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

Re: Jordan

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... don t ... seeing ... Well, since you showed that there really weren t good 38-year old comparisons to be made, I took a slightly different tack. I
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
      > Reaction has been mixed on the Jordan comeback. Many have argued
      > about whether MJ's decision was "right" in terms of how it might
      > threaten his historical context and storybook ending. I really
      don't
      > have a problem with the return. I am much more interested in
      seeing
      > how a 38-year old shooting guard can perform in the NBA.

      Well, since you showed that there really weren't good 38-year old
      comparisons to be made, I took a slightly different tack. I
      calculated the most similar players to Jordan in his last playing
      year:

      Player Team Season SimScore
      wilkins,dominiq atl 1989 887
      wilkins,dominiq atl 1990 879
      jordan,michael chi 1997 869
      jordan,michael chi 1996 860
      bryant,kobe lal 2001 860
      wilkins,dominiq atl 1992 856
      wilkins,dominiq atl 1991 856
      chambers,tom pho 1990 853
      Hill,Grant det 2000 849
      chambers,tom pho 1989 849
      malone,karl uta 1996 847
      wilkins,dominiq atl 1993 843
      carter,vince tor 2000 841

      and decided to look at what they did 3 years later, regardless of
      age. Of this list,Chambers or Wilkins might be considered the best
      fit when considering age. The inclusion of Kobe, Vinsanity, and
      Grant Hill is interesting, but doesn't help at all because the
      seasons are too recent to tell us anything about 3 yrs down the line.
      Given that they should be improving (maybe not Hill) and Jordan
      should be declining means that we probably wouldn't trust those
      comparisons anyway. So, the seasons we can use to estimate what
      happens 3 yrs later:

      Wilkins 92
      Wilkins 93
      Wilkins 94
      Wilkins 95
      Chambers 92
      Chambers 93
      Malone 99

      These seasons are shown below:

      G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
      chambers,tom 69 28.2 6.2 14.3 0.3 0.7
      chambers,tom 73 23.6 4.4 9.8 0.2 0.4
      wilkins,dominiq 42 38.1 10.1 21.8 0.9 3.0
      wilkins,dominiq 71 37.3 10.4 22.3 1.7 4.5
      wilkins,dominiq 74 35.6 9.4 21.4 1.1 4.0
      wilkins,dominiq 77 31.5 6.4 15.2 1.5 3.8
      malone,karl 80 37.4 8.0 16.3 0.0 0.0
      Avg 69 33.1 7.9 17.3 0.8 2.3

      Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
      chambers,tom 3.7 4.5 1.2 5.8 2.1
      chambers,tom 3.3 3.9 1.3 4.7 1.4
      wilkins,dominiq 7.0 8.4 2.5 7.0 3.8
      wilkins,dominiq 7.3 8.8 2.6 6.8 3.2
      wilkins,dominiq 6.0 7.1 2.5 6.5 2.3
      wilkins,dominiq 3.5 4.4 2.0 5.2 2.2
      malone,karl 7.7 9.8 2.2 9.4 4.1
      Avg 5.5 6.7 2.0 6.5 2.7

      Plyr stl tov blk pf pts
      chambers,tom 0.83 1.5 0.54 2.8 16.3
      chambers,tom 0.59 1.3 0.32 2.9 12.2
      wilkins,dominiq 1.24 2.9 0.57 1.8 28.1
      wilkins,dominiq 0.99 2.6 0.38 1.7 29.9
      wilkins,dominiq 1.24 2.3 0.41 1.7 26.0
      wilkins,dominiq 0.79 2.2 0.18 1.7 17.8
      malone,karl 1.27 3.3 0.57 2.7 23.8
      Averages 0.99 2.3 0.42 2.2 22.0

      Players fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
      chambers,tom 0.431 0.367 0.830 1.38 0.31
      chambers,tom 0.447 0.393 0.837 1.10 0.40
      wilkins,dominiq 0.464 0.289 0.835 1.30 0.39
      wilkins,dominiq 0.468 0.380 0.828 1.23 0.40
      wilkins,dominiq 0.440 0.288 0.847 0.98 0.33
      wilkins,dominiq 0.424 0.388 0.782 0.96 0.29
      malone,karl 0.493 0.000 0.788 1.24 0.60
      Averages 0.454 0.342 0.820 1.17 0.39

      Frankly, these averages don't look all that different from what
      harlanzo and Mike proposed. I don't look at that as a pure scorer;
      he's still balanced. He appears to play less, too, only 69 games.

