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

Re: Kevin Garnett's season

Expand Messages
  • doc319
    ... But no other NBA player has done it and no other NBA player has come close to doing it. That s the point; despite the fact that games were higher scoring
    Message 1 of 29 , Jan 8, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > College players have scored 100 in a game, Europeans have done it,
      > women have done it... Hell, I have done it.


      But no other NBA player has done it and no other NBA player has come
      close to doing it. That's the point; despite the fact that games were
      higher scoring during that period and team totals were higher, etc.,
      no other individual in any era has come come in raw totals to what
      Wilt did. So "projecting" that someone else's smaller raw numbers
      are "equivalent" to his is conjecture, however well informed it may
      be (again, not that there is anything wrong with that, as long as it
      is understood that it is conjecture). What does a college player
      scoring 100 points have to do with Wilt scoring 100 against NBA
      players or averaging 50 ppg against NBA players for an entire season.
      Ditto for Europeans doing it in Euro leagues. Are you comparing Lisa
      Leslie scoring 105 points in a half in a woman's high school game
      with Wilt scoring 100 in an NBA game? I'll take your word for it that
      you've done it, but I am pretty sure it was not against NBA caliber
      players unless it was on a video game.



      >
      > I kind of think the best college teams of the mid-'80s could have
      > competed against NBA teams of the early '60s. Phi Slamma Jamma,
      > Worthy/Perkins/Jordan, ...


      Of course, this is also conjecture and we may agree to disagree on
      this, but in general I do not accept the assumption that college
      players and/or teams could beat pro players/teams. Every year there
      is always the joke that whichever college football team is the
      powerhouse (this season it was Oklahoma until the K-State game) could
      beat the worst team in the NFL. What this assumption ignores is that
      the worst team in the NFL is stacked with guys who were Heisman
      trophy winners, All-Americans, etc.--guys who dominated in college
      and are now physically mature. Just because other pros are better
      than they are does not mean that they would not annihilate any
      college team. To transfer the comparison back to hoops, look at what
      happens when we send our best college players into international
      competition against pros from other countries--we cannot beat the
      best teams (actually, even our pros did not look so great in the last
      world championships, but that is another story...). Worthy, Perkins,
      Jordan as mature NBA pros could compete against pros from any era,
      but if you ship them back as 18-19-20 year olds and put them against
      25-30 year old NBA players they would be at a disadvantage. KG, Kobe,
      T Mac came into the NBA at 18-19, but they did not become All-Stars
      right off the bat and a team of such guys at 18-19 would be a lottery
      team (albeit one with a very bright future). Yes, I realize Lebron
      this year (and Amare last year to a certain extent) is a possible
      exception since he may be selected to the All-Star Game.


      > One thing about numbers is irrefutable: if there are only 84
      > rebounds to be had, the players will not individually total 140, as
      > the '68 Pistons + Sixers averaged. Wilt won't get 25, DeBusschere
      > won't get 17, etc.
      >
      > If you speculate that a young Wilt would bring '62-NBA pace to a
      > 2004 team, that is perhaps fun for simulations. But he'll still
      > only get x% of the points and y% of the rebounds.
      >


      Again, the point I am suggesting is that team numbers may change but
      we cannot place a limit on what a great player may do. MJ scored 40-
      50 points plenty of times in playoff games that ended in 90-85
      scores. Wilt was a dominant individual performer who may very well
      have gotten 25 rebounds even if other players' totals were reduced
      proportionately. For a period of several years Rodman was rebounding
      at a pace well out of whack with the rest of the league's best
      rebounders, in the mid to high teens. All respect to Rodman, but if
      he could average 17-18 rpg in some seasons I am sure that young Wilt
      could still get his 25 or so, even if that means he is snaring a
      higher percentage of available rebounds.

      >
      > > .... The
      > > current NBA has 29 teams and not a lot of legit centers. Brad
      > Miller
      > > and Zydrunas Ilgauskas were Eastern Conference All-Stars last
      > year.
      > > Both are fine players, but neither is going to offer much
      > resistance
      > > to young Wilt.
      >
      > Actually, we don't know that. Coaching and scouting and strategies
      > are light years ahead of what they were in '62. Wilt doesn't get 3-
      > to-make-2 any more. Even the fat guys on the bench can come in and
      > put him at the FT line.
      >
      > Look at some of those old still photos. You see lots of pasty,
      soft-
      > looking bodies. Wilt and Russ, and Oscar and West were exceptions.
      >

      The point about coaching, scouting, etc. is very valid. Of course, if
      young Wilt were transplanted into today's game he would also benefit
      from those things, so after that cancels out it would again be his
      innate abilities versus those of his opponents. In Tall Tales there
      is an anecdote about how when the team ran sprints Wilt was faster
      baseline to baseline than everyone, even the guards. Even with
      scouting, etc. Z, Miller and others would need to hail a cab to keep
      up with young Wilt in transition (maybe if they throw the scouting
      report at him and he trips over it they can catch up...)




      >
      > >... Dale Davis in Portland is going to
      > > hold 50 ppg, 25+ rpg Wilt to 25 and 15? Right--
      >
      > Right. Like he does with Shaq.
      >
      > >
      > > .. I believe that great players can thrive and adapt in any era
      > but one
      > > can make a devil's advocate case that KG would have some problems
      > in
      > > the 60s. The game was very rough and physical then, with no
      > flagrant
      > > foul rules and plenty of fighting.
      >
      > So the flip side is that Wilt would foul out of Every game these
      > days?

      Well, he was able to protect himself without fouling out in that era,
      so he would do fine in this one as well. He did not commit what would
      now be called flagrant fouls or get into fights--those were the
      tactics used against him. Maybe some of the hatchet men he played
      against would have to make an adjustment to a more genteel game, but
      I think Wilt would welcome and thrive in an era where the rough stuff
      is policed better.
      >
      >
      > > Would KG have put up with all that punishment for
      > > the salaries that NBA players made back then?
      >
      > Would Wilt take the million for his first week's work, and retire?

      Wilt came back from a devastating knee injury in '69-'70 and
      confounded doctors' predictions to make it back for the playoffs,
      fulfilling his promise to his teammates (only to be overshadowed by
      Willis Reed...), so I don't think his desire to play the game can be
      questioned. If anything, the proliferation of money is extending
      careers. The big myth was that in an era of big money guys would
      retire young. Instead, what we are seeing in all sports is that guys
      are staying on the gravy train as long as they can. On the other
      hand, in the 60s there were a lot of career opportunities that paid
      better than hoops. Some Hall of Famers retired when they still had
      good years left because they were establishing their off-court
      careers. If KG took an elbow rearranging his teeth like Wilt took in
      year one, he may very well have decided that the NBA game was not all
      it was cracked up to be.
    • doc319
      In case it s not clear, I want to mention that I realize that KG is having a great season and I am not taking anything away from that. I also believe that if
      Message 2 of 29 , Jan 8, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        In case it's not clear, I want to mention that I realize that KG is
        having a great season and I am not taking anything away from that. I
        also believe that if he were transplanted to the 60s he would find a
        way to thrive (maybe his team would get a Loscutoff or Luke Jackson
        to "protect" him). My only point is that in comparing KG with Wilt I
        do not accept the conjecture that 25-14-5 is equal to Wilt's higher
        raw numbers. Just because 25 goes into 100 the same as 35 into 140
        does not mean that if you transport the two players into different
        eras that their numbers would turn out the same. There are so many
        variables involved. Wilt's numbers, particularly his scoring,
        underwent tremendous changes during his career due to coaching
        changes, personnel changes and his goals/whims (such as leading the
        league in assists), so how can one say that his totals would be
        equivalent to something less in today's game? My conjecture is that
        if young Wilt played in this era for a coach like Frank McGuire he
        could average 50 a game; I don't see anybody stopping him if he is
        getting the requisite field goal attempts and his field goal
        percentage was always far ahead of his peers'. On the other hand, I
        could also envision Wilt playing in the triangle offense and
        averaging 15 points, 10 assists and 20 rebounds; the triangle is
        designed for a post player who can hit the cutter with a good pass
        and Wilt was doing that to perfection in the latter part of his
        career. With the spacing that the triangle provides leading to high
        percentage shooting attempts, perhaps in this era Wilt could outdo
        his career best of 8+ apg.

        Of course, all of that is merely conjecture based on Wilt's raw
        numbers projected into a different style and pace of game, but it is
        no more or less reasonable than simply taking his totals, dividing
        them by the average game total of his era and plugging the percentage
        into today's averages and "compressing" 50 ppg to 37 ppg, etc. It is
        interesting to know that some of Wilt's seasons proportionately
        resemble KG's in some way but resemble is not "equivalent" from my
        standpoint.
      • Michael Tamada
        ... From: Mike G [mailto:msg_53@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:22 AM ... [...] ... Correct. There is an inherent impossibility in comparing
        Message 3 of 29 , Jan 12, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Mike G [mailto:msg_53@...]
          Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:22 AM


          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "doc319" <doc319@y...> wrote:

          [...]

          >> Projections or standardizations may suggest that Wilt's 50 ppg
          >season
          >> is "equivalent" to 37 ppg but it is important to remember that the
          >> only real statistics are the ones actually compiled by the players
          >in
          >> question. Everything else is conjecture, however well informed it
          >may
          >> be.
          >
          >How much equivilancy is there between the NBA of 1962 and the NBA of
          >2004? Is there an element of conjecture that raw numbers have any
          >relation across such a gulf of time and evolution?

          Correct. There is an inherent impossibility in comparing players from
          different eras (how would one compare Mikan to Shaq?) but if we're going
          to do it, we can still try to do it right. Which means correcting for
          game pace.

          Yes it's conjectural, but so are a number of vital statistical corrections.
          Baseball fans (and it seems front office people too) resisted the notion
          of correcting for ballpark effects for years. Now they are more commonplace
          -- but still conjectural and not 100% accurate. But if Bret Boone hits
          40 HRs while playing half his games at Safeco, and someone tries to call
          that equivalent to Dante Bichette hitting 40 HRs while playing half his
          games at Coors Field -- I'll take the ballpark-correct analysis over the
          raw 40 HR analysis. Ditto for a 25-rebound-per-game average, to fail
          to correct for the much larger number of rebounds available in the 1960s
          would be folly.

          It's a bit tougher for single games -- all sorts of extreme phenomena
          can happen in a single game -- but one can still choose to apply the
          correction formulas. To be sure, it can get ridiculous; I think
          someone already cited the example where Mikan scored 15 of the Lakers'
          18 points in a 19-18 loss to the Ft Wayne Pistons in 1950. Would that
          be equivalent to scoring 83 points in a 100-point game? So it might
          not work so well for any one game. But these game-pace corrections
          are still in general the way to go: I think it's quite likely that Wilt
          would be the best center in the NBA if he were playing today -- but I doubt
          that he'd have a 100-point game in today's NBA.



          --MKT
        • doc319
          I understand the theory behind the equivalency adjustments for different ball parks and for game pace. My point is that such numbers are
          Message 4 of 29 , Jan 12, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            I understand the theory behind the "equivalency" adjustments for
            different ball parks and for game pace. My point is that such numbers
            are projections/predictions, not actual stats. Wilt actually scored
            100. Due to game pace, it may seem to project to something less; the
            same rationale may apply to his 50 ppg average, his rebounding stats,
            etc. But the fact is that his numbers were way out of line of what
            everyone else was doing at the time. His abilities and production
            stood out from the leading scorers/rebounders who preceded him, who
            played at his time and who came after him. It just seems to me that
            something is lost in the translation when one takes Wilt's seasons,
            puts them through the "equivalency" machine and decides that,
            relatively speaking, KG is doing about the same thing. KG is a great
            player. He may win his first MVP this year. But so far he has no
            MVPs, no playoffs series wins (admittedly not entirely his fault), no
            scoring titles, no rebounding titles. He is not the dominant force in
            the NBA over the last several years; Shaq and Duncan are vying for
            that title. KG is one of the best, but not head and shoulders above
            his contemporaries. Wilt stood out. He won the most scoring titles (a
            record since broken by MJ), the most rebounding titles, the most
            field goal percentage titles, the most field goal percentage titles.
            He leads 11 to 7 in rebounding titles and 9 to 6 in fg% titles. I
            think someone once commented that the NBA Record Book could be
            called "The Wilt Chamberlain Story." MJ made a dent in some of Wilt's
            scoring records, taking the career scoring average mark by a smidge
            and winning more scoring titles, but Wilt still holds several records
            that will never be touched. I know, someone is going to pipe
            in, "Wilt was not a winner." Wilt was the dominant player on the two
            winningest teams in NBA history at that time; many still consider
            his '67 76ers the greatest single season team in NBA history.
            Bird "only" has three titles, West one (with Wilt), Oscar one (with
            Kareem), Baylor none. I guess this shows the standard to which Wilt
            is held; most great players have to "validate" their greatness by
            winning a championship, but Wilt set the bar so high that even two
            championships won in a commanding fashion are not enough.

