PDA

View Full Version : The Moneyball of Basketball



Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 01:46 AM
We might have to get George Clooney to star in this one since he loves to play hoops. Sorry Brad Pitt.

Yes I realize the difference between the economics of baseball and the economics of basketball. Well, sort of, and not really.... Maybe more appropriately stated:

There are differences between baseball and basketball (thank you Captain obvious).

At this point one would hope baseball GMs would look at advanced stats (UZR, Sabermetrics, Yada-Yada-Yada) to evaluate talent. And probably more so than NBA GMs. Since small market baseball teams cannot make mistakes that are funded by NESN and YES network. See Moneyball the movie.

Looking at Basketball, I get that there is a cap (unlike baseball) but players are starting to position themselves with other players in other markets that differ from the original teams expectations. And some teams are overpaying for mediocre talent (yes, this has happened for a bit). So that being said should smaller market teams or teams in less desirable locations adopt a similar model to baseball when it comes to evaluating talent and looking at advanced stats? Maybe sell top talent for draft picks or players with potentially high PERs or other advanced factors?

I know it's not the same as baseball. The Knicks cannot eat the same mistakes as the Yankees. But the Knicks also have the ability to sign top FA over the Cavs or other smaller market teams.

I thought of this because I seems like that is exactly what Chris Grant (GM of the Cavs) is doing. He knows Cleveland is not a FA destination. So he's drafting guys with high upside based on some advanced stats. Thoughts?

mtgphenom
07-13-2012, 01:54 AM
tristan thompson is overrated....not a very good pick there

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 02:00 AM
tristan thompson is overrated....not a very good pick there

But he was rated highly....

http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/06/20/finally-someone-else-likes-texas-stud-tristan-thompson/

And it was a pretty weak class. I wanted Valenchiunas but Thompson was a safe pick since they didn't know what Kyrie would be.

aussie
07-13-2012, 02:05 AM
New Orleans is better

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 02:07 AM
New Orleans is better

:facepalm: please expand

mtgphenom
07-13-2012, 02:10 AM
by who? no one saw him as a high lottery pick everybody was down on him

hes a shorter version of jason thompson and we've seen how that goes. idk how you see him as a safe pick, he never impressed me at texas. he should have dominated in college with that wingspan not to mention hes a bit of a tweener which makes him a risky pick because you don't know where he could play in the nba.

you should have drafted by need and got another guard that could play off irving or a sf which there were plenty of solid options in the late lottery to late first round if they would have traded down and could have picked up a 2nd round pick or some other kind of asset

StephenP
07-13-2012, 02:13 AM
The biggest difference between basketball and baseball is the amount of interaction between the players. Except for the pitcher/catcher relationship, putting the best player available at each position in baseball will most likely give you the best team.
Basketball has much more chemistry involved. This can't be shown using any type of advanced stats. Not only do you need a team of good players, you need good players who mesh.

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 02:19 AM
The biggest difference between basketball and baseball is the amount of interaction between the players. Except for the pitcher/catcher relationship, putting the best player available at each position in baseball will most likely give you the best team.
Basketball has much more chemistry involved. This can't be shown using any type of advanced stats. Not only do you need a team of good players, you need good players who mesh.

Absolutely, and I love this response. But there are measures that come in to play maybe more so now in basketball than previously, perhaps PER? It is hard to compare both sports because they're so different.

Trueblue2
07-13-2012, 02:20 AM
Drafting young guys with potential isn't really taking advantage of market inefficiencies, that's pretty much the status quo for small market teams that are rebuilding.

The Basketball version of moneyball would be a GM trading for/signing/drafting players that contribute in ways that are overlooked by other GM's and would be more valuable than their contract. It's not really that doable in basketball because every facet of defense, assists, rebounding, and scoring is already pretty valued. A GM could find some players that contribute in ways that aren't highly valued yet contribute to wins, but they would still have to sign players that contribute in conventional, highly valued ways.

and I'm not stat geek, but doesn't +/- show how well players mesh with eachother?

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 02:21 AM
by who? no one saw him as a high lottery pick everybody was down on him

hes a shorter version of jason thompson and we've seen how that goes. idk how you see him as a safe pick, he never impressed me at texas. he should have dominated in college with that wingspan not to mention hes a bit of a tweener which makes him a risky pick because you don't know where he could play in the nba.

you should have drafted by need and got another guard that could play off irving or a sf which there were plenty of solid options in the late lottery to late first round if they would have traded down and could have picked up a 2nd round pick or some other kind of asset

Did you follow the link? Let me ask you this, who in that draft class stood out other than Kyrie Irving?

mtgphenom
07-13-2012, 02:26 AM
as far as positions of need for the cavs klay thompson, alec burks, kawhi leonard, marshon brooks, shumpert will be a great roll player, and i think etwaun moore will be a steal in the 2nd becoming a solid option off the bench in another year

not really any centers i was impressed with that feel after there 2nd pick but there were some other really solid pgs that ppl were down on for players like kembo which i never understood

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 02:30 AM
as far as positions of need for the cavs klay thompson, alec burks, kawhi leonard, marshon brooks, shumpert will be a great roll player, and i think etwaun moore will be a steal in the 2nd becoming a solid option off the bench in another year

not really any centers i was impressed with that feel after there 2nd pick but there were some other really solid pgs that ppl were down on for players like kembo which i never understood

Okay but in a weak draft those guys aren't really that much better than Thompson. The fact you refer to them as roll players only suggests that. I'm not saying Thompson is an all-star, I'm just saying its maybe too early to tell.

mtgphenom
07-13-2012, 02:33 AM
i said shumpert and moore will be role players. if you've u seen those other kids play ud see that theyll be making all star games and have way more upside then thompson who oh btw was trying to be forced into the howard 4 team trade by your gm because he no longer wanted him

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 02:36 AM
i said shumpert and moore will be role players. if you've u seen those other kids play ud see that theyll be making all star games and have way more upside then thompson who oh btw was trying to be forced into the howard 4 team trade by your gm because he no longer wanted him

Okay, yeah prove that! Just because you hear chatter doesnt make it true! As I said before give it time. At this point the only all-star is Kyrie from that class.

Knicks21
07-13-2012, 02:37 AM
Daryl Morey actually uses this approach, looking at advanced statistics to value a player. As quote from Daryl Morey's wikipedia page:

His hiring follows the recent Moneyball trend of adding more advanced statistical-based analysis to the tradition use of qualitative scouting and basic statistics.[1] Several teams have hired executives with non-traditional basketball backgrounds, but the Rockets are the first NBA team to hire a general manager in this vein.

Mind you Money ball was set in the early 2000's, things have changed since then and now the regular fan is able to access PER and TS% via the Internet, back then you had to go to a players log book. A lot of teams, including the Red Sox use this approach to have some sort of influence on the players they obtain. Im sure not only the Rockets, but every team has a person in their organisation who advises GM's and such on advanced statistics.

Usually the players with high PER are paid very well.

Trueblue2
07-13-2012, 02:51 AM
Moneyball isn't about advanced stats, it's about market inefficiencies. Players that contribute to defense, offense, or rebounding in any way are already valued. The NBA version of moneyball is drafting overlooked players in the late first/second, maybe those that spent 3-4 years in college or are undersized for their position (eg. Farried, Brooks, Shumpert, Thomas)

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 03:02 AM
Moneyball isn't about advanced stats, it's about market inefficiencies. Players that contribute to defense, offense, or rebounding in any way are already valued. The NBA version of moneyball is drafting overlooked players in the late first/second, maybe those that spent 3-4 years in college or are undersized for their position (eg. Farried, Brooks, Shumpert, Thomas)

Okay, maybe Moneyball is a bit too specific.

Knicks21
07-13-2012, 03:03 AM
Moneyball isn't about advanced stats, it's about market inefficiencies. Players that contribute to defense, offense, or rebounding in any way are already valued. The NBA version of moneyball is drafting overlooked players in the late first/second, maybe those that spent 3-4 years in college or are undersized for their position (eg. Farried, Brooks, Shumpert, Thomas)

Using advanced statistics to find undervalued players for whatever reasons, height, looks, skin colour, history, age etc.

Sssmush
07-13-2012, 03:21 AM
We might have to get George Clooney to star in this one since he loves to play hoops. Sorry Brad Pitt.

Yes I realize the difference between the economics of baseball and the economics of basketball. Well, sort of, and not really.... Maybe more appropriately stated:

There are differences between baseball and basketball (thank you Captain obvious).

At this point one would hope baseball GMs would look at advanced stats (UZR, Sabermetrics, Yada-Yada-Yada) to evaluate talent. And probably more so than NBA GMs. Since small market baseball teams cannot make mistakes that are funded by NESN and YES network. See Moneyball the movie.

Looking at Basketball, I get that there is a cap (unlike baseball) but players are starting to position themselves with other players in other markets that differ from the original teams expectations. And some teams are overpaying for mediocre talent (yes, this has happened for a bit). So that being said should smaller market teams or teams in less desirable locations adopt a similar model to baseball when it comes to evaluating talent and looking at advanced stats? Maybe sell top talent for draft picks or players with potentially high PERs or other advanced factors?

I know it's not the same as baseball. The Knicks cannot eat the same mistakes as the Yankees. But the Knicks also have the ability to sign top FA over the Cavs or other smaller market teams.

I thought of this because I seems like that is exactly what Chris Grant (GM of the Cavs) is doing. He knows Cleveland is not a FA destination. So he's drafting guys with high upside based on some advanced stats. Thoughts?

Yes.

I've kinda thought that some teams could follow for instance the Baltimore Ravens model, of building up a tough defense, let's say.

Borrowing tricks from the New England Patriots also, you should be able to trade down into drafts and get like 2-3 solid body rookies every year, heavy rebounding shot blocking type guys. Build up a culture where it's all about the team. Some guys will become higher profile and bolt for more money after 3 or 7 years, but you always just reload.

What you need at the core of this is a Larry Brown type of coach that makes it his business to build up these players skills, and teach them fundamentals. Cares about them on a personal level and just works to make them better players and people. Instead of the organization just whining about "me me me" and "how do we keep this player he is valuable." Just keep the pipeline up and running, and training and cultivating young talent, and you will have some good years and playoff runs sometimes.

If you have one player, let's say a Steve Nash or Lebron for example, who takes a certain amount of ownership of the team, then that forms the core, and then you are just plugging in players around that core.

I don't think you should overpay for bigs in particular. There are 6'10" players in every draft, euros, college players, all americans, they are out there. If they can rebound and dunk and defend some, you can swap in new ones. And get some guys who can score low profile. If you are playing a team game, then you don't need one guy, a Carmelo, who can take 30 shots a game and do all this isolation stuff.

There's so many good players out there, you can always get more. If you are playing a team game, you don't need a superstar, you just need one or two leader type players, unless you are trying to be a dynasty or something, you can win. The agents are kind of conning the owners now at this point... it's like, "oh, Hibbert got 15 rebounds. Well now he's in max territory." It's bull****. Just go get some other 6'11" rookie with athletic talent, teach him some NBA level techniques and tricks, and throw him out there.

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 03:25 AM
Yes.

I've kinda thought that some teams could follow for instance the Baltimore Ravens model, of building up a tough defense, let's say.

Borrowing tricks from the New England Patriots also, you should be able to trade down into drafts and get like 2-3 solid body rookies every year, heavy rebounding shot blocking type guys. Build up a culture where it's all about the team. Some guys will become higher profile and bolt for more money after 3 or 7 years, but you always just reload.

What you need at the core of this is a Larry Brown type of coach that makes it his business to build up these players skills, and teach them fundamentals. Cares about them on a personal level and just works to make them better players and people. Instead of the organization just whining about "me me me" and "how do we keep this player he is valuable." Just keep the pipeline up and running, and training and cultivating young talent, and you will have some good years and playoff runs sometimes.

If you have one player, let's say a Steve Nash or Lebron for example, who takes a certain amount of ownership of the team, then that forms the core, and then you are just plugging in players around that core.

I don't think you should overpay for bigs in particular. There are 6'10" players in every draft, euros, college players, all americans, they are out there. If they can rebound and dunk and defend some, you can swap in new ones. And get some guys who can score low profile. If you are playing a team game, then you don't need one guy, a Carmelo, who can take 30 shots a game and do all this isolation stuff.

There's so many good players out there, you can always get more. If you are playing a team game, you don't need a superstar, you just need one or two leader type players, unless you are trying to be a dynasty or something, you can win. The agents are kind of conning the owners now at this point... it's like, "oh, Hibbert got 15 rebounds. Well now he's in max territory." It's bull****. Just go get some other 6'11" rookie with athletic talent, teach him some NBA level techniques and tricks, and throw him out there.

Thanks for taking this seriously!

Sssmush
07-13-2012, 03:30 AM
Like say Brooklyn got Deron. Ok, he is a very skilled point guard.

But let's say New York uses a 1st round pick and two 2nd round picks to get the three biggest guards it can find, who are known for their defense.

say like:

Casper Ware
DJ Cooper
Jared Cunningham
Kent Bazemore

Just, whatever, just some guards who are good defenders. And then build them up. Then throw in a rotation against Deron, don't be afraid to fail. I think they will do alright, especially if you have other good defenders, bigs etc.

It's not like freakin' Deron is some kind of Magic Johnson or whatever. Ok maybe he gives you an edge, but he's not going to average 35 points and 15 rebounds or something. He's just one guy. He's like 20 pts and 10 assists. It takes like 94 pts and 30 assists a game to win. So I think there's other ways to find value besides these "name" players or whatever

shep33
07-13-2012, 03:37 AM
Kevin Durant needs to be the protagonist of such a film

Sssmush
07-13-2012, 03:39 AM
Thanks for taking this seriously!

Cool.

Yeah I really feel that if the teams, the organizations, if they really care about the sport of basketball, and they really care about the players as individuals, and in building something positive in the community over the course of time, then that good energy will come back to them.

If you work on teaching the players and making them better, and don't just worry about wins and losses, just think about how to make this team better, make each player better.

Run the team like a basketball academy, let's say. Players come in, if they have good talent and attitude, maybe they can make the team. You work as a team to improve, play as a team, each player works to learn better skills. You got 82 games plus practices, you just go out and do it. Say, once every 2-3 years you hit the playoffs, maybe make a deep run. Stern says "it's all about the championships" but yeah, **** off, we don't have a bunch of shoe contracts on our team, if we ever win a title it will be like the American Hockey team beating the Russians in the Olympics or whatever, it will be the freakin' Miracle on Ice unless we got at least two giant Nike or Adidas contracts on our team. So if we get to 2nd round or CFs, play our hearts out, boom, there it is.

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 03:52 AM
Like say Brooklyn got Deron. Ok, he is a very skilled point guard.

But let's say New York uses a 1st round pick and two 2nd round picks to get the three biggest guards it can find, who are known for their defense.

say like:

Casper Ware
DJ Cooper
Jared Cunningham
Kent Bazemore

Just, whatever, just some guards who are good defenders. And then build them up. Then throw in a rotation against Deron, don't be afraid to fail. I think they will do alright, especially if you have other good defenders, bigs etc.

