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

Re: Major Update of WINVAL Ratings Through 2003-04

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Pelton
    Dan - The article is now live at Hoopsworld. Kevin
    Message 1 of 17 , May 3, 2004
      Dan -

      The article is now live at Hoopsworld.

      Kevin
    • Kevin Pelton
      ... Well, obviously that message was supposed to only go to DanR, but I humbly think the column is worth pimping here anyway, especially since Stuart already
      Message 2 of 17 , May 3, 2004
        > Dan -
        >
        > The article is now live at Hoopsworld.
        >
        > Kevin

        Well, obviously that message was supposed to only go to DanR, but I
        humbly think the column is worth pimping here anyway, especially
        since Stuart already hit on the Holy Grail metaphor:

        The latest from "Page 23" at Hoopsworld.com by Kevin Pelton:

        The Last NBA Crusade

        If you've seen the third and final Indiana Jones movie, "Indiana
        Jones and the Last Crusade", you probably recall what the hero
        encounters on his way to find the Holy Grail -- skulls and skeletons
        of those who have gone before him, also searching for the Holy Grail
        only to give their lives in the chase.

        Things aren't quite as dire when it comes to the search for the Holy
        Grail of rating systems by basketball's statistical analysts, but
        there are plenty of skeletons drying in the sun if you look through
        the history of such efforts.

        Over there is TENDEX, Doug Heeren's revolutionary first strike for
        using player statistics in a comprehensive rating form. Beside it
        lies Manley Credits, the simplification of TENDEX with no
        complicated pace factor to complicate, now resurrected as
        NBA.com's " Efficiency Rating System".

        Scattered throughout are other linear-weights formulas, with various
        values for blocks, steals, and whatever else. Squint hard enough and
        you might even find my own VORP system.

        None of these efforts, however, has succeeded in its quest to
        provide one rating system that's all we need to evaluate players.

        Dean Oliver, the author of Basketball on Paper, thinks there's a
        good reason for that -- the Holy Grail, at least the NBA version, is
        apocryphal, a myth blindly chased despite the fact that it does not
        exist.

        Oliver has won me over as a convert. No single rating system can
        ever provide enough subtlety, enough nuance, that it will be all we
        need. A balanced perspective, one that considers multiple rating
        systems as well as personal observation, is the only way to go.

        But that doesn't mean we can't make better rating systems. . . .

        Read the rest of the column:
        http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_8137.shtml
      • Daniel Dickey
        ... OK- cool - that makes sense. ... Count me as one that WOULD NOT complain about measuring garbage time. You obviously would have it weighted quite a bit
        Message 3 of 17 , May 5, 2004
          >From: "dan_t_rosenbaum" <rosenbaum@...>
          >Reply-To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
          >To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Major Update of WINVAL Ratings Through 2003-04
          >Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 02:42:40 -0000
          >
          >Dear DanD and JohnH:
          >
          >First of all, in comparing the game with an 11 point margin with 1
          >minute left in the third versus a game with a 4 point margin with 11
          >minutes left in the fourth, here is what my formula comes up with.
          >
          >11 point margin, 1 minute left in third: 9.0
          >4 point margin, 11 minutes left in fourth: 10.8

          OK- cool - that makes sense.

          >After I normalize the weights so that the average weight in the
          >fourth quarter is the same as the rest of the game, here is what I
          >end up with (with the average weight being 1).
          >
          >11 point margin, 1 minute left in third: 1.00
          >4 point margin, 11 minutes left in fourth: 1.29
          >
          >So I am counting latter situation much heavier.
          >
          >And on the matter of not counting garbage time at all. I could set
          >a minimum weight so that every observation is counted, but then I
          >suspect there are going to be a lot of people complain about me
          >measuring a bunch of garbage time phenoms. It is a bit of a no-win
          >situation.

          Count me as one that WOULD NOT complain about measuring garbage time. You
          obviously would have it weighted quite a bit less. PLUS you are already
          taking into account opposing lineups and other teamates on the court, etc.

          I do think we aren't getting a complete picture of a player that already has
          limited minutes to analyze when we ignore much of his performance (because
          he mainly is a "garbage time" player). So - I for one feel there should be
          a minimum small weight for garbage time.

          By the way - it looks like you might be weighting max clutch time at about
          twice the value of "normal" time- when it is all said and done - is this
          right? That kinda fits how I've envisioned looking at clutch performance -
          except I always thought the max having a weight of 2, normal 1, and
          "garbage" 0.5. Maybe 3, 1, and 0.33 would be even better. Who knows.

          Dan D

          _________________________________________________________________
          Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today -
          it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
        • tajallie@hotmail.com
          Dan, Having been one of the defenders of limiting the value of garbage time credit, count me as one who really doesn t care rather you have a zero value for
          Message 4 of 17 , May 5, 2004
            Dan,

            Having been one of the defenders of limiting the value of garbage
            time credit, count me as one who really doesn't care rather you have
            a zero value for garbage time or some minimum value (in other words
            you wouldn't hear me screaming if you added a minimum value). While I
            agree there should probably be some value for performing well when
            you team is down by 25 pts in the fourth, the truth is that if you
            are performing well enough to matter, you will play more non-garbage
            minutes. . .I think it would be fine to give some value but I don't
            think it hurts to give none.

            Mike/Bob:

            Andre Miller this season

            Jump
            62% .376
            Close
            36% .607
            Dunk
            1% .800
            Tips
            1% .714
            Inside
            38% .612

            Last season

            Jump
            74% .369
            Close
            26% .557
            Dunk
            0% .667
            Tips
            0% .667
            Inside
            26% .560

            To me, this would seem to bear out that Denver does have better
            spacing and that playing with a very active big man like Camby,
            instead of low post player like Brand, along with a wing that often
            demands a double-team like 'Melo could easily be the reason for
            Miller's improvement. I suspect if you charted where he got his
            points from, you would find offensive rebounding due to 'Melo double
            teams and more focus on Camby, Nene resulted in more flexibity for
            Andre to crash the boards (rather than actual drives, in which case
            we would expect the close shots to maintain a 56% instead of
            improving to 61% although it could just be deviation noise).

            BTW: Despite the stats, I think it was a toss-up between
            Miller, 'Melo, and Camby for Denver's MVP as all three were clearly
            more important than everyone else. Basically against any good team,
            Denver needed to have two of those three play well to win.
            Furthermore, Miller is probably the best position / technical
            rebounder on the team (i.e. he understands when and where to crash
            the boards and how to box out better than any other Nugget . .I
            beleive those benefits are underated by both the stats and perception
            of value).
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.