Posted by kingsallday on 2/21/2018 7:34:00 PM (view original):
If Steph is only an 80 for you spoon, is there any guard in college basketball you think is 90+?

Maybe not, and good observation. At least one person hasn’t missed the point of this whole thing. I honestly thought me putting Bird at 95 Ath was going to be a bigger deal, but at least we’re finally getting there. How badly would you need to screw up to have a guy who, as Benis puts it, would be pretty close to 100 across the board turn it over 3.7 times per game in HD?

“OMG, shoe thinks my D3 guard is better than Steph Curry!”
No, it’s gone right over your head. Thanks for playing though, Dukie.

I mean its neat that Benis wasted so much of his day arguing a point no one made trying to prove something that doesn’t matter.

HD ratings do not correlate with real life performance. The ratings are themselves silly, 100s are far too common, and our utilization becomes so specialized, it makes real life comparisons inherently whacked.

In other words, yes, I knew it was provocative to put Bird’s athleticism at 95, Jordan’s defense at 85, and Curry’s ball handling at 70. But all of those are entirely defensible, if the goal is to come up with a player who matches their real life stats in HD. And it shows, to me anyway, there is something odd about the way attributes are weighted, and how those attributes are utilized by us.

It's not about the player or coach shoe, it's about the team. The school he played for had low d1 talent, and 1 elite player. It is not hard for me, as a coach, to make the descision to give my best player the ball. There are so many examples of players in HD who average high tovs while being the only option for the team. Just look at he leaderboard for tov in cbb or NBA, more likely than not the players at the top are the ones who have the most responsibility.

"I mean its neat that Benis wasted so much of his day arguing a point no one made trying to prove something that doesn’t matter. "

Just disregard your 'provocative' ratings for a minute here. I'm arguing this statement from you

"I do. And I watched college basketball when Curry was at Davidson. His first two years, his assist-turnover ratio was barely over 1:1. Improved his final year, but still not in line with stats from an elite BH guard in HD."

This statement shows you don't know what you're talking about and you haven't been able to defend it. Not only was he an ELITE player from an assist to turnover ratio during his time (not even mentioning his insane scoring ability) but he was better or comparable to the best point guards of the past several years.

Just admit you're wrong and move on.

Basically this sums it up-

Poopshoe's assessment of Steph Curry doesn't account for his incredibly high usage on those Davidson teams.

Oh yeah, there was another statement about how Curry had 3.7 tpg and how it was much higher than other elite guards.

But when you use the correct stats, its clear that its not actually high.

Unless Poopshoe is one of those old farts who doesn't believe in the tempo free advances stats...

Posted by Benis on 2/22/2018 6:20:00 AM (view original):
"I mean its neat that Benis wasted so much of his day arguing a point no one made trying to prove something that doesn’t matter. "

Just disregard your 'provocative' ratings for a minute here. I'm arguing this statement from you

"I do. And I watched college basketball when Curry was at Davidson. His first two years, his assist-turnover ratio was barely over 1:1. Improved his final year, but still not in line with stats from an elite BH guard in HD."

This statement shows you don't know what you're talking about and you haven't been able to defend it. Not only was he an ELITE player from an assist to turnover ratio during his time (not even mentioning his insane scoring ability) but he was better or comparable to the best point guards of the past several years.

Just admit you're wrong and move on.

This is why you’re the Duke of Obfuscation. You’re so concerned about jumping on what you think might be a gotcha, you forget to make a coherent argument.

Read the statement you quoted from me again. It doesn’t mean what you insist it means. It doesn’t mean Curry is overrated. It doesn’t mean he’s not great. It doesn’t mean he’s not generationally great, I’ve said as much in this conversation. The meanest thing I said about him is that if I was a GSW fan, I’d like to see the tov rates come down, though I’d accept them as part of the package, because he’s a generationally great scorer.

I said his turnover ratio is not in line with stats from an elite BH guard in HD. And it’s not. The rates of Bob Cousy award winners are red herrings, none of them are from HD. Again, how badly would you need to screw up as a HD coach to wind up with a 100 across the board guard turn it over 3.7 times per game? So either the HD community knows something about basketball that Bob McKillop doesn’t know, or (and this is what I’m saying) HD ratings aren’t weighted optimally, because to even marginally recreate actual college stats of star players, you would need some counterintuitive attributes, like Bird at 95 Ath, Jordan at 85 Def, and Curry at 70 BH.

Posted by Benis on 2/22/2018 6:15:00 AM (view original):
Basically this sums it up-

Poopshoe's assessment of Steph Curry doesn't account for his incredibly high usage on those Davidson teams.

