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

Re: Oscar's Effect -- getting technical

Expand Messages
  • John Hollinger
    The 2% difference is interesting, but I wonder how much of it was because of the fact that Oscar was taking all the shots. So the other guys were taking fewer
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 3, 2003
      The 2% difference is interesting, but I wonder how much of it was
      because of the fact that Oscar was taking all the shots. So the other
      guys were taking fewer shots, but because they had to create fewer
      for themselves, they ended up shooting a higher percentage. Kind of
      like what will happen to Gary Payton and Karl Malone this year. If
      that's the case, you should see the same effect with a lot of high-
      scoring players.

      Let's call this the "Ainge Effect" (side note: this theory is still
      in beta, which is one reason I'm testing it out on this audience).
      Danny Ainge averaged 15.7 points a game for title-contending Boston
      while shooting 49 percent. He gets traded to crappy Sacramento and
      suddenly he has to creat a lot more shots for himself. As a result,
      his average goes up to 17.5 and 17.9, but his percentage drops to
      45.7 and 43.8. Then he goes to title-contending Portland and can be a
      complementary player again; his average drops back down to 11.0, but
      he shoots 47.2 percent.

      Thoughts?
    • Mike G
      ... other ... Using a slightly different sample of players, I found a significantly smaller increase in shooting %, with/without Oscar. I used the combined
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 4, 2003
        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
        <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
        > The 2% difference is interesting, but I wonder how much of it was
        > because of the fact that Oscar was taking all the shots. So the
        other
        > guys were taking fewer shots, but because they had to create fewer
        > for themselves, they ended up shooting a higher percentage...

        Using a slightly different sample of players, I found a
        significantly smaller increase in shooting %, with/without Oscar.

        I used the combined shooting %, rather than raw FG%. Maybe one
        difference is that with Oscar, guys were spotting up and shooting
        (thus a higher FG%); and without Oscar, guys were 'creating',
        driving, getting to the foul line (thus a better 'scoring
        efficiency').

        In either case, I found no evidence that Oscar cut into anyone's
        stats, and seems to have upped the scoring production. I haven't
        broken it down into his Royals career (dominator), and his Bucks
        career (distributor).


        > Kind of
        > like what will happen to Gary Payton and Karl Malone this year. If
        > that's the case, you should see the same effect with a lot of high-
        > scoring players.

        Are you predicting less scoring but higher efficiencies from these
        guys? It will be interesting, to say the least.

        I wonder about the 'Effect' that a lot of dominating players have on
        various teammates. Not just point guards (though that's essentially
        their job), but other guys who demand the ball a lot.

        One could further break it down by position. Does Karl Malone's
        presence enhance the stats of other forwards, while eating into the
        FGA of shooting guards? etc.

        >
        > Let's call this the "Ainge Effect" (side note: this theory is
        still
        > in beta, which is one reason I'm testing it out on this audience).
        > Danny Ainge averaged 15.7 points a game for title-contending
        Boston
        > while shooting 49 percent. He gets traded to crappy Sacramento and
        > suddenly he has to creat a lot more shots for himself. As a
        result,
        > his average goes up to 17.5 and 17.9, but his percentage drops to
        > 45.7 and 43.8. Then he goes to title-contending Portland and can
        be a
        > complementary player again; his average drops back down to 11.0,
        but
        > he shoots 47.2 percent.

        There's abundant evidence that this happens. There might even be a
        formula that tends to equalize these factors. Multiplying shooting
        % by points-per-minute tends to even out these changes-in-scoring-
        load produced by changes-in-roles.
        >
        > Thoughts?
      • Dean Oliver
        ... other ... of ... still ... Boston ... result, ... be a ... but ... There is no doubt this happens. Those charts that I put out a year or more ago -- those
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 5, 2003
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
          <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
          > The 2% difference is interesting, but I wonder how much of it was
          > because of the fact that Oscar was taking all the shots. So the
          other
          > guys were taking fewer shots, but because they had to create fewer
          > for themselves, they ended up shooting a higher percentage. Kind
          of
          > like what will happen to Gary Payton and Karl Malone this year. If
          > that's the case, you should see the same effect with a lot of high-
          > scoring players.
          >
          > Let's call this the "Ainge Effect" (side note: this theory is
          still
          > in beta, which is one reason I'm testing it out on this audience).
          > Danny Ainge averaged 15.7 points a game for title-contending
          Boston
          > while shooting 49 percent. He gets traded to crappy Sacramento and
          > suddenly he has to creat a lot more shots for himself. As a
          result,
          > his average goes up to 17.5 and 17.9, but his percentage drops to
          > 45.7 and 43.8. Then he goes to title-contending Portland and can
          be a
          > complementary player again; his average drops back down to 11.0,
          but
          > he shoots 47.2 percent.
          >
          > Thoughts?

          There is no doubt this happens. Those charts that I put out a year
          or more ago -- those were designed to look exactly at this in a
          theoretical way because I had seen it so often empirically. Iverson
          improves his teammates pretty significantly even though he isn't
          efficient, just because he's using 30+% of his team's possessions.

          So, with the Lakers, if Phil can get them all cutting down their
          possession use to 23-27% (rather than 27-32%), they should be a
          dynamite offense.

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