PDA

View Full Version : Better for announcers to discuss: Per game stats or per possession/minutes stats?



DenButsu
09-11-2010, 01:07 PM
Do you think NBA announcers should keep it simple and stick to per game stats, or do you think it's time for them to start talking about per possession/per minutes stats?

For example:

The Nuggets were 3rd in points per game last season. We can often hear NBA announcers refer to them as the "third best offense" based on that.

However, the Nuggets also had the 5th fastest pace, which means their offensive numbers were slightly inflated (since they had more possessions than most other teams), and their offensive rating (adjusted for pace) is actually lower, placing their offense 5th, rather than 3rd, in the league.

So should NBA announcers start to delve into this stuff, or is it too much for the average NBA audience?

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 01:11 PM
I would just like them to stop using per game stats period. Not unless they explain them in context. This is a big issue out there, and leads many fans to not understand how to evaluate a player/team. Most announcers are not that in tune with the information that is available now. I would like to see announcers bring up simple advanced stats, like PER, TS%, rebound rate, assist rate, offensive ratings, and win shares. They should also understand how to explain pace, and the stats I listed, quickly and easily. You don't want announcers getting too complicated, or they become boring and annoying.
But the per game numbers, and general understanding of the game of basketball is why I came here in the first place. Sick of talking to normal people who don't know squat except for what their local color commentator says.
Needs to be a happy medium. But they also don't need to be making comments like you have, "Denver is the 3rd best offense", because its midleading, and not true.

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 01:12 PM
hence why I don't watch the pre game, halftime shows, and rarely listen to the color commentator.

ChiSox219
09-11-2010, 01:36 PM
Per game still has some relevance and is easy to understand for the casual fan. Just supplement it with TS%.


Per possession stats still need to consider the player's position and role.

HakeemTheDream
09-11-2010, 01:51 PM
I like when they use stats that are troublesome for us to find out ourselves without digging, like Lebron averaged 26ppg 8.5rebs and 13 assists during the 9 games he started as pg and they won all 9 games.

Khalifa21
09-11-2010, 02:04 PM
I think using PPG is fine for the average fan, but i'd prefer it if commentators just touched on ORtg and explained it as basic as possible to give even the most casual NBA fans a more, concise in-depth look into certain stats and teams in the league and explaining that just because a team scores the most doesn't particularly mean it has the best offense in the league.

llemon
09-11-2010, 02:04 PM
Better they should do play-by-play of the game, with a little color commentary on the side.

I dearly miss the local NBA coverage of the '60s & 70s.

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 02:07 PM
Better they should do play-by-play of the game, with a little color commentary on the side.

I dearly miss the local NBA coverage of the '60s & 70s.

I would highly prefer that over the current structure.

C_Mund
09-11-2010, 02:20 PM
It's not the job of the announcer to update you on your fantasy team.
I think advanced stats should be used by gm's. Let the announcer call the action.
...I also believe that per game stats are relevant. If the player plays 16 mpg and scores a few points, it doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that to an entire game, That player only earns 16 mpg on their team, and their per game statistics exist for that reason.

Sly Guy
09-11-2010, 02:33 PM
per possession stats. Roles are already talked about by the announcers, and per game stats still have to be explained in terms of players and roles anyway. I just see more accuracy with the per possession stats, and it's time the casual fan jumped on board.

Antipod
09-11-2010, 02:34 PM
Leave it how it is now !
+ many nba games that i watch are in english/russian/chinese/corean .. oh man, god bless the torrents :D

Sly Guy
09-11-2010, 02:34 PM
Better they should do play-by-play of the game, with a little color commentary on the side.

I dearly miss the local NBA coverage of the '60s & 70s.

amen.

Avenged
09-11-2010, 02:36 PM
I think it's fine the way it is, it's just basketball after-all.

If you want to take it to a whole nother' level, just sign up to PSD.

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 02:37 PM
It's not the job of the announcer to update you on your fantasy team.
I think advanced stats should be used by gm's. Let the announcer call the action.
...I also believe that per game stats are relevant. If the player plays 16 mpg and scores a few points, it doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that to an entire game, That player only earns 16 mpg on their team, and their per game statistics exist for that reason.

did you not read the example Den used? When an announcer says Denver is the third best offense because they are 3rd in scoring? That is false, and misleads fans. Saying Monta Ellis averages 25 a night, but not explaining that its because he shoots every time he touches it on a team that has more possessions than anyone, misleads.
As I said, a nice balance would be nice

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 02:39 PM
The NBA wants to bring in the casual fan...not scare them away with a bunch of stats that they need to try and wrap their heads around.

Besides, even as someone who follows the NBA closely, I prefer per game stats. My best example for this would probably be Allen Iverson. Sure he was never the most efficient player...but not one other philly player would have had the balls to step up against the Lakers back then. And that is what I think is underestimated in pretty much every stat thrown around - the balls factor. I don't like rewarding guys for the shots they DIDN'T take. As that is exactly what you are doing as soon as you start using the more advanced stats that are mentioned far too frequently around here.

Rivera
09-11-2010, 02:52 PM
i can see the casual fans head spinning if they try 2 explain this on tv.....i can see JVG's head exploding when mike breen is explaning TS% and marc jackson sayin jeff your better than that


just use per game stats

td0tsfinest
09-11-2010, 02:55 PM
Per game still has some relevance and is easy to understand for the casual fan. Just supplement it with TS%.


Per possession stats still need to consider the player's position and role.

Agreed. A lot of people don't know TS% or some of the other advanced stats. It makes it a lot easier for the regular fans and beginners to follow what the analysts are saying.

On a side note, I feel like PSD posters have started using the advanced stats in more of their discussions over the summer. Its not something I saw a lot of before but I'm seeing people bring it up more and more.

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 03:03 PM
The NBA wants to bring in the casual fan...not scare them away with a bunch of stats that they need to try and wrap their heads around.

Besides, even as someone who follows the NBA closely, I prefer per game stats. My best example for this would probably be Allen Iverson. Sure he was never the most efficient player...but not one other philly player would have had the balls to step up against the Lakers back then. And that is what I think is underestimated in pretty much every stat thrown around - the balls factor. I don't like rewarding guys for the shots they DIDN'T take. As that is exactly what you are doing as soon as you start using the more advanced stats that are mentioned far too frequently around here.

if you ignore stats that are more advanced than per game numbers, you will never get the picture. Iverson had heart but that team was constructed by Brown in a weak east as a defensive machine.
If you play 40 mpg, and shoot 25 times a night, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you will score 28 ppg. Doesn't mean your a great player

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 03:04 PM
and as many have said, including myself, you don't want to get too advanced and scare away fans. But announcers, at the very least, need to stop making false statistical claims. It happens every game.

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 03:24 PM
if you ignore stats that are more advanced than per game numbers, you will never get the picture. Iverson had heart but that team was constructed by Brown in a weak east as a defensive machine.
If you play 40 mpg, and shoot 25 times a night, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you will score 28 ppg. Doesn't mean your a great player

Yes but more efficient players who score less points but play less minutes don't always have the nerves to perform down the stretch. I'd much rather have a guy that is capable of closing out a game and creating his own shot even if that means that he misses more than a guy who plays the opening couple minutes of the game and goes 4-4 from the field.

DODGERS&LAKERS
09-11-2010, 03:24 PM
I just want the announcer to call the game that they see. They don't need to provide me with any stat. If I wanted to know what their per game stats are, or their advanced for that matter, I could pull up to my computer and check for myself.

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 03:28 PM
Better they should do play-by-play of the game, with a little color commentary on the side.

I dearly miss the local NBA coverage of the '60s & 70s.

Play-by-play was great on the radio...but why would I need some guy to tell me that player A just made a pass to player B when I have the game right in front of me on a 55" high def screen?

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 03:32 PM
Yes but more efficient players who score less points but play less minutes don't always have the nerves to perform down the stretch. I'd much rather have a guy that is capable of closing out a game and creating his own shot even if that means that he misses more than a guy who plays the opening couple minutes of the game and goes 4-4 from the field.

this is why there needs to be a mix. We don't need some dude telling us that Chris Anderson blocks 10 shots per 36 minutes or some crap. But they shouldn't be throwing claims out there that Denver is the 3rd best offensive team, or that Monta Ellis is one of the best scorer's in the NBA, etc.
You don't try and do projections for players that play 10 mpg. But saying Love is just as good of a rebounder as Dwight Howard because they have nearly idential rebound rates is a good thing for fans to understand.

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 03:33 PM
I just want the announcer to call the game that they see. They don't need to provide me with any stat. If I wanted to know what their per game stats are, or their advanced for that matter, I could pull up to my computer and check for myself.

exactly. I would prefer this over the current thing they do. Thank god I was married for 10 years. I am able to tune the so called expert announcer out

DODGERS&LAKERS
09-11-2010, 03:49 PM
exactly. I would prefer this over the current thing they do. Thank god I was married for 10 years. I am able to tune the so called expert announcer out

LOL. So your an expert in ignoring the "experts" huh? Nice.

C_Mund
09-11-2010, 04:06 PM
did you not read the example Den used? When an announcer says Denver is the third best offense because they are 3rd in scoring? That is false, and misleads fans. Saying Monta Ellis averages 25 a night, but not explaining that its because he shoots every time he touches it on a team that has more possessions than anyone, misleads.
As I said, a nice balance would be nice

I absolutely read the example and his point is valid. I just don't really see advanced statistics having a place in the play-by-play calling.
If you're a decent scoring team and play at a pace that allows more possessions, doesn't that have something to do with your offence as well? It's like saying the Suns were only good with Dantoni because they had more possessions, but wasn't it part of their skill set to create those extra possessions?
Eventually there will be a formula for EVERYTHING in basketball to actually prove who is the best player/team/mascot/fan but it doesn't beat sitting down with a brew and watching a good game. Leave the stats to the mathematicians, I'm just an old-school fan

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 04:51 PM
Yes but more efficient players who score less points but play less minutes don't always have the nerves to perform down the stretch. I'd much rather have a guy that is capable of closing out a game and creating his own shot even if that means that he misses more than a guy who plays the opening couple minutes of the game and goes 4-4 from the field.

you have no way of proving your statement. Therefore I feel no need to debate.

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 04:55 PM
I absolutely read the example and his point is valid. I just don't really see advanced statistics having a place in the play-by-play calling.
If you're a decent scoring team and play at a pace that allows more possessions, doesn't that have something to do with your offence as well? It's like saying the Suns were only good with Dantoni because they had more possessions, but wasn't it part of their skill set to create those extra possessions?
Eventually there will be a formula for EVERYTHING in basketball to actually prove who is the best player/team/mascot/fan but it doesn't beat sitting down with a brew and watching a good game. Leave the stats to the mathematicians, I'm just an old-school fan

again, I am against getting too advanced. But I don't want a commentator saying Monta Ellis is one of the best scorers in the NBA, or that the Nuggets have the third best offense in the NBA.
Pace is up to your coach.
Golden State is #13 in offensive efficiency. But an idiot announcer would claim they are #2 in offense due to them being #2 in scoring. This is false, and should not be said.
Portland is the slowest pace team in the NBA. They were #21 in points per game, but the 7th best offense.
These numbers either need to be talked about, or that dude needs to go away and we listen to play by play and some funny guy who leaves stats alone

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 05:13 PM
you have no way of proving your statement. Therefore I feel no need to debate.

It's an opinion. Im not asking for a debate, and it doesn't require any proof.

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 05:21 PM
It's an opinion. Im not asking for a debate, and it doesn't require any proof.

well, yes it does. Otherwise don't respond to my post when making that claim. That ignites a response back from me.
And what you said is false. There is no full proof method for it, but many role players who shoot very few attempts have indeed have proven more clutch than those who shoot all night long. Travis Outlaw, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, etc. Shoot, Ronald Murray is 4/4.
Basically, you obviously don't take a 12 mpg player, and just say, "well if he played 36 mpg, his numbers would be this". But if you are taking a guy like Carl Landry or Kevin Love, and attempting to compare him to a 38 mpg player, you can do this now

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 05:22 PM
again, I am against getting too advanced. But I don't want a commentator saying Monta Ellis is one of the best scorers in the NBA, or that the Nuggets have the third best offense in the NBA.
Pace is up to your coach.
Golden State is #13 in offensive efficiency. But an idiot announcer would claim they are #2 in offense due to them being #2 in scoring. This is false, and should not be said.
Portland is the slowest pace team in the NBA. They were #21 in points per game, but the 7th best offense.
These numbers either need to be talked about, or that dude needs to go away and we listen to play by play and some funny guy who leaves stats alone

I don't necessarily think that the most efficient offense is the best offense.

If a team takes 10,000 shots a game but only averages 200 points a game, they are still going to win every single game of the season if the other teams don't adjust.

That's why I believe no stat can summarize what's going on. Every game is a different story. People can make up all the fancy numbers and formulas they want...they'll never reflect what goes on from game to game.

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 05:25 PM
I don't necessarily think that the most efficient offense is the best offense.

If a team takes 10,000 shots a game but only averages 200 points a game, they are still going to win every single game of the season if the other teams don't adjust.

That's why I believe no stat can summarize what's going on. Every game is a different story. People can make up all the fancy numbers and formulas they want...they'll never reflect what goes on from game to game.

then why did GS lose so many games, when they clearly scored more than any team not named Phx?
Efficiency does matter.

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 05:31 PM
well, yes it does. Otherwise don't respond to my post when making that claim. That ignites a response back from me.
And what you said is false. There is no full proof method for it, but many role players who shoot very few attempts have indeed have proven more clutch than those who shoot all night long. Travis Outlaw, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, etc. Shoot, Ronald Murray is 4/4.
Basically, you obviously don't take a 12 mpg player, and just say, "well if he played 36 mpg, his numbers would be this". But if you are taking a guy like Carl Landry or Kevin Love, and attempting to compare him to a 38 mpg player, you can do this now

No it doesn't. I'm not trying to tell you "this is how it is and this is why". I'm trying to tell you "this is how I see it, you don't have to see it the same way". But your ego won't allow for people to disagree with you, and that is what ignites a response from you. And that is not my problem. IMO lots of players in the league can hit one shot down the stretch. Not many players can drive home a game over a longer stretch.

You cleary missed my point...and that's ok. Naming a bunch of players who will hit one or two shots down the stretch isn't going to effect efficiency much. Im talking about the players that can take over the game with 5 minutes left.

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 05:33 PM
then why did GS lose so many games, when they clearly scored more than any team not named Phx?
Efficiency does matter.

If the game was 100% offense you would be right.

I'm not sure...but I think the game of basketball involves some guy having to try and defend the guy with the ball....i could be wrong though.

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 05:46 PM
Utah had a better off and def efficiency than the Lakers last season...

If you are trying to tell me that the most efficient offenses and defenses are the best offenses and defences...I don't see how Lakers sweep Utah.

And I'm supposed to care about these stats?

And don't think I dont know that Orlando was #2 IN BOTH categories in the league last year...
If you need a clue at where I am getting with that...i'll give you a hint: Boston wasn't #1.

save the knicks
09-11-2010, 06:29 PM
i don't get the resistance to "advanced" stats ( some one should come up with a better word than advanced )

Most franchises use these tools to evaluate draft picks, coaches, trades and signings.

