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

583Re: nice methods

Expand Messages
  • HoopStudies
    Feb 5, 2002
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
      > That last post certainly was hard to read. This is a bad place to
      > try to post in columns, as all spaces are compressed to a single
      > space.
      > Anyway, I did notice what was the big difference between my
      > and John Craven's. My list had Paul Pierce pretty high up, where
      > didn't include Pierce at all, nor Antoine Walker or Stackhouse.
      > These 3 guys played for very bad teams last season. This seems to
      > disqualify members of such teams from consideration as great
      > in these equivalent-wins (or individual-wins) methods.
      > What I wonder is, does anyone have a wins-based evaluation method
      > that dates back several years? If so, are players like Pierce
      > considered "bad" players as long as their team is bad, and then
      > suddenly become "good" players at the moment their team improves
      > they move to a better team)?

      I don't have it with me here at work, but I have been doing wins-
      based stuff for a long time and it shows this kind of change for
      supporting cast kind of players -- the Steve Kerr's of the world who
      are valuable on good teams, but not so valuable on poor teams. By my
      numbers last year, Pierce was one of the best players in the league,
      with a win-loss record of 12.2-4.5. Kobe, for comparison, was 11.6-
      3.4. Those are some very solid numbers.

      Another example I think of as an interesting one was Mitch Richmond.
      I consistently had him winning a lot of games for Sacramento, then he
      tanked upon being traded to Washington. That was weird.

      I had Andre Miller at 8.9-5.1 last year. McDyess was 8.6-4.3.
      Stackhouse was 10.0-8.3. Jamison was 6.2-10.5. AWalker was 7.7-10.1.

      I think Miller's record may be typical for win-loss records of very
      good players on bad teams. The reason is defense. Miller and Pierce
      and Kobe are not the kind of players who can completely turn around a
      defense, make it good. Only big men can really do that (and maybe
      Jason Kidd).

      Also, if you have a team that wins only 15 games, it doesn't make
      sense to have one player on that team who wins 16 games like a Shaq
      or a Jordan or Duncan do. Those guys make winning teams. Elton
      Brand, though a good player, clearly doesn't add more than the 15
      wins that Chicago had last year; it's impossible. My first cut was
      an addition of 6 wins by Brand. I frankly am coming to believe that
      it was more like 9 wins, but that's all a little theoretical right
      now. And it always seems strange to me if someone contributes more
      than half of his team's wins (especially since the Bulls are on pace
      to beat 15 wins this year). It's hard to argue that even Jordan ever
      won half his team's games when he was scoring 35 ppg and the Bulls
      were winning only 40 games. Actually, Jordan should be a very good
      example of what MikeG was asking for. I don't have all my info in
      front of me (again), but


      shows that Jordan was 19.4-0.7 in 1988. I don't think the Bulls were
      that good that year, maybe 40-42 (help?). So, sure, it is indeed
      very possible for win-based ranking methodologies to show stars (or
      superstars in this case) on mediocre teams.

      Dean Oliver
      Journal of Basketball STudies

      > Mike Goodman
      > p.s. If you hit "Reply", a post will appear with columns restored.
    • Show all 30 messages in this topic