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

Olympic Quals

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    Has anyone done any statistical evaluation of the Olympic qualifying games this summer? I d be curious how the NBA guys played, but also how potential
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 8, 2003
      Has anyone done any statistical evaluation of the Olympic qualifying
      games this summer? I'd be curious how the NBA guys played, but also
      how potential prospects from other countries looked.

      usabasketball.com has all the boxes...

      DeanO
    • igor eduardo küpfer
      ... From: Dean Oliver To: Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:39 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Olympic Quals
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 8, 2003
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Dean Oliver" <deano@...>
        To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:39 PM
        Subject: [APBR_analysis] Olympic Quals


        >
        > Has anyone done any statistical evaluation of the Olympic qualifying
        > games this summer? I'd be curious how the NBA guys played, but also
        > how potential prospects from other countries looked.
        >
        > usabasketball.com has all the boxes...
        >

        Is that a hint? :-) I was looking at some of that stuff, off and on. I'll
        post something this week.

        BTW a question came up on one of the newsgroups about team chemistry, and
        its usefulness as a concept for analysing team play. I seem to recall that
        you looked at the matter. Do you have any thoughts?

        ed
      • Dean Oliver
        ... qualifying ... also ... on. I ll ... chemistry, and ... recall that ... Some of my thoughts were in that Ramp Magazine article that just came out (though
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 8, 2003
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
          <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
          > To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:39 PM
          > Subject: [APBR_analysis] Olympic Quals
          >
          >
          > >
          > > Has anyone done any statistical evaluation of the Olympic
          qualifying
          > > games this summer? I'd be curious how the NBA guys played, but
          also
          > > how potential prospects from other countries looked.
          > >
          > > usabasketball.com has all the boxes...
          > >
          >
          > Is that a hint? :-) I was looking at some of that stuff, off and
          on. I'll
          > post something this week.
          >
          > BTW a question came up on one of the newsgroups about team
          chemistry, and
          > its usefulness as a concept for analysing team play. I seem to
          recall that
          > you looked at the matter. Do you have any thoughts?

          Some of my thoughts were in that Ramp Magazine article that just came
          out (though Ramp went belly up right afterward). Some quick thoughts:

          - It matters. Normally, it's only a few games a season, plus or
          minus. In rare occasions, it matters more than that. I think you
          can engineer chemistry more than teams have -- I think it can be
          worth more than a few games per season, but it rarely is implemented
          that way in the NBA (Larry Brown is very good at this).

          - What is chemistry? It can be a few things. The Ramp article
          talked about how well guys get along. That's one thing. I also
          think about how well guys fit together -- do their strengths
          compliment each other to neutralize each other's weaknesses? That's
          one I like looking at. A numerical example comes from methods of
          evaluation that show big men to be the best players. Why don't teams
          just stick 5 big guys on the floor? Well, because their other skills
          that aren't measured are blended together pretty well.

          - Chemistry in most people's minds means that the whole is greater
          than the sum of the parts. I've done some analysis of what this
          could mean. There are cases where the whole appears to be less than
          the sum of the parts. Chapter 19 in the book shows one case of
          chemistry and how you have to mix things right -- it's got a lot of
          numbers, but I don't explicitly mention "chemistry" here. I went
          back and forth about doing so and just felt like it gets in the way
          of the message.

          - Ramp's quote is illustrative, too. "[It's like pornography,] I
          know it when I see it." What we should do is look at cases where
          people have said that chemistry is important and see what is common
          among those cases.

          Those are quick thoughts. Gotta work...

          DeanO
        • Leo Walsh
          Joe Schaller of TPR has Dean: http://schallertpr.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=217742 ... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo!
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 8, 2003
            Joe Schaller of TPR has Dean:

            http://schallertpr.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=217742


            --- Dean Oliver <deano@...> wrote:
            >
            > Has anyone done any statistical evaluation of the
            > Olympic qualifying
            > games this summer? I'd be curious how the NBA guys
            > played, but also
            > how potential prospects from other countries looked.
            >
            >
            > usabasketball.com has all the boxes...
            >
            > DeanO
            >
            >


            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
            http://shopping.yahoo.com
          • Dean Oliver
            ... Those are the European championships. Below is the link for the NA: http://schallertpr.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=213389 Either way, it s interesting to
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 8, 2003
              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Leo Walsh <lojowo@y...> wrote:
              > Joe Schaller of TPR has Dean:
              >
              > http://schallertpr.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=217742
              >
              >

              Those are the European championships. Below is the link for the NA:

              http://schallertpr.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=213389

              Either way, it's interesting to see who comes out on top and that
              it's not necessarily the NBA stars. I haven't looked too closely at
              Kidd's #'s at all, but Schaller pretty much said he had a horrible
              tournament. I'm guessing that Kidd just didn't do a lot because he
              didn't have to, just basically feeding guys, committing turnovers in
              trying to be flashy with a 20 pt lead.

