Hahaha I am so glad I watched this

Using baseball as an example is a completely disingenuous argument Assani, and you know it. The difference in statistic use between baseball and basketball is dramatically different. You can simply not quantify a point guard's decision making ability in statistics. Say Player A makes 10 great passes to set up baskets but his team only makes 3 of them. Player B makes 5 good passes, 5 bad passes, but his team makes better plays and makes 5 of them. What do statistics say about that?

FWIW, I think it says A LOT that Pistons fans who watch Chauncey 82 games a year are disagreeing heavily with the statistic junkies. I am a HUGE Chauncey fan, I have been from Day 1. But it's very evident that he's not the same player he was in 2004 and 2005. Some of the plays he used to be able to make aren't happening anymore, and I will concede that part of that might just be the result of bad luck (i.e. shots just not falling). But, he is NOT Mr. Big Shot anymore.

As for the "passing to the correct person" statement, I was referring to something else you can't quantify in statistics. Say he has two options, an open man underneath and a semi-covered guy on the perimeter, statistics will tell you that he made a good decision if the guy on the perimeter makes a tough shot. When, in fact, he had a much higher EV (for you stats nuts) by passing it to the guy underneath the hoop. That's not the type of decision Chauncey was making consistently, but he always preferred the kick-out to the dump-off.

Thank you, that's the breakdown I was looking for. I just didn't know I would get it from someone with an avatar of a chick Hoovering cocaine off of a ukulele.

lollllllllll seriously, this is hilarious

I feel like I'm in bizarro world with everyone saying Denver wins this. I think the Pistons win this trade. Firstly, I think we've seen the ceiling on the Billups lead Pistons. They aren't winning the East as currently constructed unless they get major luck in the form of a Lebron and Garnett simultaneous season ending injury. Even then, who knows?

Iverson's ceiling is possibly higher. I think it is. Even if you think it isn't, do you really think in two years, when Billups has just turned 34 and is making 13mil, it will be a good contract? When you have to re-sign Amir Johnson that year and have Stuckey/Tayshaun Prince in line the year after? That **** is bananas.

Also, I think you guys are severely overrating the loss of McDyess. Nice complimentary player but a lot of his minutes are already going to be shifted toward Amir Johnson and Maxiell. The leftovers (10-15mpg) can be used by Herrmann and Kwame Brown without seeing much in a decline, if any at all.

Basically, with Iverson, their ceiling this year is potentially higher and their flexibility in the future is certainly better. Where exactly do the Pistons lose except in the scenarios that involve them winning 0 or 1 round in the playoffs?

QFT. The last 3 or so are awesome.

jesus, i haven't laughed that hard in a long time!

these are the kinds of hypotheticals that the anti-stats crowd loves to come up with. I contest that the burden of proof is on them, though. Because the way I see it:

- Pistons won 59 games last years (62 pythag.. i.e., arguably the 2nd best team in the league)
- Chauncey was their biggest contributor
- He shot the ball better last season than in any previous year
- His AST% was his second highest of his career

So either they just ran really hot every time he passed into a bad situation, or he was just playing damn good ball.

It's funny that in the same post you lament he's not making the 'big plays' anymore. In fact, I think if Billups has any weakness in his game, it's his propensity for taking hero shots. He doesn't make them a lot because they're extremely difficult shots.

its pistons homers using delusional logic in a weak attempt to justify this trade to themselves.

Considering salary considerations, I hate this trade a LITTLE less for Detroit.

Also, Assani is totally owning the breakdown here.

I'm guessing Dumars wants to begin rebuilding but he doesn't think ownership would let him yet so he found a way to start the process without anyone realizing that's what he's doing?

What are you talking about? I think everyone realizes what he is doing.

No, you completely misunderstood my point, although perhaps I wasn't clear in explaining it. Here I'll try better:


The argument: Many fans seem to think that they can get a very good grasp of a player's ability simply by watching. When stats conflict with what they think from watching, they trust their own judgment instead of the stats. Case in point, the people arguing that Chauncey has regressed. I very much disagree with these people.

Now in basketball, stats can't definitively prove much. You showed this in your example above. I completely agree with you.

So when we have this argument in basketball, I can never definitively prove the other people wrong because they will always just fall back on "But stats can be misleading. I watch the games. I know what I'm talking about."


In baseball, however, stats are very much "correct." There are very few variables, particularly over an entire 500 at bat season.

This is great because it gives us a chance to test the theory of "I can very accurately judge a plyaer simply by watching him." What we do is let those people watch two players each have 500 at bats. They could be teamates hitting next to each other in the lineup in order to minimize outside variables about the pitchers they face. Moreover, they could be minor leaguers so we have no prior knowledge of them. One could be a .300 avg/30 home run guy. The other could be a .285 avg/25 home run guy- Clearly the former is better.

However, the great majority of people would not be able to tell who is better from watching 500 at bats unless they manually added up the stats.


And if anything its easier to watch baseball and get a full grasp of a player's ability because you only have to pay attention to 2 guys(pitcher/batter...maybe catcher, so maybe 3) instead of 10. So if people can't even accurately judge baseball solely by watching, then why should we assume they can do it in basketball?

Does that make better sense?



You've said this twice now, but you still have not offered any proof that the majority of people who closely watch the games think this way. In fact, judging by the response of this forum, its the exact opposite, and there are a ton of people who watch a ton of games here. Honestly I'm not sure how new you are here, but we have a ton of hardcore basketball fans. We also have a ton of people who bet on sports and imo winning sports bettors are 10x more knowledgeable and better at evaluating than homer fans.

This whole section of your post is filler. Allow me to save you time in the future: You are not going to win any debates here by telling us how much you watch a certain team/player or how good you are at evaluating basketball.

