PDA

View Full Version : NBA Advanced Statistics Discussion Thread



Pages : [1] 2

DenButsu
09-04-2010, 02:30 AM
The idea for this thread is that it can be a place where people can discuss, explain, ask about and debate the meaning and use of basketball statistics in general, but more specifically advanced stats.

Here are some resources where you can find the stats themselves as well as statistical analysis blogs, primers, essays, and books:


Websites:

Basketball-Reference (http://www.basketball-reference.com/)

82games.com (http://www.82games.com/)

Basketball Value (http://www.basketballvalue.com/index.php)

HoopData (http://hoopdata.com/default.aspx)

Hardwood Paroxysm (http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/)

Basketball Prospectus (http://www.basketballprospectus.com/)

APBRmetrics (http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/index.php)

NBAstuffer.com (http://www.nbastuffer.com/)

PopcornMachine.net (http://popcornmachine.net/)

Basketball Geek (http://www.basketballgeek.com/data/)

Stats by Numbers (http://statsbynumbers.com/about/)

Team Rankings (http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stats/)


twitter:

http://twitter.com/tomhaberstroh (http://twitter.com/tomhaberstroh)

http://twitter.com/Hoopdata (http://twitter.com/Hoopdata)

http://twitter.com/bball_ref (http://twitter.com/bball_ref)

http://twitter.com/HPbasketball (http://twitter.com/HPbasketball)

http://twitter.com/basketballvalue (http://twitter.com/basketballvalue)

http://twitter.com/johnhollinger (http://twitter.com/johnhollinger)

http://twitter.com/dmorey (http://twitter.com/dmorey)


Books:

Basketball On Paper, by Dean Oliver (http://www.basketballonpaper.com/)


Primers, Glossaries, & Some Introductory Advanced Stats:

And here are a few good elementary primers on some of the main advanced metrics.


Click here for The Basketball Notebook Stats Primer (http://basketballnotebook.blogspot.com/2005/12/basketball-notebook-stats-primer.html) for a good overview.


Two great glossary/dictionary type references can be found at the following links:
The BBR Blog-tionary (http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1120)
-and-
an Advanced Statistics Glossary (http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=2527) at APBRmetrics


Here, from Ben Q Rock at the Orlando Pinstriped Post, are a few more detailed primers which introduce some specific stats and concepts:

Advanced Metrics Handbook, Vol. 1: Effective Field Goal Percentage (http://www.orlandopinstripedpost.com/2010/8/11/1617132/advanced-metrics-handbook-vol-1)
The formula:
(FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA

Advanced Metrics Handbook, Vol. 2: True Shooting Percentage (http://www.orlandopinstripedpost.com/2010/8/16/1624997/advanced-metrics-handbook-vol-2)
The formula:
Points / (2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA))

Advanced Metrics Handbook, Vol. 3: Pace (http://www.orlandopinstripedpost.com/2010/9/2/1662377/advanced-metrics-handbook-vol-3)
The formula:
0.96 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TO - OReb


From another thread, here Chronz' explanation of why that ".44" number is in the TS% formula:

Let me word it differently, if 44% of each free throw cost a possession then 1 pair of free throws take .88 right. The other 12% come from either AND1's technicals, flagrants, clear-path fouls, or as the third part of a shooting foul from behind the three-point arc.

Mathematically speaking, you start with a FTA = 1/2 a possession or 0.5, then you deduct for those 12% aforementioned sequences, where 0.5 * 0.12 = 0.06 and 0.5 - 0.06 = 0.44


And also from another thread, here's patsSOXknicks' breakdown of the difference between assist % and assist ratio:

Basketball-reference has Ast% vs. what they have on ESPN and Hoopdata with Assist Ratio. These are different statistics and they do have different meanings.

From basketball-reference


AST%
Assist Percentage (available since the 1964-65 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * AST / (((MP / (Tm MP / 5)) * Tm FG) - FG). Assist percentage is an estimate of the percentage of teammate field goals a player assisted while he was on on the floor.
From ESPN


AST: Assist Ratio - the percentage of a player's possessions that ends in an assist. Assist Ratio = (Assists x 100) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44) + Assists + Turnovers]
Both of these stats are better then assists per game as that completely ignores pace.

A look at the league leaders:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2010_leaders.html

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?sort=assistRatio&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fsort%3dassistRatio

Pretty different. Why? Well upon closer look, the guys with really high Ast% have higher USG% too compared to the guys with just high Assist Ratios. Lebron is not even on the league leaders for Assist Ratio but he's 5th in Ast%- it's because he's 2nd in the NBA in usage rate. So he's going to Ast on a really high percentage of his teams FG because he's used more (and is obviously a good passer too) then say someone like Jason Kidd who doesn't have everything run through him all the time. So for the possessions that Jason Kidd is involved in, a very high % of them end in an assist but the % of the teams FG that he assisted won't be as high since his USG rate isn't as high and because Ast% is based on the minutes you're on the floor, not on the possessions in which you're involved in.

---------------------------------



That should hopefully be enough to get us started. :cool:

Also, as I did with this thread, maybe it would be a good idea for anyone who posts stat-oriented threads in any of the NBA forums to tag them with the "nba stats" tag, so that posters who are interested in this stuff can easily find them across all the forums.

Enjoy! :cheers:

kArSoN RyDaH
09-04-2010, 03:01 AM
i was always wondering where that .44 came from in TS% came from. that makes plenty of sense now that i think of it. TS% has just became my favorite statistic ;)

GoatMilk
09-04-2010, 03:15 AM
Sabermetrics basketball style

PatsSoxKnicks
09-04-2010, 03:23 AM
To expand on what I was saying and make it more clear:

Let's say we take a sample of 30 possessions. Now Lebron has 18 of those possessions (as in he attempts a FT- on 3 of them, turns it over- on 3 of them, attempts a FG- on 6 of them or gets an assist- on the other 6) but he's on the court for all 30 (which is actually irrelevant for the example I'm providing). Lets say the team makes 12 FGs out of those 20 possessions. And Lebron assisted on 6 of those 12 shots. His Ast% would be 50% (6 out of 12). But his Assist Ratio would be 33% (6 out of 18).

Now say Jason Kidd is also on the floor for 30 possessions but he's "used" on 13 (the same definition as above). The team makes 12 FGs of the 30 possessions. Kidd assisted on 5 of those 12 shots. His Ast% is 41.67% (5 out of 12). But his Assist Ratio is 38.5% (5 out of 13).

So Lebron's Ast% is higher because he has more possessions giving him opportunities to rack up more assists and probably a large % of the teams FG made but out of the possessions both players have, Kidd had a higher % ending in an assist.

So I think if you look at it, Assist Ratio is a better indicator of how willing of a passer you are while Ast% depends a little more on how much many possessions you have (or your usage ratio).

kArSoN RyDaH
09-04-2010, 03:30 AM
To expand on what I was saying and make it more clear:

Let's say we take a sample of 20 possessions. Now Lebron is used on 18 of those possessions but he's on the court for all 20 (which is actually irrelevant). Lets say the team makes 12 of those 20 shots. And Lebron assisted on 6 of those 12 shots. His Ast% would be 50% (6 out of 12). But his Assist Ratio would be 33% (6 out of 18).

Now say Jason Kidd is also on the floor for 20 possessions but he's used on 13. The team makes 12 of the 20 shots. Kidd assisted on 5 of those 12 shots. His Ast% is 41.67% (5 out of 12). But his Assist Ratio is 38.5% (5 out of 13).

So Lebron's Ast% is higher because he's used on more possessions but out of the possessions both players were used, Kidd had a higher % ending in an assist.

So I think if you look at it, Assist Ratio is a better indicator of how good of a passer you are while Ast% depends a little more on how much you are used.

so why would someone even bother using ast% in an argument of why a player is a better passer? or better yet how could you use that statistic in an argument?

arkanian215
09-04-2010, 03:38 AM
So this is the three-fifths compromise PSD style. Hopefully, someday we will be represented on PSD with our own forum.It's a joke, relax.

arkanian215
09-04-2010, 03:42 AM
i was always wondering where that .44 came from in TS% came from. that makes plenty of sense now that i think of it. TS% has just became my favorite statistic ;)


Let me word it differently, if 44% of each free throw cost a possession then 1 pair of free throws take .88 right. The other 12% come from either AND1's technicals, flagrants, clear-path fouls, or as the third part of a shooting foul from behind the three-point arc.
Supposedly someone did research to figure out the percentage here.

Mathematically speaking, you start with a FTA = 1/2 a possession or 0.5, then you deduct for those 12% aforementioned sequences, where 0.5 * 0.12 = 0.06 and 0.5 - 0.06 = 0.44 Via Chronz

arkanian215
09-04-2010, 03:47 AM
To expand on what I was saying and make it more clear:

Let's say we take a sample of 20 possessions. Now Lebron is used on 18 of those possessions but he's on the court for all 20 (which is actually irrelevant for the example I'm providing). Lets say the team makes 12 FGs out of those 20 possessions. And Lebron assisted on 6 of those 12 shots. His Ast% would be 50% (6 out of 12). But his Assist Ratio would be 33% (6 out of 18).

Now say Jason Kidd is also on the floor for 20 possessions but he's used on 13. The team makes 12 FGs of the 20 possessions. Kidd assisted on 5 of those 12 shots. His Ast% is 41.67% (5 out of 12). But his Assist Ratio is 38.5% (5 out of 13).

So Lebron's Ast% is higher because he's used on more possessions giving him opportunities to rack up more assists but out of the possessions both players were used, Kidd had a higher % ending in an assist.

So I think if you look at it, Assist Ratio is a better indicator of how good of a passer you are while Ast% depends a little more on how much you are used.

How are you defining "used" here?

tredigs
09-04-2010, 03:51 AM
Good stuff Den. A couple not mentioned:

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/

http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/

There's a lot to be learned; get to steppin'

PatsSoxKnicks
09-04-2010, 03:56 AM
How are you defining "used" here?

Upon looking at my example, the numbers probably don't make a lot of sense and maybe I should have gone into more detail with the example. But used is as in Hollinger's formula for the number of possessions. So maybe of those 18 possessions Lebron had, 3 ended in a turnover, 6 ended in an assist, 7 ended in a FG attempted and 2 ended in him attempting free throws.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "used" lol. Because obviously he can be used in a possession (he gets the ball, passes it to someone who then passes it to someone else who makes the shot) without it ending in a turnover, FG, FTA or assist.

arkanian215
09-04-2010, 04:02 AM
Upon looking at my example, the numbers probably don't make a lot of sense and maybe I should have gone into more detail with the example. But used is as in Hollinger's formula for the number of possessions. So maybe of those 18 possessions Lebron had, 3 ended in a turnover, 6 ended in an assist, 7 ended in a FG made and 2 ended in him attempting free throws.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "used" lol. Because obviously he can be used in a possession (he gets the ball, passes it to someone who then passes it to someone else who makes the shot) without it ending in a turnover, FG, FTA or assist.

So FGA's aren't accounted for in "used?"

DenButsu
09-04-2010, 04:07 AM
So this is the three-fifths compromise PSD style. Hopefully, someday we will be represented on PSD with our own forum.
I'd love to see a forum as well, but in lieu of that, we can at least carve out a space dedicated to basketball stats. A forum would be nice, though, because it could keep discussions isolated from each other (in separate threads) focused on narrower topics. But it's a start. Maybe it'll have to be up to those who are interested in this stuff to prove (by way of this thread and perhaps others) that there might actually be enough interest and merit in this as its own "realm" of discussion to warrant a separate forum.

Good stuff Den. A couple not mentioned:
Thanks, and I added them to the top post.

If anyone else has more good stats sites, please feel free to post them, and I'll add them to the top post as well.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-04-2010, 04:07 AM
So FGA's aren't accounted for in "used?"

Sorry my bad, I meant to say field goals attempted. It's Hollinger's definition basically.

And I'm going to have to look at this again in the morning as I'm not sure if my numbers even work and my poor explanation appears to be from being tired. But I do understand this in my head, I just didn't provide the best example lol.

Anyways, I think if you do look at the leaders in Ast% and look at the leaders in Assist Ratio, you'll notice that the guys who are among the best in Ast% also have higher Usage Ratios then some of the other leaders in Assist Ratio. Most of the leaders in Ast% have Usage Ratios >20.

DenButsu
09-04-2010, 04:16 AM
By the way, it's an interesting exercise to check out how your team stacks up in terms of TS% and eFG% (or whatever else). The team pages at basketball-reference are a good place to do this, since all their stats are sortable. I tried this out with the Nuggets here (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14783921&postcount=1). Some of the results can be pretty surprising.

abe_froman
09-04-2010, 04:41 AM
By the way, it's an interesting exercise to check out how your team stacks up in terms of TS% and eFG% (or whatever else). The team pages at basketball-reference are a good place to do this, since all their stats are sortable. I tried this out with the Nuggets here (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14783921&postcount=1). Some of the results can be pretty surprising.
i remember doing this a month ago,but injuries to many of the main players(skewing the numbers) and the high degree of turnover made it difficult to gauge or project from.taking those out,we look damn good top to bottom

PatsSoxKnicks
09-04-2010, 04:50 AM
so why would someone even bother using ast% in an argument of why a player is a better passer? or better yet how could you use that statistic in an argument?

Hmm, well I think a good example could be used with Lebron. You could point to the Cavs and say that Lebron assisted on 41.8% of their FGs (while he was on the floor, which is most of the game), meaning that a high % of the shots that the Cavs made were due to Lebron maybe creating open opportunities for them.

Or someone like Steve Nash, who had the highest Ast%. He's obviously involved in a heavy amount of the Suns possessions. That 50.9% Ast% would suggest that while he's on the floor, more then half the shots the Suns make come from Nash assisting the ball to the player who makes the FG, which again means Nash creates a lot of open opportunities for his teammates which leads to the high Ast%.

The guys on the list of Ast% are guys who pass the ball a lot and are involved in a heavy amount of the teams possessions, i.e. meaning they are central to the team competing.

A guy like Anthony Carter who was 2nd in Assist Ratio isn't as important to the team because a high % of the teams' FGs aren't coming from his assists. But for the possessions that Anthony Carter has, a high % of his possessions ends in an assist. But that could be like 5 possessions out of the 20 the team may have while he's on the floor. So Assist Ratio doesn't really show how much you mean to the team, it's more about how willing of a passer you are, or how much you pass based on the possessions you get.

So upon thinking about this further, they really are 2 different statistics that have 2 different uses. I suppose I'm not necessarily right when I said Assist ratio is a better indication of passing ability, it's more of an indication of passing willingness. To be honest though, it is very tough to measure passing ability.

DenButsu
09-04-2010, 12:11 PM
We don't really need to say something stupid and controversial to kee this afloat, right?

I mean, PSD poster are better than that, right?

We can do better than this.

ChiSox219
09-04-2010, 01:08 PM
so this is the three-fifths compromise psd style. Hopefully, someday we will be represented on psd with our own forum.it's a joke, relax.

lol

DerekRE_3
09-04-2010, 01:10 PM
So this is the three-fifths compromise PSD style. Hopefully, someday we will be represented on PSD with our own forum.It's a joke, relax.

Yep, baseball has one, don't see why the NBA forum shouldn't. And I think it would get more discussion than the NBA Classic forum or whatever it is.

arkanian215
09-04-2010, 01:35 PM
I like this one: http://www.basketballgeek.com/data/

It provides very detailed play by play including where shots take place and whether they were hits or misses. It also tells you how the ball was turned over.

I remember using this set to see how Amar'e performs with and without Nash on the court. I think it's useful if you want to crunch your own hot zones as well. It would've been great if they had a breakdown of what kind of shot it was. Sure there's fadeaways but I want to see the break down for pulling up off the dribble versus catch and shoot.

*Folks working with dataset could combine all of these into one csv.
If I want to work with one team's play by play, I'll search all of the team's pbp (say NJN) and copy the search result into a separate folder. Then open up command prompt (Run on Windows, type in cmd).
Change the directory to where you saved the search results. Say C:\NJN is the directory that I have all the csv files that I want to analyze. Type "cd C:\NJN" without the quotation marks. Then type "copy C:\NJN\*.csv C:\NJN\CombinedNJNPBP.csv" without the quotation marks again. The C:\NJN\CombinedNJNPBP.csv doesn't necessarily have to be the same directory. You just need to have it in a directory and give it a file name.
Be mindful of excel's limitations. Excel handles the 2009-10 combined csv's fine. 533514 combined rows (about 100k rows to spare haha). Also notice that this csv file doesn't arrange the combined csv's in chronological order. So if you're thinking of doing some sort of game by game trend analysis, you'll need to find another way.

There are other packages to combine and analyze the data but I find this method the most convenient for what I want to do for now.

Baller1
09-04-2010, 02:41 PM
I'm really loving this. Thanks Den.

I think this at least deserves a sticky, since we haven't been provided a forum yet.

Iggz53
09-04-2010, 02:48 PM
:clap: good thread, needs to be read by everyone

Hawkeye15
09-04-2010, 02:54 PM
I like this one: http://www.basketballgeek.com/data/

It provides very detailed play by play including where shots take place and whether they were hits or misses. It also tells you how the ball was turned over.

I remember using this set to see how Amar'e performs with and without Nash on the court. I think it's useful if you want to crunch your own hot zones as well. It would've been great if they had a breakdown of what kind of shot it was. Sure there's fadeaways but I want to see the break down for pulling up off the dribble versus catch and shoot.

this could be useful. Though I do get reminded on a daily basis that as you debate most posters here, and you use info provided on these sites, you get the typical, "I dont care about stats, you must not watch that player because what I say is right" mentality

I think the best thing that comes from a thread/subsection of this topic, is hopefully the fans who don't use, buy into, or listen to stats in an argument, will drop by and maybe learn a thing or two, and use it to help their knowledge of the game
Not very hopeful though.

I like the site you posted, its great for finding areas or zones players should/should not be

Sadds The Gr8
09-04-2010, 03:28 PM
good read, thanks

PatsSoxKnicks
09-04-2010, 04:03 PM
Another site I found: http://statsbynumbers.com/about/

The game summaries show some interesting stats, like how many possessions in the game for each team, the avg length of each possession, the time the team spent with the lead, etc. as well as showing it by shot type (jump, hook, layup, dunk, tip, 3 point). Although, I can only seem to find game summaries for postseason games which I think is because the site is new.

Some more nice reads:

http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=2577
http://www.82games.com/assisted.htm
http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2010/03/10/nba-hd-adjusting-how-we-measure-and-view-assists/
http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2010/03/18/nba-hd-dismantling-the-assist/

Gators123
09-04-2010, 07:33 PM
Good thread

Baller1
09-04-2010, 10:40 PM
Since we don't have a forum yet to create threads comparing players statistically, I guess this would be the spot to write up "Comparison Reviews", so to say. So I'll post one I made a few days ago when I was debating with some Chicago fans.


Russell Westbrook Vs. Derrick Rose



What?

They are both better players BUT they are also MUCH older than Rose. I don't understand why you have so much hate for Derrick Rose. You’re one of the most annoying posters going around. Would you trade Westbrook for Billups or Nash? Btw Rose >Westbrook

Rose Rookie of the year - Westbrook wasn't even runner up

Rose made the All-star team - Westbrook hasn’t

Rose starts ahead of Westbrook for team USA - Westbrook is the backup

U mad?

Oh, I'm so sorry... Does my knowledge of the game annoy you?

Here you go, I've already done all the work on this subject before. You're welcome for saving you the time.


Stats? Alright, works for me. This is actually extremely easy considering the works been done for me.

Here you go, you're welcome. (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=westbru01&y1=2010&p2=rosede01&y2=2010)

As you can see, Rose is only better at scoring the ball more and turning it over less. Other than that, Westbrook has higher percentages in offensive rebounding (not close), defensive rebounding, passing (AST%), stealing, and blocking. On top of that, Westbrook's defense is far better than Rose as Wesbtrook provides more defensive win shares, and more win shares overall for that matter, although it is very close.

Furthermore, Westbrook absolutely destroys Rose in every possible way in the playoffs. Granted neither have much of a resume to work with, but of what there is, it's fair to say that it's "not fair" to compare the two in the postseason.

Alright, and now a section for the kiddies who can't comprehend all that.

Maybe this will make it easier. (http://www.rototimes.com/nba/player_comparison.php)

In simpler terms, Westbrook is superior in rebounding, free throw shooting, passing, stealing, blocking, and is a better defender in general.

Now for some fun facts:

Westbrook has a 59.7 WIN% compared to Rose's 46.8
Rose is assisted on more of his baskets than Westbrook, meaning Westbrook creates for himself more often
Westbrook is much more efficient at creating fouls for himself at a clip of 14.1% to Rose's 8.8%
Passing Rating: Westbrook - 15.8/Rose - 9.1
Rebounding Rating: Westbrook 14.5/Rose - 10.9
Westbrook also has a higher block rating: 1.7 compared to a meer 0.8 for Rose
When comparing the two by production per 48 at POINT GUARD, Westbrook once again basically blows him out once again


Russell Westbrook (http://www.82games.com/0910/09OKC5.HTM)
Derrick Rose (http://www.82games.com/0809/08CHI1.HTM)

What I'm trying to say is, Rose is the better Shooting Guard while Westbrook is the better Point Guard. Considering they both play point guard...


Russell Westbrook > Derrick Rose

Baller1
09-04-2010, 10:43 PM
Here's another one I created a few days ago...


Kevin Durant Vs. Carmelo Anthony



Your boy durant in a head to head matchup with melo, melo has won, especially in the clutch as I pointed out, durant has felt it more than a couple of times, and if u disagree with melo having the best all around offensive game in the league than some thing is wrong with u, look up melo and clutch and u see durant and the thunder as being one of his victims quite a few times. What I state is fact buddy, wich is why he is my favorite player

First of all, I didn't even bring up Durant. But since you would like to, I'll gladly prove to you why Durant is the better player.

Alright, are you ready? Don't get mad when all these posts from a past thread prove you completely wrong.

Thanks to tredigs and ChiSox for the help.

Offensively:
I'll just keep it simple for you.

Here you go. (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=duranke01&y1=2010&p2=anthoca01&y2=2010)

Durant has a better ts%, eFG%, REB%, STL%, BLK%. Furthermore, he absolutely destroys Melo in Win Shares. Both offensively and defensively.

Defensively:

This is what I used to use, especially for defense:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Tj2oU_HnzQ8J:www.hoopnumbers.com/allAnalysisView%3Fanalysis%3DRAPM+site:www.hoopnum bers.com+hoopnumbers&hl=en&gl=us&strip=0


Unfortunately, the guy who came up with that stat and ran the site was hired by an NBA team so all I have left is the google cache of just one season.