It's not like freakin' Deron is some kind of Magic Johnson or whatever. Ok maybe he gives you an edge, but he's not going to average 35 points and 15 rebounds or something. He's just one guy. He's like 20 pts and 10 assists. It takes like 94 pts and 30 assists a game to win. So I think there's other ways to find value besides these "name" players or whatever

Clever stuff. You must love women? Is that the reason for the girl on your profile? You also have cartoons in your avatar. I'm so confused with what you're trying to be I just want to explode. And your so smart with your clever responses. Your just an amazing entity. We should all aim our units in your direction. How can I be like you? I know it's not possible but I really would like to...

Sssmush
07-13-2012, 04:17 AM
Clever stuff. You must love women? Is that the reason for the girl on your profile? You also have cartoons in your avatar. I'm so confused with what you're trying to be I just want to explode. And your so smart with your clever responses. Your just an amazing entity. We should all aim our units in your direction. How can I be like you? I know it's not possible but I really would like to...

just kicking *** and taking names. Rarely get a good game around here though.

in the absence of that though I will occasionally unravel problems "pro bono" so to speak, to alleviate my ADHD and soothe my wretched procrastination and laziness

IndyRealist
07-13-2012, 09:48 AM
The biggest difference between basketball and baseball is the amount of interaction between the players. Except for the pitcher/catcher relationship, putting the best player available at each position in baseball will most likely give you the best team.
Basketball has much more chemistry involved. This can't be shown using any type of advanced stats. Not only do you need a team of good players, you need good players who mesh.

But NBA players are substantially more consistent across time than baseball or football players, meaning less outside factors affect their performance. In other words, a player's production is only slightly affected by his teammates.

IndyRealist
07-13-2012, 10:08 AM
Moneyball isn't about advanced stats, it's about market inefficiencies. Players that contribute to defense, offense, or rebounding in any way are already valued. The NBA version of moneyball is drafting overlooked players in the late first/second, maybe those that spent 3-4 years in college or are undersized for their position (eg. Farried, Brooks, Shumpert, Thomas)

The market inefficiency was that decision makers did not value what actually wins games. The same thing is true in basketball. Decision makers overvalue points, draft position, the ncaa tournament, and pretty much every measurement at the combine. Those things are useful, but gm's put too much emphasis on it. Conversely, they undervalue offensive rebounds, turnovers, and shooting percentages. They don't ignore it, but they think making a final 4 is more important than not turning the ball over.

LongWayFromHome
07-13-2012, 11:30 AM
Money all does NOT mean looking at advanced stats. It means finding a competitive edge that others aren't aware of so u can pay less money for players who will produce. In baseball offensive sabermetrics is no longer "moneyball" because everybody knows about it.

A good example of NBA moneyball would be the mavs acquisition of derrin collision who is owed only 2-3 million this year.

Gritz
07-13-2012, 11:51 AM
lol

Chronz
07-13-2012, 12:10 PM
This is a sport where 1 player has the biggest impact so you wont be able to go around that key fact. You still need stars to win big or atleast a collection of all-star caliber players. These guys are pretty obvious to spot.

Our version of Money ball would make for a less interesting story. The best uses of APBR stats come in the form of building a strong supporting cast out of players other teams underrate. The Nuggets would probably be the best team to cast in the movie. They traded a chucking "star" in Melo for a variety of efficient players and they draft accordingly.

mtgphenom
07-13-2012, 06:33 PM
Okay, yeah prove that! Just because you hear chatter doesnt make it true! As I said before give it time. At this point the only all-star is Kyrie from that class.


congrats your gm drafted the unanimous best player in the draft. that takes guts to pick the only player in the draft every team wants especially when theres no one else anyone even considered as the top pick that year. thats definitely the concept of moneyball having the overall number 1 pick and taking the one player thats considered deserving of being that pick

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 08:39 PM
congrats your gm drafted the unanimous best player in the draft. that takes guts to pick the only player in the draft every team wants especially when theres no one else anyone even considered as the top pick that year. thats definitely the concept of moneyball having the overall number 1 pick and taking the one player thats considered deserving of being that pick

You must be mad. U mad?

mtgphenom
07-13-2012, 08:51 PM
why would I be mad. I'm not the one burning jerseys and crying in the sheets because a players chooses to leave since the GM wouldn't throw in JJ hickson to get STAT and guarantee a title....you mad bro?

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 08:57 PM
why would I be mad. I'm not the one burning jerseys and crying in the sheets because a players chooses to leave since the GM wouldn't throw in JJ hickson to get STAT and guarantee a title....you mad bro?

Hold on a second... I've got to go burn some jerseys then I'll put them out with my tears. You must live in a closet.
Yeah STAT certainly gaurantees titles. When he's not punching fire extinguishers, he's guaranteeing titles.

mtgphenom
07-13-2012, 09:47 PM
Hold on a second... I've got to go burn some jerseys then I'll put them out with my tears. You must live in a closet.
Yeah STAT certainly gaurantees titles. When he's not punching fire extinguishers, he's guaranteeing titles.

you mean when he was averaging 20 and 10 a game and the cavs number 2 option was mo....yeah definitely didnt bring anything to that team. your so right keeping JJ was the right move, he carried them through the finals and helped keep bron.....oh wait

papipapsmanny
07-13-2012, 09:51 PM
basketball advanced statistics is nonsense, because everything about basketball is subjective

Baseball is really the only sport advanced statistics works, since you could argue the stats are virtually completely objective with the exception of ambiguous minor things such has lineup protection and "heart" or "Grit"

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 10:00 PM
you mean when he was averaging 20 and 10 a game and the cavs number 2 option was mo....yeah definitely didnt bring anything to that team. your so right keeping JJ was the right move, he carried them through the finals and helped keep bron.....oh wait

If you did some research you would learn that the deal of Hickson for Stat was never going to happen. Have fun riding Iman Shumpert to the all-star game :facepalm:

StinkEye
07-13-2012, 10:19 PM
basketball is harder to evaluate than baseball

mtgphenom
07-13-2012, 10:26 PM
If you did some research you would learn that the deal of Hickson for Stat was never going to happen. Have fun riding Iman Shumpert to the all-star game :facepalm:

no ******* it wasn't a straight up deal, but hickson inclusion in the deal stopped the cavs from making it. you really should learn more about basketball bro and your own team

Run&Gun
07-13-2012, 10:28 PM
I don't think there will ever be a situation like Moneyball exactly like in the NBA. Advanced stats are used pretty heavily in scouting players out of college and the D-league especially on the offensive synergy side. Defense can be a little hard to read because you can have a great PER but play crap defense and just try to gamble on steals and blocks.

The only thing I see similar to moneyball and basketball is small market strategy by building through the draft, but OKC basically did that with their team. Big difference is the way contracts are structured, in baseball you could have a guy on a rookie contract till they are 26 where as basketball you get stuck and eventually have to pay someone after the 3rd or 4th year. It's even harder to keep 2nd round players because their contracts expire so early and d-league contracts are usually very short too.

Last thing is the saturation of players in baseball compared to Basketball, each team having three minor systems versus one in basketball and 10 rounds of drafting versus 2 rounds. Just not enough players to make a moneyball situation and even though Billy Bean did a great job building the A's he keeps on having to blow them up to save money.

Arch Stanton
07-13-2012, 10:52 PM
no ******* it wasn't a straight up deal, but hickson inclusion in the deal stopped the cavs from making it. you really should learn more about basketball bro and your own team

That's not what I was saying. There were conflicting reports on that whole trade. Anyways, I don't care. I'm gonna go burn some more jerseys now. Maybe if Stat didn't punch my fire extinguisher I could put out the fires from all these burning jerseys. Cuz you know that's what we do in Cleveland, because ESPN tells us to.

mtgphenom
07-13-2012, 11:07 PM
right so videos of thousands of fans burning jerseys never happened....yup complete propaganda

Arch Stanton
07-14-2012, 12:15 AM
right so videos of thousands of fans burning jerseys never happened....yup complete propaganda

:facepalm: I think it was more like Billions :)

IndyRealist
07-14-2012, 12:20 AM
basketball advanced statistics is nonsense, because everything about basketball is subjective

Baseball is really the only sport advanced statistics works, since you could argue the stats are virtually completely objective with the exception of ambiguous minor things such has lineup protection and "heart" or "Grit"

True shooting percentage, rebounding rate, and defensive efficiency are subjective? The problem is that the average fan thinks PER is a advanced statistic and that +/- is reliable. Both are untrue. There is no statistical basis for PER, and +/- is inconsistent from game to game and year to year (thus an unreliable gauge of a player). These horrible stats are widespread because ESPN pushes one, and the NBA pushes the other. There are actual PhD's doing real work in basketball statistics out there.

Lionsfan88
07-14-2012, 12:59 AM
The 2004 Detroit Pistons are a perfect example of how a team can win a championship without one superstar. Im not sure if they followed any type of advanced stat model to obtain players and build the perfect team. They had a great coach, chemistry and defense. They used the same model to make those playoff runs. But Joe D made the mistake of not adapting in time. Then he wasted multiple draft picks and overpaid two FA's (B.Gordon and Charlie V). In 2004 there wasnt as much talent in the leauge like there is now. But that team smashed Kobe, Malone, Payton and Shaq. The Spurs are another great example of how to build a team the right way without having numerous bad contracts and cry baby superstars. I remember how the 04 piston team had a 6-7 game stretch of holding teams below 70 points IN A ROW. I watched every game that season and im a football fan first. But the Lions were you know... Just surprised no one mentioned the 04 pistons or the recent spurs teams

Sssmush
07-14-2012, 01:04 AM
basketball advanced statistics is nonsense, because everything about basketball is subjective

Baseball is really the only sport advanced statistics works, since you could argue the stats are virtually completely objective with the exception of ambiguous minor things such has lineup protection and "heart" or "Grit"

what I think you mean is, not that basketball advanced stats are "subjective", but just that each stat is deeply interrelated with a lot of other factors in the complex system of the game, which makes them harder to quantify in terms of individual weight.

IndyRealist
07-14-2012, 10:49 AM
what I think you mean is, not that basketball advanced stats are "subjective", but just that each stat is deeply interrelated with a lot of other factors in the complex system of the game, which makes them harder to quantify in terms of individual weight.

Only if you haven't taken a class on statistics. You can employ regression analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis) to determine the relative significance of each individual component of the boxscore, given the last 33 years of data (the addition of the 3pt line makes comparisons prior to 1978 suspect). The numbers can tell you that offensive rebounds are more significant than defensive rebounds, that steals are better than blocks, and that shooting percentages are incredibly important for the vast majority of players (i.e. anyone who takes more than a couple of shots a game).

The problem with the reputation of advanced basketball statistics is that PER, EFF, and +/- aren't scientific. There's no mathematical basis for anyone to consider those numbers relevant. That's not an opinion and it's not subjective.
http://wagesofwins.com/2006/11/17/a-comment-on-the-player-efficiency-rating/

Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points.

Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA played does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots.

Sssmush
07-14-2012, 04:08 PM
Only if you haven't taken a class on statistics. You can employ regression analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis) to determine the relative significance of each individual component of the boxscore, given the last 33 years of data (the addition of the 3pt line makes comparisons prior to 1978 suspect). The numbers can tell you that offensive rebounds are more significant than defensive rebounds, that steals are better than blocks, and that shooting percentages are incredibly important for the vast majority of players (i.e. anyone who takes more than a couple of shots a game).

The problem with the reputation of advanced basketball statistics is that PER, EFF, and +/- aren't scientific. There's no mathematical basis for anyone to consider those numbers relevant. That's not an opinion and it's not subjective.
http://wagesofwins.com/2006/11/17/a-comment-on-the-player-efficiency-rating/

Sure, I mean, that's kind of a different point. I'm saying that quantifying and weighting basketball stats is just more complex than baseball stats. For instance in baseball, you can just look at the hitter's hitting percentages, and compare that against the pitchers he's faced and their numbers, etc. It's almost happening in a vacuum. It will still necessarily be subjective, and only capture a slice of objective reality, no matter how accurate your assesment is though.

With basketball, you've got so much going on, players knocking into each other, different defensive schemes, teammates hot or cold, refs good or bad, amount of contact, effort, intangibles, stronger players vs weaker players, taller vs shorter, all this craziness going on during the games, it's mind bogglingly complex.

Sure you can pull out individual stats and analyze them in terms of opponent's stats and all that, but there will be much more guess work and estimation and many more unknown or unquantifiable variables when you look at basketball. Even football is simpler, I'd say, because the player roles are so specialized, and each play is occurring in a discrete frame. In basketball it's 48 minutes of wall to wall chaos and action, defense blurring into offense back into defense, etc.

mtgphenom
07-15-2012, 07:23 AM
lol look who talks **** about STAT breaking his hand then kyrie goes and does the same thing

IndyRealist
07-15-2012, 09:29 AM
Sure, I mean, that's kind of a different point. I'm saying that quantifying and weighting basketball stats is just more complex than baseball stats. For instance in baseball, you can just look at the hitter's hitting percentages, and compare that against the pitchers he's faced and their numbers, etc. It's almost happening in a vacuum. It will still necessarily be subjective, and only capture a slice of objective reality, no matter how accurate your assesment is though.

With basketball, you've got so much going on, players knocking into each other, different defensive schemes, teammates hot or cold, refs good or bad, amount of contact, effort, intangibles, stronger players vs weaker players, taller vs shorter, all this craziness going on during the games, it's mind bogglingly complex.

Sure you can pull out individual stats and analyze them in terms of opponent's stats and all that, but there will be much more guess work and estimation and many more unknown or unquantifiable variables when you look at basketball. Even football is simpler, I'd say, because the player roles are so specialized, and each play is occurring in a discrete frame. In basketball it's 48 minutes of wall to wall chaos and action, defense blurring into offense back into defense, etc.

Not for me though. The work's already being done by PhD's all over the country, all the layperson has to do is decide which numbers are sound and which are media driven pseudo-science.

As for the "vacuum" notion, that's true for hitting % but not for on base %. Because once you get past the pitch there's outfielders to take into account, the non-standardized length of the field, etc. That's why ERA fluctuates so much from year to year, because it's dependent on the overall defense.

Arch Stanton
07-15-2012, 01:52 PM
lol look who talks **** about STAT breaking his hand then kyrie goes and does the same thing

At least he didn't do it during the playoffs.

mtgphenom
07-15-2012, 11:14 PM
right bc the knicks had a chance to actually win a 7 game series against miami

papipapsmanny
07-15-2012, 11:38 PM
True shooting percentage, rebounding rate, and defensive efficiency are subjective? The problem is that the average fan thinks PER is a advanced statistic and that +/- is reliable. Both are untrue. There is no statistical basis for PER, and +/- is inconsistent from game to game and year to year (thus an unreliable gauge of a player). These horrible stats are widespread because ESPN pushes one, and the NBA pushes the other. There are actual PhD's doing real work in basketball statistics out there.

uh yea because each stat in someway relies on something/Somebody else doing something as well

papipapsmanny
07-15-2012, 11:43 PM
what I think you mean is, not that basketball advanced stats are "subjective", but just that each stat is deeply interrelated with a lot of other factors in the complex system of the game, which makes them harder to quantify in terms of individual weight.

its still subjective

in baseball they have basically pinpointed pitcher stats to what they actually can control (K Rates/Walk Rates things like that) in basketball it will always relate to who is on their team, what they are good at, who is good not good.

