4609Re: the Ruben Patterson effect
- Jul 31, 2004--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
> with derek anderson 31-51, allen iverson just 31-51 (35-47 using his02-03
Bob's stuff typically results in similar projections as mine (I also
get about a 10 win difference putting Kobe in for Johnson, for
example). I go about it through net points or individual win-loss
records, but the ultimate result Bob puts out of team win-loss record
I highlight the passage above from his email to highlight the
difficulty with any of these context-sensitive approaches: Players
change. AI's 2004 season was a bit worse than his 2003 season, which
was worse than his 2001 season. Why? Was that predictable? Is it
age? Is it coaching? Is it injuries (the guy doesn't seem to show
Bob's sim shows sensitivity to those kinds of changes. My stuff
definitely shows sensitivity, but I'd like to think I understand those
changes better. I knew AI would do worse once Larry Brown left, but
that doesn't mean I understand it better.
This is relevant for Q, too. His first 2 seasons in the league were
much better than his last two. I've been thinking it's
injury-related, but some have suggested that it's related to playing
with Corey Maggette. There are reasons to doubt the Maggette
rationale, but if it is true, he should be better in Phoenix. If the
injuries have dogged him the last two years, which is true, and, more
speculatively, he is injury-free in 2005, then perhaps he returns to
form. I need to look into it more, but my sense is that Q will get a
bit closer to where he was in 2002, which is a player who is about 4
wins better than he was last year.
Finally, Bob mentioned that McGrady's 2003 season was about as good as
some of MJs best. I can see why he says that, but one big thing would
keep me from agreeing -- consistency. In MJ's top seasons, he was
dominant every night. My "game-by-game win-loss record" for MJ was
typically 60+ wins and about 20 losses, implying that he had a good
night about 3/4ths of the time. McGrady, on the other hand, had some
monster nights that made his season total look good, but also had some
mediocre nights, for a similar total of 47-28 that season.
> so the question might be why not employ 2 or 3 bowen type players on
> spurs to increase duncan's touches even more? because there is apoint (i'm not
> quite sure exactly where that point is yet) where this logic breaksdown, and if
> duncan's teammates cannot be a factor on offense he will get double andThis relates to the skill curves I put in Chapter 19 of the book.
> triple teamed consistently.
Duncan can maintain his efficiency while using a lot of possessions
(upwards of 30%), but if you have 3 Bowens using 11% of the team's
possessions, that's 3*9%=27% of the team's possessions that have to be
used by the other 2 guys. Duncan can't handle more than 14% or so of
those before getting inefficient. And the Spurs don't have anyone
else who can even pick up about 9% of the rest.
> simulation also shows that the league's very best players can -
> - make their teams as much as 18-20 games better per 82 game seasonthan the
> worst players (starters) at their same position. play tim duncan 40min/g on
> the spurs and they finish 18-20 games better per 82 game season thanif duncan
> was replaced by the likes of antoine walker, walter mccarty, orclifford
> robinson.Interestingly, my range is about 14-17, not 18-20, for these players.
I'm not sure if you can do the comparison with reality to say which
is "right". Regardless, that's a lot of wins between some of the best
and worst starters.
Author, Basketball on Paper
When basketball teams start playing Moneyball, this is the book
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>