Durant's defensive improvement over 08-09 was huge, he learned to play the PnR and rotate better as well as becoming a better man defender. He was the MIP of last season, no question.


I had this conversation with a guy the other day who thinks Melo is better, so I'll just copy/paste that post:

Melo doesn't put out the effort or have the success that KD does on the defensive end. This isn't 2008, there were countless reports about how the kid worked on that tirelessly over the summer with specialty coaches, and it's paying dividends. Melo has always been indifferent on that side of the floor, and the opponents production against him prove it. Compare the two:
http://www.82games.com/0910/0910OKC.HTM

http://www.82games.com/0910/0910DEN.HTM

^That's about 40% better production that SF's had against Melo than they did Durant. Also look at the splits between their adjusted +/- ...they're not comparable.

KD averaged more points at a higher efficiency (.607 ts%) than Melo ever has in any year, let alone last year. His per-game steals were also better than anything Melo's reached, and his bpg (1) were twice Melo's all time best. His PER of 26.2 is 4 higher than Melo's best (last year at 22.2). And he had an Offensive rating of 118 to Melo's 110 (his best ever). I could keep going. Melo being consistently injured for about ~10-15 games the past 4 seasons doesn't exactly help his case, either.

Durant's better. And he's 21 with a ridiculous work ethic to boot; he's only going to improve this summer.

Baller1
09-04-2010, 10:45 PM
When I have a chance, I'm going to create a comparison of Deron Williams and Chris Paul. I'm just curious as to how those two stack up.

ChiSox219
09-04-2010, 11:09 PM
Since we don't have a forum yet to create threads comparing players statistically, I guess this would be the spot to write up "Comparison Reviews", so to say. So I'll post one I made a few days ago when I was debating with some Chicago fans.


Russell Westbrook Vs. Derrick Rose

Rose can do everything Westbrook can on offense and plenty more. What keeps Westbrook close in this discussion is his solid defense compared to Rose's weak defense.

That said, you are comparing the statistics of players with two different roles. Rose was the only Bull capable of creating his own shot so he spend a lot of possessions scoring because it gave the Bulls the best chance to win. Westbrook was #2 to the leagues leading scorer, if anything, you'd expect the gap in AST% to be more significant.

Baller1
09-04-2010, 11:12 PM
Rose can do everything Westbrook can on offense and plenty more. What keeps Westbrook close in this discussion is his solid defense compared to Rose's weak defense.

That said, you are comparing the statistics of players with two different roles. Rose was the only Bull capable of creating his own shot so he spend a lot of possessions scoring because it gave the Bulls the best chance to win. Westbrook was #2 to the leagues leading scorer, if anything, you'd expect the gap in AST% to be more significant.

I know, trust me. We've been over this and I don't feel like doing it again. But regardless, Westbrook has the better stats and that's what the Bulls fans in another thread were demanding.

And I don't understand why everyone is so quick to bash Westbrook's offense. Honestly, the only thing he struggles with is scoring efficiently, especially 3PT shooting. Nevertheless, he improved gradually throughout the season so I see no reason as to why his ts% won't rise significantly.

DenButsu
09-04-2010, 11:23 PM
I like this one: http://www.basketballgeek.com/data/


Another site I found: http://statsbynumbers.com/about/

Thanks guys, I just added both of those to the top post. :cool:

spartanbear
09-04-2010, 11:25 PM
Since we don't have a forum yet to create threads comparing players statistically, I guess this would be the spot to write up "Comparison Reviews", so to say. So I'll post one I made a few days ago when I was debating with some Chicago fans.


Russell Westbrook Vs. Derrick Rose

I sincerely appreciate an individual that uses hardcore analytics to substantiate his arguments. Kuddos to you. However are you comfortable with using statistics alone to draw your conclusions? If you are that's fine just asking. Not to discount Russell Westbrook's effectiveness but your ability to be a superior NBA player (both offensively and defensively) is due in part to the abilities of your teammates as well. Wouldn't you say so? The statistics taken in a vacuum paint one picture but actually watching the games will probably tell another. Let's see what Rose's numbers look like this year now that we can all say with comfort that he's got a much better cast around him. I'm not ready to say with confidence that Westbrook > Rose and considering both of their resumes are quite light I don't think anyone should.

ChiSox219
09-04-2010, 11:26 PM
Since we don't have a forum yet to create threads comparing players statistically, I guess this would be the spot to write up "Comparison Reviews", so to say. So I'll post one I made a few days ago when I was debating with some Chicago fans.


Russell Westbrook Vs. Derrick Rose


I know, trust me. We've been over this and I don't feel like doing it again. But regardless, Westbrook has the better stats and that's what the Bulls fans in another thread were demanding.

And I don't understand why everyone is so quick to bash Westbrook's offense. Honestly, the only thing he struggles with is scoring efficiently, especially 3PT shooting. Nevertheless, he improved gradually throughout the season so I see no reason as to why his ts% won't rise significantly.

Comparing basic stats of two players with significantly different roles isn't going to prove much.

And I wouldn't say Westbrook has better stats.

Baller1
09-04-2010, 11:29 PM
I sincerely appreciate an individual that uses hardcore analytics to substantiate his arguments. Kuddos to you. However are you comfortable with using statistics alone to draw your conclusions? If you are that's fine just asking. Not to discount Russell Westbrook's effectiveness but your ability to be a superior NBA player (both offensively and defensively) is due in part to the abilities of your teammates as well. Wouldn't you say so? The statistics taken in a vacuum paint one picture but actually watching the games will probably tell another. Let's see what Rose's numbers look like this year now that we can all say with comfort that he's got a much better cast around him. I'm not ready to say with confidence that Westbrook > Rose and considering both of their resumes are quite light I don't think anyone should.

Not at all, I'm aware that statistics won't always provide perfect analysis. Actually, we'll never get perfect analysis.

Regardless of how profound statistics become on our lifetimes, opinions will always play a role in comparing and analyizing the effectiveness/value of a player.

That's how I feel anyway.

HakeemTheDream
09-05-2010, 01:03 AM
Westbrook's doesn't have the floater in the lane like Rose does, but he more than makes up for that with his rebounding ability and defense.

DenButsu
09-05-2010, 11:52 AM
Watch the games geeks!!!!!!!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're joking since you're the guy who started the thread praising TS%.

KnicksorBust
09-05-2010, 11:58 AM
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're joking since you're the guy who started the thread praising TS%.

;)

Hawkeye15
09-05-2010, 12:10 PM
Hmm, well I think a good example could be used with Lebron. You could point to the Cavs and say that Lebron assisted on 41.8% of their FGs (while he was on the floor, which is most of the game), meaning that a high % of the shots that the Cavs made were due to Lebron maybe creating open opportunities for them.

Or someone like Steve Nash, who had the highest Ast%. He's obviously involved in a heavy amount of the Suns possessions. That 50.9% Ast% would suggest that while he's on the floor, more then half the shots the Suns make come from Nash assisting the ball to the player who makes the FG, which again means Nash creates a lot of open opportunities for his teammates which leads to the high Ast%.

The guys on the list of Ast% are guys who pass the ball a lot and are involved in a heavy amount of the teams possessions, i.e. meaning they are central to the team competing.

A guy like Anthony Carter who was 2nd in Assist Ratio isn't as important to the team because a high % of the teams' FGs aren't coming from his assists. But for the possessions that Anthony Carter has, a high % of his possessions ends in an assist. But that could be like 5 possessions out of the 20 the team may have while he's on the floor. So Assist Ratio doesn't really show how much you mean to the team, it's more about how willing of a passer you are, or how much you pass based on the possessions you get.

So upon thinking about this further, they really are 2 different statistics that have 2 different uses. I suppose I'm not necessarily right when I said Assist ratio is a better indication of passing ability, it's more of an indication of passing willingness. To be honest though, it is very tough to measure passing ability.


I think using Ast% is valid when talking about two players or more that play similar roles, ie, starting PG's. It isn't as valuable to show offenses like the Lakers, where their PG has minimal production because of the system. But its a valid statistic when discussing Nash, Paul, Deron, Rose, Westbrook, etc.

Baller1
09-05-2010, 12:16 PM
Comparing basic stats of two players with significantly different roles isn't going to prove much.

And I wouldn't say Westbrook has better stats.

The evidence is right there in my post, his stats are clearly better. Rose is superior in scoring, holding on to the ball, and scoring in the clutch. That's about it.

DenButsu
09-05-2010, 12:48 PM
Okay, here's a general statement that I think most people who are into stats would agree with:

The reason, in the first place, for the interest in stats, is because we're already watching the games and just want a deeper understanding of how to break down and analyze what we're seeing. And it should go without saying - it's only common sense, really - that all stats need to be understood in context, and complimented by understanding the game by actually watching it.

Case in point: I posted a stats thread in the Nuggets forum a couple days ago, in which I said the following:


-In the 2009-10 season, the Nuggets ranked 7th in TS%, with 56.1. Phoenix was 1st with 58.5, and Orlando 2nd with 57.3.

-The TS% of Nuggets players in 2009-10:

1 Chris Andersen .631
2 Nene Hilario .631
3 C. Billups .601
4 Ty Lawson .600
5 Arron Afflalo .576
6 Joey Graham .568
7 Johan Petro .553
8 Carmelo Anthony .548
9 J.R. Smith .515
10 Anthony Carter .482
11 Kenyon Martin .481
12 Malik Allen .431
13 Renaldo Balkman .339
-The top 6 NBA players with the best TS% in the 2009-10 season who played at least 18mpg in 30 or more games:

TS% G MP
1 Bill Walker .649 35 768
2 Nicolas Batum .646 37 918
3 Tyson Chandler .643 51 1163
4 Erick Dampier .637 55 1280
5 Chris Andersen .631 76 1692
6 Nene Hilario .631 82 2755
7 Dwight Howard .630 82 2843
-Nene barely edged out Dwight as the most efficient scoring starter in the NBA last season. Let that one sink in a minute. In terms of scoring, Nene was the most efficient starter in the NBA last season. Even with all those soft and missed layups.

Now obviously, Dwight Howard is the best player on that TS% list. I'd consider that an indisputable fact. Just as obvious is the fact that Nene is a much better and more important player for the Nuggets than Chris Andersen. One way we know this is by watching the Nuggets play the Spurs, and whereas Nene generally does a solid job of manning up on Tim Duncan, the Birdman gets absolutely violated. And that doesn't show up in box scores.

So of what importance is looking at TS%? Only one: To evaluate specifically what it is that TS% measures, which is scoring efficiency.

If Dwight Howard knew how to hit a free throw, his TS% would destroy Nene's. Ask any Nuggets fan about Nene's soft layups, his missed layups. As efficient of a scorer as he is (and he is very efficient), he fails to convert on a ****load of easy looks. So Nene's failure to beast at the rim (while maintaining a respectable FT%), and Dwight's failure to make free throws (while dominating on his at-rim shots), end up bringing their overall scoring efficiencies to a very similar point.

But obviously, when you include rebounding, blocks and overall production, Dwight easily blows Nene out of the water.

So for the people who say, "Just watch the games": Wise up. We do. OF COURSE.

And please understand that we do understand that stats aren't the end-all-be-all of basketball, and that their usefulness is limited. But in turn, please also understand that the stats which are presented to you by ESPN, TNT, ABC, and your local networks when you "just watch the game" are generally outdated, outmoded, and are painting a less accurate picture than they could be - if those networks knew better or cared more.

Who will be the John Hollinger of NBA announcers? It's amazing how far behind the times regular NBA commentary is in comparison even to message boards like this. By assuming their audience is too dumb to understand, they're doing all of us a disservice.

ChiSox219
09-05-2010, 01:26 PM
The evidence is right there in my post, his stats are clearly better. Rose is superior in scoring, holding on to the ball, and scoring in the clutch. That's about it.

For the role he played, those were the most important stats. Of course Westbrook is going have better assist numbers, he was a second option passing to Durant. But Westbrook should have had a lower TOV% considering he had a lower usage, that is, if he was the better PG.

Looking at Synergy, Rose beats out Westbrook in nearly every category on both sides of the ball.

Verbal Christ
09-05-2010, 02:59 PM
unfortunately the advanced stat movement has yet to develop a formula to assess "intangibles" and thats why there will always be a grey area involving the comparison of equal players.

Hawkeye15
09-05-2010, 03:20 PM
unfortunately the advanced stat movement has yet to develop a formula to assess "intangibles" and thats why there will always be a grey area involving the comparison of equal players.

while this is true, its actually used incorrectly. Most, when all else fails, when they have been smashed in the comparison argument, they use the "intangibles" argument as a last ditch effort.
So until a player's intangibles can be measure, I don't even listen to them in an argument. They can't be measured, nor proven. And having rings is because you had an awesome roster around you, not because you are better than a player who clearly craps on you stat wise

Verbal Christ
09-05-2010, 04:33 PM
while this is true, its actually used incorrectly. Most, when all else fails, when they have been smashed in the comparison argument, they use the "intangibles" argument as a last ditch effort.
So until a player's intangibles can be measure, I don't even listen to them in an argument. They can't be measured, nor proven. And having rings is because you had an awesome roster around you, not because you are better than a player who clearly craps on you stat wise

exactly thats why in all cases a purly stat motivated argument may not be the correct assessment, like the majority of the threads here are "X player is better than Y player" and then you can run off anything from simple rebounding numbers to the 'hot pass' that leads to an assist. if each player is equal in those values you have to just look at the games. there are ways those players can influence the outcome of a game beyond black and white numbers. loose balls,good screens,charges taken (flops should be an advanced stat) etc... etc... its just not wise IMO to only crunch the numbers, look up at the screen every once in a while and see which player is determining the outcome more than the other, its not that hard when comparing dynamic players anyhow really. all in all i totally believe in the stats, cant argue with math really but a complete judgment has to involve more than that.

Hawkeye15
09-05-2010, 04:45 PM
exactly thats why in all cases a purly stat motivated argument may not be the correct assessment, like the majority of the threads here are "X player is better than Y player" and then you can run off anything from simple rebounding numbers to the 'hot pass' that leads to an assist. if each player is equal in those values you have to just look at the games. there are ways those players can influence the outcome of a game beyond black and white numbers. loose balls,good screens,charges taken (flops should be an advanced stat) etc... etc... its just not wise IMO to only crunch the numbers, look up at the screen every once in a while and see which player is determining the outcome more than the other, its not that hard when comparing dynamic players anyhow really. all in all i totally believe in the stats, cant argue with math really but a complete judgment has to involve more than that.

I think stats are more important for arguing those who appear so close to the eye, and stats tell us elsewise.
I also like to use stats to compare or evaluate particular areas of a player.
There is no way you can NOT watch the games and then attempt to win an argument or debate. But they are a great tool, that can't be denied.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-05-2010, 05:24 PM
I think using Ast% is valid when talking about two players or more that play similar roles, ie, starting PG's. It isn't as valuable to show offenses like the Lakers, where their PG has minimal production because of the system. But its a valid statistic when discussing Nash, Paul, Deron, Rose, Westbrook, etc.

Yeah I agree, you just have to make sure the players are comparable (i.e. similar playing time, same position, usage rate, etc.). There'd be no point in comparing Anthony Carter say with Chauncey Billups using Ast% because that's not really fair for Carter.

Personally, I like Tom Haberstroh's weighted Assists (wAPG).

http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2010/03/10/nba-hd-adjusting-how-we-measure-and-view-assists/

I decided I'd compute his statistic for some of the notable players. I made a slight adjustment. Instead of using per game statistics, I used per 40 minutes statistics. Here's what I got:


AP40 wAP40 difference
league average per 40 3.1 3.208 0.108
Lebron 8.8 9.5048 0.7048
Wade 7.2 7.4072 0.2072
Nash 13.3 14.0872 0.7872
Paul 11.2 11.5364 0.3364
Deron 11.4 11.9772 0.5772
Rose 6.5 6.4884 -0.0116
Westbrook 9.3 9.548 0.248
Kidd 10 10.0272 0.0272
Rondo 10.8 11.2936 0.4936
Baron Davis 9.5 9.9156 0.4156
Darren Collison 8.3 8.542 0.242
Jameer Nelson 7.6 8.2464 0.6464
Raymond Felton 6.7 7.2856 0.5856

AP40 is assists per 40 minutes. wAP40 is weighted assists per 40 minutes (the statistic that Haberstroh came up with)

The weights are slightly different (negligible difference really) because the weights he was using was as of March 10th, when the article was written (I believe). I used the league average FG% at each position which is what I believe he was doing (found at hoopdata).

I'm going to adjust this for pace and post that later on. I'll post the wAp36 too (weighted assists per 36 minutes).

PatsSoxKnicks
09-05-2010, 06:51 PM
wAper36 wAP100 wAP36bLAP wAP40bLAP
league average 2.89 4.05 2.89 3.21
Lebron 8.55 12.21 8.71 9.68
Wade 6.67 9.72 6.94 7.71
Nash 12.68 17.32 12.35 13.73
Paul 10.38 14.62 10.43 11.59
Deron 10.78 14.91 10.63 11.82
Rose 5.84 8.14 5.81 6.45
Westbrook 8.59 12.01 8.57 9.52
Kidd 9.02 12.76 9.10 10.11
Rondo 10.16 14.48 10.33 11.47
Davis 8.92 12.55 8.95 9.95
Collison 7.69 10.82 7.72 8.58
Nelson 7.42 10.57 7.54 8.38
Felton 6.56 9.41 6.71 7.46


wAP100
league average PG 8.46


The first one is the weighted assists per 36 minutes. It's not pace adjusted.
The rest of the stats are pace adjusted. Calculated assists/possession from team pace (may not be the most accurate way to do it but I think it should give a good estimate)
wAP100 is weighted assists per 100 possessions.
wAP36bLAP is weighted assists per 36 minutes based on League Average Pace.
wAP40bLAP is weighted assists per 40 minutes based on League Average Pace.

(Based on the data for wAP100, you could say Nash is 105% (or 2.05 times) better then the league average PG (17.32/8.46 *100)-100. For Rose, you could say he's 4% worse then league average. That's how you interpret stats like OPS+ in baseball I believe)

If you're wondering, I got the pace data from hoopdata. All of this is based on the formula Haberstroh came up with for weighted assists (which he admits is a simplistic formula). In the article, he admits that to get an even better formula, he would have to be able to include assists leading to free throws so he can properly weight that, unfortunately I don't think that data is available.

Another great article: http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2010/03/18/nba-hd-dismantling-the-assist/

It talks about the "potential assist"


What we’re really after is the potential assist; a pass that directly leads to, not a made shot, but an attempted shot.

and the effect of a pass vs. unassisted from different locations. It would be great to be able to factor this (by again using weights) into his weighted assist stat that he came up with.

If anyone wants me to do this for anyone else, let me know. I've got it in a spreadsheet which should allow me to calculate this easily.

RulerSlick
09-05-2010, 07:12 PM
Great stuff

PatsSoxKnicks
09-05-2010, 08:13 PM
I thought I'd post one last table which shows the difference between assists per 40 minutes and the weighted assists per 40 minutes pace adjusted:


wAP40bLAP AP40 difference
L.A. 3.21 3.10 0.11
Lebron 9.68 8.80 0.88
Wade 7.71 7.20 0.51
Nash 13.73 13.30 0.43
Paul 11.59 11.20 0.39
Deron 11.82 11.40 0.42
Rose 6.45 6.50 -0.05
Rwest 9.52 9.30 0.22
Kidd 10.11 10.00 0.11
Rondo 11.47 10.80 0.67
Davis 9.95 9.50 0.45
Dcoll 8.58 8.30 0.28
Nelson 8.38 7.60 0.78
Felton 7.46 6.70 0.76


L.A. is league average, not the LA Lakers.

One more that I thought I'd add since most of these guys are PG:


AP40 wAp40 difference
L.A. PG 6.5 6.7048 0.2048


What should be interesting is will Rose have a + difference this year with the addition of some shooters and Boozer. It appears Rose's passes last year were going to some of the more inefficient areas on the court.

Hustla23
09-06-2010, 12:59 AM
Good stuff patSox!!!!

Knicks fans are the smartest NBA fans. :D :D

ChiSox219
09-06-2010, 01:33 AM
What should be interesting is will Rose have a + difference this year with the addition of some shooters and Boozer. It appears Rose's passes last year were going to some of the more inefficient areas on the court.

This is 100% truth. The Bulls led the league in long 2's attempted at 27.7 per game. 2nd was the Wizards with 25.8 and the league average was 20.3

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2010, 02:05 AM
Hmmm, should TS% give more weight to dunks and 3 pointers considering the expected payoff is higher for those shots?

Edit: Upon thinking about it, no.

ChiSox219
09-06-2010, 02:11 AM
Hmmm, should TS% give more weight to dunks and 3 pointers considering the expected payoff is higher for those shots?

My immediate reaction: I don't think so.

3 Pointers already get weighted in TS%, I don't think it needs to be increased.


Dunks, well that is a tough one. I assume the success rate for a dunk attempt is high, 70%+. I don't think it needs to be weighted higher because it's still worth 2 points and the high success rate will impact TS% fairly significantly, see Dwight Howard.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2010, 02:19 AM
My immediate reaction: I don't think so.

3 Pointers already get weighted in TS%, I don't think it needs to be increased.


Dunks, well that is a tough one. I assume the success rate for a dunk attempt is high, 70%+. I don't think it needs to be weighted higher because it's still worth 2 points and the high success rate will impact TS% fairly significantly, see Dwight Howard.

But is it weighted correctly?

But that's the point, a guy like Dwight Howard takes very high % shots.

http://www.82games.com/locations.htm

You're getting almost twice as much production from shooting 3 pointers and low paint vs. wing 2's.

Now this probably doesn't work well in TS% but maybe another statistic that takes into account expected payoff? like expected points per possession based on locations and league averages? There's a lot of concrete stats for the here and now but I'm not sure I've run into a lot of predictive stats for the NBA (like you have in baseball for example), maybe because its hard to do.

I don't know, it may not make any sense. Just kind of thinking aloud.

Edit: Never mind, just realized they have stats like this on hoopdata. Don't know how I missed that.

arkanian215
09-06-2010, 01:11 PM
Another site I found: http://statsbynumbers.com/about/

The game summaries show some interesting stats, like how many possessions in the game for each team, the avg length of each possession, the time the team spent with the lead, etc. as well as showing it by shot type (jump, hook, layup, dunk, tip, 3 point). Although, I can only seem to find game summaries for postseason games which I think is because the site is new.

Some more nice reads:

http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=2577
http://www.82games.com/assisted.htm
http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2010/03/10/nba-hd-adjusting-how-we-measure-and-view-assists/
http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2010/03/18/nba-hd-dismantling-the-assist/
Very good reads. The third one (2nd one concerning assists) is my favorite.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 01:19 PM
Hmmm, should TS% give more weight to dunks and 3 pointers considering the expected payoff is higher for those shots?

