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

re: nba stats site

Expand Messages
  • roland_beech
    in response to steve s questions, the stats come from databases we have built with different sources and our own charting the on court versus off court numbers
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 10, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      in response to steve's questions, the stats come from databases we
      have built with different sources and our own charting

      the on court versus off court numbers are shown in a 48 minute net
      which may be confusing.

      Pierce = 3073 min on court, +1.7/48 = +109 pts
      Pierce = 856 min off court, -8.4/48 = -150 pts
      net = -41 for team

      Battie = 1671 on court, +5.0/48 = +174
      Battie = 2257 off court, -4.6/48 = -216
      net = -42 for team

      note there are rounding errors in minutes, plus/minus to one
      decimal...the nets would be the same otherwise, Battie's actual +/-
      on was +175
    • Kevin Pelton
      I think I m probably more skeptical of this type of information than many of the other posters here, if only because I ve seen fairly similar breakdowns for
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 10, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I think I'm probably more skeptical of this type of information than
        many of the other posters here, if only because I've seen fairly
        similar breakdowns for the Sonics and wasn't convinced they held a
        great deal of value.

        That said, this is a tremendous resource. I really like the
        opportunity to see the magnitude of the effect an unbalanced player
        has on his team's offense or defense (or rebounding). For example,
        the Sonics had two completely opposite point guards after the trade
        last season in Brent Barry and Kevin Ollie. It's easy to know that a
        unit with Barry will be superior offensively and one with Ollie
        better defensively, but how much? How much did an offensive non-
        factor like Ansu Sesay hurt the Sonics' offense? How much did Reggie
        Evans help them on the boards? There's alot of information there to
        answer these questions.

        A couple of things I would do if I had this data:

        1. Study the "hot hand" effect with a significantly larger sample.
        Assumedly, you can track shot order for every player in the league
        last year.

        2. Do more with assisted/unassisted field goals. That was one of the
        hidden benefits of the data I mentioned before. I'm fairly obsessed
        with investigating assisted and unassisted field goals, and I think
        they go a long ways towards giving players who take a significant
        percentage of their team's shots the credit they are due.

        Unrelated: This is the first time I've heard of the measure for
        distribution mentioned earlier. Would this be a way to track
        consistency for players? That is, could we use what percentage of
        their points were scored/rebounds grabbed/etc. in each game? This
        would seem to account for the biggest problem of most measures of
        variability in evaluating consistency in basketball - the wide
        differences in the size of the base (total points, rebounds, etc.).
        Does that make sense?
      • igor eduardo küpfer
        ... From: Kevin Pelton To: Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 1:41 AM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: nba
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 12, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Kevin Pelton" <kpelton08@...>
          To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 1:41 AM
          Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: nba stats site


          > I think I'm probably more skeptical of this type of information than
          > many of the other posters here, if only because I've seen fairly
          > similar breakdowns for the Sonics and wasn't convinced they held a
          > great deal of value.
          >

          I think the best way to look at these numbers is to remember that they are
          only indirectly _individual_ stats -- they are primarily _team_ stats,
          showing how well the team performs in various situations (eg with and
          without a certain player on the floor). What made me suspicious of +/-
          analysis that came before was it was presented without the context that the
          82games site provides. I especially like the 5-man unit numbers, which will
          probably be the focus of my next round of calculations.

          ed
        • Kevin Pelton
          ... This reminds me of what I found to be the single most valuable bit of information from this kind of a statistical breakdown. I ll put it in capitals so you
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 12, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
            <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
            > I especially like the 5-man unit numbers, which will
            > probably be the focus of my next round of calculations.

            This reminds me of what I found to be the single most valuable bit
            of information from this kind of a statistical breakdown. I'll put
            it in capitals so you don't accidentaly miss it:

            THE STARTING LINEUP MATTERS!

            Previously, I'd been of the opinion that the starting five really
            didn't matter much. I recall getting a little tired of JohnH dogging
            coaches for starting players (Johnny Newman comes to mind here) -
            the really problem was that guys like that were playing at all. My
            opinion could be best summed up as, it's who plays the most that
            truly makes a difference, right?

            Looking at the lineup analysis, however, it's obvious that the only
            group that really plays together all that much is the starting five.
            Guys rotate in and out so much in the late first/third quarters and
            second/fourth quarters that no single lineup gets all that much time
            together, even on a team with a fairly set rotation.

            What this means to me is that while it might not be crucial to get
            your five best players on the court at the start, it is imperative
            to have a lineup that works well together and complements each
            other. If guys on the bench don't fit as well, that's not much of a
            problem, but the starters better be a cohesive unit.
          • jimmy_purnell
            ... I wonder how many games Detroit would have won if Rick Carlisle hadn t stubbornly started Michael Curry all season long. He had the third worst Roland
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 12, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton" <kpelton08@h...>
              wrote:
              > This reminds me of what I found to be the single most valuable bit
              > of information from this kind of a statistical breakdown. I'll put
              > it in capitals so you don't accidentaly miss it:
              >
              > THE STARTING LINEUP MATTERS!

              I wonder how many games Detroit would have won if Rick Carlisle hadn't
              stubbornly started Michael Curry all season long. He had the third
              worst Roland rating in the league, showing that whatever his defensive
              contributions were, they definitely didn't make up for his complete
              lack of offense.

              Detroit's starters (who were their most used lineup - and the third
              most used lineup in the league) were 28-36 by the site's calculations
              while Detroit's overall record was 50-32!

              Some of the discrepency comes from Detroit's excellent bench (Barry
              and Williamson were among the league leaders in Roland ratings), but
              the numbers definitely suggest that Curry was pretty worthless, at
              least in a lineup that also featured another all-defense no-offense
              player in Ben Wallace (and a third player in Cliff Robinson who wasn't
              much better in those regards).

              Joe Dumars was smart to trade Curry to prevent Larry Brown from even
              getting the chance to give him playing time, and now it looks like
              Curry might be starting in Toronto (whose new head coach of course was
              the architect of the Pistons defense the past two seasons).
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.