Reply : performance rating and trade value
> Weighing blocks at .33 seems very low. Shotblockers get a lot more(reply: i will consider adjusting upwards to incorporate credit for
> minutes than players with otherwise equivalent stats.
uncounted initimidations. my original thinking was based on about 20-
30% of blocks go out of bounds and only about half of the remainder
are recovered by the blocker's team so only 30-35% of blocks create
possession so that would be 30-35% * value of possession or
roughly .33 weight. to incorporate credit for uncounted
initimidations and just generally protecting the paint, which i had
not done and argee is deserved to get closer to reality / true value,
am increasing my block credit to .6.)
>> What you ARE capable of doing in 36 minutes -- whether it takes
> 1 or 2 or 3 games to get 36 min. -- could also be called 'what you(reply: yes there are two sides to this minutes argument, I am on
> actually did'. No ?
the other side. but i also do per minute analysis to supplement
player evaluation. straight minutes played per game seems to me to
the right starting point for rating performance, especially if the
main focus is on starters. )
>(reply:i looked at 82 games.com for # possessions and it seemed like
> > or pace (only a 5-7% spread in the
> > league?). >
> Isn't it more like a 10-12% difference both above and below the
> 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.
everyone was in the high 80's, low 90's (hence my quick estimate of 5-
7% variance) but if you have looked at it more completely or measured
the distribution more accurately, i'd listen.
i'm not strenuously objecting to pace adjustments. i accept the
basic premise. but i think the proportional pace adjustments to some
degree over-credits/covers up slow offenses trouble with scoring.
and i think adjustment for pace can still be considered outside /
after the stats of individual players are compared. doing it that
way allow you discretion to judge whether a player would perform
better or worse or equivalently in a different pace environment.
incorporating the pace adjustment in the stats seems to be implicitly
assuming that player performance would be the same rate except for a
proportional pace adjustment. and if you accept that it is in in a
paced adjusted stat and dont think further on the subject you might
miss some issues. some run and gun shooters might die on a half
court team and vice versa. )
> > explanation of specific weights:(reply: i dont think it is high. i found avg foulshots taken /per
> The weight on fouls seems very high.
foul and multiplied by league FT%. that seems fair to me as a first
> > personal fouls: on average yield 1.0893 FTs per foul using
> > stats *0.7475 league FT%= approx .81 points(reply I dont see the strong need to refer to possessions for a first
> This has been a recurring theme here. Shouldn't the .81 pts be
> 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.
cut weight given most fouls -defensive- dont affect possession.)
>(this is true. what % of fouls are offensive fouls? are they
> Of course, offensive fouls are worse than a turnover; and that
> contributes some of the negative value to fouls, in general.
tracked seperately anywhere? if 82games did, then i'd agree to an
adjustment. until it is available, perhaps my weight should actually
increase back to a full 1 weight to approximately add a little extra
penalty for offensive fouls.)
>(sorry that was language i should have edited out when i cut and
> > assists (.5) and blocks (33 *1.04= .342) basically as previously
> > discussed.
> Sorry, I don't see this discussion. But I'm curious how you manage
> to rate these skills so low.
paste from my original discussion of these weights elsewhere. but i
responded to blocks in this post and offered some of my thinking on
assists elsewhere in the original post. i am comfortable with my
basic logic. in general i think assists are given out too freely and
in most chances dont really add that much to the chance the shot goes
in. but i am willing to re-adjust it upwards a bit to recognize that
assistmen take responsibility for calling and running plays and that
should be recognized. and that ratings seem to favor big men over
guards in general. tentatively i am willing to go to .7 on assists.
thanks for the comments.
- 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?