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

Re: Individual W/L and production

Expand Messages
  • Mike G
    ... records, ... Can we see what kind of rankings you get if you just ignore the individual losses? I tried some correlations of your win # s , but I don t
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 4, 2004
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "ssims22000" <ssims2@i...>

      >... there are several ways of calculating individual win-loss
      records, ...

      Can we see what kind of rankings you get if you just ignore the
      individual losses? I tried some correlations of your win #'s , but
      I don't have the comprehensive list.

      For example, if McGrady is 4-7, his net of -3 makes him look like a
      weaker player than Devean George. But if McGrady played alongside 4

      I look for stats to be less context-dependent. I'm pretty sure we
      could build a team of guys NOT in your list that would whip 5 guys
      who are ON the list.

      > Think of mine as a crude
      > measure of the combination between the efficiency with which a
      > player performs his roles on a team and the importance of that
      > to his team's success. My W/L ratings are designed to match up to
      > team W/L ratings, and so players on good teams will see some
      > inflation of their values, while those on bad teams (McGrady, for
      > instance) will see theirs deflate.

      I actually am all for this connection to team success. A team that
      wins 60 games splits those 60 wins among the players. Players on a
      20-win team have a lot less "spoils" to go around.

      But these damn Losses are what just makes no sense to me. A loss is
      zero wins. That should be bad enough.

      My bet is that by ignoring losses from your formula, you'll get a
      better ranking : one that is more consistent with minutes played,
      general perception, and common sense.

      > > Devean George is a good player; but he is no Tracy McGrady.
      > >
      > Right, but he is playing very well in his role (59% true
      > percentage and a good defensive rating), and he gets a
      > high % of touches on a team as loaded with superstars as the
      > Lakers. A lot of players would do as well in his spot, but many
      > more wouldn't.

      All fair statements. But isn't a lot of his improvement this year
      attributable to his status as a 5th-option player? I mean, he's got
      to be open a Lot.

      Fisher is also shooting a lot this year; he just can't hit his shots.

      One thing I like about your win-relative rankings is that the
      Lakers' Big 4 all appear to be greatly reduced this year in my
      rankings; and much more similar to last year in yours. Consistency
      in spite of drastic context change usually is a sign of a good
      ranking system.

      > This comes back to the classic problem of evaluating role
      > (like George) vs. stars (like McGrady). Who is better - the role
      > player performing at high efficiency, but who couldn't
      > carry a big load, or the star who is struggling with low
      > but whose ability to carry the load helps out his teammates (or,
      > McGrady's case, would help out his teammates if any of them could
      > actually play). You could make arguments either way.
      > >
      > >
      > > > And, here are the top rookies
      > > >
      > > > Player ORate PP/G %Pos DRate Stop% W L WL%
      > Pro/G
      > > > C. Anthony 97.0 18.8 26 99.4 49 2.4 2.3 51
      > 13.55
      > > > C. Bosh 104.9 12.9 18 99.2 52 1.8 1.7 51
      > 10.66
      > > > D. Wade 99.7 19.2 25 101.3 50 1.8 2.6 41
      > 10.24
      > > > J. Howard 101.1 8.8 20 97.9 62 1.4 0.8 64
      > 10.21
      > > > L. James 97.5 21.2 26 101.5 50 2.0 3.3 37
      > 10.21
      > >
      > >
      > > Does anyone think switching Lebron and Carmello would make
      > > less successful or Cleveland better?
      > Not me. Carmelo and Lebron shoulder a comparable burden on
      > offense, and Lebron is actually slightly more efficient (though
      > are below their teams' average efficiency). Anthony has better
      > teammates, especially on defense (which makes his defensive rating
      > better, despite a lower stop%). I did note that Lebron's win% was
      > almost exactly the same as Cleveland's projected win% - as Lebron
      > goes, so do the Cavs. Anthony's win% is lower than his team's -
      > isn't as important to their success. Anthony Miller and Marcus
      > Camby come across as the Nugget MVP's, so far. For whatever it's
      > worth, I like Lebron better as a player. These ratings don't
      > change that, when taken in context.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.