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

Tendex rebuttal

Expand Messages
  • bchaikin@aol.com
    ... has nothing it can be compared to in order to say its realistic. it is only a rating.... ... to measure... i find it funny that i am defending the Tendex
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment

      >tendex is simple, but may not be realisitc. whatever realistic is. Tendex has nothing >it can be compared to in order to say its realistic. it is only a rating....

      >there is no real way to fix Tendex because no one knows what it is supposed to >measure...

      i find it funny that i am defending the Tendex rating, as i've never considered it a good way to rate a player's overall ability, but the bottom line is that it is indeed a measure of production (i'll define what i call production in a minute).....

      >adjustment for game pace is essential...

      i wholeheartedly agree, Tendex should be adjusted for game pace if you want to use it as a "serious" tool of comparison. but as a quick number for rating players for production, even without game pace its still an excellent tool. even better would be to adjust for game pace and use linear weights year to year, but my initial point was it being a "simple" tool for anyone to use for player comparison....

      >Tendex, i agree...if taken in its usual form, what the hell is it trying to quantify? if >you want to say "activity", i'll buy it, but anything else like "production" seems >shaky..... moreover, combining offensive and defensive stats is just weird. its like >combining home runs and putouts into a single formula and thinking you're onto >something....

      if you are looking for a "one number" rating for players, which is what Tendex tries to do using readily available statistics, combining offensive and defensive stats is exactly what you want to do, because of the simple fact that the game is half offense and half defense - and don't you want to include as much information as you possibly can in evaluating talent? why is this weird?...

      comparing joe dimaggio and ted williams for a number of years was the major pastime of i'm sure thousands of baseball fans in the middle part of this past century, and the bottom line was that while both were superb hitters, and each had his strengths as a hitter (dimaggio more RBI per PA, less KOs, williams slightly more power, much better OB%), williams was at best an average outfielder defensively and dimaggio was considered not only the best defensive outfielder of his time but one of the all time best. that tells me he was the better player, without question...

      what does Tendex quantify? "production", or "positive activity" if you want to call it that. to win games in the NBA you have to outscore your opponent, but not all five teammates on the floor trying to score is going to do that for you. you need to shoot a high FG%, pass well to shoot a high FG%, get off rebounds, etc. and play defense to prevent the opposition from doing the same (by playing defense - forcing missed shots, getting def rebounds, preventing them from scoring in any way possible)...

      >it (Tendex) reflects not points scored nor allowed. if it reflects production, no one >knows how to ground truth it. Tendex and the like are just numerical values reflecting >approximate ratings...

      on the contrary, it does indeed reflect true points scored and tries - using readily available individual players statistics - to reflect points allowed. Tendex does indeed reflect the (available) quantifiable things you need to do to score and to stop the opposition from scoring (ST, BS, PF unfortunately are the only available defensive stats available, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use them just because we don't have forced missed shot data and forced turnover data). it takes into account points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, missed shots, missed free throws, fouls committed, and turnovers. what is approximate about these numbers? these are the real numbers - real single events that occur in a game and are quantified....

      what is scoring average? its a real number (points scored) divided by a real number (games played). Tendex is the same thing - the only question in people's minds being in reality what is it quantifying since it incorporates so much into one number - people aren't used to that...but it is indeed a real number reflecting real statistics...there's nothing approximate in this...and as for grounding truth into it, these are true numbers of real events occurring, making the Tendex number a "true" indicator of the stats measured. think about it - its simply looking at all of the available data and quantifying it on a per minute basis (or per game basis)...

      most baseball fans into the stats realize that batting average alone is not a good indicator of a player's ability - because it doesn't include times on base or total bases or isolated power. its only H/AB. they now look at OB%, SL%, TB/PA, ISO, etc because these numbers tell you more about overall what a player is doing. but the player with the best batting average is still crowned every season as having achieved a significant accomplishment.... i don't see any baseball player crowned annually for the most (TB+W)/PA, which i think is far more valuable than BA...

      what do singles and doubles and triple and walks and HBP have to do with scoring runs - the most important thing in baseball as runs win games? the exact same thing that rebounds, assists, and passing have to do with scoring points in basketball. they are all - inclusive - part of the process of scoring runs/points. most of the time you can't score runs in baseball until you get men on base, and most of the time you can't score in basketball without passing, rebounding, etc. the occasional home run can be analogous to a player in basketball getting the ball from out of bounds dribbling downcourt and shooting and scoring. but most times scoring (and preventing your opponent from scoring) is a process incorporating all of the available stats...

      now if you could also evaluate a baseball player's defensive abilities into scoring runs and/or preventing runs from being scored in baseball at the same time, that'd be even better for player evaluation. this is what Tendex tries to do for basketball...

      in baseball the botton line is scoring runs and preventing runs from being scored - nothing else. same for basketball - scoring and stopping your opponent from scoring. to evaluate a player properly you need to include everything you can that encompasses doing these...

      >assigning everything the NBA statisticians track with equal value because its >simple makes it almost useless as an analytical tool...

      "..useless as an analytical tool..."?? the stats don't have equal value because its simple, nor because NBA statisticains keep track of them. they have an approximate equal value as that is inherent in the game of basketball. a TO and ST have opposite values, one loses possession of the ball and one gains it. a missed FG is the same as a TO as you lose possession of the ball. if you get the ball back with an OFF REB you are gaining possession of the ball. if you get the ball with a DEF REB that is a new possession. a BS is the same as a missed FG. a missed FT is definitely a missed opportunity for one point, and i've already discussed how each PF is on average giving the opposition one point...

      without going into all the details of calculating team possessions i can prove to you that since 1977-78 the value of a ball possession on average is equal to approximately one point. again this is all inherent in the game of NBA basketball...

      >I have to differ with this view. a possession is worth, on average, one point. a >possession when fouled is worth one point. so fouling your opponent, on average, >does not increase his odds of scoring. the average points per possession are equal. >a foul is a neutral act...

      your logic here is confused. one of the reasons the average points per possession is approximately one point is partly the fact that each PF leads to, on average, a point being scored. take away all fouling and the average points per possession is much less than one...

      if the league average FG% was 70% and not 50%, then yes it would be advantageous to foul more often. if the league average FG% was 30% you'd be crazy to foul alot. but the league average FG% is near 50% and each shot is worth 2 points (leaving out 3 pointers for now), so each shot taken results in - on average - one point. but while half of the shots result in two points being scored, the other half result in NO points scored. and the key to winning is to prevent the opposition from scoring. fouling eventually puts the opposition at the free throw line where you cannot stop then from scoring with defense. fouls result in - on average - one point being scored for the opposition, and more fouling results in the bonus situation and can cost your team on average MORE than one point per foul on average in a game....

      thus your statement of "...fouling your opponent on average does not increase his odds of scoring..." is at face value true, but more fouling results in more FTA in the bonus situation, and thus that average of one point per foul increases drastically...

      >Antawn Jamison is another with a high Tendex rating (and now a high salary)...

      jamison did not get a high salary because he had a high tendex - there is no corrolation here. jamison's best Tendex rating was .435 per minute, not a high tendex at all. he may have gotten a high contract because he scored 25 pts/g last year and played 41 min/g, but certainly not because of anything to do with his Tendex rating..

      >people get burned a lot for relying on tendex, of course. vin baker was never worth what seattle paid him, yet his Tendex was quite high...

      on the contrary - from 94-95 to 96-97, Baker played all but four games, played over 40 min/g, and scored 20 pts/g with 10 reb/g. yet his Tendex for that period was just .464 per minute. he may have gotten a high contract because he rarely missed a game during those 3 years and played major minutes and was a 20/10 man, but not because of his .464 per minute Tendex. the league average Tendex in the 1990s was just .373 per minute. baker's mark wasn't a ton better, and it certainly wasn't high. on the contrary, the average Tendex rating for all players in the 1990s that averaged 38 min/g or better was .494 per minute - his was worse. so he didn't get a big contract because of his tendex rating...

      as for david robinson, there is no question at all that he is one of the NBA's top 50 players. anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't understand the numbers - his number are better than great, they are superb. if a player never plays for a title team does that mean he's not great? what sense does that make? did tony gwynn ever play for a championship team - or any Red Sox great player for that fact over the past 50 years?

      >once he got a supporting cast, that cast was duncan and who supported who?

      in the spurs championship season of 98-99, duncan and robinson were of comparable equal value, tendex of .569 for duncan and .595 for robinson. duncan scored more than the admiral and played more minutes, but per minute robinson was the better rebounder, shot blocker, passer, although both had really good numbers...

