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

Kirilenko

Expand Messages
  • rose7654
    Just ran across this below and got to wondering whether a player that makes some contributions in all categories is more valuable to his team (both on a long
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Just ran across this below and got to wondering whether a player that
      makes some contributions in all categories is more valuable to his
      team (both on a long term and on a game-by-game basis) than a player
      that completely dominates one or two categories--ie would the Jazz
      have been better served if Kirilenko put up 30 pts and 15 boards and
      nothing else?

      + + +
      According to the Elias Sports Bureau, Andrei Kirilenko's ''5x5'' from
      Wednesday was a rare feat only matched twice in the last 10 years.
      Triple-doubles get all the pub, but a 5x5 (at least five each of
      points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks in one game), has only
      been managed by Vlade Divac (1995) and Jamaal Tinsley (2001) during
      the past decade. Wednesday, Kirilenko had 19 points, five boards,
      seven assists, eight steals, and five blocks. It's easy to see why he
      has the fifth-best Efficiency rating in the league.
    • Mikey Stewart
      Of course, it depends on how he gets those 30 points. PPG is, a priori, not a very useful number. It makes more sense as a number to analyze when you break
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Of course, it depends on how he gets those 30 points. PPG is, a priori,
        not a very useful number. It makes more sense as a number to analyze when
        you break it down (FG%, # of 3s, FTA, and FT%). Points per shot attempt
        is something that should always be recorded (or at least considered) with
        ppg. In Kirilenko's case for Wednesday's game, he certainly shot very
        efficiently (as he has his entire career). But a guy like Allen Iverson
        can often have a night where he has 30 points on very poor shooting.

        5x5 is fun as a novelty concept, but the fact that the only two other
        players to do it are Divac and Tinsley is pretty damning. It says nothing
        about how well a player shot, how many turnovers and fouls he had, etc. I
        have the same problem with the triple-double; frequently Jason Kidd will
        have a triple double in which he shoots 4-15, and the media will blame his
        teammates for the loss. I remember noticing on Wednesday that Kirilenko
        had a great game, but not because he filled up the entire box score.

        I'd like to see the triple-double (and the mythical 5x5, for that matter)
        replaced by something that measures points, rebounds, and assists in terms
        that really help the team. That is, the player might have to have a
        certain number of points with a certain efficiency, and assists would have
        to be balanced with comparatively few turnovers (I've seen way too many
        triple doubles where the player had 10 assists and 8 turnovers...how can
        he be said to have passed well?). This would probably be way too
        sophisticated for most in the mainstream media, though...

        Mikey


        On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, rose7654 wrote:

        > Just ran across this below and got to wondering whether a player that
        > makes some contributions in all categories is more valuable to his
        > team (both on a long term and on a game-by-game basis) than a player
        > that completely dominates one or two categories--ie would the Jazz
        > have been better served if Kirilenko put up 30 pts and 15 boards and
        > nothing else?
        >
        > + + +
        > According to the Elias Sports Bureau, Andrei Kirilenko's ''5x5'' from
        > Wednesday was a rare feat only matched twice in the last 10 years.
        > Triple-doubles get all the pub, but a 5x5 (at least five each of
        > points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks in one game), has only
        > been managed by Vlade Divac (1995) and Jamaal Tinsley (2001) during
        > the past decade. Wednesday, Kirilenko had 19 points, five boards,
        > seven assists, eight steals, and five blocks. It's easy to see why he
        > has the fifth-best Efficiency rating in the league.
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > ADVERTISEMENT
        > click here
        > [rand=525561855]
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        >
      • Dean Oliver
        ... General agreement with statements about usefulness (or lack thereof) of pop stats like triple-double. I don t know if I d phrase it as harshly. Most
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Stewart <mlstewar@f...> wrote:

          General agreement with statements about usefulness (or lack thereof)
          of pop stats like triple-double. I don't know if I'd phrase it as
          harshly. Most people really don't care about being precisely
          accurate, so if a triple double usually is a good indicator of a good
          game, it's ok to use it that way. It's a good idea for commentators
          to point out when it did take 30 shots to get those 20 pts and 8
          turnovers to get those 10 assists, but it ain't a big deal. In this
          case, Kirilenko is clearly a good player and has been the last couple
          years.

