1355Re: Bob's examples
- Oct 12, 2002--- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
> Guys who make better passes and help their teammates to highershooting
> percentages get more credit for their assists than guys who makesafe passes.
> do you believe, or have data, or have seen data to show that some
> indeed actually increase the FG%s of their teammates thru theirpassing? i
> had always assumed this was true but did a small study for the Netsalmost a
> decade ago showing that while good passers do indeed increase theto show
> opportunities for their teammates to score, there was no evidence
> that they did in fact increase their FG%s (i.e. did not get thembetter shot
> selection thru their passing skills)...It is a belief, a prior assumption, something that does wait for
proof. I did a very short study once that suggested that assists do
not, as a class, increase shooting percentages. Basically, guys got
easy shots as much on their own as off of passes. It wasn't as
thorough as I'd like it to have been and, like your study, I have
doubts about its results. If assists don't increase the odds of
making a basket, then why should anyone get credit for them?
So, my answer is that I don't have evidence or proof of it, kinda
like there is no evidence that batting order makes a difference in
scoring runs in baseball. But people do definitely construct batting
orders thinking they matter.
There are definite old wives tales in sports. Some of them are
difficult to prove but we hold on to anyway. Some of them can be
pretty adequately dispelled. An interesting example is the concept
of great players making their teammates better. I've generally found
that great players make _some_ teammates better, but not necessarily
all. Magic, Bird, and Jordan all had definite positive effects on
some teammates. But there were plenty of players who came through
that didn't play any better with them.
Your test for whether certain guys improve their teammates seems like
a decent one. But there are other tests. Maybe some assist men make
only occasional players better shooters. That is something to
consider. But let me think about better tests.
> what i did was to look at all of the high assist men (PGs with highassist
> totals) that had been traded during their career over a 15-16 yearperiod
> (late 70s to early 90s), and looked at the FG%s of their teammatesbefore
> their arrival and after, and could not find a single PG thatconsistently
> increased FG% of teammates. there were numerous cases where PGs didjust that
> at one stop but not the next, didn't at their 1st stop but didtheir 2nd,
> etc, but no data to show that any single player or players alwaysor most of
> the time increased their teammates FG%s....remember it -
> what i had found (but i can't find the data now) was - as i
> that some players (PGs) could increase their teamates scoring avgsby getting
> them more opportunities to score, which makes sense if you thinkabout it.
> great passers like magic and stockton shoot so infrequently andpass so often
> in relation to how often they handle the ball, that since theyhandle the
> ball so often in the 1st place their teammates get more chances toscore. i
> couldn't use magic and stockton in the study because they playedtheir entire
> careers with one team, but i did look at players traded to theteams of the
> great PGs (and possibly traded away) and looked at their FG%sbefore and
> after. again no consistent pattern as to increases or decreases inFG%s....
> haven't done a similar study to this yet for the 1990s, but i'd
> players like cassell, marbury, stoudamire, etc - PGs traded once ortwice
> that were starters wherever they went...
> bob chaikin
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>