IndyRealist
07-16-2012, 10:27 AM
uh yea because each stat in someway relies on something/Somebody else doing something as well

... that's not what subjective means. Subjective means it is in effect an opinion. It is the opposite of objective, meaning numerically quantifiable and testable. "Lebron is better than MJ" is subjective because there's no way to prove it. "Lebron has a higher PER than MJ over his first 7 seasons" is objective because it can be proven. (no idea if that's true, btw)

Chronz
07-16-2012, 12:16 PM
True shooting percentage, rebounding rate, and defensive efficiency are subjective?
Hes saying the presence of another player can influence any stat, so too can a players role/usage. How you go about accounting for that is where the subjectivity comes in but to me thats part of the fun, creating theories that you can then check and refine.



The problem is that the average fan thinks PER is a advanced statistic and that +/- is reliable. Both are untrue. There is no statistical basis for PER, and +/- is inconsistent from game to game and year to year (thus an unreliable gauge of a player). These horrible stats are widespread because ESPN pushes one, and the NBA pushes the other.
Hardly, both are strong indicators of impact/ability. There is often little use for +/- on a game to game basis, but NBA teams definitely look into the long term trends. PER has a logical foundation, the problem Berri has with it is that it overvalues shot creation(I would agree). Well your not going to be able to find a mathematical value for usage because its still a subjective aspect of basketball. The reason why WinShares and PER are frequently cited among the APBR community has nothing to do with ESPN, they may help make it more widespread among casual fans but lets not act like the intellectuals arent adapting their methodology. Both provide a stark contrast in what they value (Efficiency vs Usage) so if a player excels in both hes likely to be an all time great.

Metrics like winscore are often ridiculed by the community so lets not praise these PhD's just yet. Its one thing to find a fault in a stat but when the PhD is trotting out stats that come to the conclusion that Rodman is a more impactfull player than Michael Jordan then Im willing to live with the exaggeration than a mathematically precise joke of a stat. No amount of science will ever convince me that Rodman was that great of a player and I think he was a helluva player, just not MJ caliber.


There are actual PhD's doing real work in basketball statistics out there.
Ummm there are actual analyst, coaches, GM's (from all sorts of different backgrounds) that work for NBA teams that also do REAL WORK with the stats you ridicule.

I dont call what Berri is doing real work, all linear weights upon inspection overvalue something, I dont care how scientific it is, when the results are so laughable your doing something wrong. Basketball has an air of subjectivity to it, so to will the stats we use to value its players.

The only problem with stats is if your the kind who believes an all in 1 stat will ever truly be all encompassing, there will never be a holy grail stat, thats not what PER/WS are intended to do. But to say they are unreliable is to say ALL linear weights are unreliable. Which is fine by me, but you have to be consistent, the PhD's arent doing any better than the non PhD's. In fact Id argue they are doing worse considering how small their following is in comparison.

IndyRealist
07-16-2012, 10:22 PM
Hes saying the presence of another player can influence any stat, so too can a players role/usage. How you go about accounting for that is where the subjectivity comes in but to me thats part of the fun, creating theories that you can then check and refine.



Hardly, both are strong indicators of impact/ability. There is often little use for +/- on a game to game basis, but NBA teams definitely look into the long term trends. PER has a logical foundation, the problem Berri has with it is that it overvalues shot creation(I would agree). Well your not going to be able to find a mathematical value for usage because its still a subjective aspect of basketball. The reason why WinShares and PER are frequently cited among the APBR community has nothing to do with ESPN, they may help make it more widespread among casual fans but lets not act like the intellectuals arent adapting their methodology. Both provide a stark contrast in what they value (Efficiency vs Usage) so if a player excels in both hes likely to be an all time great.

Metrics like winscore are often ridiculed by the community so lets not praise these PhD's just yet. Its one thing to find a fault in a stat but when the PhD is trotting out stats that come to the conclusion that Rodman is a more impactfull player than Michael Jordan then Im willing to live with the exaggeration than a mathematically precise joke of a stat. No amount of science will ever convince me that Rodman was that great of a player and I think he was a helluva player, just not MJ caliber.


Ummm there are actual analyst, coaches, GM's (from all sorts of different backgrounds) that work for NBA teams that also do REAL WORK with the stats you ridicule.

I dont call what Berri is doing real work, all linear weights upon inspection overvalue something, I dont care how scientific it is, when the results are so laughable your doing something wrong. Basketball has an air of subjectivity to it, so to will the stats we use to value its players.

The only problem with stats is if your the kind who believes an all in 1 stat will ever truly be all encompassing, there will never be a holy grail stat, thats not what PER/WS are intended to do. But to say they are unreliable is to say ALL linear weights are unreliable. Which is fine by me, but you have to be consistent, the PhD's arent doing any better than the non PhD's. In fact Id argue they are doing worse considering how small their following is in comparison.

Love the reply. Here's the counterpoints:

You even note that PER is flawed, and then say it's a strong indicator of impact. Those are contradictory statements. By PER, "if an NBA player shot 33 .33% (1-3) then the more shots they take the higher their PER because shooting 1 for 3 gives you a net contribution of 2(45.75)-2(39.73)>0!! Clearly this is bad because a 33% shooter is not a good shooter and with these weights the more shots a bad shooter takes, the higher his PER rating." Link (http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=1326) Bynum should keep on chucking.

On +/-, the creator of plus minus even states that it is not useful until you get to EXTREMELY large sample sizes, which you note. But +/- is wildly inconsisent from year to year, for the exact same reason that is used to debunk advanced stats, that your teammates dramatically affect +/-. That's why there's half a dozen versions of +/- out there, trying to make a broken model work. The most common, adjusted +/-, supposedly controls for strength of opponent and teammates. Yet "only about 7% of a player’s APM this year is explained by the player’s APM last year. And when a player switches teams, the player’s APM this year is not statistically related to his performance the previous season. And that means APM can’t tell you anything about what a player will do when he changes teams. So if you change teammates –something APM is supposed to be controlling for – you don’t get the same APM. " Link (http://wagesofwins.com/2011/03/05/deconstructing-the-adjusted-plus-minus-model/)

There seems to be some confusion on the professor I cited, David Berri. Win Score is a rough and dirty calculation to approximate his metric, Wins Produced. It is not the same as Win Shares (WS). WS used anywhere almost never refers to Win Score, which is almost exclusively used as a rough measure of college players and not applied to NBA players. Wins Produced has a 95% correlation to team wins.

As for APBR, I would note that all of Prof. Berri's work is published in PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC JOURNALS, the same cannot be said of any critique Rosenbaum or Lewin have made of Wins Produced. It's too much to reproduce here, but I'd direct you to the end of the FAQ here (http://wagesofwins.com/faq/). Suffice to say, the most prominent critics over on APBR don't seem to want to put their methodology up for peer review. Obviously other economists validated Berri's findings, seeing as he is the former President of the North American Association of Sports Economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berri). I would carefully examine the criticisms.

I did not say that linear weights are unreliable. I said that the weights on PER were wrong. That does not discount all linear weight systems, whose methodology in effect tries to get as close as possible to approximating the truth. Weighted linear approximation is a valid statistical model and the basis of definite integrals in Calculus Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral#Introduction)

"I dont care how scientific it is, when the results are so laughable your doing something wrong" is exactly the crux of the problem. The method is sound yet because it contradicts previously formed beliefs, it's can't be true. By that thinking, the Earth is still flat and the Sun revolves around it.

Andres Alvarez wrote a fantastic article on attention, memory, and the need for advanced statistics. I'd point you there: http://wagesofwins.com/2012/03/22/you-watch-the-games-so-what/

Chronz
07-18-2012, 07:45 PM
Sorry for the delay, been busy with school


Love the reply. Here's the counterpoints:

You even note that PER is flawed, and then say it's a strong indicator of impact. Those are contradictory statements.
Its not contradictory unless Im saying its a perfect stat. I understand the complaint, and I agree with the basic idea that it overvalues shot creation, THATS IT. Every stat has its flaws, I just find the ones I mentioned (PER, WS, RAPM) to be the most informative.


By PER, "if an NBA player shot 33 .33% (1-3) then the more shots they take the higher their PER because shooting 1 for 3 gives you a net contribution of 2(45.75)-2(39.73)>0!! Clearly this is bad because a 33% shooter is not a good shooter and with these weights the more shots a bad shooter takes, the higher his PER rating." Link (http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=1326)
Its not a static event because you still have to adjust for league averages, but yes the general trend is the more a player shoots, the higher his value. Still the degree to which an inefficient scorer would have to continue shooting at that rate to reach league average (PER) will never be accomplished because no coach would allow it today. Well unless your looking at players who never see the court.


Bynum should keep on chucking.
What does this mean? I hope your not making the claim that usage and efficiency dont go hand in hand.


On +/-, the creator of plus minus even states that it is not useful until you get to EXTREMELY large sample sizes, which you note.
True but not always, the Mavs flipped a series against the Rockets heavily in their favor thanks to a combination of common sense and +/- analysis when they looked into the lineups that Yao struggled with. The point Im making is it has its uses, but like every stat in existence, it will require subjective evaluations.



But +/- is wildly inconsisent from year to year, for the exact same reason that is used to debunk advanced stats, that your teammates dramatically affect +/-. That's why there's half a dozen versions of +/- out there, trying to make a broken model work. The most common, adjusted +/-, supposedly controls for strength of opponent and teammates. Yet "only about 7% of a player’s APM this year is explained by the player’s APM last year. And when a player switches teams, the player’s APM this year is not statistically related to his performance the previous season. And that means APM can’t tell you anything about what a player will do when he changes teams. So if you change teammates –something APM is supposed to be controlling for – you don’t get the same APM. " Link (http://wagesofwins.com/2011/03/05/deconstructing-the-adjusted-plus-minus-model/)
I dont see the point in complaining about consistency when every stat can lead to different results year to year depending on the change in role/usage/teammates. The whole concept behind +/- is that its meant to shine light on aspects of the game that your typical boxscore may miss. It can lead to some messy results but overall I find it to be the best at weighing defensive impact, particularly when you look at the 5 year trends. The problem with this, is of course that the player may not be the same guy he used to be 5 years ago. It still represents a decent descriptor of prior success, particularly if it is at the least consistently strong.


There seems to be some confusion on the professor I cited, David Berri. Win Score is a rough and dirty calculation to approximate his metric, Wins Produced. It is not the same as Win Shares (WS). WS used anywhere almost never refers to Win Score, which is almost exclusively used as a rough measure of college players and not applied to NBA players. Wins Produced has a 95% correlation to team wins.
Different statisticians have their own Wins Produced metric so I stuck with the name I remember, but your right on the terminology, I will refer to it by WP here, however, the relation between the WP coefficients and the WinScore coefficients are roughly the same.

When I speak of WinScore Im not relating it, or any of Berri's metrics to WinShares, I know the differences. On that topic, of course it has a 95% correlation, ANY halfway decent model that incorporates team differentials would explain 95% of team wins in the aggregate. What happens when you try to project a teams success from one year to the next? Its not all that different from various statistical barometers.

An old study done by Dan Rosenbaum and David Lewin (http://www.stumblingonwins.com/LewinRosenbaum2007.pdf) showed that neither PER or WP were more effective at predicting team success better than plain old PPG (though PER faired slightly better in that particular study). I'm aware that since then, Berri has finally updated his metric (after years of criticism) to diminish the value of rebounding, but overall I dont think it has changed much in terms of historical rankings. He still overrates non-scorers. Tell me, does he still assumes that a missed shot is just as damaging as a turnover despite the fact that missed shots can still lead to offensive rebounding and that turnovers lead to high% shots the other way?

This is my favorite line from Berri;

One should note that our explanatory power in the regression of wins on efficiency measures is the same as what one uncovers when you regress wins on points scored and allowed per game

In other words, I can make up a stat using the same methodology as Berri and find a way to come to wildly different individual results that would still arrive to the same team level of success. We have a word for this type of analysis, ARBITRARY. Plenty of statisticians (or economists) have been calling him out for this from day 1.



As for APBR, I would note that all of Prof. Berri's work is published in PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC JOURNALS, the same cannot be said of any critique Rosenbaum or Lewin have made of Wins Produced. It's too much to reproduce here, but I'd direct you to the end of the FAQ here (http://wagesofwins.com/faq/). Suffice to say, the most prominent critics over on APBR don't seem to want to put their methodology up for peer review. Obviously other economists validated Berri's findings, seeing as he is the former President of the North American Association of Sports Economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berri). I would carefully examine the criticisms.
Not impressed, their work can still be criticized and honestly I could care less if other like minded people think Berri's formula is sound. They are stat heads before being basketball fans, and will stick to the science above common knowledge (ie MJ > Rodman). I prefer the APBR community because its a group that focuses on BASKETBALL. You can ridicule me for not accepting what Berri's computer tells him but the reality is that when discussing a subject like basketball, ALL statisticians have to admit it has subjective elements that make statistical analysis inherently difficult, thus my opinion on the game still matters. This isnt baseball where we have to bow down to advanced metrics, they are meant for illumination not all out support.


I did not say that linear weights are unreliable. I said that the weights on PER were wrong. That does not discount all linear weight systems, whose methodology in effect tries to get as close as possible to approximating the truth. Weighted linear approximation is a valid statistical model and the basis of definite integrals in Calculus Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral#Introduction)

"I dont care how scientific it is, when the results are so laughable your doing something wrong" is exactly the crux of the problem. The method is sound yet because it contradicts previously formed beliefs, it's can't be true. By that thinking, the Earth is still flat and the Sun revolves around it.

Andres Alvarez wrote a fantastic article on attention, memory, and the need for advanced statistics. I'd point you there: http://wagesofwins.com/2012/03/22/you-watch-the-games-so-what/
You may not be saying it but its what Im trying to hint at. In reality, all of these all in 1 stats are wrong. Again, there is no mathematical value for shot creation, nor is there any evidence that adjusting for position is all that relevant, these are subjective aspect of the game that you cannot calculate without it being completely arbitrary. There is NO math.

And unlike the earth being flat, MJ being greater than Rodman in any particular year does have strong objective evidence to it. Berri's "math" will tell you that Landry Fields playing guard is significantly different to Fields playing "forward".


In short I revolve my argument around a simple fact, Dennis Rodman was never at any point in his career more valuable (per minute or otherwise) than MJ. You can trot out all the numbers and "objective science" you want but do you truly believe them above your own personal evaluations?

Im all for pushing the envelope and exposing majority opinion to be fallible, but really? Rodman over MJ? And you want to equate that opinion to people thinking the world was flat?

IndyRealist
07-18-2012, 10:42 PM
Still the degree to which an inefficient scorer would have to continue shooting at that rate to reach league average (PER) will never be accomplished because no coach would allow it today.
Chris Kaman has a TS% of 47.8% (really, really low) and a PER of 15.42 (average). Other examples are Jrue Holiday, Kemba Walker, Antwan Jamison, and Brandon Jennings. All below average, high volume shooters who drive their PER up by taking a high volume of shots. As long as Jamal Crawford is still in the league, there is no basis for believing that coaches will "cut players off" if they shoot poorly. I dog PER because it leads to incredibly poor observations in many cases. Like employing Jamal Crawford.


What does this mean? I hope your not making the claim that usage and efficiency dont go hand in hand.
Andrew Bynum shoots 21% from 3. Everyone knows that this is a bad idea, yet PER says that Bynum breaks even on 3's, so he's not a worse player for taking them. See what I mean by poor observations?