      >how has the admiral performed in the playoffs relative to the regular season?...

      robinson's regular season Tendex over 845 games is an amazing .721 per minute, his playoff figures 96 games and an excellent .608 tendex. for comparison:

                                 G           Tendex         Ply G         Tendex
      robinson              845          .721               96            .608
      jordan                 930           .728              179           .668
      bird                     897           .709              164           .634
      magic                 906            .732             190            .696
      duncan               288            .603              39             .574
      o'neal                 608            .710              105            .644

      now considering that jordan, magic, and bird are considered by most the 3 greatest players in the NBA game over the past 20-25 years (if not all time), and robinson's numbers are right up there with them, not quite as good but very very very close, i think that says something for the admiral. he has one title and o'neal has two, and o'neal didn't get his until he went to the lakers and kobe got really good. also robinson didn't get a title until his 10th year in the league. for comparison o'neal didn't get a title until his 8th year in the league, and jordan not until his 7th. i don't see a big difference there. magic got his titles early and often, but i think most will agree he had one hell of a supporting cast...

      how many people in this APBR group would have called jordan a loser if he had mysteriously disappeared after the 89-90 season? retired and taken up golf then? up until then he had averaged 33 pts/g with a whopping Tendex of .765 per minute, but had won zilch. i vividly remember many sportcasters saying how he was simply a one man team that couldn't win big, and look what he did with a supporting cast - horace grant, who many say was a great defender, scottie pippen, who many say was a great playmaker and defender (and i think was named in the top 50 players, no?), and dennis rodman, who i say was possibly the greatest 2 tiered player (rebounding/defense) in the game in the past 20 years and who many say makes a better woman. i also remember many many experts saying how o'neal would never win, despite his incredible talent, because he couldn't hit his free throws - aka wilt chamberlain...

      robinson's teams W-L % in his career is better than 99% of the all the players who have played in the league, and he has at least one chamionship. his only sin was being old by the time a team he was on got another bonafide great player. jordan had two...

      and in this last playoffs of 2000-01 his tendex rating of .626 was only slightly lower than o'neal's .695, yet he scored only 14 pts/g while o'neal got 30 pts/g. his rebounding, steals, and shot blocking were all better than o'neal on a per minute basis. i don't have the box scores for the lakers-spurs series so i can't say what they did head to head, but for an old fart i think robinson deserves all the kudos he can get. here's a guy playing in his 13th season and still with a per minute Tendex over .600...

      >finally, i think some stuff is double counted. tendex wants to give shaq credit for off >rebs and points scored as if they were separate events, but in reality shaq rewards >himself by taking those off rebs and jamming them in the hoop or getting fouled...

      last time i checked the name of the game was to score, and most coaches know to do that you must dominate the boards. why should the fact that o'neal can do both - at the same time as you say - penalize him? everytime he gets an off reb means the opposition did not get a def reb, and everytime he scores means the opposition did not stop him. on top of that since shaq knows he's not a good free throw shooter he realizes his best way to score is to get the off reb himself and score right away without putting the ball back on the floor - and getting fouled in the process. i think he should get extra credit for that smart thinking. how many players get a rebound, bring the ball back down, and either lose the ball on the dribble or get fouled before going back up with it? kudos for shaq for doing this - it only helps his team...

      as for allen iverson, i agree that he was not the league MVP last season - not even close. he gave a defensive minded team exactly what it needed - scoring (but not good shooting). the entire frontcourt of the 76ers - ratliff, mutombo, lynch, hill - had very low possession factors (all handled the ball on offense very rarely) and thus over the entire season the backcourt (2 players) took as many shots as the frontcourt (3 players)...

      compare iverson with michael jordan. both have similar possession factors - average of 1.5 ball possessions per minute, play about the same amount of minutes per game, and score 30 pts/g. but jordan's best season Tendex is almost twice - thats twice - iverson's, because while iverson turns the ball over less, his far many more FG misses are like many more turnovers, and his lack of rebounding or shot blocking skills bring the rating down. he is a scorer, plain and simple - very valuable to a team that needs scoring - but not anywhere near the most valuable player in the league...

      bob chaikin
      bchaikin@...








      bob chaikin
      bchaikin@...




















































































    • Michael K. Tamada
      On Sat, 3 Nov 2001 bchaikin@aol.com wrote: [...] ... I m getting off topic here but I don t think that s a view that most people, in particular most baseball
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, 3 Nov 2001 bchaikin@... wrote:

        [...]

