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

Re: Major Update of WINVAL Ratings Through 2003-04

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , May 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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 2 of 17 , May 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        >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 3 of 17 , May 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          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.