I don't think so

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 01:20 PM
these stats are so dumb

great input

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2010, 01:41 PM
Very good reads. The third one (2nd one concerning assists) is my favorite.

Yup, I agree. The weighted assists is so easy to understand that you can calculate it yourself (which I did). I'm surprised he didn't use per 40 stats instead and he didn't bother to adjust for pace, that would put them on a more level playing field.

Baller1
09-06-2010, 01:44 PM
these stats are so dumb

Why? Because they're too profound and you can't comprehend them?

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2010, 02:21 PM
these stats are so dumb

Which ones? Advanced stats in general or the ones I posted?

If you're talking about the ones I posted, why are they dumb? First off, if you didn't read the article I posted, you should read that first. All I did was adjust them based on per 40/36 minutes and pace (maybe some of the ones I posted were pointless). If you did read the article, why is it a dumb statistic?

If you're talking about advanced stats in general, well I'll just assume that the 5th grade math involved is too difficult for you to understand.

arkanian215
09-06-2010, 02:28 PM
Here's another one I created a few days ago...


Kevin Durant Vs. Carmelo Anthony

Melo vs Durant Head to Head

When both KD and Melo are on the court at the same time these are their stats:


KD Melo
Missed 90 95
Made 72 97
FG% 44.4% 50.52%
Fouls 7 17
TO 23 24
FTs (non tech) 85 56
Stolen 1 4
2pters 58 86
3pters 14 11
Total PTS 158 205
Unassisted Pts 52 104
Unassisted % 36.11 53.61

Off Reb 7 12
Def Reb 50 47
Team DReb 187 218
Team OReb 80 78
Team TReb 267 296

DReb% 18.87 15.77
OReb% 2.35 4.53
TReb% 10.12 10.48

Here fouls represents the number of times each player fouled the other.
Stolen represents the number of times the other player stole the ball from the ball handler (ex: Melo stole the ball once from KD and KD stole the ball 4 times from Melo).

Melo looks to be the better offensive player.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2010, 02:43 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=anthoca01&p2=duranke01

Another look at Melo vs. Durant in head to head matchups.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 02:44 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=anthoca01&p2=duranke01

Another look at Melo vs. Durant in head to head matchups.

Melo has outplayed Durant offensively, but Durant is still the better overall player
Also, Denver is 9-1 in those games. Wow

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 02:52 PM
to those who are coming in here and criticizing, you should stick around and learn something.

Baller1
09-06-2010, 02:58 PM
Melo vs Durant Head to Head

When both KD and Melo are on the court at the same time these are their stats:


KD Melo
Missed 90 95
Made 72 97
FG% 44.4% 50.52%
Fouls 7 17
TO 23 24
FTs (non tech) 85 56
Stolen 1 4
2pters 58 86
3pters 14 11
Total PTS 158 205
Unassisted Pts 52 104
Unassisted % 36.11 53.61

Off Reb 7 12
Def Reb 50 47
Team DReb 187 218
Team OReb 80 78
Team TReb 267 296

DReb% 18.87 15.77
OReb% 2.35 4.53
TReb% 10.12 10.48

Here fouls represents the number of times each player fouled the other.
Stolen represents the number of times the other player stole the ball from the ball handler (ex: Melo stole the ball once from KD and KD stole the ball 4 times from Melo).

Melo looks to be the better offensive player.

These stats include Durant's rookie season, and I think you and I can both agree that Melo was a far better player at that point.

Not saying Melo hasnt been better than Durant offensively in head-to-head matchups, just an observation that I think deserves consideration.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 02:59 PM
These stats include Durant's rookie season, and I think you and I can both agree that Melo was a far better player at that point.

Not saying Melo hasnt been better than Durant offensively in head-to-head matchups, just an observation that I think deserves consideration.

good point.

tredigs
09-06-2010, 03:00 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=anthoca01&p2=duranke01

Another look at Melo vs. Durant in head to head matchups.

Melo has been nice against the Sonics/Thunder, but bear in mind that this includes KD's rookie year in Seatle as well as year two in OKC. So we're comparing a 19/20 yr old on a developing team to Melo in his prime on a contender. Now that Durant is entering his early prime and playing for an elite level team (defenses will have a tougher time focusing primarily on Durant now that the rest of his team is beginning to hold their own/excel), the head to head comparisons will become more legit.

Edit: Looks like baller was on that also.

Baller1
09-06-2010, 03:04 PM
Real quick, I just wanted to show some appreciation to patssoxknicks, you really know your stuff and it's good to see another knowledgeable fan consistently in the forum.

Baller1
09-06-2010, 03:06 PM
Melo has been nice against the Sonics/Thunder, but bear in mind that this includes KD's rookie year in Seatle as well as year two in OKC. So we're comparing a 19/20 yr old on a developing team to Melo in his prime on a contender. Now that Durant is entering his early prime and playing for an elite level team (defenses will have a tougher time focusing primarily on Durant now that the rest of his team is beginning to hold their own/excel), the head to head comparisons will become more legit.

Edit: Looks like baller was on that also.

Rookie year or not, this is true unfortunately. Melo has consistently hurt the Sonics/Thunder throughout his career.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 03:09 PM
what do you guys think was Melo's best season, statistically?

Baller1
09-06-2010, 03:11 PM
what do you guys think was Melo's best season, statistically?

Well last season it looked like he was about to take off offensively, unfortuantely he got injured. I'm curious to see how he does this season, whether he's on a new team or not and if he's healthy.

Sadds The Gr8
09-06-2010, 03:12 PM
what do you guys think was Melo's best season, statistically?

I think this past season was his best but its close.

tredigs
09-06-2010, 03:16 PM
what do you guys think was Melo's best season, statistically?

No one year POPS, but 06/07 (22), 07/08 (23), 09/10 (25) are all arguable.

Rookie year or not, this is true unfortunately. Melo has consistently hurt the Sonics/Thunder throughout his career.

He hurts everyone; great offensive player.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 03:19 PM
Its odd for Melo. The 05-06' season was his high in PER, and win shares, but low in rebound rate, and he was horrendous in the playoffs.
08-09', he missed a lot of time with injuries, and had his lowest PER since post development, and lowest win shares, but was awesome in the playoffs.
I am having trouble defining his best statistical season.
This past year may have been it, but again, his rebounding dropped again. He also seemed to regress on defense.

Baller1
09-06-2010, 03:27 PM
Its odd for Melo. The 05-06' season was his high in PER, and win shares, but low in rebound rate, and he was horrendous in the playoffs.
08-09', he missed a lot of time with injuries, and had his lowest PER since post development, and lowest win shares, but was awesome in the playoffs.
I am having trouble defining his best statistical season.
This past year may have been it, but again, his rebounding dropped again. He also seemed to regress on defense.

And his durability took a hit, which greatly hindered any validity to those stats.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 03:31 PM
And his durability took a hit, which greatly hindered any validity to those stats.

I would think once you peel away the Denver homers, this will be the year even the casual fans is aware of how much better overall Durant is at this point

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 03:31 PM
who here looks at Synergy?

Baller1
09-06-2010, 03:33 PM
I would think once you peel away the Denver homers, this will be the year even the casual fans is aware of how much better overall Durant is at this point

I would hope so but now that Durant is becoming such a force in this league, people are starting to say he's overrated.

People will never get it, and to me, that's where advanced statistics come in.

Baller1
09-06-2010, 03:34 PM
who here looks at Synergy?

I was actually going to bring that up, I admittedly have absolutely no clue what synergy is. So if anyone could fill me in, it'd be much appreciated.

arkanian215
09-06-2010, 03:37 PM
These stats include Durant's rookie season, and I think you and I can both agree that Melo was a far better player at that point.

Not saying Melo hasnt been better than Durant offensively in head-to-head matchups, just an observation that I think deserves consideration.

Ok thanks for the feed back. I did that to get the largest sample size possible but I can see why that would skew the stats.
Kevin Durant vs Carmelo Anthony Over the Past 2 Seasons

KD Melo
Missed 53 66
Made 47 57
FG% 47 46.34
Fouls 4 12
TO 15 15
Off Reb 5 9
Def Reb 37 30
FT (non tech) 59 47
Stolen 1 2
2pters 36 51
3pters 11 6
Total PTS 105 120
Unassisted Pts 34 78
Unassisted % 36.17 68.42

Team DReb 116 126
Team OReb 49 62
Team TReb 165 188

DReb% 20.79 17.14
OReb% 2.86 5.06
TReb% 11.9 11.05

Kevin Durant vs Carmelo Anthony This Past Season

KD Melo
Missed 26 31
Made 20 26
FG% 43.48 45.61
Fouls 2 5
TO 12 10
Off Reb 2 5
Def Reb 20 18
FT (non tech) 31 22
Stolen 1 2
2pters 17 24
3pters 3 2
Total PTS 43 54
Unassisted Pts 18 34
Unassisted % 45 65.39

Team DReb 61 66
Team OReb 18 35
Team TReb 79 101

DReb% 20.83 21.43
OReb% 2.38 5.21
TReb% 12.22 12.78
So after taking out KD's rookie season, I think it's fair to say that baller's concerns about including KD's rookie year in the sample were warranted.

Also, the only reason I'm restricting the sample to games Melo played vs Durant is because of Melo 15's hypothetical head to head game between the two. What better way to determine how they would play against each other than when they actually played against each other. More often than not, they'll be guarding each other when they're both on the court.

abe_froman
09-06-2010, 03:42 PM
I was actually going to bring that up, I admittedly have absolutely no clue what synergy is. So if anyone could fill me in, it'd be much appreciated.

its the most in depth statistical analysis program out there,used mainly by gm's,scouts,coaches,that recently became available to the public

...but you have to pay

i use to get it

Baller1
09-06-2010, 03:45 PM
Ok thanks for the feed back. I did that to get the largest sample size possible but I can see why that would skew the stats.
Kevin Durant vs Carmelo Anthony Over the Past 2 Seasons

KD Melo
Missed 53 66
Made 47 57
FG% 47 46.34
Fouls 4 12
TO 15 15
Off Reb 5 9
Def Reb 37 30
FT (non tech) 59 47
Stolen 1 2
2pters 36 51
3pters 11 6
Total PTS 105 120
Unassisted Pts 34 78
Unassisted % 36.17 68.42

Team DReb 116 126
Team OReb 49 62
Team TReb 165 188

DReb% 20.79 17.14
OReb% 2.86 5.06
TReb% 11.9 11.05

Kevin Durant vs Carmelo Anthony This Past Season

KD Melo
Missed 26 31
Made 20 26
FG% 43.48 45.61
Fouls 2 5
TO 12 10
Off Reb 2 5
Def Reb 20 18
FT (non tech) 31 22
Stolen 1 2
2pters 17 24
3pters 3 2
Total PTS 43 54
Unassisted Pts 18 34
Unassisted % 45 65.39

Team DReb 61 66
Team OReb 18 35
Team TReb 79 101

DReb% 20.83 21.43
OReb% 2.38 5.21
TReb% 12.22 12.78
So after taking out KD's rookie season, I think it's fair to say that baller's concerns about including KD's rookie year in the sample were warranted.

Also, the only reason I'm restricting the sample to games Melo played vs Durant is because of Melo 15's hypothetical head to head game between the two. What better way to determine how they would play against each other than when they actually played against each other. More often than not, they'll be guarding each other when they're both on the court.

Thanks for the breakdown. So, it still looks like Melo has him offensively head-to-head. I think this year will be the true test to see if Durant can become an elite defender.

By the way, which site are you getting these statistics?

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 03:46 PM
http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=2625

found this interesting regarding team USA. Um, Kevin Love should be playing a lot more than Odom or Chandler up front

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 03:48 PM
I was actually going to bring that up, I admittedly have absolutely no clue what synergy is. So if anyone could fill me in, it'd be much appreciated.

its an advanced scouting site that gives great numbers for situational stats. Like, how a player does defending isolations versus close outs, and where they rank statistically. There are various released versions, and it costs money to subscribe, but I like it

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 03:56 PM
Love grabs more the 1 out of every 3 rebounds available while on the floor, has a ton of steals, and he is with Durant on TS%. I simply can't figure out why K doesn't play him 25 mpg at the very least.

Baller1
09-06-2010, 03:58 PM
http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=2625

found this interesting regarding team USA. Um, Kevin Love should be playing a lot more than Odom or Chandler up front

PG: Westbrook
SG: Rose
SF: Durant
PF: Love
C: Chandler

That should be the starting lineup.

By the way, great find hawkeye. Thanks.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2010, 04:04 PM
Melo has outplayed Durant offensively, but Durant is still the better overall player
Also, Denver is 9-1 in those games. Wow

Oh yeah, I agree Durant is the better player offensively.


Real quick, I just wanted to show some appreciation to patssoxknicks, you really know your stuff and it's good to see another knowledgeable fan consistently in the forum.

Thanks

I'm going to post Melo's and Durant's weighted assist stats a little later on

arkanian215
09-06-2010, 04:06 PM
Thanks for the breakdown. So, it still looks like Melo has him offensively head-to-head. I think this year will be the true test to see if Durant can become an elite defender.

By the way, which site are you getting these statistics?

I crunched them from pbp's from this site. http://www.basketballgeek.com/data/

Baller1
09-06-2010, 04:54 PM
I crunched them from pbp's from this site. http://www.basketballgeek.com/data/

Thanks.

DenButsu
09-06-2010, 06:25 PM
PG: Westbrook
SG: Rose
SF: Durant
PF: Love
C: Chandler

That should be the starting lineup.


Not if that Angola game is any measure of how effective the current lineup and relations can be.

Billups and Gordon combined for 36 points on just 14 shot attempts.

Or, put another way, chauncey had a TS% of 1.084 and Gordon had a TS% of 1.417. If I'm Coach K and I see that kind of efficiency emerging, I don't mess with the lineups.

Spurred1
09-06-2010, 06:44 PM
This thread really should be stickied.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 06:58 PM
it was stickied, then the sticky was removed. So I won't do it again

Baller1
09-06-2010, 07:00 PM
Not if that Angola game is any measure of how effective the current lineup and relations can be.

Billups and Gordon combined for 36 points on just 14 shot attempts.

Or, put another way, chauncey had a TS% of 1.084 and Gordon had a TS% of 1.417. If I'm Coach K and I see that kind of efficiency emerging, I don't mess with the lineups.

I guess you're right. I just wish someone besides Durant and Love would consistently play well.

Baller1
09-06-2010, 07:00 PM
it was stickied, then the sticky was removed. So I won't do it again

Why was the sticky removed?

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 07:04 PM
Why was the sticky removed?

no clue. Dont care. Those who are interested will keep it up top, including me. Even if I have to post a reminder

Baller1
09-06-2010, 07:13 PM
no clue. Dont care. Those who are interested will keep it up top, including me. Even if I have to post a reminder

Yeah, I don't plan on letting this thread fade either. I'm motivated to earn us a forum.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 07:47 PM
does Hollinger's CSR ranking make sense when evaluating a shooter? Its adding their 2 pt, 3 pt, and free throw percentage. The first criteria is to require players pass through a couple of fairly low "gates" in at least one season: shooting 85 percent from the line with at least a 45 percent mark on 3s, or shooting 87.5 percent from the line with at least 42.5 percent made on 3s, or shooting 90 percent from the stripe with at least 40 percent made on 3s. His minimum standards are 10,000 minutes played, and 250 three pointers made. The list ended up as following:
Player 2-Pt% 3-Pt% FT% CSR
Steve Nash .515 .431 .903 1.849
Steve Kerr .494 .454 .864 1.812
Reggie Miller .525 .395 .888 1.807
Mark Price .501 .402 .904 1.807
Jeff Hornacek .515 .403 .877 1.795
Chris Mullin .533 .384 .865 1.783
Peja Stojakovic .485 .400 .895 1.779
Larry Bird .509 .376 .886 1.770
Ray Allen .482 .396 .893 1.770
Dana Barros .488 .411 .858 1.757

DenButsu
09-06-2010, 07:57 PM
I guess you're right. I just wish someone besides Durant and Love would consistently play well.

Inconsistency has definitely been a problem. I doubt it will be from here on out, though.

You have to consider a few things:

-Most of the U.S. players on this squad are playing international ball for the first time. That's a pretty major adjustment that takes a lot of getting used to.

-A lot of the guys are also playing fairly different roles than usual (for example Billups is playing SG and sin't running the offense, which he has only done a little bit before with the Nuggets, but it's definitely not his usual comfort zone). So, more adjustments to be made there, too.

-Also, I think there's probably a psychological factor of getting up the intensity for opponents who appear to be so much weaker that they could beat them without really trying. That's what I think we were seeing towards the end of the group round, especially after the U.S. team locked it up. And this is probably the most dangerous pitfall for them.

But I think they'll be okay. They're grooving now.

---------------------------------------------

And just to bring things back on topic and into the realm of statistics, here's John Schuhmann:


USA players talked defense after the game, but I just did the poss. count. Their 121 pts. came on 73 possessions, a ridiculous 165.8 pts/100

USA's highest efficiency in the 2008 Olympics was 141.5 pts / 100 poss, against Australia in the quarters. Also had 140.5 in final vs. ESP.

Interesting: '08 USA team averaged 83.4 offensive possessions per game in Olympics. This team is averaging 76.0. Much slower pace.
http://twitter.com/johnschuhmann


The U.S. moved the ball moved early and often in their possessions, against both man-to-man and zone defenses. The result was 30 assists on their 41 field goals, easily their highest total in any game they've played so far (including five exhibitions).
http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/john_schuhmann/09/06/usa.angola/index.html

Baller1
09-06-2010, 08:00 PM
Inconsistency has definitely been a problem. I doubt it will be from here on out, though.

You have to consider a few things:

-Most of the U.S. players on this squad are playing international ball for the first time. That's a pretty major adjustment that takes a lot of getting used to.

-A lot of the guys are also playing fairly different roles than usual (for example Billups is playing SG and sin't running the offense, which he has only done a little bit before with the Nuggets, but it's definitely not his usual comfort zone). So, more adjustments to be made there, too.

-Also, I think there's probably a psychological factor of getting up the intensity for opponents who appear to be so much weaker that they could beat them without really trying. That's what I think we were seeing towards the end of the group round, especially after the U.S. team locked it up. And this is probably the most dangerous pitfall for them.

But I think they'll be okay. They're grooving now.

---------------------------------------------

And just to bring things back on topic and into the realm of statistics, here's John Schuhmann:


http://twitter.com/johnschuhmann


http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/john_schuhmann/09/06/usa.angola/index.html

Wow, that's pretty crazy to see the type of effiecency they played with offensively compared to the '08 team.

And I agree with you completely, the team should be fine. I'm really hoping Durant can lead them to the Gold, because I feel like it would be an incredible experience to help him in his pursuit for NBA greatness.

arkanian215
09-06-2010, 08:04 PM
does Hollinger's CSR ranking make sense when evaluating a shooter? Its adding their 2 pt, 3 pt, and free throw percentage. The first criteria is to require players pass through a couple of fairly low "gates" in at least one season: shooting 85 percent from the line with at least a 45 percent mark on 3s, or shooting 87.5 percent from the line with at least 42.5 percent made on 3s, or shooting 90 percent from the stripe with at least 40 percent made on 3s. His minimum standards are 10,000 minutes played, and 250 three pointers made. The list ended up as following:
Player 2-Pt% 3-Pt% FT% CSR
Steve Nash .515 .431 .903 1.849
Steve Kerr .494 .454 .864 1.812
Reggie Miller .525 .395 .888 1.807
Mark Price .501 .402 .904 1.807
Jeff Hornacek .515 .403 .877 1.795
Chris Mullin .533 .384 .865 1.783
Peja Stojakovic .485 .400 .895 1.779
Larry Bird .509 .376 .886 1.770
Ray Allen .482 .396 .893 1.770
Dana Barros .488 .411 .858 1.757
That doesn't make sense to me. Sure it's a combined shooting rating. But what does it really say? Not much in my opinion. A 3 point shot is typically harder than a free throw (unless you're Josh Boone, then it's equally hard and often results in air balls). Maybe he should've had all the percentages of the top 100 who qualified for his analysis (if there were even 100 people) and compared their performances in each category compared to the average qualifying player. If only there were stats that took out the inside scoring by some of these players because that doesn't say anything about their shooting ability (mainly for the older players on the list).

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 08:14 PM
That doesn't make sense to me. Sure it's a combined shooting rating. But what does it really say? Not much in my opinion. A 3 point shot is typically harder than a free throw (unless you're Josh Boone, then it's equally hard and often results in air balls). Maybe he should've had all the percentages of the top 100 who qualified for his analysis (if there were even 100 people) and compared their performances in each category compared to the average qualifying player. If only there were stats that took out the inside scoring by some of these players because that doesn't say anything about their shooting ability (mainly for the older players on the list).

his basis, starting with free throws, is that its a fair judgement of how to grade a player's shooting ability, since its the same for everyone.
While I agree, many equations should be weighted, in this case, I kind of agree with Hollinger. consistency in percentages, when adding them together, do indeed reflect efficiency as a shooter.
Comparing averages for those who qualify for a top spot in anything, against the average, is just a statement btw. There is no need here

arkanian215
09-06-2010, 08:40 PM
his basis, starting with free throws, is that its a fair judgement of how to grade a player's shooting ability, since its the same for everyone.
While I agree, many equations should be weighted, in this case, I kind of agree with Hollinger. consistency in percentages, when adding them together, do indeed reflect efficiency as a shooter.
Comparing averages for those who qualify for a top spot in anything, against the average, is just a statement btw. There is no need here

I think showing which quintile each player falls into for each category can be telling. Also, I'm a little disturbed at the way he adds percentages. Somewhere along the line he stops treating them as percentages and says that's their 2p, 3p and ft ratings and they happen to correspond with their percentages.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 08:46 PM
I think showing which quintile each player falls into for each category can be telling. Also, I'm a little disturbed at the way he adds percentages. Somewhere along the line he stops treating them as percentages and says that's their 2p, 3p and ft ratings and they happen to correspond with their percentages.

but its not ratings, he is taking the percentages, period.
And I will agree, there is probably no way to tell who the greatest shooter of all time is, but his list is pretty stout

DCSportsIsPain
09-06-2010, 08:47 PM
his basis, starting with free throws, is that its a fair judgement of how to grade a player's shooting ability, since its the same for everyone.
While I agree, many equations should be weighted, in this case, I kind of agree with Hollinger. consistency in percentages, when adding them together, do indeed reflect efficiency as a shooter.
Comparing averages for those who qualify for a top spot in anything, against the average, is just a statement btw. There is no need here

What Hollinger's formulas never reflect is the number of shots involved. It's much easier for Steve Nash to shoot those percentages when he is taking a lot fewer shots than most of the other names on that list.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 08:49 PM
What Hollinger's formulas never reflect is the number of shots involved. It's much easier for Steve Nash to shoot those percentages when he is taking a lot fewer shots than most of the other names on that list.

eh, I don't agree with that. The pure fact that Nash hits his percentages off the dribble, and he STILL beats the snipers, is a real thing

DCSportsIsPain
09-06-2010, 09:02 PM
eh, I don't agree with that. The pure fact that Nash hits his percentages off the dribble, and he STILL beats the snipers, is a real thing

As only one comparison of many, Reggie Miller has 6,542 more career FGA, 3,047 more career 3PFGA, and 4,173 more career FTA. That's a combined 13,762 more attempts. You're saying that makes no difference to simply combining three raw data figures? I strongly disagree.

arkanian215
09-06-2010, 09:06 PM
...