          > I'd like to see the triple-double (and the mythical 5x5, for that
          matter)
          > replaced by something that measures points, rebounds, and assists in
          terms
          > that really help the team. That is, the player might have to have a
          > certain number of points with a certain efficiency, and assists
          would have
          > to be balanced with comparatively few turnovers (I've seen way too many
          > triple doubles where the player had 10 assists and 8 turnovers...how can
          > he be said to have passed well?). This would probably be way too
          > sophisticated for most in the mainstream media, though...

          One thing that has impressed me is the media's use of OPS in baseball.
          Now there is a complicated concept for traditional media to use. It
          even involves addition! Seriously, it really is more about acceptance
          of a scale (OPS of over 1.0 is very good, for example) and acceptance
          that a number is something real -- not an arbitrary mix of numbers.
          Quarterback rating being a prominent exception. I do think the media
          could end up using TENDEX or PER or Floor % or Offensive and Defensive
          Ratings in a couple years. They would occasionally write op-ed pieces
          about the crazy people who thought them up and how no one actually
          understands these things. My hope has always been to get the stuff
          used by management and coaches -- and I'm getting there. Once it's
          there, they will use the terms and the media will have to understand
          it, too. Occasionally, I do hear Billy Packer or a couple other local
          commentators use points per possession, so I have some hope for quick
          acceptance...

          DeanO


          >
          >
          > On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, rose7654 wrote:
          >
          > > Just ran across this below and got to wondering whether a player that
          > > makes some contributions in all categories is more valuable to his
          > > team (both on a long term and on a game-by-game basis) than a player
          > > that completely dominates one or two categories--ie would the Jazz
          > > have been better served if Kirilenko put up 30 pts and 15 boards and
          > > nothing else?
          > >
          > > + + +
          > > According to the Elias Sports Bureau, Andrei Kirilenko's ''5x5'' from
          > > Wednesday was a rare feat only matched twice in the last 10 years.
          > > Triple-doubles get all the pub, but a 5x5 (at least five each of
          > > points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks in one game), has only
          > > been managed by Vlade Divac (1995) and Jamaal Tinsley (2001) during
          > > the past decade. Wednesday, Kirilenko had 19 points, five boards,
          > > seven assists, eight steals, and five blocks. It's easy to see why he
          > > has the fifth-best Efficiency rating in the league.
          > >
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > > ADVERTISEMENT
          > > click here
          > > [rand=525561855]
          > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          > >
        • Gary Collard
          ... At the start of the Min-Sac game last night, the play by play guy (Breen?) said that the Kings lead the NBA in offensive efficiency. I m not sure if he
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Dean Oliver wrote:
            >
            > One thing that has impressed me is the media's use of OPS in baseball.
            > Now there is a complicated concept for traditional media to use. It
            > even involves addition! Seriously, it really is more about acceptance
            > of a scale (OPS of over 1.0 is very good, for example) and acceptance
            > that a number is something real -- not an arbitrary mix of numbers.
            > Quarterback rating being a prominent exception. I do think the media
            > could end up using TENDEX or PER or Floor % or Offensive and Defensive
            > Ratings in a couple years.

            At the start of the Min-Sac game last night, the play by play guy (Breen?)
            said that the Kings lead the NBA in offensive efficiency. I'm not sure if
            he was talking about Offensive Rating, Eff FG%, or maybe just PPG or FG%.
            Whatever he meant, it was good to hear the phrase escape from the lips of
            an announcer. He does quite knowledgeable in his game call fwiw, so maybe
            there is a light on in there.

            --
            Gary Collard
            SABR-L Moderator
            gmcollard@...

            14 year old Freddy Adu signed a 6 year contract to play soccer for
            D.C. United, and ESPN's Tommy Smith predicted that "he can take the
            game in the [US] to the next level," I presume, pulling it even with
            professional bowling.
            -- T.J. Simers
          • Kevin Pelton
            ... I would maybe call them fun stats , because while they don t have much analytical value, they re fun/interesting to look at and add to our enjoyment of
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 6, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
              wrote:
              > General agreement with statements about usefulness (or lack
              > thereof) of pop stats like triple-double. I don't know if I'd
              > phrase it as harshly. Most people really don't care about being
              > precisely accurate, so if a triple double usually is a good
              > indicator of a good game, it's ok to use it that way.

