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

3305Re: My version of WINVAL (my analysis of it)

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    Mar 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "dan_t_rosenbaum"
      <rosenbaum@u...> wrote:
      > harder for their teammates to score. These WINVAL statistics would
      > pick up such externalities, while the accounting-type approach
      > inherent in Tendex, PER, and DeanO's stuff would not pick up such
      > externalities.
      >

      I've been thinking about this statement a bit. Inherently, these
      play-by-play data do feature all the interactions of a player. They
      do have "externalities." In general, we think that it's good to
      capture more and not less, but I guess the reason that there is so
      much noise is that all those externalities really add it. Capturing
      all that information can be hiding true "talent" by capturing also:

      - decisions to go to a certain player in the offense
      - system, such as man or zone defense
      - decisions on what man covers who

      I'm sure there are other things, but I note that these are actually
      very important in making translations to other teams. These are, like
      the lineups themselves, very collinear. The defense of Sam Cassell
      looked a lot worse in Milwaukee than in Minnesota where he has an
      effective zone to protect him. Minnesota couldn't have seen that
      really with these stats until it actually put him in a zone. How
      would Sam do as the first option in an offense? He's not been that,
      so if the Bobcats pick him up in the expansion draft (doubtful, of
      course), would he be able to do that? Or, how would Flip Murray be
      defensively if the Sonics didn't play their trap all the time?

      The belief of how important these factors are in performance then
      matters. If you believe that talent is 99% of the game, the
      externalities don't matter much. But just the fact that there is a
      fair amount of noise in the estimates helps support my idea that they
      do matter (even with the new season of data that Dan has). It's hard
      putting a number on it, but I tend to go with 70% of performance is
      talent.

      DeanO

      Dean Oliver
      Author, Basketball on Paper
      http://www.basketballonpaper.com
      "Oliver goes beyond stats to dissect what it takes to win. His breezy
      style makes for enjoyable reading, but there are plenty of points of
      wisdom as well. This book can be appreciated by fans, players,
      coaches and executives, but more importantly it can be used as a text
      book for all these groups. You are sure to learn something you didn't
      know about basketball here." Pete Palmer, co-author, Hidden Game of
      Baseball and Hidden Game of Football

      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "wimpds" <wimpds@y...> wrote:
      > > Dan,
      > >
      > > Thanks a lot for doing this. Quite interesting, though I wish the
      > > collinearity wasn't so damaging. Perhaps you could run a model
      > that
      > > could contribute to another discussion going on? What happens
      > when
      > > you separate offensive and defensive rebounds? Other work would
      > > suggest we'd get a larger coefficient for offensive rebounds.
      > >
      > > Ben
    • Show all 30 messages in this topic