Do you care about this at all? Does this number move you in any way?

[Kblaze8855]

https://i.ibb.co/G39K91QF/IMG-2565.jpg

[eliteballer]

Well is that based on good basketball or dominating the ball?

[highwhey]

i could care less.

check your PMs.

[iamgine]

It tells me they're at least an impactful player on offense.

[HylianNightmare]

Only 2 are proven winners. Cade still has nowhere to go but up so I believe in him but harden and trae? Not excited if my team gets either

[Full Court]

Only 2 are proven winners. Cade still has nowhere to go but up so I believe in him but harden and trae? Not excited if my team gets either

Exactly. Two of the five on that list are net negatives (Harden and Young). So it's one of those cases where it's an interesting data point, and can be useful in the context of other data, but trying to make inferences solely from that stat is a fool's errand.

[Kblaze8855]

One thing I wonder About when people call some star a net negative….

The Hawks won 40 games and the Clippers won 50 games despite Leonard only playing 37.

With harden and young being negative, does that mean the Hawks would’ve Been better without him? Would the Clippers win 55 games if Harden never suited up?

If not of what use is the term? If you don’t actually make the team worse By playing isn’t the entire methodology wrong? Or how we apply it?

What would the Clippers last year have been without harden?

[warriorfan]

One thing I wonder About when people call some star a net negative….

The Hawks won 40 games and the Clippers won 50 games despite Leonard only playing 37.

With harden and young being negative, does that mean the Hawks would’ve Been better without him? Would the Clippers win 55 games if Harden never suited up?

If not of what use is the term? If you don’t actually make the team worse By playing isn’t the entire methodology wrong? Or how we apply it?

What would the Clippers last year have been without harden?

depends on who is replacing them

[Kblaze8855]

Thing is if they're negatives simply not playing should make the team better shouldn’t it? Is that not what’s being implied by calling them that?

[Full Court]

Thing is if they're negatives simply not playing should make the team better shouldn’t it? Is that not what’s being implied by calling them that?

warriorfan is right. It depends who replaces him.

Using Trae Young as an example, the reason I call him a net negative is because he's a massive defensive liability, he's a low IQ player on the court, and every time I've watched a game with him in it, he completely wastes a lot of possessions. Like taking multiple logo shots for no reason with lots of time on the shot clock. Sure, he makes about 1 in every 10 of them, but so what? All in all, I don't think the wasted opportunities make up for the 24 ppg he gets. Furthermore, even though he has high assist numbers, a lot of those come from bail-out shots that he kicks over to people because he ran out 21 seconds of the shot clock standing there dribbling. They're not from him facilitating good team ball movement.

So yes, I think the Hawks would be a better team with someone else, provided that the someone else isn't also a net negative. If Trae Young is your first option, you'd better either have some OKC level of depth, or your ceiling's going to be pretty low.

[tontoz]

Harden has been consistently good in the regular season. It's the playoffs when he goes into pumpkin mode.

Trae is a huge defensive liability he will always get exploited in the playoffs.

[Kblaze8855]

warriorfan is right. It depends who replaces him.

Using Trae Young as an example, the reason I call him a net negative is because he's a massive defensive liability, he's a low IQ player on the court, and every time I've watched a game with him in it, he completely wastes a lot of possessions. Like taking multiple logo shots for no reason with lots of time on the shot clock. Sure, he makes about 1 in every 10 of them, but so what? All in all, I don't think the wasted opportunities make up for the 24 ppg he gets. Furthermore, even though he has high assist numbers, a lot of those come from bail-out shots that he kicks over to people because he ran out 21 seconds of the shot clock standing there dribbling. They're not from him facilitating good team ball movement.

So yes, I think the Hawks would be a better team with someone else, provided that the someone else isn't also a net negative. If Trae Young is your first option, you'd better either have some OKC level of depth, or your ceiling's going to be pretty low.


but again it feels like the only response can be this….

If he is actually a net negative why would he need to be replaced at all? You remove a negative you should get better by subtraction. And if it isn’t your contention that he is a negative why call him that?

I don’t care if you think Trae Young is a negative it just feels like somewhere in those words the wrong message is being conveyed if you feel he isn’t actually making the team worse.

[warriorfan]

In baseball the nerds have a stat called WAR and it measures “Wins Above Replacement” where a replacement guy is a set figure to represent an average pro player.


