The Kandi Man visits the Suns

[hawaiiansun]

Him and Jay Williams been scoping babes down at the local circle jerk

we got a funny guy in here eh

 

[F-Dog]

Sign him. Yes he's a bust, but he's still better than Burke and Marks.

People keep saying this as though it's an indisputable fact, but I don't see it.

Kandi is worse than Steven Hunter on offense, and at 31 he's lost some mobility, so all he's good for on defense is clogging the lane and committing fouls. And if that's all you're looking for anyway, why not throw Burke out there, since he's capable of contributing on offense too?

 

[George O'Brien]

I almost hate to follow this up with a more serious thought. Why is Kandi here rather than Memphis?

Memphis just lost Lorenzen Wright through free agency and Pau Gasol to injury. Assuming Swift will play PF, by default their starting center is Big Jake. Lawrence "Who's He" Roberts is their only other big. Warrick and Cardinal can play PF, but Swift is not a center on team that doesn't run much and PG Damon Stoudamire is coming off injury.

All I can think is that Kandi saw how the Suns turned the career of Stephen Hunter around. Still, it's pretty strange he's not going as hard after Memphis.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I almost hate to follow this up with a more serious thought. Why is Kandi here rather than Memphis?

Memphis just lost Lorenzen Wright through free agency and Pau Gasol to injury. Assuming Swift will play PF, by default their starting center is Big Jake. Lawrence "Who's He" Roberts is their only other big. Warrick and Cardinal can play PF, but Swift is not a center on team that doesn't run much and PG Damon Stoudamire is coming off injury.

All I can think is that Kandi saw how the Suns turned the career of Stephen Hunter around. Still, it's pretty strange he's not going as hard after Memphis.

He wants to win a title? Sometimes that is a motivation--even for almost over-the hill underachievers.

 

[nowagimp]

People keep saying this as though it's an indisputable fact, but I don't see it.

Kandi is worse than Steven Hunter on offense ...

You obviously see offense in steven hunter that I dont see. Hunter has NO post moves at all and cant even shoot a foul shot. Its hard to imagine anyone is "worse" than steven hunter on offense.

 

[Gaddabout]

Maybe they should sign Wayman Tisdale. He might not be able to play, but he is actually a pretty good jazz bassist.

I have to seriously question your judgment of jazz bassists.

 

[Errntknght]

nowagimp, "You obviously see offense in steven hunter that I dont see. Hunter has NO post moves at all and cant even shoot a foul shot. Its hard to imagine anyone is "worse" than steven hunter on offense."

However little you may regard Hunter's offense, gimp, last year Kandi was worse on almost any measure you'd like to pick. FG % 45 to 60 for Hunter, Pts/game 4.9 to 6.1, FT attempts per game exactly half as many as Hunter. Heck, he even shot FTs at a worse pct - .511 to .514. They played almost exactly the same number of minutes per game, 19.1 and 19.0, so on a per minute or per 48 Hunter still wins.

 

[Gaddabout]

People keep saying this as though it's an indisputable fact, but I don't see it.

Kandi is worse than Steven Hunter on offense, and at 31 he's lost some mobility, so all he's good for on defense is clogging the lane and committing fouls. And if that's all you're looking for anyway, why not throw Burke out there, since he's capable of contributing on offense too?

You're probably right. I will say this: I'm pretty sure Kandi is the best 7-footer available right now.

 

[F-Dog]

Its hard to imagine anyone is "worse" than steven hunter on offense.

This must be why people are enthusiastic about Kandi--lack of imagination.


According to the APBR people, Kandi has the second-lowest offensive rating of all time (yes, worse than Chris Dudley):

http://www.basketball-reference.com/labs/apbr.cgi?franch=All&first=1978&last=2006&combine=Yes&minage=0&maxage=99&stat=ORtg&min=10000&sort=asc&limit=50&submit=View+Stats



Hunter moves without the basketball a little, at least. Kandi wants to post up, but when he gets it, he's got only one move--a little turnaround hook that goes in about 30% of the time (and leaves him out of position for the rebound, naturally). It's amazing that a career 40% shooter like Kandi has received so many entry passes.

 

[newfan101]

This must be why people are enthusiastic about Kandi--lack of imagination.


According to the APBR people, Kandi has the second-lowest offensive rating of all time (yes, worse than Chris Dudley):

http://www.basketball-reference.com/labs/apbr.cgi?franch=All&first=1978&last=2006&combine=Yes&minage=0&maxage=99&stat=ORtg&min=10000&sort=asc&limit=50&submit=View+Stats

This is coming from a site that lists Steve Kerr with the HIGHEST offensive rating of all time, Cedrick Maxwell just ahead of Michael Jordan, and such luminaries as Mario Elie, Ed Pinckney, John Paxson and Brent Barry in front of Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Larry Bird, Moses Malone and Shaq.

