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

More Olympic Quals

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    Using my game-by-game individual win-loss records, only Tim Duncan had a perfect record (9-0 in 10 games) in the Olympic Quals. Every other player had at
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 10, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

       

      Using my game-by-game individual win-loss records, only Tim Duncan had a perfect record (9-0 in 10 games) in the Olympic Quals.  Every other player had at least 1 loss.  That is the strongest suggestion that this time might have lost 1 game had Duncan not been on the team.  Another hint is that they had that one close game against Argentina (94-86), where I estimated Duncan contributed 6-7 net points.

       

      The competition wasn't supposedly as tough as in last year's Worlds.  So I'm thinking the US is still vulnerable.

       

      (I hope this format shows up.)

       

       

       

      Scor.

      Poss.

      Floor

      RTG

      Points

      Def.

      Game-by-Game

      Net

      Net

      Net

       

       

      Poss.

       

      Pct.

       

      Prod.

      Rtg.

      Win%

      Wins

      Losses

      Win%

      W

      L

      DUNCAN, Tim

      66

      100

      0.66

      136

      137

      87

      1.000

      9

      0

      0.999

      1.3

      0.0

      CARTER, Vince

      45

      69

      0.65

      145

      100

      96

      0.900

      9

      1

      0.999

      0.9

      0.0

      IVERSON, Allen

      46

      84

      0.55

      126

      106

      93

      0.875

      7

      1

      0.994

      1.1

      0.0

      O'NEAL, Jermaine

      54

      80

      0.68

      138

      111

      90

      0.900

      9

      1

      0.999

      1.2

      0.0

      ALLEN, Ray

      40

      71

      0.56

      131

      94

      97

      0.800

      8

      2

      0.993

      0.8

      0.0

      McGRADY, Tracy

      38

      64

      0.59

      127

      81

      93

      0.857

      6

      1

      0.994

      0.9

      0.0

      BIBBY, Mike

      42

      69

      0.60

      141

      98

      93

      0.900

      9

      1

      0.999

      0.8

      0.0

      BRAND, Elton

      34

      53

      0.64

      124

      66

      89

      0.800

      8

      2

      0.996

      0.6

      0.0

      MARTIN, Kenyon

      32

      60

      0.54

      109

      65

      87

      0.700

      7

      3

      0.976

      0.6

      0.0

      COLLISON, Nick

      17

      24

      0.71

      145

      35

      97

      0.625

      5

      3

      0.999

      0.2

      0.0

      JEFFERSON, Richard

      23

      39

      0.58

      119

      47

      96

      0.800

      8

      2

      0.973

      0.4

      0.0

      KIDD, Jason

      30

      67

      0.45

      98

      65

      93

      0.700

      7

      3

      0.691

      0.7

      0.3

       

       

      467

      781

      0.598

      128.6

      1005

      92

      0.821

      92

      20

      0.961

      9.6

      0.4

       

       

      Duncan used the highest percentage of possessions at 26%.  Jefferson was lowest at 16%.  Even AI used just 24%.  Quite balanced, the way it should be when you’ve got this kind of talent.

       

      Dean Oliver

      deano@...

      Get Basketball on Paper now!

      Available at B&N or Amazon

      Pre-orders are 20-30% off cover price

      (Search for Basketball on Paper)

       

    • igor eduardo küpfer
      The USA team was in a class of its own, but I m impressed by how well the Argentinean team shot. On the defensive end, Puerto Rico held its own with the US
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 10, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        The USA team was in a class of its own, but I'm impressed by how well the
        Argentinean team shot. On the defensive end, Puerto Rico held its own with
        the US team.

        TEAM EffFG% TEAM dEffFG%
        USA .616 USA .439
        ARG .580 PUR .447
        VEN .522 BRA .526
        PUR .522 URU .527
        MEX .501 MEX .536
        CAN .501 VEN .537
        BRA .491 ISV .538
        URU .464 ARG .551
        DOM .441 CAN .553
        ISV .412 DOM .559

        There's a pretty big difference between the top 2 defensive teams, USA and
        PR, and the rest of the field.

        TEAM OffRtg TEAM DefRtg
        USA 127.0 USA 88.4
        ARG 115.7 PUR 98.9
        BRA 109.5 BRA 107.5
        CAN 109.0 ARG 110.4
        MEX 108.1 CAN 111.7
        PUR 105.6 VEN 112.6
        VEN 105.5 MEX 116.8
        URU 99.0 ISV 117.1
        DOM 95.4 DOM 117.9
        ISV 88.2 URU 120.1


        NBA-paced games from each team.

        TEAM Poss/g poss/48
        BRA 80.9 (97.1)
        USA 80.1 (96.1)
        VEN 79.2 (95.0)
        ISV 78.8 (94.5)
        MEX 78.5 (94.2)
        CAN 78.1 (93.7)
        DOM 77.4 (92.9)
        PUR 76.4 (91.7)
        ARG 75.7 (90.8)
        URU 73.3 (87.9)

        I broke down how each team distributed its possessions among its players.
        The Herfindahl-Hirshman Index can be used to see if one player monopolized
        his team's possessions -- the lower the HHI, the more equality among
        player's possessions.

