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

NBA stats site

Expand Messages
  • roland_beech
    Well, as a newcomer to this group I ve been enjoying reading through some of the archives. There s definitely an impressive collective body of knowledge here.
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 9, 2003
      Well, as a newcomer to this group I've been enjoying reading through
      some of the archives. There's definitely an impressive collective
      body of knowledge here.

      I've already talked with Bob some on his work, and Dean and John I
      guess have books coming out which I will track down.

      From my end though, I just launched a site with all kinds of funky
      NBA stats including plus/minus number comparisons for players on
      court versus off court, specific 5-man units and how they perform
      together, clutch play stats, etc.

      I would be interested in getting the feedback of the sharp minds
      here on some of the numbers, recognizing it's still early and the
      site will be evolving rapidly with the onset of a new season

      The site is 82games.com

      or http://www.82games.com if you want the full URL
    • Gary Collard
      ... Great stuff Roland, thanks for the link. Will look forward to it this year. -- Gary Collard SABR-L Moderator gmcollard@yahoo.com Many believe that
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 9, 2003
        roland_beech wrote:
        >
        > Well, as a newcomer to this group I've been enjoying reading through
        > some of the archives. There's definitely an impressive collective
        > body of knowledge here.
        >
        > I've already talked with Bob some on his work, and Dean and John I
        > guess have books coming out which I will track down.
        >
        > >From my end though, I just launched a site with all kinds of funky
        > NBA stats including plus/minus number comparisons for players on
        > court versus off court, specific 5-man units and how they perform
        > together, clutch play stats, etc.
        >
        > I would be interested in getting the feedback of the sharp minds
        > here on some of the numbers, recognizing it's still early and the
        > site will be evolving rapidly with the onset of a new season
        >
        > The site is 82games.com
        >
        > or http://www.82games.com if you want the full URL

        Great stuff Roland, thanks for the link. Will look forward to it this
        year.

        --
        Gary Collard
        SABR-L Moderator
        gmcollard@...

        "Many believe that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Yeah, like
        *that's* true." -- Rob Simpson
      • bchaikin@aol.com
        nice work..... can you show your source for the data you have used without divulging any proprietary work?... how is this sytem any different than the
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 9, 2003

          nice work..... can you show your source for the data you have used without divulging any proprietary work?...

          how is this sytem any different than the winston/sagarin WINVAL system?....

          bob chaikin
          bchaikin@...
        • John Hollinger
          Great work, Roland. Confirms a lot of my thoughts about +/-, both good and bad. ... through
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 9, 2003
            Great work, Roland. Confirms a lot of my thoughts about +/-, both
            good and bad.



            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "roland_beech" <roland@t...>
            wrote:
            > Well, as a newcomer to this group I've been enjoying reading
            through
            > some of the archives. There's definitely an impressive collective
            > body of knowledge here.
            >
            > I've already talked with Bob some on his work, and Dean and John I
            > guess have books coming out which I will track down.
            >
            > From my end though, I just launched a site with all kinds of funky
            > NBA stats including plus/minus number comparisons for players on
            > court versus off court, specific 5-man units and how they perform
            > together, clutch play stats, etc.
            >
            > I would be interested in getting the feedback of the sharp minds
            > here on some of the numbers, recognizing it's still early and the
            > site will be evolving rapidly with the onset of a new season
            >
            > The site is 82games.com
            >
            > or http://www.82games.com if you want the full URL
          • Dean Oliver
            ... without ... system?.... Yes, very nice work. The system looks pretty simple actually, not trying to do what WINVAL does (and does not quite right).
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 9, 2003
              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
              >
              > nice work..... can you show your source for the data you have used
              without
              > divulging any proprietary work?...
              >
              > how is this sytem any different than the winston/sagarin WINVAL
              system?....

              Yes, very nice work. The system looks pretty simple actually, not
              trying to do what WINVAL does (and does not quite right). Basically,
              he's got what lineups are on the floor all the time and adds things
              up. Very good pieces of data. And it is data even though
              the "Roland Ratings" implies something more, it is mainly data, which
              is GOOD. The fact that Greg Ostertag ends up looking good doesn't
              mean that the system is wrong. It means that Utah played a lot
              better when he was on the floor. Other guys may have been on the
              floor at the same time, causing some confounding problems, but it's
              just data, not a ThisGuyIsTheGreatest thing. Ostertag is not the
              best or even 2nd best center, as we'll see this year, but he
              complemented Stockton and Malone fairly well apparently (and his
              backup did not). In fact, these ratings do reflect a lot on who was
              backing someone up. Kidd had no decent PG backup in NJ, so he looks
              extra special. If his backup was Bobby Jackson, it would lower his
              rating.