Yeah ... that's a reliable site ...

I do agree with your assessment of Kandi. You should leave those sites to John Hollinger.

 

[George O'Brien]

When I first heard Kandi wanted to become a Sun, I was underwhelmed. However after doing some research, I now say YEECH.

 

[F-Dog]

This is coming from a site that lists Steve Kerr with the HIGHEST offensive rating of all time, Cedrick Maxwell just ahead of Michael Jordan, and such luminaries as Mario Elie, Ed Pinckney, John Paxson and Brent Barry in front of Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Larry Bird, Moses Malone and Shaq.

Yeah ... that's a reliable site ...

I do agree with your assessment of Kandi. You should leave those sites to John Hollinger.

That's because Offensive Rating is an efficiency stat.

If you want a true picture of a player's impact on offense, you have to take usage rate into account (3rd from the left). Michael Jordan used almost twice as many possessions per 40 min as Cornbread Maxwell, which is why MJ's impact on his team's offense was many times that of Maxwell's (Cornbread was a role player on the Larry Bird Celtics teams). Kerr, Elie, Pinckney, and Paxson all lived on easy shots provided by superstar teammates, and their low usage rates tell the story.

Down at the bottom of the table, of course, usage rate tells a different tale--low usage rate puts pressure on your teammates to carry the load, but high usage rate with very low efficiency is probably even worse. You could make the argument that Antoine Walker is the worst offensive player of the modern era.



Thanks for trusting my eyeball assessment, anyway.

 

[nowagimp]

nowagimp, "You obviously see offense in steven hunter that I dont see. Hunter has NO post moves at all and cant even shoot a foul shot. Its hard to imagine anyone is "worse" than steven hunter on offense."

However little you may regard Hunter's offense, gimp, last year Kandi was worse on almost any measure you'd like to pick. FG % 45 to 60 for Hunter, Pts/game 4.9 to 6.1, FT attempts per game exactly half as many as Hunter. Heck, he even shot FTs at a worse pct - .511 to .514. They played almost exactly the same number of minutes per game, 19.1 and 19.0, so on a per minute or per 48 Hunter still wins.

Let me see, who were the PG's of the two teams? Surely being a suns fan you understand the importance of a big guy getting the ball where he needes it AI for Hunter with 8 apg?? Banks for 20-30 games ane who else for minnie? I guess that playing with AI may get you some free dunks for your ppg and FG%. Think? Hunter has never showed he can even take a turnaround shot in the low post. You guys and your stats are really incredible. 6.1ppg was Hunters CAREER year, and Webber was hurt and Dalembert didnt take any dimes away from hunter, thats for sure. How about a career comparison of stats?? Nah that would just confuse the issue, I'll admit that that stat is also bogus, given the decline of "Kandicane". Your stats and statements are likely to be insignificant(statistical term, no offense) due to differences in the populations of the stat pool data. If hunter had any real impact on offense, you might be right, but your stats are too close and these guys are too inconsistent to mean much at all.

 

[nowagimp]

That's because Offensive Rating is an efficiency stat.

If you want a true picture of a player's impact on offense, you have to take usage rate into account (3rd from the left). Michael Jordan used almost twice as many possessions per 40 min as Cornbread Maxwell, which is why MJ's impact on his team's offense was many times that of Maxwell's (Cornbread was a role player on the Larry Bird Celtics teams). Kerr, Elie, Pinckney, and Paxson all lived on easy shots provided by superstar teammates, and their low usage rates tell the story.

Down at the bottom of the table, of course, usage rate tells a different tale--low usage rate puts pressure on your teammates to carry the load, but high usage rate with very low efficiency is probably even worse. You could make the argument that Antoine Walker is the worst offensive player of the modern era.



Thanks for trusting my eyeball assessment, anyway.

Thats some great stat you have there. Did you ever think that it may be invalid. Who decides the weighting of individual stats to compute the overall efficiency?? Imagine the MVP PG who leads the leagues most efficient offense(and top 5 all time) is just not a top player in the efficiency rating? Wow, thats a huge reach, converting that statistic to actual game efficiency. Sometimes it pays to ask what the "experts" in this area really know. I studied graduate level multivariate statistics, have a doctorate in applications of legitimate stats. Trust me, something is very wrong here! Every time you include another variable(or dimension) in a rating, the number of data required to legitimize the rating(in a statistical sense) can be (in the limit) exponentially increased. If one variable takes 10 samples, 4 will take 10,000. Now remember this is the extreme complexity case. Still, even if the weighting of variables is correct (not a given at all if Nash is not efficient), you need alot of data. Sorry about the mini core dump, but fans are treated like tools with meaningless stats all the time(eg, the raiders record on monday nights: Which raiders team??). All stats are not bad, but the more complex ones that try to generalize "overall" performance are usually, at best, suspect.