True but not always, the Mavs flipped a series against the Rockets heavily in their favor thanks to a combination of common sense and +/- analysis when they looked into the lineups that Yao struggled with. The point Im making is it has its uses, but like every stat in existence, it will require subjective evaluations.

That's the real use of +/-, to examine how UNITS work together. Individual player +/- is worthless, because +/- is so heavily dependent on teammates. In your example, +/- becomes useful because instead of measuring 1 player with 9 independent variables on the floor, you're measuring 6 players (your team plus the one opponent) with only 4 independent variables on the floor (the other opposing players). By comparison, regression on Wins Produced indicates that it is relatively (but not totally) independent from teammate and opponent factors.


I dont see the point in complaining about consistency when every stat can lead to different results year to year depending on the change in role/usage/teammates

85% of WP is explained by the previous year's WP, regardless of changing teammates. That's consistency. As for role/usage, that's true for every stat. To take it to the extreme, if I put Tyson Chandler at PG he's not going to look like an all-star. BUT...how often does a player's usage really change? Or his role on the team? Statistically, Melo is a better PF than he is a SF. This has been true for years. But Melo gets the bulk of his minutes at SF.


ANY halfway decent model that incorporates team differentials would explain 95% of team wins in the aggregate. What happens when you try to project a teams success from one year to the next? Its not all that different from various statistical barometers.
That's the argument APBR makes, and it's untrue. PER for instance does not explain 95% of wins, even after accounting for defense, etc. It's closer to 80%. Yet you say that you prefer the model that's less accurate. +/- explains even less (I forget the exact number, but it's below 70%).


I'm aware that since then, Berri has finally updated his metric (after years of criticism) to diminish the value of rebounding.
The reasoning for the rebounding values and the subsequent changes to their coefficients is a simple one: WP already explains 95% of wins, and adjusting for rebounding rate, etc. wouldn't significantly change that. Yes, the inflated rebounding values overrate some players, but not to the extent that a star level player is actually average or a scrub. Ben Wallace was still a beast in Detroit, and Brook Lopez still sucks.


One should note that our explanatory power in the regression of wins on efficiency measures is the same as what one uncovers when you regress wins on points scored and allowed per game

That's cherry picking taken vastly out of context. If you finish the rest of the quote, it says "this should not come as a surprise. Because possessions employed equal possessions acquired, statistically these two regressions are virtually the same models." This in reference to points scored/allowed per possession and per game. If you look at both points scored and points allowed over the course of several seasons, you're basically looking at offensive and defensive efficiency, which is the point of the quote.


Tell me, does he still assumes that a missed shot is just as damaging as a turnover despite the fact that missed shots can still lead to offensive rebounding and that turnovers lead to high% shots the other way?

Why do you assume it's not? Missed shots can also lead to high% shots the other way. And the coefficient of the offensive rebound reflects it's value. If that value was figured into lowering the effect of a missed shot, then that would also diminish the effect of missed shots that do NOT lead to offensive rebounds. That's a nonsensical argument.


Not impressed, their work can still be criticized and honestly I could care less if other like minded people think Berri's formula is sound.
Rosenbaum and Lewin never published their critique in any peer reviewed journal. This is standard practice in the academic community. I am not the only one to suspect it's because their findings would not hold up to scrutiny. I believe Rosenbaum is an academic professor, no? Contesting the value of academic journals seems like a nonsensical argument. What field are you studying that doesn't peer review academic research? I can't think of any educated field where credentials and your resume don't matter.


You may not be saying it but its what Im trying to hint at. In reality, all of these all in 1 stats are wrong. Again, there is no mathematical value for shot creation, nor is there any evidence that adjusting for position is all that relevant, these are subjective aspect of the game that you cannot calculate without it being completely arbitrary. There is NO math.
I agree that no number is perfect. But WP is much, MUCH closer than other statistical models out there. It's an approximation, which is not the same thing as saying it's wrong. It's not meant to be taken in isolation.


You can trot out all the numbers and "objective science" you want but do you truly believe them above your own personal evaluations?

How many game winners did Michael Jordan hit? How many did he miss? By how many points were the Bulls outscored with Jordan on the floor but Rodman on the bench in 1996? Exactly. You don't remember because it's not physically possible for you to remember. Yet you make judgements about things you can't possibly remember. That's why advanced stats are being worked on, because you can't possibly watch every minute of every game every year, or remember it with any degree of accuracy.

Again, I point you to the Andres Alvarez article on perception and memory:
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/03/22/you-watch-the-games-so-what/

and also this article on framing and anchoring affecting judgement:
http://www.thenbageek.com/articles/framing-linsanity

Chronz
07-19-2012, 08:11 PM
Chris Kaman has a TS% of 47.8% (really, really low) and a PER of 15.42 (average) Other examples are Jrue Holiday, Kemba Walker, Antwan Jamison, and Brandon Jennings. All below average, high volume shooters who drive their PER up by taking a high volume of shots. As long as Jamal Crawford is still in the league, there is no basis for believing that coaches will "cut players off" if they shoot poorly. I dog PER because it leads to incredibly poor observations in many cases. Like employing Jamal Crawford.

The efficiency rate your harping about is well beneath Crawford. But I should have clarified, players who are absolutely average everywhere else in the non-scoring department, like a player at league average in every stat while shooting that % would have a PER around 7 depending on the league average efficiency. A player of that caliber chucking to the degree to reach league average would never see the court. And yes this is the faith I have in coaches generally not handing over their teams offense to players without reason. I get that PER rewards shooting.

Conversely, WP rewards players for not shooting so long as they are efficient in their limited attempts and can rebound. Thus you have efficiently scoring players who could not extend their scoring performance at higher volumes being rated highly. The idea that a player is taking a "proper" amount of his teams shots is purely subjective. EVERY team needs an outlet option to bail his team out of possessions that dont end up with open looks and someone to create those open looks in the first place while drawing attention away from defenses, this is something you cannot capture in statistics but we know that PER rewards those players because it assumes the coaches arent idiots.

By WP, if a team had a bunch of low usage, high efficiency players, who would be the one to step up and create those shots? You need a blend of the 2 players so telling me that one system is better at identifying individual impact is pure opinion. The players are performing different jobs, so measuring what they are doing by 1 standard isnt logical. High usage players typically have that job because the other players on the team couldnt perform in that role, they have skill curves that attest to this lack of proficiency.

I make this comparison all the time but it serves well here, Ariza vs Artest.

These are 2 players who had an exact change of role when they switched teams.


------ 2009 ----------------- 2010

WP/PER WP/PER
Ariza 0.208/15.5 0.102/13.3
Artest 0.079/15.6 0.117/12.1

On the Lakers, Artest went from a primary scorer to a supporting role, vice versa for Ariza. When they switched roles both metrics switched on which player they found superior, though at different extremes.

Focusing strictly on offensive production we see that Ariza went from sporting a usage of 16.6 to 21.2 in Houston. For Artest his usage dipped from 24.5 to 16.2. Ariza went from an offensive RTG of 112 to 99, Artest improved from 102 to 104. Its clear that Ariza performed better offensively for LA than Artest, but its ALSO true that Artest was the better primary option for Houston. If you look at team efficiency with these players on the floor the #'s also back this notion. This is where the subjective element of measuring shot creation stems from.

Simply put they are separate stats meant to measure separate jobs, both may want to pass themselves off as something more but honestly the best way to project how a player will do in a new role is to look into a players skill curve in different environments and even then its not that great. As you can see Ariza returned to a team where he could again be a low usage player and his efficiency continued to plummet.



Still the break even point you refer to is something Ive been wondering about, I think the problem with PER is that Hollinger double counts pts and made baskets. If he would simply subtract a possession for each FG, make or miss, the break even point is a more acceptable. Also, Evan Zamir of thecity.com makes a point that shooting efficiency break-even point looks really low in isolation. But shooting attempts will garner free throws and if you look at break-even in terms of true scoring attempts the break-even point is higher.

Info here
http://www.d3coder.com/thecity/2011/01/18/point-break-even/



Andrew Bynum shoots 21% from 3. Everyone knows that this is a bad idea, yet PER says that Bynum breaks even on 3's, so he's not a worse player for taking them. See what I mean by poor observations?

Everyone also knows that these attempts dont exist in a vacuum, we know that a high % shooter may not be so efficient if he was actually the one to start taking more shots. Perhaps the TEAM benefits from a player being the one to take the low% role.

But yes we have agreed that shot creation is overvalued in PER, but I will live with those observations over a stat that has Rodman above MJ. Or Landry Fields as a legitimate MVP candidate simply because he grabs alot of rebounds for his position while shooting a high % on limited attempts. Now those are some poor observations IMO.



That's the real use of +/-, to examine how UNITS work together. Individual player +/- is worthless, because +/- is so heavily dependent on teammates. In your example, +/- becomes useful because instead of measuring 1 player with 9 independent variables on the floor, you're measuring 6 players (your team plus the one opponent) with only 4 independent variables on the floor (the other opposing players). By comparison, regression on Wins Produced indicates that it is relatively (but not totally) independent from teammate and opponent factors.
Good point. I dont agree its worthless but its uses in lineup manipulation are clearly more prevalent than individual data. Still if the individual consistently rates highly there is something to take away from that. Its a good way of measuring defensive influence any individual has given a large enough sample.



85% of WP is explained by the previous year's WP, regardless of changing teammates. That's consistency. As for role/usage, that's true for every stat. To take it to the extreme, if I put Tyson Chandler at PG he's not going to look like an all-star. BUT...how often does a player's usage really change? Or his role on the team? Statistically, Melo is a better PF than he is a SF. This has been true for years. But Melo gets the bulk of his minutes at SF.
You dont have to take to the extreme bro, you can use a real life example from that very same team, like Landry Fields going from a legit MVP candidate to being significantly more pedestrian the following year. Again, ANY stat can vary year to year, WP may be more consistent but thats because it favors a stat that is pretty consistent year to year (rebounding). Sadly this leads to laughable results like the ones Ive mentioned, in no universe is Rodman superior to MJ, nor is Landry Fields one of the top 8 most productive players in the game. And yes this is my perception but again, basketball IS NOT baseball, EVERY statistician must accept the reality that its a game with intangible variables that will throw ANY set of linear weights off kilter. So my perception of the game still matters.

Interesting point about players at the 4, lots of SF play better at the 4 and its a reason why the league is going smaller. Not yet sure what to make of it but it seems teams could be sacrificing defense for offense.



That's the argument APBR makes, and it's untrue. PER for instance does not explain 95% of wins, even after accounting for defense, etc. It's closer to 80%. Yet you say that you prefer the model that's less accurate. +/- explains even less (I forget the exact number, but it's below 70%).

The point Im making is that if I were to to say split the rebounding credit equally among the 5 teammates, the wins will still match up but the rating among the 5 players will change. So to me saying the wins add up isnt much of an argument.

And I prefer PER because it doesnt make the most laughable mistakes like Landry Fields going from MVP caliber player to Andre Miller level. I can buy Jamal Crawford being overrated even consistently so, but not what WP tells me.

Also when using the predictive power heres another study that has PER ahead.

http://www.d3coder.com/thecity/2010/12/04/wow-smackdown-update-2/




The reasoning for the rebounding values and the subsequent changes to their coefficients is a simple one: WP already explains 95% of wins, and adjusting for rebounding rate, etc. wouldn't significantly change that. Yes, the inflated rebounding values overrate some players, but not to the extent that a star level player is actually average or a scrub. Ben Wallace was still a beast in Detroit, and Brook Lopez still sucks.
I disagree with everything you have said. A beast to me is Shaq, that a guy like Rodman can have a higher productive value than that is silly.

And we can examine this with how their teams fared without those players in question. Without Shaq the Lakers were consistently a .500 team despite the fact that they had Kobe on the team and capable of raising his level of play. The Spurs on the other hand lose a player in Rodman who(according to WP) had an all-time epic campaign, and get better??? Doesnt make sense to me.





That's cherry picking taken vastly out of context. If you finish the rest of the quote, it says "this should not come as a surprise. Because possessions employed equal possessions acquired, statistically these two regressions are virtually the same models." This in reference to points scored/allowed per possession and per game. If you look at both points scored and points allowed over the course of several seasons, you're basically looking at offensive and defensive efficiency, which is the point of the quote.
Not sure what your trying to get at here. Thats kind of the point Im making.



Why do you assume it's not? Missed shots can also lead to high% shots the other way. And the coefficient of the offensive rebound reflects it's value. If that value was figured into lowering the effect of a missed shot, then that would also diminish the effect of missed shots that do NOT lead to offensive rebounds. That's a nonsensical argument.
There is no opportunity to get the ball back in a turnover, it leads to an instant fast break the other way, its why coaches always preach protecting the ball when playing against teams that thrive in transition, unless its a deadball turnover most of them spark fast breaks. Without a method of tracking which turnovers actually lead to layups and what not, there wont be an accurate value of them.



Rosenbaum and Lewin never published their critique in any peer reviewed journal. This is standard practice in the academic community. I am not the only one to suspect it's because their findings would not hold up to scrutiny. I believe Rosenbaum is an academic professor, no? Contesting the value of academic journals seems like a nonsensical argument. What field are you studying that doesn't peer review academic research? I can't think of any educated field where credentials and your resume don't matter.

Where we differ is in whos opinion we value. When it comes to BASKETBALL STATS, I prefer what the APBR community at large has to say.


I agree that no number is perfect. But WP is much, MUCH closer than other statistical models out there. It's an approximation, which is not the same thing as saying it's wrong. It's not meant to be taken in isolation.
I dont agree, Im sorry but I simply cannot overlook the Landry Fields thing. I loved Rodman but hes not on MJ's level.



How many game winners did Michael Jordan hit? How many did he miss?
According to various sources (I dont know how accurate they are) he hit about 50%. Seems absurd tho


By how many points were the Bulls outscored with Jordan on the floor but Rodman on the bench in 1996? Exactly. You don't remember because it's not physically possible for you to remember. Yet you make judgements about things you can't possibly remember. That's why advanced stats are being worked on, because you can't possibly watch every minute of every game every year, or remember it with any degree of accuracy.
LOL why are you mentioning on/off court influence when you've been trying to convince me of how worthless it is? But Im making judgements about things I believe (MJ being more vital than Rodman). OK so we dont have +/- data for those years, but I do vividly remember a rusty MJ producing at the worst rate in his prime, yet leading a .500 team to a 13-4 record (.764 winning%). Small sample for sure but it hints at a tremendous influence. I also remember the Bulls sustaining a winning% of 72% without Rodman the following years. The Spurs lost Rodman in a year in which he was realllllly stealing rebounds away from his teammates and they actually had a higher estimated wins the following year without him.

You expect me to believe that Rodman has an equal influence on his teams those years?


Again, I point you to the Andres Alvarez article on perception and memory:

And again I tell you that watching the game is still important. If this were baseball I would bow down and accept Rodman as MJ's equal that these stats claim he is, sadly an article from wages of wins on wages of wins isnt going to prevent this from being true. We arent talking about things you can go back and check, we are talking about a wholesale view of the game itself.

Chronz
07-19-2012, 08:15 PM
Oh and for the record, my preferred stat of choice is WARP.

