Convince me Horford can be our CENTER!

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I've watched some Grizzles games, and from what i've seen from Conley,is that he'll be solid, but those numbers mean nothing cause most of his damages has been done in garbage time. Horford in garbage time, would be putting up monster numbers.

---

You mean he would average 10 ppg instead of 8?

[jerrywest]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I doubt he is the reason haywood got 6 offensive rebounds.

---

You should be 2/3rd as excited when Horford got 4 offensive rebounds against a rebounding machine named Jefferson.

---

Kind of tough to be excited when he got outrebounded 16-7.

---

Read my earlier post where I showed that we gang rebounded and Jefferson was there sole big rebounder, and at the end we won the rebounding % game be a small margin. Look at the next layer before you conclude.

[jerrywest]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why? Just because you say so?

---

No because the PER and +/- stats are supposed to aggree with each other and i already showed you two examples where they contradicted each other completely (AJ and Salim).Not only that the PER numbers are completely different depending on what page you look at. Here Josh Smith's opponent PER is showing as 15.0.http://www.82games.com/0708/0708ATL.HTMHere it shows his opponent PER at 22http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL9C.HTM

---

Like I said, I could show you a game where Anthony Bonner scored 50 pts. You can't consider PER of 12 games as inferior to one quarter of box-score.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why? Just because you say so?

---

No because the PER and +/- stats are supposed to aggree with each other and i already showed you two examples where they contradicted each other completely (AJ and Salim).

Not only that the PER numbers are completely different depending on what page you look at.

Here Josh Smith's opponent PER is showing as 15.0.

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708ATL.HTM

Here it shows his opponent PER at 22

http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL9C.HTM

---

Like I said, I could show you a game where Anthony Bonner scored 50 pts. You can't consider PER of 12 games as inferior to one quarter of box-score.

---

Yes i can, very easily.

With a box score i know exactly what the numbers are and where they came from. That isn't the case with opponents PER.

With opponents PER you get all kinds of crazy info. One page says Smiths opponents PER is 15, another says it is 22. So which is it?

How do they come up with the number anyway? If Horford is listed at C but guards the 4 which opponents number gets attibuted to him? What happens if Horford switches on a screen with JJ and the center posts up JJ for a score? Does that basket count against Horford?

Basic rule of math is that if you don't know where the numbers are coming from you can't draw any meaningful conclusions from them.

Other funny bits on 82games.com

They Childress' PER at 45 when he plays the 4 position..

http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL7C.HTM

And Horfords PER at 6.6 when he plays the 4

http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL10C.HTM

I guess Chill should be playing minutes at the 4 instead of Horford.

[jerrywest]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why? Just because you say so?

---

No because the PER and +/- stats are supposed to aggree with each other and i already showed you two examples where they contradicted each other completely (AJ and Salim).

Not only that the PER numbers are completely different depending on what page you look at.

Here Josh Smith's opponent PER is showing as 15.0.

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708ATL.HTM

Here it shows his opponent PER at 22

http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL9C.HTM

---

Like I said, I could show you a game where Anthony Bonner scored 50 pts. You can't consider PER of 12 games as inferior to one quarter of box-score.

---

Yes i can, very easily.

With a box score i know exactly what the numbers are and where they came from. That isn't the case with opponents PER.

With opponents PER you get all kinds of crazy info. One page says Smiths opponents PER is 15, another says it is 22. So which is it?

How do they come up with the number anyway? If Horford is listed at C but guards the 4 which opponents number gets attibuted to him? What happens if Horford switches on a screen with JJ and the center posts up JJ for a score? Does that basket count against Horford?

Basic rule of math is that if you don't know where the numbers are coming from you can't draw any meaningful conclusions from them.

Other funny bits on 82games.com

They Childress' PER at 45 when he plays the 4 position..

http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL7C.HTM

And Horfords PER at 6.6 when he plays the 4

http://www.82games.com/0708/07ATL10C.HTM

I guess Chill should be playing minutes at the 4 instead of Horford.

---

More absurd examples can be given on one quarter's performance.

Believe your eyes. When Horford fights for position with Shaq and Shaq commits an offensive fouls, relish it.

When Shaq treats Zaza likea girl, and huffs and puffs dueling with little Horford, enjoy it.

