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

Re: NBA stats site

Expand Messages
  • John Hollinger
    Great work, Roland. Confirms a lot of my thoughts about +/-, both good and bad. ... through
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 9 , Oct 9, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 9 , Oct 9, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- 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 4 of 9 , Oct 10, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 9 , Oct 10, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              >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 6 of 9 , Oct 10, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                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.