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

Re: 2002-03 Predictions, anyone?

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... My thought, too. But I really don t know. Not many 40 year old supermen around. ... one ... As usual, I m off traveling in nevernever land without my
    Message 1 of 31 , Oct 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...> wrote:
      > >... one of the interesting predictions we all made here last year
      > > was that Jordan would get hurt.
      > I still think the over-reliance on MJ last year led to his long
      > minutes which led to his wearing down. This year, it may be
      > different, with Stackhouse (who is durable if nothing else) along.

      My thought, too. But I really don't know. Not many 40 year old
      supermen around.

      > > Why do people think that Van Horn is going to suddenly wake up in
      > > Philly? He hasn't shot well whether he was a key cog in the
      > offense
      > > or a secondary player.
      > Here's Van Horn's career shooting and scoring rates:
      > 98 .508 19.3
      > 99 .508 22.1
      > 00 .528 20.5
      > 01 .519 17.9
      > 02 .505 18.4
      > After the rookie jitters, the '99 anomaly, a couple of good years,
      > and one slightly disappointing season last year. I only see that
      > not-so-good entry. In general, within a few pts of the league
      > average.

      As usual, I'm off traveling in nevernever land without my bball pc,
      so I can't look up my #s on the fly. But mine have pretty
      consistently shown Van Horn as a below average offensive player in
      terms of efficiency. I think he had 1 season of average efficiency.
      And a mediocre defender.

      > > ... Detroit? ... they really overachieved last year ...
      > This sounds like a candidate for a 100% subjective comment. I
      > counter that there is no such thing as an overachieving team. They
      > had the parts, and they had the sum of those parts. Enough offense
      > enough defense = Wins.

      JohnH spelled out part of it a few times. Multiple players who
      played above their head (better than their historical standards).
      They were supposed to be better the year before, so the improvement
      was falsely large. Their leading scorers shot horribly from the
      floor. Their leading scorer, Stackhouse, was below the league
      average in terms of producing points per possession. They relied on
      defense to win a lot and, though they did legitimately have a great
      defender in Wallace, great defenses often require players to work
      together a lot, something that can go wrong easily. So,
      maybe "overachieve" isn't the right word. Their record didn't
      convince me or a lot of people that they would continue to be so
      good. I called that "overachieving" to save some words. It's not
      subjective entirely. It is an interpretation of several different
      quantitative observations of the team that cannot be added or
      subtracted at a whim.

      In the most immediate terms, yeah, a win is a win is a win. But
      that's also like when some internet companies were jacking up their
      revenues by charging large advertising rates to "partners" who would
      also have high advertising rates that they would sell back. Both
      partners have large advertising revenue that could show the
      shareholders -- "See Internet advertising is booming!" -- but neither
      was a very reliable number. Whereas Detroit was a little lucky and
      those internet firms were deceptive, not all numbers are equally
      indicative of strength.

      > >
      > > With both Finley and Nowitzki playing over the summer and the
      > history
      > > of players getting injured after that kind of off-season
      > > who gets hurt first?
      > Finley may have something to prove, like 11 other guys we know.
      > Nowitzki is young. What bugs me is guys the age of Reggie, or Tim
      > Hardaway, going to these affairs.

      It doesn't bug me so much, but I probably would have looked for other
      players. I heard that people at the Tournament said that Elton Brand
      looked the worst, which really surprised me. Supposedly, the style
      of the game really hurt him (and Ben Wallace). Not sure what your
      numbers say because I'm not sure what any numbers say from there.
      I've downloaded them, but haven't had a chance to process. Plus they
      don't have the D numbers accumulated, which are really important
      since that is how we lost so much.

      I'm guessing that either Finley or Nowitzki also goes down for 10
      games or so. We've already covered Nash -- he often gets hurt.

      > > Easiest pick -- Sacramento won't win close to the 70 games that
      > Bibby
      > > predicted. By a pretty reliable method, there is at least an 80%
      > > chance that they won't do as well as they did last year.
      > So you don't think much of their offseason? Keon Clark might have
      > something to say. Then again, he may not make up for the aging of
      > Vlade, and whatever happens with Webber. And, can Peja recover?

      On Sacramento, Clark doesn't help as much as he would on another
      team, including Toronto. His strength is still defense. Lenny gave
      him room on the offensive end and he improved, but he still isn't
      much. He's a sub in Toronto. If he gets lots of time because Divac
      or Webber is out, he costs them wins relative to those guys. In
      Toronto, though, he was a positive and they will miss him. At least
      that's the story my numbers tell.

    • 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:


        The nontechnical form of the formula to estimate D stops is

        Defensive Stops =
        + 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.

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