Messages

1

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: I friggin hate the phillies

« on: July 21, 2008, 10:24:30 PM »

In run production, in those same years, we have been 12th, 2nd, 8th, 14th and 16th.  When you talk about runs, there a lot more factors that dictate that.  P staffs, lineups, etc.  With HR's that really takes out many of the other factors and is just individual batter vs. individual P

Please re-read my post.  Park Factor/runs has nothing to do with pitching staffs and lineups.  It's a much better indicator than solely home runs.


Also, compare who has benefited.  Howard has 79 home runs at home, 79 home runs on the road for his career.  Since 2004, Burrell has 70 at home, 72 on the road.  Guys like Utley are the ones benefiting.  Dead pull left handed hitters.  Not power right handers, or guys like Howard who go to center and opposite field quite a bit.  Hollidays a right handed hitter.  If you look at the splits of our right handed power hitters, they do not benefit.

I'm tired so maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but let me ask this...

If you take Coors numbers on park factor, a lot of the favorable #'s could be attributed to the fact that they play the majority of their road games in seriously favorable pitcher parks (SD, LAD, ARI, SF).  Would than not make Coors run production look extreemly favorable?  Also, those are parks that Holliday has struggled pretty bad with in his career, thus impacting his splits more than other players.  

Also, maybe his disparity is more due to the comfort of playing at home (more a mental thing).  Who's to say he would not adopt CBP like that?  I serioulsy think some people focus on #'s too much.  Holliday is a great hitter...I don't care where's he's hitting, he's better than our options like Burrell, Jenkins, Taguchi, Werth, etc.  

2

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: I friggin hate the phillies

« on: July 21, 2008, 10:06:18 PM »

I disagree.  Yes, Matt Holliday has been much better in Coors that anywhere else, but he'd go from Coors to possibly an even better hitters park.

What!?!?!?

This myth that Citizens Bank Park is one of the top hitters parks has got to stop.

First, ESPN's park factor.  Updated daily. 
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

The stat is defined on the page.  Citizens Bank Park is a middle of the pack pitchers ballpark.  It's actually in the lower half of the league (16 out of 30) in terms of hitters parks.  A better pitchers park than hitters park!

(last year Citizens Bank Park was 14th out of 30).

Ok, need more evidence?  Let's look at individual players.  If Citizens Bank Park is such a great hitters park, it would make sense that our starting pitchers have a better ERA on the road, and our hitters have better numbers at home:
Hamels: 2.79 ERA at home, 3.53 on the road.
Myers: 3.81 at home, 8.18 on the road
Kendrick: 4.69 at home, 5.02 on the road.

Eaton does have a higher ERA at home, but he actually gives up more home runs on the road than at home (1 hr every 11.5 IP at home, 1 home run every 6 on the road.

Batters (home run rate):
Howard: 1 hr every 12.2 at bats at home, 1 every 13 at bats on the road.
Burrell: 1 hr every 20.8 at bats at home, 1 every 9.2 on the road
Utley: 1 every 11 at bats at home, 1 every 23 on the road (for what it's worth, Utley does have a higher OPS on the road).

There is no evidence to point to Citizens Bank Park to be one of the top hitters parks in the game.  It actually looks fairly well balanced.  3 of our starting 5 gives up less runs at home than on the road.  Of our big 3 hitters, 1 hits pretty much the same amount of home runs at home vs on the road (Howard), one hits considerably more on the road (Burrell), and one hits considerably more at home (Utley).

I would say CBP favors left handed pull hitters with a short porch in right field, but pretty unforgiving in left and center (which becomes even more troublesome for the right handed hitting Holliday).  It was a slight hitters park the first season, but the changes have leveled it out to where it's about average.  There's no way you can argue that CBP is anywhere near the hitters haven Coors field is, which has been a hitters park since its exception with (2nd in park factor in 2001, 1st in 2002, 4th in 2003, 1st in 2004, 1st in 2005, 2nd in 2006, 3rd in 2007, 6th in 2008.