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 06:35 PM
No it doesn't. I'm not trying to tell you "this is how it is and this is why". I'm trying to tell you "this is how I see it, you don't have to see it the same way". But your ego won't allow for people to disagree with you, and that is what ignites a response from you. And that is not my problem. IMO lots of players in the league can hit one shot down the stretch. Not many players can drive home a game over a longer stretch.

You cleary missed my point...and that's ok. Naming a bunch of players who will hit one or two shots down the stretch isn't going to effect efficiency much. Im talking about the players that can take over the game with 5 minutes left.

you are telling me efficiency doesn't matter that much. And this is false. If an announcer claims Monta Ellis is a great scorer, because he averages 25 ppg, this is false. But the average fan will hear that, and think its true. This is where I have a problem.
I am agreeing with you, in one respect. You don't say this player is more efficient with his 11 mpg than this player with 37 mpg, and mean player one is better. But you have to explain your claims with valid arguments, not 1st grade, archaic numbers.
And you never made it clear you are talking about players who take over with 5 minutes to go. Btw, those are the efficient players in the NBA. So what is your point here?

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 06:36 PM
If the game was 100% offense you would be right.

I'm not sure...but I think the game of basketball involves some guy having to try and defend the guy with the ball....i could be wrong though.

but you said if a team scores 200 points, they will win unless there is an adjustment. GS can score as much as they want, it doesn't matter. Their offense isn't efficient, so all those points don't do anything.

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 06:39 PM
Utah had a better off and def efficiency than the Lakers last season...

If you are trying to tell me that the most efficient offenses and defenses are the best offenses and defences...I don't see how Lakers sweep Utah.

And I'm supposed to care about these stats?

And don't think I dont know that Orlando was #2 IN BOTH categories in the league last year...
If you need a clue at where I am getting with that...i'll give you a hint: Boston wasn't #1.

you need a balance. And the playoffs don't care about the regular season, you should know that. Orlando was a great regular season team, hence why they were so high on both sides of the ball, efficiency wise.
Utah is always efficient, but they don't hold that same efficiency in the playoffs, and are a team that regularly beats up on bad teams in the reg. season. You have to peel back even further.
Which is why I would prefer commentators just shut up about stats period, unless they are giving us what LeBron has done the last 10 games, or some stupid random stat that nobody would think to look up. Don't tell me Denver was #3 in offense. You are lying

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 07:00 PM
you need a balance. And the playoffs don't care about the regular season, you should know that. Orlando was a great regular season team, hence why they were so high on both sides of the ball, efficiency wise.
Utah is always efficient, but they don't hold that same efficiency in the playoffs, and are a team that regularly beats up on bad teams in the reg. season. You have to peel back even further.
Which is why I would prefer commentators just shut up about stats period, unless they are giving us what LeBron has done the last 10 games, or some stupid random stat that nobody would think to look up. Don't tell me Denver was #3 in offense. You are lying

Stop, take a breather, and think before you post. Because if you think you can squeeze by like this and Im not going to call you out, you are badly mistaken.

"UTAH is always efficient, but they don't hold the same efficiency in the playoffs".

Utah Reg Season Offensive Efficiency:107.8
Utah Post Season Offensive Efficiency: 110.9

Utah Reg Season Defensive Efficiency: 102.9
Utah Post Season Defensive Efficiency: 114.

AND both numbers were higher than the Lakers in the post season. Please don't waste my time.

"Don't tell me Denver was #3 in offense. You are lying"

Ummm..well I didn't tell you they were #3 in offense...so Im not sure what you are saying i'm lying about. If you are making the assumption that i'm saying the #3 team in ppg is also the #3 in offense, you are wrong, because I never said anything like that. I never even said the theoretical team that scores 200 ppg would have the best offense in the league. In fact, I dont' think there is any real stat that can point to the best offense in the league, and IMO that is supported by the Lakers winning the NBA championship.

Please don't waste my time.

save the knicks
09-11-2010, 07:12 PM
Stop, take a breather, and think before you post. Because if you think you can squeeze by like this and Im not going to call you out, you are badly mistaken.

"UTAH is always efficient, but they don't hold the same efficiency in the playoffs".

Utah Reg Season Offensive Efficiency:107.8
Utah Post Season Offensive Efficiency: 110.9

Utah Reg Season Defensive Efficiency: 102.9
Utah Post Season Defensive Efficiency: 114.

AND both numbers were higher than the Lakers in the post season. Please don't waste my time.

"Don't tell me Denver was #3 in offense. You are lying"

Ummm..well I didn't tell you they were #3 in offense...so Im not sure what you are saying i'm lying about. If you are making the assumption that i'm saying the #3 team in ppg is also the #3 in offense, you are wrong, because I never said anything like that. I never even said the theoretical team that scores 200 ppg would have the best offense in the league. In fact, I dont' think there is any real stat that can point to the best offense in the league, and IMO that is supported by the Lakers winning the NBA championship.

Please don't waste my time.

not true Utah was higher in Ortg by 1 but they were 8 way from the lakers in Drtg

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 07:14 PM
not true Utah was higher in Ortg by 1 but they were 8 way from the lakers in Drtg

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/seasontype/3

What's your source.

save the knicks
09-11-2010, 07:15 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2010.html

This brings up a good point though; if we are going to use advanced stats whos formula do we use?

Turns out BR uses Dean Olivers from Basketball On Paper

Hollinger uses his own



:speechless:

PatsSoxKnicks
09-11-2010, 07:22 PM
Stop, take a breather, and think before you post. Because if you think you can squeeze by like this and Im not going to call you out, you are badly mistaken.

"UTAH is always efficient, but they don't hold the same efficiency in the playoffs".

Utah Reg Season Offensive Efficiency:107.8
Utah Post Season Offensive Efficiency: 110.9

Utah Reg Season Defensive Efficiency: 102.9
Utah Post Season Defensive Efficiency: 114.

AND both numbers were higher than the Lakers in the post season. Please don't waste my time.

"Don't tell me Denver was #3 in offense. You are lying"

Ummm..well I didn't tell you they were #3 in offense...so Im not sure what you are saying i'm lying about. If you are making the assumption that i'm saying the #3 team in ppg is also the #3 in offense, you are wrong, because I never said anything like that. I never even said the theoretical team that scores 200 ppg would have the best offense in the league. In fact, I dont' think there is any real stat that can point to the best offense in the league, and IMO that is supported by the Lakers winning the NBA championship.

Please don't waste my time.

Here is your problem, you are not sure how to interpret these stats. And I'm willing to guess you don't have a clue how they're calculated either, so you dismiss them.

In the postseason, UTH's offensive efficiency was 110.9 vs. the Lakers 109.5. So yes, Utah was more efficient on the offensive end. But basketball is played on the defensive end too. And that's where the big difference is.
UTH's defensive efficiency was 114.0 vs 105.1 for the Lakers. HIGHER IS WORSE FOR DEFENSIVE EFFICIENCY. It's the same way allowing more points per game is worse on defense. Calculate the difference in efficiency and you'll see the Lakers were better.

Look, I can understand if you don't like PER because that is a flawed statistic. And the fact that basketball-reference and ESPN calculate the efficiency in different ways is annoying, which is why they need to just have someone count the number of possessions each team gets instead of using estimates (thus making it more accurate). I believe some sites are going to be doing that this year.

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 07:27 PM
Here is your problem, you are not sure how to interpret these stats. And I'm willing to guess you don't have a clue how they're calculated either, so you dismiss them.

In the postseason, UTH's offensive efficiency was 110.9 vs. the Lakers 109.5. So yes, Utah was more efficient on the offensive end. But basketball is played on the defensive end too. And that's where the big difference is.
UTH's defensive efficiency was 114.0 vs 105.1 for the Lakers. HIGHER IS WORSE FOR DEFENSIVE EFFICIENCY. It's the same way allowing more points per game is worse on defense. Calculate the difference in efficiency and you'll see the Lakers were better.