      I plugged in these Average #'s to determine how good a player this
      is, from my calculations. I get a player like this:

      Scor. Poss. Floor RTG Points
      Poss. . Pct. . Prod.
      699 1343 0.520 109.6 1471

      Defensive Stops Def. Net Net Net
      Total /Min /Poss Rtg. Win% W L
      442 0.192 0.493 102.6 0.746 9.5 3.2

      Definitely still a good player, but not like the Mike of old.
      Producing a little over 20 ppg, but not as efficiently (his lowest
      rating before was 111.4 in his last season). The defensive #'s are
      highly uncertain, but actually based on a team context like the
      Clippers of last year, which may be a little too good for my tastes,
      but not a bad comparison.

      Of course, this is missing the age factor, but harlanzo's was missing
      the quality factor -- both of which are important -- showing how
      unique MJ is.

      (One last thing -- the average winning percentage of the teams 3
      years after: 45-35, 0.555. Highly variable, from 27-55 to 62-20.)

      Dean Oliver
      Journal of Basketball Studies
    • harlanzo@yahoo.com
      I agree with much of what is said on Jordan. I would pose one question. Do you think the fact that MJ will be allowed to play zone under the new rules might
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        I agree with much of what is said on Jordan. I would pose one
        question. Do you think the fact that MJ will be allowed to play zone
        under the new rules might help his longevity? I can see arguments
        both ways on this and I don't have an opinion but I am interested in
        what people think.


