Re: Most Improved Players from last year,

Expand Messages
• If a team has played 20 games how does a guy who s played 360 minutes in 10 games compare to a guy who s played 720 minutes in 20 games?
Message 1 of 5 , Dec 3, 2003
If a team has played 20 games how does a guy who's played 360 minutes
in 10 games compare to a guy who's played 720 minutes in 20 games?

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "wimpds" <wimpds@y...> wrote:
> > Is this a per minute rating? Per game?
>
> A fair question, and I'll try my best to give a satisfactory answer.
>
> I've arbitrarily designated 36 minutes as a "full game". Some guys
> play more, most play less; but most players are capable of going 36,
> and I shoot for estimating their production in 36 minutes.
>
> Rather than just scale every component of 'production' to 36 minutes
> in a linear fashion (i.e., 10 pts in 18 min = 20 in 36), I've
> devised a method of "squashing" the ratios to favor players who
> actually do/can play big minutes, relative to players who don't.
>
> This involves a 4th root. The upshot is that a player who plays 30
> min gets almost as much credit (for his per-minute production) as a
> player who plays 40 min.
>
> But a 9-minute guy gets a lot less than 4X his credits (scaled to 36
> min.)
>
> I don't like straight per-minute lists that equate a scrub with a
> true star. Nor do I like straight per-game lists that give undue
> credit to guys on bad teams.
>
> Per-minute lists are usually cut off below 24 mpg, or 22 mpg, or
> wherever. I don't have to do that; it takes care of itself.
>
> So I've synthesized the two concepts. Hybridized.
>
> Per-minute lists are usually cut off below 24 mpg, or 22 mpg, or
> wherever. I don't have to do that; it takes care of itself.
>
> And it's not merely per-minute production I start with; it's all
> relative to the abundance of points and rebounds (allowed) for each
> team.
>
>
> > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
> > > Yes, it's early; some of these guys are playing beyond their
> > > capabilities.
> > >
> > > But to give credit where it's due, here's my take on MIP, so far:
> > >
> > > 20.7 Murray,Ronald Sea
> > > 14.8 Arroyo,Carlos Uta
> > > 13.9 Cardinal,Brian GS (Was)
> > > 12.1 Baker,Vin Bos
> > > 11.9 Ginobili,Emanuel SA
> > > 11.5 Foster,Jeff Ind
> > > 11.0 Davis,Baron NO
> > > 10.2 Randolph,Zach Por
> ...
> > >
> > > The number is just my rating from this year, minus last year's.
> > >
• ... minutes ... games? I d call them equal, in the scale that purports to measure how productive they are. Productivity , as I use the term, implies
Message 2 of 5 , Dec 3, 2003
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "wimpds" <wimpds@y...> wrote:
> If a team has played 20 games how does a guy who's played 360
minutes
> in 10 games compare to a guy who's played 720 minutes in 20
games?

I'd call them equal, in the scale that purports to measure
how "productive" they are.

"Productivity", as I use the term, implies production on a per-
minute basis, within a scoring/rebounding milieu.

"Production", on the other hand is what I'd use to predict/suggest
an MVP, an all-league player, and it's very minutes-dependant.

After I've got my "standardized" (relative to arbitrary standards,
like 100 pts, 44 rebounds, per game) rates for a player, I often
multiply by minutes to get their "equivalent production". It's kind
of like reconstituting dried food.

That number is really just their raw totals, adjusted for the
relative abundance of pts and reb.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.