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 09:08 PM
As only one comparison of many, Reggie Miller has 6,542 more career FGA, 3,047 more career 3PFGA, and 4,173 more career FTA. That's a combined 13,762 more attempts. You're saying that makes no difference to simply combining three raw data figures? I strongly disagree.

yeah, I do disagree. Its not like Nash has a small sample size. The criteria for minimum attempts, etc was set at a reasonable number. You are talking about a SG, who shot a lot, versus a PG, whose job is to be a PG. Of course you would never expect Nash to end up with the number of shot attempts as Reggie Miller.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 09:10 PM
A very different approach to this:
(2PM+3PM+FTM)/(2PA+3PA+FTA)

But only with these limitations: Minutes Played >= 10000 and 3-Pt Field Goal Pct >= .350 and Field Goal Pct >= .450 and Free Throw Pct >= .750

When I filter it by >500 3PM

I could care less about those numbers, because they involve a heavy amount of shots inside 15 feet.

arkanian215
09-06-2010, 09:10 PM
but its not ratings, he is taking the percentages, period.
And I will agree, there is probably no way to tell who the greatest shooter of all time is, but his list is pretty stout

If he's only taking percentages, then he's adding them wrong. CSR doesn't represent a percentage.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 09:14 PM
If he's only taking percentages, then he's adding them wrong. CSR doesn't represent a percentage.

after meeting certain criteria, thats all it does represent really. adding their 2 pt, 3 pt, and free throw percentage. And that is their CSR.

arkanian215
09-06-2010, 09:23 PM
after meeting certain criteria, thats all it does represent really. adding their 2 pt, 3 pt, and free throw percentage. And that is their CSR.

They are ratings though.

I simply added a player's 2-point, 3-point and free throw percentages. We'll call this "Combined Shooting Rating," or CSR for short.http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4672398/hollinger-best-shooters-ever

Otherwise, if he treated them as percentages throughout the entire thing, the sum wouldn't be greater than 1.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 09:35 PM
They are ratings though.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4672398/hollinger-best-shooters-ever

Otherwise, if he treated them as percentages throughout the entire thing, the sum wouldn't be greater than 1.

.5, plus, .4, plus .9, equals 1.8.
its literally first grade math. I think you are over thinking it.

KnicksorBust
09-06-2010, 09:39 PM
As only one comparison of many, Reggie Miller has 6,542 more career FGA, 3,047 more career 3PFGA, and 4,173 more career FTA. That's a combined 13,762 more attempts. You're saying that makes no difference to simply combining three raw data figures? I strongly disagree.


yeah, I do disagree. Its not like Nash has a small sample size. The criteria for minimum attempts, etc was set at a reasonable number. You are talking about a SG, who shot a lot, versus a PG, whose job is to be a PG. Of course you would never expect Nash to end up with the number of shot attempts as Reggie Miller.

Exactly. Nash has taken over 17,000 shots in the regular season. He's not getting lucky out there. Plus, the fact that he simultaneously runs an offense as well and doesn't hurt his percentages should only favor him. It does bring up an interesting point. I'd love to know what percentage of shots certain players take while contested/double teamed/wide open.

arkanian215
09-06-2010, 09:39 PM
.5, plus, .4, plus .9, equals 1.8.
its literally first grade math. I think you are over thinking it.

Yeah you're right. I wasn't thinking at all.:sigh:

Hawkeye15
09-06-2010, 09:52 PM
Yeah you're right. I wasn't thinking at all.:sigh:

haha no worries. After reading your large amount of sample size posts, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when discussing numbers.

And yeah, I am not sure there is a perfect equation to define best shooter, since there are so many types. But Nash is incredible, and I can side with any statistical evidence that says this

PatsSoxKnicks
09-06-2010, 11:53 PM
I know I'm a couple pages late with the USA basketball discussion but I found this:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7336

They've been updating the stats pretty regularly. What I want to know is how is points produced calculated.

Also found this nice introductory article to advanced stats that one of the mods might want to add to the first post:

http://basketballnotebook.blogspot.com/2005/12/basketball-notebook-stats-primer.html

Hawkeye15
09-07-2010, 08:17 AM
I know I'm a couple pages late with the USA basketball discussion but I found this:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7336

They've been updating the stats pretty regularly. What I want to know is how is points produced calculated.

Also found this nice introductory article to advanced stats that one of the mods might want to add to the first post:

http://basketballnotebook.blogspot.com/2005/12/basketball-notebook-stats-primer.html

great find.

PLAY LOVE! Jesus. he is our most efficient player along with Durant

DenButsu
09-07-2010, 09:21 AM
http://basketballnotebook.blogspot.com/2005/12/basketball-notebook-stats-primer.html

Added to the list of sites in the top post. :cheers:

Baller1
09-07-2010, 01:51 PM
I know I'm a couple pages late with the USA basketball discussion but I found this:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7336

They've been updating the stats pretty regularly. What I want to know is how is points produced calculated.

Also found this nice introductory article to advanced stats that one of the mods might want to add to the first post:

http://basketballnotebook.blogspot.com/2005/12/basketball-notebook-stats-primer.html

Nice find.

After looking through that, I think the lineup should be the following:

PG: Westbrook
SG: Rose/Billups (Toss Up)
SF: Durant
PF: Love
C: Chandler

Those are the most efficient players.

xbrackattackx
09-07-2010, 07:41 PM
Nice find.

After looking through that, I think the lineup should be the following:

PG: Westbrook
SG: Rose/Billups (Toss Up)
SF durant
PF: Love
C: Chandler

Those are the most efficient players.

I would like a line up of


PG: Westbrook
SG: Gordon
SF:Durant
PF:Love
C:Chandler

ChiSox219
09-07-2010, 07:57 PM
Inspired by another poster, here is some data on players that were 21 years old as of Feb 1, 2010 and qualified for the scoring title:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=15YDb


Beasley ranked 13th out of 15 players in TS% and took the 3rd most FGA per 36 minutes, behind Rose and Durant.

Hawkeye15
09-07-2010, 08:51 PM
Inspired by another poster, here is some data on players that were 21 years old as of Feb 1, 2010 and qualified for the scoring title:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=15YDb


Beasley ranked 13th out of 15 players in TS% and took the 3rd most FGA per 36 minutes, behind Rose and Durant.

Durant has created so much seperation in his generation of players its unreal. We are all watching the next all time great develop.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-07-2010, 09:09 PM
Inspired by another poster, here is some data on players that were 21 years old as of Feb 1, 2010 and qualified for the scoring title:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=15YDb


Beasley ranked 13th out of 15 players in TS% and took the 3rd most FGA per 36 minutes, behind Rose and Durant.

Gallo's on that list at #5 :D

Baller1
09-07-2010, 09:14 PM
Durant has created so much seperation in his generation of players its unreal. We are all watching the next all time great develop.

I'm clearly a homer, but I agree. It's insane how incredible this kid really is; I mean no one at the age of 21 right now even compares to him. The consensus seems to be that only LeBron, Wade, and Kobe are better at this point. The thing is, all of those guys are over or approaching their 30's (LeBron slightly).

I can't wait for this upcoming season for Durant to show everyone last year was just the start of what he's going to bring to this league over the course of his career.

Baller1
09-07-2010, 09:16 PM
Gallo's on that list at #5 :D

My best friend is a Knicks fan, and he was realy skeptical about Gallo when he was drafted (as was I with Westbrook at the time). But, he kept telling me to just wait and Gallo will prove all the doubters wrong. And we was right, I thought Danilo had a very fine season last year and I'm eager to see how he performs with Amare.

DenButsu
09-07-2010, 09:17 PM
Okay, here's a question for those of you who may have researched this stuff more than me (and I've, for example, never read Dean Oliver's book or any other book on the subject, and I what I do know is pretty much all about the function and application of these stats, but not the formulas and statistics/math that go into generating them).

-------------------------------

So my question is this:

Has there ever been any serious attempt at creating projection models of how well players with currently limited roles would do in more expanded roles?

I was thinking about this this morning, and how it might be possible. So say, for example, at each position there are average field goal percentages, rebound rates, etc for players who start, and then presumably different averages for players coming off the bench. Or, rather than just starter/bench player it could also be broken down in terms of minutes. Or maybe even in terms of field goal attempts per possession (since some role players get significant minutes but don't shoot the ball so much, for example). So then we might be able to quantify some ratios of average efficiency to role.

Now I understand there's a huge problem with my line of thinking here right off the bat, which is that the players who get bigger minutes are the better players, so in that sense it totally throws off what I'm trying to do.

And what I'm trying to do is operate on the assumption that, say, players like Ty Lawson and Arron Afflalo, who were arguably the two most efficient shooters for the Nuggets in their limited roles last season, we can expect to see a certain decrease in efficiency if their roles are expanded.

So, more specifically, what I'm thinking of, is some kind of quantifiable way (probably somewhat inaccurate, I know, and based on averages, but still quantifiable...) to make statements like:

Based on this formula, if Ty Lawson's minutes are increased from 22 to 30, we can project that his eFG% will drop from .559 to _____.

-or-

Based on this formula, if Arron Afflalo's FGAs per 36 minutes increase from 9.4 to 12.0, we can expect his eFG% to drop from .557 to ____.

----------------------------------------

I know this is a little abstract, but just to boil it down to two questions:

1) Do you know if any attempts have been made to come up with anything like this?

2) If not, do you think it would be possible to do so?



Just something I was mulling over... :cool:

Chronz
09-07-2010, 10:02 PM
Okay, here's a question for those of you who may have researched this stuff more than me (and I've, for example, never read Dean Oliver's book or any other book on the subject, and I what I do know is pretty much all about the function and application of these stats, but not the formulas and statistics/math that go into generating them).
I know this is a little abstract, but just to boil it down to two questions:

1) Do you know if any attempts have been made to come up with anything like this?

2) If not, do you think it would be possible to do so?



Just something I was mulling over... :cool:
You really need to check Dean O's book. Its exactly the kind of question he tackles with his "skill curves". He says on average its almost a point for point trade off but totally depends on the individual. There is a certain level of optimal efficiency that players cant exceed but there are also players who no matter what see their skill curves flatline and remain inefficient. Not sure if it tackles MPG but I dont think thats as big of a problem as people make it out to be. Most players see their effectiveness increase with more PT, but I do think the optimal range is 31-35MPG.

Check out Basketball Prospectus Annual Forecast for their Projection Methods. There are 2 big projection models that I know of, Schoene and NBApet or something.

I know Morey hired some kid off the street for developing a sophisticated model to predict 3pt accuracy so if any of us knew how to do that kind of stuff wed be elsewhere but in most cases I find for every increase or loss in usage there is 1.25-2 % drop off in Offensive RTG. Synergy will help with this kind of analysis and it was something I was hoping to jump into as it expands. One thing we should track is how often said player had to create his own shot and his relative success in those situations.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-07-2010, 10:05 PM
Okay, here's a question for those of you who may have researched this stuff more than me (and I've, for example, never read Dean Oliver's book or any other book on the subject, and I what I do know is pretty much all about the function and application of these stats, but not the formulas and statistics/math that go into generating them).

-------------------------------

So my question is this:

Has there ever been any serious attempt at creating projection models of how well players with currently limited roles would do in more expanded roles?

I was thinking about this this morning, and how it might be possible. So say, for example, at each position there are average field goal percentages, rebound rates, etc for players who start, and then presumably different averages for players coming off the bench. Or, rather than just starter/bench player it could also be broken down in terms of minutes. Or maybe even in terms of field goal attempts per possession (since some role players get significant minutes but don't shoot the ball so much, for example). So then we might be able to quantify some ratios of average efficiency to role.

Now I understand there's a huge problem with my line of thinking here right off the bat, which is that the players who get bigger minutes are the better players, so in that sense it totally throws off what I'm trying to do.

And what I'm trying to do is operate on the assumption that, say, players like Ty Lawson and Arron Afflalo, who were arguably the two most efficient shooters for the Nuggets in their limited roles last season, we can expect to see a certain decrease in efficiency if their roles are expanded.

So, more specifically, what I'm thinking of, is some kind of quantifiable way (probably somewhat inaccurate, I know, and based on averages, but still quantifiable...) to make statements like:

Based on this formula, if Ty Lawson's minutes are increased from 22 to 30, we can project that his eFG% will drop from .559 to _____.

-or-

Based on this formula, if Arron Afflalo's FGAs per 36 minutes increase from 9.4 to 12.0, we can expect his eFG% to drop from .557 to ____.

----------------------------------------

I know this is a little abstract, but just to boil it down to two questions:

1) Do you know if any attempts have been made to come up with anything like this?

2) If not, do you think it would be possible to do so?



Just something I was mulling over... :cool:

What your talking about is essentially predictive models I'm assuming. Like an expected eFG% stat, or expected TRR, etc. Funny thing is I was thinking about that a couple pages ago in this same thread lol. I think if you go to that APBRmetrics forum, there are some people there who've done stuff like this.


You really need to check Dean O's book.

I've actually just ordered it and expect it to arrive in a couple of days. I'm looking forward to reading it.

DenButsu
09-07-2010, 10:11 PM
You really need to check Dean O's book. Its exactly the kind of question he tackles with his "skill curves". He says on average its almost a point for point trade off but totally depends on the individual. There is a certain level of optimal efficiency that players cant exceed but there are also players who no matter what see their skill curves flatline and remain inefficient. Not sure if it tackles MPG but I dont think thats as big of a problem as people make it out to be. Most players see their effectiveness increase with more PT, but I do think the optimal range is 31-35MPG.

Check out Basketball Prospectus Annual Forecast for their Projection Methods. There are 2 big projection models that I know of, Schoene and NBApet or something.
What your talking about is essentially predictive models I'm assuming. Like an expected eFG% stat, or expected TRR, etc. Funny thing is I was thinking about that a couple pages ago in this same thread lol. I think if you got to that APBRmetrics forum, there are some people there who've done stuff like this.Thanks for the feedback, guys. I'll definitely check out those sites, and I guess it's time for me to bite the bullet and take my stats game to the next level - or in other words, get and read Dean Oliver's book.

DenButsu
09-07-2010, 10:13 PM
I've actually just ordered it and expect it to arrive in a couple of days. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Just dug this up:

http://www.basketballonpaper.com/

Info about the book. I'll put the link in the top post of this thread, too.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-07-2010, 10:30 PM
http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?p=6936#6936

An example where Shaq hit the first 34 of 48 FTs of the season, did Shaq improve? or was he going to regress to the mean?

Beware, some heavy math involved. And its probably something you'd have to do yourself to fully understand the math.

DenButsu
09-07-2010, 10:55 PM
I just tweaked and tidied up the top post some to make it easier to navigate the various links there. If anyone can recommend any books in addition to Oliver's, it would make for a better, more complete list.

-------------------------

edit - and psk, that is some crazy math that's way over my head. Although I did make the correct guess. :cool:

NYKalltheway
09-07-2010, 10:57 PM
Anyone knows how TENDEX works or what it is?
We have it in Greece and I think it's used in the whole continent over here, but I'm not familiar with how it works & calculates the final figure

EDIT:
It's different from the one some people use on college from what I've seen. They use % while we use a scale that rarely reaches the value of 2.0 and there's also a negative value I think. Anything over 0.800 is considered a very good performance, and 1.500 is really rare, near perfect game

PatsSoxKnicks
09-07-2010, 11:45 PM
I just tweaked and tidied up the top post some to make it easier to navigate the various links there. If anyone can recommend any books in addition to Oliver's, it would make for a better, more complete list.

-------------------------

edit - and psk, that is some crazy math that's way over my head. Although I did make the correct guess. :cool:

Yeah, that was some crazy math. I'd probably have to try to do it out to see if I understand it. The regression stuff is what got me (it's been awhile since I've done any regression analysis), I do understand the binomial distribution.

Although, if you wanted to find out probabilities like that of people hitting so and so percent for the rest of the year, its quite easy to calculate. But coming up with an exact number like he did requires lots and lots of math (I'll be honest, I didn't quite read all of it lol).

Like the probability of Shaq hitting 34+/48 FTs to start the year is insanely low, I'm talking 1%.

http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx

Plug in the career FT% into probability of success on a single trial (if the player is relatively new in the league, your result won't be as accurate since the career FT% is farther away from his true FT%), the number of FTA in number of trials and number of FTM in number of successes.

Like if you want to see the chances of Dwight Howard making 35+ free throws in 48 attempts, you'd plug 35 into number of successes, 48 into number of trials and check the P(X>=35) (it'll be less then 1%).

The thing with this though is that you'd be assuming the career FT% is the exact probability, which it might not be. Although obviously, if you had a very large sample size, it is likely to be pretty close. This kind of thing probably doesn't work well with younger players though.

Now of course, this probably isn't very useful at all but after reading the posts in the APBR forum, I was thinking about it.

Baller1
09-08-2010, 12:19 AM
I'm going to be honest, this math is just starting to get too profound for me. I even took an AP Probability and Statistics class in high school and passed with relative ease, but this is getting so complex.

I'm going to have to step up my game apparently.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 12:30 AM
I'm going to be honest, this math is just starting to get too profound for me. I even took an AP Probability and Statistics class in high school and passed with relative ease, but this is getting so complex.

I'm going to have to step up my game apparently.

The math in the APBR forum or my post? The math in the APBR forum is crazy. I think some of those guys have Masters and PhDs. But if you took an AP Prob and Stat course, didn't you cover the binomial distribution?

But hey, you're not alone, I was spending time in that forum and I felt I really needed to step up my game to even begin to understand some of the stuff in there.

tredigs
09-08-2010, 12:43 AM
The math in the APBR forum or my post? The math in the APBR forum is crazy. I think some of those guys have Masters and PhDs. But if you took an AP Prob and Stat course, didn't you cover the binomial distribution?

But hey, you're not alone, I was spending time in that forum and I felt I really needed to step up my game to even begin to understand some of the stuff in there.

Don't feel overwhelmed that you aren't grasping the inner-workings of the regression analysis on APBR fellas.

The APBR forum definitely hit me as well when I first went there (not that it doesn't still; terrible at regression). Some of those guys are renowned statisticians in the advanced stats community (worldwide) and do indeed have their PhDs and are professors by trade. For example, the guy "Ilardi" who posts on that site is Steve Ilardi: http://www.82games.com/ilardi1.htm
Steve Ilardi is a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Kansas, and former statistical consultant to the KU men’s basketball team under Roy Williams. With the support of assistant coaches Jerod Haase and Ben Miller, Ilardi developed and implemented an adjusted plus-minus model of player evaluation at KU, one similar to the models independently developed by Dan Rosenbaum and Jeff Sagarin. In his ‘day job’, Ilardi is a clinical researcher who has worked to develop a novel, lifestyle-based treatment for depressive illness.

ChiSox219
09-08-2010, 12:45 AM
Durant has created so much seperation in his generation of players its unreal. We are all watching the next all time great develop.

Truth. I'll be shelling out $$$ to see him play when OKC visits Chicago in December.


Don't feel overwhelmed that you aren't grasping the inner-workings of the regression analysis on APBR fellas.

The APBR forum definitely hit me as well when I first went there (not that it doesn't still; terrible at regression). Some of those guys are renowned statisticians in the advanced stats community (worldwide) and do indeed have their PhDs and are professors by trade. For example, the guy "Ilardi" who posts on that site is Steve Ilardi: http://www.82games.com/ilardi1.htm

I took two stats classes in college and most of the time I still can't follow the math. Thankfully, most of those guys do a good job of explaining what the math proves.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 12:56 AM
Don't feel overwhelmed that you aren't grasping the inner-workings of the regression analysis on APBR fellas.

The APBR forum definitely hit me as well when I first went there (not that it doesn't still; terrible at regression). Some of those guys are renowned statisticians in the advanced stats community (worldwide) and do indeed have their PhDs and are professors by trade. For example, the guy "Ilardi" who posts on that site is Steve Ilardi: http://www.82games.com/ilardi1.htm

Oh, I'm not overwhelmed. I've just forgotten a lot (which I do feel ashamed of because it was only 3-4 years ago). I majored in math in college and some of the courses I took were way more difficult then any type of regression analysis (the theoretical stuff which I hated). Regression analysis was covered in some of the earlier stat classes I took, which were awhile ago. Unfortunately, I majored in math math, not applied math. And a lot of the stuff thats fresh on my memory is towards the probability theory side of things. I actually wish I had taken a more advanced statistical analysis course but oh well.

What I'm planning on doing now is learning R, SAS and STATA (yeah I'm a math major and somehow none of my courses used those applications) to help me find a job. I was hoping I could do some kind of tutorial using basketball for the analysis. Not sure where I can find that though.

Baller1
09-08-2010, 01:07 AM
Yeah, you guys are definitely ahead of me at this point. I'm going to be majoring in Business in a couple years (pre-business for now), so I'll unfortunately have to deal with quite a bit of math. I plan on studying up on here for a while to give myself a head start.

tredigs
09-08-2010, 01:14 AM
Oh, I'm not overwhelmed. I've just forgotten a lot (which I do feel ashamed of because it was only 3-4 years ago). I majored in math in college and some of the courses I took were way more difficult then any type of regression analysis (the theoretical stuff which I hated). Regression analysis was covered in some of the earlier stat classes I took, which were awhile ago. Unfortunately, I majored in math math, not applied math. And a lot of the stuff thats fresh on my memory is towards the probability theory side of things. I actually wish I had taken a more advanced statistical analysis course but oh well.

What I'm planning on doing now is learning R, SAS and STATA (yeah I'm a math major and somehow none of my courses used those applications) to help me find a job. I was hoping I could do some kind of tutorial using basketball for the analysis. Not sure where I can find that though.

I gotchya. And yeah, it really is annoying how quickly the math slips when you don't continue to apply it.