But you need to set a value to the replacement in this harden/young hypothesis or it’s just an unsolvable question

[Kblaze8855]

Oh, and Trae at one point was first or second all time in three-pointers from over 30 feet. I think he was second to Damian Lillard in percentage. Curry was third or lower and had made fewer of them.

I couldn’t find an updated list in the last few seconds, but I found one showing at one point in a season trae was shooting 45% from beyond 30 feet but worse on regular ones.

He is curiously good from a great distance. Maybe because the shots are more open. Just thought id point it out because you mentioned he makes one in 10. He’s actually one of the best ever at it.

Its him, Dame, and Steph at the top with Darius Garland and Lamelo having some great percentages but lower totals.

most recent year I could find with all time totals was after 23 when Trae was second all time in makes and shooting 34% to Steph’s 34.1 on fewer makes but he passed him in percentage the next year.

Throwing out his rookie year I think(THINK) Trae is the best 30+ foot shooter on record. And those stats apparently take out the heaves.

If I had to have someone make a 35 footer for my life, I would certainly take Steph. I’m just saying it isn’t a one in 10 thing. He shoots about the same or better out there than anyone you can think of.

[tontoz]

In spite of being good at long 3s Trae isnt a good off ball player. He doesn't move without the ball he just stands around.

[Kblaze8855]

In baseball the nerds have a stat called WAR and it measures “Wins Above Replacement” where a replacement guy is a set figure to represent an average pro player.


But you need to set a value to the replacement in this harden/young hypothesis or it’s just an unsolvable question

let me put it this way. If you put you or me on an NBA team and had us play 30 minutes, I don’t know what the numbers would be, but it would be an insane negative obviously. The team would score worse and be lit up while we are out there but play competent NBA ball when we aren’t. There will be a massive swing.


We would absolutely be a negative. If you simply removed us from the team, the team would obviously improve without our 30 minutes wrecking the game, right?

Us merely not existing on that roster and getting played would improve the team. That’s what a negative means right?

If you have to replace a guy to maintain…he isn’t a negative.

My issue is with the terminology not the player in question. I couldn’t care less if you think Trae Young or James Harden suck. Ive just heard that term about so many people you obviously could not remove and have the team get better.

it just feels like we need to clarify what being a net negative actually means. It feels like people mean the team isn’t improved by as much as they should. But I’d say that just means you’re likely overrated not a negative.

The Plus minus just says what it says, but I don’t know if you could really extrapolate it like that the way people try.

[Full Court]

but again it feels like the only response can be this….

If he is actually a net negative why would he need to be replaced at all? You remove a negative you should get better by subtraction. And if it isn’t your contention that he is a negative why call him that?

I don’t care if you think Trae Young is a negative it just feels like somewhere in those words the wrong message is being conveyed if you feel he isn’t actually making the team worse.

I think the Hawks very well might be better without Trae. That's just my assessment - I'm sure many people disagree. I put Zach Lavine in that category too. There was a stretch where he was out injured, and I remember thinking, wow, the Bulls are actually better without this guy.

As far as Trae being the best beyond 30-foot shooter in the league, granted I don't watch many Hawks games. Really only if they're playing a team that I'm interested in. But when I've seen the Hawk play, Trae chucks up these logo shots for no apparent reason - like it's the all star game or something. And he misses, and I always think if I were the coach, that would royally piss me off, wasting a possession like that. But the ones I've seen are a small sample size, so if he does have a good % of making those shots, maybe it's not as egregious as I assumed.

[tpols]

In baseball the nerds have a stat called WAR and it measures “Wins Above Replacement” where a replacement guy is a set figure to represent an average pro player.


But you need to set a value to the replacement in this harden/young hypothesis or it’s just an unsolvable question

Baseball is a turn based game though where things are more static. Basketball is more fluid and dynamic. The impact on teammates is so much higher.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Harden and Young have exploitable flaws that some of the better teams will use to beat their team consistently. But are good enough offensively that against most teams they're useful. Everyone isn't the Thunder, lots of opponents out there that a good offensive point guard can attack even though he's not going to defend anyone. For this reason Harden and Young are good players. They just aren't guys you want on the floor when you need a stop, which is important to playing championship basketball.

[warriorfan]

Oh, and Trae at one point was first or second all time in three-pointers from over 30 feet. I think he was second to Damian Lillard in percentage. Curry was third or lower and had made fewer of them.