            My "projection" or "equivalency" based on Wilt's actual stats and the
            anecdotal evidence of those who played with and against him is that
            he would be as hard to stop now as he was then. We're not talking
            about Mikan, who thrived with a narrower lane and no shot clock. He
            would not dominate today; heck, he struggled in his own time once the
            shot clock sped the game up (granted, that was at the end of his
            career). Wilt played with the wider lane and in the shot clock era;
            indeed, the lane was widened because of him (as it had been earlier
            for Mikan). There is a story that when the 50 Greatest Players
            gathered at the All-Star Game Wilt and MJ engaged in a friendly
            debate over who was greater. Wilt's final argument supposedly was
            that the NBA changed rules to control him (wider lane, no offensive
            goal tending, shooter must remain behind the free throw line) but
            changed rules to help MJ (presumably Wilt was referring to
            handchecking, allowing the dribbler to "palm" the ball).

            It is interesting to "project" things as long as we realize that we
            are making an educated guess, not a statement of absolute truth. I
            doubt that a 1950s person making projections based on the stats of
            that era would have ever predicted or believed in the possibility of
            someone doing the things that Wilt did just a few years later. Great
            players make their own rules and set their own standards. Who would
            have thought that a 6'6" guard would win 10 scoring titles and lead a
            team to six championships? I have a feeling that in 10-15 years
            someone is going to make them "equivalent" to 5.4 scoring titles and
            3.6 championships.



            >
            > Correct. There is an inherent impossibility in comparing players
            from
            > different eras (how would one compare Mikan to Shaq?) but if we're
            going
            > to do it, we can still try to do it right. Which means correcting
            for
            > game pace.
            >
            > Yes it's conjectural, but so are a number of vital statistical
            corrections.
            > Baseball fans (and it seems front office people too) resisted the
            notion
            > of correcting for ballpark effects for years. Now they are more
            commonplace
            > -- but still conjectural and not 100% accurate. But if Bret Boone
            hits
            > 40 HRs while playing half his games at Safeco, and someone tries to
            call
            > that equivalent to Dante Bichette hitting 40 HRs while playing half
            his
            > games at Coors Field -- I'll take the ballpark-correct analysis
            over the
            > raw 40 HR analysis. Ditto for a 25-rebound-per-game average, to
            fail
            > to correct for the much larger number of rebounds available in the
            1960s
            > would be folly.
            >
            > It's a bit tougher for single games -- all sorts of extreme
            phenomena
            > can happen in a single game -- but one can still choose to apply
            the
            > correction formulas. To be sure, it can get ridiculous; I think
            > someone already cited the example where Mikan scored 15 of the
            Lakers'
            > 18 points in a 19-18 loss to the Ft Wayne Pistons in 1950. Would
            that
            > be equivalent to scoring 83 points in a 100-point game? So it might
            > not work so well for any one game. But these game-pace corrections
            > are still in general the way to go: I think it's quite likely that
            Wilt
            > would be the best center in the NBA if he were playing today -- but
            I doubt
            > that he'd have a 100-point game in today's NBA.
            >
            >
            >
            > --MKT
          • fadeawaymike
            ... numbers ... scored ... the ... stats, ... who ... that ... seasons, ... great ... no ... in ... above ... (a ... titles. ... Wilt s ... smidge ... records
            Message 5 of 29 , Jan 13, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "doc319" <doc319@y...> wrote:
              >
              > I understand the theory behind the "equivalency" adjustments for
              > different ball parks and for game pace. My point is that such
              numbers
              > are projections/predictions, not actual stats. Wilt actually
              scored
              > 100. Due to game pace, it may seem to project to something less;
              the
              > same rationale may apply to his 50 ppg average, his rebounding
              stats,
              > etc. But the fact is that his numbers were way out of line of what
              > everyone else was doing at the time. His abilities and production
              > stood out from the leading scorers/rebounders who preceded him,
              who
              > played at his time and who came after him. It just seems to me
              that
              > something is lost in the translation when one takes Wilt's
              seasons,
              > puts them through the "equivalency" machine and decides that,
              > relatively speaking, KG is doing about the same thing. KG is a
              great
              > player. He may win his first MVP this year. But so far he has no
              > MVPs, no playoffs series wins (admittedly not entirely his fault),
              no
              > scoring titles, no rebounding titles. He is not the dominant force
              in
              > the NBA over the last several years; Shaq and Duncan are vying for
              > that title. KG is one of the best, but not head and shoulders
              above
              > his contemporaries. Wilt stood out. He won the most scoring titles
              (a
              > record since broken by MJ), the most rebounding titles, the most
              > field goal percentage titles, the most field goal percentage
              titles.
              > He leads 11 to 7 in rebounding titles and 9 to 6 in fg% titles. I
              > think someone once commented that the NBA Record Book could be
              > called "The Wilt Chamberlain Story." MJ made a dent in some of
              Wilt's
              > scoring records, taking the career scoring average mark by a
              smidge
              > and winning more scoring titles, but Wilt still holds several
              records
              > that will never be touched. I know, someone is going to pipe
              > in, "Wilt was not a winner." Wilt was the dominant player on the
              two
              > winningest teams in NBA history at that time; many still consider
              > his '67 76ers the greatest single season team in NBA history.
              > Bird "only" has three titles, West one (with Wilt), Oscar one
              (with
              > Kareem), Baylor none. I guess this shows the standard to which
              Wilt
              > is held; most great players have to "validate" their greatness by
              > winning a championship, but Wilt set the bar so high that even two
              > championships won in a commanding fashion are not enough.
              >
              > My "projection" or "equivalency" based on Wilt's actual stats and
              the
              > anecdotal evidence of those who played with and against him is
              that
              > he would be as hard to stop now as he was then. We're not talking
              > about Mikan, who thrived with a narrower lane and no shot clock.
              He
              > would not dominate today; heck, he struggled in his own time once
              the
              > shot clock sped the game up (granted, that was at the end of his
              > career). Wilt played with the wider lane and in the shot clock
              era;
              > indeed, the lane was widened because of him (as it had been
              earlier
              > for Mikan). There is a story that when the 50 Greatest Players
              > gathered at the All-Star Game Wilt and MJ engaged in a friendly
              > debate over who was greater. Wilt's final argument supposedly was
              > that the NBA changed rules to control him (wider lane, no
              offensive
              > goal tending, shooter must remain behind the free throw line) but
              > changed rules to help MJ (presumably Wilt was referring to
              > handchecking, allowing the dribbler to "palm" the ball).
              >
              > It is interesting to "project" things as long as we realize that
              we
              > are making an educated guess, not a statement of absolute truth. I
              > doubt that a 1950s person making projections based on the stats of
              > that era would have ever predicted or believed in the possibility
              of
              > someone doing the things that Wilt did just a few years later.
              Great
              > players make their own rules and set their own standards. Who
              would
              > have thought that a 6'6" guard would win 10 scoring titles and
              lead a
              > team to six championships? I have a feeling that in 10-15 years
              > someone is going to make them "equivalent" to 5.4 scoring titles
              and
              > 3.6 championships.
              >
              >
              >
              > >
              > > Correct. There is an inherent impossibility in comparing
              players
              > from
              > > different eras (how would one compare Mikan to Shaq?) but if
              we're
              > going
              > > to do it, we can still try to do it right. Which means
              correcting
              > for
              > > game pace.
              > >
              > > Yes it's conjectural, but so are a number of vital statistical
              > corrections.
              > > Baseball fans (and it seems front office people too) resisted
              the
              > notion
              > > of correcting for ballpark effects for years. Now they are more
              > commonplace
              > > -- but still conjectural and not 100% accurate. But if Bret
              Boone
              > hits
              > > 40 HRs while playing half his games at Safeco, and someone tries
              to
              > call
              > > that equivalent to Dante Bichette hitting 40 HRs while playing
              half
              > his
              > > games at Coors Field -- I'll take the ballpark-correct analysis
              > over the
              > > raw 40 HR analysis. Ditto for a 25-rebound-per-game average, to
              > fail
              > > to correct for the much larger number of rebounds available in
              the
              > 1960s
              > > would be folly.
              > >
              > > It's a bit tougher for single games -- all sorts of extreme
              > phenomena
              > > can happen in a single game -- but one can still choose to apply
              > the
              > > correction formulas. To be sure, it can get ridiculous; I think
              > > someone already cited the example where Mikan scored 15 of the
              > Lakers'
              > > 18 points in a 19-18 loss to the Ft Wayne Pistons in 1950.
              Would
              > that
              > > be equivalent to scoring 83 points in a 100-point game? So it
              might
              > > not work so well for any one game. But these game-pace
              corrections
              > > are still in general the way to go: I think it's quite likely
              that
              > Wilt
              > > would be the best center in the NBA if he were playing today --
              but
              > I doubt
              > > that he'd have a 100-point game in today's NBA.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --MKT