Set up a web-cam (or standard 1-way HD video) online tutoring service and promote it on the various sports sites. Baller might be your first client : ]

Baller1
09-08-2010, 01:16 AM
I gotchya. And yeah, it really is annoying how quickly the math slips when you don't continue to apply it.

Set up a web-cam (or standard 1-way HD video) online tutoring service and promote it on the various sports sites. Baller might be your first client : ]

:laugh2:

It's a possibility.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 01:16 AM
Yeah, you guys are definitely ahead of me at this point. I'm going to be majoring in Business in a couple years (pre-business for now), so I'll unfortunately have to deal with quite a bit of math. I plan on studying up on here for a while to give myself a head start.

Well if you run into any difficulty with probability problems, just PM me. I'm pretty good with that stuff. I just don't remember a lot of the regression analysis (mainly how to do it in programs and stuff). I think the most difficult thing is trying to apply the concept to a real life situation.

Baller1
09-08-2010, 01:18 AM
Well if you run into any difficulty with probability problems, just PM me. I'm pretty good with that stuff. I just don't remember a lot of the regression analysis (mainly how to do it in programs and stuff). I think the most difficult thing is trying to apply the concept to a real life situation.

Sounds good, I appreciate it.

Where did you go to school?

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 01:24 AM
I gotchya. And yeah, it really is annoying how quickly the math slips when you don't continue to apply it.

Set up a web-cam (or standard 1-way HD video) online tutoring service and promote it on the various sports sites. Baller might be your first client : ]

Yup. I mean some of the math classes I took, the math intentionally slipped away, as in I don't ever want to remember that course again. And there were a couple of those.

Wow, could you imagine some of the people on this site trying to learn probability and statistics :laugh2:

Whoa, I just realized you thought I wanted to set up a tutorial to teach people. I was actually looking for a tutorial for SAS, R or STAT to teach myself lol. And I was hoping the tutorial used basketball in some way.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 01:25 AM
Sounds good, I appreciate it.

Where did you go to school?

Northeastern

Where are you going?

Baller1
09-08-2010, 01:47 AM
Northeastern

Where are you going?

University of California Riverside.

It's a less prestigious sister school to UCLA and UC Berkley.

My best friend got into UCLA, and I got rejected. Being white is ******** sometimes.

Sadds The Gr8
09-08-2010, 02:11 AM
This math is starting to get a little too intense :confused:

DenButsu
09-08-2010, 02:59 AM
This math is starting to get a little too intense :confused:

It is for me, too. (I suck at math).

Just one more reason a stats forum would be great.

There could be threads dedicated to the more serious number crunching stuff (which personally I'm not too interested in, but obviously others here are), and other threads that are more accessible for the math impaired like myself, who don't really care too much how the formulas are arrived at (as long as there's consensus that they're sound), but are still interested in the use and application of the stats they can calculate.

Hawkeye15
09-08-2010, 07:59 AM
The math in the APBR forum or my post? The math in the APBR forum is crazy. I think some of those guys have Masters and PhDs. But if you took an AP Prob and Stat course, didn't you cover the binomial distribution?

But hey, you're not alone, I was spending time in that forum and I felt I really needed to step up my game to even begin to understand some of the stuff in there.

there is some incredible insight, mathematically, on APBR. I don't even understand some of the models created and explained on some of the forums. Those are indeed PhD's in certain cases. Its been 12 years since I had courses in statistics, so some of the regression I have problems with, understanding it I mean.
Some of the stuff I like in there is the probabilities, and projections put up by some posters.
But frankly, there are a handful in there way beyond my mental capabilities haha. I will continue looking around at it, and try to take more in as well.

We do need to make sure and not turn this totally into a forum like that. it needs to be a mix, or it is going to scare away some of the posters that would like to come in here and learn a few things about advanced numbers.

I will do my best to make sure there is a mix

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 09:56 AM
I've found two more good sources for info:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1120

And

http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=2527

I'll leave it up to DenButsu to choose which of the articles in that forum are worth adding to the front page.

Also, a pretty important concept from basketball-reference (it's in that link I posted):


Skill Curves: Since 100% of team possessions must be used by the offense at all times -- and there is an inverse relationship between %Poss & ORtg -- there is a lot of "extra" offensive value (beyond a player's ORtg, that is) in simply creating shots and using those possessions. This is the idea behind what Dean Oliver called "skill curves" in Basketball on Paper... Basically, as a player's role in the offense increases, his efficiency will go down because he's having to take shots of increasing difficulty; at the same time, he's boosting his teammates' ORtgs because they don't have to take those tough shots anymore. This is why someone like Michael Jordan was so valuable -- he was able to maintain an ORtg of 120-125 even while assuming 30-35% of the Bulls' possessions when on the court, which in turn diverted defensive attention away from his teammates and created easier chances for them as well. So here are some rules of thumb: Players who have both a high ORtg (>110) and a high %Poss (>23) are offensive stars; players with a high ORtg and a low %Poss (<17) are good role players who may be able to take on more possessions and still maintain a reasonable efficiency level; players who have a low ORtg (<104) and a high %Poss are probably not suited well for their role and need to shoot less; finally, players with low marks in both categories are either defensive specialists or scrubs.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 10:06 AM
Looking at Carmelo, he has yet to produce a ORtg >110, although he's been at 110 exactly a couple times. He's literally on the cusp. His poss% is quite a bit higher then 23 though.

arkanian215
09-08-2010, 10:38 AM
Oh, I'm not overwhelmed. I've just forgotten a lot (which I do feel ashamed of because it was only 3-4 years ago). I majored in math in college and some of the courses I took were way more difficult then any type of regression analysis (the theoretical stuff which I hated). Regression analysis was covered in some of the earlier stat classes I took, which were awhile ago. Unfortunately, I majored in math math, not applied math. And a lot of the stuff thats fresh on my memory is towards the probability theory side of things. I actually wish I had taken a more advanced statistical analysis course but oh well.

What I'm planning on doing now is learning R, SAS and STATA (yeah I'm a math major and somehow none of my courses used those applications) to help me find a job. I was hoping I could do some kind of tutorial using basketball for the analysis. Not sure where I can find that though.

Sadly it's times like these when I wish I took microeconometrics rather than time series.:(.

DenButsu
09-08-2010, 10:50 AM
I've found two more good sources for info:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1120

And

http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=2527

I'll leave it up to DenButsu to choose which of the articles in that forum are worth adding to the front page.

Also, a pretty important concept from basketball-reference (it's in that link I posted):

Okay, I added those two pages to the top post, and I think I've finally got it formatted in a way that's clear and easy to navigate.

Oh, and I just ordered Dean Oliver's book from amazon, too.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 11:27 AM
Sadly it's times like these when I wish I took microeconometrics rather than time series.:(.

Are/Were you a math major?

I took a pretty equivalent course to time series (statistics and stochastic processes). The only thing I 100% understood in that class was Markov chains. Unfortunately, we did a lot of proofs in that class (and not enough analysis) so it kind of sucked. But time series is still better then stuff like group theory (hated that class).

I do wish I had gotten to take an econometrics class, would've been a lot more interesting then a lot the other classes I had to take.

arkanian215
09-08-2010, 11:29 AM
this could be useful. Though I do get reminded on a daily basis that as you debate most posters here, and you use info provided on these sites, you get the typical, "I dont care about stats, you must not watch that player because what I say is right" mentality

I think the best thing that comes from a thread/subsection of this topic, is hopefully the fans who don't use, buy into, or listen to stats in an argument, will drop by and maybe learn a thing or two, and use it to help their knowledge of the game
Not very hopeful though.

I like the site you posted, its great for finding areas or zones players should/should not be

Sadly, we can't use them. They're incomplete or at least inconsistent with what other stats sites have. For example, I added up Brook Lopez's rebounds up and they don't add up to the 709 claimed by other stats sites. So either all those other stats sites are wrong or his pbp is incomplete. I'm going with they're incomplete because there's times where players take multiple shots in a row without any rebound occurring. I should've realized this sooner.

This site's pbp isn't usable either: http://basketballvalue.com/downloads.php. It has lapses just like the other one.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 11:39 AM
http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=2532&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

More about the weighted/adjusted assist including an interesting debate.

What I find kind of annoying is that none of these guys pace adjust their stats (well at least in this thread), even though getting at least a rough estimation isn't that difficult.

Sadds The Gr8
09-08-2010, 11:47 AM
It is for me, too. (I suck at math).

Just one more reason a stats forum would be great.

There could be threads dedicated to the more serious number crunching stuff (which personally I'm not too interested in, but obviously others here are), and other threads that are more accessible for the math impaired like myself, who don't really care too much how the formulas are arrived at (as long as there's consensus that they're sound), but are still interested in the use and application of the stats they can calculate.

yea I see. For me finding out how the forumlas work and how the numbers are found is the most exciting part, but this is intense (and I'd say I'm moderate at math, but you're probably better than me i'm still kinda young). I never would've thought people went this deep into math for basketball stats.

DCSportsIsPain
09-08-2010, 11:48 AM
Is it just me or has this thread become so overwhelmed with links to statistics that it has lost the context and purpose of the statistics? It's wonderful that people are bringing all of these numbers and formulas into the discussion but they are not being put into a context fans who usually ignore statistics can understand. It is just starting to sound like a bunch of gobbledygook, as opposed to something with a useful purpose. Maybe we could separate the sources from the discussions or something?

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 11:54 AM
yea I see. For me finding out how the forumlas work and how the numbers are found is the most exciting part, but this is intense (and I'd say I'm moderate at math, but you're probably better than me i'm still kinda young). I never would've thought people went this deep into math for basketball stats.

Just curious but what specifically?

ChiSox219
09-08-2010, 12:00 PM
Sadly, we can't use them. They're incomplete or at least inconsistent with what other stats sites have. For example, I added up Brook Lopez's rebounds up and they don't add up to the 709 claimed by other stats sites. So either all those other stats sites are wrong or his pbp is incomplete. I'm going with they're incomplete because there's times where players take multiple shots in a row without any rebound occurring. I should've realized this sooner.

What the difference between pbp and recorded total?

Sadds The Gr8
09-08-2010, 12:06 PM
Just curious but what specifically?

nothing has really stumped me, but I have had to re-read some of the formulas 2-4 times to understand them. I'm just more surprised that math I thought I'd never see (outside of school, like binomial distribution) would appear here in basketball stats.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 12:06 PM
Speaking of statistical inconsistencies, what's up with bball and hoopdata showing different league average paces?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2010.html

http://www.hoopdata.com/teamadvancedstats.aspx?yr=2010&type=tot

League average at bball ref is 92.7 and at hoopdata its 95.1. Pretty big difference there.

arkanian215
09-08-2010, 12:15 PM
Speaking of statistical inconsistencies, what's up with bball and hoopdata showing different league average paces?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2010.html

http://www.hoopdata.com/teamadvancedstats.aspx?yr=2010&type=tot

League average at bball ref is 92.7 and at hoopdata its 95.1. Pretty big difference there.

Pace: Team Pace: ((FGA - OREB + TO + FTA*0.44 / 82) * (19680 / Minutes)

Pace: 48 * ((Tm Poss + Opp Poss) / (2 * (Tm MP / 5)))

ex: 93.7 vs 91.4 for the Nets

I'm guessing a lot of these sites have different formulas for pace.

Sadds The Gr8
09-08-2010, 12:17 PM
Speaking of statistical inconsistencies, what's up with bball and hoopdata showing different league average paces?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2010.html

http://www.hoopdata.com/teamadvancedstats.aspx?yr=2010&type=tot

League average at bball ref is 92.7 and at hoopdata its 95.1. Pretty big difference there.

good find. I love how it says Knickerbockers on bball-reference. :D

arkanian215
09-08-2010, 12:17 PM
Is it just me or has this thread become so overwhelmed with links to statistics that it has lost the context and purpose of the statistics? It's wonderful that people are bringing all of these numbers and formulas into the discussion but they are not being put into a context fans who usually ignore statistics can understand. It is just starting to sound like a bunch of gobbledygook, as opposed to something with a useful purpose. Maybe we could separate the sources from the discussions or something?

Right now I'm more concerned about getting the right site for pbp. If someone can show me how to automatically import all that pbp data from NBA.com or ESPN.com into a csv that'd be great. Right now the two sites I've tried using for pbp has incomplete/incorrect pbp data.

The sites posted are nice but a bit aimless since we don't have individual threads covering these topics.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 12:20 PM
Pace: Team Pace: ((FGA - OREB + TO + FTA*0.44 / 82) * (19680 / Minutes)

Pace: 48 * ((Tm Poss + Opp Poss) / (2 * (Tm MP / 5)))

ex: 93.7 vs 91.4 for the Nets

I'm guessing a lot of these sites have different formulas for pace.

Yeah, just saw that. Kind of annoying really. I mean 2 possessions could be the difference of 6 points. Which one is a more accurate estimation?

Someone really needs to sit there and just count so we're not getting differing formulas from different sites.

The Hoopdata one is pretty intuitive. I'm assuming the 19680/Minutes adjusts for overtimes. I think I'm going to use that one in the future.




The sites posted are nice but a bit aimless since we don't have individual threads covering these topics.

Thats why we need our own forum.


nothing has really stumped me, but I have had to re-read some of the formulas 2-4 times to understand them. I'm just more surprised that math I thought I'd never see (outside of school, like binomial distribution) would appear here in basketball stats.

Yeah, before visiting that APBR forum, I was thinking the same thing. Although, I'd never really thought about it I suppose.

DenButsu
09-08-2010, 12:26 PM
Is it just me or has this thread become so overwhelmed with links to statistics that it has lost the context and purpose of the statistics? It's wonderful that people are bringing all of these numbers and formulas into the discussion but they are not being put into a context fans who usually ignore statistics can understand. It is just starting to sound like a bunch of gobbledygook, as opposed to something with a useful purpose. Maybe we could separate the sources from the discussions or something?

I understand your feelings about that, and I share them to a certain extent.

As I said previously, I suck at math, and I really don't care how the formulas come into existence, just as long as the main people who concern themselves with such things (and I don't) agree and establish a consensus that yes, X-formula can be said to be a sound representation of Y-event on the basketball court.

And once again I'll say (and I'll keep reiterating this in this thread until it actually happens), this is a great example of why a stats forum is necessary.

Simply put, what we need is separate threads.

For example, in the top post I quoted two posters who made posts in an earlier thread.

The first is from Chronz, explaining why there's a ".44" in the TS% formula.

The second is from patsSOXknicks, describing the difference between assist ratio and assist percentage.

In an NBA Statistics forum, these could be (and would be) separate threads, in which people who are interested in those particular points could read and post, but those who aren't wouldn't need to go in there.

But there would also be a bunch of threads based on the practical application of these stats to the NBA basketball that we watch. I think the top post I made in a recent thread about Nuggets stats is a pretty decent example of this. It mainly asks, "Which Nuggets players have the best TS% and eFG%, and how should we interpret this?"

In a stats forum, there would be ample space to discuss questions like that in isolation, separated from discussions of the particular merits and mathematics of the stats themselves. But there would be space for those as well.

As I see it, the two main functions of this thread are:

1) To create a specific space for the discussion of the more advanced stats, since no other such space currently exists at PSD.

-and-

2) To at the same time generate more interest in this endeavor, and also demonstrate to the site ops and admins that there is enough interest (/and growing interest) in NBA stats as a sphere of discussion unto itself to merit the creation of an NBA Statistics forum.

-------------

So I hope the people who are dabbling with becoming interested in this stuff will stick with it. It's not all about the number crunching. That's only a means to gaining a better understanding of the main event, which is the actual NBA basketball being played that we love to watch. And even learning just some of the basics of this stuff (and I'd consider my own understanding to be just basic) can really open up new insights into the game. It's very worthwhile.

But for now, since we don't have a forum, we pretty much have this one thread. So different people will be using it in different ways. If we get a forum for it, it will only be that much easier to get involved in the parts of the stats talk that are accessible and interesting to you.

arkanian215
09-08-2010, 12:33 PM
Yeah, just saw that. Kind of annoying really. I mean 2 possessions could be the difference of 6 points. Which one is a more accurate estimation?

Someone really needs to sit there and just count so we're not getting differing formulas from different sites.

The Hoopdata one is pretty intuitive. I'm assuming the 19680/Minutes adjusts for overtimes. I think I'm going to use that one in the future.



Thats why we need our own forum.



Yeah, before visiting that APBR forum, I was thinking the same thing. Although, I'd never really thought about it I suppose.

I bet they want us to prove that we deserve our own forum first but if we can't organize our thoughts, how can we prove that we are deserving of our own forum?

Damn PSD's FO. This compromise is bs.

NYKalltheway
09-08-2010, 12:36 PM
nobody knows about the Tendex? :(

DenButsu
09-08-2010, 12:48 PM
Damn PSD's FO. This compromise is bs.

Don't damn them. Convince them.

That's what this thread is here for. It's not a compromise. (I'm not a mod anymore. I just posted this sucker, feeling that the time was ripe and people needed a space for this).

There are legit reasons the site is hesitant to create a new forum.

They're not being dickish, they're not being rude to us. They're just being cautious. No need to pile on.

It's up to us to prove that we can make it worth their while. So let's do that. I think pretty much everything that has happened so far in this thread is contributing to making a convincing case for creating a stats forum.

DenButsu
09-08-2010, 12:53 PM
nobody knows about the Tendex? :(

I've never heard of it. I just googled it and found what I'll post below.

It appears to be a cousin of PER, in the sense that it's a single rating which attempts to sum up as completely as possible a player's overall performance/efficiency.

I have no idea how it stacks up against PER, in what ways it might be more or less reliable. But I would say that when it comes to the NBA, the "Tendex" seems to be largely nonexistent, while "PER" tends to be the dominant overall measure of player efficiency.

Don't know how much that helps, but that's my take, for what it's worth.

-----------------------------------

What I found:


Doug's Tendex Explaination Page

The 'TND' fields is really just my version of the Tendex rating system. Based on the approximate Point-Per-Possession, each statistical category can be related to the game's scoring. Every time you make a basket, you have made 2 points for your team. Every basket you miss, you lose possession, and subsequently lose 1 point for your team (of course, if a team member gets an offensive rebound, that player will gain possession, and 1 TND point).

Players who have a higher TND value than their scoring average will tend to contribute to their team in ways other then scoring (i.e. high assist or rebound players). While the opposite suggets players who's job is mainly to score.

While I IN NO WAY, claim this stat to be an end-all way to rank all the players, I use it to give another data point as to how well a player is contributing to their team.

The current MyTendex formula is:

(PTS - FGmsd - FTmsd/2 + 0.5*m3 + 1.25*st + 1.25*as + bl + reb - 1.25*to - tc - 2*ff - pf/2)
/ GamesPlayed

There is also a TND value normalized to 48 minutes. http://www.dougstats.com/Tendex.html

arkanian215
09-08-2010, 02:55 PM
Don't damn them. Convince them.

That's what this thread is here for. It's not a compromise. (I'm not a mod anymore. I just posted this sucker, feeling that the time was ripe and people needed a space for this).

There are legit reasons the site is hesitant to create a new forum.

They're not being dickish, they're not being rude to us. They're just being cautious. No need to pile on.

It's up to us to prove that we can make it worth their while. So let's do that. I think pretty much everything that has happened so far in this thread is contributing to making a convincing case for creating a stats forum.

Again, how do we organize all the different ideas floating around in one thread? Someone posts three articles on assists and how to read into them. Then that's done with because it's lost in 150+ posts. We need a sub forum of our own to organize ideas.

Is a sub-forum that much to ask for? There's a whole bunch of team forums that have their own sub-forum for their fantasy leagues. Ex: Brewers fantasy league. I'm assuming this has been up since the start of the MLB season. 14 Threads 1,640 posts in how many months? Mets Fantasy League subforum: 22 threads, 276 posts. Rangers "Adopt a Prospect": 54 threads 310 posts. This thread has been up 4 days and has 173 responses already. What makes those sub-forums worthy of existing on PSD and not a basketball stats sub-forum?

ChiSox219
09-08-2010, 03:01 PM
How long before TS% becomes mainstream?

arkanian215
09-08-2010, 03:05 PM
How long before TS% becomes mainstream?

It's on ESPN so that's pretty main stream. It doesn't seem to be on NBA.com though. Whether it'll appear next to FG% on a standard boxscore is another matter.

IndyRealist
09-08-2010, 05:17 PM
I don't know if it's been mentioned (because I don't wanna read through all 12 pages of the thread (THIS NEEDS IT'S OWN FORUM!!!)) but I'm a big fan of Wins Produced, a competing metric to PER that was created by Prof. Dave Berri of Southern Utah University. He's a tenured professor of economics and has written two books, "Wages of Wins" and "Stumbling on Wins" which attempts through mathematics, economics, and anecdotes to quantify sports and winning. The primary differences between PER and WP is that several weights in PER are arbitrarily assigned by John Hollinger, whereas Prof. Berri used regression analysis to determine how much of an impact each individual statistic actually had on winning. Hence, WP can track how much each individual player contributes to winning games. He has a blog here (http://dberri.wordpress.com/).

Some basics of Wins Produced (WP), and Wins Produced per 48 minutes (WP48):

1) The most important factor of WP: if you add up all the WP for every player on the team, you get an accurate estimate of a team's wins that season (usually within 2 wins). Lebron James produced 27.8 wins for the Cavs in 08-09, who had a team total of 64.6 WP according to their stats. That year they had 66 actual wins.
2) A WP48 of .100 is an average player. A WP48 of .200 is a "star" player, and a WP48 of .300 is a superstar player. Lebron James in 08-09 had a WP48 of .436
3) WP focuses on possessions as the deciding factor in games. Things that get you more possessions are weighted heavily, i.e. steals and rebounds.
4) The next most important factor is efficient scoring, not just the volume of scoring. A discussion about PER and efficient scoring can be found here (http://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/11/17/a-comment-on-the-player-efficiency-rating/) The gist is that with PER, you can shoot 35% FG and 25% 3pt, and your PER will go up the more shots you take, depsite the fact that you shoot poorly. Not so with WP.

save the knicks
09-08-2010, 06:00 PM
There is tons great (but not very organized) information in this thread! Thanks to everyone who contributed I've learned a lot!


How long before TS% becomes mainstream?
The problem is most people are not open minded and hate anything that might change there understanding.

I tried explaining TS% to a friend a couple months back and all he did was laugh. He looked at Howard's TS% and said see its just FG% that favors 3pt shooters. I tried explaining about efficiency and got nowhere :(
Also the .44

Sadds The Gr8
09-08-2010, 06:07 PM
How long before TS% becomes mainstream?

Not only that, why isn't any of this stuff mainstream? I think these stats are very important when talking about and comparing players. I don't understand why these stats aren't generally used.

