>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....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).....
>there is no real way to fix Tendex because no one knows what it is supposed to >measure...
>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...
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
> 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
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
> >it (Tendex) reflects not points scored nor allowed. if it reflectslike are
> production, no one >knows how to ground truth it. Tendex and the
> just numerical values reflecting >approximate ratings...tries - using
> on the contrary, it does indeed reflect true points scored and
> readily available individual players statistics - to reflect pointsallowed.
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
> what do singles and doubles and triple and walks and HBP have to dowith
> scoring runs - the most important thing in baseball as runs wingames? the
> exact same thing that rebounds, assists, and passing have to dowith scoring
> points in basketball. they are all - inclusive - part of theprocess of
> scoring runs/points. most of the time you can't score runs inbaseball until
> you get men on base, and most of the time you can't score inbasketball
> without passing, rebounding, etc. the occasional home run can beanalogous 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 defensiveabilities into
> scoring runs and/or preventing runs from being scored in baseballat the same
> time, that'd be even better for player evaluation. this is whatTendex 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 ahigh
> salary)...there is no
> jamison did not get a high salary because he had a high tendex -
> 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
> NBA's top 50 players. anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn'tunderstand
> the numbers - his number are better than great, they are superb. ifa player
> never plays for a title team does that mean he's not great? whatsense 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
> was named in the top 50 players, no?), and dennis rodman, who i saywas
> possibly the greatest 2 tiered player (rebounding/defense) in thegame 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 wasonly
> slightly lower than o'neal's .695, yet he scored only 14 pts/gwhile o'neal
> got 30 pts/g. his rebounding, steals, and shot blocking were allbetter than
> o'neal on a per minute basis. i don't have the box scores for theWhat 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
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.
. 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
. 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.
Journal of Basketball Studies
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@t...> wrote:
>No one has ever shown me a tendex-likeHow about this: take players' productivity ranking (I prefer my
> formula in basketball that does the same. Even when you do, then
> I'll ask -- So what about defense?
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 wellcorrelates
> with points scored and a _relative_ defensive tendex that
> well with teams' _relative_ defensive ability, I might to start togo
> to your dark side.The Dark Side has its perks.
> >and dennis rodman, who i sayIn an earlier Rodman go-round, I stated that he was a statistical
> > 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.
freak, a freak of nature, and so ugly he actually looked better as a
I am undergoing counselling for my condition.
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
> >tendex is simple, but may not be realisitc. whatever realistic is.
> has nothing >it can be compared to in order to say its realistic.it is only
> a rating....This is a fairly new idea to me, and I have noticed that some people
> opposition one point...
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
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?
- occur in
> non-penalty situations ... of course they do hurt your team byputting it
> closer to the penalty situation. And of course there's three-pointplays
> and four-point plays. And offensive fouls are TOs, with theirassociated
> 1 point cost. But combining them all, the average foul is worthwell
> under 1 point, under .4 points for that matter.Michael, you have your own weightings for a formula like this then?
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "aussievamp2" <rnmscott@b...> wrote:
> e.g. will a good point guard raise points in general, and a goodA good defender, I reckon, will tend to lower the overall score if
> 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?
his type of defense doesn't provide any corresponding improvement to
his team's offense.
- On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, dlirag wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "aussievamp2" <rnmscott@b...> wrote:Also one could imagine that a team's optimal strategies might change after
> > 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.
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.
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
> > A good defender, I reckon, will tend to lower the overall score
> > his type of defense doesn't provide any corresponding improvementto
> > 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 mightchange after
> Mutombo leaves the team. Instead of wanting a slow, halfcourtgame, 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