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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Team Consistency

Expand Messages
  • igorkupfer@rogers.com
    (Please forgive the thinking out loud nature of these posts. I am not very reflective, and rely on others to point out mistakes.) My recent interest in
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      (Please forgive the "thinking out loud" nature of these posts. I am not very
      reflective, and rely on others to point out mistakes.)

      My recent interest in player consistency over the course of a season caused me to step
      back and look at how consistency seems to affect teams as a whole. The answer: not at
      all. The table below shows the correlations between team wins for 2001-02 and the
      variances in team Offensive Rating, Points per game, Defensive Rating, Points allowed
      per game, and Field Goal %. The relationship between consistency in these measures and
      team wins is very weak.

      OffRTG OffPPG DefRTG DefPPG fg%

      Wins 0.125 -0.004 -0.004 0.052 0.055

      The following shows the best and worst offenses last season, and in brackets shows
      their consistency rank (1 = most consistent, ie least variable):

      1. DAL (20)
      2. LAK (9)
      3. SAC (22)
      4. SEA (24)
      5. MIN (27)
      ...
      25. NY (2)
      26. DEN (4)
      27. MIA (18)
      28. MEM (21)
      29. CHI (15)


      And if we look at the best and worse 5 defenses, we can see that their rank is
      unrelated to the defensive consistency:

      1. NJ (11)
      2. SAN (16)
      3. PHI (6)
      4. MIA (18)
      5. SAC (22)
      ...
      25. DAL (20)
      26. CHI (15)
      27. CLE (29)
      28. GS (1)
      29. HOU (28)

      I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Is consistency overrated? Am I using the
      appropriate measure for consistency? Is there something I'm missing?


      ed
    • Michael Tamada
      DeanO has or at least had an article on his website that addresses this. Consistency is not by itself either a good thing or a bad thing. To perhaps
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        DeanO has or at least had an article on his website that addresses this. Consistency is not by itself either a good thing or a bad thing. To perhaps oversimplify, here's a two sentence summary: Consistency is a good thing for a good team to have. INconsistency is a good thing for a bad team to have.


        --MKT


        -----Original Message-----
        From: igorkupfer@... [mailto:igorkupfer@...]
        Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 10:15 PM
        To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] Team Consistency


        (Please forgive the "thinking out loud" nature of these posts. I am not very
        reflective, and rely on others to point out mistakes.)

        My recent interest in player consistency over the course of a season caused me to step
        back and look at how consistency seems to affect teams as a whole. The answer: not at
        all. The table below shows the correlations between team wins for 2001-02 and the
        variances in team Offensive Rating, Points per game, Defensive Rating, Points allowed
        per game, and Field Goal %. The relationship between consistency in these measures and
        team wins is very weak.

        OffRTG OffPPG DefRTG DefPPG fg%

        Wins 0.125 -0.004 -0.004 0.052 0.055

        The following shows the best and worst offenses last season, and in brackets shows
        their consistency rank (1 = most consistent, ie least variable):

        1. DAL (20)
        2. LAK (9)
        3. SAC (22)
        4. SEA (24)
        5. MIN (27)
        ...
        25. NY (2)
        26. DEN (4)
        27. MIA (18)
        28. MEM (21)
        29. CHI (15)


        And if we look at the best and worse 5 defenses, we can see that their rank is
        unrelated to the defensive consistency:

        1. NJ (11)
        2. SAN (16)
        3. PHI (6)
        4. MIA (18)
        5. SAC (22)
        ...
        25. DAL (20)
        26. CHI (15)
        27. CLE (29)
        28. GS (1)
        29. HOU (28)

        I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Is consistency overrated? Am I using the
        appropriate measure for consistency? Is there something I'm missing?


        ed



        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • monepeterson <mone@sigma.net>
        ... That makes intuitive sense. Bad teams want to steal wins, good teams want to prevent wins from being stolen. Something like that? Moné
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          > DeanO has or at least had an article on his website that addresses
          > this. Consistency is not by itself either a good thing or a bad
          > thing. To perhaps oversimplify, here's a two sentence summary:
          > Consistency is a good thing for a good team to have. INconsistency
          > is a good thing for a bad team to have.

          That makes intuitive sense. Bad teams want to steal wins, good teams
          want to prevent wins from being stolen. Something like that?

          Moné
        • igorkupfer@rogers.com
          ... From: To: Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 1:07 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Team Consistency ... IIRC,
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <mone@...>
            To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 1:07 PM
            Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Team Consistency

            [MTK]:
            > > DeanO has or at least had an article on his website that addresses
            > > this. Consistency is not by itself either a good thing or a bad
            > > thing. To perhaps oversimplify, here's a two sentence summary:
            > > Consistency is a good thing for a good team to have. INconsistency
            > > is a good thing for a bad team to have.

            > That makes intuitive sense. Bad teams want to steal wins, good teams
            > want to prevent wins from being stolen. Something like that?
            >
            > Moné

            IIRC, Dean was using the variance of (offense minus defense) -- margin of victory -- to
            calculate expected winning percentages.

            By separating offense from defense, I think I'm doing something a little different. I
            ask the question: are better teams more consistent on offense than the worst teams? Are
            they more consistent on defense? My answer seems to be that there's no relationship
            between any kind of consistency and amount of wins.

            The following shows teams ranked by wins, with their Offensive and Defensive
            consistency rank.

            2001-02

            Wins team OffCs DefCs

            1 SAC 22 27
            2 SAN 16 6
            3 LAK 9 19
            4 DAL 20 21
            5 NJ 11 10
            ...
            25 HOU 28 13
            26 DEN 4 3
            27 MEM 21 24
            28 CHI 15 20
            29 GS 1 18


            2000-01

            Wins team OffCs DefCs

            1 SAN 16 17
            2 LAK 5 9
            3 PHI 24 8
            4 SAC 20 11
            5 DAL 11 14
            ...
            25 ATL 27 20
            26 VAN 7 12
            27 WAZ 25 1
            28 GS 8 21
            29 CHI 14 7
          • harlanzo <harlanzo@yahoo.com>
            ... addresses ... INconsistency ... teams ... To take that point further, teams with players who can create their own shot easily (iversons, boston) are more
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "monepeterson <mone@s...>"
              <mone@s...> wrote:
              > > DeanO has or at least had an article on his website that
              addresses
              > > this. Consistency is not by itself either a good thing or a bad
              > > thing. To perhaps oversimplify, here's a two sentence summary:
              > > Consistency is a good thing for a good team to have.
              INconsistency
              > > is a good thing for a bad team to have.
              >
              > That makes intuitive sense. Bad teams want to steal wins, good
              teams
              > want to prevent wins from being stolen. Something like that?
              >
              > Moné

              To take that point further, teams with players who can create their
              own shot easily (iversons, boston) are more affected by odds than by
              defense. Iverson is usually hot or cold by luck (or some other
              unquantifiable reason) and not by defense. remember Boston's big
              comeback against nj in the playoffs. they shoot a lot of threes and
              when they are hot they are great and when not they will lose to
              toronto.
            • John Hollinger <alleyoop2@yahoo.com>
              Ironically, they made that comeback by NOT shooting threes. In that fourth quarter they made one three but 17 foul shots. ... and
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 3, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Ironically, they made that comeback by NOT shooting threes. In that
                fourth quarter they made one three but 17 foul shots.


                >>>remember Boston's big
                > comeback against nj in the playoffs. they shoot a lot of threes
                and
                > when they are hot they are great and when not they will lose to
                > toronto.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.