Chronz
07-19-2012, 08:45 PM
Ive been meaning to ask, how are you against +/- data on an individual level yet for a stat like WP that accredits defense to the individual in much the same way?

IndyRealist
07-19-2012, 11:34 PM
Conversely, WP rewards players for not shooting so long as they are efficient in their limited attempts and can rebound.

WP does not reward players for not shooting, for precisely the reason you don't like it, it's an additive calculation. You get x for a made shot and lose y for a missed shot. So if you make more shots, your WP goes up. The largest single factor that affect WP is points scored. Missed shots are misvalued in other metrics, and so efficiency is important in WP.


By WP, if a team had a bunch of low usage, high efficiency players, who would be the one to step up and create those shots?

Ah, the "Carmelo Anthony" argument. Shot creation is a myth. The possessions are there, and unless you're getting a bunch of 24 second violations or turnovers, SOMEONE is taking a shot. They can't be low usage in that situation. Conversely, with a Carmelo Anthony on the team, he's not "creating" shots, he's TAKING shots, and taking them away from his teammates. So with the game winding down, everyone knows that Melo and his 33.5% 3pt shooting is taking the shot, even if it's contested. Even with Steve Novak and his 47.2% 3pt shooting wide open.


I make this comparison all the time but it serves well here, Ariza vs Artest.
I would counter that both players were better in LA. Why? Because both suck at scoring. Neither is suited to being a primary option on offense because they're not efficient. Yet PER does not reflect this because it rewards poor shooting, which is what both these players did in Houston. Trevor Ariza only ever had 2 years ('06 and '07 seasons) where his True Shooting % was above average. And this again proves my point. You have the PERCEPTION that he was a low usage, high efficiency player, yet he was not. Because no one can remember something every play a player was involved in during a season. And the perception was that Ron was a good primary option for the Rockets because he scored a lot of points, not because he was good at it. His TS% was 51.4%, and he shot 40% on 2's.


Or Landry Fields as a legitimate MVP candidate simply because he grabs alot of rebounds for his position while shooting a high % on limited attempts.

Landry Fields has never been mentioned as an MVP candidate on the WoW, as far as I know. An MVP candidate would have a WP48 of greater than .300, and Fields has NEVER been that high. He was fantastic for a rookie and definitely a starter. His WP for the year is extremely high because he played a ton of minutes.


like Landry Fields going from a legit MVP candidate to being significantly more pedestrian the following year.

Going from a .230 to .170 is not MVP caliber to pedestrian. That's going from "pretty good" to "good". There is a negativity bias in your assessment of Fields. He did regress, and because it was most recently negative you've made it extremely negative. Couple that with the fact that he ended the season very poorly, and it's easy to forget the good games he had in the middle of the season.


Perhaps the TEAM benefits from a player being the one to take the low% role.
You're helping your team by taking bad shots? When Melo takes a contested, turnaround, fadeaway 20fter 8 seconds into the shot clock, how does that help the team except that they don't have to run a play? Yes, someone has to take the shots with 0.5 secs remaining and a hand in their face. But that is such a miniscule percentage of actual shots taken over the course of a year that it can't alone explain poor shooting percentages. That's bad decision making.



The point Im making is that if I were to to say split the rebounding credit equally among the 5 teammates, the wins will still match up but the rating among the 5 players will change. So to me saying the wins add up isnt much of an argument.

If the players were to all rebound equally, then yes the wins produced would still be the same. I'm not sure what you're getting at by hypothetically saying all players rebounded the same. Some players would be ranked better because they performed better. And some would be worse because they performed less. How does that invalidate the model?


http://www.d3coder.com/thecity/2010/...down-update-2/
Not sure what this link has to do with anything. It was extrapolating 22 games into a season. That PER was ahead? By 4%? With such a small sample size as to not matter?


There is no opportunity to get the ball back in a turnover.

That's why turnovers and missed shots are valued equally, and why offensive rebounds are valued so highly. A missed shot that's not an offensive rebound is the same as a turnover. You don't get the ball back, your team is out of position, and it can lead to a fast break. An offensive rebound negates that missed shot, and then some. You're actually arguing for what you've been preaching against, higher valuations of rebounds.


Where we differ is in whos opinion we value. When it comes to BASKETBALL STATS, I prefer what the APBR community at large has to say.
Despite that they're using statistical methodolgy to make their points, yet don't want their methodology to be looked at by experts in the field? Rosenbaum is an academic. He's published in peer reviewed journals, just not his critique of WP. Why wouldn't he? There's only one of two possible reasons that make sense to me. 1) His methodology wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. 2) He's fudging numbers to back his claims. Also known as lying.


LOL why are you mentioning on/off court influence when you've been trying to convince me of how worthless it is? But Im making judgements about things I believe (MJ being more vital than Rodman). OK so we dont have +/- data for those years...

Exactly my point, and why I used +/-. Because you're making judgements based on what you believe you remember, but you don't actually remember those things. I'm not saying that WP is perfect, and I'm certainly not saying that Rodman is better than Jordan. But statistical analysis IS better than your memory.


And again I tell you that watching the game is still important
Never said it wasn't. I never argue that WP should be taken in isolation. But when the stats tell you something you don't perceive to be true, what did you do? Did you go back to look at tapes of the '96 Bulls? Did you stop watching the ball handler and concentrate on Rodman to see what he was doing throughout the game? Did you check?

Or did you trust your memory of something you can't possibly remember? Exactly.

IndyRealist
07-19-2012, 11:47 PM
Ive been meaning to ask, how are you against +/- data on an individual level yet for a stat like WP that accredits defense to the individual in much the same way?

Because individual +/- fudges 9 independent variables (the other guys on the floor, for both teams), whereas defensive adjustment for WP fudges 5 (the opposing team). It's not hard to see which is going to be a more accurate approximation.

There's been quite a bit of work on factoring in opponent WP, but unless you're talking about tracking who is guarding who on a second by second basis, there will be a small amount of fudging no matter what. Defense is much more team oriented than offense is, and defensive stats are not tracked. Being the double man help side isn't tracked, or rotating to the shooter. Yet these are vital plays to any defense. No man guards the ball single handedly.

On a tangent, it would be a truer representation of offense if the NBA would only track two more things: hockey assists and screens that lead to a score. But since those things are not tracked, they can't be accounted for in any metric.

StephenP
07-20-2012, 05:04 AM
From reading the explanantion of how the Wins Produced statistic is calculated, I found a major flaw.

If every player played each position the way every other player did, it would be a fair comparison. When someone plays their position unlike others, they are either unfairly rewarded or unfairly penalized.

Guards who get a lot of rebounds or block shots or take mostly high percentage shots are unfairly overvalued just because they play a guard position.

On the other hand, power forwards and centers are expected to take mostly high percentage shots, get lots of rebounds, and block shots. Big men that play on the perimeter are grossly undervalued because there is a standard value that is subtracted from their production based on what a center should get.

Examples - Brook Lopez (-.02 WP in 2010-11 while averaging 20.4 pts/gm), Andrea Bargnani (-6.2 WP in 2010-11 while averaging 21.4 pts/gm)

Although Lopez plays at the center position, his offensive game is closer to a SF. If his numbers were based on a SF, his WP would have been around 6.4.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-20-2012, 05:41 AM
I don't see how shot creation can be a myth. It's not like you can stand out on the perimeter and pass the ball back and forth and get an open shot. Maybe sometimes you can if the defense is set but usually, there is some form of dribbling.

Also, a player who is getting doubled down in the post and passes it back out is basically creating a shot for someone else regardless of whether the other person makes it or not. If you have a player who is constantly getting doubled in the post, passes it out but has bad teammates who always miss, is it the "stars" fault? No. These are all effects of teammate interaction and something that linear weights can't pick up on. You really can't boil it down to 1 stat and the last stat I would use is WP. At some point, there does have to be some common sense involved and there's very little associated with WP. As Chronz said earlier, Rodman is not > MJ no matter how you break it down.

I still prefer Win Shares, VORP, RAPM, WARP and ezPM to WP. And I know VORP, WS and RAPM preformed better in a retrodiction contest done by the guys at sports skeptic. I'll have to find the article. WARP was not included unfortunately but I'm sure it would've performed better. ezPM is a common sense stat thats easy to understand and while it doesn't perform as well as WS, VORP, it makes sense BASKETBALL wise.

Finally, you can't use only 1 stat to come to a conclusion. There was a great article written at Basketball Prospectus on this and I suggest you read it:
http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1987

IndyRealist
07-20-2012, 10:42 AM
I don't see how shot creation can be a myth. It's not like you can stand out on the perimeter and pass the ball back and forth and get an open shot. Maybe sometimes you can if the defense is set but usually, there is some form of dribbling.

Also, a player who is getting doubled down in the post and passes it back out is basically creating a shot for someone else regardless of whether the other person makes it or not. If you have a player who is constantly getting doubled in the post, passes it out but has bad teammates who always miss, is it the "stars" fault? No. These are all effects of teammate interaction and something that linear weights can't pick up on. You really can't boil it down to 1 stat and the last stat I would use is WP. At some point, there does have to be some common sense involved and there's very little associated with WP. As Chronz said earlier, Rodman is not > MJ no matter how you break it down.

I still prefer Win Shares, VORP, RAPM, WARP and ezPM to WP. And I know VORP, WS and RAPM preformed obetter in a retrodiction contest done by the guys at sports skeptic. I'll have to find the article. WARP was not included unfortunately but I'm sure it would've performed better. ezPM is a common sense stat thats easy to understand and while it doesn't perform as well as WS, VORP, it makes sense BASKETBALL wise.

Finally, you can't use only 1 stat to come to a conclusion. There was a great article written at Basketball Prospectus on this and I suggest you read it:
http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1987
That would be "running a play", not shot creation as it is traditionally defined. A player who sets a screen is "creating a shot" for the ballhandler, but does not get credit as a shot creator.

IndyRealist
07-20-2012, 10:53 AM
From reading the explanantion of how the Wins Produced statistic is calculated, I found a major flaw.

If every player played each position the way every other player did, it would be a fair comparison. When someone plays their position unlike others, they are either unfairly rewarded or unfairly penalized.

Guards who get a lot of rebounds or block shots or take mostly high percentage shots are unfairly overvalued just because they play a guard position.

On the other hand, power forwards and centers are expected to take mostly high percentage shots, get lots of rebounds, and block shots. Big men that play on the perimeter are grossly undervalued because there is a standard value that is subtracted from their production based on what a center should get.

Examples - Brook Lopez (-.02 WP in 2010-11 while averaging 20.4 pts/gm), Andrea Bargnani (-6.2 WP in 2010-11 while averaging 21.4 pts/gm)

Although Lopez plays at the center position, his offensive game is closer to a SF. If his numbers were based on a SF, his WP would have been around 6.4.
That is a completely valid criticism of WP. It compares players against average, so players with substantially different games will break the model.

At the same time, is Andrea Bargnani good? Can it be subjectively argued that he's helped his team at all? Conversely, is Landry Fields actually a bad player because people think rebounds are overvalued? A good shot is a good shot no matter who it comes from, and a rebound is just as valuable from a guard as from a big. Fields gets a ton of rebounds tjat his team wouldn't otherwise get from a SG, so that's valuable, right?

IndyRealist
07-20-2012, 12:05 PM
A quick look at RAPM for 2011 has Dirk as the best player in the league, with Matt Bonner and Nick Collison 6th and 7th respectively. Am I reading that wong? It's easier to accept Matt Bonner as the 6th best in the league than Fields as the 8th? And that Dirk was better than Lebron (4th)?

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ranking_rec

IndyRealist
07-20-2012, 12:39 PM
On WARP, per Kevin Pelton. http://sonicscentral.com/warp.html

" Lastly, by eschewing the traditional linear weights method so common in basketball analysis, I believe WARP does a better job of incorporating defensive value." Followed by " Like all rating systems based on box-score data, WARP cannot account for contributions that are not tracked in the box score, most notably on defense. It does no better than linear weights methods at evaluating players like Bruce Bowen."

" For points, we start with points. To this, we add some credit for assists. Valuing assists is one question statistical analysis remains unable to answer with any degree of certainty, leaving us to use an estimate. I use a value of 0.75 for each assist. This is the same used by Oliver and not dissimilar from the value used by John Hollinger (.66).". It's a linear weights system.

" What I've done is create what I call a "team defense factor" (TDF), which is simply Min/TmMin. If a player was on the court every minute of every game, this ratio would be 20 percent (TmMin includes minutes for all five players on the court, which is why you repeatedly see it divided by five in previous calculations). Self-explanatorily, this determines how much of the team's defense the player gets credit for. What we're assuming is that each player is equally responsible for the team defense his team plays while he's on the floor. That's not true, of course, but it's a reasonable compromise."

So it guesstimates defense, just like WP.

StephenP
07-20-2012, 02:10 PM
That is a completely valid criticism of WP. It compares players against average, so players with substantially different games will break the model.

At the same time, is Andrea Bargnani good? Can it be subjectively argued that he's helped his team at all? Conversely, is Landry Fields actually a bad player because people think rebounds are overvalued? A good shot is a good shot no matter who it comes from, and a rebound is just as valuable from a guard as from a big. Fields gets a ton of rebounds tjat his team wouldn't otherwise get from a SG, so that's valuable, right?

That's the whole flaw in the system. Shots or rebounds or anything aren't treated equally for all players.
Rebounds and blocks are actually overvalued in the base model. Since most rebounds and blocks are made by PFs and Cs, these positions are devalued at the end to attempt to compensate. When you have a high rebounding guard, he benefits from the overvalue in the base and it is never compensated for because of his position. A weak rebounding big man doesn't benefit from the overvalue but then his contribution is devalued just because of his position.

As for Bargnani, he's definitely not the worst C in the league and anyone scoring over 20 points a game is going to help his team win.

Fields just hit a lot of the right spots in the system. He shot for a high percentage, rebounded well for a guard, didn't turn the ball over alot, and didn't foul very much. In all honesty can someone scoring less than 10 points a game and is not really dominant in any catagory produce the 8th most wins in the league?

NJBASEBALL22
07-20-2012, 02:16 PM
#CarlLandry

IndyRealist
07-20-2012, 03:48 PM
That's the whole flaw in the system. Shots or rebounds or anything aren't treated equally for all players.
Rebounds and blocks are actually overvalued in the base model. Since most rebounds and blocks are made by PFs and Cs, these positions are devalued at the end to attempt to compensate. When you have a high rebounding guard, he benefits from the overvalue in the base and it is never compensated for because of his position. A weak rebounding big man doesn't benefit from the overvalue but then his contribution is devalued just because of his position.

As for Bargnani, he's definitely not the worst C in the league and anyone scoring over 20 points a game is going to help his team win.
I
Fields just hit a lot of the right spots in the system. He shot for a high percentage, rebounded well for a guard, didn't turn the ball over alot, and didn't foul very much. In all honesty can someone scoring less than 10 points a game and is not really dominant in any catagory produce the 8th most wins in the league?
5 rebounds per 48mins gives the same amount of credit regardless of position, because it's a linear computation. Where the model gets criticized is that it adjusts for the "average player" at each position, so that players at different positions can be compared to eachother. It's no different than saying, "Brook Lopez is a below average rebounder." But people want to gloss over that because he scores a lot of points. The question becomes, how much does a center that doesn't rebound hurt your team? WP says a lot, others don't.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-20-2012, 11:15 PM
A quick look at RAPM for 2011 has Dirk as the best player in the league, with Matt Bonner and Nick Collison 6th and 7th respectively. Am I reading that wong? It's easier to accept Matt Bonner as the 6th best in the league than Fields as the 8th? And that Dirk was better than Lebron (4th)?

