Re: predicting bust-out years (and bust years)
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...> wrote:
> > Campbell's minutes are down, but his scoring and efficiency are
> > up.Having a very good backup (Magloire) probably helps. Elden's foul
> His efficiency went back up to where it was between 96 and 99.
> Probably not sustainable. Though there may be a story here. I'd
> need to look to see why he bounced back so much last year. He was
> definitely down for 2000 and 2001 in terms of efficiency (around
> 101), but was 106-109 last year and in '96-99.
rate has gone up, while minutes have gone down. Blocks up a bit --
unusual for an older player. Shooting pct is at an alltime high
(.545 last year, career .508).
> > Johnny Newman
> > yr aj min pct sco. reb ast - total
> > 99 35 19 .517 11.2 2.9 1.6 - 16.4
> > 00 36 22 .556 16.2 2.9 1.2 - 20.3
> > 01 37 25 .531 15.3 3.1 2.0 - 20.6
> Johnny Newman? Maybe I have inaccurate numbers for him. I do
> have his efficiency staying about where it has been throughout hisusually
> career -- a pretty good 109 -- but the rate at which he used
> possessions declined immensely, from around 18% to 11%. 11%
> signals end of career.The above data block refers to '99-01, and I guess you are looking
> > Brian Taylor 79-81 (27-29)Taylor and fellow ABA-er Ron Boone started for the Kings in 1977.
> Advent of 3pt shot.
Then Taylor had 2 really sinking years. Indeed, the 3-pointer helped
revive his career.
>Bird had 2 years as a mere star, 3 as a mere superstar, then 4 as the
> > Larry Bird 84-88 (27-31), like Zelmo
> I think this relates to the experience vs. age thing. Most guys do
> peak after 4-8 yrs in the league, which is close to where Bird was
best of the best.
> > Tom Chambers 88-90 (28-30)Enough of both adds up. His 1st year in Phoenix ('89) was also his
> His 1990 season was his best, but it's not all that different
> efficiency-wise and possession-rate wise than what he did from '84-
> 88. Ratings all around 106-110, using 24-26% of team possessions.
career-best as a rebounder, and his 2nd year there was the
astronomical scoring year.
> > Sedale Threatt 91-93 (29-31)
> With some of these guys, I looked to eyeball peak periods before
> reading yours. With Threatt, I saw a sustained period from '87
> to '95. He got more regular minutes in '91 to '93 and his rating
> go up each year, from 111.6 to 112.4 to 113.5, but his % of theYep. With the Lakers, he pretty much maintained his scoring pace but
> offense went down from 21% to 20% and 20%.
added the assists, which boosted him a lot (from 4.3 to 7.2, per-
36). Rebounds also rose.
> > Fred Roberts 89-91 (27-29)player,
> His first 3 years out of Boston. His rating went 105, 108, 111 and
> he used 15%, 17%, and 18% of team possessions. Still a role
> but a better one each year. In 1992, he tried to use 20% of theRoberts was a steady 5 reb/2 ast guy, while his scoring went from 10
> possessions and his rating dropped back down to 106.
to 15 to 10.
> > Derek Harper 94-96 (32-34)
> Efficiency went down in '96 pretty bad.
yr age pct sco. reb ast - total
95 32 .482 11.8 2.3 5.4 - 21.3
96 33 .539 13.3 2.8 6.4 - 23.8
97 34 .551 16.2 2.8 4.7 - 24.7
You might be thinking of some other Harper?
> > Kevin Willis 96-98 (33-35)Yes, in '96 he was bad in Miami and worse in Golden State. In
> He was supposedly history in '96 after a horrid year. He basically
> returned to about his previous days (a little below in '98) then
> plummeted after '98.
Houston, he carried the team while Hakeem was hurt. Pretty good for
> > John Stockton 93-95 (30-32)1993 was known for this?
> He had a down year in '93 as defenses were allowed to pretty much
> slam anyone who came through the middle, which John does a lot.
Outside of '93, Stockton has had the smoothest career trajectory of
any player I have seen. And for the longest period.
> > A.C. Green 91-93 (27-29)lighter
> > Terry Porter 97-99 (33-35)
> Classic case of a guy whose efficiency went up when he took a
> load in the offense. He dropped below 20% tm poss usage and hisAfter 3 benchwarming years in Portland and Minnesota, Porter
> rating repeaked. Guys change roles in the NBA a fair amount.
rediscovered his shot and gave up his passing duties. This is rather
counter to the trend of older players trying to find a niche, but it
worked for him.
> I'm tired. And hungry. Italian food tonight, some chicken andNot to mention, a hungry statistician is an ugly thing. But outside
> pancetta thing. Sounds better than looking at more stats.
of the Newman and Harper misses, you shot about 80%.
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
> > >his
> > > Johnny Newman
> > > yr aj min pct sco. reb ast - total
> > > 99 35 19 .517 11.2 2.9 1.6 - 16.4
> > > 00 36 22 .556 16.2 2.9 1.2 - 20.3
> > > 01 37 25 .531 15.3 3.1 2.0 - 20.6
> > >
> > Johnny Newman? Maybe I have inaccurate numbers for him. I do
> > have his efficiency staying about where it has been throughout
> > career -- a pretty good 109 -- but the rate at which he usedoutside
> > possessions declined immensely, from around 18% to 11%. 11%
> > signals end of career.
> The above data block refers to '99-01, and I guess you are looking
> at '02.
> > > Derek Harper 94-96 (32-34)
> > Efficiency went down in '96 pretty bad.
> Derek Harper
> yr age pct sco. reb ast - total
> 95 32 .482 11.8 2.3 5.4 - 21.3
> 96 33 .539 13.3 2.8 6.4 - 23.8
> 97 34 .551 16.2 2.8 4.7 - 24.7
> You might be thinking of some other Harper?
> > I'm tired. And hungry. Italian food tonight, some chicken and
> > pancetta thing. Sounds better than looking at more stats.
> Not to mention, a hungry statistician is an ugly thing. But
> of the Newman and Harper misses, you shot about 80%.Hey, Newman I'll grant you (though his efficiency went down in 2001 a
little and, like Willis, it just points to a surprisingly bad year in
that bad year for several, 1999).
But Harper is different. He had more turnovers and fewer assists and
didn't go to the line as much (relative to FGA) as the previous
year. You don't seem to track turnovers much as part of your
preferred stats (at least you don't post them, though I know they go
in your overall power rating).