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

1710Re: Cross Generational Simulating/Comparisons

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver <deano@rawbw.com>
    Jan 27, 2003
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
      > here are some number for you to chew on:
      >
      > pts/ sec/ pts/
      > year FG% 48min poss poss
      > 7778 .469 107.7 13.4 1.000
      > 7879 .485 109.8 13.5 1.029
      > 7980 .481 108.5 13.8 1.041
      > 8081 .486 107.5 14.0 1.043
      > 8182 .491 107.9 14.1 1.058
      > 8283 .485 107.9 13.8 1.037
      > 8384 .492 109.2 14.0 1.063
      > 8485 .491 110.2 13.9 1.066
      > 8586 .487 109.5 13.9 1.059
      > 8687 .480 109.2 14.1 1.067
      > 8788 .480 107.6 14.3 1.065
      > 8889 .477 108.5 14.1 1.062
      > 8990 .476 106.3 14.4 1.065
      > 9091 .474 105.5 14.5 1.063
      > 9192 .472 104.5 14.7 1.067
      > 9293 .473 104.5 14.7 1.066
      > 9394 .466 101.0 15.0 1.049
      > 9495 .466 100.6 15.3 1.069
      > 9596 .462 98.8 15.5 1.063
      > 9697 .455 96.2 15.8 1.053
      > 9798 .450 94.8 15.7 1.036
      > 9899 .437 90.9 16.0 1.009
      > 9900 .449 96.9 15.3 1.030
      > 0001 .443 94.0 15.6 1.020
      > 0102 .445 94.8 15.7 1.034
      >
      > sec/poss is the avg time per team possession, pts/poss is the avg
      points
      > scored per team possession. you can see a general trend in a slower
      game thru
      > time (secs/poss) but no such similar trend in offensive
      productivity...
      >

      This trend looks about right, even if my calculations have slight
      differences.


      >
      > And the only explanation I can deduce is that offenses were
      disciplining
      > themselves (through improved coaching I surmise) and expunging bad
      shot
      > selection. Now, as
      > I also said before, I expect that defenses were also improving
      during this
      > time so that the 12 point estimate is in fact a low estimate of the
      actual
      > improvement in these two decades.
      >
      > have no idea where this is coming from...
      >
      > And to continue. If one accepts the general and continuous
      improvement of
      > the game over the two decades mentioned, then it becomes arbitrary
      to imagine
      > that progress stopped then. The reasonable prior belief is that
      the slow
      > decrease in offensive productivity after this point is the result
      of
      > defensive improvements, rather than some technological
      retrogression.
      >
      > what slow decrease in offensive productivity? i see similar
      offensive
      > productivity in 77-78 to 80-81 as i see in 97-98 to 01-02, with the
      higher
      > productivity per poss of the 1980s being higher and fairly
      constant...
      >
      > technological retrogression?? like what, bring back the jump ball
      after every
      > score??...
      >
      > And finally, I made what I think is a very persuasive argument for
      the
      > superiority of the trained athlete in more recent times. In the
      form of a
      > question, if there are not some return to his efforts, why is he
      killing
      > himself in the gym?
      >
      > a nice philosophical arguement but not pertinent for stats
      analysis..

      I would say that the philosophy does have pertinence. Neither
      philosophy nor stats can live in an isolated world. Too often,
      statistical results are interpreted blind of the rest of the world,
      which is why oat bran is good for you one week and deadly the next.
      It comes down to where the burden of proof lies. I think there is a
      significant burden for stats to carry because they already have the
      word "lies" associated with them. If stats don't see what others see
      very clearly, they not only have to say why they don't see them, they
      have to show that they've tried every means to see them, and then
      they have to really show why people are deceived by their eyes.

      Right now, Bob is implying that the burden is not on the stats to
      show that cross-generational sims are reliable, but I would say that
      it is. How a simulation should handle different rules hasn't been
      answered. How a simulation should handle different average heights
      and weights hasn't been answered. How a simulation should handle the
      very different league averages in pace or points per possession
      hasn't been answered. Setting up frameworks for these philosophical
      questions is relevant for trusting any simulation.


      DeanO
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic