--- In APBR_analysis@y..., "McKibbin, Stuart" <smckibbi@c...> wrote:
> just happy to be part of the conversation.
I think it's safe to say we are all happy with any well-thought out
opinion. Even a biased or volatile opinion is part of what makes you
a fan (=fanatic). So, carry on.
>You play both
> offense and defense in a game of basketball, but other than that I
> know what can be said. They require different skill sets, offense
> defense to stop someone from scoring---they're like different tools
> toolbox. Computers and shovels are both tools but I can't conceive
of a way
> to judge their owner's overall usefulness with them using the same
> or algorithm. Tendex certainly is collecting real numbers into one
> but jumping to the conclusion that the sum of the formula is "real"
> something else.
In baseball, the defensive player wears a glove and a cap; the same
player on offense holds a bat and wears a helmet. They really are
separate incarnations of duty.
In basketball, the manner in which one plays offense quite affects
the manner in which one plays defense. Fast-breaking on offense
leads to quick baskets against you. Overexerting on defense prompts
a more deliberate offensive style.
Whether this is a coaching strategy, or an individual style, the
statistics enthusiast can track a player who moves from one style to
the next. Some players are very consistant, in that a reduction in
scoring tends to come with an increase in other stats (at least, when
standardized.) Some players only thrive in an up-tempo game; others,
only in a controlled game.
Predicting how a player will do in all situations may not be a
reasonable goal of statistical analysis. Whether or not a "value to
team" measurement, "production", or "productivity" measures are
accurate for one's current situation, predicting the effect of an
environment change (i.e., trade or coaching change) on a player needs
some firsthand knowledge of the player.
> Three point percentage shows how good an outside shooter someone
I would call that "accuracy and shot selection". Being "good" means
you can actually create a shot, or at least get one off.
> per 48 show how good a passer
Depends on turnover rate.
, rebounds per 48 show how good a rebounder.
If you don't foul out in 15 minutes.
> Supposedly Tendex tells us who is "really" being more productive---
> who gets 25 ppg, 3 rpg and 2 apg or the guy who gets 9ppg, 16 rpg
and 3 apg.
> But as Dean Oliver points out there's no correlation (or at least
> saying there is) of the Tendex # to SOMETHING, like how singles,
> walks, etc. are correlated to runs. For example, in Thursday's game
> Utah the Lakers had 105 points, 41 rebs, 22 assists, 8 steals, 8
> turnovers, 33 personal fouls, 10 missed FT and 44 missed field
> Tendex sum is 83. Utah had 101 points, 48 rebounds, 24 assists, 9
> blocks, 16 turnovers, 30 personal fouls, 11 missed FTs and 45
> goals. The Tendex sum is 89. What does that mean, that Utah was more
> productive than LA? What is being evaluated? I just don't get it.
More than one contributor here is referring to Tendex as a single
method. Even though I don't know what Tendex is, it is clear there
is more than one use for the term.
Stuart's Lakers/Jazz summary baldly shows that at least some Tendex
ratings are meaningless; does that mean every "Tendex-like" system is
What if there were a "perfect" Tendex that still predicted false
outcomes. Could this be attributable to a coaching victory? Or a
> Basketball analysis needs a Copernicus to imagine a new way of
> the sport. Dean's suggestion of an offense only Tendex that
> points scored might be that new way.