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

Reply : performance rating and trade value

Expand Messages
  • Joe
    ... (reply: i will consider adjusting upwards to incorporate credit for uncounted initimidations. my original thinking was based on about 20- 30% of blocks go
    Message 1 of 66 , Mar 7, 2004
      > Weighing blocks at .33 seems very low. Shotblockers get a lot more
      > minutes than players with otherwise equivalent stats.

      (reply: i will consider adjusting upwards to incorporate credit for
      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
      > actually did'. No ?

      (reply: yes there are two sides to this minutes argument, I am on
      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. )
      > > 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.

      (reply:i looked at 82 games.com for # possessions and it seemed like
      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:
      > >
      > The weight on fouls seems very high.

      (reply: i dont think it is high. i found avg foulshots taken /per
      foul and multiplied by league FT%. that seems fair to me as a first
      cut. )

      > >
      > > personal fouls: on average yield 1.0893 FTs per foul using
      > > stats *0.7475 league FT%= approx .81 points
      > 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.

      (reply I dont see the strong need to refer to possessions for a first
      cut weight given most fouls -defensive- dont affect possession.)
      > Of course, offensive fouls are worse than a turnover; and that
      > contributes some of the negative value to fouls, in general.

      (this is true. what % of fouls are offensive fouls? are they
      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.)
      > >
      > > 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.

      (sorry that was language i should have edited out when i cut and
      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.
    • nickouli5
      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).
      Message 66 of 66 , Mar 23, 2004
        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
        the Spurs.

        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?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.