        > williams slightly more power, much better OB%), williams was at best an
        > average outfielder defensively and dimaggio was considered not only the best
        > defensive outfielder of his time but one of the all time best. that tells me
        > he was the better player, without question...

        I'm getting off topic here but I don't think that's a view that most
        people, in particular most baseball analysts, have. Dimaggio had better
        defense, no question. But the Splendid Splinter was the greatest hitter
        who ever lived and who wasn't named Babe Ruth. His offense was way way
        better than Dimaggio's, more than could be made up for by an occasional
        great catch or throw.

        I do agree with your point about the inherent usefulness of combining
        offensive and defensive attributes (assuming that good measures of defense
        can be found, which is rare).

        > . a TO and ST have opposite values, one loses possession of the ball and one

        Basically true. Although I have a suspicion that ST's lead to more
        fastbreaks and more points than ordinary TO's. The stats that Dean O and
        others have been talking about collecting could solve this once and for
        all. But it's clearly a good approximation to say that a ST = -TO.

        > gains it. a missed FG is the same as a TO as you lose possession of the ball.

        This one however is clearly false. A TO means that you've lost posession,
        period. And you're correct that that costs your team about 1 point in
        expected value.

        But a missed FG is not as bad as a TO. Because your team still has a
        chance to retain posession, by getting an OR. This is only about a 1/3
        chance (less than that in recent years), but it's still a chance. The
        other team doesn't have posession yet (unlike the case with a TO). So the
        missed FG has a value of -2/3 (a bit more in recent years), not -1.

        > if you get the ball back with an OFF REB you are gaining possession of the

        Yep, the OR cancels the missed FG, so you're back where you started (*),
        so the OR has a value of about +2/3 (a bit more in recent years).

        (*) Actually, you're probably better off than you were before, because
        your chance of scoring directly after grabbing an OR is probably higher
        than your chance of scoring on an ordinary possession. How much better
        off -- that's where we need the more detailed stats.

        > ball. if you get the ball with a DEF REB that is a new possession. a BS is

        Well the DR is only part of the story. The main part was getting the
        opponent to miss the shot, that was -2/3 for him (or +2/3 for you).
        Grabbing the defensive rebound finishes the defensive play, but therefore
        that's only a +1/3 for you.

        Summarizing: if creating a turnover has a value of +1, which is indeed a
        good approximation, then the combination of causing a missed FGA, and then
        grabbing the DR, must have the same value, because they lead to
        equivalent results: gain of possession. So the causing the missed FGA
        and grabbing the DR, combined, have a value of +1. And most of the credit
        goes to the missed FG.

        > the same as a missed FG. a missed FT is definitely a missed opportunity for

        Treating a BS the same as a missed FG may be a decent approximation, but
        they are not the same event. The most important difference of course is
        that box scores give credit to players who block shots. They do not give
        credit to players who forced their opponent to miss a FG (granted, there
        is the question of how much credit they should get, maybe they opponent
        missed the shot on his own accord, even FT shooters will do this 30% of
        the time).

        But the other important difference is that players who block a lot of
        shots are usually creating intimidation or altering other shots, and these
        will not show up in the box score. So it probably is proper to give the
        shot blocker some extra credit, beyond the credit given for forcing a
        missed shot.

        On the other hand, to give no credit at all for the missed shots might be
        going too far. Again this is where Dean O's defensive box scores may
        improve things.

        [...]

        > prove to you that since 1977-78 the value of a ball possession on average is
        > equal to approximately one point. again this is all inherent in the game of
        > NBA basketball...

        The 1 point approximation is indeed a good one. However it is not
        "inherent", it's due to the approximate 1-point-per-possession scoring
        rate that the NBA has. Back in the 1940s and 1950s, the scoring rate was
        a lot lower, and possessions were worth a lot less than 1 point. So it's
        not inherent, it's just a coincidence that possession happens to be worth
        about a point. Due to teams' FG%, 3pt FG%, FT%, and TO% leading to about
        a point per possession.

        > if the league average FG% was 70% and not 50%, then yes it would be

        [...]

        > with defense. fouls result in - on average - one point being scored for the
        > opposition, and more fouling results in the bonus situation and can cost your
        > team on average MORE than one point per foul on average in a game....
        >
        > thus your statement of "...fouling your opponent on average does not increase
        > his odds of scoring..." is at face value true, but more fouling results in
        > more FTA in the bonus situation, and thus that average of one point per foul
        > increases drastically...