I played DII ball, reffed in some fairly competitive leagues(hated it and would never do it agian), if it weren't for poker I'd likely be coaching somewhere today(had an offer to come back as assistant coach for my school), and with Bobbo/kbfc am trying to beat betting on basketball for a substantial percentage of my overall income....and even with all that, I still don't consider myself in the top 3 knowldgeable posters here.

The bottom line is that if you are correct you will be able to demonstrate why is some statistical or factual way. You would not have to rely upon "Everyone who watches the games agrees, and we're clearly right!!!". Trust me, I watch games too. I learn a lot from watching games. However, everything that I know from watching, I can back up in some way statistically even if its not a commonly available stat and I have to look it up and develop it myself.

You ignored my repsonse to this last time, so I'll ask again:

It sounds as if you are arguing that Chauncey has fallen off from a mental standpoint(decision making) and not a physical one. This makes very little sense. Why would someone get worse at the mental part of the game as they gain experience?

I really don't have a clue why people think the Pistons had no chance to win it all (or even get to the NBA finals) with their roster before the trade. I mean they were the team that scared me the most (not the Cavs) as a Celtics fan last year in the east and the Pistons could have easily beaten us and the Lakers in the finals.

Obv they weren't the favorites to get out of the east or win it all, but they def had a shot.

Has anyone else noticed that basketball-reference is now databasebasketball? Far more importantly their current layout sucks and is about five steps and ten years behind? I just hope that's temporary during a changeover or something.

One NBA Title and one game 7 NBA Finals near miss?


Last year, they went to the ECF and were tied 2-2 with Detroit after 4 games. Not only that but they had the momentum of having just beaten the Celtics 94-75 in game 4.

Yes they did go on to lose the next two games by 4 and 8 points(pretty damn close btw). However, are you really telling me that you couldn't have envisioned a scenario where they would've won 2 out of 3 there? Would it really have bene that "majorly lucky" for them to have done that?

I think you're being extremely results oriented in your thinking here. You see that Detroit lost to Cle in the ECF two years ago and lost to Boston last year, so you think they must be substantially worse than those two teams. However, it was 2-2 against Boston and it was 2-0 against Cleveland. To think that they couldn't have won without "major luck" is just flat out wrong imo.


Disagree, and imo this is a classic case of the grass being greener on the other side of the waterfall. Billup's ceiling is the best defensive player at his position, the most efficient scorer at his position who still puts up decent bulk scoring numbers, and a phenomenal assist-to-turnover guy who won't ever average 12 apg due to the pace and the system, but is more than capable of creating shots for others.

AI's absolute upside is a slightly inefficient bulk scorer who can create very well for his teamates but who will still shoot too much in certain games and still causes you to have mismatches on defense because hes more of a SG but can't defend bigger SGs.


Yes, absolutely.

1. Contracts are only getting bigger and bigger. This will be especially be true as they make changes in the salary cap to try to prevent players from leaving to go overseas.

2. Chauncey didn't play a lot early in his career, so hes more well rested.

3. The stats indicate that he hasn't slowed down at all.

4. Read the Hollinger article kidcolin posted.


I agree with you about McDyess overall, but who exactly is overrating him here?

definitely not seeing what you're seeing Tup. I did notice searching for "speights" failed last night when I was writing the N2 rookie report, though.

ya what assani just said was what I was wondering 2 posts above his.

Blows my mind that people thought the Pistons had no shot to get to the NBA finals or win it all this year.

Great post, but I particularly love the bolded.


Look, in today's day and age with the internet and so many advanced basketball stat sites out there, you have access to literally any information you want. It may take some work to get it all, and you may have to form your own stats and formulas, but it can be done. The point being that if something is true(i.e. Chauncey declining) then you will indeed be able to prove it statistically in some way imo.


P.S. What exactly does "i.e." stand for?

P.P.S. What does "P.S." stand for??

Yeah this is pretty much why I don't like the trade (even though it probably looks like I'm arguing for it in many cases). I voted slight edge Denver on the N2 poll. I mean, Pistons are what, 3rd or 4th favorites if we go by Vegas odds?

So I'd rather see them go for it, and then if it's really apparent it won't work out, you can still free up some cash this offseason by letting Sheed go and possibly Rip if he doesn't exercise his option, and you go on with a well priced Chauncey who has so far been aging well.

"id est", Latin for "that is".

probably a classic Assani level, but I'll bite. "post scriptum" or "postscript"

i.e. comes from latin and means "that is to say" (looking it up apparently it is id est)

p.s is post script, I'm pretty sure.

I'm too late.

Nah not a level...was just curious since I'm not a dork that knows those things

No worries, I'm a lawyer and I get i.e. and e.g. mixed up all the time.

Ok, some hyperbole on my part. Detroit definitely could still win it all with Billups, that wasn't my point. My point was that they were not going to be a frontrunner for that spot and would need to pull off an upset. They didn't have the best, or arguably, second best team in the East. Cleveland, Philly, Toronto all got better. Detroit and Boston stayed the same.

The trade gives them the potential to leapfrog into best team territory. But that's only part of the reason I like it. The other reason is that point guards break down in their mid 30s all the time. It's going to happen to Billups soon, it's going to happen to Nash soon, it's not something you can sweep under the rug and expect to go away. In two years, instead of paying Billups 13mil, you can use that money to pay one of your younger core and be a contender with a new group including Stuckey, Amir, Maxiell, Tayshaun, etc.

If the Pistons stay put, they don't have the money to extend their guys over the next few years and either have to deal away talent for expiring contracts or have to let one of their young guys walk.

I think this situation gives them the best combination of win now and win later.