              I agree for 90% with Doc 139. (By the way if I'm not mistaking MJ
              and Wilt have both the same career average 30,1) I think that you
              can and can not compare players of different eras. You can try to
              adjust stats, but is is impossible to wipe out al the differences.
              For example Wilt played a lot more against Russell (who is
              considered the best defensive center ever) than it would be the case
              today. Nowadays you have more teams, so Wilt would have met Russell
              less, and this would influence his numers to. You can not wipe such
              a thing out. So it will never be an exact science. You can only try.
              To bad they did not kep block shots, because perhaps Wilt and not
              Russell would have won that categorie to. For me Chamberlain was the
              best ever. And Russell is overrated. He just had luck that he was
              the missing piece in a team loaded with good players and he had
              always the same good coach. The only thing he needed to do was
              rebounding (and Wilt did that beter), launching the fast break,
              block shots: defense. Wilt did and rebounding and scoring (and after
              a while he concentrated also on defense) That he won the assist
              title as the only center ever is amazing. The most dominating in
              scoring, the best rebounder ever, and so on. Wilt it is.
            • Mike G
              ... great ... The rookie Wilt won MVP, at the age of 23. His 2nd was in 1966, at age 29. Garnett is now 27, and quite likely will win his first. If he wins
              Message 6 of 29 , Jan 13, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "doc319" <doc319@y...> wrote:
                > ... when one takes Wilt's seasons,
                > puts them through the "equivalency" machine and decides that,
                > relatively speaking, KG is doing about the same thing. KG is a
                great
                > player. He may win his first MVP this year. But so far he has no
                > MVPs,

                The rookie Wilt won MVP, at the age of 23. His 2nd was in 1966, at
                age 29. Garnett is now 27, and quite likely will win his first. If
                he wins this year and next, he'll have more MVPs than Wilt did at
                the same age.

                I started this thread by comparing Garnett's season with the 30-ish
                Wilt's production. To me, they are quite comparable, statistically.

                While we don't know "equivalency" based on factors other than game
                pace, we can use that one set of factors to make a guess.

                Earlier, you stated that Garnett's 24 and 14 average might only be
                equivalent to 14 and 8 (or some such thing) in 1967. So far, no one
                has suggested that 30-year-old Chamberlain might only get 14 and 8
                in a 2004 NBA.

                Steering a middle course is OK by me.
              • fadeawaymike
                Chamberlain dominated the league. Garnett is not dominating. For example in the 1961-62 season Wilt scored 50,4PPG, the number 2 scored 38,3PPG. That is 12
                Message 7 of 29 , Jan 13, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Chamberlain dominated the league. Garnett is not dominating. For
                  example in the 1961-62 season Wilt scored 50,4PPG, the number 2
                  scored 38,3PPG. That is 12 points less. (And he was the best
                  rebounder.) That is dominating. Garnett does not do that. He is only
                  fourth in scoring.
                • Charlie Board
                  ... You misspelled is the leading candidate now to about the same degree he was last year at this time when he ended up losing to the better candidate ;)
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jan 13, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:

                    > The rookie Wilt won MVP, at the age of 23. His 2nd was in 1966, at
                    > age 29. Garnett is now 27, and quite likely will win his first.

                    You misspelled "is the leading candidate now to about the same
                    degree he was last year at this time when he ended up losing to
                    the better candidate" ;)

                    >
                    > I started this thread by comparing Garnett's season with the 30-ish
                    > Wilt's production. To me, they are quite comparable, statistically.

