Zion first team, RJ. second
Absurd RJ. wasn't first. Absolutely absurd.
Absurd RJ. wasn't first. Absolutely absurd.
Sports Illustrated All-Americans
- Thread starter bullettoothtony
- Start date
Your right there,other than Zion,who's been better that RJ?
Ridiculous... But honestly unless you’re really watching every Duke game, the headlines and media indirectly make RJ seem like Zion’s back up dancer rather than his equal.
RJ has been severely underrated and underappreciated all year, including on this board.
I wouldn’t say he’s under appreciated on this board... Earlier in the season I think we were all wanting him to coexist within the team a little better and not force shots.
Don't see the issue. The only top 10 lists that I can find him on are usage and field goal attempts.
Here's how his advanced stats stack up:
Here's how his advanced stats stack up:
- PER: 23, not in top 50. Zion is 1st with 42.
- O-Rating: 112, not in top 50. Zion is 6th at 134.
- D-Rating: 95, not in top 50. Zion is 3rd at 85.
- Win-Shares per 40: 0.21, not in top 50. Zion is 1st at 0.35.
- Box Plus-Minus. 8, not in top 50. Zion is 1st at 21.
Best way to appreciate someone is to not have them anymore. We are going to miss RJ next season. The kid knows how to score, and does more than just score.
For god sake look at the top 50 PER in college hoops... 29/50 are mid-major players and like 10 of them don’t even average 10MPG. I watch a lot of college hoops and I’ve never even heard of half the guys on the list. Zion’s offensive rating is actually 16th, I only recognize 2 names above him. Wofford (team) is 2nd in offensive rating. Do you think they’re the 2nd best offense in the NCAA? Top 25? Hope not.
Since we’re on the topic of advanced stats here’s a fun fact: Javin DeLaurier is 4th in the country in true shooting %
I could continue on about these nonsensical tidbits but you get the point (hopefully.) Advanced stats can be cool to check out. Nothing beats the good old fashioned eye test.
You beat me to it. I think sometimes people post stuff just because they're certain no one will challenge them on it. If you hadn't, I was going to. Thanks for saving me the time.
It doesn't matter who underappreciates RJ. He will still be 1 of the first 2 selected on draft day and sign a big azz contract for millions and at the end of the day that's all that matters. Of course for us fans we hope he takes a big national championship ring with him to the draft.
Advanced stats can be cool to look at, but there’s way too many variables to make it noteworthy (usage%, competition, unique situations)
Ya ever seen the baseball movie Moneyball with Pitt and Jonah Hill? They trade all the star-power for busted players with high on base percentage. All about advanced statistics. Surprisingly they make history...... Yeah well, that crap only happens in movies lmao
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic.
Advanced metrics are fine for pro leagues where everyone is playing similar competition all the time. Not as good for college.
I could definitely agree that advanced metrics paint a much clearer picture at the NBA level. I still don’t think they completely tell a true story. I mean even if you look at metrics at the college level, you can find consistency with the eye-test. It’s not all hog-wash but given that there’s 300+ D1 schools, you can’t compare Player X against like 4,000 other players playing massively different levels of competition and other variables. Just like the eye-test and metrics would both practically agree that Zion is a one-of-a-kind talent and the most efficient player. But a guy like RJ who takes substantially different shots might have some adv stats that look like trash compared to Player X from a school nobody has heard of. The metrics paint a picture saying that guy is a way better player than RJ, obviously being far from truth.
Not being sarcastic about the movie, actually based on a true story. Which would hypocritically argue my viewpoint. But that situation is unique. Imagine the modern day BoSox choosing not to re-sign Mookie and Pedroia. Instead, signing 3 or 4 guys you’ve never heard of. Old, injury ruined, formerly retired, etc. Who just so happen to have the best OBP you’ve ever heard of in unqualified batting attempts. I guess I was highlighting this in comparison to adv metrics favoring a guy you’ve never heard of and suggesting he’s a better talent than RJ.
Not sure where you're finding your stats. You can find the accurate ones here, all as I mentioned in my post: https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/2019-leaders.html
Javin has an insanely low usage rate, so you can toss his stats out the window, which it sounds like you agree.
Based on your other posts I don't think you're kidding when you say 'nothing beats the good old fashioned eye test.' So let's just agree to disagree.
I have no problem with RJ on the 1st team, nor on the 2nd team.
Order of operations
#1- Duke played tonight and according to box score had 88 total possessions.
#2- Z played 20/40 (50%) possible minutes.