        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
        > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
        > > Reaction has been mixed on the Jordan comeback. Many have argued
        > > about whether MJ's decision was "right" in terms of how it might
        > > threaten his historical context and storybook ending. I really
        > don't
        > > have a problem with the return. I am much more interested in
        > seeing
        > > how a 38-year old shooting guard can perform in the NBA.
        >
        > Well, since you showed that there really weren't good 38-year old
        > comparisons to be made, I took a slightly different tack. I
        > calculated the most similar players to Jordan in his last playing
        > year:
        >
        > Player Team Season SimScore
        > wilkins,dominiq atl 1989 887
        > wilkins,dominiq atl 1990 879
        > jordan,michael chi 1997 869
        > jordan,michael chi 1996 860
        > bryant,kobe lal 2001 860
        > wilkins,dominiq atl 1992 856
        > wilkins,dominiq atl 1991 856
        > chambers,tom pho 1990 853
        > Hill,Grant det 2000 849
        > chambers,tom pho 1989 849
        > malone,karl uta 1996 847
        > wilkins,dominiq atl 1993 843
        > carter,vince tor 2000 841
        >
        > and decided to look at what they did 3 years later, regardless of
        > age. Of this list,Chambers or Wilkins might be considered the best
        > fit when considering age. The inclusion of Kobe, Vinsanity, and
        > Grant Hill is interesting, but doesn't help at all because the
        > seasons are too recent to tell us anything about 3 yrs down the
        line.
        > Given that they should be improving (maybe not Hill) and Jordan
        > should be declining means that we probably wouldn't trust those
        > comparisons anyway. So, the seasons we can use to estimate what
        > happens 3 yrs later:
        >
        > Wilkins 92
        > Wilkins 93
        > Wilkins 94
        > Wilkins 95
        > Chambers 92
        > Chambers 93
        > Malone 99
        >
        > These seasons are shown below:
        >
        > G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
        > chambers,tom 69 28.2 6.2 14.3 0.3 0.7
        > chambers,tom 73 23.6 4.4 9.8 0.2 0.4
        > wilkins,dominiq 42 38.1 10.1 21.8 0.9 3.0
        > wilkins,dominiq 71 37.3 10.4 22.3 1.7 4.5
        > wilkins,dominiq 74 35.6 9.4 21.4 1.1 4.0
        > wilkins,dominiq 77 31.5 6.4 15.2 1.5 3.8
        > malone,karl 80 37.4 8.0 16.3 0.0 0.0
        > Avg 69 33.1 7.9 17.3 0.8 2.3
        >
        > Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
        > chambers,tom 3.7 4.5 1.2 5.8 2.1
        > chambers,tom 3.3 3.9 1.3 4.7 1.4
        > wilkins,dominiq 7.0 8.4 2.5 7.0 3.8
        > wilkins,dominiq 7.3 8.8 2.6 6.8 3.2
        > wilkins,dominiq 6.0 7.1 2.5 6.5 2.3
        > wilkins,dominiq 3.5 4.4 2.0 5.2 2.2
        > malone,karl 7.7 9.8 2.2 9.4 4.1
        > Avg 5.5 6.7 2.0 6.5 2.7
        >
        > Plyr stl tov blk pf pts
        > chambers,tom 0.83 1.5 0.54 2.8 16.3
        > chambers,tom 0.59 1.3 0.32 2.9 12.2
        > wilkins,dominiq 1.24 2.9 0.57 1.8 28.1
        > wilkins,dominiq 0.99 2.6 0.38 1.7 29.9
        > wilkins,dominiq 1.24 2.3 0.41 1.7 26.0
        > wilkins,dominiq 0.79 2.2 0.18 1.7 17.8
        > malone,karl 1.27 3.3 0.57 2.7 23.8
        > Averages 0.99 2.3 0.42 2.2 22.0
        >
        > Players fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
        > chambers,tom 0.431 0.367 0.830 1.38 0.31
        > chambers,tom 0.447 0.393 0.837 1.10 0.40
        > wilkins,dominiq 0.464 0.289 0.835 1.30 0.39
        > wilkins,dominiq 0.468 0.380 0.828 1.23 0.40
        > wilkins,dominiq 0.440 0.288 0.847 0.98 0.33
        > wilkins,dominiq 0.424 0.388 0.782 0.96 0.29
        > malone,karl 0.493 0.000 0.788 1.24 0.60
        > Averages 0.454 0.342 0.820 1.17 0.39
        >
        > Frankly, these averages don't look all that different from what
        > harlanzo and Mike proposed. I don't look at that as a pure scorer;
        > he's still balanced. He appears to play less, too, only 69 games.
        >
        > I plugged in these Average #'s to determine how good a player this
        > is, from my calculations. I get a player like this:
        >
        > Scor. Poss. Floor RTG Points
        > Poss. . Pct. . Prod.
        > 699 1343 0.520 109.6 1471
        >
        > Defensive Stops Def. Net Net Net
        > Total /Min /Poss Rtg. Win% W L
        > 442 0.192 0.493 102.6 0.746 9.5 3.2
        >
        > Definitely still a good player, but not like the Mike of old.
        > Producing a little over 20 ppg, but not as efficiently (his lowest
        > rating before was 111.4 in his last season). The defensive #'s are
        > highly uncertain, but actually based on a team context like the
        > Clippers of last year, which may be a little too good for my
        tastes,
        > but not a bad comparison.
        >
        > Of course, this is missing the age factor, but harlanzo's was
        missing
        > the quality factor -- both of which are important -- showing how
        > unique MJ is.
        >
        > (One last thing -- the average winning percentage of the teams 3
        > years after: 45-35, 0.555. Highly variable, from 27-55 to 62-20.)
        >
        > Dean Oliver
        > Journal of Basketball Studies
      • Mike Goodman
        ... Definitely
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
          > I agree with much of what is said on Jordan. I would pose one
          > question. Do you think the fact that MJ will be allowed to play
          >zone
          > under the new rules might help his longevity

          Definitely
        • Dean Oliver
          ... Something else to add. The player-seasons most similar to this average are shown below: Player Team Season SimScore chambers,tom pho 1991 898*
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
            > G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
            > Avg 69 33.1 7.9 17.3 0.8 2.3
            >
            > Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
            > Avg 5.5 6.7 2.0 6.5 2.7
            >
            > Plyr stl tov blk pf pts
            > Averages 0.99 2.3 0.42 2.2 22.0
            >
            > Players fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
            > Averages 0.454 0.342 0.820 1.17 0.39
            >

