Re: performance rating and trade value
- --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <myviewonthis@y...>
> performance = (PTS - VOP*FGmsd - .5*VOP*FTmsd + 1.25*VOP*st+ .5*as
> + .33*VOP*bl + VOP*reb - 1.25*VOP*to - .81*pf) / GamesPlayedI'll streamline this formula to:
> (where value of possession VOP is equal to 1.04.
P = (Pts + VOP*(1.25*Stl + .50*Ast + .33*Blk + Reb - FGms -.50*FTms -
1.25*TO - .81*PF))
My own weights are identical to yours for Rebounds and Turnovers.
Subtracting for missed FG and FT isn't equivalent to what I do: I
multiply scoring rate by overall shooting % (among other things).
Within the last week or two, some of us discussed the value of an
assist. Your coefficient is toward the low end. I suggested (from
Ed Kupfer's Toronto data) a relatively huge number, about 1.5
[There hasn't been any rebuttal that I've noticed.]
Weighing blocks at .33 seems very low. Shotblockers get a lot more
minutes than players with otherwise equivalent stats.
The weight on fouls seems very high.
> i dont adjust for minutes played (what you actually did ratherthan
> what you might be capable of)What you ARE capable of doing in 36 minutes -- whether it takes you
1 or 2 or 3 games to get 36 min. -- could also be called 'what you
actually did'. No ?
> or pace (only a 5-7% spread in theIsn't it more like a 10-12% difference both above and below the
> league?). but you could.
mean? I'm seeing this as about 22% between the highest- and lowest-
scoring teams. Quite a difference between 20 PPG in a 104-100
scoring milieu, and 20 PPG in 84-87 games.
>This has been a recurring theme here. Shouldn't the .81 pts be
> explanation of specific weights:
> personal fouls: on average yield 1.0893 FTs per foul using league
> stats *0.7475 league FT%= approx .81 points
compared to the VOP ? If a possession is, on average, worth 1.04
points, it looks as if your average 'fouled' possession is an
advantage to the defense.
Of course, offensive fouls are worse than a turnover; and that
contributes some of the negative value to fouls, in general.
>Sorry, I don't see this discussion. But I'm curious how you manage
> assists (.5) and blocks (33 *1.04= .342) basically as previously
to rate these skills so low.
- I will agree that Manu has been gambling since about mid-season when
he moved to the bench more than he did in the beggining of the season
(in fact much more).
I actually thought he cut down on the gambling A LOT from last
season, but there was a game in New Orleans, when he came off the
bench and did it at a crucial point of the game and might have been a
huge reason the Spurs lost the game. He usually never made those
type of mistakes down the stretch of games.
Either way, I think he is generally a very solid defender. Even
though he gambles a bit these days, he still creates a lot of
turnovers via charges and steals.
And about 2001, I know Bowen was not around. But I was trying to
kind of hint towards the TWIN TOWER approach maybe being the primary
reason an SG/SF always is in the top TENDEX defensive ratings since
2001 (maybe even before that) if we were to check.
If Bowen is the reason for the SG's being held so low, then why is
the SG production PER at a net positive at +2.5? And negative at the
SF position (or was once close to it)? He certainly doesn't put up
LARGE PER and Turkoglu altough is scoring more these days and
grabbing rebounds, I would have to assume Manu, Turk, AND Bowen are
all playing solid defense. If there is any weakness in the D its
with Parker slightly, and even MORE SO at the backup PG position for
Of course the two 7 footer approach helps them all become a little
more risky etc..... But I don't see how Manu and Hedo cannot being
doing solid defensively, when the PER, defensive ratings are solid
across the board? Isn't it safe to conclude the Spurs are getting
reasonable production on both ends with the THREE MAN ROTATIOn at the
SG and SF? And the reason the SF might be low is solely because of
Bowens lack of scoring at times?