        Some of the reasoning here is sound -- PFs are indeed negatives, not
        neutral. And for pretty much the reason that you say: they either lead
        directly to FTs, with their high scoring opportunities (except for Shaq
        and Polynice), or they put the opponent closer to reaching those bonus
        opportunities.

        But even if you're already in the penalty, fouling a player and sending
        him to the line for two FTAs is not costing your team a point (or two
        points), not relative to where your team was already.

        Remember, possession is worth about a point. Because (to state it
        oversimplistically) teams which have the ball usually end up shooting a
        shot with about a 50% chance of going in.

        If you foul a 70% shooter and send him to the line, he'll probably come
        away with 1.4 points.

        Definitely not a good thing for your team. But hey, the other team on
        average was going to score 1 point ANYWAY. If you hadn't fouled the guy,
        he or one of his teammates would likely have put up a shot with a 50%
        chance of going in.

        So your foul has only cost your team .4 points. Yes, you truly gave up
        1.4 points, but your team was, on average, going to give up 1 point
        anyway.

        And that .4 figure is only for teams in the bonus. Most fouls occur in
        non-penalty situations ... of course they do hurt your team by putting it
        closer to the penalty situation. And of course there's three-point plays
        and four-point plays. And offensive fouls are TOs, with their associated
        1 point cost. But combining them all, the average foul is worth well
        under 1 point, under .4 points for that matter.


        > robinson's regular season Tendex over 845 games is an amazing .721 per
        > minute, his playoff figures 96 games and an excellent .608 tendex. for
        > comparison:
        >
        > G Tendex Ply G Tendex
        > robinson 845 .721 96 .608
        > jordan 930 .728 179 .668
        > bird 897 .709 164 .634
        > magic 906 .732 190 .696
        > duncan 288 .603 39 .574
        > o'neal 608 .710 105 .644
        >
        > now considering that jordan, magic, and bird are considered by most the 3
        > greatest players in the NBA game over the past 20-25 years (if not all time),
        > and robinson's numbers are right up there with them, not quite as good but
        > very very very close, i think that says something for the admiral. he has one

        Well the other aspect of these numbers is that the Admiral is right up
        there with BAM (Bird-Air-Magic) in the regular season, but appreciably
        behind them in the playoffs. None of the players that you list show such
        a big dropoff in the playoffs. (We expect some dropoff, as Mike G has
        repeatedly shown, but not such a big dropoff.)

        I'm still not quite sure what to make of the Admiral. I do agree with you
        that he's Top 50 all time, easy. But whereas his regular season Tendex
        says he's right up there with BAM, I and I think most observers would
        agree that his true rating is a step below BAM. So that regular season
        Tendex is leaving something out ... like perhaps his playoff stats.

        > >finally, i think some stuff is double counted. tendex wants to give shaq
        > credit for off >rebs and points scored as if they were separate events, but
        > in reality shaq rewards >himself by taking those off rebs and jamming them in
        > the hoop or getting fouled...

        Double counting can be good, if we're aware when we're doing it. Your
        remarks about counting all the components which lead to scoring (or which
        prevent the opponent from scoring) are good. Another analogy is if we're
        looking at baseball, if we start counting runs scored by individual
        players, then it does make sense to count their RBIs as well, even though
        we know that the resulting sum will be almost twice as large as the actual
        number of runs scored.

        One area where Tendex's double counting is bad (but unavoidable with
        current statistics) is that it gives 2 points for a FG, and then also
        gives a point to the assist guy, if any. So an unassisted FG only
        generates 2 points in Tendex, whereas an assisted generates 3 points.

        All FGs are worth 2 points (i.e. +1 compared to the value of a possession)
        and it is silly to make some of them worth 3 points (in Tendex) and others
        worth only 2.

        This is an example where double-counting does lead to problems. The
        unassisted FG should be worth 2 points (+1 compared to possession). The
        assisted FG should also be worth +1 therefore. To be split between the
        assist guy and the scoring guy. How much credit the assist guy should get
        is a very interesting question, one which I think rates with Dean O's list
        of conceptual questions. And one which could be answered if we had truly
        good box scores which recorded assisted FGs, unassisted FGs, and ALSO FG
        misses which would've generated an assist, and FG misses which were
        unassisted. Then we could compare the relative FG%s, and see how much the
        presence of the assist guy raises teams' FG%.