You're right..I appologize....I just eyeballed the stats.

But I can still shift my point to the Eastern conference. Orlando had better Off and Deff rating than Boston..but lost 4-2.

Ultimatly..I don't see a point in asking announcers to move from poorly relevant stats to slightly less poorly relevant stats. In the end, if you could measure who's going to win any given game by looking at stats...gambling would be a different story.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-11-2010, 07:33 PM
You're right..I appologize....I just eyeballed the stats.

But I can still shift my point to the Eastern conference. Orlando had better Off and Deff rating than Boston..but lost 4-2.

They also played Atlanta instead of Cleveland. So I'm not sure what your point is?

I mean the same holds true for points per game, Orlando had scored more points per game then Boston and allowed less points per game then Boston. So I suppose that proves that points per game is a useless statistic?

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/team-comparison-per-game/sort/avgPointsDifference/seasontype/3

Phoenix is ahead of the Lakers in points per game differential. Now look at O and D efficiency

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/seasontype/3

and Phoenix is behind the Lakers in the difference of efficiency. Interesting huh?

This all really becomes a moot point unless you adjust for the opponent. Orlando's stats would look a lot worse had they played Cleveland in the 2nd round.

PatsSoxKnicks
09-11-2010, 07:46 PM
Ultimatly..I don't see a point in asking announcers to move from poorly relevant stats to slightly less poorly relevant stats. In the end, if you could measure who's going to win any given game by looking at stats...gambling would be a different story.

Ok then you believe that announcers shouldn't use any stats. And thats fine. I could agree with that. At least they wouldn't be spewing off inaccurate information. This might actually be the best idea.

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 07:52 PM
Ok then you believe that announcers shouldn't use any stats. And thats fine. I could agree with that. At least they wouldn't be spewing off inaccurate information. This might actually be the best idea.

I don't think there is any stat that is going to tell completly a players complete worth.

Personally, I think people are making mountains out of mole hills (I think that is the expression). I have nothing wrong with how stats are presented in the NBA. Thankfully we have the internet..so if people want to look deeper into the stats, they have that option readily available.

Rivera
09-11-2010, 08:06 PM
It's an opinion. Im not asking for a debate, and it doesn't require any proof.


well, yes it does. Otherwise don't respond to my post when making that claim. That ignites a response back from me.
And what you said is false. There is no full proof method for it, but many role players who shoot very few attempts have indeed have proven more clutch than those who shoot all night long. Travis Outlaw, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, etc. Shoot, Ronald Murray is 4/4.
Basically, you obviously don't take a 12 mpg player, and just say, "well if he played 36 mpg, his numbers would be this". But if you are taking a guy like Carl Landry or Kevin Love, and attempting to compare him to a 38 mpg player, you can do this now

DO NOT I repeat DO NOT CHALLENGE THE HAWKEYE!!!!!! you will get OWNED

and his goons (such as me) will knock on ur front door at night!!!!

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 08:11 PM
DO NOT I repeat DO NOT CHALLENGE THE HAWKEYE!!!!!! you will get OWNED

and his goons (such as me) will knock on ur front door at night!!!!

:eyebrow:

Rivera
09-11-2010, 08:12 PM
:eyebrow:


be afraid be veryyyy afraid :smoking: :horse: :box: :guns: :burn:

HiphopRelated
09-11-2010, 08:21 PM
stick to per game stats

if forums want to circle jerk about ortg/drtg, per and whatever else was developed in the last week that's up to them.

They already speak on if they feel a player isn't playing enough

ChiSox219
09-11-2010, 08:29 PM
I like when they use stats that are troublesome for us to find out ourselves without digging, like Lebron averaged 26ppg 8.5rebs and 13 assists during the 9 games he started as pg and they won all 9 games.

Me too.


If the game was 100% offense you would be right.

I'm not sure...but I think the game of basketball involves some guy having to try and defend the guy with the ball....i could be wrong though.

If you play at a fast pace you create more offensive possessions for you and you opponent. If you Offensive Rating does not exceed your Defensive Rating, you could average 200 ppg and still lose a bunch of games.


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

This brings up a good point though; if we are going to use advanced stats whos formula do we use?

Turns out BR uses Dean Olivers from Basketball On Paper

Hollinger uses his own



:speechless:

I'd say go with Dean Oliver, he's actually worked for NBA teams.




On a side note, I feel like PSD posters have started using the advanced stats in more of their discussions over the summer. Its not something I saw a lot of before but I'm seeing people bring it up more and more.

I've noticed the same thing, not really sure how/why that happened all of a sudden. I've also seen a lot of people posting a slew of advanced stats without them fully understanding what the numbers mean and their context.

Hawkeye15
09-11-2010, 08:47 PM
Stop, take a breather, and think before you post. Because if you think you can squeeze by like this and Im not going to call you out, you are badly mistaken.

"UTAH is always efficient, but they don't hold the same efficiency in the playoffs"

Utah Reg Season Offensive Efficiency:107.8
Utah Post Season Offensive Efficiency: 110.9

Utah Reg Season Defensive Efficiency: 102.9
Utah Post Season Defensive Efficiency: 114.

AND both numbers were higher than the Lakers in the post season. Please don't waste my time.

"Don't tell me Denver was #3 in offense. You are lying"

Ummm..well I didn't tell you they were #3 in offense...so Im not sure what you are saying i'm lying about. If you are making the assumption that i'm saying the #3 team in ppg is also the #3 in offense, you are wrong, because I never said anything like that. I never even said the theoretical team that scores 200 ppg would have the best offense in the league. In fact, I dont' think there is any real stat that can point to the best offense in the league, and IMO that is supported by the Lakers winning the NBA championship.

Please don't waste my time.

The Denver comment was from page 1, first post. I am speaking to a hypothetical announcer
Go look at Utah's defensive efficiency over that span.
The Lakers have one of the best balance of offensive and defensive efficiencies. Of course offense doesn't win it, where did I say that? This is why the Lakers win in the playoffs.

Don't waste your time? haha. I have come across plenty here on PSD who thought they knew everything. You won't be the last. If you want to continue to push it, then do.

I am still trying to figure out what your initial point is. You would rather let chuckers play crucial minutes over efficient players if those chuckers are starters and get minutes. Fine. I would rather have my most efficient rotation players on the floor in a mix. And did you notice the best players in the NBA are the best BECAUSE of their efficiency?

Honestly dude, you make a claim early, that you can't back up. Then you fact check me, all the while you don't even know how to interpret those ratings in the slightest, and try to use that. If you want to talk basketball facts, this will be a long conversation for you.

Chronz
09-11-2010, 10:52 PM
i can see the casual fans head spinning if they try 2 explain this on tv.....i can see JVG's head exploding when mike breen is explaning TS% and marc jackson sayin jeff your better than that


just use per game stats

This post doesnt make sense, why would JVG's head explode when hes one of the few announcers that gets it? Alot of what he says follows what the APBR community has been trying to push, same with SVG. If anyones head explodes its that walking cliche machine.

Iggz53
09-11-2010, 10:59 PM
It's their job to entertain the audience but it's also to provide credible and applicable information that lets the audience better understand the game.

The only way they can do that is to incorporate advanced stats into the game. I don't mind Per-Game state at all actually, but I think it's time to start heading into the more advanced data. I don't think it will be too much for viewers to handle as long as they explain it.

whitemamba33
09-11-2010, 11:03 PM
The Denver comment was from page 1, first post. I am speaking to a hypothetical announcer
Go look at Utah's defensive efficiency over that span.
The Lakers have one of the best balance of offensive and defensive efficiencies. Of course offense doesn't win it, where did I say that? This is why the Lakers win in the playoffs.

