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

Re: More Olympic Quals

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.