DCSportsIsPain
09-08-2010, 06:14 PM
Not only that, why isn't any of this stuff mainstream? I think these stats are very important when talking about and comparing players. I don't understand why these stats aren't generally used.

A lot of reasons. Most fans don't understand or even care to understand the formulae behind complicated statistical comparisons. The NBA doesn't want anything marketed that might be contrary to the illusion they create of which players are "superstars." God forbid we might find out they aren't as good as the NBA and the media tell us they are. That might affect sales. It's the same reason they tell us it's a sport as opposed to what it really is, sports entertainment. It's a theatre production. If someone says, "LeBron is the best player in the game today" almost everyone agrees without hesitation. Never mind the term "best" is entirely unqualified, unquantified and out of any meaningful context.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 06:51 PM
A lot of reasons. Most fans don't understand or even care to understand the formulae behind complicated statistical comparisons. The NBA doesn't want anything marketed that might be contrary to the illusion they create of which players are "superstars." God forbid we might find out they aren't as good as the NBA and the media tell us they are. That might affect sales. It's the same reason they tell us it's a sport as opposed to what it really is, sports entertainment. It's a theatre production. If someone says, "LeBron is the best player in the game today" almost everyone agrees without hesitation. Never mind the term "best" is entirely unqualified, unquantified and out of any meaningful context.

I might be misunderstanding you but are you saying Lebron isn't the best player in the NBA right now? Who would you say is then?

DCSportsIsPain
09-08-2010, 07:00 PM
I might be misunderstanding you but are you saying Lebron isn't the best player in the NBA right now? Who would you say is then?

I am saying that, in the context of the advanced statistics discussion, if someone were to produce a statistical formula that showed LeBron to be over-rated the NBA would not be quick to promote it. The reason PER is promoted is because it favors the players the NBA wants to promote. For casual fans, BSPN and other major media have a great deal of influence. If the NBA is selling it and BSPN is promoting it that is good enough for many fans.

I think there are enough intelligent people here to create our own comparison formula, in an attempt to eliminate the flaws we seem to be finding with all of the other ones. I further think that if we did so it might show a different result from the one the NBA and BSPN promote. :) Any formula can be manipulated to show the intended result. :D

PatsSoxKnicks
09-08-2010, 07:19 PM
I am saying that, in the context of the advanced statistics discussion, if someone were to produce a statistical formula that showed LeBron to be over-rated the NBA would not be quick to promote it. The reason PER is promoted is because it favors the players the NBA wants to promote. For casual fans, BSPN and other major media have a great deal of influence. If the NBA is selling it and BSPN is promoting it that is good enough for many fans.

I think there are enough intelligent people here to create our own comparison formula, in an attempt to eliminate the flaws we seem to be finding with all of the other ones. I further think that if we did so it might show a different result from the one the NBA and BSPN promote. :) Any formula can be manipulated to show the intended result. :D

I used to use PER quite a bit but I'm not using it as much anymore, if at all because of the way it rewards inefficient shooting. And there's a lot of numbers in the formula that we don't know what they mean. But some of the other stats like Assist Ratio, Rebounding Rate, etc. (which ESPN does have) do make sense intuitively.

And if you sort by Assist Ratio, you'll notice Anthony Carter is 2nd. I doubt ESPN is influencing Ast Ratio to try to show that Anthony Carter is a great PG. There are problems with the statistic but as long as you use it correctly, it's a decent statistic.

And I think you'd be hard pressed to find any advanced statistics (completely independent of ESPN) that wouldn't show Lebron as the best player, be it wins produced, win shares, +/- models, etc.

We could come up with a statistic that shows someone else is the best player in the world but that would be showing bias from our part. And I doubt any of us have PhDs in math. I'm just not seeing how you could come to the conclusion that Lebron isn't the best player. If you do have a legit statistic(s) with the correct math that shows that, please do post it.

The thing you have to remember about statistics is that they try to rip away at the personal biases that we may have. It appears you're not a fan of Lebron because you think he's overhyped by ESPN and maybe he is but that doesn't mean that the statistics that show he's the best player are lying. They're statistics. The way you **** up statistics is by making calculation mistakes or not applying it correctly. Most people won't even look at the players until they feel the statistic correlates with whatever they're trying to find (like wins, or points scored, or points per possession etc.). No one wakes up in the morning thinking, hmm let me find a statistic that shows Lebron is the best player or hmm let me find a statistic that shows Kobe is the best player.

Earlier in this thread actually, I was using Tom Haberstoh's formula for weighted assists to look at some of the notable players (mostly PGs and people who pass a lot). Unfortunately, Haberstroh didn't bother to minutes adjust or pace adjust his statistic (which I thought was a little silly considering how easy it is to do but he might be a busy man, idk). Anyways, I looked at per 40 stats and then pace adjusted the weighted assists and not once did I look at any of the players names or any of the numbers. I was more concentrated on getting the adjustment right. It was only after I was done adjusting it that I took a step back and bothered to look at the numbers.

DenButsu
09-08-2010, 09:21 PM
It's on ESPN so that's pretty main stream. It doesn't seem to be on NBA.com though. Whether it'll appear next to FG% on a standard boxscore is another matter.

It's "on" ESPN to the extent that if you are really looking for it you can dig it up.

But you'll never hear an ESPN announcer mention anything but per game stats during broadcasts. (And that goes for TNT, ABC, etc. as well).

The basics of it are not that complicated or difficult to understand. It would be very easy to introduce to a wide audience, for example, the concept that 3-point shots should be weighted more heavily than 2-point shots because, well, it's more points. Still, they avoid this stuff like the plague even though of course they know (at least some of them do) full well about it. They're really doing basketball fandom a disservice by holding out and not spreading the knowledge.

----------------------

Separately, I do agree with you about the creation of a forum. This thread, hopefully, is ultimately nothing more than a stepping stone to making that happen.

Sadds The Gr8
09-08-2010, 10:34 PM
A lot of reasons. Most fans don't understand or even care to understand the formulae behind complicated statistical comparisons. The NBA doesn't want anything marketed that might be contrary to the illusion they create of which players are "superstars." God forbid we might find out they aren't as good as the NBA and the media tell us they are. That might affect sales. It's the same reason they tell us it's a sport as opposed to what it really is, sports entertainment. It's a theatre production. If someone says, "LeBron is the best player in the game today" almost everyone agrees without hesitation. Never mind the term "best" is entirely unqualified, unquantified and out of any meaningful context.

That is probably true, but for every superstar that gets "exposed" by these stats, other superstars would be made wouldn't there? And the formulas aren't that hard to explain...

arkanian215
09-08-2010, 11:52 PM
That is probably true, but for every superstar that gets "exposed" by these stats, other superstars would be made wouldn't there? And the formulas aren't that hard to explain...

Somewhat. I think a lot of what the league does to pedal these guys is through what they can quantify during games in a way an average fan can understand. It's much easier for an average fan to understand D12 has just grabbed his 10th rebound than D12 has just increased his defensive rebounding percentage to 30%.

With the exception of PER, I don't think there are that many advanced statistics that are actually used by the mainstream sports media. ESPN pushes PER and promotes that as a good way to evaluate overall talent. A lot of folks don't know what goes into that. The average fan doesn't know or care to know. So what happens when they start putting out other ways they can try to quantify overall performance rankings?

DenButsu
09-09-2010, 12:05 AM
Somewhat. I think a lot of what the league does to pedal these guys is through what they can quantify during games in a way an average fan can understand. It's much easier for an average fan to understand D12 has just grabbed his 10th rebound than D12 has just increased his defensive rebounding percentage to 30%.

With the exception of PER, I don't think there are that many advanced statistics that are actually used by the mainstream sports media. ESPN pushes PER and promotes that as a good way to evaluate overall talent. A lot of folks don't know what goes into that. The average fan doesn't know or care to know. So what happens when they start putting out other ways they can try to quantify overall performance rankings?

My main beef with the mainstream sports media is their reliance on per game stats vs. per possession stats. When they say things like "Golden State has one of the best offenses in the league, second in points per game at 108.8", that can quickly and easily be proven wrong by taking pace into account, it is really annoying. (In fact, GSW had a good but far from elite offense, tied for 13th in the league with an offensive efficiency of 105.4. Phoenix, who was first, had 112.7 by comparison).And what makes it even more frustrating is knowing that some of those announcers know damn well that points per game is a flawed measure of a team's offensive or defensive effectiveness, but they spew that crap anyhow.

And really, "teams that play faster score more points more easily because they shoot the ball more" is not that hard a concept to convey. You don't need to get into formulas, you don't need to go too deep to get the basic message across that per possession (adjusted for pace) is the more accurate measure.

Per game stats have their place too, of course, but the announcers of all NBA broadcasters could really do a much better job, and do that without confusing the audience.

kArSoN RyDaH
09-09-2010, 01:30 AM
why is this no longer a sticky thread?

Sadds The Gr8
09-09-2010, 01:47 AM
Somewhat. I think a lot of what the league does to pedal these guys is through what they can quantify during games in a way an average fan can understand. It's much easier for an average fan to understand D12 has just grabbed his 10th rebound than D12 has just increased his defensive rebounding percentage to 30%.

With the exception of PER, I don't think there are that many advanced statistics that are actually used by the mainstream sports media. ESPN pushes PER and promotes that as a good way to evaluate overall talent. A lot of folks don't know what goes into that. The average fan doesn't know or care to know. So what happens when they start putting out other ways they can try to quantify overall performance rankings?

I see what your saying. Some advanced stats are a little bit too in-depth, but I think others can be used just as much as per game stats. Like PER, eFG% or TS%. Analysts can use these stats to hype players more often and give them the credit they deserve. Maybe the average fan would care to know about these advanced stats if they were used more often...

DenButsu
09-09-2010, 02:06 AM
Maybe the average fan would care to know about these advanced stats if they were used more often...

I think so. But apparently sports broadcasters always have to aim for the lowest common denominator instead of giving fans the benefit of the doubt that not only will they understand this stuff, they'll be interested in it and appreciate it once they do.

DenButsu
09-09-2010, 04:31 AM
My latest blog entry. :cool:
--------------------------------------

The Efficiency of the 2009-10 Rookie NBA Point Guards

Using the Player Season Finder at Basketball-Reference (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&is_playoffs=N&year_min=2010&year_max=2010&season_start=1&season_end=1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&lg_id=&franch_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=G&qual=&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=1000&c2stat=g&c2comp=gt&c2val=27&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=ws), I found that 9 rookie point guards in the 2009-10 season played at least 1000 minutes in at least 27 games, and I took this set as the qualified players.

This is essentially a stacked up comparison of these players' efficiency in two general areas, assists and shooting, to see who was the most and least efficient in each area. It is important to note here that "most efficient" does not necessarily imply that a player had the biggest impact. Tyreke Evans rightfully won Rookie of the Year, and Stephen Curry, Brandon Jennings and Darren Collison were also rightfully in the hunt. In terms of sheer production they made bigger differences for their teams than some of the players who were more efficient in specific areas of the game. (And it could even be argued that the more limited roles of some of those players, such as Eric Maynor and Ty Lawson, enabled them to play with greater efficiency).

So, keeping all of that in mind, here first are the assist numbers, ranked by assist ratio. (See the front page of this thread (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=529515) for 's breakdown of the difference between assist ratio and assist percentage).



ASSISTS (Sorted by assist ratio)
Per 36 Minutes Total
Player Ast Ratio AST% TOV% AST TOV AST TOV Ast/Tov
Eric Maynor 35.43 31.5 17.5 7.5 2.4 266 85 3.13
Darren Collison 28.81 32.9 18.9 7.4 3.4 432 202 2.14
Jrue Holiday 28.17 24.4 21.9 5.7 3.2 280 156 1.79
Ty Lawson 27.56 24.2 15.4 5.6 2.2 203 82 2.48
Stephen Curry 24.24 24.6 16.5 5.9 3.0 472 244 1.93
B. Jennings 23.43 29.6 13.0 6.3 2.7 470 200 2.35
Jonny Flynn 21.45 24.7 17.9 5.5 3.6 356 233 1.53
Tyreke Evans 20.70 26.1 13.6 5.6 2.9 414 216 1.92
Toney Douglas 19.05 16.6 11.6 3.7 1.8 112 55 2.04

The first thing that jumps out here is that Maynor's assist ratio pretty much blows everyone else's out of the water. Not only that, but when you consider that he had the most assists per 36 minutes (7.5) combined with the 3rd fewest turnovers per 36 (2.4), he earned an incredibly efficient 3.13 assist/turnover ratio. He clearly separates himself from the pack not only as the most giving passer, but also the best caretaker of the ball.

Lawson and Jennings provide a pretty good example of the contrast between assist ratio and assist percentage that patsSOXknicks has discussed at length. We can see that while Lawson's 27.56 assist ratio tops Jennings' 23.43, Jennings has a higher assist percentage (29.6) than Lawson (24.2). This can likely be attributed to the fact (and patsSOXknicks can surely explain this better than me) that Jennings put in a lot more minutes (32.6 per game to Lawson's 20.2) and also had a higher usage rate (26.1 to Lawson's 18.0).

Let's move on to the shooting stats, which are sorted by ttrue shooting percentage. (Again, an explanation of this can be found on the front page of this thread (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=529515)).


SHOOTING (Sorted by TS%)
Efficiency Per 36 Minutes
Player TS% eFG% PTS FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT%
Ty Lawson .600 .559 14.8 5.5 10.7 .515 0.9 2.3 .410 2.9 3.8 .757
Toney Douglas .571 .545 15.9 5.9 12.9 .458 2.3 5.8 .389 1.8 2.3 .809
Stephen Curry .568 .535 17.4 6.6 14.2 .462 2.1 4.7 .437 2.2 2.5 .885
Darren Collison .546 .506 16.1 6.4 13.5 .477 0.8 2.0 .400 2.5 3.0 .851
Tyreke Evans .529 .473 19.5 7.2 15.7 .458 0.5 1.9 .255 4.7 6.3 .748
Jrue Holiday .526 .502 12.0 4.7 10.6 .442 1.3 3.2 .390 1.3 1.8 .756
Jonny Flynn .511 .457 16.8 6.1 14.7 .417 1.2 3.3 .358 3.4 4.2 .826
Eric Maynor .478 .448 10.8 4.4 10.4 .418 0.6 2 .310 1.5 2.0 .722
B. Jennings .475 .431 17.1 6.1 16.4 .371 2.0 5.2 .374 3 3.7 .817

Ty Lawson is at the top here, although, with Douglas and Curry following close behind, he doesn't establish separation from the pack as distinctly as Maynor does in the assists department.

One thing to be observed here is that, since the TS% formula accounts for the value of 3-point shots and free throws, is that guys who are great at getting to the line (Evans), guys who are great at 3-point shooting (Curry), or guys who are solid at both (Lawson, Collison) reap rewards in their TS% for that.

Additionally, we can see a few flip-flops here, with two players with high assist ratios (Maynor and Holiday) falling to the lower end of the TS% rankings, while Douglas, who fell to the bottom of the bunch in assist ratio, has the second best TS%. Here we can start to see some separation between the more "pure" (pass-first) point guards and the more "shooting guard type" point guards.

The players' true shooting percentages as they relate to their assist ratios are plotted in the chart below:
http://a.imageshack.us/img255/6222/200910rookpgchart.png
Generally speaking, the higher and further right a player is, the more efficient he is. From the light blue diagonal line, the further away to the upper left from it a player is, the more of a "shooting guard type" point guard he is, and the further to the lower right he is, the more of a "true, pass-first" point guard he is. Naturally, of course, this means those closer to the line are more balanced between those styles.

As a Nuggets fan, and a fan of good point guard play in general, one of the things I personally will be most looking forward to this season is seeing if players like Lawson, Maynor and Douglas, who were very efficient in certain areas of their game, can maintain or improve that efficiency while at the same time playing bigger minutes in more expansive roles.

It should be exciting to continue watching the development of what probably will go down as one of the best, if not the best, point guard class in NBA draft history.

save the knicks
09-09-2010, 08:26 AM
Awesome post :clap:

How about adding in some historic players rookie year #s for reference on that chart?

NYKalltheway
09-09-2010, 09:06 AM
I've never heard of it. I just googled it and found what I'll post below.

It appears to be a cousin of PER, in the sense that it's a single rating which attempts to sum up as completely as possible a player's overall performance/efficiency.

I have no idea how it stacks up against PER, in what ways it might be more or less reliable. But I would say that when it comes to the NBA, the "Tendex" seems to be largely nonexistent, while "PER" tends to be the dominant overall measure of player efficiency.


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_514108.html

Portland should have checked this before the draft :laugh2: :laugh2:

Greek Tendex works differently (I think Euroleague uses something very similar to this, much different to the NCAA tendex)

1. Dimitris Mavroeidis 1.991 (29/5/2010)
2. Roy Tarpley 1.941 (21/10/1992)
3. Alexander Volkov 1.921 (19/11/1994)
4. Misan Nikagbatse 1.903 (2/11/2002)

That's all time (ever since they started measuring this)

Just found another stat to compare how this value of 1.9+ is huge:

34.4 minutes of play
32 points
9/12 free throws
7/12 2PT attempts
3/6 3PT attempts
9 fouls won!
3 rebounds
3 turnovers
1 assist
2 steals
1 block

That's a SF in Greek league, Tendex=0.727 !!

In Greece they calculate it like this:

Points scored - Missed free throws - Missed field goals + Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks - Turnovers / Time played

So for the given player that's 32 - 3 - 8 + 3 + 1 + 2 + 1 - 3 /34.4 = 0.727

The Euroleague Tendex(or otherwise just called Rating):

Points + Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks + Fouls won - (Shots missed + Turnovers + Fouls committed + Blocks against)

So that would be:

32 + 3+ 1 + 2 + 1 + 9 - (8 + 3 + 0 + 0) = +37


Not sure which one is better, but I personally I prefer the one where time played is the most important factor for performance statistics ;)

DenButsu
09-09-2010, 09:25 AM
Awesome post :clap:

How about adding in some historic players rookie year #s for reference on that chart?

Hey, you're welcome to build on what I posted. The link to basketball-reference's player season finder is right there in the post. :cool:

arkanian215
09-09-2010, 10:36 AM
Here's something I put together for the fourth best center in the league.

Here are some of the more popular choices for #4. These are their performances against the "best" defenses in the league. By best I mean, when adjusting for pace, the team that gives up the fewest points per game is the best defensive team, second fewest -> second best defensive team and so on. I took their performances against the top 15 defensive teams in the league.


Player Games Min FG FGA FG% TS% FT FTA OReb TReb Asts Blks PFs Pts
Andrew Bynum 27 30.2 157 289 54.33% 57.66% 2.5 3.6 3.0 8.4 1.1 1.4 1.6 14.1
Marc Gasol 31 35.4 146 268 54.48% 59.57% 3.8 5.6 2.7 8.9 2.1 1.5 2.0 13.2
Brook Lopez 42 37.5 281 573 49.04% 56.95% 5.4 6.5 3.1 8.3 2.0 1.4 2.5 18.8
Joakim Noah 32 30.2 131 260 50.38% 56.09% 2.6 3.3 3.1 10.3 1.9 1.6 1.7 10.8



I think by restricting it to the games they play against at least half decent defenses we can see their scoring and rebounding abilities the best. I didn't really know how to gauge their individual contribution on the defensive end. Do I take the points scored by the opposing center despite both of them not being on the court at the same time? Also there's an issue on pick and rolls. If the ball handler gets by his defender on the screen, he becomes the 5's responsibility to guard him. Do I take the total points scored against the team? That brings up how much the other players contribute to the team's defense.

Also how much do we attribute their scoring abilities to the players around them?

PatsSoxKnicks
09-09-2010, 01:43 PM
My latest blog entry. :cool:
--------------------------------------

The Efficiency of the 2009-10 Rookie NBA Point Guards

Using the Player Season Finder at Basketball-Reference (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&is_playoffs=N&year_min=2010&year_max=2010&season_start=1&season_end=1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&lg_id=&franch_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=G&qual=&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=1000&c2stat=g&c2comp=gt&c2val=27&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=ws), I found that 9 rookie point guards in the 2009-10 season played at least 1000 minutes in at least 27 games, and I took this set as the qualified players.

This is essentially a stacked up comparison of these players' efficiency in two general areas, assists and shooting, to see who was the most and least efficient in each area. It is important to note here that "most efficient" does not necessarily imply that a player had the biggest impact. Tyreke Evans rightfully won Rookie of the Year, and Stephen Curry, Brandon Jennings and Darren Collison were also rightfully in the hunt. In terms of sheer production they made bigger differences for their teams than some of the players who were more efficient in specific areas of the game. (And it could even be argued that the more limited roles of some of those players, such as Eric Maynor and Ty Lawson, enabled them to play with greater efficiency).

So, keeping all of that in mind, here first are the assist numbers, ranked by assist ratio. (See the front page of this thread (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=529515) for 's breakdown of the difference between assist ratio and assist percentage).



ASSISTS (Sorted by assist ratio)
Per 36 Minutes Total
Player Ast Ratio AST% TOV% AST TOV AST TOV Ast/Tov
Eric Maynor 35.43 31.5 17.5 7.5 2.4 266 85 3.13
Darren Collison 28.81 32.9 18.9 7.4 3.4 432 202 2.14
Jrue Holiday 28.17 24.4 21.9 5.7 3.2 280 156 1.79
Ty Lawson 27.56 24.2 15.4 5.6 2.2 203 82 2.48
Stephen Curry 24.24 24.6 16.5 5.9 3.0 472 244 1.93
B. Jennings 23.43 29.6 13.0 6.3 2.7 470 200 2.35
Jonny Flynn 21.45 24.7 17.9 5.5 3.6 356 233 1.53
Tyreke Evans 20.70 26.1 13.6 5.6 2.9 414 216 1.92
Toney Douglas 19.05 16.6 11.6 3.7 1.8 112 55 2.04

The first thing that jumps out here is that Maynor's assist ratio pretty much blows everyone else's out of the water. Not only that, but when you consider that he had the most assists per 36 minutes (7.5) combined with the 3rd fewest turnovers per 36 (2.4), he earned an incredibly efficient 3.13 assist/turnover ratio. He clearly separates himself from the pack not only as the most giving passer, but also the best caretaker of the ball.

Lawson and Jennings provide a pretty good example of the contrast between assist ratio and assist percentage that patsSOXknicks has discussed at length. We can see that while Lawson's 27.56 assist ratio tops Jennings' 23.43, Jennings has a higher assist percentage (29.6) than Lawson (24.2). This can likely be attributed to the fact (and patsSOXknicks can surely explain this better than me) that Jennings put in a lot more minutes (32.6 per game to Lawson's 20.2) and also had a higher usage rate (26.1 to Lawson's 18.0).

