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

Re: NBA Stats site

Expand Messages
  • roland_beech
    Thanks to everyone who s taken a look at the site and commented (either here or through the feedback forms on the web pages themselves...my favorite comment so
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks to everyone who's taken a look at the site and commented
      (either here or through the feedback forms on the web pages
      themselves...my favorite comment so far is "you can't stop Ostertag,
      you can only hope to contain him")

      I am not entirely familiar with what Sagarin's doing, although it
      has some plus/minus elements. I know he adjusts for both the
      opposing players on the floor at the time, and the other players on
      the court on your own team. We have different ratings ourselves,
      unadjusted versus adjusted for the other players, but for the most
      part we are only publishing the unadjusted ones right now.

      The plus/minus stuff is just one facet of what we are doing. I like
      the +/- in conjunction with player W-L numbers (each game is scored
      as a win or loss on the player's plus minus data), which helps show
      consistency of performance.

      We also show various on-court/off-court comparison team stats, like
      effective FG%, rebounding, turnover numbers, etc see Tim Duncan's
      page at http://82games.com/02SAS12D.HTM for an example (Duncan was
      the #1 defensive impact player based on opponent eFG% on court
      versus off).

      As Dean points out the on-court versus off-court comparisons don't
      show absolute ability, but rather how well a player fits with his
      teammates and the gameplan. An interesting example of this is
      Giricek, who was horrible for Memphis (-9.7 per 48min on/off +/-),
      but fit in well in Orlando, posting a +6.2 rating.

      The point about depth has some validity -- Kidd's absolute +/- (his
      on court stats) is +7.8, whereas Bibby was +8.8 for Sacto. Off-
      court though the Nets were -2.3 without Kidd, whereas Sacto was
      still a solid +4.6. I do believe Kidd is considerably better then
      Bibby, but it does make a case that New Jersey should invest in a
      better backup PG.

      The 5-man units are often undermined by limited data (a unit that
      plays 2% of the total minutes for a team may only be playing 78
      minutes total together), but we can also break out the numbers by
      two-man pairs, etc to understand which players play well together.

      As far as Ed's comment on clutch shooting stats are concerned, we
      certainly could publish the actual numbers instead of the per 48
      minute basis summaries. I don't like the format on several of the
      pages that much, but trying to get 2,500 pages of content (5 per
      player, 6 per team, with articles) published in a timely fashion
      called for some compromises in the short term.

      It's likely the layout will change on certain fronts for the coming
      03-04 season.
    • Dean Oliver
      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
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 9, 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.

        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "roland_beech" <roland@t...> wrote:
        > Thanks to everyone who's taken a look at the site and commented
        > (either here or through the feedback forms on the web pages
        > themselves...my favorite comment so far is "you can't stop Ostertag,
        > you can only hope to contain him")
        >
        > I am not entirely familiar with what Sagarin's doing, although it
        > has some plus/minus elements. I know he adjusts for both the
        > opposing players on the floor at the time, and the other players on
        > the court on your own team. We have different ratings ourselves,
        > unadjusted versus adjusted for the other players, but for the most
        > part we are only publishing the unadjusted ones right now.
        >
        > The plus/minus stuff is just one facet of what we are doing. I like
        > the +/- in conjunction with player W-L numbers (each game is scored
        > as a win or loss on the player's plus minus data), which helps show
        > consistency of performance.
        >
        > We also show various on-court/off-court comparison team stats, like
        > effective FG%, rebounding, turnover numbers, etc see Tim Duncan's
        > page at http://82games.com/02SAS12D.HTM for an example (Duncan was
        > the #1 defensive impact player based on opponent eFG% on court
        > versus off).
        >
        > As Dean points out the on-court versus off-court comparisons don't
        > show absolute ability, but rather how well a player fits with his
        > teammates and the gameplan. An interesting example of this is
        > Giricek, who was horrible for Memphis (-9.7 per 48min on/off +/-),
        > but fit in well in Orlando, posting a +6.2 rating.
        >
        > The point about depth has some validity -- Kidd's absolute +/- (his
        > on court stats) is +7.8, whereas Bibby was +8.8 for Sacto. Off-
        > court though the Nets were -2.3 without Kidd, whereas Sacto was
        > still a solid +4.6. I do believe Kidd is considerably better then
        > Bibby, but it does make a case that New Jersey should invest in a
        > better backup PG.
        >
        > The 5-man units are often undermined by limited data (a unit that
        > plays 2% of the total minutes for a team may only be playing 78
        > minutes total together), but we can also break out the numbers by
        > two-man pairs, etc to understand which players play well together.
        >
        > As far as Ed's comment on clutch shooting stats are concerned, we
        > certainly could publish the actual numbers instead of the per 48
        > minute basis summaries. I don't like the format on several of the
        > pages that much, but trying to get 2,500 pages of content (5 per
        > player, 6 per team, with articles) published in a timely fashion
        > called for some compromises in the short term.
        >
        > It's likely the layout will change on certain fronts for the coming
        > 03-04 season.
      • Gary Collard
        ... That was me, sorry forgot to sign -- Gary Collard SABR-L Moderator gmcollard@yahoo.com Many believe that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Yeah, like
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 9, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          roland_beech wrote:
          >
          > Thanks to everyone who's taken a look at the site and commented
          > (either here or through the feedback forms on the web pages
          > themselves...my favorite comment so far is "you can't stop Ostertag,
          > you can only hope to contain him")