I understand when you disregard Horfy squashing Okofer in the preseason, but when you don't come back to give him half as much accolade for a regular season demolition, I question your ability to look at him in a balance way.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

More absurd examples can be given on one quarter's performance.

---

No they can't. If a guy scores 20 points in a quarter then i know he scored 20 points.

You can't even say what Smiths opponent PER is yet you expect me to act like the stat has some validity.

Quote:

---

understand when you disregard Horfy squashing Okofer in the preseason, but when you don't come back to give him half as much accolade for a regular season demolition

---

Demolition? I gave him credit more than once for his D on Okafor but lets get real. Horford scored 22 in that preseason game and hasn't gotten near that during the real season.

[jerrywest]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

More absurd examples can be given on one quarter's performance.

---

No they can't. If a guy scores 20 points in a quarter then i know he scored 20 points.

You can't even say what Smiths opponent PER is yet you expect me to act like the stat has some validity.

Quote:

---

understand when you disregard Horfy squashing Okofer in the preseason, but when you don't come back to give him half as much accolade for a regular season demolition

---

Demolition? I gave him credit more than once for his D on Okafor but lets get real. Horford scored 22 in that preseason game and hasn't gotten near that during the real season.

---

It doesn't matter that Smoove's opponent PER is 22.1 or whatever. What matters is that you go crazy about one guy scoring 13 points in 1 quarter but conveniently ignore that the same guy scored 2 points in the other 3 quarters. Then you go on and on about that 1 quarter saga.

If he is allowed as many shots as Smoove, he can score 22 sometimes. He is shooting 50%. Don't underestimate someone, just because he is unselfish.

You could be the only person in the entire world who think Horford/minute=Shelden/minute. May be I should start a poll.

Why did Tyron Hill said Horford will be a perennial all star in 2-3 years?

If he thinks that about Shelden, he surely would have convinced Woody not to give him DNPCDs.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

You could be the only person in the entire world who think Horford/minute=Shelden/minute.

---

It isn't what i think it is what i know. Last year Sheldens per 40 pts and rebounds were almost identical to what Horford is doing now.

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter that Smoove's opponent PER is 22.1 or whatever.

---

Yes it does. If you are trying to make an argument that thesePER numbers are worth noting and you don't even know what they are that is a pretty bizarre argument.

Quote:

---

Why did Tyron Hill said Horford will be a perennial all star in 2-3 years?

---

It just means he is working for the Hawks or wants to.

Quote:

---

What matters is that you go crazy about one guy scoring 13 points in 1 quarter but conveniently ignore that the same guy scored 2 points in the other 3 quarters. Then you go on and on about that 1 quarter saga.

---

Haywood is averaging 9/9 on the season and many here have called him a scrub. But when he gets 13/12 on Horford it is no big deal. Somehow i doubt it would ever be "no big deal" whenever Horford gets 13/12 in a game.

[coachx]

Quote:

---

What matters is that you go crazy about one guy scoring 13 points in 1 quarter but conveniently ignore that the same guy scored 2 points in the other 3 quarters. Then you go on and on about that 1 quarter saga.

---

Haywood is averaging 9/9 on the season and many here have called him a scrub. But when he gets 13/12 on Horford it is no big deal.

Some how I doubt it would ever be "no big deal" whenever Horford gets 13/12 in a game.

---

2 baskets over your season average is no big deal. 4 rebounds over you average is pretty darn good and alot of that was due to the Hawks horrendous shooting while the whole team lacked hustle, which allowed Heywood to grab 6 offensive boards allowing him to get the 2 baskets over his average (ZaZa style).

Are you glad you spent 3 freaking pages argueing about nothing ?

Talk about being productive !

[exodus]

Quote:

---

that was due to the Hawks horrendous shooting while the whole team lacked hustle, which allowed Heywood to grab 6 offensive

---

So Haywood grabbed 6 offensive rebounds because the HAWKS shot poorly? You'll have to explain that one to me.

Quote:

---

Are you glad you spent 3 freaking pages argueing about nothing ?

---

Horfords offensive production isn't nothing, but it's close.

[jerrywest]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You could be the only person in the entire world who think Horford/minute=Shelden/minute.

---

It isn't what i think it is what i know. Last year Sheldens per 40 pts and rebounds were almost identical to what Horford is doing now.