Don't waste your time? haha. I have come across plenty here on PSD who thought they knew everything. You won't be the last. If you want to continue to push it, then do.

I am still trying to figure out what your initial point is. You would rather let chuckers play crucial minutes over efficient players if those chuckers are starters and get minutes. Fine. I would rather have my most efficient rotation players on the floor in a mix. And did you notice the best players in the NBA are the best BECAUSE of their efficiency?

Honestly dude, you make a claim early, that you can't back up. Then you fact check me, all the while you don't even know how to interpret those ratings in the slightest, and try to use that. If you want to talk basketball facts, this will be a long conversation for you.


I never made a claim early..I made an opinion. I don't know why you are STILL unable to wrap your head around the difference..but it's not my job to teach you what you should have learned in grade school. But like I said, your ego won't let anyone disagree with you.

Orlando/Boston proves what I failed to prove with Lakers/Utah.

"Best players in the NBA" is an opinion. Not a fact. There is no definitive best player in the NBA. So no, I didn't notice that.

You'd rather have Robert Horry and I'd rather have Iverson in his prime. If this is how our discussion ends, I think I'm happy with that lol.

Chronz
09-12-2010, 01:22 AM
It's their job to entertain the audience but it's also to provide credible and applicable information that lets the audience better understand the game.

The only way they can do that is to incorporate advanced stats into the game. I don't mind Per-Game state at all actually, but I think it's time to start heading into the more advanced data. I don't think it will be too much for viewers to handle as long as they explain it.

Advanced Stats arent all that advanced, all you would have to say is Efficiency (aka Off.RTG) is to Usage% what Yards Per Carry are to Rushing Attempts. Its nothing that they arent already trying to sell just more accurate. Like Doug Collins is always trying to push his Pts Per Shot Attempt but thats just a half assed version of TS%.

Chronz
09-12-2010, 01:23 AM
I never made a claim early..

I have no idea what you guys are talking about

Hawkeye15
09-12-2010, 01:38 AM
I never made a claim early..I made an opinion. I don't know why you are STILL unable to wrap your head around the difference..but it's not my job to teach you what you should have learned in grade school. But like I said, your ego won't let anyone disagree with you.

Orlando/Boston proves what I failed to prove with Lakers/Utah.

"Best players in the NBA" is an opinion. Not a fact. There is no definitive best player in the NBA. So no, I didn't notice that.

You'd rather have Robert Horry and I'd rather have Iverson in his prime. If this is how our discussion ends, I think I'm happy with that lol.

while I find it interesting that you think you won an argument you refused to state an absolute opinion about to debate, you did in fact make claims. You don't need to teach me anything about basketball, I am good there. I have no idea what you have proved, you post with no evidence outside stats you don't understand. Best players in the NBA is fairly common knowledge, but if you are uncomfortable discussing them, that is fine.
I would rather have Robert Horry with 5 seconds to go with the ball out of bounds, down by 1. Call me crazy

C_Mund
09-12-2010, 02:10 AM
again, I am against getting too advanced. But I don't want a commentator saying Monta Ellis is one of the best scorers in the NBA, or that the Nuggets have the third best offense in the NBA.
Pace is up to your coach.
Golden State is #13 in offensive efficiency. But an idiot announcer would claim they are #2 in offense due to them being #2 in scoring. This is false, and should not be said.
Portland is the slowest pace team in the NBA. They were #21 in points per game, but the 7th best offense.
These numbers either need to be talked about, or that dude needs to go away and we listen to play by play and some funny guy who leaves stats alone

I can see exactly what you're getting at. Even if announcers don't quote exact advanced stats the information can still be presented.
I can get down with that.

DenButsu
09-12-2010, 04:53 AM
I think people are making this a lot more complicated and convoluted than it needs to be.

First of all, is anybody claiming that advanced/efficiency stats are the end-all be-all 100% complete explanation of everything that happens in basketball? No, of course not (and if they are, then their understanding of how to interpret advanced stats is badly flawed).

What's most important here, above all else, is simply to understand what exactly each stat measures.

What does "points per game" measure? How many points a team scores, on average, per game.

What does "offensive efficiency" measure? How many points, on average, a team scores per 100 possessions.

Neither of these are a perfect measure of the "best" or "worst" offense.

And nobody who endorses the use of advanced stats should claim otherwise. (And in fairness, I don't think anybody in this thread is claiming that offensive efficiency is a perfect measure of how good an offense is).

But I made a spreadsheet here based on the 2009-10 season that illustrates a few things pretty clearly:

1) In general, and although it's not perfect, efficiency is a more accurate measure of team strength than points per game.

2) Points per game is more likely than efficiency to make teams appear better than they are, and points per game is by far the least accurate indicator of team strength among the factors we're looking at here.

3) And, in any case, the differentials between offensive and defensive efficiency, or own ppg and opponent ppg, are more accurate indicators of team strength than any of those factors (off eff/def eff/own ppg/opp ppg) taken alone.

Blue = ranked 1-8 in that category, Yellow = 9-16, Orange = 17-30

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/2913/efficiencyvspergame.jpg

whitemamba33
09-12-2010, 02:26 PM
while I find it interesting that you think you won an argument you refused to state an absolute opinion about to debate, you did in fact make claims. You don't need to teach me anything about basketball, I am good there. I have no idea what you have proved, you post with no evidence outside stats you don't understand. Best players in the NBA is fairly common knowledge, but if you are uncomfortable discussing them, that is fine.
I would rather have Robert Horry with 5 seconds to go with the ball out of bounds, down by 1. Call me crazy

lol when did I say that I think I won the argument? It was an opinion..how do you win an opinion? If I was trying to win an argument, i'd state facts, not my opinion. I wasn't trying to say you are wrong. I'm just saying how I see things. Regardless, these symantics make me sleepy. If you still wish to discuss it, go ask an english teacher to explain to you what an opinion is.

I never said I need to teach you anything about basketball. You misread. See above.

I never talked about 5 seconds to go. If we are talking about efficiency, why would you bring up a 1 shot instance that won't really effect efficiency eithe way? If you go back to one of my original posts, I always talked about the last 5 minutes or so, when the closer is supposed to take over. When teams give guys like Iverson and Kobe the ball and tell them to make something happen. Not many role players in the league are capable of closing out a game...Robert Horry included. So if these players sacrifice efficiency for the sake of being the only one of the team capable of closing out a game...i'm not going to hold that against them. That was my point.

whitemamba33
09-12-2010, 02:42 PM
Regardless, the NBA does what it does, and i'm sure it's for good reason. As important as you think the efficiency stats are, I just don't think there are enough people that will care and I really don't see the need for it in a television broadcast.

If I hear that Kobe is averaging 29 points, 5 assists, and 5 rebounds coming into tonights game, I know that there is probably a good chance he'll put up somewhere around 29, 5, and 5 tonight. Regardless of how efficiently he gets there, at least I can get an idea of where his numbers will probably be. I consider that to be helpful.

If you tell me Kobe Bryant has a 25 efficiency...I know that he probably is going to play pretty efficiently tonight. Other than that, I really don't know what to expect. I don't consider that to be helpful at all.

I'm not saying that the efficiency ratings don't have their place...but it's not on a televisoin broadcast. The numbers are out there all over the Internet if you want them, but I really don't think the have much importance in a game-day broadcast.

BTW: this is my opinion...I am not saying this to try and win an argument, I am not saying this to try and say that everybody else is wrong. It's just how I see things, and obviously it's how the NBA sees it as well.

MrFastBreak
09-12-2010, 04:04 PM
Agreed. A lot of people don't know TS% or some of the other advanced stats. It makes it a lot easier for the regular fans and beginners to follow what the analysts are saying.