                    Speaking of Garnett's statistics, Roland put a new page up based on a
                    question I asked him over the weekend:

                    http://www.82games.com/comm14.htm
                  • Mike G
                    ... on a ... Roland has measured garbage time performance in this article. Garnett leads the league in garbage minutes played, as defined in the article.
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jan 13, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Board" <cboard@t...>
                      wrote:
                      >...
                      > Speaking of Garnett's statistics, Roland put a new page up based
                      on a
                      > question I asked him over the weekend:
                      >
                      > http://www.82games.com/comm14.htm


                      Roland has measured "garbage time" performance in this article.
                      Garnett leads the league in garbage minutes played, as defined in
                      the article. Then he compares KG and Duncan's garbage minutes and
                      production:

                      mvpcand min pt rb as s b
                      Garnett 183 87 71 26 6 7
                      T Duncan 90 28 37 06 0 8

                      He doesn't show FTA, so I can't calculate Eff%. But both guys shoot
                      way worse in garbage time (Duncan 9-27 FG, Garnett 34-81).

                      Guessing at eff% based on known FGA and necessary FT at their normal
                      FT%, I get these "rates":

                      garbage eff% Sco. Reb. Ast Stl Blk - Total
                      Garnett .470 19.1 15.7 5.8 1.2 1.5 - 46.0
                      TDuncan .407 12.6 15.8 2.9 0.0 3.3 - 37.3

                      Compare these to their overall rates:

                      player. eff% Sco. Reb. Ast Stl Blk - Total
                      Garnett .542 26.8 14.5 5.3 1.2 2.2 - 49.3
                      TDuncan .536 27.4 13.3 3.5 0.9 2.8 - 46.0

                      Duncan becomes a really complacent scorer, in garbage time. But he
                      continues to go after blocks -- the opposite of Garnett.

                      Garnett passes a little more, Duncan a bit less.
                    • carlos12155
                      This is a message to Roland concerning the stats on 82games.com. A while back he asked us for advice on what things could be added or modified in the site and
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jan 13, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        This is a message to Roland concerning the stats on 82games.com. A
                        while back he asked us for advice on what things could be added or
                        modified in the site and well I have one.
                        Roland would it be too difficult to change the criteria in shot clock
                        usage? The first time division (0-10) seems too large to me, some of
                        those shots were made probably in fast breaks and some were clearly
                        not. If you used a smaller (let's say 0-5) division we would be able
                        to separate fast breaks shots from not fast break shots. I'm not sure
                        what's the maximum length of a fast break but 4 or 5 seconds seem
                        good to me. This way we could see also which teams run more, how
                        useful are fast breaks, etc.
                      • McKibbin, Stuart
                        Besides a fastbreak, an offensive rebound putback could also happen in the first 5 seconds of a shot clock. So to figure out fastbreaks the putbacks would have
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jan 13, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Besides a fastbreak, an offensive rebound putback could also happen in the
                          first 5 seconds of a shot clock. So to figure out fastbreaks the putbacks
                          would have to be separated out.
                          Stuart

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: carlosmanuel@...
                          Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:21 PM
                          To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com; carlosmanuel@...
                          Subject: [APBR_analysis] Message to Roland


                          This is a message to Roland concerning the stats on 82games.com. A
                          while back he asked us for advice on what things could be added or
                          modified in the site and well I have one.
                          Roland would it be too difficult to change the criteria in shot clock
                          usage? The first time division (0-10) seems too large to me, some of
                          those shots were made probably in fast breaks and some were clearly
                          not. If you used a smaller (let's say 0-5) division we would be able
                          to separate fast breaks shots from not fast break shots. I'm not sure
                          what's the maximum length of a fast break but 4 or 5 seconds seem
                          good to me. This way we could see also which teams run more, how
                          useful are fast breaks, etc.




                          Yahoo! Groups Links

                          To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR_analysis/

                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        • carlos12155
                          Yeah, and timeouts complicate things too, but it would be a start to know which teams take more shots real early (before 5 seconds, for example), which teams
                          Message 12 of 29 , Jan 13, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Yeah, and timeouts complicate things too, but it would be a start to
                            know which teams take more shots real early (before 5 seconds, for
                            example), which teams take more shots in the middle minutes (let's
                            say 6-15) and which teams take more shots in the last seconds.
                            It wouldn't be perfect but with some work it could give us a glimpse
                            into the value of the fast break.


                            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "McKibbin, Stuart"
                            <smckibbi@c...> wrote:
                            > Besides a fastbreak, an offensive rebound putback could also happen
                            in the
                            > first 5 seconds of a shot clock. So to figure out fastbreaks the
                            putbacks
                            > would have to be separated out.
                            > Stuart
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: carlosmanuel@b...
                            > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:21 PM
                            > To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com; carlosmanuel@b...
                            > Subject: [APBR_analysis] Message to Roland
                            >
                            >
                            > This is a message to Roland concerning the stats on 82games.com. A
                            > while back he asked us for advice on what things could be added or
                            > modified in the site and well I have one.
                            > Roland would it be too difficult to change the criteria in shot
                            clock
                            > usage? The first time division (0-10) seems too large to me, some
                            of
                            > those shots were made probably in fast breaks and some were clearly
                            > not. If you used a smaller (let's say 0-5) division we would be
                            able
                            > to separate fast breaks shots from not fast break shots. I'm not
                            sure
                            > what's the maximum length of a fast break but 4 or 5 seconds seem
                            > good to me. This way we could see also which teams run more, how
                            > useful are fast breaks, etc.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR_analysis/
                            >
                            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          • Michael Tamada
                            There s a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here, a question of which way the causality goes. Because good offensive efficiency on fast breaks could be due to
                            Message 13 of 29 , Jan 13, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here, a question
                              of which way the causality goes. Because good offensive
                              efficiency on fast breaks could be due to inherent advantages
                              of fast-breaks -- or they could be due to lousy transition
                              defense, leading to the other team taking advantage with fast
                              breaks and high offensive efficiency.

                              So if we see better numbers for quick shots, should we
                              conclude that teams should fast break more? Or that teams
                              should get back fater on defense?

                              On the other hand I can see other uses for these sorts of
                              stats: do missed 3-pointers lead to more fast breaks by
                              the other team, as anti-3-point-proponents sometimes claim?