        TEAM HHI
        USA .103
        ARG .105
        PUR .105
        CAN .107
        DOM .115
        MEX .115
        URU .126
        BRA .130
        VEN .139
        ISV .147

        With all its stars, the USA team can hardly suffer by spreading the wealth.
        I was surprised to see that other teams followed the same pattern, although
        it's probably a tribute to their concept of "team" ball. I'm not so certain
        it's the way to go, though. As a point of reference, here is the HHI from
        various NBA teams:

        1988 POR .125
        1996 UTA .126
        1996 CHI .151
        2000 VAN .132
        2002 CLE .110

        I still don't know how useful the Index is in analysing team play. I'm
        working on it.

        ed
      • Dean Oliver
        ... well the ... own with ... I looked at these numbers, too, and really thought at first that the USA was once again well above everyone else. It was when I
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 10, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
          <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
          > The USA team was in a class of its own, but I'm impressed by how
          well the
          > Argentinean team shot. On the defensive end, Puerto Rico held its
          own with
          > the US team.
          >
          > TEAM EffFG% TEAM dEffFG%
          > USA .616 USA .439
          > ARG .580 PUR .447
          > VEN .522 BRA .526
          > PUR .522 URU .527
          > MEX .501 MEX .536
          > CAN .501 VEN .537
          > BRA .491 ISV .538
          > URU .464 ARG .551
          > DOM .441 CAN .553
          > ISV .412 DOM .559
          >

          I looked at these numbers, too, and really thought at first that the
          USA was once again well above everyone else. It was when I started
          looking more carefully that I realized that the US isn't that far
          from being beaten once. With this team, it's a ways from losing as
          often as the 2002 team did.


          > I broke down how each team distributed its possessions among its
          players.
          > The Herfindahl-Hirshman Index can be used to see if one player
          monopolized
          > his team's possessions -- the lower the HHI, the more equality among
          > player's possessions.
          >
          > TEAM HHI
          > USA .103
          > ARG .105
          > PUR .105
          > CAN .107
          > DOM .115
          > MEX .115
          > URU .126
          > BRA .130
          > VEN .139
          > ISV .147
          >
          > With all its stars, the USA team can hardly suffer by spreading the
          wealth.
          > I was surprised to see that other teams followed the same pattern,
          although
          > it's probably a tribute to their concept of "team" ball. I'm not so
          certain
          > it's the way to go, though. As a point of reference, here is the
          HHI from
          > various NBA teams:
          >
          > 1988 POR .125
          > 1996 UTA .126
          > 1996 CHI .151
          > 2000 VAN .132
          > 2002 CLE .110

          I know of this index. It makes sense here at least as a reference.
          The NBA hasn't had a lot of balanced teams in a while. Whether a
          team should be balanced or not depends upon their talent
          distribution. With so much talent on the Olympic teams, it makes
          more sense to be balanced. If you have a bunch of role players and
          one good guy who can handle a lot of possessions, it doesn't
          necessarily make sense. Certainly, last year's Lakers shouldn't be
          balanced, but this year's should be.

          We should run this on the 2002 numbers. Actually, you must have the
          cumulative numbers for all the 2003 teams. I don't. I only have the
          US. Where did you get the others?

          DeanO
        • igor eduardo küpfer
          ... From: Dean Oliver To: Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 2:32 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: More Olympic
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 10, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Dean Oliver" <deano@...>
            To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 2:32 PM
            Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: More Olympic Quals



            > We should run this on the 2002 numbers. Actually, you must have the
            > cumulative numbers for all the 2003 teams. I don't. I only have the
            > US. Where did you get the others?

            I summed them from the individual boxscores. Here, I put everything together
            as a csv:
            Individual player game boxes --
            http://members.rogers.com/igorkupfer/odd/olympicqual.csv
            Team boxes - http://members.rogers.com/igorkupfer/odd/olympicqual_team.csv

            ed
          • John Hollinger
            I d also be interested in seeing whether these numbers stem form the team game, or whether it s an artifact of nobody on the other teams being good enough to
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 12, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              I'd also be interested in seeing whether these numbers stem form
              the 'team' game, or whether it's an artifact of nobody on the other
              teams being good enough to dominate the possessions. A good way to
              check would be to see how Germany or Spain, both of whom have one
              player who is miles better than the rest, spread their possession in
              the world championships.




              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
              <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
              > To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 2:32 PM
              > Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: More Olympic Quals
              >
              >
              >
              > > We should run this on the 2002 numbers. Actually, you must have
              the
              > > cumulative numbers for all the 2003 teams. I don't. I only have
              the
              > > US. Where did you get the others?
              >
              > I summed them from the individual boxscores. Here, I put everything
              together
              > as a csv:
              > Individual player game boxes --
              > http://members.rogers.com/igorkupfer/odd/olympicqual.csv
              > Team boxes -
              http://members.rogers.com/igorkupfer/odd/olympicqual_team.csv
              >
              > ed
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.