On a side note, I feel like PSD posters have started using the advanced stats in more of their discussions over the summer. Its not something I saw a lot of before but I'm seeing people bring it up more and more.

NBA Advanced Statistics Discussion Thread


stick to per game stats

if forums want to circle jerk about ortg/drtg, per and whatever else was developed in the last week that's up to them.

They already speak on if they feel a player isn't playing enough

???? Those metrics have existed for a while, youre just now finding out about them.


Speaking of you guys' new found knowledge about these metrics, why undervalue them when you prolly dont understand them fully?

DenButsu
09-12-2010, 07:16 PM
I'm not saying that the efficiency ratings don't have their place...but it's not on a televisoin broadcast. The numbers are out there all over the Internet if you want them, but I really don't think the have much importance in a game-day broadcast.

I totally disagree with this.

To me, the number one responsibility of the announcers, when they are presenting something as if it were factual (eg. "The Warriors have the second best offense in the league."), is to actually tell viewers the truth.

When it's demonstrably, objectively provable that points per game is NOT the most accurate measure of "best offense", and when most of today's NBA announcers are probably fully aware that efficiency stats are more accurate yet persist in attempting to use per game stats to describe "best" this and "best" that, then they are knowingly misleading NBA fans to believe crap that's not true.

It's irresponsible. And it's not as if people won't understand if things are presented in the right way.

We deserve better.

Chronz
09-12-2010, 10:12 PM
the more i see from den the angrier i get. it rly is bs

BULLSFAN0810
09-12-2010, 10:34 PM
per minute... i remember watching a Heat game and they said something to the effect that riley uses per minute and he (riley) said miki moore per minute was a great scorer per minute. Miki moore was trash IMO but when riles put him in the game Miki moore was all on the glass crashing and getting ez 2s...then i became a believer...

HiphopRelated
09-12-2010, 10:55 PM
NBA Advanced Statistics Discussion Thread



???? Those metrics have existed for a while, youre just now finding out about them.


Speaking of you guys' new found knowledge about these metrics, why undervalue them when you prolly dont understand them fully?
lol, boy you're a good one, hyperbole easily escapes you I see.

The point is if a fan feels the need for in depth statistical analysis they can find it. Game commentary really isn't the place. It's bad enough all the useless "1st player to do "x" on a back to back after 2 30 point games in December" stats that get thrown out there.

Who cares that some scrub is the best per minute scorer? The coach is aware of that, there must be some other reason he's getting 15 mpg...maybe he averages 6 fouls per 36.

Chronz
09-12-2010, 11:40 PM
Who cares that some scrub is the best per minute scorer? The coach is aware of that, there must be some other reason he's getting 15 mpg...maybe he averages 6 fouls per 36.

I dont care for your guys argument but lets play this game, so what scrubs are you talking about? No hiding behind the hypothetical because to me it just sounds like your lost on the matter.

whitemamba33
09-12-2010, 11:41 PM
I totally disagree with this.

To me, the number one responsibility of the announcers, when they are presenting something as if it were factual (eg. "The Warriors have the second best offense in the league."), is to actually tell viewers the truth.

When it's demonstrably, objectively provable that points per game is NOT the most accurate measure of "best offense", and when most of today's NBA announcers are probably fully aware that efficiency stats are more accurate yet persist in attempting to use per game stats to describe "best" this and "best" that, then they are knowingly misleading NBA fans to believe crap that's not true.

It's irresponsible. And it's not as if people won't understand if things are presented in the right way.

We deserve better.

No, you didn't disagree with me at all. I didn't say they should lie, I didn't say that the announcers shouldn't tell the truth, and I didn't say that they should announce the #1 team in ppg as the bgest offense in the league. I didn't say anything.

In fact I kind of agree with you...although instead of of throwing around efficiency numbers I don't think they should be presented at all, but made available. And that is pretty much how things are.

blastmasta26
09-13-2010, 12:37 AM
Statistical analysis on broadcasts should be deeper than what is presented currently. Commentators don't have to be too advanced, but more elaboration should be given. It seems like only the most hardcore fans know about advanced stats that measure efficiency and other things that basic stats cannot. Now the most casual fans of won't be interested in stats like these, but people that are borderline hardcore or just regular viewers should know about them.

DenButsu
09-13-2010, 03:01 AM
No, you didn't disagree with me at all. I didn't say they should lie, I didn't say that the announcers shouldn't tell the truth, and I didn't say that they should announce the #1 team in ppg as the bgest offense in the league. I didn't say anything.

In fact I kind of agree with you...although instead of of throwing around efficiency numbers I don't think they should be presented at all, but made available. And that is pretty much how things are.

You said efficiency stats have no place in a broadcast. So yes, I do disagree with you, because I think there's a very appropriate place for efficiency stats within broadcasts.

And I do think it's blatantly misleading (if not dishonest to a degree) to do things like put up a list of which teams score the most points per game and use it as a basis for discussing best offenses. And if you watch any NBA games at all, you know they do stuff like that all the time.

If they continue to outright refuse to use advanced stats, they should at least be crystal clear about the limitations of the stats they're using. As of now, they are totally reckless about it, and make a lot of leaps from limited use stats to conclusions which are presented as factual ("X team has the best offense in the league"), but are demonstrably false.

whitemamba33
09-13-2010, 02:18 PM
You said efficiency stats have no place in a broadcast. So yes, I do disagree with you, because I think there's a very appropriate place for efficiency stats within broadcasts.

And I do think it's blatantly misleading (if not dishonest to a degree) to do things like put up a list of which teams score the most points per game and use it as a basis for discussing best offenses. And if you watch any NBA games at all, you know they do stuff like that all the time.

If they continue to outright refuse to use advanced stats, they should at least be crystal clear about the limitations of the stats they're using. As of now, they are totally reckless about it, and make a lot of leaps from limited use stats to conclusions which are presented as factual ("X team has the best offense in the league"), but are demonstrably false.

Well...i've pretty much said what I needed to say, so I won't repeat myself.

But both myself and the NBA disagree. lol

SteveNash
09-13-2010, 04:42 PM
I dont care for your guys argument but lets play this game, so what scrubs are you talking about? No hiding behind the hypothetical because to me it just sounds like your lost on the matter.

Amir Johnson, Nazr Mohammed

thekmp211
09-13-2010, 04:52 PM
i think context is the key. it needs to be accounted for, and a lot of statistics that revolved around efficiency are really not that hard to understand. it's probably not a good idea to get into PER during a live game...a little too convoluted. but shooting percentages and efficiency statistics, as well as some of the defensive metrics that are apparently available to scouts and people at synergy.

announcer need to be privy to this stuff though -- it won't really help if they themselves aren't interested in and convinced by the statistics that they are presenting. if they aren't, it'll probably just end up looking dumb. there definitely needs to be a shift, though, that's for sure.

Chronz
09-13-2010, 06:23 PM
amir johnson, nazr mohammed
16.8pts/36
12.7pts/36

HiphopRelated
09-13-2010, 09:50 PM
I dont care for your guys argument but lets play this game, so what scrubs are you talking about? No hiding behind the hypothetical because to me it just sounds like your lost on the matter.
Nate Robinson

Joel Anthony is one of the best shotblockers per minute. If he played 48 mpg I guess the other team wouldn't score in the paint.

Why doesn't Birdman play more for the above reason?

Bill Walker has one of the higher TS% last I checked. Guess NY has their scoring wing and didn't know it

Oberto was top 15 in assist ratio...guess Wiz should have run their offense through him instead of only playing him 11mpg

DenButsu
09-13-2010, 10:02 PM
Nate Robinson

Joel Anthony is one of the best shotblockers per minute. If he played 48 mpg I guess the other team wouldn't score in the paint.

Why doesn't Birdman play more for the above reason?