                              Which teams fast break more, and benefit the most from
                              them (teams such as the Mavs and Kings seem to benefit
                              from fast-paced running games, teams such as Detroit
                              presumably might not). Also which teams are best at
                              not getting fast-broken upon, and does this help them
                              win?


                              --MKT


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: carlos12155 [mailto:carlosmanuel@...]
                              Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 8:12 PM

                              Yeah, and timeouts complicate things too, but it would be a start to
                              know which teams take more shots real early (before 5 seconds, for
                              example), which teams take more shots in the middle minutes (let's
                              say 6-15) and which teams take more shots in the last seconds.
                              It wouldn't be perfect but with some work it could give us a glimpse
                              into the value of the fast break.


                              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "McKibbin, Stuart"
                              <smckibbi@c...> wrote:
                              > Besides a fastbreak, an offensive rebound putback could also happen
                              in the
                              > first 5 seconds of a shot clock. So to figure out fastbreaks the
                              putbacks
                              > would have to be separated out.
                              > Stuart
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: carlosmanuel@b...
                              > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:21 PM
                              > To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com; carlosmanuel@b...
                              > Subject: [APBR_analysis] Message to Roland
                              >
                              >
                              > This is a message to Roland concerning the stats on 82games.com. A
                              > while back he asked us for advice on what things could be added or
                              > modified in the site and well I have one.
                              > Roland would it be too difficult to change the criteria in shot
                              clock
                              > usage? The first time division (0-10) seems too large to me, some
                              of
                              > those shots were made probably in fast breaks and some were clearly
                              > not. If you used a smaller (let's say 0-5) division we would be
                              able
                              > to separate fast breaks shots from not fast break shots. I'm not
                              sure
                              > what's the maximum length of a fast break but 4 or 5 seconds seem
                              > good to me. This way we could see also which teams run more, how
                              > useful are fast breaks, etc.
                            • doc319
                              As former Browns Coach Sam Rutigliano used to say, If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas. Before we give KG two MVPs let s see
                              Message 14 of 29 , Jan 13, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                As former Browns Coach Sam Rutigliano used to say, "If 'ifs and buts'
                                were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas." Before we give KG
                                two MVPs let's see how he finishes this season and if he wins his
                                first. He definitely is among a handful of worthy candidates.

                                The age comparison deal is misleading without mentioning that KG came
                                straight out of high school. He is in his ninth season vying for his
                                first MVP. As you mentioned, Wilt won MVP in his rookie season,
                                averaging 37.6 ppg and 27.0 rpg. It is worth noting that no one other
                                than Chamberlain has ever surpassed either of those averages in a
                                complete season (Baylor averaged over 38 ppg in a 48 game season
                                interrupted by military service; he once modestly noted that the
                                missed games actually provided him the advantage of being fresher
                                than his opponents, which he claimed also helped him score the all-
                                time single game Finals record 61 points that year). KG has been in
                                the league almost a decade and has never once led the league in a
                                statistical category; in his first year Wilt exceeded the scoring and
                                rebounding marks of everyone before him and everyone who has come
                                after him to this date.



                                The rookie Wilt won MVP, at the age of 23. His 2nd was in 1966, at
                                > age 29. Garnett is now 27, and quite likely will win his first.
                                If
                                > he wins this year and next, he'll have more MVPs than Wilt did at
                                > the same age.


                                Just to clarify, I don't believe that KG's numbers are
                                only "equivalent" to 14 and 8. My point was that just as game pace
                                can be used to reduce Wilt's numbers in reference to KG's, one could
                                suggest anecdotal reasons to reduce KG's numbers in a 1960s context--
                                a rougher game that would not suit his playing style/physique (no
                                flagrant foul rule, more fights, etc.), a smaller league involving
                                many games against familiar opponents, less luxurious travel
                                conditions, poorer medical care (no MRIs, no electric stim, etc.). My
                                belief is that truly great players can adapt to any context; I think
                                that young Wilt could average 50 today and that KG could get 23-14-5
                                in the 1960s. I'm just saying that a devil's advocate approach could
                                find just as many rational reasons to "reduce" KG's numbers as
                                a "game pace" approach finds to "reduce" Wilt's.





                                >
                                > I started this thread by comparing Garnett's season with the 30-ish
                                > Wilt's production. To me, they are quite comparable, statistically.
                                >
                                > While we don't know "equivalency" based on factors other than game
                                > pace, we can use that one set of factors to make a guess.
                                >
                                > Earlier, you stated that Garnett's 24 and 14 average might only be
                                > equivalent to 14 and 8 (or some such thing) in 1967. So far, no
                                one
                                > has suggested that 30-year-old Chamberlain might only get 14 and 8
                                > in a 2004 NBA.


                                I agree with the idea of a middle course. I find pro-rated or game
                                paced based stats interesting and enjoy looking at them when they are
                                posted, but I do not accept the idea that Wilt's 60s seasons and KG's
                                current efforts are "equivalent." Their relationship to the game
                                paces of their respective eras may be similar but that does not
                                really tell us what either player would actually do in a different
                                era. Wilt loved to confound his critics/doubters. Even when he
                                voluntarily reduced his scoring later in his career he would still
                                have a 50 point game or two a season, usually right after some pundit
                                said that Wilt was not a dominant scorer anymore.


                                >
                                > Steering a middle course is OK by me.
                              • roland_beech
                                as people have already said in response, the 0-10 seconds really captures a number of different shot situations that should ideally be broken out (fast breaks,
                                Message 15 of 29 , Jan 14, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  as people have already said in response, the 0-10 seconds really
                                  captures a number of different shot situations that should ideally
                                  be broken out (fast breaks, off. rebounds, inbound passes after
                                  timeouts, shots to beat the buzzer, etc)

                                  We can do this, although it would probably be a little awkward on
                                  the main team pages (they will get a redesign eventually).

                                  It could certainly make for a good article in the short term
                                  however, and so I'll shoot for that.

                                  As Michael mentions, the other side of the coin is what events on
                                  the other team's possession led to the quick shot -- something we
                                  are already at work at in looking at offense/defense by team off a
                                  made FG, missed shot with live rebound, live turnover, clock stop
                                  (out of bounds, turnover, foul, etc)
                                • schtevie2003
                                  This is off message, except it is a message to Roland (and all others). It is apparent that the stuff in 82games is just fantastic, as is Roland s
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Jan 14, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    This is off message, except it is a message to Roland (and all others).