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ranking_rec

I wouldn't use RAPM as my stat to determine who is better than who, at least not alone. I think it needs to be used in conjunction with other box score stats. Also, what you forget about RAPM is its a per minute stat, unlike Wins Produced or many of the other cumulative stats like VORP, WARP, etc.

And of course the biggest problem with RAPM is that it still has many of the same problems as adjusted +/- or just plain old +/-. You really need a larger sample size to get the most accurate version. Even with JE using the year before as a prior, it still suffers from sample size issues.

A look at the 10 year RAPM ranking:
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ranking

Other than a few guys like Battier (who everyone knows as the no stats all-star due to his +/- numbers) or Jeff Foster, there really aren't any guys in there that would jump off the page like a Landry Fields or Matt Bonner. Maybe you may not agree with the order but by in large, the best players align with most other advanced stats and public perception.

Now obviously the issues with a 10 year ranking is that it doesn't capture any 1 specific year. But again, thats why I'd always use RAPM in conjunction with a box score metric. I think what RAPM does help you find is undervalued role players. Guys like Battier, Nick Collison or Ekpe Udoh.

Wins Produced is a box score metric and you end up with odd results, unlike say WARP, Win Shares or VORP.

StephenP
07-20-2012, 11:19 PM
5 rebounds per 48mins gives the same amount of credit regardless of position, because it's a linear computation. Where the model gets criticized is that it adjusts for the "average player" at each position, so that players at different positions can be compared to eachother. It's no different than saying, "Brook Lopez is a below average rebounder." But people want to gloss over that because he scores a lot of points. The question becomes, how much does a center that doesn't rebound hurt your team? WP says a lot, others don't.

To say everyone gets the same credit regardless of position is not really true. They are given equal credit only as far as calculating production. However production is not the end result here. We go in knowing the variable of position will be factored in later. We know from the beginning that Lopez is classified as a C and his production will be devalued as such. Giving someone something when you already know you are going to take it away is the same as not giving it to them.

Let's suppose this season Lopez puts up similar numbers to 10-11. To compensate for his playing more on the perimeter Humphries and Wallace crash the boards harder than they would if Dwight Howard were playing C. At the same time Wallace and Humphries get fewer shots with Lopez playing than they would with Howard.
Even with the decrease in scoring, the increase in rebounds will more than make up for it. As a result Wallace and Humphries will be seen as more valuable according to WP playing with Lopez than they would with Howard.
Would they actually be more valuable? I don't think so. They are just playing a different style. With Lopez, they will get more credit for the wins. With Howard, he would get more of the credit.
WP only works in a world where no player plays outside the norm for their position. Big men who do will always be penalized. Guards who do will always be rewarded.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-20-2012, 11:30 PM
On WARP, per Kevin Pelton. http://sonicscentral.com/warp.html
Followed by " Like all rating systems based on box-score data, WARP cannot account for contributions that are not tracked in the box score, most notably on defense. It does no better than linear weights methods at evaluating players like Bruce Bowen."
. It's a linear weights system.

So it guesstimates defense, just like WP.

Yeah I realize that. I like WARP but I think Win Shares and VORP take the cake as the best metrics IMO. At least, they preformed the best in the retrodiction contest done at sports skeptic. I'm sure you're familiar with Win Shares.
VORP: http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/aspm-and-vorp/

Neil Paine and Kevin Pelton have even been using it in their articles so I think the APBR community realizes this is one of the better metrics out there.

And you should also check out that article on basketball prospectus. The best way to evaluate a player is still some combination of box score metrics, RAPM and traditional scouting.

jtrinaldi
07-20-2012, 11:48 PM
There is no money ball team, there is a salary cap....

PatsSoxKnicks
07-20-2012, 11:49 PM
Despite that they're using statistical methodolgy to make their points, yet don't want their methodology to be looked at by experts in the field? Rosenbaum is an academic. He's published in peer reviewed journals, just not his critique of WP. Why wouldn't he? There's only one of two possible reasons that make sense to me. 1) His methodology wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. 2) He's fudging numbers to back his claims. Also known as lying.


The same could be said of Berri and the Wages of Wins crowd. Why don't they post on the APBR forum? They do a retrodiction contests there every year. Why not post his metrics in competition with the other metrics? Is he afraid he'd lose?

Another question, is Berri not interested in working for an NBA team? Or at least consulting? Because I find it odd that he's never worked for any NBA teams.

Also, Rosenbaum is a consultant for the Cavs. You have no idea what restrictions they've put on him. I know when Joe Sill got a job with the Wizards, he took down his whole site. Again, if Berri's methods were so excellent, don't you think he'd be at least consulting with an NBA team? Maybe he has and I don't know but I've never seen anything about him doing any work with any NBA teams. He just calls General Managers idiots on his site/book but doesn't want anything to do with the actual NBA it seems. I question whether he's even watched an NBA game, which makes it hard for me to trust his methods.

JerseyPalahniuk
07-20-2012, 11:53 PM
wrong post. delete please.

IndyRealist
07-21-2012, 04:33 PM
The same could be said of Berri and the Wages of Wins crowd. Why don't they post on the APBR forum? They do a retrodiction contests there every year. Why not post his metrics in competition with the other metrics? Is he afraid he'd lose?

Another question, is Berri not interested in working for an NBA team? Or at least consulting? Because I find it odd that he's never worked for any NBA teams.

Also, Rosenbaum is a consultant for the Cavs. You have no idea what restrictions they've put on him. I know when Joe Sill got a job with the Wizards, he took down his whole site. Again, if Berri's methods were so excellent, don't you think he'd be at least consulting with an NBA team? Maybe he has and I don't know but I've never seen anything about him doing any work with any NBA teams. He just calls General Managers idiots on his site/book but doesn't want anything to do with the actual NBA it seems. I question whether he's even watched an NBA game, which makes it hard for me to trust his methods.
I'm confused as to why posting in an online forum validates academic research? His work is published in peer reviewed economic journals, and he's the former president of the North American Association of Sports Economists. His work has been vetted by people who do it for a living. I'm not sure what attacking his credentials accomplishes.

The completely unverifiable story is that he has been approached by multiple NBA teams, and declined so that he could continue teaching and researching. In his words, he told them to "buy the book". As for whether his work is USED by NBA teams, Mark Cuban referenced Wages of Wins in regard to Jae Crowder just yesterday, July 20, during the Dallas summer league game.

Questioning whether he's watched NBA games is an asinine comment. He's a Nuggets fan.

IndyRealist
07-21-2012, 04:39 PM
Yeah I realize that. I like WARP but I think Win Shares and VORP take the cake as the best metrics IMO. At least, they preformed the best in the retrodiction contest done at sports skeptic. I'm sure you're familiar with Win Shares.
VORP: http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/aspm-and-vorp/

Neil Paine and Kevin Pelton have even been using it in their articles so I think the APBR community realizes this is one of the better metrics out there.

And you should also check out that article on basketball prospectus. The best way to evaluate a player is still some combination of box score metrics, RAPM and traditional scouting.

I absolutely believe that the ONLY way to evaluate basketball is through a combination of video and data analysis. I only point out the flaws in things like RAPM because the argument was that an exception breaks the model. Most models are useful, if you understand their weaknesses.

IndyRealist
07-21-2012, 05:06 PM
I wouldn't use RAPM as my stat to determine who is better than who, at least not alone. I think it needs to be used in conjunction with other box score stats. Also, what you forget about RAPM is its a per minute stat, unlike Wins Produced or many of the other cumulative stats like VORP, WARP, etc.
And of course the biggest problem with RAPM is that it still has many of the same problems as adjusted +/- or just plain old +/-. You really need a larger sample size to get the most accurate version. Even with JE using the year before as a prior, it still suffers from sample size issues.

A look at the 10 year RAPM ranking:
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ranking

Other than a few guys like Battier (who everyone knows as the no stats all-star due to his +/- numbers) or Jeff Foster, there really aren't any guys in there that would jump off the page like a Landry Fields or Matt Bonner. Maybe you may not agree with the order but by in large, the best players align with most other advanced stats and public perception.

Now obviously the issues with a 10 year ranking is that it doesn't capture any 1 specific year. But again, thats why I'd always use RAPM in conjunction with a box score metric. I think what RAPM does help you find is undervalued role players. Guys like Battier, Nick Collison or Ekpe Udoh.

Wins Produced is a box score metric and you end up with odd results, unlike say WARP, Win Shares or VORP.

Per minute stat x minutes played = cumulative stat. You will find almost nowhere WP is listed that WP48 isn't.

The problem with RAPM is understood. But the point of predictive models is to PREDICT, not just to tell you what happened. If it took 10 years of data to tell you that Michael Olowakandi was a bad player, then it wouldn't matter because he'd already be out of the league.

The other problem, noted by Pelton (I think), on plus-minus models is that two players may play so much together (the example he gave was Derek Fisher and Kobe Bryant) that it's impossible to separate the effect the two have individually.

For their careers, Shane Battier and Jeff Foster rank very well in WP. So +/- based evaluation is not the only way to capture their effect on the game.

All models end up with some odd results, not just box score metrics. For 2011-12, Joakim Noah is the #8 leader in Win Shares, and #6 per 48 minutes. Better than Bynum and Dwight Howard. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2012_leaders.html

IndyRealist
07-21-2012, 05:33 PM
To say everyone gets the same credit regardless of position is not really true. They are given equal credit only as far as calculating production. However production is not the end result here. We go in knowing the variable of position will be factored in later. We know from the beginning that Lopez is classified as a C and his production will be devalued as such. Giving someone something when you already know you are going to take it away is the same as not giving it to them.

Let's suppose this season Lopez puts up similar numbers to 10-11. To compensate for his playing more on the perimeter Humphries and Wallace crash the boards harder than they would if Dwight Howard were playing C. At the same time Wallace and Humphries get fewer shots with Lopez playing than they would with Howard.
Even with the decrease in scoring, the increase in rebounds will more than make up for it. As a result Wallace and Humphries will be seen as more valuable according to WP playing with Lopez than they would with Howard.
Would they actually be more valuable? I don't think so. They are just playing a different style. With Lopez, they will get more credit for the wins. With Howard, he would get more of the credit.
WP only works in a world where no player plays outside the norm for their position. Big men who do will always be penalized. Guards who do will always be rewarded.

Here's my reasoning. If Wallace and Humphries rebound more with Lopez yet score more with Howard, there will be a difference in their evaluation because they are producing differently. But the difference would not be as great as you'd think, because while their rebounding would go down with Howard their scoring would go up, and scoring -efficiently- is the single most important factor in Wins Produced. With Lopez their scoring would go down, but their rebounding goes up (way up). So they still produce.

Saying that "Even with the decrease in scoring, the increase in rebounds will more than make up for it" is an untrue statement because rebounds will not "more than make up" for the loss in scoring. People seem to think a rebound is something like the equivilant of a 3pter in WP, and it's not even close. An offensive rebound is less than a point, and a defensive rebound is less than half a point.

The other disconnect here is that your evaluation of players seem to be linked to points scored. With Lopez, it seems to be the argument that those players should be valued less because they score less, but with Howard they should be valued more because they score more. The only other way I see to read your argument is that you're saying they are the player they are, and that their evaluation should be independent of either how much (or how well) they score, and how well they rebound.

SluggeR
07-21-2012, 05:33 PM
I the Cavs really missed out on establishing a very fromidable foundation, when they drafted Thompson over the 7 footer the Raptors have.

IndyRealist
07-21-2012, 05:36 PM
FYI, Shane Battier's career WP numbers, with a .100 WP48 being average:
http://www.thenbageek.com/players/358-shane-battier

Lake_Show2416
07-21-2012, 05:46 PM
I the Cavs really missed out on establishing a very fromidable foundation, when they drafted Thompson over the 7 footer the Raptors have.

Waiters over Barnes & Robinson

Tmath
07-21-2012, 05:57 PM
I the Cavs really missed out on establishing a very fromidable foundation, when they drafted Thompson over the 7 footer the Raptors have.

Valanciunas's agent didn't want him going to Cleveland.

Chronz
07-21-2012, 11:53 PM
WP does not reward players for not shooting, for precisely the reason you don't like it, it's an additive calculation. You get x for a made shot and lose y for a missed shot. So if you make more shots, your WP goes up. The largest single factor that affect WP is points scored. Missed shots are misvalued in other metrics, and so efficiency is important in WP.
You misunderstand the point Im making, it rewards players for not shooting because low usage players have an easier time being efficient. Like look at DeAndre Jordan (and to a lesser extent Reggie Evans) vs Blake Griffin, you expect me to believe DJ is better because he can focus strictly on crashing the offensive glass and finishing shots that are created for him. Im one of DJ's biggest supporters because people tend to ignore efficiency altogether but the fact is, most low usage players could not handle carrying an offense and leaving the high% looks for their teammates. The 2 stats are valuing different things. WP values rebounding and efficiency, PER rewards those players who carry offenses that allow the lower usage players to focus on excelling in their limited role.



Ah, the "Carmelo Anthony" argument. Shot creation is a myth. The possessions are there, and unless you're getting a bunch of 24 second violations or turnovers, SOMEONE is taking a shot. They can't be low usage in that situation.
Yes they can, there are always players who will be on the low usage side. Defenses dont just let you get open so I dont understand your notion of it being a myth. You need someone to break down defenses. Not sure what your trying to say, but it sounds like you think a team with 3 high% OPEN shooters would have an easy time finding shots despite ample evidence that may shows how incapable they are of operating in PnR settings and creating off the dribble. SOMEONE has to take the load of being primary ballhandler/passer/scorer etc..


Conversely, with a Carmelo Anthony on the team, he's not "creating" shots, he's TAKING shots, and taking them away from his teammates. So with the game winding down, everyone knows that Melo and his 33.5% 3pt shooting is taking the shot, even if it's contested. Even with Steve Novak and his 47.2% 3pt shooting wide open.

I get that Melo is an overrated player but he can still creates shots for teammates, hes taking the bulk of shots (we would agree that he takes too much) but his presence can open the game up for other players or leave them with the highest% looks. You will probably argue against that and I would understand but what your proving is how complicated basketball is, because simply being a high usage player isnt enough to validate any rate of efficiency (for the individual or the effect of his teammates). But this isnt to mean high usage players with middling efficiency cant have value that helps his specific team.


I would counter that both players were better in LA. Why?
Why is irrelevant, Houston still exists and IN HOUSTON, Artest performed better under that role.


Because both suck at scoring. Neither is suited to being a primary option on offense because they're not efficient. Yet PER does not reflect this because it rewards poor shooting, which is what both these players did in Houston.
The point remains, one did it better and BOTH metrics reflected that.



Trevor Ariza only ever had 2 years ('06 and '07 seasons) where his True Shooting % was above average. And this again proves my point. You have the PERCEPTION that he was a low usage, high efficiency player, yet he was not. Because no one can remember something every play a player was involved in during a season. And the perception was that Ron was a good primary option for the Rockets because he scored a lot of points, not because he was good at it. His TS% was 51.4%, and he shot 40% on 2's.