Let's move on to the shooting stats, which are sorted by ttrue shooting percentage. (Again, an explanation of this can be found on the front page of this thread (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=529515)).


SHOOTING (Sorted by TS%)
Efficiency Per 36 Minutes
Player TS% eFG% PTS FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT%
Ty Lawson .600 .559 14.8 5.5 10.7 .515 0.9 2.3 .410 2.9 3.8 .757
Toney Douglas .571 .545 15.9 5.9 12.9 .458 2.3 5.8 .389 1.8 2.3 .809
Stephen Curry .568 .535 17.4 6.6 14.2 .462 2.1 4.7 .437 2.2 2.5 .885
Darren Collison .546 .506 16.1 6.4 13.5 .477 0.8 2.0 .400 2.5 3.0 .851
Tyreke Evans .529 .473 19.5 7.2 15.7 .458 0.5 1.9 .255 4.7 6.3 .748
Jrue Holiday .526 .502 12.0 4.7 10.6 .442 1.3 3.2 .390 1.3 1.8 .756
Jonny Flynn .511 .457 16.8 6.1 14.7 .417 1.2 3.3 .358 3.4 4.2 .826
Eric Maynor .478 .448 10.8 4.4 10.4 .418 0.6 2 .310 1.5 2.0 .722
B. Jennings .475 .431 17.1 6.1 16.4 .371 2.0 5.2 .374 3 3.7 .817

Ty Lawson is at the top here, although, with Douglas and Curry following close behind, he doesn't establish separation from the pack as distinctly as Maynor does in the assists department.

One thing to be observed here is that, since the TS% formula accounts for the value of 3-point shots and free throws, is that guys who are great at getting to the line (Evans), guys who are great at 3-point shooting (Curry), or guys who are solid at both (Lawson, Collison) reap rewards in their TS% for that.

Additionally, we can see a few flip-flops here, with two players with high assist ratios (Maynor and Holiday) falling to the lower end of the TS% rankings, while Douglas, who fell to the bottom of the bunch in assist ratio, has the second best TS%. Here we can start to see some separation between the more "pure" (pass-first) point guards and the more "shooting guard type" point guards.

The players' true shooting percentages as they relate to their assist ratios are plotted in the chart below:
http://a.imageshack.us/img255/6222/200910rookpgchart.png
Generally speaking, the higher and further right a player is, the more efficient he is. From the light blue diagonal line, the further away to the upper left from it a player is, the more of a "shooting guard type" point guard he is, and the further to the lower right he is, the more of a "true, pass-first" point guard he is. Naturally, of course, this means those closer to the line are more balanced between those styles.

As a Nuggets fan, and a fan of good point guard play in general, one of the things I personally will be most looking forward to this season is seeing if players like Lawson, Maynor and Douglas, who were very efficient in certain areas of their game, can maintain or improve that efficiency while at the same time playing bigger minutes in more expansive roles.

It should be exciting to continue watching the development of what probably will go down as one of the best, if not the best, point guard class in NBA draft history.

Great post!

If you would like I can throw these guys in to the spreadsheet I have and calculate their weighted assists (it was a post somewhere earlier in this thread) and that will basically tell us who's passing to the most efficient areas of the floor, plus I've adjusted for pace. You can pick which one of the pace adjusted stats you prefer.

D-Will4Prez
09-09-2010, 01:47 PM
Maynor is such a beast. Still sad we traded him away to save 6mil.

thekmp211
09-09-2010, 01:52 PM
lucky enough to see maynor play in college for four years in our conference. they guy's a stud, i hope he gets a chance to start one day, although he fits perfectly behind rus westbrook.

i've read a lot of this, and i think there are just so many different statistics, and opinions, and interpretations, that one thread cannot do this justice. i have a lot to say but at this point don't really know what to start. what is the big deal about starting a sub-forum? no guarantee that people will go to it?

Baller1
09-09-2010, 03:25 PM
My latest blog entry. :cool:
--------------------------------------

The Efficiency of the 2009-10 Rookie NBA Point Guards

Using the Player Season Finder at Basketball-Reference (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&is_playoffs=N&year_min=2010&year_max=2010&season_start=1&season_end=1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&lg_id=&franch_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=G&qual=&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=1000&c2stat=g&c2comp=gt&c2val=27&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=ws), I found that 9 rookie point guards in the 2009-10 season played at least 1000 minutes in at least 27 games, and I took this set as the qualified players.

This is essentially a stacked up comparison of these players' efficiency in two general areas, assists and shooting, to see who was the most and least efficient in each area. It is important to note here that "most efficient" does not necessarily imply that a player had the biggest impact. Tyreke Evans rightfully won Rookie of the Year, and Stephen Curry, Brandon Jennings and Darren Collison were also rightfully in the hunt. In terms of sheer production they made bigger differences for their teams than some of the players who were more efficient in specific areas of the game. (And it could even be argued that the more limited roles of some of those players, such as Eric Maynor and Ty Lawson, enabled them to play with greater efficiency).

So, keeping all of that in mind, here first are the assist numbers, ranked by assist ratio. (See the front page of this thread (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=529515) for 's breakdown of the difference between assist ratio and assist percentage).



ASSISTS (Sorted by assist ratio)
Per 36 Minutes Total
Player Ast Ratio AST% TOV% AST TOV AST TOV Ast/Tov
Eric Maynor 35.43 31.5 17.5 7.5 2.4 266 85 3.13
Darren Collison 28.81 32.9 18.9 7.4 3.4 432 202 2.14
Jrue Holiday 28.17 24.4 21.9 5.7 3.2 280 156 1.79
Ty Lawson 27.56 24.2 15.4 5.6 2.2 203 82 2.48
Stephen Curry 24.24 24.6 16.5 5.9 3.0 472 244 1.93
B. Jennings 23.43 29.6 13.0 6.3 2.7 470 200 2.35
Jonny Flynn 21.45 24.7 17.9 5.5 3.6 356 233 1.53
Tyreke Evans 20.70 26.1 13.6 5.6 2.9 414 216 1.92
Toney Douglas 19.05 16.6 11.6 3.7 1.8 112 55 2.04

The first thing that jumps out here is that Maynor's assist ratio pretty much blows everyone else's out of the water. Not only that, but when you consider that he had the most assists per 36 minutes (7.5) combined with the 3rd fewest turnovers per 36 (2.4), he earned an incredibly efficient 3.13 assist/turnover ratio. He clearly separates himself from the pack not only as the most giving passer, but also the best caretaker of the ball.

Lawson and Jennings provide a pretty good example of the contrast between assist ratio and assist percentage that patsSOXknicks has discussed at length. We can see that while Lawson's 27.56 assist ratio tops Jennings' 23.43, Jennings has a higher assist percentage (29.6) than Lawson (24.2). This can likely be attributed to the fact (and patsSOXknicks can surely explain this better than me) that Jennings put in a lot more minutes (32.6 per game to Lawson's 20.2) and also had a higher usage rate (26.1 to Lawson's 18.0).

Let's move on to the shooting stats, which are sorted by ttrue shooting percentage. (Again, an explanation of this can be found on the front page of this thread (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=529515)).


SHOOTING (Sorted by TS%)
Efficiency Per 36 Minutes
Player TS% eFG% PTS FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT%
Ty Lawson .600 .559 14.8 5.5 10.7 .515 0.9 2.3 .410 2.9 3.8 .757
Toney Douglas .571 .545 15.9 5.9 12.9 .458 2.3 5.8 .389 1.8 2.3 .809
Stephen Curry .568 .535 17.4 6.6 14.2 .462 2.1 4.7 .437 2.2 2.5 .885
Darren Collison .546 .506 16.1 6.4 13.5 .477 0.8 2.0 .400 2.5 3.0 .851
Tyreke Evans .529 .473 19.5 7.2 15.7 .458 0.5 1.9 .255 4.7 6.3 .748
Jrue Holiday .526 .502 12.0 4.7 10.6 .442 1.3 3.2 .390 1.3 1.8 .756
Jonny Flynn .511 .457 16.8 6.1 14.7 .417 1.2 3.3 .358 3.4 4.2 .826
Eric Maynor .478 .448 10.8 4.4 10.4 .418 0.6 2 .310 1.5 2.0 .722
B. Jennings .475 .431 17.1 6.1 16.4 .371 2.0 5.2 .374 3 3.7 .817

Ty Lawson is at the top here, although, with Douglas and Curry following close behind, he doesn't establish separation from the pack as distinctly as Maynor does in the assists department.

One thing to be observed here is that, since the TS% formula accounts for the value of 3-point shots and free throws, is that guys who are great at getting to the line (Evans), guys who are great at 3-point shooting (Curry), or guys who are solid at both (Lawson, Collison) reap rewards in their TS% for that.

Additionally, we can see a few flip-flops here, with two players with high assist ratios (Maynor and Holiday) falling to the lower end of the TS% rankings, while Douglas, who fell to the bottom of the bunch in assist ratio, has the second best TS%. Here we can start to see some separation between the more "pure" (pass-first) point guards and the more "shooting guard type" point guards.

The players' true shooting percentages as they relate to their assist ratios are plotted in the chart below:
http://a.imageshack.us/img255/6222/200910rookpgchart.png
Generally speaking, the higher and further right a player is, the more efficient he is. From the light blue diagonal line, the further away to the upper left from it a player is, the more of a "shooting guard type" point guard he is, and the further to the lower right he is, the more of a "true, pass-first" point guard he is. Naturally, of course, this means those closer to the line are more balanced between those styles.

As a Nuggets fan, and a fan of good point guard play in general, one of the things I personally will be most looking forward to this season is seeing if players like Lawson, Maynor and Douglas, who were very efficient in certain areas of their game, can maintain or improve that efficiency while at the same time playing bigger minutes in more expansive roles.

It should be exciting to continue watching the development of what probably will go down as one of the best, if not the best, point guard class in NBA draft history.

I'm so glad you brought up something that portrays Maynor's great play! I never like to bring him up because I get enough **** about hyping up Westbrook, but Maynor is such a smart player and I feel really comfortable with him running the offense while Westbrook gets his rest.

Good stuff Den, great post.

Baller1
09-09-2010, 03:27 PM
It seems like everyone likes Maynor.

Now I can start making more homer statements about him. Yay!

Chronz
09-09-2010, 05:21 PM
Anyone care to tackle the top 5 Best Offensive/Defensive Teams question?

DenButsu
09-09-2010, 07:50 PM
Great post!

If you would like I can throw these guys in to the spreadsheet I have and calculate their weighted assists (it was a post somewhere earlier in this thread) and that will basically tell us who's passing to the most efficient areas of the floor, plus I've adjusted for pace. You can pick which one of the pace adjusted stats you prefer.

Sure, I'd love to see it broken down further. In what way(s)? I'll leave it up to you. :cool:


Here's something I put together for the fourth best center in the league.

Here are some of the more popular choices for #4. These are their performances against the "best" defenses in the league. By best I mean, when adjusting for pace, the team that gives up the fewest points per game is the best defensive team, second fewest -> second best defensive team and so on. I took their performances against the top 15 defensive teams in the league.


Player Games Min FG FGA FG% TS% FT FTA OReb TReb Asts Blks PFs Pts
Andrew Bynum 27 30.2 157 289 54.33% 57.66% 2.5 3.6 3.0 8.4 1.1 1.4 1.6 14.1
Marc Gasol 31 35.4 146 268 54.48% 59.57% 3.8 5.6 2.7 8.9 2.1 1.5 2.0 13.2
Brook Lopez 42 37.5 281 573 49.04% 56.95% 5.4 6.5 3.1 8.3 2.0 1.4 2.5 18.8
Joakim Noah 32 30.2 131 260 50.38% 56.09% 2.6 3.3 3.1 10.3 1.9 1.6 1.7 10.8



I think by restricting it to the games they play against at least half decent defenses we can see their scoring and rebounding abilities the best. I didn't really know how to gauge their individual contribution on the defensive end. Do I take the points scored by the opposing center despite both of them not being on the court at the same time? Also there's an issue on pick and rolls. If the ball handler gets by his defender on the screen, he becomes the 5's responsibility to guard him. Do I take the total points scored against the team? That brings up how much the other players contribute to the team's defense.

Also how much do we attribute their scoring abilities to the players around them?

Nice post, ark. Interesting how similar all their TS%ages are.

arkanian215
09-09-2010, 08:23 PM
Anyone care to tackle the top 5 Best Offensive/Defensive Teams question?

I dunno. I thought it'd be the top PPG and oPPG in the league after adjusting for pace. Then I thought but about what if they constantly play inept offensive/defensive teams more often than others. We could do something to filter those teams that can't produce points over 82 games from the best defensive teams and similarly for the best offensive teams. I'll give it a try sometime.

DenButsu
09-09-2010, 08:46 PM
Anyone care to tackle the top 5 Best Offensive/Defensive Teams question?

Why do I feel like this is a pop quiz that I might fail? :laugh2:

I guess my main question would be: What other factors, beyond the main offensive and defensive efficiency ratings, should be taken into consideration? And then, how heavily should the various factors considered be weighted?

For example, looking at hoopdata's info on the 4 factors (http://hoopdata.com/teamadvancedstats.aspx), Phoenix has clear separation of having the best offensive efficiency rating (112.7) and eFG% (54.57).

But then they are 11th in free throw rate (31.2), 17th in turnover rate (13.55), and 10th in offensive rebound rate (27.57). Is not being elite across the board in factors such as these enough to knock them off their pedestal as being the #1 offense?

I honestly don't know, but I'd suspect it might be so. Orlando and Cleveland seem like they could be candidates that are a little more consistent across more areas.

arkanian215
09-09-2010, 08:54 PM
Why do I feel like this is a pop quiz that I might fail? :laugh2:

I guess my main question would be: What other factors, beyond the main offensive and defensive efficiency ratings, should be taken into consideration? And then, how heavily should the various factors considered be weighted?

For example, looking at hoopdata's info on the 4 factors (http://hoopdata.com/teamadvancedstats.aspx), Phoenix has clear separation of having the best offensive efficiency rating (112.7) and eFG% (54.57).

But then they are 11th in free throw rate (31.2), 17th in turnover rate (13.55), and 10th in offensive rebound rate (27.57). Is not being elite across the board in factors such as these enough to knock them off their pedestal as being the #1 offense?

I honestly don't know, but I'd suspect it might be so. Orlando and Cleveland seem like they could be candidates that are a little more consistent across more areas.

Yeah your efficiency argument makes sense.

Chronz
09-10-2010, 12:22 AM
lol no pop quiz, the beauty of stats is that they can be interpreted differently so Im not trying to say theres a clear cut answer, but there are definitely easy tiers to group teams in. Just wondering what the consensus top 5 looks like.

You could approach this different ways but a straight look at defensive efficiency isnt the best route. Rule changes and random year-year fluctuations change league averages on their own, defending at 99PPP clip in an environment where the league average is 103 isnt as impressive as doing so in a 105 league. So Defensive Eff. Above LG Average is the first step. Addressing Playoff Success and individual lineups are a more difficult process.

So what are the top 5 of all time in your guys book.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-10-2010, 12:57 AM
Sure, I'd love to see it broken down further. In what way(s)? I'll leave it up to you. :cool:


Sorted by wAbLAP


per 36 minutes
Ast wA difference wAbLAP wAp100
Eric (UTH) 8.0 8.37 0.37 8.26 11.58
Collison 7.4 7.69 0.29 7.72 10.82
Eric (OKC) 7.4 7.55 0.15 7.53 10.55
Jennings 6.3 6.58 0.28 6.63 9.30
LA PG 5.85 6.03 0.18 6.03 8.46
Jrue 5.7 5.87 0.17 5.95 8.34
Lawson 5.6 5.80 0.20 5.66 7.94
Curry 5.9 6.09 0.19 5.63 7.89
Evans 5.6 5.64 0.04 5.55 7.78
Flynn 5.5 5.66 0.16 5.45 7.64
Douglas 3.7 3.91 0.21 3.87 5.42




This is Tom Haberstroh's weighted assist stat except calculated for per 36 minutes and adjusted for pace.
wAbLAP is weighted assists based on league average pace.
wAp100 is weighted assists per 100 possessions.
LA PG is the league average PG.

Something to keep in mind is that when I pace adjusted these stats, I used the team's pace to adjust the numbers. Please note that since some of these guys are backup point guards (and since PG do control the pace quite a bit), the pace that their teams play at may be a little different from when the starter is in there. Although, I would imagine that the difference wouldn't be that much (I could be wrong) so I think the way I adjusted these stats for pace would be ok.

I covered how I calculated these stats earlier in this thread but if anyone wants me to post the exact way I did these calculations let me know and I'll post it.

And DenButsu, feel free to use these stats in your blog if you want.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-10-2010, 01:36 AM
^ After looking at these stats I posted, you can see Eric Maynor was getting the ball to his teammates in more efficient areas in Utah and that likely has to do with the fact that Utah has more shooters then OKC.

Jennings and Collison seem to be doing a good job getting the ball to efficient areas of the court and obviously having their teammates make it (thats why it would be nice to be able to include "potential assists" in this).

Evans doesn't seem to be doing a good job at passing to the efficient areas of the floor. That probably has to do with the lack of a big man and not many shooters around him. I would imagine the Kings rank pretty high in long 2 pointers attempted.

When you adjust for pace, you can see just how much Golden State's pace inflates Curry's assist totals (by about 1/2 an assist).

For those of you who are fans of the players who are below league average PG level assist wise, don't feel too bad, these guys are all rookies and are likely to improve. And none of them, with the exception of Douglas, are that far off from league average PG level.

Baller1
09-10-2010, 12:16 PM
^ After looking at these stats I posted, you can see Eric Maynor was getting the ball to his teammates in more efficient areas in Utah and that likely has to do with the fact that Utah has more shooters then OKC.

Jennings and Collison seem to be doing a good job getting the ball to efficient areas of the court and obviously having their teammates make it (thats why it would be nice to be able to include "potential assists" in this).

Evans doesn't seem to be doing a good job at passing to the efficient areas of the floor. That probably has to do with the lack of a big man and not many shooters around him. I would imagine the Kings rank pretty high in long 2 pointers attempted.

When you adjust for pace, you can see just how much Golden State's pace inflates Curry's assist totals (by about 1/2 an assist).

For those of you who are fans of the players who are below league average PG level assist wise, don't feel too bad, these guys are all rookies and are likely to improve. And none of them, with the exception of Douglas, are that far off from league average PG level.

Which completely negates the popular arguement that Westbrook has high assists numbers because of Kevin Durant.

I love advanced statistics.

Baller1
09-10-2010, 12:17 PM
Oh, and just throwing it out there. I probably won't be posting very much in here, but rather just observing. Some of you are clearly on another level in the statistics and mathematics department, so I'm going to sit back and just try to take it all in for now.

DenButsu
09-10-2010, 12:54 PM
Oh, and just throwing it out there. I probably won't be posting very much in here, but rather just observing. Some of you are clearly on another level in the statistics and mathematics department, so I'm going to sit back and just try to take it all in for now.

You shouldn't hesitate to post in here.

In this thread (and hopefully someday soon we can say, "in this forum..."), there will be some who are deeply steeped in knowledge of advanced stats (including, in some cases, the math stuff), some who are just getting their first introduction to these concepts, and probably many more (myself included) somewhere between those two extremes, having had some exposure to and discussion of some of the main points, but still with much to learn and figure out.

But I think everyone basically shares the same goal, which is to try to figure out the best ways of analyzing NBA players, teams and games so we can arrive at the best, most accurate and detailed understandings of the game we love to watch.

I think most people who care about this stuff think it's important for more NBA fans to catch onto it, and respect the efforts of people who open their minds to learning about it.

Anyone who has questions about any of this should definitely post them in here. I think you'll find that there are plenty of people who will try to help explain the answers.

Baller1
09-10-2010, 01:17 PM
Yeah I shouldn't say I'm not going to post in here, that isn't really what I meant. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of not posting any stats for the time being, and just take a more observational approach to this thread.

I'm fairly confident in my intelligence, and feel like I can contribute to such a profound thread. But not at this time. So I think I'm just gonna sit back and try to comprehend the formulas and analysis that go into all of these statistics.

TopsyTurvy
09-10-2010, 02:31 PM
Here's a rather novel approach to the game of soccer which could be form fit to any sport. The approach involves creating a social network nodal map ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network ) based around the calculated centrality of a flowing system.

The article was published by a Northwestern graduate student who evaluated the 2008 Euro Cup Tournament and can be viewed in its entirety here:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010937

The article begins by describing the methodology (w/linked figures):


To capture the influence of a given player on a match, we construct a directed network of “ball flow” among the players of a team. In this network, nodes represent players and arcs are weighted according to the number of passes successfully completed between two players. We also incorporate shooting information by including two non-player nodes, “shots to goal” and “shots wide”. A player's node is connected to these two nodes by arcs weighted according to the number of shots. We refer to the resulting networks as “flow networks”, and we build networks for the two teams in every match of the tournament.

Figures (http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010937&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010937.g001#)

Now think of a similar network binned from the more statistically comprehensive sport like Basketball or Football.

The article continues by capturing defensive performance in the flowing game (not unlike basketball):


Combining the flow network with the passing and shooting accuracy of the players, we obtain the probability that each path definable on the network finishes with a shot. This procedure suggests a natural measure of performance of a player — the betweenness centrality [11] of the player with regard to the opponent's goal, which we denote as flow centrality. The flow centrality captures the fraction of times that a player intervenes in those paths that result in a shot. We take into account defensive efficiency by letting each player start a number of paths proportional to the number of balls that he recovers during the match.


It is visually apparent that there is a substantially larger mean for the cases where the team with the highest performance wins the match.

With further testing:


(This) suggests that the value of (delta) is correlated with the outcome of a match and thus can be used as an objective measure of performance.

After evaluating the result of games based upon the sum of player performances, the article continues by creating a visualization of that performance and both the ball flow and resulting effectiveness of each player.

The end result can be seen here (it's a soccer team, each node represents a player):

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/journal_pone_0010937_g005.jpg

A similar model applied in basketball would yield very interesting results as nodes (players) could be swapped out, shut off (think lock down man defense), or restricted (never allowing Kobe to pass to Gasol) and the statistical input is even more comprehensive. You could also couple the modeling with hypothetical data to yield a comparison based upon scout info on upcoming draft-talent (of course this interjects bias) or to evaluate the potential performance of traded player.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-10-2010, 02:32 PM
Hmm, did anyone notice that on hoopdata, there's a mistake in the formula they show to calculate Assist ratio?

For possessions, it says to calculate FGA + (FTA * .44) + TO when the actual formula is FGA + (FTA * .44) + TO + AST. Don't worry, they appear to be calculating their numbers correctly (including assists, I tried it out with Westbrook) but they're just not showing the right formula.