        > as for allen iverson, i agree that he was not the league MVP last season -
        > not even close. he gave a defensive minded team exactly what it needed -

        Yup, this is why I give little credence to people who try to claim that
        Player M or Player D must have been great because they were chosen on the
        All-time Top 50 list. These lists contain mistakes, and the MVP list
        contains mistakes too, with Iverson in 2001 being merely one of the most
        obvious ones.



        --MKT
      • Dean Oliver
        ... like are ... tries - using ... allowed. My point is that you cannot check Tendex against points scored or points allowed or net points or winning. It just
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
          > >it (Tendex) reflects not points scored nor allowed. if it reflects
          > production, no one >knows how to ground truth it. Tendex and the
          like are
          > just numerical values reflecting >approximate ratings...
          >
          > on the contrary, it does indeed reflect true points scored and
          tries - using
          > readily available individual players statistics - to reflect points
          allowed.

          My point is that you cannot check Tendex against points scored or
          points allowed or net points or winning. It just can't be compared.
          It is only a rating, a sum of positive things, subtracting off the
          negative things. Weight them however you want to reflect what you
          think is important. People do that all the time. Teams do that and,
          yes, teams like Golden St. and Seattle did that when evaluating their
          personnel. Maybe their weights weren't so good. Maybe they didn't
          do it on a per minute basis. But I know for a fact that they use
          these things.


          > what do singles and doubles and triple and walks and HBP have to do
          with
          > scoring runs - the most important thing in baseball as runs win
          games? the
          > exact same thing that rebounds, assists, and passing have to do
          with scoring
          > points in basketball. they are all - inclusive - part of the
          process of
          > scoring runs/points. most of the time you can't score runs in
          baseball until
          > you get men on base, and most of the time you can't score in
          basketball
          > without passing, rebounding, etc. the occasional home run can be
          analogous to

          What I really liked about Bill James' Runs Created formula was that
          it worked out to estimate the total number of runs scored by a team.
          It correlated really high and its residual error was really low.
          Remarkable, I always thought, considering the random addition and
          division he has in it. No one has ever shown me a tendex-like
          formula in basketball that does the same. Even when you do, then
          I'll ask -- So what about defense?

          > now if you could also evaluate a baseball player's defensive
          abilities into
          > scoring runs and/or preventing runs from being scored in baseball
          at the same
          > time, that'd be even better for player evaluation. this is what
          Tendex tries
          > to do for basketball...

          "Better for player evaluation"? Actually, James really likes to keep
          his range factor, fielding average, putouts, assists, all separate
          from runs created. What JohnM pointed out for Williams-DiMaggio is a
          good example. For offense, there is total runs created. For
          defense, there is a _relative_ runs saved. DiMaggio saved 50+ runs.
          Williams hurt by about 30 runs. That means something to me. I still
          don't have a perfect idea of what average is, but I can overlook
          that. If you can get me an offensive Tendex that correlates well
          with points scored and a _relative_ defensive tendex that correlates
          well with teams' _relative_ defensive ability, I might to start to go
          to your dark side.

          > >Antawn Jamison is another with a high Tendex rating (and now a
          high
          > salary)...
          >
          > jamison did not get a high salary because he had a high tendex -
          there is no
          > corrolation here. jamison's best Tendex rating was .435 per minute,
          not a
          > high tendex at all.

          Uh, how is everyone calculating their Tendex? Doing it straight, no
          adjustment for pace, his was 0.502, by my calc.

          There was an article a few years ago in a Management journal that did
          a massive statistical analysis of playing time and duration in the
          league. It pretty much showed that minutes played was the best
          predictor of time in the league and that minutes played appeared to
          be best predicted by ... drum roll ... draft position. Not per
          minute statistics. They used something like Tendex in their
          evaluation of skill level. Not sure what it really meant for us
          here. Their point was that NBA teams can't overlook sunk costs.
          They keep throwing money at them. We hold on to this perception of
          high draft picks being good even after their "productivity" says
          otherwise. Olowokandi appears to be a good example of that. He is
          pretty horrible, no matter how you look at him statistically, but
          some of the NBA preview editions rank him pretty high...

          >
          > as for david robinson, there is no question at all that he is one
          of the
          > NBA's top 50 players. anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't
          understand
          > the numbers - his number are better than great, they are superb. if
          a player
          > never plays for a title team does that mean he's not great? what
          sense does
          > that make?