Seriously, there's just no way.

in '04 - 5th best park for HR's
in '05 - 2nd best park for HR's
in '06 - 6th best park for HR's
in '07 - 1st in HR's
in '08 - #'s down but still 12th

Power wise, this is one of the most favorable parks in the majors and that's a fact.

In run production, in those same years, we have been 12th, 2nd, 8th, 14th and 16th.  When you talk about runs, there a lot more factors that dictate that.  P staffs, lineups, etc.  With HR's that really takes out many of the other factors and is just individual batter vs. individual P

3

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: I friggin hate the phillies

« on: July 21, 2008, 09:57:07 PM »

Tough to guage other run production type numbers because Colorado has had some awful pitching over the last 'x' number of years.

Park factor is independent of the quality of pitching staffs. 

How is it independent?  If all their SP's suck, the opposing teams scores a lot more runs, thus the things that go into a measuring a park factor are affected.  If you have an excellent staff, the opponent doesn't score as much and the park looks like a pitchers park.

4

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: I friggin hate the phillies

« on: July 21, 2008, 09:41:40 PM »

There are actual numbers out there that prove this statement false.

Well, fact is this is an elite hitters park.  more favorable than Coors in '05, '06 and '07 in HR rate.  Tough to guage other run production type numbers because Colorado has had some awful pitching over the last 'x' number of years.

Also, hearing someone say they would prefer Burrell to Holliday makes me question someone knowledge.

5

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: Marcus Williams

« on: July 21, 2008, 09:35:51 PM »

I thought this was about the Marcus Williams that came out of Arizona last year.  I would rather have him on the Sixers than the one who plays for the Nets.

That's brutal.

So, I'm going to say that Williams is a no go according to you guys.

I was actualy being serious.  I like the kid from Arizona's potential more. 

6

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: Marcus Williams

« on: July 21, 2008, 09:23:50 PM »

I thought this was about the Marcus Williams that came out of Arizona last year.  I would rather have him on the Sixers than the one who plays for the Nets.

7

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: I friggin hate the phillies

« on: July 21, 2008, 09:21:56 PM »

Wowwww.  Even if Fuentes opts out, ummmm.... we're talking about Matt Holiday.

Matt Holliday, throughout his career, has been a mediocre player outside of Coors Field.  His career splits:
Home: .363 avg, 1.085 OPS, 1 hr every 15.5 at bats
Away: .277 avg, .790 OPS, 1 hr every 30.7 at bats

I don't think I'd mortgage the farm on him.

I disagree.  Yes, Matt Holliday has been much better in Coors that anywhere else, but he'd go from Coors to possibly an even better hitters park.  I don't see his overall #'s going down much.  I'm sure some of our guys have similar splits playing here, but would not devalue them because of that if we were trading them.  Utley for one has put up much better power #'s here over the last couple years.

I don't see any deal where we trade some of our minor league guys are "mortaging the farm".  Face it, our top prospects aren't even that good and this rumor didn't even have us trading away some of the best ones we do have.

8

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: Tracking Free Agency

« on: July 15, 2008, 02:47:05 PM »

TGP:

So...you give Iguodala $70 million?

Can't say that I am 100% on board for that...yet.

If you've read this thread for a while, you should know that I don't like that idea at all. That said, I hate the idea of Josh Childress any amount of money hence I would choose overpaying Iguodala between the two poisons.

I agree with this for the most part.  If the only options are overpay for Andre or sign Childress for something slightly higher than the MLE, I would choose to overypay Andre.  My issues with Iguodala are that I'm ot sure he fits as a long term answer to our SG spot.  I want a shooter there.  Childress is no closer to being a shooter than Iguodala is.  Actually, I think he's a worse option there.  Basically I would not want to tie up cap room on Childress who is an inferior player to Andre IMO.  If we lose Andre, I would go after Ben Gordon way before I would look at Childress.  At least Gordon fills the huge need of a shooter in the starting lineup.