Dear god your picky, maybe not elite efficiency (still very efficient by OFF.RTG) but the point Im making was that he was a low usage/high(er) efficiency player in the year I mentioned. And I never said Ron was a good primary option, my EXACT words were he was BETTER at the job than Ariza, and FOR HOUSTON, he performed at a higher level.



Landry Fields has never been mentioned as an MVP candidate on the WoW, as far as I know. An MVP candidate would have a WP48 of greater than .300, and Fields has NEVER been that high. He was fantastic for a rookie and definitely a starter. His WP for the year is extremely high because he played a ton of minutes.

Like I said in the other thread, change MVP contender to a top8 wins producer because TO ME, that makes him a minor MVP contender. Still its a good thing WP diminished the value of rebounding because before the change thats exactly the rate he produced at, and I dont see why the MVP would be restricted to per minute production when what you did cumulatively is just as important.



Going from a .230 to .170 is not MVP caliber to pedestrian. That's going from "pretty good" to "good". There is a negativity bias in your assessment of Fields. He did regress, and because it was most recently negative you've made it extremely negative. Couple that with the fact that he ended the season very poorly, and it's easy to forget the good games he had in the middle of the season.

I disagree, thats a dropoff of great to good but feel free to explain the difference between best, elite, great, very good, good, mediocre and whatever labels you may have in between. No matter how you slice it he did regress substantially and you will find a cluster of players that simply dont belong (Brewer better than Rose, Childress/Ibake being greater than Durant/Wade). I mean there are mistakes in every stat but these are some truly laughable mistakes.


You're helping your team by taking bad shots? When Melo takes a contested, turnaround, fadeaway 20fter 8 seconds into the shot clock, how does that help the team except that they don't have to run a play? Yes, someone has to take the shots with 0.5 secs remaining and a hand in their face. But that is such a miniscule percentage of actual shots taken over the course of a year that it can't alone explain poor shooting percentages. That's bad decision making.
What I said was your helping your team by taking the shots that HAVE to be taken and this job isnt only relegated to Melo. It helps the team because your the designated outlet option, the guy who attracts attention that allows low usage players to thrive in low usage roles. The shots to which you refer happen with less frequency among go to scorers, than necessary shots they take, including but limited to shots under duress with the clock winding down, so I dont get your point.



If the players were to all rebound equally, then yes the wins produced would still be the same. I'm not sure what you're getting at by hypothetically saying all players rebounded the same. Some players would be ranked better because they performed better. And some would be worse because they performed less. How does that invalidate the model?
With a change in the model, by arbitrarily dispersing the rebounding credit or changing the value of it altogether, the player ratings would change (without them performing any differently) and the team wins would still add up.

The point being, matching up to team wins isnt impressive. You could create a very simple model that has absolutely no value on rating individuals where team wins still add up in the aggregate.



That's why turnovers and missed shots are valued equally, and why offensive rebounds are valued so highly. A missed shot that's not an offensive rebound is the same as a turnover.
The punishment shouldnt be the same. A missed shot can lead to an offensive rebound, a turnover cannot.


You don't get the ball back, your team is out of position, and it can lead to a fast break.
Its true you can get run on, on any loss of possession but typically when a shot gos up there is likely to be proper floor balance than when a turnover occurs, its why coaches preach ball protection against a team that thrives in transition.


An offensive rebound negates that missed shot, and then some. You're actually arguing for what you've been preaching against, higher valuations of rebounds.
And then some? Contradiction? Explain plz...


Despite that they're using statistical methodolgy to make their points, yet don't want their methodology to be looked at by experts in the field? Rosenbaum is an academic. He's published in peer reviewed journals, just not his critique of WP. Why wouldn't he? There's only one of two possible reasons that make sense to me. 1) His methodology wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. 2) He's fudging numbers to back his claims. Also known as lying.

They are being looked at by experts, the APBR community consists of PhD's (math/physics etc..) I have as much faith in the work of a geophysicist as I do in anything Berri does, in fact I question just how much math Berri has actually studied in comparison. All economists are free to join in and engage in the debate but for some reason Berri thinks its beneath him, and will actually ban quite a few people from his forum for bringing up valid criticism, presumably because they dont post it in the low impact journals that he oversees.

To me the difference between the most educated APBR members and people of Berri's ilk is that most of their work cant be published because they actually work for NBA teams. Wonder if Berri will ever get the call up to the majors.


Exactly my point, and why I used +/-.
Because your selective? You have been explaining how useless of a role it has on measuring the individual, but its so important in this analysis?


Because you're making judgements based on what you believe you remember, but you don't actually remember those things. I'm not saying that WP is perfect, and I'm certainly not saying that Rodman is better than Jordan. But statistical analysis IS better than your memory.

Im saying the same thing, the difference comes in what we define/value as statistical analysis.



Never said it wasn't. I never argue that WP should be taken in isolation. But when the stats tell you something you don't perceive to be true, what did you do? Did you go back to look at tapes of the '96 Bulls? Did you stop watching the ball handler and concentrate on Rodman to see what he was doing throughout the game? Did you check?
Or did you trust your memory of something you can't possibly remember? Exactly.

I looked at all available stats, all available recollection. And conjured up an opinion that is widely held. And its pretty easy to remember MJ being better than Rodman.



Because individual +/- fudges 9 independent variables (the other guys on the floor, for both teams), whereas defensive adjustment for WP fudges 5 (the opposing team). It's not hard to see which is going to be a more accurate approximation.
Doesnt WP fudge the numbers for all 10 players on the court and +/- fudges it for all 10 players on the court + its backups. The point remains the basis of how WP (and several other stats) accredits defensive ability is by incorporating how the team functions, this is influenced by the players teammates. Looking at +/- does the same only it focuses specifically on the data with the player on the court. I dont see what would be so wrong with doing that instead of just looking at how the team does overall.

Still I think your being overly confident in your claim because even the WP Faq page suggests;

It does seem possible, though, that such data could better capture a player’s defensive ability.

Obviously they didnt go through with it, but its not the open and shut case you make it out to be.


There's been quite a bit of work on factoring in opponent WP, but unless you're talking about tracking who is guarding who on a second by second basis, there will be a small amount of fudging no matter what. Defense is much more team oriented than offense is, and defensive stats are not tracked. Being the double man help side isn't tracked, or rotating to the shooter. Yet these are vital plays to any defense. No man guards the ball single handedly.

On a tangent, it would be a truer representation of offense if the NBA would only track two more things: hockey assists and screens that lead to a score. But since those things are not tracked, they can't be accounted for in any metric.

Agreed on both notes, though you could track alot more than that. Assists that lead to FTA, turnovers that lead to instant fast break points, spacing (this one is supposedly in the works). Still, Im not sure how much quantitative value these things would provide. Its why an all-in-1 stat will never be more accurate than another. They all value different things and its all very much opinion.

C-Wick925
07-22-2012, 12:13 AM
Valanciunas's agent didn't want him going to Cleveland.

:confused: It looks like your in mums boobs not her bum :speechless:

IndyRealist
07-22-2012, 12:13 PM
it rewards players for not shooting because low usage players have an easier time being efficient.
Efficiency does not alone translate into Wins Produced. A low usage player's high efficiency is mitigated by the fact that he is a low usage player. There simply aren't enough made field goals to drastically move his wins produced. A guy who takes only one shot in a season and make it, does not look very good in Wins Produced.


most low usage players could not handle carrying an offense and leaving the high% looks for their teammates.
The assumption then is that one player has to dominate the ball? Almost every coach will tell you that's a bad strategy, that the ball should move around the court and the open man should take the shot. Even on an extremely top heavy team, the Heat, Wade took 24.7 shots per 48 minutes, Lebron took 24.1, Bosh took 19.3, Norris Cole took 17.1, and 8 more players took at least 10 per 48 minutes played.


Defenses dont just let you get open so I dont understand your notion of it being a myth. You need someone to break down defenses.
But you don't. That's the whole point of running a play, to free someone up to take a shot. A post player draws a double team and passes out to the open man, does that make him a shot creator? The PF comes over and sets a screen to free the PG for a 15ft floater, is the PF a shot creator? Ray Allen's defender can't leave him, spreading the floor for Rondo's drive, does that make Ray a shot creator? Heck, Steve Novak spends all of his time looking to get to an open spot for the 3, does that mean he's a shot creator because he got a shot for himself? The notion that one guy pounding the ball on the perimeter for 20 seconds before taking a contested shot is somehow helping his team is ludicrous. Blowing by your man is a skill. Taking a contested 20ft fadeaway is not.

The shots to which you refer happen with less frequency among go to scorers, than necessary shots they take, including but limited to shots under duress with the clock winding down
Now, there is some validity to the idea that the shot clock is running down and someone HAS to take the shot. So by sacrificing his own numbers, the "shot creator" is bumping up his teammates. But how often does that happen, with 1 second left on the clock and no time for a pass? Once a game? Twice? Once a quarter? Without shot clock data I can't quantify it, but the number of bail out shots a high usage player takes is unlikely to drastically affect his shooting percentages over the course of a season. If they're low, it's because of poor decision making.

BUT even if you accept shot creation, if I remember the numbers correctly, Dean Oliver calculated that "shot creation" was worth .2 points per 100 possessions. Lebron James took 1169 shots last season, 500 free throws, 387 assists, and has 213 turnovers (not including playoffs), for a roughly 1800 possessions used. So his "shot creation" ability was worth 3.6 points over 62 games played. I assumed that was the additive value to the player, not to the team. If it's to the team you're looking at raising the Heat's efficiency differential from 8.2 to 8.4 per 100 possessions. Regardless of how you look at it, THE EFFECT IS MINOR if it even exists.


change MVP contender to a top8 wins producer because TO ME, that makes him a minor MVP contender.

But how often is there really 8 contenders for MVP? There's a point where the dropoff in production is HUGE. Last year it was 3rd to 4th, per WP. Two years ago, the year in question, it was 4th to 5th. There are only a handful of transcendent players each year, where they play at the top of their game AND everything goes right for them.

IN HOUSTON, Artest performed better under that role.

Doesn't it matter if they both sucked?

my EXACT words were he was BETTER at the job than Ariza, and FOR HOUSTON, he performed at a higher level.

Guess not.


I mean there are mistakes in every stat but these are some truly laughable mistakes.
Like RAPM ranking Matt Bonner as the 6th best player in the NBA last year? Or Nick Collison 7th? Or Lebron James 4th? FOURTH?

I recall a criticism of WP being that it has Jason Kidd ranked highly. WARP has Kidd as the 25th best player in the NBA for 2010-11, ahead of Nash, Rondo, and Garnett. I'm actually disturbed by how low it has Rondo. (WARP numbers seem to be hard to find, I found a list on PSD, no idea if it's accurate).


With a change in the model, by arbitrarily dispersing the rebounding credit or changing the value of it altogether, the player ratings would change (without them performing any differently) and the team wins would still add up.
And the team would still get the same amount of rebounds, which would STILL contribute the same amount to winning. The players' individual ratings would cause because they would have performed differently, but the net effect on the team would still be the same. I'm not sure what the point was.

The punishment shouldnt be the same. A missed shot can lead to an offensive rebound, a turnover cannot.
But that valued of the potential offensive rebound has to be included in the value of the ACTUAL offensive rebound, because the value of a missed shot that doesn't lead to an offensive rebound is exactly the same as a turnover. Throwing arbitrary numbers out there, if a missed shot is -4 points, a turnover -4 points. and an offensive rebound +3 points, then a missed shot that leads to a rebound is net -1 points, better than a turnover. If it doesn't lead to a rebound, then it's the same as a turnover, -4 points. The NET VALUE of a missed shot is better than a turnover, because some of them ended up -1 points and some -4. What you're arguing for is the higher valuation of offensive rebounds, which you specifically criticized WP for.


coaches preach ball protection against a team that thrives in transition.
Coaches preach ball protection in general because on a turnover you didn't even get a chance to score. Like offensive rebounding, the NET VALUE of a shot attempt is higher than a turnover, because some of those shot attempts led to points.


Because your selective? You have been explaining how useless of a role it has on measuring the individual, but its so important in this analysis?
Because it was important to YOUR analysis. I could have used any example regarding Rodman, like offensive rebounding rate, or number of deflections. I chose +/- because you use in your evaluations of players.



Looking at +/- does the same only it focuses specifically on the data with the player on the court.
+/- cannot differentiate between the player and his teammates, or his opponents, that are on the court. It can only do so when a player is pulled out. Thus there is too many outside factors that influence a single player's +/- . Box score metrics can do a much better job of differentiating a player from his teammates because it tracks more individual actions: the player is the one that got the rebounds, turned the ball over, etc. Yes there are still team effects, all models have noise. But WP is consistent from year to year as the player's teammates change, and +/- models are not.


All economists are free to join in and engage in the debate but for some reason Berri thinks its beneath him, and will actually ban quite a few people from his forum for bringing up valid criticism, presumably because they dont post it in the low impact journals that he oversees.
....WoW doesn't have a forum. Wordpress (which his site is built on) doesn't support forums as far as I know. I think it's funny that APBR's web forum is "high impact" and accredited academic journals are "low impact".

IndyRealist
07-22-2012, 12:29 PM
Oh, and Mark Cuban specifically cited the Wages of Wins in regard to his evaluation of Jae Crowder on 7/20. Not the book, the website. His work is getting read by people in charge, and they're making decisions based on it.

Chronz
07-22-2012, 02:47 PM
Efficiency does not alone translate into Wins Produced. A low usage player's high efficiency is mitigated by the fact that he is a low usage player. There simply aren't enough made field goals to drastically move his wins produced. A guy who takes only one shot in a season and make it, does not look very good in Wins Produced.
Thats like me saying PER doesnt reward usage, because if the player takes 100 shots but makes 1, it wouldnt cause an uptick in PER. You know Im obviously talking about how they value the cost/reward of a possession lost/scored. PER is more forgiving, and WP rewards rebounding/efficiency.


The assumption then is that one player has to dominate the ball? Almost every coach will tell you that's a bad strategy, that the ball should move around the court and the open man should take the shot. Even on an extremely top heavy team, the Heat, Wade took 24.7 shots per 48 minutes, Lebron took 24.1, Bosh took 19.3, Norris Cole took 17.1, and 8 more players took at least 10 per 48 minutes played.

Not at all, the assumption is that the teams best isolation scorer, ball handler, passer will end up taking a greater load of the offense and coaches do this because they want to keep the low usage players in the roles that enhance their efficiency and if the low usage and high usage players were to switch there would be a drastic difference in the optimization of the teams possession distribution. Its not as easy as getting the high% shooter more shots at the expense of the low% shooter. It may very well be the case but not always. Thats why the 2 stats favor different things and why you cant convinced me either is doing it right.



But you don't. That's the whole point of running a play, to free someone up to take a shot.
My argument is that the efficiency of that play hinges on the skillset of the players involved. A high efficiency player who cant dribble or is a limited passer will not be able to free anyone up in the PnR. A player who cant balance himself coming off a pindown will not be an effective option. A post player with limited postmoves and/or no understanding of body positioning will not open the game up for his teammates. You run plays with the intent of freeing up the proper players. DJ is more efficient than Blake, because hes the last option of any designated play. If anyone else is running that PnR the efficiency diminishes, likewise if anyone else is setting the screen.