Bill Walker has one of the higher TS% last I checked. Guess NY has their scoring wing and didn't know it

Oberto was top 15 in assist ratio...guess Wiz should have run their offense through him instead of only playing him 11mpg

Of course, stats need to be understood in context. Birdman doesn't play bigger minutes because his liability on offense and as a man-on defender gets exposed, which in turn reduces his efficiency. But, employed properly (as I think the Nuggets have), he's extremely efficient in the rebounding and blocks department, and as an energy player that can change the dynamics of a game.

Being very efficient in a limited role doesn't mean a player has no limitations, or that that player could perform on the same level in a larger role with more minutes.

Age is another consideration. Chris Andersen, we can safely assume, has pretty much hit his ceiling. So we shouldn't expect he can do much better than the best he's already shown us. Ty Lawson, on the other hand, who was extremely efficient in his rookie season, shows every promise of being able to deliver some great quality basketball in a larger role, because of his age, his trajectory, and his composure on the court.

Using stats (or specifically, advanced stats) doesn't mean throwing common sense out the window. But likewise, used correctly, in context, and keeping one eye on what we can observe directly by watching the games, they can definitely increase and deepen our understanding.

If basketball fans want to be knowledgeable about the game they love, why not use every tool in our arsenal to build that knowledge instead of slamming the door on some of the most useful types of data and analysis? It just doesn't make any sense to me why anyone who really cares about the game and wants to understand it as best they possibly can would be closed minded to this.

ttam68
09-14-2010, 12:41 PM
Of course, stats need to be understood in context. Birdman doesn't play bigger minutes because his liability on offense and as a man-on defender gets exposed, which in turn reduces his efficiency. But, employed properly (as I think the Nuggets have), he's extremely efficient in the rebounding and blocks department, and as an energy player that can change the dynamics of a game.

Being very efficient in a limited role doesn't mean a player has no limitations, or that that player could perform on the same level in a larger role with more minutes.

Age is another consideration. Chris Andersen, we can safely assume, has pretty much hit his ceiling. So we shouldn't expect he can do much better than the best he's already shown us. Ty Lawson, on the other hand, who was extremely efficient in his rookie season, shows every promise of being able to deliver some great quality basketball in a larger role, because of his age, his trajectory, and his composure on the court.

Using stats (or specifically, advanced stats) doesn't mean throwing common sense out the window. But likewise, used correctly, in context, and keeping one eye on what we can observe directly by watching the games, they can definitely increase and deepen our understanding.

If basketball fans want to be knowledgeable about the game they love, why not use every tool in our arsenal to build that knowledge instead of slamming the door on some of the most useful types of data and analysis? It just doesn't make any sense to me why anyone who really cares about the game and wants to understand it as best they possibly can would be closed minded to this.

You're employing logic, intelligence, and an understanding of the game that goes deeper than the masses.

I'm with you in that I'd like to see some more rational commentary from announcers, or atleast for them to stop using irrational statements (i.e. Nuggets are the 3rd best offense), but it goes over the heads of the majority of the audience.

A casual fan doesn't care about Birdman's rebounding rate. A seven year old doesn't understand that an assist on a three point shot can carry more or, depending on your thought process, less value.

The TV personalities are molded to appeal to everyone, and theres certainly nothing wrong with that. Its up to fans like us to find the more advanced analysis or opinion pieces we'd like to see.

All that said, I did vote for more use of advanced statistics.

Chronz
09-14-2010, 12:57 PM
Nate Robinson
What about him?



Joel Anthony is one of the best shotblockers per minute. If he played 48 mpg I guess the other team wouldn't score in the paint.

Yes because we all know blocking 7 shots means all the other attempts dont count.


Why doesn't Birdman play more for the above reason?
Not sure I follow you


Bill Walker has one of the higher TS% last I checked. Guess NY has their scoring wing and didn't know it
Check his usage% and sample size, what NY has is a potential diamond in the rough.


Oberto was top 15 in assist ratio...guess Wiz should have run their offense through him instead of only playing him 11mpg

He also sported a turnover% of 36.2%, and despite accounting for only 6.9% of his teams offense could only muster 1.06PPP. Clearly the guy cannot score regardless of how little attention he gets so it shouldnt come as a surprise that the only thing he tries to do is get others involved. Even in that regard he fails as his Pure Point Rating is surely just as putrid as the rest of his game.

Again your only showing how little you know, since when does evaluating per minute production mean they ignore the rest of a players stats? If the team needs someone to rebound a final shot, do you think the team will go for the guy with the highest rebounding average, or the guy who rebounds the most while hes in there?

DenButsu
09-14-2010, 06:54 PM
You're employing logic, intelligence, and an understanding of the game that goes deeper than the masses.

I'm with you in that I'd like to see some more rational commentary from announcers, or atleast for them to stop using irrational statements (i.e. Nuggets are the 3rd best offense), but it goes over the heads of the majority of the audience.

A casual fan doesn't care about Birdman's rebounding rate. A seven year old doesn't understand that an assist on a three point shot can carry more or, depending on your thought process, less value.

The TV personalities are molded to appeal to everyone, and theres certainly nothing wrong with that. Its up to fans like us to find the more advanced analysis or opinion pieces we'd like to see.

All that said, I did vote for more use of advanced statistics.

I think the fans deserve more credit. Look at baseball. In regular in-game commentary baseball announcers get a lot more heady into the stats stuff than basketball announcers do, yet it doesn't seem to harm baseball's popularity in any way. And football, the sport itself, is much more intricate and complicated with the vast variety of rules, penalties, plays and positions, yet again, that doesn't seem to turn off the viewing audience.

There was probably a time when "rebounds per game" didn't matter much to the average fan, either. It's common knowledge now, I'd imagine, because announcers talk about it regularly, and have been doing so for a long time. Part of their responsibiliy as broadcasters is to help inform and educate the fans who are watching the games. I think they're failing in that bigtime.

DenButsu
09-14-2010, 07:01 PM
What about him?


Yes because we all know blocking 7 shots means all the other attempts dont count.


Not sure I follow you


Check his usage% and sample size, what NY has is a potential diamond in the rough.


He also sported a turnover% of 36.2%, and despite accounting for only 6.9% of his teams offense could only muster 1.06PPP. Clearly the guy cannot score regardless of how little attention he gets so it shouldnt come as a surprise that the only thing he tries to do is get others involved. Even in that regard he fails as his Pure Point Rating is surely just as putrid as the rest of his game.

Again your only showing how little you know, since when does evaluating per minute production mean they ignore the rest of a players stats? If the team needs someone to rebound a final shot, do you think the team will go for the guy with the highest rebounding average, or the guy who rebounds the most while hes in there?

Is there a quick and easy way to locate splits for players along the lines of stats when a player plays more than X minutes vs. stats when the same player plays less than Y minutes?

My feeling, just from watching guys like Birdman, Najera, A. Carter, D. Jones get called upon at times to put in big minutes due to a starter being injured or something, is that role players like that have a certain threshold of diminishing returns that usually lies somewhere around the 18-22 minute mark. But I've never seen anything statistically to back up (or disprove) that notion.

It would go a long way towards an easy explanation of why role players with impressive efficiency don't get more minutes, though.

DenButsu
09-14-2010, 10:46 PM
Is there a quick and easy way to locate splits for players along the lines of stats when a player plays more than X minutes vs. stats when the same player plays less than Y minutes?

My feeling, just from watching guys like Birdman, Najera, A. Carter, D. Jones get called upon at times to put in big minutes due to a starter being injured or something, is that role players like that have a certain threshold of diminishing returns that usually lies somewhere around the 18-22 minute mark. But I've never seen anything statistically to back up (or disprove) that notion.

It would go a long way towards an easy explanation of why role players with impressive efficiency don't get more minutes, though.