            Something else to add. The player-seasons most similar to this
            average are shown below:

            Player Team Season SimScore
            chambers,tom pho 1991 898*
            mobley,cuttino hou 2001 892
            wilkins,dominiq lac 1994 888
            rice,glen cha 1998 887*
            pierce,ricky sea 1992 882
            smith,steve atl 1998 876*
            wilkins,dominiq atl 1990 874
            richmond,mitch gol 1990 874
            richmond,mitch gol 1989 872
            gill,kendall njn 1997 872
            tripucka,kelly cha 1989 871
            pierce,ricky mil 1990 871
            wilkins,dominiq atl 1989 870*
            robinson,glenn mil 1995 870
            johnson,larry cha 1996 869
            campbell,tony min 1990 863
            campbell,tony min 1991 857
            hawkins,hersey phi 1990 856
            houston,allan nyk 1998 855

            A few all-stars (the *s) near the top (and, of course, matches to
            some of the guys making the average), though no MVPs. Mobley is the
            only player from last year who ranks as similar. His #'s

            Plyr G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
            mobley,cuttino 79 38.0 6.7 15.4 1.1 3.2

            Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
            mobley,cuttino 5.0 6.0 1.1 5.0 2.5

            Plyr Name stl tov blk pf pts
            mobley,cuttino 1.06 2.1 0.33 2.1 19.5

            Plyr Name fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
            mobley,cuttino 0.434 0.357 0.831 1.18 0.39

            That's a good match on a lot of things, but Mobley is not quite as
            efficient as the hypothetical Jordan, due to shooting percentage...
            And it's just hard thinking that Jordan is gonna be like Mobley.

            Dean Oliver
            Journal of Basketball Studies
          • nikoz6@yahoo.com
            ... I m also sure it will help him. Watching European basketball, I always took zone defense for granted. It s more about being clever than being too athletic.
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 3, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              > I agree with much of what is said on Jordan. I
              > would pose one
              > question. Do you think the fact that MJ will be
              > allowed to play zone
              > under the new rules might help his longevity?

              I'm also sure it will help him. Watching European
              basketball, I always took zone defense for granted.
              It's more about being clever than being too athletic.
              Even if Jordan is now 80% of his '98 self, he's still
              athletic and he definitely is clever enough to change
              and adjust his game as he has done many times in
              the past.

              I even tend to think that the new rules were made
              just for MJ's comeback... with the zone defense
              he will not often look rediculous when Iverson
              for example will use his crossover. I've heard
              also that he might move into small forward.

              In offense, the fact that big men are not
              allowed to stay in the paint for longer than 3''
              will allow him to dunk instead of being rejected
              (he sure can still dunk but over Shaq or Mutombo?
              Not very likely to happen, at least more than once).

              What do you think of my "conspiracy theory"? :)

              I dont think there's any doubt that he can still
              play well. If Dale Ellis can score 10 points in
              his 38's, Jordan can sure score 20 (especially
              playing in a team like Washington). He will
              play well but seeing him being "just a good
              player" is not exactly matching to his career
              till now.

              The fact is we don't really know how it will
              be like and that's what makes it interesting.
              Most guesses are that the battle "Jordan Vs Time"
              will be something close to a draw cause it's the
              most possible scenario. But then, either of
              them might win totally as well...

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
              http://phone.yahoo.com
            • HoopStudies
              I was looking back on our old projections on Jordan, now that his season is done. A few things to comment on. 1. We seemed to think that the zone would help
              Message 6 of 11 , Apr 3, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I was looking back on our old projections on Jordan, now that his
                season is done. A few things to comment on.

                1. We seemed to think that the zone would help Jordan's longevity.
                He didn't quite make it through the season, but I don't think the Wiz
                played much zone.