                                    It is apparent that the stuff in 82games is just fantastic, as is Roland's collegiality.
                                    That said, I would like, once and for all, to be sure that the dream is reality and that
                                    the quality of the data is as advertised. As such, it seems that it would behoove
                                    everyone to have some of the data checked. And it seems to me that the best way
                                    that this could happen is if a blank copy of the utilized score-sheet is offered, and the
                                    consumers here, at random, score games and cross-check the results.

                                    Would this be agreeable to One and then all?

                                    Signed,

                                    Wanting to Believe in Boston
                                  • Kevin Pelton
                                    ... Isn t there a much simpler way to verify 82games.com s data? To answer my own rhetorical question, yes, there is. There are plenty of alternative sources
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Jan 15, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > It is apparent that the stuff in 82games is just fantastic, as is
                                      > Roland's collegiality. That said, I would like, once and for all,
                                      > to be sure that the dream is reality and that the quality of the
                                      > data is as advertised. As such, it seems that it would behoove
                                      > everyone to have some of the data checked. And it seems to me
                                      > that the best way that this could happen is if a blank copy of the
                                      > utilized score-sheet is offered, and the consumers here, at
                                      > random, score games and cross-check the results.

                                      Isn't there a much simpler way to verify 82games.com's data?

                                      To answer my own rhetorical question, yes, there is. There are
                                      plenty of alternative sources for the data the site provides,
                                      notably plus-minus ratings, some of them official.

                                      For example, the Timberwolves throughout last year gave the "Roland
                                      Rating" -- not termed as such -- in their press notes as one of the
                                      arguments for Kevin Garnett's MVP candidacy. The Timberwolves and
                                      Pacers both provide reasonably "official" plus-minus ratings,
                                      Minnesota again in the media notes available through its web site,
                                      the Pacers directly on their web site.

                                      Harvey Pollack's statistical guide has plus-minus data each year,
                                      and I'm going to go out on a limb and assume I'm not the only
                                      apbr_analysis member who has this. It's pretty official.

                                      Beyond that, many of the same things that 82games.com tracks can be
                                      tracked using the NBA's play-by-play sheets (at least for teams
                                      without two players with the same last name). Throughout much of
                                      last year, a guy tracked the Sonics for me, as well as the Pistons
                                      for his own use. In addition to plus-minus, that also provided
                                      on/off court numbers and assisted field goal percentages, as are
                                      found at 82games.com. (These are obviously not official, but if the
                                      two sources independently came to the same conclusion ... well,
                                      that's pretty convincing to me.)

                                      It occurs to me that, if one really wanted to verify the legitimacy
                                      of Roland's work, they could use all these sources and more. It
                                      would take time and effort, but so too would scoring games.

                                      I myself haven't bothered with that kind of effort because while I
                                      don't know the exact numbers, I do know the Timberwolves were using
                                      Garnett's Roland Rating because it was the best in the league --
                                      just as 82games.com shows. I know Vladimir Radmanovic had a
                                      surprisingly high plus-minus rating last year, as did Elden
                                      Campbell. 82games.com shows the same. That's enough for me.
                                    • roland_beech
                                      well on the subject of the accuracy of the 82games data I can say this: the 03-04 season information is much cleaner than the 02-03 there are a few known bugs
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Jan 15, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        well on the subject of the accuracy of the 82games data I can say
                                        this:

                                        the 03-04 season information is much cleaner than the 02-03

                                        there are a few known bugs in our databases for this year that we
                                        are slowly (but hopefully surely) getting around to fixing, and some
                                        known bugs in the 02-03 databases that we are unlikely to fix in the
                                        near term.

                                        there are also a number of issues on how to handle things. For
                                        instance with regards to plus/minus currently the numbers are
                                        displayed on a "literalist" basis, which is to say that whatever
                                        five players are on the court for each team when points are scored,
                                        are the players to whom the +/- is credited (debited?)

                                        now this might seem logical but it is arguably not the optimal or
                                        right way to do it. The most common circumstance that could be
                                        challenged is when a player is fouled and going to the free throw
                                        line, but substitutions are made before he completes his two shots.
                                        In such event players coming into the game are 'on the hook' for his
                                        freebies even though they were not on court when he was fouled, and
                                        likewise the players leaving may be let off the hook (particularly
                                        if the guy who committed the foul fouled out!) We have the
                                        capability to track the plus/minus "the right way" and probably will
                                        at some point, but it hasn't happened yet. Here's another fun
                                        case: (my memory may be erratic) Welsch was fouled but hurt, so he
                                        had to leave the game and Pierce entered and shot the free throws
                                        for him...now do you give Pierce's plus/minus free throw points to
                                        Welsch and not to Pierce even though Pierce is the one actually
                                        making or missing the shot? I'm not even sure if the NBA box score
                                        would credit Welsch with the points somehow??

                                        the theory on some levels is that the plus/minus oddities average
                                        out over the course of a season (although they very well might not
                                        for some players who are only subbed in a certain way). Another
                                        issue is at the end of a close game you commonly see players subbed
                                        in on offense and out on defense (and vice versa) on timeouts.

                                        a raw plus/minus already has a number of drawbacks to begin with:
                                        who was on the court for the opponents, and your team with you, did
                                        you come into the game when the other team/your team was in the
                                        penalty situation, garbage time minutes versus clutch, etc...

                                        As a result we may move away from the +/- towards an on court team
                                        offensive points per possession and defensive points per possession
                                        delta, where we actually count the real possessions as opposed to
                                        estimating with a formula. You can see an estimated version on the
                                        on court/off court page for each player.