Baller1
09-10-2010, 02:51 PM
Hmm, did anyone notice that on hoopdata, there's a mistake in the formula they show to calculate Assist ratio?

For possessions, it says to calculate FGA + (FTA * .44) + TO when the actual formula is FGA + (FTA * .44) + TO + AST. Don't worry, they appear to be calculating their numbers correctly (including assists, I tried it out with Westbrook) but they're just not showing the right formula.

Where does the .44 come from in that formula? I think it might have been you who explained it earlier in the thread but I forgot.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-10-2010, 02:54 PM
Where does the .44 come from in that formula? I think it might have been you who explained it earlier in the thread but I forgot.

Chronz explained it. It's in the first post of this thread.

arkanian215
09-10-2010, 08:41 PM
Here's a rather novel approach to the game of soccer which could be form fit to any sport. The approach involves creating a social network nodal map ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network ) based around the calculated centrality of a flowing system.

The article was published by a Northwestern graduate student who evaluated the 2008 Euro Cup Tournament and can be viewed in its entirety here:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010937

The article begins by describing the methodology (w/linked figures):



Now think of a similar network binned from the more statistically comprehensive sport like Basketball or Football.

The article continues by capturing defensive performance in the flowing game (not unlike basketball):





With further testing:



After evaluating the result of games based upon the sum of player performances, the article continues by creating a visualization of that performance and both the ball flow and resulting effectiveness of each player.

The end result can be seen here (it's a soccer team, each node represents a player):

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/journal_pone_0010937_g005.jpg

A similar model applied in basketball would yield very interesting results as nodes (players) could be swapped out, shut off (think lock down man defense), or restricted (never allowing Kobe to pass to Gasol) and the statistical input is even more comprehensive. You could also couple the modeling with hypothetical data to yield a comparison based upon scout info on upcoming draft-talent (of course this interjects bias) or to evaluate the potential performance of traded player.

Very nice find.

ChiSox219
09-10-2010, 09:43 PM
Which completely negates the popular arguement that Westbrook has high assists numbers because of Kevin Durant.

I love advanced statistics.

52% of Durant's shots were credited with assists.

Compare that to:

Lebron: 36.2%
Wade: 27.7%
Melo: 41.6%
Kobe: 40.2%


Durant is very good coming off screens and doesn't need to Iso as often as other elite scorers do.

arkanian215
09-10-2010, 10:30 PM
Wow I can't even use pbp from ESPN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=291028016&period=0

Check the stuff after the fourth quarter ends. How do you mess that up?
NBA.com doesn't seem to have last year's pbp or any game logs from previous seasons. Anyone know of a reliable pbp site? It'd be nice if their stuff could be easily converted into tables.

DenButsu
09-11-2010, 01:10 PM
My latest attempt to open the discussion to a larger audience:

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=531757

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 01:15 PM
52% of Durant's shots were credited with assists.

Compare that to:

Lebron: 36.2%
Wade: 27.7%
Melo: 41.6%
Kobe: 40.2%


Durant is very good coming off screens and does need to Iso as often as other elite scorers do.

does this throw a wrench into the claim that PER rewards shot creation heavily?

Chronz
09-11-2010, 11:10 PM
Wow I can't even use pbp from ESPN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=291028016&period=0

Check the stuff after the fourth quarter ends. How do you mess that up?
NBA.com doesn't seem to have last year's pbp or any game logs from previous seasons. Anyone know of a reliable pbp site? It'd be nice if their stuff could be easily converted into tables.

http://www.basketballvalue.com/downloads.php

DenButsu
09-12-2010, 01:26 AM
http://www.basketballvalue.com/downloads.php

Thanks for that link, Chronz. I bookmarked it and also added it to the site list in the top post. :cool:

arkanian215
09-12-2010, 11:11 AM
http://www.basketballvalue.com/downloads.php

Yeah I tried that set already. If I add up Pierce's rebounds or Varejao's rebounds, they don't add up to what the totals are on ESPN or B-R. That leads me believe that their pbp are inaccurate. Sadly, ESPN's pbp is inaccurate as well.

Baller1
09-14-2010, 01:47 PM
Don't let it fade away!

kArSoN RyDaH
09-14-2010, 06:06 PM
why isnt this a sticky thread?

DenButsu
09-14-2010, 06:47 PM
A few random and unrelated observations tweeted by Tom Haberstroh (http://twitter.com/tomhaberstroh):

"The Suns have the 4th highest winning percentage of any NBA franchise but no championships in 29 trips to the playoffs."


"Synergy: Among 84 qualifiers, opp pts per post-up (min 100): Haslem .77 (#9), Juwan .81 (#21), Joel .81 (#22), Damp .84 (#29),Bosh .84 (#30)"


"Joe Wolf had 131 blocks in his 592 game career. Andrew Bogut had 44 more than that in 69 games last yr. #wolfbogutfacts"


"A regular point guard puts up about 7 assists per 30 minutes. Just a heads up y'all. - http://3.ly/Huke"

DenButsu
09-15-2010, 10:04 PM
Okay, here's a fairly open-ended question for you guys:

Who on your team was surprisingly efficient or inefficient last season?

(Let's set a mimimum of 35 games and 15 minutes per game for qualified players).

DODGERS&LAKERS
09-16-2010, 12:31 AM
I understand how advanced stats can put things into context and give us a broader perspective on what we think we know about analyzing talent, I guess I have never liked them because they drop my favorite player of all time (Magic) way down the list of the all time greats if you look at his PER. If you just look at the stats, he is 12th all time. When I saw guys like Barkley, Bob Pettit, and Dwyane Wade ahead of him, and a guy like Dirk right on his tale, I chose to ignore that stat all together.

I never bothered to look into the stat or how Hollinger came up with the equations that he used, but after I saw that, I refused to give PER or any other "advanced" stat any respect. I may be wrong in that regard but even still, I dont care what anyone says, or what concoction of stats anyone can come up with, Dirk Nowitzki is not as good as a basketball player that Magic was.

tredigs
09-16-2010, 01:26 AM
:facepalm:

Here we go with TS% again.

When will people realize this stat is very heavily tailored to FT attempts and FT%?

It's not "heavily tailored", it's simply 1/3rd of the formulas factors.

And when will you realize that FT attempts and a high FT% are a SKILL that elite scorers possess (or aspire to possess, if they don't). It is a huge part of the game. What about this do you not get?

For what it's worth, Melo's a very solid FT shooter who gets to the line a ton (not quite as skilled as Durant or Lebron at drawing contact, or nearly as skilled as KD at making the shots, but skilled none the less). It's definitely one of the best aspects to his game.

DenButsu
09-16-2010, 02:21 AM
I understand how advanced stats can put things into context and give us a broader perspective on what we think we know about analyzing talent, I guess I have never liked them because they drop my favorite player of all time (Magic) way down the list of the all time greats if you look at his PER. If you just look at the stats, he is 12th all time. When I saw guys like Barkley, Bob Pettit, and Dwyane Wade ahead of him, and a guy like Dirk right on his tale, I chose to ignore that stat all together.

I never bothered to look into the stat or how Hollinger came up with the equations that he used, but after I saw that, I refused to give PER or any other "advanced" stat any respect. I may be wrong in that regard but even still, I dont care what anyone says, or what concoction of stats anyone can come up with, Dirk Nowitzki is not as good as a basketball player that Magic was.

PER isn't meant to be the end-all be-all final analysis of a player. It's an attempt to sum up as many aspects of a player as possible in a single score, but I think Hollinger himself would acknowledge that a) it's far from perfect, and b) it needs to be looked at in context.

But setting PER aside and looking at other things (such as points per possession vs. points per game), I don't see how anyone should have a problem with more advanced stats any more than they have a problem with looking at only offensive or defensive rebounds vs. total rebounds. In nearly every case, every "advanced stat" being discussed here is simply another way to measure one specific thing. What's wrong with trying to be more accurate with our measurements? If you your'e cutting wood to make a table, and you have two rulers, one that only measures inches, and one that also measures half, quarter and eighth inches, wouldn't you use the one that gives you the more precise measurement?

kArSoN RyDaH
09-16-2010, 02:28 AM
marcus camby led the nba in total rebound percentage with 22.25% last year. above dwight. and everyone else. kind of interesting considering dwight is looked at as the ultimate rebounder in the league.

Chronz
09-16-2010, 02:55 AM
:facepalm:

Here we go with TS% again.

When will people realize this stat is very heavily tailored to FT attempts and FT%?
What do you mean by heavily? Its weighted perfectly in line with how many possessions a FT requires. Im pretty sure it was invented for those very reasons.


when is 45 - 49% not efficient, I'm still trying to figure that one out? In the last 5 yrs Melo has shot 481% 476%492%443%458% but some how your giving him this inefficient label. And when he shot 443% last yr he had a broken hand lol

I'm a Melo fan I dont consider him top 5 but for you to say he is inefficient is crazy.

But in the very same breath people will call kobe a great scorer( which he is) but he has never shot over 47% in his career.

Generally people who call Melo inefficient are comparing him to truly efficient stars, and they dont use outdated metrics like FG% as a barometer

DenButsu
09-16-2010, 06:01 AM
marcus camby led the nba in total rebound percentage with 22.25% last year. above dwight. and everyone else. kind of interesting considering dwight is looked at as the ultimate rebounder in the league.

I don't find that too strange. I mean, Camby has always been a great defensive rebounder, it's on the strength of that & his shot blocking that he won the DPOY a few years back. And even though he's getting up there in years his performance really hasn't dropped off much, if at all (his first year with the Clips was probably one of the best of his career).

That said, this is a great example of the importance of understanding what exactly different stats measure and the limitations that are built into that. Obviously, Camby slightly edging out Dwight in rebounding doesn't mean he's having the greater overall impact on the court, and when we zoom out and consider other factors (such as Camby's .501 TS% compared with Dwight's ..630), that becomes clear real quickly.

But yeah, kudos to Camby for keeping that engine running. My first blog here at PSD was about how dumping Camby (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/blog.php?b=17) would actually make the Nuggets better, and as part of writing that up I created this chart of Camby's rebounding numbers (http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/1130/camby0708ud9.png) over the 2007-08 season, which shows a trajectory of rapid, dramatic decline. That had me convinced that he was on the verge of dropping off. So props to him that, if anything, he did pretty much the opposite and came back strong.

Hawkeye15
09-16-2010, 08:33 AM
:facepalm:

Here we go with TS% again.

When will people realize this stat is very heavily tailored to FT attempts and FT%?

no, its weighted correctly. And call me crazy, but I like my so called good shooters making their free throws. And quite frankly, if you want to go off fg% alone (which is not correct btw), Melo is below average.
As I said, if Melo or his supporters would like to see his percentages go up, he should stop shooting so many three's, because he isn't very good at them.

KnicksorBust
09-16-2010, 09:37 AM
Okay, here's a fairly open-ended question for you guys:

Who on your team was surprisingly efficient or inefficient last season?

(Let's set a mimimum of 35 games and 15 minutes per game for qualified players).

Bill Walker and many Knicks fans don't even expect him to make the rotation when Azubuike is healthy.

DODGERS&LAKERS
09-16-2010, 10:36 AM
PER isn't meant to be the end-all be-all final analysis of a player. It's an attempt to sum up as many aspects of a player as possible in a single score, but I think Hollinger himself would acknowledge that a) it's far from perfect, and b) it needs to be looked at in context.

But setting PER aside and looking at other things (such as points per possession vs. points per game), I don't see how anyone should have a problem with more advanced stats any more than they have a problem with looking at only offensive or defensive rebounds vs. total rebounds. In nearly every case, every "advanced stat" being discussed here is simply another way to measure one specific thing. What's wrong with trying to be more accurate with our measurements? If you your'e cutting wood to make a table, and you have two rulers, one that only measures inches, and one that also measures half, quarter and eighth inches, wouldn't you use the one that gives you the more precise measurement?

No I understand now. I was just reflecting about the time I initially heard about PER. I went to see where Magic would be ranked and I automatically said, "that stat is BS"!! But I do take a look at the advanced stats now. I like how they break down a players averages according to their teams or era's pace. They are useful if you want to debate a players legacy or his worth vs another player. Its all in good fun.

beasted86
09-16-2010, 12:51 PM
It's not "heavily tailored", it's simply 1/3rd of the formulas factors.

And when will you realize that FT attempts and a high FT% are a SKILL that elite scorers possess (or aspire to possess, if they don't). It is a huge part of the game. What about this do you not get?

For what it's worth, Melo's a very solid FT shooter who gets to the line a ton (not quite as skilled as Durant or Lebron at drawing contact, or nearly as skilled as KD at making the shots, but skilled none the less). It's definitely one of the best aspects to his game.

No, it IS heavily tailored. Let me give a clear example one last time:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=71jti

C. Billups: 41.8% FG, 38.6% 3PT, 91.0% FT ---- 60.1 TS%
R. Allen: 47.7% FG, 36.3% 3PT, 91.3% FT ----- 60.1 TS%

Confusing, right? The explanation for this is although they both average about the same FG attempts per game, and the same 3PT attempts per game, Billups averages double the FT attempts Allen does, and hits them almost as good.

The stat is heavily tailored twoards FT shooting, this is a clear fact.

Hawkeye15
09-16-2010, 01:19 PM
No, it IS heavily tailored. Let me give a clear example one last time:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=71jti

C. Billups: 41.8% FG, 38.6% 3PT, 91.0% FT ---- 60.1 TS%
R. Allen: 47.7% FG, 36.3% 3PT, 91.3% FT ----- 60.1 TS%

Confusing, right? The explanation for this is although they both average about the same FG attempts per game, and the same 3PT attempts per game, Billups averages double the FT attempts Allen does, and hits them almost as good.

The stat is heavily tailored twoards FT shooting, this is a clear fact.


a simple way to describe it is that it rewards production of shots, weighting each of the three types. Chauncey shoots an additional attempt per game, but averages more than 3 points more. Therefore, he is a better shooter overall. It is SUPPOSED to reward guys who get to the line. That is points per shot, which is more important than measuring a workhorse against snipers. It also has broken down the possession effect a FT causes, etc. The formula is a very good one actually, to weigh the effectiveness of players shooting overall

beasted86
09-16-2010, 01:29 PM
a simple way to describe it is that it rewards production of shots, weighting each of the three types. Chauncey shoots an additional attempt per game, but averages more than 3 points more. Therefore, he is a better shooter overall. It is SUPPOSED to reward guys who get to the line. That is points per shot, which is more important than measuring a workhorse against snipers. It also has broken down the possession effect a FT causes, etc. The formula is a very good one actually, to weigh the effectiveness of players shooting overall

Is Chauncey a better overall player than Ray Allen? Sure.
Is Chauncey a better or equal overall shooter than Ray Allen? Do I really need to answer this?

This is my explanation of why the TS% is flawed. It weights FT shooting so heavily that it would have you believe someone is as good, or a better shooter than another player when it's pretty clear they are not if you weren't only looking at TS%. Just because a player has a higher TS% doesn't in any way mean they are a better shooter from the field, only from the FT line.

Hawkeye15
09-16-2010, 01:40 PM
Is Chauncey a better overall player than Ray Allen? Sure.
Is Chauncey a better or equal overall shooter than Ray Allen? Do I really need to answer this?

This is my explanation of why the TS% is flawed. It weights FT shooting so heavily that it would have you believe someone is as good, or a better shooter than another player when it's pretty clear they are not if you weren't only looking at TS%. Just because a player has a higher TS% doesn't in any way mean they are a better shooter from the field, only from the FT line.

not true. It puts the correct weight on each. If someone doesn't get to the line a ton, but is a mad bomber with great percentages, he will be rewarded due to degree of difficulty basically. TS% is basically a more complicated points per shot formula. Does it mean that Billups is a better shooter than Ray Allen? Overall, yes it does. He is better from the 3 pt line, and gets more free throws, and he is more productive per possession, and per shot, when it comes to scoring.

If you are trying to equate TS% to a game of horse or something, its not like that.

And as all statistics need to be measure, you have to step back and evaluate the player, his role, and their position. But TS% is by far a better measure than either basic FG%, or any other method out there generally accepted

tredigs
09-16-2010, 03:11 PM
not true. It puts the correct weight on each. If someone doesn't get to the line a ton, but is a mad bomber with great percentages, he will be rewarded due to degree of difficulty basically. TS% is basically a more complicated points per shot formula. Does it mean that Billups is a better shooter than Ray Allen? Overall, yes it does. He is better from the 3 pt line, and gets more free throws, and he is more productive per possession, and per shot, when it comes to scoring.

If you are trying to equate TS% to a game of horse or something, its not like that.

And as all statistics need to be measure, you have to step back and evaluate the player, his role, and their position. But TS% is by far a better measure than either basic FG%, or any other method out there generally accepted

I'm on my lunch break and thank you for saving me the time. This one's ftw, beasted.

beasted86
09-16-2010, 03:50 PM
not true. It puts the correct weight on each. If someone doesn't get to the line a ton, but is a mad bomber with great percentages, he will be rewarded due to degree of difficulty basically. TS% is basically a more complicated points per shot formula. Does it mean that Billups is a better shooter than Ray Allen? Overall, yes it does. He is better from the 3 pt line, and gets more free throws, and he is more productive per possession, and per shot, when it comes to scoring.

If you are trying to equate TS% to a game of horse or something, its not like that.

And as all statistics need to be measure, you have to step back and evaluate the player, his role, and their position. But TS% is by far a better measure than either basic FG%, or any other method out there generally accepted

What? :confused: I'm completely lost by this. Seriously.

I'm not sure some people know this, but the "FG%" statistic encompasses all field goals (this means 3PT attempts also) not FT related . Ray Allen shoots 47.7%, and Billups shoots 41.3%. Now... field goals aside, Ray Allen also shoots a higher FT%. So can you please explain as clearly as possible why that is not an indication that Ray Allen is a more efficient shooter by shooting 6% higher on all field goals taken? Please simplify your ideology as much as possible because I don't see how this can't be more clearer.

Now... as clearly as possible, what I think you are getting at is you are saying because Billups can shoot double the FTs Ray Allen does and hit them at nearly the same efficiency, this means he is a better shooter. Which to me makes no sense at all.

Hawkeye15
09-16-2010, 03:55 PM
What? :confused: I'm completely lost by this. Seriously.

I'm not sure some people know this, but the "FG%" statistic encompasses all field goals (this means 3PT attempts also) not FT related . Ray Allen shoots 47.7%, and Billups shoots 41.3%. Now... field goals aside, Ray Allen also shoots a higher FT%. So can you please explain as clearly as possible why that is not an indication that Ray Allen is a more efficient shooter by shooting 6% higher on all field goals taken? Please simplify your ideology as much as possible because I don't see how this can't be more clearer.

Now... as clearly as possible, what I think you are getting at is you are saying because Billups can shoot double the FTs Ray Allen does and hit them at nearly the same efficiency, this means he is a better shooter. Which to me makes no sense at all.


before I even continue, please give me your interpretation of what TS% is. I have no clue why you don't understand this, with numerous explanations by verious posters the last two pages.

Hawkeye15
09-16-2010, 04:06 PM
Let me rephrase my post. Billups is just as a superior scorer, when accounting for efficiency, this past season, of which you posted their numbers. TS% tells us their SCORING EFFICIENCY. Since both are perimter players, we can now compare the two. In the long scheme of things, Ray Allen is a better pure shooter, but this doesn't matter. In terms of scoring efficiency, and points per shot (ie, EFFICIENCY WHEN SCORING THE BALL), Billups makes up for his lesser ability to hit at a high clip from midrange when comparing to Allen, by not only getting to the line, but hitting them at a very high percentage. TS% doesn't give extra weight to free throws. In fact, it breaks down free throws to compete with a possession just like a jumpshot, layup, or three pointer does. So if you take and make more, this help the equation. Why shouldn't it????? If you shoot 13.2 times a game, and score 19.5, you CAN BE a more efficent scorer than another perimeter player who shoots 12.2 times a game and scores 16.5.
If you are trying to compare who is the better shooter from 16-23 feet, their are other metrics for that. TS% simply shows up the players ability to score efficiently.

beasted86
09-16-2010, 04:15 PM
before I even continue, please give me your interpretation of what TS% is. I have no clue why you don't understand this, with numerous explanations by verious posters the last two pages.

My interpretation of what TS% is a stat that says who is a better FT shooter, real talk.

The official formula and definition of TS is:
Points / (2 * (FGA + (0.44 * FTA))) Weighted efficiency, adjusting for three-pointers and free throws.

Now I really have no clue how they came up with this formula, but from what I have found looking at TS% rankings over the seasons, I have found it is weighted too heavily to FT attempts. I really cannot understand how 2 players who are exactly 1.0 FGA apart from eachother at a large disparity in efficiency, can have thhe same TS% because on has 3.8 more FT attempts, and once again less efficiency. This is why my stand has always been this stat is only useful for saying who is a better FT shooter.

My understanding of how the stat is "supposed" to work is if a player A is a bench player and takes 4 shot per game and hit's 75% of them and 1 FT and hits 75% .....to try and weight difficulty and guage who is the better shooter based on attempts in theory a player who takes 100 shots per game and hits 50% of them and 20 FTs a game and hits 50%, that would probably be better efficiency because one player is completely carrying a team averaging 60+ PPG, and the other one is a mere bench player averaging 10 PPG max.

But IMO the formula is flawed when there is a perfect example like this one with two players so close in attempts.

beasted86
09-16-2010, 04:17 PM
After reading your post above, I still think the formula is flawed because Ray & Billups are so close in overall attempts per game.

Billups only has exactly 4.8 more attempts, but is at a large FG% & eFG disparity, yet has the same TS%

Hawkeye15
09-16-2010, 04:32 PM
After reading your post above, I still think the formula is flawed because Ray & Billups are so close in overall attempts per game.

Billups only has exactly 4.8 more attempts, but is at a large FG% & eFG disparity, yet has the same TS%

they are seperated by one attempt, and over 3 points. Who is the more efficient scorer? That is the entire point of TS%. It basically takes PPS to extra depth. And PPS is what I am interested in when it comes to scoring.

beasted86
09-16-2010, 04:50 PM
they are seperated by one attempt, and over 3 points. Who is the more efficient scorer? That is the entire point of TS%. It basically takes PPS to extra depth. And PPS is what I am interested in when it comes to scoring.

Yeah, and at the end of the day Allen still averages 16.3 PPG makeing 47.7% of all his shots attempts, and Billups still averages 19.5 PPG making only 41.3% of all his shots attempts.

You still haven't explained why 3 more points at 6.4% worse efficiency makes Billups a better scorer.