A post player draws a double team and passes out to the open man, does that make him a shot creator?

They only double him if hes a threat to score with the ball. Like DeAndre Jordan is mega efficient compared to Blake, but he cant free anyone up on a post-up play.


The PF comes over and sets a screen to free the PG for a 15ft floater, is the PF a shot creator?
If the PF is a threat off the ball that has to be accounted for, if the PG has the skillset to come off a pick and balance himself to rise up for the jumper and if the defense refuses to send help from the perimeter due to another capable shooter spacing them up.


Ray Allen's defender can't leave him, spreading the floor for Rondo's drive, does that make Ray a shot creator?
In a way.



Heck, Steve Novak spends all of his time looking to get to an open spot for the 3, does that mean he's a shot creator because he got a shot for himself? The notion that one guy pounding the ball on the perimeter for 20 seconds before taking a contested shot is somehow helping his team is ludicrous.
Sadly I never said he had to pound the ball, only that hes taking necessary shots that come from the responsibility of being a first option. Even if it comes at the expense of his own efficiency, it leads to the peripheral players being able to focus on the shots they are good at making. Like Blake Griffin handling the load that the more efficient DeAndre Jordan couldnt. It depends on the player for sure, but all we are doing is emphasizing just how complex basketball is and how linear weights fail in capturing this.



Blowing by your man is a skill. Taking a contested 20ft fadeaway is not.
I disagree, being the kind of player who can bail an offense out with the shot clock winding down is a skill. How valuable it is depends on the rest of his team and his own efficiency.


Now, there is some validity to the idea that the shot clock is running down and someone HAS to take the shot. So by sacrificing his own numbers, the "shot creator" is bumping up his teammates. But how often does that happen, with 1 second left on the clock and no time for a pass? Once a game? Twice? Once a quarter? Without shot clock data I can't quantify it, but the number of bail out shots a high usage player takes is unlikely to drastically affect his shooting percentages over the course of a season. If they're low, it's because of poor decision making.
Who said anything about 1 second left? If the offense breaks down and someone has to create something within 3-5 seconds and the teams offense relies on a series of movements and screens then there may not be enough time to run all that, in this case these shots will still apply here. The team looks for the best scorer/playmaker to create something off an escape dribble or PnR.

We do have shot clock data but Im not sure what use it will be.


BUT even if you accept shot creation, if I remember the numbers correctly, Dean Oliver calculated that "shot creation" was worth .2 points per 100 possessions.
Im pretty sure his rule of thumb was a 1:1.5 ratio increase/decrease of efficiency for every % increase in usage, but thats on average and every player has his own skill curve.


Lebron James took 1169 shots last season, 500 free throws, 387 assists, and has 213 turnovers (not including playoffs), for a roughly 1800 possessions used. So his "shot creation" ability was worth 3.6 points over 62 games played. I assumed that was the additive value to the player, not to the team. If it's to the team you're looking at raising the Heat's efficiency differential from 8.2 to 8.4 per 100 possessions. Regardless of how you look at it, THE EFFECT IS MINOR if it even exists.

It definitely exists, sadly you cannot quantify it because its value is different for every player and his team. Sometimes there are overlaps in a player skillset that allow one player to step up if given the opportunity, other times the lack of a creator puts players into roles they dont have the skillset to perform in.



IN HOUSTON, Artest performed better under that role.

Doesn't it matter if they both sucked?

my EXACT words were he was BETTER at the job than Ariza, and FOR HOUSTON, he performed at a higher level.

Guess not.
Well it matters if you like context and want to know how players perform in different roles.


Like RAPM ranking Matt Bonner as the 6th best player in the NBA last year? Or Nick Collison 7th? Or Lebron James 4th? FOURTH?

The noise inherent in +/- is much more understandable than a something thats boxscore based.


I recall a criticism of WP being that it has Jason Kidd ranked highly. WARP has Kidd as the 25th best player in the NBA for 2010-11, ahead of Nash, Rondo, and Garnett. I'm actually disturbed by how low it has Rondo. (WARP numbers seem to be hard to find, I found a list on PSD, no idea if it's accurate).

Ill get back to you on this but I think if we did a perception test on which stats reflect reality closely, I dont think WP would rank higher.


And the team would still get the same amount of rebounds, which would STILL contribute the same amount to winning. The players' individual ratings would cause because they would have performed differently, but the net effect on the team would still be the same. I'm not sure what the point was.

No, the players themselves would have performed the same, their ratings would differ. Like when WP changed the value of a rebound not too long ago. Landry fields gos from MVP contender (by your own criteria, +.300) to a good player (again by your own criteria). I could create the same effect and conjure up a completely worthless stat on an individual level that still adds up in the end.


But that valued of the potential offensive rebound has to be included in the value of the ACTUAL offensive rebound, because the value of a missed shot that doesn't lead to an offensive rebound is exactly the same as a turnover. Throwing arbitrary numbers out there, if a missed shot is -4 points, a turnover -4 points. and an offensive rebound +3 points, then a missed shot that leads to a rebound is net -1 points, better than a turnover. If it doesn't lead to a rebound, then it's the same as a turnover, -4 points. The NET VALUE of a missed shot is better than a turnover, because some of them ended up -1 points and some -4. What you're arguing for is the higher valuation of offensive rebounds, which you specifically criticized WP for.

Im talking about the cost for the player who misses the shot vs the player who commits the turnover. A missed shot can lead to an offensive rebound and the turnover cannot, therefor the cost should reflect that based on league averages (actual averages would be great for both turnovers that lead to baskets and shots to rebounds, but to my knowledge no stat system reflects this). And I still dont get your point about my alleged contradiction. Offensive rebounds should be valued higher than any other rebound. To me it should be the value of a possession which should completely negate any other missed shot by the rebounder himself.


Coaches preach ball protection in general because on a turnover you didn't even get a chance to score. Like offensive rebounding, the NET VALUE of a shot attempt is higher than a turnover, because some of those shot attempts led to points.

In general they preach everything, but specifically against teams that thrive in transition they stress ball protection.


Because it was important to YOUR analysis. I could have used any example regarding Rodman, like offensive rebounding rate, or number of deflections. I chose +/- because you use in your evaluations of players.

I use it when available, it doesnt apply here and it makes it one less tool for us to examine. Still dont see the relevance in Rodman vs MJ when your the one who doesnt use it as a tool at the individual level.


+/- cannot differentiate between the player and his teammates, or his opponents, that are on the court. It can only do so when a player is pulled out. Thus there is too many outside factors that influence a single player's +/- . Box score metrics can do a much better job of differentiating a player from his teammates because it tracks more individual actions: the player is the one that got the rebounds, turned the ball over, etc. Yes there are still team effects, all models have noise. But WP is consistent from year to year as the player's teammates change, and +/- models are not.

Im talking how WP attributes the TEAMS defensive efficiency to the individual. But on that note, I dont think it does a much better job at anything, just different.


....WoW doesn't have a forum. Wordpress (which his site is built on) doesn't support forums as far as I know. I think it's funny that APBR's web forum is "high impact" and accredited academic journals are "low impact".
JESUS can you please spare me the semantics, by forum Im obviously referring to their comments section. Which BTW, if you look up the definition of the word forum, can be any medium where views/ideas can be exchanged. The likes of which Berri has a notorious reputation of a totalitarian.

And you can laugh all you want but in the field of basketball studies, I trust the guys who are qualified and open to every and any form of criticism. These arent your average internet joes we're talking about here, these are guys with extensive mathematical backgrounds that dwarf those of Berri and yet are willing to admit the game is filled with subjective elements.

Chronz
07-22-2012, 02:54 PM
Oh, and Mark Cuban specifically cited the Wages of Wins in regard to his evaluation of Jae Crowder on 7/20. Not the book, the website. His work is getting read by people in charge, and they're making decisions based on it.

I suppose that represents a step up that someone mentions him, still put more stock in the shiny ring Cuban gave Roland Beech or other GM's hiring and writing in publications of other statgeeks.

IndyRealist
07-22-2012, 05:26 PM
Not at all, the assumption is that the teams best isolation scorer, ball handler, passer will end up taking a greater load of the offense and coaches do this because they want to keep the low usage players in the roles that enhance their efficiency


Its not as easy as getting the high% shooter more shots at the expense of the low% shooter.


Absolutely. The fact is that coaches only call a small percentage of plays from the sideline. What you're left with is at best a pick n' roll or post up. More than likely what you get is some form of iso.

I grew up watching Reggie Miller. He was constant movement, running baseline, circling the paint and constantly changing directions, and coming off 3 different screens just to get one shot off. He's the greatest scorer the Pacers ever had, and he wasn't a shot creator. The play creates the shot, not the player. "Shot creation" as it's defined is at best lazy, and at worst selfish. In the examples I gave, the screener can be considered a shot creator as much as the ballhandler in PnR, because the screener gets the ballhandler a shot. The post up player is a shot creator by passing out to the open man. The spot up shooter is a shot creator by both distorting the defense for spacing AND finding open spots to shoot uncontested. So really there are no "shot creators", because EVERYONE is a shot creator if they participate in the play.

Running iso off the elbow for Melo (or Lebron or anyone else) is a low percentage cop out. That's the reason the Heat lost last year and won this year. They stopped running iso. Wade is most effective coming off PnR. Lebron scores extremely well off ball and functions as a post pivot.


"Just too much isolation," Wade said of the past offensive gameplan. "…We have good iso guys, but I thought last year, as we were trying to work our game and get comfortable, a lot of times we relied on our ability too much. And it can get other guys just standing around and not being involved."

The alternative is James and Wade scoring more within offensive sets, and having added trust in teammates. The change was noticeable when they scored the bulk of the points in the previous round against the Indiana Pacers.

Most of the scoring was a product of ball movement.

"Everything we get is in the flow of the offense, and that's what it's about," James said.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-05-29/sports/fl-miami-heat-dwyane-wade-0530-20120529_1_erik-spoelstra-mario-chalmers-role-guys


Who said anything about 1 second left? If the offense breaks down and someone has to create something within 3-5 seconds and the teams offense relies on a series of movements and screens then there may not be enough time to run all that, in this case these shots will still apply here. The team looks for the best scorer/playmaker to create something off an escape dribble or PnR.

We do have shot clock data but Im not sure what use it will be.

It matters because the argument is that -someone- has to take these shots. So for high usage "shot creators" it's important to know how many of their shots are truly "forced" by the shot clock and how many are the product of their shot selection. And that person is a shot creator, because he can make something from nothing. A ballhandler coming off PnR isn't necessarily the shot creator, is he? The screener is getting him the shot, but that's never what anyone means by shot creator. That's why I say the play creates the shot, not the player.

As an aside, theoretically the man with the ball and less than 5 secs on the clock shouldn't be your primary scorer, it's should be your best passer (assuming they're not the same person). Because with a limited amount of time for the play to continue the defense is more likely to gamble with a double and force a bad contested shot. And like all the fans, the players also watch the ball. Cutters and big men could live off lobs in these situations.


The noise inherent in +/- is much more understandable than a something thats boxscore based.
The noise is easier to understand, but it's also more significant and harder to eliminate.


No, the players themselves would have performed the same, their ratings would differ
Still don't understand what you're saying here. If 5 players on the floor had 2,2,2,4 and 10 rebounds, and you redistributed that to 4,4,4,4,4 then the players' ratings would change because they would have gotten a different number of rebounds. The total wins accumulated from rebounds would be the same because they still would have gotten 20 rebounds, but some players would look better and others worse.


Im talking about the cost for the player who misses the shot vs the player who commits the turnover. A missed shot can lead to an offensive rebound and the turnover cannot, therefor the cost should reflect that based on league averages (actual averages would be great for both turnovers that lead to baskets and shots to rebounds, but to my knowledge no stat system reflects this).

But the player who takes the shot has nothing to do with the potential offensive rebound unless he's the one that gets it. Why adjust that for league averages of offensive rebounds when that would be a FUDGE because it doesn't accurately represent the offensive rebounding ability of the players on the floor?

The adjustment you're talking about is like saying the value of field goal attempts should be adjusted by the league average of shots that get blocked, because it COULD get blocked.


Ill get back to you on this but I think if we did a perception test on which stats reflect reality closely, I dont think WP would rank higher.
The point was that all models throw unusual results. And unfortunately you wouldn't be testing which reflects reality, you'd be testing which reflects perception. But if you wanted to test percption, WP says that Lebron was the best player two years ago, not Dirk. You'd be hard pressed to find someone to tell you that Dirk is even the best big man in the league, let alone the best player.


JESUS can you please spare me the semantics, by forum Im obviously referring to their comments section.
Comments sections are meant for comments on the article, I'd assume. Not for tangential arguments over topics not covered in the article. Going there to argue about the validity of Wins Produced instead of the topic of conversation is, more or less, trolling.

IndyRealist
07-22-2012, 05:35 PM
I suppose that represents a step up that someone mentions him, still put more stock in the shiny ring Cuban gave Roland Beech or other GM's hiring and writing in publications of other statgeeks.

Directly used his model to pick a player in the draft. Not the same as "mentions him". Does it not say something that Cuban gave Berri credit for the pick despite having statisticians on staff?

Man, the attempts to marginalize and discredit a well repspected professor specializing in the subject at hand is getting old. Don't agree with his work, fine. That's exact what we're talking about. Saying that a website's forum is more valid critique of economic models than a peer reviewed academic journal is just silly.

Chronz
07-22-2012, 05:47 PM
Your a ****in machine bro

Get back at you in a few days or so, bout to start the hardest phase of my schedule this month/week.

IndyRealist
07-22-2012, 05:53 PM
Your a ****in machine bro

Get back at you in a few days or so, bout to start the hardest phase of my schedule this month/week.

Heh, I'm actually more or less at the limit of my knowledge. I've been looking stuff up on the fly this entire weekend. So take your time ;)

Sssmush
07-22-2012, 11:37 PM
Absolutely. The fact is that coaches only call a small percentage of plays from the sideline. What you're left with is at best a pick n' roll or post up. More than likely what you get is some form of iso.

I grew up watching Reggie Miller. He was constant movement, running baseline, circling the paint and constantly changing directions, and coming off 3 different screens just to get one shot off. He's the greatest scorer the Pacers ever had, and he wasn't a shot creator. The play creates the shot, not the player. "Shot creation" as it's defined is at best lazy, and at worst selfish. In the examples I gave, the screener can be considered a shot creator as much as the ballhandler in PnR, because the screener gets the ballhandler a shot. The post up player is a shot creator by passing out to the open man. The spot up shooter is a shot creator by both distorting the defense for spacing AND finding open spots to shoot uncontested. So really there are no "shot creators", because EVERYONE is a shot creator if they participate in the play.

Running iso off the elbow for Melo (or Lebron or anyone else) is a low percentage cop out. That's the reason the Heat lost last year and won this year. They stopped running iso. Wade is most effective coming off PnR. Lebron scores extremely well off ball and functions as a post pivot.



This entire post is really solid, a really good read.

I'd say that a good adjective for the classic Melo-style iso would be "inefficient," because it results in that player having to work really hard in isolation, over and over.

A team approach, where everybody is cohesive and in on the plan, is obviously far more efficient, to the extent that a truly team-oriented system will eventually beat a team with several superstars if that team isn't coordinated.