          For the record, I don't question Robinson's inclusion on the top 50
          at all. I do question a little bit his ability to compete in the
          playoffs, but I'd need to study it more to say that it's more an
          opinion.

          > was named in the top 50 players, no?), and dennis rodman, who i say
          was
          > possibly the greatest 2 tiered player (rebounding/defense) in the
          game in the
          > past 20 years and who many say makes a better woman.

          How many people say he makes a better woman and exactly why do they
          think that? I retract the question.

          > and in this last playoffs of 2000-01 his tendex rating of .626 was
          only
          > slightly lower than o'neal's .695, yet he scored only 14 pts/g
          while o'neal
          > got 30 pts/g. his rebounding, steals, and shot blocking were all
          better than
          > o'neal on a per minute basis. i don't have the box scores for the

          What really pissed me off about Robinson last year during that Laker
          series was that he deferred too much to Duncan. He passed up so many
          open shots that he really needed to take. He was not playing good
          basketball offensively. He did struggle a bit defending Shaq, but
          who doesn't.

          Every player needs to understand when they should pass and when they
          shouldn't. Good efficient players like Robinson can be a little more
          selfish. He was not doing that last year. He did shoot a bit more
          during the playoffs than in the regular season, but primarily because
          Derek Anderson went down with the injury.

          Regular Season:
          . Scor. Poss. Floor RTG Points Game-by-Game
          Player Poss. . Pct. . Prod. Win% Wins Losses
          O'Neal 1028 1762 0.583 112.6 1983 0.770 57 17
          DRob 555 999 0.555 111.9 1118 0.775 62 18

          . Defensive Stops Def. Net Net Net
          Player Total /Min /Poss Rtg. Win% W L
          O'Neal 705 0.241 0.622 97.8 0.910 14.9 1.5
          DRob 627 0.264 0.701 89.5 0.976 11.7 0.3

          Playoffs:
          . Scor. Poss. Floor RTG Points Game-by-Game
          Player Poss. . Pct. . Prod. Win% Wins Losses
          O'Neal 236 414 0.571 111.0 460 0.750 12 4
          DRob 106 200 0.528 105.2 211 0.769 10 3


          . Defensive Stops Def. Net Net Net
          Player Total /Min /Poss Rtg. Win% W L
          O'Neal 155 0.229 0.589 93.7 0.943 3.5 0.2
          DRob 121 0.296 0.780 89.6 0.933 2.1 0.2

          Similar players to Robinson's 2001 season:

          Player Team Season SimScore
          williams,hotrod cle 1990 915
          campbell,elden lal 1996 896
          williams,hotrod cle 1992 889
          kemp,shawn sea 1992 883
          smith,charles lac 1992 882
          Roundfield,Dan Atl 1979 881
          williams,hotrod cle 1994 880
          campbell,elden cha 2001 878
          smith,charles lac 1989 871
          gilliam,armon njn 1995 871
          Tyler,Terry Det 1979 870
          davis,antonio tor 2001 870
          smith,joe gsw 1996 869
          Campbell,Elden cha 2000 867
          camby,marcus tor 1997 865
          Smith,Elmore Cle 1978 865
          campbell,elden lal 1997 864
          seikaly,rony mia 1994 862
          campbell,elden lal 1994 861
          Roundfield,Dan Ind 1978 861

          Not the Kareem, Moses Malone, Ewing, KMalone type that he was most
          similar to back in the mid '90's.

          Dean Oliver
          Journal of Basketball Studies
        • Mike Goodman
          ... How about this: take players productivity ranking (I prefer my own). Take their minutes-per-game. Divide minutes by productivity. Players ranking high
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
            >No one has ever shown me a tendex-like
            > formula in basketball that does the same. Even when you do, then
            > I'll ask -- So what about defense?

            How about this: take players' productivity ranking (I prefer my
            own). Take their minutes-per-game. Divide minutes by productivity.
            Players ranking high in minutes and low in visible stats, must be
            doing those little, invisible things. Right?
            This is probably too simple, involving coaching quirks, management
            pressure, and such.

            I will get right on it.

            >.....If you can get me an offensive Tendex that correlates well
            > with points scored and a _relative_ defensive tendex that
            correlates
            > well with teams' _relative_ defensive ability, I might to start to
            go
            > to your dark side.

            The Dark Side has its perks.

            > >and dennis rodman, who i say
            > was
            > > possibly the greatest 2 tiered player (rebounding/defense) in the
            > game in the
            > > past 20 years and who many say makes a better woman.
            >
            > How many people say he makes a better woman and exactly why do they
            > think that? I retract the question.