Just realized an obvious pitfall in my thinking of how to analyze this, which is that for most role players, the games in which they get more minutes than usual, they're being kept in the game by the coach because they're playing great, and vice versa.

Maybe we'd need to first establish a pool of "role players" (say, under 25 mpg?) who have high efficiency ratings in one or more area, and then narrow that pool down to those who were FORCED into bigger roles by teammate injury. So, for example, Chris Andersen would pretty much be disqualified from the 2008-09 season since Nene and K-Mart stayed healthier for most of the year. But in the 2009-10 season, when K-Mart played fewer games (and gimpier many of the games he did play), resulting in increased minutes for Andersen, that season might work?

It might be a little arbitrary, but I think it gets closer to what I'm aiming for.

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

Regardless of all that^ though, here are the Birdman's averages over his two last seasons with the Nuggets in games in which he played 25+ minutes vs. games in which he played 17-24 minutes (I discarded everything 16 and under). It's kind of interesting - they are mostly better, which is not exactly what I was expecting. My best guess would be that the "coach plays him more when he's playing good" effect, combined with playing alongside better players (easier to shoot at a high percentage next to Melo/Nene/Billups) both feed into this to an extent. Not sure what conclusions to draw, exactly, though. If anything, this goes directly against what I was proposing above (a minutes threshold of diminishing returns), but I'll go ahead and post it anyhow as food for thought:


Chris Andersen


25+ Minutes (in 37 games, 25% of 147 played)

MP TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK%
Avg. 27.51 .636 .591 10.1 23.3 16.7 1.7 1.5 7.1


17-24 Minutes (in 86 games, 59% of 147 played)

MP TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK%
Avg. 20.33 .603 .524 12.1 20.6 16.4 3.7 1.3 8.0


MP TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK%
Diff. +7.18 +.033 +.067 -2.0 +2.7 +0.3 -2.0 +0.2 -0.9

Chronz
09-15-2010, 02:30 AM
Is there a quick and easy way to locate splits for players along the lines of stats when a player plays more than X minutes vs. stats when the same player plays less than Y minutes?

My feeling, just from watching guys like Birdman, Najera, A. Carter, D. Jones get called upon at times to put in big minutes due to a starter being injured or something, is that role players like that have a certain threshold of diminishing returns that usually lies somewhere around the 18-22 minute mark. But I've never seen anything statistically to back up (or disprove) that notion.

It would go a long way towards an easy explanation of why role players with impressive efficiency don't get more minutes, though.
I dont know of any easy way but there have been a few studies on the matter that I could link you to. Soon as I track them down Ill post them on the Stats thread.

Going with basic methods a quick glance at some of those players in different roles provides abit of context.

D. Jones has been pretty consistent throughout his career with ranges from 10-28MPG
A. Carter was at his best when he got the most minutes of his career, but a guy like Duhon will fall off dramatically in a starting role. It really depends on the player but for the most part I think the optimal range is 32-34 MPG.

Najera not sure what to make of his career

DenButsu
09-15-2010, 02:57 AM
Thanks, Chronz.

One thing about Andersen that might be confirmed by his reminding numbers (he appears to pull down offensive boards at a better clip in games he plays fewer minutes) is how much certain elements of his game rely on energetic hustle play.

Maybe a guy like Najera just plain runs out of steam (especially given his age when he had his better seasons with the Nuggets).

thekmp211
09-15-2010, 12:45 PM
Thanks, Chronz.

One thing about Andersen that might be confirmed by his reminding numbers (he appears to pull down offensive boards at a better clip in games he plays fewer minutes) is how much certain elements of his game rely on energetic hustle play.

Maybe a guy like Najera just plain runs out of steam (especially given his age when he had his better seasons with the Nuggets).

it's also easier to go 100% at all times when you are only playing 10-15 minutes a game as opposed to 30. can't keep up the same physical pace.

IndyRealist
09-15-2010, 02:01 PM
I can't imagine advanced statistics scaring away fans. Baseball has been using them for years, and every football fan at least knows what a QB rating is even if they don't know how to figure it. They just need to be explained in a way so that the average fan can understand it in 10 seconds without having to analyze the forumla.

Saying that TS% includes 3pt shots and free throws should be enough of an explanation on TV. As long as higher numbers are better, they generally don't need much more of an explanation.

DenButsu
09-15-2010, 09:39 PM
Saying that TS% includes 3pt shots and free throws should be enough of an explanation on TV. As long as higher numbers are better, they generally don't need much more of an explanation.

EXACTly! :clap:

No need to be dropping formulas and mathematics on the general public. All people really need to understand is good, concrete examples. For instance, by way of introducing a "new" stat to the audience (in this case, TS%), an announcer could get a graphic up like this:


FG% TS%
Ray Allen .477 .601
Marquis Daniels .498 .526

And then say something like this:

"It may seem surprising that Marquis Daniels has a higher field goal percentage (.498) than Ray Allen (.477). But regular FG% doesn't account for free throws or the fact that 3-pointers are more valuable shots (because 3 points are more than 2). When we look at a stat like (air quotes) "True Shooting Percentage", which does account for 3-pointers and free throws, we see a result that makes a lot more sense: Allen, with a TS% of .601, is a far more efficient overall shooter than Daniels, with a TS% of 526. And this is because of Ray's very good 3-point shooting and because he's one of the best free throw shooters in the league."


I have to believe that the vast majority of viewers, even if they'd had no previous exposure to advanced stats, would not only easily understand stuff like that, but in most cases would also find it fairly interesting as well.

Hawkeye15
09-15-2010, 09:46 PM
Well...i've pretty much said what I needed to say, so I won't repeat myself.

But both myself and the NBA disagree. lol

no reason to repeat yourself. I am still clueless to what point you were making. You say effiency has no place in the world of NBA announcing. You say you prefer players who are starters chucking shots left and right to play over efficient player. I really have no clue what point you are attempting to make.

DenButsu
09-16-2010, 10:33 PM
On the topic above regarding why very efficient role players don't get more minutes, I asked Joe Treutlein of HoopData via twitter:

Are there any statistical metrics that show why role players w/ high efficiency are kept to limited minutes?
And he replied:

Metrics no, studies yes http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/06/diminishing-returns-for-scoring-usage-vs-efficiency/

However I doubt many coaches consider studies when choosing lineups. It's mostly common sense assessing skill sets subjectively.

Here is the beginning of the study he linked to:


March 6, 2008
Diminishing Returns for Scoring - Usage vs. Efficiency
Posted by Eli in Stat Theory, Studies

In the wake of my last few posts on diminishing returns in rebounding, a lot of people have suggested looking at how diminishing returns applies to scoring. This is a more complex issue, but I think some of the same methods can be used to try to understand what’s going on in this part of the game of basketball. For rebounding, we were just looking at the relationship of player rebounding to team rebounding. For scoring, we have to look at the relationship of player efficiency and player usage to team efficiency. Diminishing returns for scoring is really just another way of framing the usage vs. efficiency debate which has been going on in the stats community for years. Does efficiency decrease as usage increases? By how much? What, if any, value should be placed on shot creation? Are coaches using anything near to the optimal strategies in distributing shot attempts among their players? Is Allen Iverson wildly overrated? Was Fred Hoiberg criminally underutilized? The big names in basketball stats like Dean Oliver, Bob Chaikin, John Hollinger, Dan Rosenbaum, and Dave Berri have all staked out positions in this debate. For some background, see here and here and here and here and here and so on and so on. A lot of words have been written on this topic.

The major difficulty in studying the usage vs. efficiency tradeoff is the chicken-and-egg problem - does a positive correlation between usage and efficiency mean that...

[...]


Just started reading it, haven't finished yet, but it looks interesting (although maybe a little too over my head in the math department in parts), and links to a lot of other discussions on the subject.