#3- Previous step allows us to estimate he played half of 88 poss which is 44.
#4- Insert Zion’s offensive usage% and box score stats, also team weight stats.
#5- Apply the 4-factor weight which is 40% shots, 20% reb, 25% TOs and 15% FTs
#6- All of the above steps are now scrambled into an equation that looks like it derived from a college level advanced calculus book.
#7- Someone a lot smarter than me has now solved said equation.
#8- Multiply the solved product by 2.273 to make the possession total jump 44 to 100.
#9- Offensive rating is the above answer.
#10- Defensive rating can be solved using the above logic with box score stats related to defense. There’s a decoration bonus called Stops1+Stops2=Stops and it’s an estimation gathered for TOs not properly assigned as a steal or block.
Are you confused? Me too.
The NCAA does not track individual possessions which is the root factor in 90% of metrics. So every single individual metric is an estimation. I’m sure you’ve heard of Dean Oliver that wrote the book called “Basketball on Paper.” — That’s where that insane method derived from. Along with SportsRef sites like KemPom, FOX, Massey, etc. all use the same formula. The stats I previously snapped back at you with were from FOX. Just as useless as your source. But, I’ll give you due credit, SportsRef is an excellent website for box scores. Although they probably narrate the most barbaric metrics, especially in terms of O/D-Rating. All of the information used to formulate this junk is suctioned from box scores. Never thought I’d consider myself old school at the ripe age of 27 but I’d rather look at a traditional box score if I’m going to dig into a player. At least that’s 100% accurate and there’s no place for estimation. The good news is that this year is the first year the NBA finally made the switch to “true-possessions.” So there’s no longer estimation variable at the pro level. Those ratings are purely points scored / allowed per 100 (true) possessions. NBA’s official website is the only place you can get that information, too. Hopefully the NCAA follows the footsteps so we and others don’t have to debate over what fake metric rating site is the best.
Since I have your link pulled up, wanna have a laugh? Since we’re both Duke fans — SportsRef rates our boy JJ’s D at #33 in the NBA Official rating is around #100. Rudy Gobert’s SportsRef O-Rating is 131. Officially it’s 108. Clipper’s Harrell officially is 107, SportsRef juices up estimate at 123. Same story with Tyson Chandler SportsRef beefs him up at 123, officially 103. Clint Capela sits at 111, SportsRef estimates 130. Willing to note that they did nail his 107 D-Rating though. Millions of examples to be made about the abstract differences, handful of similarities here and there too.
We can agree to disagree if you’d like. I’m just sticking with my guns that individual metrics at the college level are atrocious well over half the time. Dean Oliver even admitted that a player playing a larger role will struggle to compete in O-Rating, also said that D-Rating is heavily influenced by team ability rather than individual talent to defend. (This is actually posted on SportsRef) That’s coming straight from the horse’s mouth. How can anyone take it seriously when the creator virtually admits that it’s a broken method to use in college. Aside from that, total team possessions are accounted for and I don’t mind dabbling into team metrics some. Alright, I’ll shut up now!
It worked really well for what it was supposed to do (let a small market club compete without the cash of the big boys). The premise was “we CAN’T sign all stars, so our scouting has to be perfect.” Now everyone has access to the same advanced metrics, but the cash situation hasn’t changed.
Based on a true story and being an actual true story is like apples and oranges.
Moneyball forces you to believe in metrics (not scouting) because the season success is wrongly emphasized on the unorthodox signings. The A’s pitching staff in ‘02 warranted the success. Zito, Mulder and Hudson were the 3 elite starters. Those guys were high draft picks, credit scouting and not metric-minded crap. Chad Bradford was a unique talent that lit up the minors, the Sox just didn’t gamble the submarine pitching style. Analyzing metrics led to his signing in Oakland but I’d argue him as a true unorthodox talent that was wrongly dismissed. Regardless, credit Beane for signing him. The movie also completely ignores the other success factor of Tejada / Chavez offensively. They single handedly are responsible for like a 1/3rd of total runs. Moneyball says Hatteburg is the man because he was walked 68 times in roughly 200 bats. Meh, make of that whatcha want.
Metrics are awesome to dabble with, they show some unique stuff sometimes. But my point is that blindly plucking a metric statistic to argue a player’s total value is stupidity. Don’t let the movie brainwash ya
Z, RJ, Hunter, Johnson, Guy.
A little baffled that Cameron Johnson was considered above Luke Maye.
I believe it was C.Winston, Ja Morant, Grant Williams, Jarrett Culver, Zion