9

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: Tracking Free Agency

« on: July 14, 2008, 06:51:24 PM »

No one said that redd was outscored, there's more to defense than stopping your opponent from making a basket, how many assists per game, rebounds per game, do these guys average when defended by redd versus iguodala, which player are they drawing defensively, if you are playing the cavs and andre iguodala guards lebron james, but michael redd guards larry hughes/delonte west, who do you think is going to look better defensively if you look at the comparative per numbers...or against the lakers, iguodala will guard kobe while redd guards derek fisher?

When do they guard the same defensive assignemnts, as someone said up higher, Iguodala draws the more difficult defensive assignemtn most nights than redd probably does

Actually I think this concept that Iguodala guarded the opposing teams best player is another misconception that everyone loves to toss around like fact.  The Sixers ran a pretty small lineup out there.  It usually included either Willie Lou or Miller at SG.  None of those guys is really ever guarding the opposing SF (they are way too short).  Andre gets that job most of the time.  Is that the best scorer on the other team at the SG/SF spot?  Not in all cases.  A specific example was Willie guarding Rip in the playoffs.  Is Prince a better offensive player than Rip?  No way in hell. 

As for who Redd is guarding most nights, I highly doubt anyone here saw enough Bucks game to say for sure who it was so it's pure specualtion to say one way or the other.
 

10

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: Tracking Free Agency

« on: July 14, 2008, 05:12:01 PM »

Actually SixerFixer, jem's are probably a better overall indicator.  Iguodala is generally responsible for guarding the other team's best SG/SF scoring option, while Redd usually gets the easiest defensive assignment.  Team defense takes into account switching and everything like that, while I'm pretty sure the numbers you showed only show what the other team's SG/SF did on the floor while that player was on the floor playing that position on offense.

On an unrelated note, PTI apparently reported that the Clippers made an offer to Iguodala.  No terms were given.

And a team like Milwaukee who doesn't have a single starter who could be considered an above average defender isn't a good comparison when looking at a team.  You can't look at a team and say 1 specific player is horrible because the team is horrible.  I much prefer individual #'s than team for that reason.  I understand there's millions of scenarios that can be looked at and arguments that can be made for one thing over another.  The point I'm making is the diffenrce in the 2 players is way overblow IMO.

11

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: Tracking Free Agency

« on: July 14, 2008, 05:09:02 PM »

Yeah, well in basketball defense is much more team oriented than in other sports, which is why i don't like comparing the per statistics for defensive purposes...when andre iguodala is playing the 3 position but guarding the 2 position, which per is used - if it's just related to position on the floor then it fails to take into account situations where said player is defending a different position...allen iverson starts at the 2 guard but defends the point guard, by position he's the 2, but which per is being used?

I'm assuming the people that keeps these stats factor that in.  If they actually track percentage of minutes played at SG vs. SF each game, then someone must be watching the games and not just making arbitrary decisions about who the player was covering on each possession.  There is not true stat to represent how good of a defender someone is.  The point of my post was to disprove (at least a little) this theory that Redd is outscored by his opponent and thus has a negative net impact.  The opposite is actually obvious (more than Andre at least).  

12

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: Tracking Free Agency

« on: July 14, 2008, 05:02:51 PM »

Well I"m a big fan of looking at the game in different ways, I think using comaprative PERs like this to determine defense isn't the best way to do things.

How about these numbers

http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIL5D.HTM for Redd

http://www.82games.com/0708/07PHI6D.HTM for Iguodala

I like to use these better to get vague idea of how well a team does with a guy on / off the court...

The 'defensive' side of the court is much more behind the offensive metric in terms of good ways to look at it - at least publicly

Those numbers are more about the team performance that the individual player.  Granted the ones I posted are as well, but looking at what you posted is way more weighted for the TEAM.  The team stats are way more subjective IMO

13

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: Tracking Free Agency

« on: July 14, 2008, 04:54:46 PM »

Just a comparison for all the people that claim Iguodala is an excellent defender and a guy like Redd is trash. 

This is based on 82games.com numbers and I'm not saying it the "official" way to judge a player, but I did find some of the numbers interesting.  Also, I'm aware there's other factors that affect these numbers like how the other guys on the court with you are performing, but let's just focus on the individual right now though.