 

[Mainstreet]

Thats some great stat you have there. Did you ever think that it may be invalid. Who decides the weighting of individual stats to compute the overall efficiency?? Imagine the MVP PG who leads the leagues most efficient offense(and top 5 all time) is just not a top player in the efficiency rating? Wow, thats a huge reach, converting that statistic to actual game efficiency. Sometimes it pays to ask what the "experts" in this area really know. I studied graduate level multivariate statistics, have a doctorate in applications of legitimate stats. Trust me, something is very wrong here! Every time you include another variable(or dimension) in a rating, the number of data required to legitimize the rating(in a statistical sense) can be (in the limit) exponentially increased. If one variable takes 10 samples, 4 will take 10,000. Now remember this is the extreme complexity case. Still, even if the weighting of variables is correct (not a given at all if Nash is not efficient), you need alot of data. Sorry about the mini core dump, but fans are treated like tools with meaningless stats all the time(eg, the raiders record on monday nights: Which raiders team??). All stats are not bad, but the more complex ones that try to generalize "overall" performance are usually, at best, suspect.

I had to take statistics to get my B.S. degree in business plus all the other math related courses that go with it. I must say, I still haven't figured out how I even passed statistics on a much lower level, let alone pursue it on a doctorate level. The only thing I really took from the course is that statistics can frequently be used to obtain the result desired if a person has an agenda and the complexity of the matter if it is used correctly. I think you pointed out the flaws in relying on statistics too much unless a person really knows what they are doing.

Anyway, I'm glad your on top of it... at least what I understand what I think you said. I believe I will refer my statistical questions to you.

Now let me see, what are the odds of getting heads if I flip a coin for the 100th time if the other 99 were tails?

 

[SactownSunsFan]

I can't believe you guys are putting worth this kind of an effort in a discussion about Hunter and Kandi!

Some of you really need to get out more

 

[Chaplin]

I can't believe you guys are putting worth this kind of an effort in a discussion about Hunter and Kandi!

Some of you really need to get out more

It's the offseason.

 

[SactownSunsFan]

It's the offseason.

Which is the perfect time to "get out more"

 

[Errntknght]

nowagimp, "Your stats and statements are likely to be insignificant(statistical term, no offense) due to differences in the populations of the stat pool data. If hunter had any real impact on offense, you might be right, but your stats are too close and these guys are too inconsistent to mean much at all."

I didn't make any claim about the meaning of the stats but they certainly were all counter to your claim that Kandi couldn't be worse than Hunter. It would be great to have data which was nicely tailored to making firm conclusions but we have to make do with what exists, like it or not. These are nice simple stats, understandable to virtually all of us regardless of our expertise and they are for all of the most recent year. True, they are not of great significance but then they were countering an argument that contained even less of significance, statistical or otherwise(no offense).

You threw up a good smokescreen in your reply but the bottom line is that Kandiman had a pathetic year offensively last year, worse on every statistical count than a known poor offensive player in Hunter. Even worse on FTs, which you made a point of mentioning.

I didn't see much of Olowakandi last year but the little I did see was right in line with his statistical production. On both basis I have little interest in him joining the Suns but if he showed the coaches signs of life in his recent workouts I'll adopt a wait and see approach.

 

[nowagimp]

nowagimp, "Your stats and statements are likely to be insignificant(statistical term, no offense) due to differences in the populations of the stat pool data. If hunter had any real impact on offense, you might be right, but your stats are too close and these guys are too inconsistent to mean much at all."

I didn't make any claim about the meaning of the stats but they certainly were all counter to your claim that Kandi couldn't be worse than Hunter. It would be great to have data which was nicely tailored to making firm conclusions but we have to make do with what exists, like it or not. These are nice simple stats, understandable to virtually all of us regardless of our expertise and they are for all of the most recent year. True, they are not of great significance but then they were countering an argument that contained even less of significance, statistical or otherwise(no offense).

You threw up a good smokescreen in your reply but the bottom line is that Kandiman had a pathetic year offensively last year, worse on every statistical count than a known poor offensive player in Hunter. Even worse on FTs, which you made a point of mentioning.

I didn't see much of Olowakandi last year but the little I did see was right in line with his statistical production. On both basis I have little interest in him joining the Suns but if he showed the coaches signs of life in his recent workouts I'll adopt a wait and see approach.

