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

Re: Dilution, balance, and Bob-bashing

Expand Messages
  • schtevie2003 <schtevie@hotmail.com>
    ... question ... they ... team ... measurement ... team ... and ... there ... ********************************** What I did was extrapolate back for the
    Message 1 of 35 , Jan 3, 2003
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "monepeterson
      <mone@s...>" <mone@s...> wrote:
      > I agree with just about everything you've said, but I have a
      question
      > on one issue.
      >
      >
      > > However, the Celtics,
      > > proponents of a run and gun style, were actually a pretty
      > > mediocre offensive team (and in fact, by my measurement,
      they
      > > were in one championship year a below average offensive
      team
      >
      > Do you mind sharing, at least in general terms, what your
      measurement
      > is? Although I haven't done it, I imagine looking at modern
      team
      > points per possession, with and without offensive rebounds
      and
      > turnovers, would lead to some signficant discrepancies. Is
      there
      > another way of guesstimating this?
      >
      > Moné

      **********************************

      What I did was extrapolate back for the missing statistics and
      then did a little sensitivity analysis with the results. Regarding
      offensive rebounds, it is an amazingly consistent stat. As I recall,
      the league average for offensive rebounding percentage is at
      about 31% +/- a trivial amount for essentially every year. The
      consistency makes sense given the configuration of the game,
      but I recall being amazed by just how consistent it was. As for
      turnover percentage, if I recall correctly, I used the first year of
      kept statistics or something like that. But the bottom line is that
      for my purposes it didn't matter as no plausible variation in
      turnover rate would have overturned the general conclusion.

      Finally, a word about interpretation of results. It is important to
      emphasize that the increase in net offensive productivity that I
      referred to relies not at all on any presumed improvement in
      athletic performance, footwear, or accomodations. Any gains on
      that front would worsen the stipulated blow out of old school
      teams. According to my analysis, the blow out arises because
      education improved, not because the students were smarter.

      As to the question then if the Celtics dynasty could have
      competed if they got on a weight program, the answer is "no", but
      if they did they would only have expected to lose by 10 to 12
      points per game (roughly speaking) and in that context a
      simulation isn't really necessary. However, if one wished to
      conduct the exercise, I would do it in the following way (again,
      only comparing teams up until the mid 80's). Assume a game
      pace that is averaged between the two eras - perhaps weighted
      more to the modern era as it is harder to run when you are
      fishing the ball out of the net. Assume the general scoring
      percentages of the era (though again this assumes no
      defensive improvements which I believe to be the case) and
      extrapolate the offensive rebounding and turnover percentages.

      Finally, as to the questions which pop up about the racial
      demographics of the game. Wouldn't it be useful context if
      someone went to a statistical abstract and presented a time
      series of populations of average NBA-age males for both white
      and black. It would also address in part the dilution issue as
      one could compare population growth to league expansion
      (aside from the thorny foreign player issue.)
    • John Hollinger <alleyoop2@yahoo.com>
      ... watched ... Put me firmly in the pompous windbag camp. The best thing about the Mason comment, for instance, was that Rosen said the reason Mason can t
      Message 35 of 35 , Jan 11, 2003
        > I particularly enjoyed Rosen's article on the Sonics where he
        watched
        > one game (one of the worst of the year, for what it's worth) and
        > acted like he knew something about the team. Apparently, Desmond
        > Mason can't make a jumper because he had one bad night.

        Put me firmly in the "pompous windbag" camp. The best thing about the
        Mason comment, for instance, was that Rosen said the reason Mason
        can't make a jumper was his "low release point", which was hilarious
        on several levels:

        1) Apparently he's never watched Steve Kerr. Or Andrew Toney. Or
        Bryce Drew. Or about a hundred other guys who shoot from under their
        chin but make everything.

        2) Mason's release point isn't low, especially given that he's about
        20 feet off the ground when he shoots it.

        3) Mason's problem isn't the release point, it's the lack of arc on
        his shot.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.