                                        To sum it up, basically we try hard to make the data, both in the
                                        databases and on the web pages (two different things) as accurate as
                                        possible, but undoubtedly there will be some errors that creep in.
                                        We are always happy (well, usually happy) for people to point out
                                        errors they might come across.
                                      • schtevie2003
                                        ... Let me again preface my remarks by singing the praises of the 82games site. I could hardly have hoped for a more wonderful resource for the
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Jan 16, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "roland_beech" <roland@t...> wrote:
                                          > well on the subject of the accuracy of the 82games data I can say
                                          > this:
                                          >
                                          > the 03-04 season information is much cleaner than the 02-03
                                          >
                                          > there are a few known bugs in our databases for this year that we
                                          > are slowly (but hopefully surely) getting around to fixing, and some
                                          > known bugs in the 02-03 databases that we are unlikely to fix in the
                                          > near term.
                                          >
                                          > there are also a number of issues on how to handle things. For
                                          > instance with regards to plus/minus currently the numbers are
                                          > displayed on a "literalist" basis, which is to say that whatever
                                          > five players are on the court for each team when points are scored,
                                          > are the players to whom the +/- is credited (debited?)
                                          >
                                          > now this might seem logical but it is arguably not the optimal or
                                          > right way to do it. The most common circumstance that could be
                                          > challenged is when a player is fouled and going to the free throw
                                          > line, but substitutions are made before he completes his two shots.
                                          > In such event players coming into the game are 'on the hook' for his
                                          > freebies even though they were not on court when he was fouled, and
                                          > likewise the players leaving may be let off the hook (particularly
                                          > if the guy who committed the foul fouled out!) We have the
                                          > capability to track the plus/minus "the right way" and probably will
                                          > at some point, but it hasn't happened yet. Here's another fun
                                          > case: (my memory may be erratic) Welsch was fouled but hurt, so he
                                          > had to leave the game and Pierce entered and shot the free throws
                                          > for him...now do you give Pierce's plus/minus free throw points to
                                          > Welsch and not to Pierce even though Pierce is the one actually
                                          > making or missing the shot? I'm not even sure if the NBA box score
                                          > would credit Welsch with the points somehow??
                                          >
                                          > the theory on some levels is that the plus/minus oddities average
                                          > out over the course of a season (although they very well might not
                                          > for some players who are only subbed in a certain way). Another
                                          > issue is at the end of a close game you commonly see players subbed
                                          > in on offense and out on defense (and vice versa) on timeouts.
                                          >
                                          > a raw plus/minus already has a number of drawbacks to begin with:
                                          > who was on the court for the opponents, and your team with you, did
                                          > you come into the game when the other team/your team was in the
                                          > penalty situation, garbage time minutes versus clutch, etc...
                                          >
                                          > As a result we may move away from the +/- towards an on court team
                                          > offensive points per possession and defensive points per possession
                                          > delta, where we actually count the real possessions as opposed to
                                          > estimating with a formula. You can see an estimated version on the
                                          > on court/off court page for each player.
                                          >
                                          > To sum it up, basically we try hard to make the data, both in the
                                          > databases and on the web pages (two different things) as accurate as
                                          > possible, but undoubtedly there will be some errors that creep in.
                                          > We are always happy (well, usually happy) for people to point out
                                          > errors they might come across.

                                          Let me again preface my remarks by singing the praises of the 82games site. I could
                                          hardly have hoped for a more wonderful resource for the stats-interested NBA fan.
                                          That said, let me try to clarify (and elaborate) my concerns. My overarching concern is
                                          that I want to be sure that appearances are reality. Toward that end two separate
                                          things would offer such assurance:

                                          First, a detailed disclosure of methods (perhaps a permanent link on the homepage?)
                                          Call it an academic desire (necessity really) to read the footnotes and not just the
                                          abridged version of the story. Obviously, given the simplicity of the +/- stat, one
                                          need not go into great detail on how that is calculated. More to the point, I am
                                          interested in seeing how the raw game data is gathered and the methods and
                                          numbers of people involved in transcribing it to the utilized format. Additionally, for
                                          stats involving some degree of interpretation, say, distance from basket on a shot
                                          attempt, or, say, possibly, estimating the degree of defensive opposition to a given
                                          shot, I would like to see a written formal definition of these terms and how they are
                                          documented.

                                          Second, the ability to check the data (hence the previous request for the stats form).
                                          This is of course time consuming for those "attending the seminar", but ultimately
                                          necessary. And let me be clear, there is nothing that has been said or unsaid that
                                          would lead me to believe that the posted results are inaccurate; to the contrary, the
                                          apparent attention to detail in definitions, as expressed above, would suggest that the
                                          data are darn good. However, I would like to see the point confirmed and also to see
                                          to what degree measurement error is a factor (especially for the statistical categories
                                          where some discretion is involved) and if so how much.
                                        • Kevin Pelton
                                          Something I just thought of surfing 82games.com . . . when I look at an individual team s stats, it doesn t necessarily tell me very much. To explain that
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Jan 23, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Something I just thought of surfing 82games.com . . . when I look at
                                            an individual team's stats, it doesn't necessarily tell me very much.

                                            To explain that better, a lot of people have mentioned recently that
                                            the Sonics miss more dunks than any team they can remember. Their
                                            84.6% eFG% on dunks certainly _seems_ to indicate that is the case.
                                            However, I have no idea what league average is for dunking
                                            percentage (for lack of a better term).

                                            Pages ranking the teams in these kinds of alternative categories
                                            would be really helpful. They would save me the trouble of looking
                                            at 28 other teams to create context for the one team I'm interested
                                            in.
                                          • Charlie Board
                                            ... I d second this comment. I find myself looking at the Spurs and 3-4 other elite teams because it s too much effort to look at all 29. It would be really
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Jan 23, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton" <kpelton08@h...>
                                              wrote:
                                              > Something I just thought of surfing 82games.com . . . when I look at
                                              > an individual team's stats, it doesn't necessarily tell me very much.
                                              >
                                              > To explain that better, a lot of people have mentioned recently that
                                              > the Sonics miss more dunks than any team they can remember. Their
                                              > 84.6% eFG% on dunks certainly _seems_ to indicate that is the case.
                                              > However, I have no idea what league average is for dunking
                                              > percentage (for lack of a better term).
                                              >
                                              > Pages ranking the teams in these kinds of alternative categories
                                              > would be really helpful. They would save me the trouble of looking
                                              > at 28 other teams to create context for the one team I'm interested
                                              > in.

                                              I'd second this comment. I find myself looking at the Spurs and
                                              3-4 other elite teams because it's too much effort to look at
                                              all 29. It would be really cool if clickin on any "cell" on
                                              a team page (eFG% for Opposing C, for example) took you to
                                              a page showing all 29 team values for that stat. Even cooler
                                              would be a button beside each "row" (Opponent Production By
                                              Position For C, for example) that took you to a page showing that
                                              "row" for all 29 teams.

                                              Of course, I have no idea how much effort this would take.
                                              Wish for the moon! :)
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.