- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "dlirag" <dlirag@h...> wrote:
> My observations/questions-

demonstrate

> 3. Assuming his statistical tests are sound, he seems to

> that his linear model is better than the Cobb-Douglas framework. In

value

> page 3, he seems to associate the latter with the idea that the

> of a given stat depends on a team's other statistics. Did he intend

being

> to debunk this idea or just the Cobb-Douglas model that was

> associated with it? It seems to me that Berri's linear concept

> doesn't seem compatible with the concept of player performances

> interdependent with team performance. For example, wouldn't

Iverson's

> misses have more negative value if he were on a team with lousy

Berri has said that he does not think that the value of stats do not

> offensive rebounding?

depend on a team's other stats. And, yes, he does associate that

concept with Cobb-Douglas.

>

weighted

> 4. I noticed in the team tempo equation that FG attempts are

> more heavily than FT attempts by a ratio close to that found in Dr.

Hadn't noticed that. I did pass along the possession formula to

> Oliver's team possession formula. Is this notable?

>

Berri and he redeveloped his numbers. He said that it made little

difference in his results. Since possessions are a measurable thing

(not required to be estimated with the formula), I asked him whether

he would consider simply using the possessions total and he didn't

want to do that because it hurt his individual win calcs.

> 5. Berri's solution to the apparent statistical bias towards big

training

> players doesn't seem to fit well with the rest of his theory. It's

> hard for me to explain my unease since I don't have rigorous

> in statistics, but I feel that his framework seems to render such

players

> adjustments unnecessary. For all I know, his model could really be

> saying that big players are a lot more valuable than smaller

> (He writes about big players getting more rebounds and the smaller

I think there is a little truth in all of these. There is a

> guards getting more turnovers in his section on positional

> adjustments). If so, maybe this suggests a deficiency in the

> statistics we keep, a flaw in his model, or that big players really

> are much better.

deficiency in the stats we keep. Big men get credited for blocks,

but there is not measure associating Joe Dumars with his ability to

keep good shooters from getting the ball in good shooting position.

There are flaws in his model that are accentuated by this deficiency

in stats. Big players are, by my reckoning, more important to a

defense than small players. Big players do seem to have an advantage

overall in that height helps get you to the NBA. The average height

of NBA players is higher than in college than is higher than in HS.

The average height of NBA players is higher than those in the NBDL.

>

absence

> 6. I don't know if this is one of the formula's intended functions,

> but what does the formula say about the performance of the San

> Antonio Spurs in the season when David Robinson had that long

> due to injury?

A lot of things suggest Robinson's value to the Spurs prior to

>

Duncan's arrival.

> 7. Do the parentheses around some numbers mean that they're

negative?

> I'm having trouble with the figures in Tables 6-8.

Yes, parens mean negative. Position averages for everyone but

>

Centers, I think, were negative.

> 8. The paper deals with "wins producers." What might a study

on "loss

> producers," given this framework, yield?

Berri is thinking about this. He doesn't have a good answer for how

to estimate losses.

I sent him my list of individual win-loss records for his top win

producers. Here are the approx #s

Rodman 7.2-1.3

Malone 15-1

JWilliams 7.8-1.3

Robinson 13-1

Duncan 14-2

Jordan 16-2

Payton 14-2

Outlaw 9-2

Kidd 10-4

These are approximate. I originally calculated them with an old

formula, which makes a difference for the big offensive rebound guys

only (Rodman, Williams, Outlaw) and these are my recollections of how

the numbers I have written down (from old formula) actually change

with the new formula.

Fundamentally, the point I made to Berri is that it's very unclear

how many "games" a player is responsible for. My sense is that

players like Rodman, Williams, Outlaw aren't responsible for a lot

of "games". This is because we don't typically see big drop offs in

team performance when these guys miss games. As an example, I had

Doug Steele calculate for me the Bulls record with and without Rodman

over the 3 years he was there. They were 40-7 (85%) without him and

163-36 (82%) with him. This suggests that the difference between him

and his replacements (Kukoc, Simpkins, Salley, Wennington,

B.Williams, Buechler, and Caffey) wasn't very big and/or that

his "game" impact was small.

Dean Oliver

Journal of Basketball STudies - Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that

a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the APBR_analysis

group.

File : /Warriors Stats.pdf

Uploaded by : skauffman <skauffman@...>

Description : Analysis of the Golden State Warriors 2004-05 Season

You can access this file at the URL:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR_analysis/files/Warriors%20Stats.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

skauffman <skauffman@...>