          That was me, sorry forgot to sign

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

          "Many believe that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Yeah, like
          *that's* true." -- Rob Simpson
        • igor eduardo küpfer
          After going through your site some more, I must say how impressed I am. A couple of further comments. ... From: roland_beech
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 9, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            After going through your site some more, I must say how impressed I am. A
            couple of further comments.

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "roland_beech" <roland@...>
            To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 8:27 PM
            Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: NBA Stats site


            <snip>
            > The plus/minus stuff is just one facet of what we are doing. I like
            > the +/- in conjunction with player W-L numbers (each game is scored
            > as a win or loss on the player's plus minus data), which helps show
            > consistency of performance.
            >

            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 :-)

            BTW DeanO: how do your individual win numbers match up to these?

            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.

            >
            > The 5-man units are often undermined by limited data (a unit that
            > plays 2% of the total minutes for a team may only be playing 78
            > minutes total together), but we can also break out the numbers by
            > two-man pairs, etc to understand which players play well together.
            >

            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.

            > As far as Ed's comment on clutch shooting stats are concerned, we
            > certainly could publish the actual numbers instead of the per 48
            > minute basis summaries. I don't like the format on several of the
            > pages that much, but trying to get 2,500 pages of content (5 per
            > player, 6 per team, with articles) published in a timely fashion
            > called for some compromises in the short term.
            >

            I'll bet. It's obvious how much work that must have gone into the project.

            > It's likely the layout will change on certain fronts for the coming
            > 03-04 season.
            >

            I have a few other suggestions. I'll send them off list.

            ed
          • Dean Oliver
            ... In http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/iwldef.html I post 3 versions of individual win-loss records. The version that Roland posts -- how many games that
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 10, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
              >
              > 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 :-)
              >
              > BTW DeanO: how do your individual win numbers match up to these?
              >

              In

              http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/iwldef.html

              I post 3 versions of individual win-loss records. The version that
              Roland posts -- how many games that person's team outscores the
              opponent when the player is on the court -- is most like the first
              listed there, I believe because players on good teams generally look
              pretty good. Roland's is better than what my first one does. Method
              2 shown on my page is one of my favorite tools because it indicates
              how well players do their roles. For some players, I think it is
              similar to Roland's, especially the better players (Duncan 58-23 by
              Roland and 62-19 by me). Method 3 of mine is applying Pythagorean
              methods to individual offensive and defensive ratings, which is more
              answering the question you raise. It looks, however, to estimate how
              many games a player contributes to, so how many wins can they add.
              Duncan comes out at 15.9-1.0 (.941), so it's not comparable in
              magnitude.

              I think it's key to note that all these interpretations of an
              individual's win-loss record are fair. The one Ed coins is
              interesting. The one that Roland has should be similar to Ed's
              (theoretically, they should be very comparable), but I haven't checked.

              >
              > I have a few other suggestions. I'll send them off list.

              That data set could lead to a flood of ideas on what to do with it.
              How many years of pbp's do you have?

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