ShuHanGuanYu

2.15 in the first round, but only .24 in the second against Nash and the Suns. 1.44 in the reg season. 2.2 last year during the reg season.

__________________
~ 蜀關羽 神战争

trick

Per 48 minute projections...arguably the dumbest thing anyone can use to support their case.

__________________

ShuHanGuanYu

They aren't used as "projections" per se. They give you a measurable stat that says how productive the player is on the court. It's not saying that if a player played 48 minutes, those would for sure be his stats. It's a measure of productivity, which is definitely not worthless.

__________________
~ 蜀關羽 神战争

speedythief

Per-48's shouldn't be used to see what somebody could do "as a starter" or "if they got more minutes". I think that is the problem when people use them. When you look at a guy like Reggie Evans, who goes in, grabs a bunch of rebounds, then either gets into foul trouble or gasses out, you can't project "per-48" or even "per-40" because he'd never get there, and if he did, his production would degrade as the game wore on, and these numbers don't account for that.

Hoffa averages 12 rebounds and 8 fouls per-48.

ShuHanGuanYu

Agreed. But you could use those 48-min stats to say, "Hoffa has been an efficient rebounder when he was on the court." Or you could compare it to someone with maybe 10rp48 and say that Hoffa has been more efficient that the other guy.

Therefore, when talking about Shaun. He was passing and rebounding very well when out on the court, but not scoring a whole lot.

__________________
~ 蜀關羽 神战争

speedythief

Andre Barrett averages 8.8 assists per-48 minutes.

ShuHanGuanYu

I don't think Barrett played enough games/minutes to make that number mean much. Plus, you'd need to know who else was on the court. Other scrubs, or starters?

But yeah, 8.8 isn't great. If you take into account the amount of time that Livingston had the ball in his hands in that series (not a lot), it was still pretty good. Posting up Brand isn't going to get you a ton of assists. Cassell by comparison was at 7.8. I'm not sure if that's you meant to imply though.

__________________
~ 蜀關羽 神战争

speedythief

I think what I'm trying to get at is that you can use imaginary stats like per-48 and per-40 to justify pretty much any opinion.

There are different kinds of assists. The raw numbers don't account for players like Baron Davis who get around 9 assists per game but often spend more than half the shot clock dribbling. They also don't account for players who are put into games within the framework of a certain team strategy, or with specific tasks at hand.

Keeping with assists, there are also players out there like Stephon Marbury, who will use one-pass plays for scoring much more often than two- or three-pass plays, because it increases the chances he'll get an assist. He'd rather pass it once to set a player up for a regular shot than work a swing to set someone up for an open one, and lose the assist in the process.

Steve Nash is an example of a guy who would have 25 assists a game if the NBA recorded assists like the NHL (two passes, score). Guys like Francis wouldn't have much of a shift in numbers.

If Livingston is a good passer it should be evident with or without stats. The "this is what he would have if..." argument, at least in my eyes, shows an inherant weakness in the original point being made. Shouldn't have to resort to extraneous statistics to make a point.

ShuHanGuanYu

I don't see the harm in using stats to support an argument. I do see the harm in bending the stats to support an argument that would otherwise be illogical. But only a simpleton would be fooled by such an argument, so I suppose I don't see the harm in that either. Stats should be used in conjuction with eye-witness accounts. Telling someone that Andre Barrett averages 8.8 assists per 48 minutes is not going to make anyone get on the phone and seek out Andre Barrett to run their team's offense. Only an idiot would come to, or support, such a conclusion.

And this is where if one brings up the assists stat for Marbury, the other person brings up Marbury's style of play and how from watching him play it can be argued that his assist numbers are inflated. Others would probably chime in and agree with that assessment. Therefore, based on empirical evidence, the stats lose the argument. Still, I see it as a good argument to have. Sometimes, the stats tell a better story. Not everyone has the chance to watch every team, and therefore the statistics give them a basic measure of performance. Someone could come and tell me that Jerry Stackhouse is one of the best scorers in the NBA. I'd have to remind them that his FG% has hovered around the 40% range for a long time now. I then suspect that maybe the person's eyes are fooling them, and that Stackhouse has good games only once in awhile and is more streaky than a great scorer. This exact argument has happened to me.

Was someone making the argument that "this is what he would have if...", or is this just taking a different turn? I agree, stats never tell the entire story. But they do tell a part of it in my opinion. If Shaun Livingston pulls off a lot of great passes, he can be called a great passer. He threads the needle and get guys wide open dunks, awesome. Great passer. But then I look at the stats after several games and realize that he is averaging five or six turnovers per game? That highlights something I'd want to look out for when analyzing him as a player. Then I would watch him play and see why the turnovers are happening. If they are his fault, the statistic is valid and he is turning the ball over too much...more than I realized when watching.

__________________
~ 蜀關羽 神战争

The_Notic

Andre Barrett with Raptors: 17 games & 16 mpg
Shaun Livingston in playoffs: 12 games & 28 mpg

ShuHanGuanYu

Yeah. 28 minutes in the big time is a little bit more important than the regular season. Just a tad. If Barrett played well in a handful of playoff games, I'd take notice.

__________________
~ 蜀關羽 神战争