Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1177Re: Euclidian comparison of current and past players

Expand Messages
  • mikel_ind
    Aug 2 2:43 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
      > ... I think the lack of rate and ratio statistics
      > weakens the formula.

      It depends on what you want your formula to do. I was in a mood to
      look at career totals. Blending in production rates gets into all
      manner of prioritizing. That's what I usually do. And I catch heck
      for it, generally.

      >If nothing else, I think you should put career total
      > minutes in there, to distinguish players who had similar totals,
      but who
      > may've amassed their stats at different rates. E.g.:
      >
      > > Mookie Blaylock
      > > .41 Cheeks
      > > .54 Richie Guerin
      > > .63 KJ
      >
      > It's believable that KJ's career totals may be fairly similar to
      > Blaylock's, but KJ piled up the points and assists (per game and per
      > minute) faster than Mookie.

      Yes. And the knowledgable reader may know how long it took to amass
      the totals. Still, I think it tells us something.

      Actually, I think it lends a bit of fascination to see dissimilar
      players arriving at the same totals: Dan Majerle and Sidney
      Moncrief? Vlade Divac and Dave DeBusschere? Shaq and McHale ??


      >Also the lack of a FG% measure (corrected for
      > era if you want to get fancy) means that one of the biggest
      differences
      > between Cheeks and Blaylock isn't getting measured.

      True enough. And Mookie was a 3-point artist, so that is gonna make
      things even murkier. Have I said "points is points" lately?


      > [...]
      >
      > > Chris Webber
      > > .28 Mickey Johnson
      >
      > > Tim Duncan
      > > .23 Thurl Bailey
      >
      > Two more examples of the pitfalls of looking only at totals and not
      rates;
      > of course Webber and Duncan are both young and so their career
      totals are
      > unknown, so getting good matches is much more complex.

      Don't think of it as a pitfall; think of it as a contrast. We know
      Duncan has been around about a third as long as Bailey played; so his
      achievment is phenomenal.


      >Interestingly, I
      > think of Mickey Johnson and Thurl Bailey as being sort of similar
      to each
      > other: tall thin guys who were too skinny for PF but much taller
      than
      > typical SFs of the era, who could score in a variety of ways (not
      just
      > inside plodders).

      Mickey Johnson was a forerunner of the passing forwards we see
      today: Webber, Mason, Garnett, etc. In the late '70s, he was pretty
      unique.
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic