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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Olympic Quals

Expand Messages
  • igor eduardo küpfer
    ... From: Dean Oliver To: Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:39 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Olympic Quals
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 8 9:46 AM
      ----- 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 2 of 7 , Oct 8 12:12 PM
        --- 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 3 of 7 , Oct 8 12:43 PM
          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 4 of 7 , Oct 8 4:00 PM
            --- 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 5 of 7 , Oct 9 7:10 AM
              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 6 of 7 , Oct 9 2:30 PM
                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.