                2. Below are the stats I projected using similarity scores:

                --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
                > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
                > > G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
                > > Avg 69 33.1 7.9 17.3 0.8 2.3
                > >
                > > Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
                > > Avg 5.5 6.7 2.0 6.5 2.7
                > >
                > > Plyr stl tov blk pf pts
                > > Averages 0.99 2.3 0.42 2.2 22.0
                > >
                > > Players fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
                > > Averages 0.454 0.342 0.820 1.17 0.39
                > >
                >

                I feel pretty good about the games played being well less than 82.
                The method forecasted injury. I don't feel very good about the FG%,
                since MJ shot only 42%. Nor did he get to the line as much as this
                said. Both of these are due to his jump shooting nature. The PPG of
                22 is dead on. MikeG forecasted the same. Jordan's assists were
                higher than forecasted here. MikeG forecasted that.

                GP GS MIN PTS OFF DEF TOT AST STL BLK TO A/TO PF TECH
                60 53 34.9 22.9 0.8 4.8 5.7 5.2 1.42 0.43 2.7 1.91 2.0 0.0

                FGM FGA FG% 3PM 3PA 3P% FTM FTA FT% 2PM 2PA 2P% PPS ADJ.
                9.2 22.1 .416 0.2 0.9 .189 4.4 5.6 .790 541 1271 .426 1.04 .420


                3. I did a second analysis before, looking for the most similar
                current player to the above forecasts. It gave Cuttino Mobley.

                > only player from last year who ranks as similar. His #'s
                >
                > Plyr G Min fgm fga fg3m fg3a
                > mobley,cuttino 79 38.0 6.7 15.4 1.1 3.2
                >
                > Plyr ftm fta oreb treb ast
                > mobley,cuttino 5.0 6.0 1.1 5.0 2.5
                >
                > Plyr Name stl tov blk pf pts
                > mobley,cuttino 1.06 2.1 0.33 2.1 19.5
                >
                > Plyr Name fg% fg3% ft% ast/tov fta/fga
                > mobley,cuttino 0.434 0.357 0.831 1.18 0.39
                >
                > That's a good match on a lot of things, but Mobley is not quite as
                > efficient as the hypothetical Jordan, due to shooting
                percentage...
                > And it's just hard thinking that Jordan is gonna be like Mobley.

                It turned out that Mobley's numbers here are pretty similar to
                Jordan's, except for the games played (and a few more 3's). So Mike
                was a bit like Mobley.

                If Mike comes back, I'm not sure if he would get better or worse. I
                guess I'm thinking that he won't come back.

                DeanO
              • dlirag
                I can t recall right now if anyone made any definite predictions regarding the Wizards win-loss record this season. Were there any?
                Message 7 of 11 , Apr 6, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  I can't recall right now if anyone made any definite predictions
                  regarding the Wizards' win-loss record this season. Were there any?
                • HoopStudies
                  ... Closest thing we had was an average I did of the teams having the most similar players to Jordan: (One last thing -- the average winning percentage of the
                  Message 8 of 11 , Apr 7, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "dlirag" <dlirag@h...> wrote:
                    > I can't recall right now if anyone made any definite predictions
                    > regarding the Wizards' win-loss record this season. Were there any?

                    Closest thing we had was an average I did of the teams having the
                    most similar players to Jordan:

                    "(One last thing -- the average winning percentage of the teams 3
                    years after: 45-35, 0.555. Highly variable, from 27-55 to 62-20.)"

                    I read a lot of predictions before the season and many of them were
                    around 35 wins.

                    DeanO
                  • alleyoop2
                    Right on. I had them going 32-50. http://www.alleyoop.com/preview/wash.htm ... any?
                    Message 9 of 11 , Apr 10, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Right on. I had them going 32-50.

                      http://www.alleyoop.com/preview/wash.htm

                      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "dlirag" <dlirag@h...> wrote:
                      > > I can't recall right now if anyone made any definite predictions
                      > > regarding the Wizards' win-loss record this season. Were there
                      any?
                      >
                      > Closest thing we had was an average I did of the teams having the
                      > most similar players to Jordan:
                      >
                      > "(One last thing -- the average winning percentage of the teams 3
                      > years after: 45-35, 0.555. Highly variable, from 27-55 to 62-20.)"
                      >
                      > I read a lot of predictions before the season and many of them were
                      > around 35 wins.
                      >
                      > DeanO
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.