Iguodala (48 MPG Averages)
PPG (at SG) = 21.1 - his PER was 18.3
PPG (at SF) = 25.2 - his PER was 22.6

Iguodala's Opponent (48 MPG Avg)
PPG (at SG) = 20.4 - opponent PER of 14.8
PPG (at SF) = 19.2 - opponent PER of 17.0

Net 48 MPG Position Production
SG is +0.8 PPG and +3.5 PER
SF is +5.9 PPG and +5.6 PER

Now Redd's #'s

Redd (48 MPG Avg)
PPG (at SG) = 27.5 - his PER was 20.6
PPG (at SF) = 34.4 - his PER was 23.4

Redd's Opponent (48 MPG Avg)
PPG (at SG) = 19.3 - opponent PER was 15.4
PPG (at SF) = 18.5 - opponent PER was 15.9

Net 48 MPG Position Production
SG is +8.2 PPG and +5.2 PER
SF is +15.9 PPG and +7.5 PER

So based on the above, Redd actually has a higher positive impact when directly comparing him against his opponent.  They both actually give up about the same amount of PPG, but Redd is obviously the higher scorer.  The PER difference is close as Andre played more minutes at SF (+5.6 PER) and Redd played more at SG (+5.2).

Here's the #'s for 06-07

Iguodala (48 MPG Averages)
PPG (at SG) = 22.8 - his PER was 20.9
PPG (at SF) = 20.4 - his PER was 18.3

Iguodala's Opponent (48 MPG Avg)
PPG (at SG) = 22.1 - opponent PER of 17.1
PPG (at SF) = 19.7 - opponent PER of 19.0

Net 48 MPG Position Production
SG is +0.7 PPG and +3.8 PER
SF is +0.7 PPG and -0.7 PER

And now Redd...

Redd (48 MPG Avg)
PPG (at SG) = 33.2 - his PER was 24.6
PPG (at SF) = 33.2 - his PER was 23.5

Redd's Opponent (48 MPG Avg)
PPG (at SG) = 21.4 - opponent PER was 15.5
PPG (at SF) = 20.7 - opponent PER was 16.5

Net 48 MPG Position Production
SG is +11.8 PPG and +9.1 PER
SF is +12.5 PPG and +7.0 PER

The difference in 06-07 was clearly in Redd's favor.  He had a much higher PPG difference and a much higher PER difference.  Again, I'm not saying these numbers tell the full story, but I do think this argument that Andre is a lockdown defender and Redd is a piece of crap is WAY overblown.  Statistically Redd is way outscoring his direct opponent so factoring in his shooting ability I would easily take him at the same price as Andre.  Problem is he makes a lot more so that is the only sticking point for me.

14

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: Tracking Free Agency

« on: July 14, 2008, 12:05:19 PM »

Again, I think I would rather have an inferior all-around player like Ben Gordon for $8MIL/year than Iguodala for $12MIL/year.

Ben Gordon probably wouldn't settle for 40 million over 5 years after he turned down 50, he'd probably take the one year tender and hope that with the new coach and a new system he can play back up - a risk but i wouldnt' be surprised if he can't get an offer close to the 50 million.

Personally, I'd rather have the better player at 12 than the inferior player at 8 - i'd like the sixers to be a 'big time' team in the league...

I think the comment of having Gordon at 8 mil was in reference to his first yr salary (not his average salary).  He compared Andre at 12 to Gordon at 8.  The 12 for Andre I think is based on a first year salary with the Clips, not an average of 12.  The Sixers would most definitely match an average of 12/yr (would they match an average of over 14 mil if the Clips offer that?).  That would mean Gordon's 8 mil starting salary is about equal to the 5 yr/50 he turned down.  He may be willing to take it here if he's guarantee starting (something he was not guaranteed in Chicago obviously).

15

NBA Discussion / Re: Super Scola to bolt Rockets for Euroball?

« on: July 12, 2008, 06:31:14 AM »

I find this to be the best site for contract information.

http://www.storytellerscontracts.info/resources/07-08salaries.htm