              DeanO

              > --- Dean Oliver <deano@r...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Has anyone done any statistical evaluation of the
              > > Olympic qualifying
              > > games this summer? I'd be curious how the NBA guys
              > > played, but also
              > > how potential prospects from other countries looked.
              > >
              > >
              > > usabasketball.com has all the boxes...
              > >
              > > DeanO
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > __________________________________
              > Do you Yahoo!?
              > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
              > http://shopping.yahoo.com
            • Dean Oliver
              One other thing, tying this and the Olympic quals together -- in looking at the 2002 World s team that did so poorly, I believe that is a team that struggled
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 9, 2003
                One other thing, tying this and the Olympic quals together -- in
                looking at the 2002 World's team that did so poorly, I believe that is
                a team that struggled from lack of chemistry. Andre Miller and Paul
                Pierce dominated the possessions (up over 30% of team possessions in
                an all-star lineup?). Maybe it was because the low box guys weren't
                big scorers, but I do think more effort should have been spent to get
                those low post guys to look to score. I haven't done the full
                calculations, but I'm guessing that that team could have been about
                10% better offensively if they'd spread the ball around a bit more.
                Harder to determine how chemistry would have impacted the defensive
                side, but probably some because the big guys were decent defenders in
                Wallace, O'Neal, and A. Davis (Brand suffers a little).

                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...> wrote:
                > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
                > <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
                > >
                > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > From: "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
                > > To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
                > > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:39 PM
                > > Subject: [APBR_analysis] Olympic Quals
                > >
                > >
                > > >
                > > > Has anyone done any statistical evaluation of the Olympic
                > qualifying
                > > > games this summer? I'd be curious how the NBA guys played, but
                > also
                > > > how potential prospects from other countries looked.
                > > >
                > > > usabasketball.com has all the boxes...
                > > >
                > >
                > > Is that a hint? :-) I was looking at some of that stuff, off and
                > on. I'll
                > > post something this week.
                > >
                > > BTW a question came up on one of the newsgroups about team
                > chemistry, and
                > > its usefulness as a concept for analysing team play. I seem to
                > recall that
                > > you looked at the matter. Do you have any thoughts?
                >
                > Some of my thoughts were in that Ramp Magazine article that just came
                > out (though Ramp went belly up right afterward). Some quick thoughts:
                >
                > - It matters. Normally, it's only a few games a season, plus or
                > minus. In rare occasions, it matters more than that. I think you
                > can engineer chemistry more than teams have -- I think it can be
                > worth more than a few games per season, but it rarely is implemented
                > that way in the NBA (Larry Brown is very good at this).
                >
                > - What is chemistry? It can be a few things. The Ramp article
                > talked about how well guys get along. That's one thing. I also
                > think about how well guys fit together -- do their strengths
                > compliment each other to neutralize each other's weaknesses? That's
                > one I like looking at. A numerical example comes from methods of
                > evaluation that show big men to be the best players. Why don't teams
                > just stick 5 big guys on the floor? Well, because their other skills
                > that aren't measured are blended together pretty well.
                >
                > - Chemistry in most people's minds means that the whole is greater
                > than the sum of the parts. I've done some analysis of what this
                > could mean. There are cases where the whole appears to be less than
                > the sum of the parts. Chapter 19 in the book shows one case of
                > chemistry and how you have to mix things right -- it's got a lot of
                > numbers, but I don't explicitly mention "chemistry" here. I went
                > back and forth about doing so and just felt like it gets in the way
                > of the message.
                >
                > - Ramp's quote is illustrative, too. "[It's like pornography,] I
                > know it when I see it." What we should do is look at cases where
                > people have said that chemistry is important and see what is common
                > among those cases.
                >
                > Those are quick thoughts. Gotta work...
                >
                > DeanO
              • John Hollinger
                This gets back to chemistry in my mind. I generally think people use chemistry a lot to cover up their own misevaluations of a team s talent level, but there
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 9, 2003
                  This gets back to chemistry in my mind. I generally think people
                  use "chemistry" a lot to cover up their own misevaluations of a
                  team's talent level, but there are certainly cases where it applied,
                  and I think this one is a good example.

