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

Re: Re; Hall of Fame

Expand Messages
  • aaronkoo
    ... thinking ... We are. ... He did create losses for them. He also created wins. The difference betwee 90-100 vs 80-100 is the difference between Tony
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 18, 2003
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "aaronkoo" <deano@r...> wrote:
      > > ... It is definitely easier
      > > to be a positive contributor on a winning team than on a poor
      > team.
      > 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 scored
      > 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.

      He did create losses for them. He also created wins. The difference
      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,
      > to
      > > the complimentarity that really exists among players. Put 2 good
      > > players together and it's more likely that a third
      becomes "good".
      > > Put 3 together and it's even more likely that a 4th
      becomes "good".
      > 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.
      > >

      I do get my individual win-loss records to sum pretty close to team
      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
      > an
      > > 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
      > rest
      > > 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, but
      > 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.

      > And, Dean: can you tell us who/what is aaronkoo?

      Stupid Yahoo. When Yahoo first started giving away logins many years
      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.

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