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

Re: 2002-03 Predictions, anyone?

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... expect ... in ... be ... really that ... is ... that steep ... awful ... the ... Same example that came to my mind. Both John and Brent have what I call
    Message 1 of 31 , Oct 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, John Hollinger wrote:
      >
      > [...]
      >
      > > Here's some things I can pretty much guarantee:
      > >
      > > 1) Several players had mid-career fluke years and can reliably
      expect
      > > to be much worse. I may have forgot a couple names from the study
      in
      > > the book, but I will bet any amount of money that Jon Barry will
      be
      > > far, far, far worse this year.
      >
      > Barry's 2002 season was indeed his best one so far, but was it
      really that
      > much better than his 2000 season? That is, I agree that a downturn
      is
      > almost inevitable, but if he returns to his 2000 form, it's not
      that steep
      > a downturn. I'm also thinking of his bro Brent, who was a fairly
      awful
      > player with the Clips, Heat, and Bulls and magically became one of
      the
      > NBA's more efficient players when he joined the Sonics, where he's
      > proceded to simply become even more efficient.
      >

      Same example that came to my mind. Both John and Brent have what I
      call "unstable" stats in that the efficient numbers they post are
      highly due to the fact that they limit how often they shoot. In
      games where they use more possessions, they struggle a lot. In other
      words, they are both very useful role players doing what they do.
      There isn't much reason to believe that they can suddenly turn into
      20 ppg scorers (despite what their dad says).

      I need to look at Williamson's numbers. I always thought that he
      should play better than the baseline he'd established.

      Frankly, no one out here in GS thought that Sura had even a good year
      last year, so if he gets even worse, Ick. After seeing Jiri Welsch
      in the summer, I was ready to call him ROY. News these days supports
      that as a possibility. He is probably going to work himself into the
      starting lineup in GS, which doesn't say a lot. But Musselman seems
      to recognize this guy as The Man, which is what he can be. He can
      play both ends of the court, is exceedingly quick, can handle and
      shoot, and can jump over people. He's going to turn the ball over a
      lot as a rookie, but all because he is so aggressive, so quick, and
      the refs won't give him any calls at first. (The Warriors have been
      so bad at turning young talent into good players recently that I've
      had hesitation saying this, worried that the Warriors would bury him
      on the bench or force him to be just a role player. The news reports
      and some of my own sources say that Musselman will give him a legit
      shot.)

      On Hughes: yes, his style does not involve much of a jump shot. He
      can play solid D on the perimeter when he wants to or when he's asked
      to. That's more the way I was imagining him getting used in
      Washington -- going from a scorer with moderate to little value (as
      Fox was in Boston) to a specialty player with ability to help a good
      team (as Fox has become). I certainly can't imagine him being a big
      scorer there.

      Did anyone else notice David Aldridge saying that Clips won't go
      anywhere? He actually felt like there weren't enough balls to go
      around on that team. Brand is good. Miller is good. Q is OK. Odom
      is pretty bad but is injured. Kandi is horrible and, if the Clips
      are smart, they'll injure him so that the team can get better. I
      need to look into these guys, especially the supporting cast. Their
      D was pretty decent last year. If it stays that way, I can only see
      them getting better. But D can be killed by "chemistry" and I don't
      know Gentry well enough to say whether he can overcome it. Miles was
      also a solid defender.

      DeanO
    • Dean Oliver
      ... From the article on my website: http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/JordanvsOlaj.html The nontechnical form of the formula to estimate D stops is
      Message 31 of 31 , Oct 14, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean LaVergne" <deanlav@y...> wrote:
        > Please refresh my memory - how are Defensive Stops calculated?

        From the article on my website:

        http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/JordanvsOlaj.html

        The nontechnical form of the formula to estimate D stops is

        Defensive Stops =
        Min*[(OppFGA-OppFGM-OppOR-TMBLK)/2+(OppTO-TMSTL)]/TMMIN
        + STL + 0.5*(DR+BLK)

        Basically, the point is to estimate how many misses a player forces,
        how many turnovers they force, then augment them with actual stats
        like blocks and turnovers. A stop is a change of possession, of
        course, and a missed shot or block only does part of that (whereas a
        forced turnover does the whole thing). A defensive rebound does the
        other part. This formula is, uh, nontechnical because it doesn't
        weight things by how difficult they are. On some teams a defensive
        rebound deserves more weight than on others (e.g., when the team has
        a hard time getting them). It doesn't make a huge difference at the
        NBA level.

        The big estimate is what is in the square brackets, estimating how
        many forced misses and forced TO's a guy has. I've compared it with
        our Project D Scoresheet stuff and it's definitely only accurate for
        some players. Speaking of that, I really need to finish that work,
        but I first gotta get the manuscript in. And work. And go traveling
        again. Grr.

        DeanO
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.