Re: Re; Hall of Fame
- --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "aaronkoo" <deano@r...> wrote:thinking
> > ... It is definitely easier
> > to be a positive contributor on a winning team than on a poor
> This assertion is only partly true, at best. Unless we are
> of different definitions of 'contribute'.We are.
> Tony Campbell was a nobody for the Pistons and Lakers, then scoredHe did create losses for them. He also created wins. The difference
> 20+ for the expansion Wolves, a team that desperately needed just
> such a player.
> If you claim that Campbell 'created losses' for the Wolves, I think
> that is just wack. If their average score with him was 90-100, it
> might have been 80-100 without him.
betwee 90-100 vs 80-100 is the difference between Tony Campbell and
some hypothetical bad player. My numbers, for instance, would show
Campbell creating 6 wins and 8 losses. But the group of players
replacing him may be at 1 win and 13 losses.
Now back to the question. With the Lakers, Campbell may actually
create 1.5 wins and 1.3 losses. His effective winning percentage is
higher, but he doesn't contribute as many wins (or as many losses).
See what I mean? His offense should be more _efficient_ when his
teammates are good enough draw the defense away from him.
> > The wide spread in basketball winning percentages is, I think,
> tobecomes "good".
> > the complimentarity that really exists among players. Put 2 good
> > players together and it's more likely that a third
> > Put 3 together and it's even more likely that a 4thbecomes "good".
>I do get my individual win-loss records to sum pretty close to team
> This speaks to 'team chemistry'. I've tried to correlate my
> own 'productivity' ratings with team winning % and point
> differential. Ultimately, I think it won't happen quite that
> neatly. It's just a fact that some teams are less than the sum of
> their parts; and others are complementary.
wins and losses (it's not built-in to be guaranteed). Chemistry is
what is left over from some sum of parts vs whole analogy. I've done
it a few ways. Not completely happy with any of them.
> > ... So should players be evaluated by how well they'd perform if
> > average team, on a 0.250 team, or on a 0.650 team? Worthy was
> > clearly important on a 0.650 team. How well would he do if the
> > of his team were a 0.250 version? Not as well as Jordan, Magic,
> > Russell, Chamberlain, etc. That seems to be the high standard.
> Well, Worthy was no MJ on any team, so what actually are you
> Magic never got the opportunity to play for a scrub team, butJordan
> did; and he was equally impressive, IMO.MJ was almost as impressive on scrub teams as he was on great teams.
The problem is that there is a correlation between his youth and how
good his teams were. But my numbers show him at his most efficient
when he had good players around him. And MJ was exceptional. No one
was like him. What I was saying refers back to those curves I sent
out before. MJ's curve was truly incredible. His efficiency stayed
very high almost regardless of how often he tried to shoot. Worthy's
was not so good. His was a good curve, but if he had to be the
dominant scoring force on a team, he would become less efficient.
Jordan's didn't decline like that. Magic's declined fairly slowly.
>Stupid Yahoo. When Yahoo first started giving away logins many years
> And, Dean: can you tell us who/what is aaronkoo?
ago, I wasn't sure about security, putting my name out there. I
registered with AaronKoo because it is a fake name a friend used when
he didn't necessarily want someone (usually a woman) to be able to
stalk him (he was a good looking guy). The fake name he used was
Aaron (which was close to his real name) and his nickname among
friends was Koo.
At Yahoo, I've had that as my username since, but they allow multiple
identities and I had no need to use AaronKoo, so I set up HoopStudies
and kept my old accounts. They used to use that as the ID that gets
shown but keep switching. Ugh.