My statement was that there was not "a significant difference between the two" based on the available data, that is all. This means that he(Hunter) is not obviously better or worse than Kandi. Originally FDOG stated that "Hunter was better offensive player", and you responded to my questioning of that statement. I had though you had read and understood the discussion. As far as smoke screens, I cant help it if you cant see through the stats(PERS) that are generated by all these sports "experts". The deviations in these guys numbers are greater than the difference in the means, if that helps. If you still see a smoke screen, I guess thinking you are right is more important, go for it.

 

[Errntknght]

nowagimp, "I cant help it if you cant see through the stats(PERS) that are generated by all these sports "experts"."

What are you talking about? I didn't mention anything but simple averages and percentages - I was hoping you'd understand the difference, especially after I pointed it out in my last message.

"My statement was that there was not "a significant difference between the two" based on the available data, that is all."

Actually, you went on at length about PGs and other possibilities that might account for Olowakandi being worse last year than Hunter and you did not make any simple statement like the one above. As to your claim there was no significant difference in, say, their scoring per game I think with 48 and 69 games for the two of them you would find that Hunter scored more at a confidence level of 95%. I have no doubt that his FTA were more per game at that level and his FG% was higher at the same level. I'll grant you are right when it comes to FT%, there is no significant difference - as anyone could see. Go ahead and do the math and prove me wrong about the statistical significance of the other three stats - you making such a claim means exactly zip to me since I have the numbers right in front of me. (Let me know if you need help with the math.)

 

[George O'Brien]

IMHO there are several huge limits on using NBA stats, even the more sophisticated ones that Graham has access to:

1. There is no useful measure of defensive skills. High steal and block counts can disguise poor positioning and gambling too much on defense.

2. A player's stats only have meaning within the context of the team. For example, a good shooter who attracts extra defensive attention is contributing a lot, even though it is not reflected in the stats. Another example is that good picks or blocking out under the boards are not measured, but are important.

3. The skills of the player's teammates greatly impact a player's stats. Everyone on the Suns benefits from Nash's PG skills. In 2004-05, Amare created open looks for the outside shooters. It is easier to get credit for assists if the guys being passed to are good shots.

4. The scheme of the team has a big impact. Up tempo teams like the Suns have more guys getting points. Teams that run motion offenses often have higher shooting percentages because they focus on layups.

Knowing that these and numerous other factors distort stats means that all stats have to be taken with a grain of salt. None the less, extremes such as 50% foul shooting should be considered a warning sign.

 

[Errntknght]

George, "IMHO there are several huge limits on using NBA stats, even the more sophisticated ones that Graham has access to:"

Its my opinion as well. In fact there are huge limits on using statistics in general - the biggest one being that you need to understand the stats you are using quite thoroughly. Fortunately, ordinary averages and percentages are not too difficult for the typical person to grasp - though, as you say, one has to take them with a grain of salt because so many things factor into them. One sportscaster, I think it was Rick Barry, used to say that FT% was the only meaningful stat in basketball. What he meant was that it was free of other factors.

 

[Drop D]

One sportscaster, I think it was Rick Barry, used to say that FT% was the only meaningful stat in basketball. What he meant was that it was free of other factors.

This is further validation for Nash's MVP trophy.

 

[nowagimp]

nowagimp, "I cant help it if you cant see through the stats(PERS) that are generated by all these sports "experts"."

What are you talking about? I didn't mention anything but simple averages and percentages - I was hoping you'd understand the difference, especially after I pointed it out in my last message.

"My statement was that there was not "a significant difference between the two" based on the available data, that is all."

Actually, you went on at length about PGs and other possibilities that might account for Olowakandi being worse last year than Hunter and you did not make any simple statement like the one above. As to your claim there was no significant difference in, say, their scoring per game I think with 48 and 69 games for the two of them you would find that Hunter scored more at a confidence level of 95%. I have no doubt that his FTA were more per game at that level and his FG% was higher at the same level. I'll grant you are right when it comes to FT%, there is no significant difference - as anyone could see. Go ahead and do the math and prove me wrong about the statistical significance of the other three stats - you making such a claim means exactly zip to me since I have the numbers right in front of me. (Let me know if you need help with the math.)

You do appear to need a refresher course in basic stats. DOnt even go therer with multivariate stats. A confidence interval means that you know that the data were drawn from the same distribution, which is what the PG discussion was about(different complementary players, different distribution) and you didnt seem to pick that up at all. I really dont need your kind of "MATH" help and neither does anyone else who is serious about stats. I also dont care what stats you have in front of you, you apparently dont even know how to use them. This discussion has just exceeded the "time wastage factor" as I know you will come back with some ignorant comment. Teach yourself statistician, as no one else can due to your arrogance.