---

I see, you like to look at things like an agent and try to view per minute numbers without the intangible things. Did you even watch any game to understand the difference between their contributions. Tyrone Corbin had better PER numbers in Wolves' expansion year. If you go by the stats all the time, you'll miss everything. Tell me one manager in the league who would take Shelden over Horford in trades. Horford/min>>>>Shelden/min that Shelden can't get off the bench even when Horford is tired.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter that Smoove's opponent PER is 22.1 or whatever.

---

Yes it does. If you are trying to make an argument that thesePER numbers are worth noting and you don't even know what they are that is a pretty bizarre argument.

---

Forget about Smoove. You keep bringing up exceptions but refuse to acknowledge that any one quarter's numbers has plenty of exceptions too.

I didn't bring up the PER argument. Nic did. I just told you that PER in 12 games is more meaningful data than 1 quarter's box-score. You just keep bringing up exceptions. If you think the total number of exceptions will decide which is a better model, you better understand that I can show thousands of examples of one quarter explosions. Why do you think I don't understand PER? I use statistical softwares and create predictive models. I can create PER models from scratch better than the models they use.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why did Tyron Hill said Horford will be a perennial all star in 2-3 years?

---

It just means he is working for the Hawks or wants to.

---

LOL. If he makes the same prediction about Shelden, BK might make him the coach immediately. Did you understand what you just said. Be fair.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What matters is that you go crazy about one guy scoring 13 points in 1 quarter but conveniently ignore that the same guy scored 2 points in the other 3 quarters. Then you go on and on about that 1 quarter saga.

---

Haywood is averaging 9/9 on the season and many here have called him a scrub.

---

How nice of you that you pee in your pants with Haywood's 9/9, but ignore a rookie's 9/9.

Quote:

---

But when he gets 13/12 on Horford it is no big deal.

Somehow i doubt it would ever be "no big deal" whenever Horford gets 13/12 in a game.

---

An experienced man scoring 13/12 every once in a while is no big deal. Why don't you look at how terrible he was in the last 3 quarters.

You don't have to wait too long to see Horford's 13/12. The beautiful thing about Horford is he could score low points in a game and still make a huge difference with his activities. Why do you ignore that?

Only time will heal you as it has somewhat healed Diesel on Marvin.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I see, you like to look at things like an agent and try to view per minute numbers without the intangible things. Did you even watch any game to understand the difference between their contributions.

---

I watch all the games. And this "intangible" argument is just nonsense to excuse lack of production. I never said Shelden was as good as Horford. If you dont understand that then it is pretty pointless for me to even explain furthur.

Quote:

---

I just told you that PER in 12 games is more meaningful data than 1 quarter's box-score.

---

If you are talking about offensive PER i would agree. Opponents PER, no. You don't know how it is calculated and neither does nic.

Quote:

---

How nice of you that you pee in your pants with Haywood's 9/9, but ignore a rookie's 9/9.

---

That is just dumb. The only reason i mentioned his averages is to show he exceeded them against our "beast".I am done with this thread

[jerrywest]

Exodus just said:

Quote:

---

I never said Shelden was as good as Horford.

---

I knew it. I knew you were drunk. This is what you said when you were under the influence of too much Nyquel...

Quote:

---

So far i still don't see how Horford is that much better than Shelden.

---

Quote:

---

Horfords rebounding is nothing that Shelden couldn't do. What exactly is the big skill difference between Horford and Shelden?

---

Quote:

---

Horford isn't doing much better than Shelden was this time last year. he is just playing more minutes.

---

Quote:

---

he isn't doing much so far that Shelden couldn't do.

---

Quote:

---

The only way there will be a big difference between the two is if Horford becomes an effective scorer.

---

I am glad you are back to you senses. The joke is on me because I spent 30 unproductive hours arguing with a man who thinks completely differently when he is sober.

Glad to have you back.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

Exodus just said:

Quote:

---

I never said Shelden was as good as Horford.

---

I knew it. I knew you were drunk. This is what you said when you were under the influence of too much Nyquel...

Quote:

---

So far i still don't see how Horford is that much better than Shelden.

---

Quote:

---

Horfords rebounding is nothing that Shelden couldn't do. What exactly is the big skill difference between Horford and Shelden?

---

Quote:

---

Horford isn't doing much better than Shelden was this time last year. he is just playing more minutes.

---

Quote:

---

he isn't doing much so far that Shelden couldn't do.

---

Quote:

---

The only way there will be a big difference between the two is if Horford becomes an effective scorer.