            In an earlier Rodman go-round, I stated that he was a statistical
            freak, a freak of nature, and so ugly he actually looked better as a
            woman.
            I am undergoing counselling for my condition.
          • aussievamp2
            ... Tendex ... it is only ... This is a fairly new idea to me, and I have noticed that some people are saying it needs to be adjusted for game pace But if
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
              >
              > >tendex is simple, but may not be realisitc. whatever realistic is.
              Tendex
              > has nothing >it can be compared to in order to say its realistic.
              it is only
              > a rating....
              > opposition one point...


              This is a fairly new idea to me, and I have noticed that some people
              are saying it needs to be 'adjusted for game pace'

              But if you need this factor, can there be a 'gamepacedex'? e.g.
              what a player does to reflect on the pace of the game, using stats,
              so a number that shows addition or subtraction to the total points in
              a game?

              e.g. will a good point guard raise points in general, and a good
              centre lower them? (Mutombo being mentioned a couple of time as
              leaving a team and their total points scored in games going up) and
              what about other positions?
            • aussievamp2
              occur in ... putting it ... plays ... associated ... well ... Michael, you have your own weightings for a formula like this then?
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                occur in
                > non-penalty situations ... of course they do hurt your team by
                putting it
                > closer to the penalty situation. And of course there's three-point
                plays
                > and four-point plays. And offensive fouls are TOs, with their
                associated
                > 1 point cost. But combining them all, the average foul is worth
                well
                > under 1 point, under .4 points for that matter.
                >
                >


                Michael, you have your own weightings for a formula like this then?
              • dlirag
                ... A good defender, I reckon, will tend to lower the overall score if his type of defense doesn t provide any corresponding improvement to his team s offense.
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 16, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "aussievamp2" <rnmscott@b...> wrote:

                  > e.g. will a good point guard raise points in general, and a good
                  > centre lower them? (Mutombo being mentioned a couple of time as
                  > leaving a team and their total points scored in games going up) and
                  > what about other positions?

                  A good defender, I reckon, will tend to lower the overall score if
                  his type of defense doesn't provide any corresponding improvement to
                  his team's offense.
                • Michael K. Tamada
                  ... Also one could imagine that a team s optimal strategies might change after Mutombo leaves the team. Instead of wanting a slow, halfcourt game, the team
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 16, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, dlirag wrote:

                    > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "aussievamp2" <rnmscott@b...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > e.g. will a good point guard raise points in general, and a good
                    > > centre lower them? (Mutombo being mentioned a couple of time as
                    > > leaving a team and their total points scored in games going up) and
                    > > what about other positions?
                    >
                    > A good defender, I reckon, will tend to lower the overall score if
                    > his type of defense doesn't provide any corresponding improvement to
                    > his team's offense.

                    Also one could imagine that a team's optimal strategies might change after
                    Mutombo leaves the team. Instead of wanting a slow, halfcourt game, the
                    team might want to start unleashing its greyhounds.

                    Also, without Mutombo in there, the opponents may be scoring sooner,
                    meaning that Mutombo's former team is getting the ball back sooner, and
                    scoring more quickly than when he was in there and making the opponent use
                    up 22 seconds of the shot clock.


                    --MKT
                  • HoopStudies
                    ... if ... to ... There is a weak general dependence of pace on defense. Good defense has a slight tendency to also slow pace. It s not a guarantee by any
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 16, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > A good defender, I reckon, will tend to lower the overall score
                      if
                      > > his type of defense doesn't provide any corresponding improvement
                      to
                      > > his team's offense.
                      >

                      There is a weak general dependence of pace on defense. Good defense
                      has a slight tendency to also slow pace. It's not a guarantee by any
                      means. I've always felt that teams should run more with Mutombo in
                      the lineup to avoid having to pass him the ball in the halfcourt.

                      > Also one could imagine that a team's optimal strategies might
                      change after
                      > Mutombo leaves the team. Instead of wanting a slow, halfcourt
                      game, the
                      > team might want to start unleashing its greyhounds.
                      >

                      In contrast to the way the old Celtics did it with Russell. They ran
                      with the shot blocker in there.

                      How much of a player's performance is skill vs the strategy of his
                      coaching staff? It's particularly difficult to say with specialists
                      like Mutombo.

                      DeanO
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.