                  In fact, I think that team had trouble for the same reason Miller's
                  Clipper team had trouble -- everyone was trying to get to the same
                  spot on the floor. The Clippers had five guys on the floor who all
                  wanted to post up, so the offense was much less than the sum of its
                  parts; that's probably why Piatkowski played so much. Similarly, the
                  U.S. team tried posting up all game, but the opponents were so backed
                  in that they couldn't get many shots off for O'Neal, Brand et al. The
                  team couldn't spread the ball around as you suggested because it
                  didn't have any deep shooters, so Pierce and Miller ended up trying
                  to create plays at the end of the clock.




                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > One other thing, tying this and the Olympic quals together -- in
                  > looking at the 2002 World's team that did so poorly, I believe that
                  is
                  > a team that struggled from lack of chemistry. Andre Miller and Paul
                  > Pierce dominated the possessions (up over 30% of team possessions in
                  > an all-star lineup?). Maybe it was because the low box guys weren't
                  > big scorers, but I do think more effort should have been spent to
                  get
                  > those low post guys to look to score. I haven't done the full
                  > calculations, but I'm guessing that that team could have been about
                  > 10% better offensively if they'd spread the ball around a bit more.
                  > Harder to determine how chemistry would have impacted the defensive
                  > side, but probably some because the big guys were decent defenders
                  in
                  > Wallace, O'Neal, and A. Davis (Brand suffers a little).
                  >
                  > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
                  wrote:
                  > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
                  > > <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > > From: "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
                  > > > To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
                  > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:39 PM
                  > > > Subject: [APBR_analysis] Olympic Quals
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Has anyone done any statistical evaluation of the Olympic
                  > > qualifying
                  > > > > games this summer? I'd be curious how the NBA guys played,
                  but
                  > > also
                  > > > > how potential prospects from other countries looked.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > usabasketball.com has all the boxes...
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Is that a hint? :-) I was looking at some of that stuff, off
                  and
                  > > on. I'll
                  > > > post something this week.
                  > > >
                  > > > BTW a question came up on one of the newsgroups about team
                  > > chemistry, and
                  > > > its usefulness as a concept for analysing team play. I seem to
                  > > recall that
                  > > > you looked at the matter. Do you have any thoughts?
                  > >
                  > > Some of my thoughts were in that Ramp Magazine article that just
                  came
                  > > out (though Ramp went belly up right afterward). Some quick
                  thoughts:
                  > >
                  > > - It matters. Normally, it's only a few games a season, plus or
                  > > minus. In rare occasions, it matters more than that. I think
                  you
                  > > can engineer chemistry more than teams have -- I think it can be
                  > > worth more than a few games per season, but it rarely is
                  implemented
                  > > that way in the NBA (Larry Brown is very good at this).
                  > >
                  > > - What is chemistry? It can be a few things. The Ramp article
                  > > talked about how well guys get along. That's one thing. I also
                  > > think about how well guys fit together -- do their strengths
                  > > compliment each other to neutralize each other's weaknesses?
                  That's
                  > > one I like looking at. A numerical example comes from methods of
                  > > evaluation that show big men to be the best players. Why don't
                  teams
                  > > just stick 5 big guys on the floor? Well, because their other
                  skills
                  > > that aren't measured are blended together pretty well.
                  > >
                  > > - Chemistry in most people's minds means that the whole is
                  greater
                  > > than the sum of the parts. I've done some analysis of what this
                  > > could mean. There are cases where the whole appears to be less
                  than
                  > > the sum of the parts. Chapter 19 in the book shows one case of
                  > > chemistry and how you have to mix things right -- it's got a lot
                  of
                  > > numbers, but I don't explicitly mention "chemistry" here. I went
                  > > back and forth about doing so and just felt like it gets in the
                  way
                  > > of the message.
                  > >
                  > > - Ramp's quote is illustrative, too. "[It's like pornography,] I
                  > > know it when I see it." What we should do is look at cases where
                  > > people have said that chemistry is important and see what is
                  common
                  > > among those cases.
                  > >
                  > > Those are quick thoughts. Gotta work...
                  > >
                  > > DeanO
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.