---

I am glad you are back to you senses. The joke is on me because I spent 30 unproductive hours arguing with a man who thinks completely differently when he is sober.

Glad to have you back.

---

Looks like ex is forgetting things..

[exodus]

My God you still don't get it.

I will try one more time.

Horfords PRODUCTION right now is no different than what Shelden did last year. Their PER 40 numbers are nearly identical.

Does that mean Shelden is as good as Horford? NO. WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT 12 GAMES. it is a small sample size.

My whole point is that SO FAR Horford isn't giving us that much that we didn't get from Shelden last year. That DOESN'T mean that Horford won't significantly outperform Shelden the rest of the year and be much better than Shelden in the future.

All players games go up and down. it could be that Horford just hasn't gotten comfortable yet. I don't know. But i refuse to get on the hype bandwagon until he actually gives me reason to do so.

You are already on the hype bandwagon and will continue to be no matter if he never improves or even gets worse.

[HawksFan87]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No. Horford was all over the court playing a total game.

---

Hopefully his next "total game" will include more points and rebounds. he keeps putting up 6/7 i will have to start calling him Shelford.

---

Hopefully, but when was the last time Shelden had a total game?Horf went 3/4 75% most of it from offensive rebounds. He got 4 offensive rebounds in the game. Nobody was setting him up for shots, nor was he getting any plays called for him.Hawks and Wolves had 37 rebounds each, but Hawks basically outrebounded Wolves if you go by % (which is better) because we had 4 more offensive rebounds. It was a group effort as MW+JC had 12 rebounds. Not like the other team overpowered Horf+Smoove. Wolves funneled rebounds to Jefferson.You are looking at the numbers at the surface level. A couple of Marvin's early shots didn't fall in the first half and he was also out of the line up when the hawks blew them away, since Chillz+Smoove+Horf were playing awesome. However, Marvin was the one who started the run when he out scored Wolves 8-0 early 3rd quarter. If you just look at the stat you won't understand it. One SmooveNameSake fan started bashing Marvin at the end of the game in the game-thread and ended up apologizing because she just looked at the stats. Its hard to understand anything from numbers alone unless the numbers are sufficiently large.

---

You are funny, I never apologized for anything I said. Carry onOh on this topic, Horford is 10 times the player Shelden will ever be..

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

al is outrebounding, outassisting, outblocking, outscoring and better efg% than shelden on a per48 basis

he also is holding his opp to 9.8per while shelden's is at 23.8per

---

Again with the 82games.com stats LOL. You just don't get it.Those PER and +/- stats just aren't worth anything in small sample sizes.

Last season's PER 40 minute numbers for Shelden are very similar to what Horford is doing now yet Shelden was dogged while Horford gets praised. This years numbers for Shelden aren't very relevant since most games he doesn't even play 10 minutes.

---

This is where i first mentioned the PER 40 stats. This isn't my opinion. It is a fact. There is nothing debatable about it.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Horfords PRODUCTION right now is no different than what Shelden did last year. Their PER 40 numbers are nearly identical.

Does that mean Shelden is as good as Horford? NO.

---

There must be some secret stat that makes Hoford better. Some secret stat that the Statman didn't share with the rest of us who watch the games? For if they produce at the same rate... Shouldn't one be as good as the other? Statman and his secret stat has us all confused?

Tell us the secret sTatman!

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Horfords PRODUCTION right now is no different than what Shelden did last year. Their PER 40 numbers are nearly identical.

Does that mean Shelden is as good as Horford? NO.

---

There must be some secret stat that makes Hoford better. Some secret stat that the Statman didn't share with the rest of us who watch the games? For if they produce at the same rate... Shouldn't one be as good as the other? Statman and his secret stat has us all confused?

Tell us the secret sTatman!

---

Apparently you, jerry and everyone else don't know what SO FAR means. We've only played 12 games and SO FAR Horford hasn't done much that Shelden didn't do last year. I don't see why that is so hard to grasp.

[Nicholasp27]

the reason it is hard to grasp is because u said "The only way there will be a big difference between the two is if Horford becomes an effective scorer."so u are saying that besides scoring, there will never be a difference between horford and shelden...horford can't improve to be a better rebounder/blocker/passer/dribbler/stealer/fouler/handler/etc/etc than shelden...he can only be better at scoring