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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Kirilenko

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.