              Play-by-play data is going to spawn an entirely new wave of
              analysis. This is that wave.

              DeanO
            • igor eduardo küpfer
              ... From: Dean Oliver To: Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 5:41 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: NBA stats
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 9, 2003
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Dean Oliver" <deano@...>
                To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 5:41 PM
                Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: NBA stats site


                >
                > Play-by-play data is going to spawn an entirely new wave of
                > analysis. This is that wave.
                >

                Indeed. I'm already itching to try a player rating based on changing game
                states, like baseball's Player Game Percentage.

                Speaking of play by play, I wish I could see the attempts for the clutch
                shooters. My quick study on Tim Duncan showed that he only had about 300
                attempts in "clutch time" defined by Roland's page, not enough for
                statistical significance.

                ed
              • m_c_meyer
                All I can say is, WOW!!!! ....can t wait to start delving into all this information!
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 10, 2003
                  All I can say is, WOW!!!!

                  ....can't wait to start delving into all this information!
                • roland_beech
                  ... The shooting percentages definitely change as the shot clock winds down, as does the type of shot a team is likely to take. We re doing some research on
                  Message 8 of 9 , Oct 10, 2003
                    >One other thing I like about this is that it seems to support my
                    >long-standing but poorly supported statement about shooting with 3
                    >or fewer seconds on the clock being much poorer. I can't check it
                    >for sure with their posted numbers, but they can. Hint, hint.

                    The shooting percentages definitely change as the shot clock winds
                    down, as does the type of shot a team is likely to take. We're
                    doing some research on this to see if the better teams are primarily
                    better at executing in the later seconds on the clock, get to that
                    situation less often, or if everyone struggles with time running out
                    and it's a matter of the good teams being stronger in the earlier
                    shot clock segments...likewise the defensive numbers are interesting
                    here

                    >Perhaps the Pythag would be informative here. Using Tim Duncan as an
                    >example:
                    >OffPts DefPts Min Win% W-L
                    >OnCourt 97.0 88.9 3151 75.6% 50-16
                    >OffCourt 91.7 97.9 775 29.9% 5-11
                    >50-16 is a number people can easily understand, while points scored
                    >and allowed appeals only to us statheads :-)

                    agree completely that the 50-16 vs 5-11 is a nicer look than the
                    others we show...of course it's a projected stat versus an actual
                    one, but we can certainly look to add this for future page updates

                    >BTW2: Roland, nba.com shows Duncan as playing 3181 minutes. Typo,
                    >or is there a rounding error? Not that a 1% error is a big deal.

                    We calculate playing time to the second and accumulate as opposed to
                    the NBA which I believe rounds to the nearest minute on a game
                    basis. So, that explains part of it. I'm sure we will differ from
                    official stats in certain places

                    >The 5-man units provide enough information for now -- I could spend
                    >hours looking at them! I would suggest showing the floor time as
                    >absolute minutes, as well as the percentage of total team minutes.

                    A good point too, and particularly in-season you might have in the
                    first month a unit with something like 2% of total minutes
                    translating into 5 actual minutes together...not a big sample!

                    >That data set could lead to a flood of ideas on what to do with it.

                    We have an ever-expanding list of research ideas to pursue,
                    including such obscure things as: performance of players in
                    different foul states (eg playing with 5 fouls), does getting a shot
                    blocked change a player's subsequent shot selection, rookie play pre
                    and post-wall, where does home court advantage actually come from,
                    and in particular detailed analysis of five-man unit traits, how
                    these characteristics match up against opponent five-man units, etc
                    etc
                  • schtevie2003
                    Very interesting data on 82games.com. A couple of questions: 1) What is the source of the raw data from which the +/- summaries were generated? 2) Apparently
                    Message 9 of 9 , Oct 10, 2003
                      Very interesting data on 82games.com. A couple of questions:

                      1) What is the source of the raw data from which the +/-
                      summaries were generated?

                      2) Apparently I am misunderstanding the +/- definition in the
                      tables. By my way of thinking when you take the +/- for a given
                      player when ON the court and multiply it by his fraction of playing
                      time and then add the +/- for the same player when OFF the court
                      and muliply it by his fraction of non-playing time, what you should
                      get is the team plus minus, no? In doing a loose check on Paul
                      Pierce, I find the implication that the '03-'03 Celtics were
                      outscored (which may be the case) but also that the team
                      implied figure based on Mr. Battie's +/- differed, which cannot be,
                      according to my conception of the stat. Please advise.

                      Thanks,

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