              I would maybe call them "fun stats", because while they don't have
              much analytical value, they're fun/interesting to look at and add to
              our enjoyment of the game. If they don't actively detract from
              analysis -- and I don't think triple-doubles or 50-point games do,
              though "categories" like 20-10 players and guys averaging double-
              doubles can -- then I think they're a good thing.

              Plus junk stats are quite useful when I'm doing postgame notes. How
              many times do you think I've used DeanO's stuff for that?

              > One thing that has impressed me is the media's use of OPS in
              > baseball. Now there is a complicated concept for traditional media
              > to use. It even involves addition! Seriously, it really is more
              > about acceptance of a scale (OPS of over 1.0 is very good, for
              > example) and acceptance that a number is something real -- not an
              > arbitrary mix of numbers. Quarterback rating being a prominent
              > exception. I do think the media could end up using TENDEX or PER
              > or Floor % or Offensive and Defensive Ratings in a couple years.

              Does anyone know when stat types started using OPS? It predates my
              interest in baseball statistics, but it seems like it caught on
              fairly quickly.

              I think TENDEX -- or at least "NBA.com's exclusive efficiency
              rating" -- does have a pretty good chance of catching on. In its
              simple, non-pace form, it's extremely simple to understand, and the
              league itself tracking it has legitimized it for use by the general
              media. (Thus, when I want to get statistical in my work for the
              Sonics and Storm, I always turn to it.) I also tend to think that
              Lauren Jackson leading the league in efficiency per game and per-
              minute, as well as overall, had something to do with her winning
              WNBA MVP despite playing for a non-playoff team (and I made sure to
              emphasize these facts on the LJ for MVP site).
            • John Hollinger
              I heard Breem say that too and nearly fell out of my chair. Definitely a good sign. ... baseball. ... It ... acceptance ... acceptance ... numbers. ... media
              Message 6 of 12 , Dec 6, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                I heard Breem say that too and nearly fell out of my chair.
                Definitely a good sign.



                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <gmcollard@e...>
                wrote:
                > Dean Oliver wrote:
                > >
                > > One thing that has impressed me is the media's use of OPS in
                baseball.
                > > Now there is a complicated concept for traditional media to use.
                It
                > > even involves addition! Seriously, it really is more about
                acceptance
                > > of a scale (OPS of over 1.0 is very good, for example) and
                acceptance
                > > that a number is something real -- not an arbitrary mix of
                numbers.
                > > Quarterback rating being a prominent exception. I do think the
                media
                > > could end up using TENDEX or PER or Floor % or Offensive and
                Defensive
                > > Ratings in a couple years.
                >
                > At the start of the Min-Sac game last night, the play by play guy
                (Breen?)
                > said that the Kings lead the NBA in offensive efficiency. I'm not
                sure if
                > he was talking about Offensive Rating, Eff FG%, or maybe just PPG
                or FG%.
                > Whatever he meant, it was good to hear the phrase escape from the
                lips of
                > an announcer. He does quite knowledgeable in his game call fwiw,
                so maybe
                > there is a light on in there.
                >
                > --
                > Gary Collard
                > SABR-L Moderator
                > gmcollard@y...
                >
                > 14 year old Freddy Adu signed a 6 year contract to play soccer for
                > D.C. United, and ESPN's Tommy Smith predicted that "he can take the
                > game in the [US] to the next level," I presume, pulling it even with
                > professional bowling.
                > -- T.J. Simers
              • Mike G
                ... Am I the only one who doesn t know what OPS is ?
                Message 7 of 12 , Dec 8, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton"
                  <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > (..OPS of over 1.0 is very good,..

                  > Does anyone know when stat types started using OPS?

                  Am I the only one who doesn't know what "OPS" is ?
                • Dean Oliver
                  ... On base percentage plus slugging percentage. I think I only began seeing it in papers and on ESPN regularly this past season, so it s definitely excusable.
                  Message 8 of 12 , Dec 8, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                    > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton"
                    > <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                    > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
                    > > wrote:
                    > > > (..OPS of over 1.0 is very good,..
                    >
                    > > Does anyone know when stat types started using OPS?
                    >
                    > Am I the only one who doesn't know what "OPS" is ?

                    On base percentage plus slugging percentage.

