year showed me he actually was still performing well and his "decline" seems to be more a matter of Doc Rivers deciding not play him despite his overall positive performance and really solid advanced stats. This made me change my mind from thinking the guy doesn't deserve a minimum contract to thinking the Celtics could use him if we somehow lost Morris.
On the flipside of that I know a lot of people have changed their opinion on Jahill Okafor over the last year and no longer view him as a sure fire future star.
With stats it is a lot more cut and dry. There have been guys I have thought were good 3 point shooters, but when someone brought in more advanced stats like their contested shooting percentage, open looks or percentages on open 3's it can really change your view on someone being below average, average or great.
In the case of this debate Korver is a bad matchup again Golden State. If he can get in a spot where someone like Mccaw or Clark is in to spell Curry or Thompson he can do ok for a few minutes. However, in general he is a 37 year old that had slow foot speed when he was young trying to guard some of the fastest most athletic scorers in the game in Curry/Thompson/Durant on switches. This has been widely talked about by respected basketball minds like Lowe that analyzed the matchup and matched what I saw in the games (as well as common sense). Introducing a stat that has a ton of noise on it and ranks the Cavs players as the following for the series
1) James
2) Jefferson
3) Korver
4) Deron Williams
5) Irving
6) Love
Is obviously a really bad metric that should not be used. Similarly if I found some stat that showed Jerekbro was the second best player on the Celtics last year I would acknowledge it is an awful statistic and not try to use it an argument to show how great Jerekbro was last year. At some level we have to keep common sense in these debates.
You raise some more good points.
Have you ever heard of the "Gish Gallop"? Very hard to defend against. Alex Jones is a serial abuser of it.
"The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Thanks for this Kraidstar. It is actually a really good description of what has been happening here, so it is good to have a term for it.
Argument is that Korver is a bad matchup against Warriors because he can't cover any of their guards or wings (Durant, Klay, Curry and to lesser extent Iggy) on switches and is particularly slow. Second argument is that he is poor at creating his own and these players are all more athletic and faster so can cover him fairly well.
The gish gallop in this case is bringing the argument into a particularly weak statistic from the finals that shows Jefferson and Korver as the second best performers on the cavs and screaming "statistics" rather than addressing who Korver could guard. Another TP for you....
Topic: Woj: Pacers wanted to trade George for Irving straight-up, but Cavs declined it (Read 4853 times)