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

Re: Tendex rebuttal and Copernicus

Expand Messages
  • Mike Goodman
    ... 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).
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 4, 2001
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "McKibbin, Stuart" <smckibbi@c...> wrote:
      >I'm
      > 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
      don't
      > know what can be said. They require different skill sets, offense
      to score,
      > defense to stop someone from scoring---they're like different tools
      in a
      > 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
      criteria
      > or algorithm. Tendex certainly is collecting real numbers into one
      formula
      > but jumping to the conclusion that the sum of the formula is "real"
      is
      > 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
      is,

      I would call that "accuracy and shot selection". Being "good" means
      you can actually create a shot, or at least get one off.

      >assists
      > 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---
      the dude
      > 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
      nobody is
      > saying there is) of the Tendex # to SOMETHING, like how singles,
      homeruns,
      > walks, etc. are correlated to runs. For example, in Thursday's game
      with
      > Utah the Lakers had 105 points, 41 rebs, 22 assists, 8 steals, 8
      blocks, 14
      > turnovers, 33 personal fouls, 10 missed FT and 44 missed field
      goals. The
      > Tendex sum is 83. Utah had 101 points, 48 rebounds, 24 assists, 9
      steals, 9
      > blocks, 16 turnovers, 30 personal fouls, 11 missed FTs and 45
      missed field
      > 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
      equally bogus?

      What if there were a "perfect" Tendex that still predicted false
      outcomes. Could this be attributable to a coaching victory? Or a
      referee error?

      > Basketball analysis needs a Copernicus to imagine a new way of
      looking at
      > the sport. Dean's suggestion of an offense only Tendex that
      correlates to
      > points scored might be that new way.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.