                    I think I only began seeing it in papers and on ESPN regularly this
                    past season, so it's definitely excusable.
                  • Mike G
                    In this Age of Acronyms, we occasionally find these acronyms built from things other than single words: phrases, other acronyms. It s virtually impossible to
                    Message 9 of 12 , Dec 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In this Age of Acronyms, we occasionally find these acronyms built
                      from things other than single words: phrases, other acronyms.

                      It's virtually impossible to guess what they stand for.


                      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
                      wrote:
                      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                      > > Am I the only one who doesn't know what "OPS" is ?
                      >
                      > On base percentage plus slugging percentage.
                      >

                      If you added (R+RBI)/PA to this OPS, you'd have a useful number.
                    • igor eduardo küpfer
                      ... From: Mike G To: Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 11:30 AM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Kirilenko ...
                      Message 10 of 12 , Dec 8, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Mike G" <msg_53@...>
                        To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 11:30 AM
                        Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Kirilenko


                        > In this Age of Acronyms, we occasionally find these acronyms built
                        > from things other than single words: phrases, other acronyms.
                        >
                        > It's virtually impossible to guess what they stand for.
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
                        > wrote:
                        > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                        > > > Am I the only one who doesn't know what "OPS" is ?
                        > >
                        > > On base percentage plus slugging percentage.
                        > >
                        >
                        > If you added (R+RBI)/PA to this OPS, you'd have a useful number.
                        >

                        OPS actually works incredibly well, given its simplicity. Runs and RBIs are
                        generally disregarded by sabremetricians because they are team, not player,
                        stats, and as such, too context dependent to be much use.

                        A full exploration of the philosophical implications of OPS is given in
                        "Moneyball," which I urge everyone on this list to read. It is balm for the
                        stathead soul.

                        ed
                      • Charlie Board
                        ... Probably, but maybe not if the phrase offensive efficiency gets co-opted to some other measurement than the ones we use it for. Which I suspect is the
                        Message 11 of 12 , Dec 9, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
                          <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                          > I heard Breem say that too and nearly fell out of my chair.
                          > Definitely a good sign.

                          Probably, but maybe not if the phrase "offensive efficiency"
                          gets co-opted to some other measurement than the ones we
                          use it for. Which I suspect is the case here since Ed's page
                          shows Minnesota towards the middle-of-the-pack in offensive
                          efficiency
                          ( http://members.rogers.com/strudel/deleteable/NBA03-04.htm )

                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <gmcollard@e...>
                          > wrote:
                          > > At the start of the Min-Sac game last night, the play by play guy
                          > (Breen?)
                          > > said that the Kings lead the NBA in offensive efficiency. I'm not
                          > sure if
                          > > he was talking about Offensive Rating, Eff FG%, or maybe just PPG
                          > or FG%.
                          > > Whatever he meant, it was good to hear the phrase escape from the
                          > lips of
                          > > an announcer. He does quite knowledgeable in his game call fwiw,
                          > so maybe
                          > > there is a light on in there.
                        • Charlie Board
                          ... Oops, he said the Kings. Nevermiinnnddd....
                          Message 12 of 12 , Dec 9, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Board" <cboard@t...> wrote:
                            > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
                            > <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                            > > I heard Breem say that too and nearly fell out of my chair.
                            > > Definitely a good sign.
                            >
                            > Probably, but maybe not if the phrase "offensive efficiency"
                            > gets co-opted to some other measurement than the ones we
                            > use it for. Which I suspect is the case here since Ed's page
                            > shows Minnesota towards the middle-of-the-pack in offensive
                            > efficiency
                            > ( http://members.rogers.com/strudel/deleteable/NBA03-04.htm )
                            >

                            Oops, he said the Kings. Nevermiinnnddd....

                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Gary Collard <gmcollard@e...>
                            > > wrote:
                            > > > At the start of the Min-Sac game last night, the play by play guy
                            > > (Breen?)
                            > > > said that the Kings lead the NBA in offensive efficiency. I'm not
                            > > sure if
                            > > > he was talking about Offensive Rating, Eff FG%, or maybe just PPG
                            > > or FG%.
                            > > > Whatever he meant, it was good to hear the phrase escape from the
                            > > lips of
                            > > > an announcer. He does quite knowledgeable in his game call fwiw,
                            > > so maybe
                            > > > there is a light on in there.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.