Seriously, your girlfriend must love when you tell her what she meant to say, almost as much as your passive aggressiveness and your inferiority complexes. You take what should be a fun and interesting discussion, and make it an exercise in reminding everyone you’re here.

It must be such a burden always being the smartest guy in the room. I have no idea how you live with that responsibility.

And I've read your statement about his 1:1 turnover ratio several times (unfortunately) but maybe I'm misunderstanding it. I guess everyone else is misunderstanding it too because no one agrees with you.

So go ahead and explain it again. Why do you think his 1:1 assist to turnover ratio as a Fr and So means his passing is so much better than his ball handling.

And while you're at it, explain why just looking at the raw numbers of assists and turnovers is better than looking at turnover % and assist %.

Posted by Benis on 2/22/2018 9:34:00 AM (view original):
And I've read your statement about his 1:1 turnover ratio several times (unfortunately) but maybe I'm misunderstanding it. I guess everyone else is misunderstanding it too because no one agrees with you.

So go ahead and explain it again. Why do you think his 1:1 assist to turnover ratio as a Fr and So means his passing is so much better than his ball handling.

And while you're at it, explain why just looking at the raw numbers of assists and turnovers is better than looking at turnover % and assist %.

You’re the one concerned about how many people agree with him. That’s not my gig. But you are definitely misunderstanding, so it’s nice that you’re acknowledging it(even if it’s a passive aggressive Benis acknowledgement) instead of insisting I must mean something contrary to what I’ve been saying. I’m not scouting Stephen Curry. This isn’t an “assessment”. I’ve explicitly said my goal with this fun apples to oranges exercise is to come up with reasonable approximations that recreate real life stats in HD.

But sure, I’ll explain again. His assist rates, which I mostly attribute to passing in HD terms, went up significantly his 3rd season, while his turnover rates also went up. My interpretation of how HD attributes correlate with stats had those two attributes roughly the same his FR and SO years, with passing moving up by his 3rd.

The last part is obfuscating nonsense. No one has claimed raw numbers are better than rates, just as no one has denied that usage matters a lot. That’s an argument literally no one here is making.

His turnover % his Jr Season was actually LOWER than his Fr season. So they didn't increase linearly as you say.

Posted by Benis on 2/22/2018 10:00:00 AM (view original):
His turnover % his Jr Season was actually LOWER than his Fr season. So they didn't increase linearly as you say.

Sure, and that’s why I said, multiple times, you can make a case for his ball handling moving up to high 70s-low 80s range that year as well. Not as high as his passing, and not elite in HD terms, but up.

I say you can make a case for it, not because I necessarily would or have, but because it’s a valid interpretation of how stats correlate to HD ratings. My personal feelings on usage dependent stats translating to sim ratings is that there is always going to be an unknown that you can’t control for, the decisions a human being makes. That’s why part of what made this discussion interesting to me, before it got tedious, is in looking at the differences between valuations and utilization patterns in real life vs the sim.

Posted by shoe3 on 2/22/2018 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 2/22/2018 9:34:00 AM (view original):
And I've read your statement about his 1:1 turnover ratio several times (unfortunately) but maybe I'm misunderstanding it. I guess everyone else is misunderstanding it too because no one agrees with you.

So go ahead and explain it again. Why do you think his 1:1 assist to turnover ratio as a Fr and So means his passing is so much better than his ball handling.

And while you're at it, explain why just looking at the raw numbers of assists and turnovers is better than looking at turnover % and assist %.

You’re the one concerned about how many people agree with him. That’s not my gig. But you are definitely misunderstanding, so it’s nice that you’re acknowledging it(even if it’s a passive aggressive Benis acknowledgement) instead of insisting I must mean something contrary to what I’ve been saying. I’m not scouting Stephen Curry. This isn’t an “assessment”. I’ve explicitly said my goal with this fun apples to oranges exercise is to come up with reasonable approximations that recreate real life stats in HD.

But sure, I’ll explain again. His assist rates, which I mostly attribute to passing in HD terms, went up significantly his 3rd season, while his turnover rates also went up. My interpretation of how HD attributes correlate with stats had those two attributes roughly the same his FR and SO years, with passing moving up by his 3rd.

The last part is obfuscating nonsense. No one has claimed raw numbers are better than rates, just as no one has denied that usage matters a lot. That’s an argument literally no one here is making.

I think if we're comparing his assist rate going up while also his turnovers going up that third year, in HD terms, that's distro. And real life terms, that's usage rate. So I'll never understand lowering his BH no matter how it's explained to me from either of you. Curry..... BH..... 90+