I couldn’t find an updated list in the last few seconds, but I found one showing at one point in a season trae was shooting 45% from beyond 30 feet but worse on regular ones.

He is curiously good from a great distance. Maybe because the shots are more open. Just thought id point it out because you mentioned he makes one in 10. He’s actually one of the best ever at it.

Its him, Dame, and Steph at the top with Darius Garland and Lamelo having some great percentages but lower totals.

most recent year I could find with all time totals was after 23 when Trae was second all time in makes and shooting 34% to Steph’s 34.1 on fewer makes but he passed him in percentage the next year.

Throwing out his rookie year I think(THINK) Trae is the best 30+ foot shooter on record. And those stats apparently take out the heaves.

If I had to have someone make a 35 footer for my life, I would certainly take Steph. I’m just saying it isn’t a one in 10 thing. He shoots about the same or better out there than anyone you can think of.

I would like to see these stats.

Maybe trey improved since last time I seen it but if you say he’s on dames level, I know for a fact dames numbers on deep 3’s were not even close to Steph’s level. So if he’s equal to Dame it’s way below Steph.

[warriorfan]

Baseball is a turn based game though where things are more static. Basketball is more fluid and dynamic. The impact on teammates is so much higher.

100%. Baseball is pretty much an individual sport disguised as a team sport.

[warriorfan]

let me put it this way. If you put you or me on an NBA team and had us play 30 minutes, I don’t know what the numbers would be, but it would be an insane negative obviously. The team would score worse and be lit up while we are out there but play competent NBA ball when we aren’t. There will be a massive swing.


We would absolutely be a negative. If you simply removed us from the team, the team would obviously improve without our 30 minutes wrecking the game, right?

Us merely not existing on that roster and getting played would improve the team. That’s what a negative means right?

If you have to replace a guy to maintain…he isn’t a negative.

My issue is with the terminology not the player in question. I couldn’t care less if you think Trae Young or James Harden suck. Ive just heard that term about so many people you obviously could not remove and have the team get better.

it just feels like we need to clarify what being a net negative actually means. It feels like people mean the team isn’t improved by as much as they should. But I’d say that just means you’re likely overrated not a negative.

The Plus minus just says what it says, but I don’t know if you could really extrapolate it like that the way people try.

I see what you mean. I’ve always associated it with an average or slightly above average guy. Like a solid role player. Lots of things go into it as team make up too. If you replaced Young with a good small forward and the team ends up having weakness in playmaking then maybe it wasn’t as much of a net negative as you think.

But I do think the term gets a little overblown but in its spirit it still means the same thing.

Basically used to describe an “empty stats” type a guy.

[Kblaze8855]

I understand the spirit of it but so many times it just seems to fly in the face of observable fact. A while back somebody was talking about people like Steve Francis who have the nice highlights but ball hog being a negative. Except in Steve Francis‘s prime he got hurt and a roughly 500 team lost 15 games in a row without him. They went something like two and 22 in games he missed at one point. So how do we call it a true negative?

I’m not saying I want Steve Francis on my team. I’m just saying people legitimately believe guys like that Make a team worse and then they don’t play and the team looks like it doesn’t belong in the league.

Of course there are other factors like how the team is run and the heliocentric aspect that makes them overly reliant on one player. Those rockets for example, didn’t have Steve Francis doing all that dribbling because he was selfish. Rudy Tomjanovich had like five plays for him and Cuttino Mobley to isolate and he liked to call those players himself. He was largely running the offense and not Francis. He was telling him to go Isolate.

Kevin Garnett was talking about it with Mobley recently. Rudy wanted them to play that way. You can see him get up and call Io after iso after ISO but then we blame Steve Francis for playing that way.

I’m sure the hawks aren’t telling Trae not to play defense I’m just saying…you never know what guys are being asked to do.

[Kblaze8855]

I would like to see these stats.

Maybe trey improved since last time I seen it but if you say he’s on dames level, I know for a fact dames numbers on deep 3’s were not even close to Steph’s level. So if he’s equal to Dame it’s way below Steph.

I can’t find it updated but I found one from mid season 2 years ago that had Steph comfortably first at 42% with Darius Garland and Hali second and third also over 40 but other lists with Dame and Trae at the top. Both of them had off years recently.

I also can’t be sure all of them account for heaves. Some of them only account for 28 feet out to halfcourt to get rid of the long ones at the buzzer.