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

Re: Similarity Scores

Expand Messages
  • Mike Goodman
    ... My raw totals and per-game averages are contained in my season files, along with team totals and averages for that season. My composite lists only have
    Message 1 of 16 , Sep 18, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
      > (I didn't realize that you don't have a db of raw#'s.)
      >
      My raw totals and per-game averages are contained in my 'season'
      files, along with team totals and averages for that season. My
      composite lists only have the 'standardized' rates. From those
      rates, I can generate 'equivalent totals'. For 'average'
      scoring/rebounding teams, these would be equal to raw season totals.

      >
      > One of my personal quibbles with all the tendex-like rating systems
      > out there is there is that they do combine offensive with defensive
      > contributions. There is a big difference in my mind between Moses
      > Malone, who was an offensive force, and Hakeem Olajuwon, who has
      been
      > dominant defensively. Both were good in the other thing, but
      > dominant in just one. Kareem was dominant offensively (and
      probably
      > defensively) early on. Duncan has been dominant defensively, not
      > offensively. (Duncan appears to have more of the competitive fight
      > than Kareem, but, again, I missed the early Kareem.)

      I get your point, Dean, but your examples don't seem the clearest.
      Olajuwan is better than Malone because he has all the offense Malone
      had PLUS defense. Never seen the Dream shake?
      Duncan has virtually all the offense Kareem had, averaged over their
      careers, according to my numbers. Kareem did maintain a great
      shooting pct., but Duncan plays in an era of universally-tough D.

      > I don't think I'd say that Duncan's peaked. He's been pretty
      > remarkably consistent since entering the league. Maybe it's only
      > remarkable that he stayed in school long enough to actually be
      ready
      > for the league when entering.

      Some guys enter the league at full strength: Wilt, Oscar, Kareem,
      Robinson, never improved beyond their first 3 years. Others start as
      near- superstars, then several years along suddenly shift into true
      superstar mode: Magic, Bird, Olajuwon, ...

      >
      > Depending on how you define "average", but, yeah, Duncan looks
      better
      > offensively than he really is because he plays on a great defensive
      > team. (He would make most teams better defensively, too.)

      Don't know how a guy 'looks better than he really is', DeanO.

      >Assists from guards tend
      > to be more valuable. This is because they often have to make the
      > tougher pass than big men. The weight on an assist is proportional
      > to the expected FG% of the guy he passes to. Historically, big men
      > have had higher FG% than guards -- hence their assists are weighted
      > less. (The assists of the best shooting player on a team are less
      > valuable than the assists of the guys getting him the ball.) This
      > has changed with the 3 pt shot, but it's a conversion from FG% to
      > effective FG%...
      >
      > Dean Oliver
      > Journal of Basketball Studies

      This is fun, splitting hairs!
      If your center kicks out 3 nice passes to guards, who only hit one of
      the 3 shots, the center only gets one assist.
      The guard can make 3 nice passes inside, 2 of which may be converted,
      so he gets 2 assists.
      So an equally valid argument is that assists from guards
      are 'easier', and assists from centers are 'undercounted'.
      I say they are equal.

      Perhaps more to the issue, evaluate which players make those
      practical passes which may or may not get them an assist, versus
      those who will not give up the ball unless it gets them an assist. I
      can't discern the 2 types from the statistics, but I know it when I
      see it. (It might be partly discernible in that old assist/turnover
      ratio.)


      Mike Goodman
    • Dean Oliver
      ... systems ... defensive ... fight ... Olajuwon was very solid offensively (not stellar, like Kareem) -- I didn t mean to imply otherwise. Malone was just
      Message 2 of 16 , Sep 18, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike Goodman" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
        > > One of my personal quibbles with all the tendex-like rating
        systems
        > > out there is there is that they do combine offensive with
        defensive
        > > contributions. There is a big difference in my mind between Moses
        > > Malone, who was an offensive force, and Hakeem Olajuwon, who has
        > been
        > > dominant defensively. Both were good in the other thing, but
        > > dominant in just one. Kareem was dominant offensively (and
        > probably
        > > defensively) early on. Duncan has been dominant defensively, not
        > > offensively. (Duncan appears to have more of the competitive
        fight
        > > than Kareem, but, again, I missed the early Kareem.)
        >
        > I get your point, Dean, but your examples don't seem the clearest.
        > Olajuwan is better than Malone because he has all the offense Malone
        > had PLUS defense. Never seen the Dream shake?
        > Duncan has virtually all the offense Kareem had, averaged over their
        > careers, according to my numbers. Kareem did maintain a great
        > shooting pct., but Duncan plays in an era of universally-tough D.

        Olajuwon was very solid offensively (not stellar, like Kareem) -- I
        didn't mean to imply otherwise. Malone was just the epitome of a good
        offensive center who wasn't that good defensively. Rik Smits is
        another example of the poor defensive type who can score (not as well
        as Olajuwon/Moses). Olajuwon is very DISSIMILAR to these guys because
        he is much better defensively. Similarity is all I'm trying to
        capture, not quality.

        I looked at Duncan's offensive #'s last night and his offensive rating
        has been between about 104 and 108 since entering the league, when
        average offensive ratings have been between about 100 and 103. He's a
        little more efficient than average. My recollection of Kareem's #'s
        were about 115 in the early '80s, when average was about 106-108 --
        relatively higher than Duncan's. Again, these two players just don't
        seem very SIMILAR to me. I would think of David Robinson as more
        similar to Kareem. Or possibly Olajuwon. Probably Wilt. Not
        Russell.

        > >
        > > Depending on how you define "average", but, yeah, Duncan looks
        > better
        > > offensively than he really is because he plays on a great
        defensive
        > > team. (He would make most teams better defensively, too.)
        >
        > Don't know how a guy 'looks better than he really is', DeanO.
        >

        Another way of saying that the hype on Duncan has been a little
        extreme. Put him on the Hawks last year and, while he's better than
        Mutombo offensively, the team still wouldn't have scored much. They
        would have been pretty close to as good defensively as they were with
        Mutombo (or better), but they wouldn't be an offensive threat. I
        don't think Kareem ever played on a weak offensive team.

        > This is fun, splitting hairs!
        > If your center kicks out 3 nice passes to guards, who only hit one
        of
        > the 3 shots, the center only gets one assist.
        > The guard can make 3 nice passes inside, 2 of which may be
        converted,
        > so he gets 2 assists.
        > So an equally valid argument is that assists from guards
        > are 'easier', and assists from centers are 'undercounted'.
        > I say they are equal.
        >
        > Perhaps more to the issue, evaluate which players make those
        > practical passes which may or may not get them an assist, versus
        > those who will not give up the ball unless it gets them an assist.

        The goal is to identify when a good pass is made. Generally a better
        pass is one made to a better shooter. That's all I try to capture. I
        capture it in formulas with teammate FG%. For years, I didn't worry
        about it and it really didn't matter much. Now I've got more
        sophisticated calculation devices. I've actually found that this
        adjustment makes the most difference when evaluating different levels
        of basketball (high school, college, women's).

        Dean Oliver
        Journal of Basketball Studies
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.