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

Re: New file uploaded to APBR_analysis

Expand Messages
  • dlirag
    I agree. In your example, it s unlikely that Stoudamire became a much worse player after he joined the Blazers. His change in role contributed to the changes
    Message 1 of 77 , Jan 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree. In your example, it's unlikely that Stoudamire became a much
      worse player after he joined the Blazers. His change in role
      contributed to the changes in his stats. In addition to this, I think
      under-utilization of Stoudamire also significantly accounts for the

      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
      > I've already commented on this issue and I already agree with much
      > what has been said about the econometric NBA paper. Still, I have
      > been thinking about this a lot and I wondered why exactly (besides
      > the conclusion of the paper) it rubbed me the wrong way. The
      > reasoning that was stated (you can't have a team of iversons or a
      > team of rodmans) strikes me as correct. If I was to try to further
      > explain this to the author of the piece I think it boils down to
      > idea that Teams as a whole have the same goal: score more points
      > the other team. To get to this we can view the teams aggregate
      > and compare them with each other because, in the aggregate the team
      > stats are focused on accomplishing this goal.
      > If you view an entire teams stats as a large pie and then look at
      > individual players as contributing slices to such a pie it becomes
      > evident why this model and many linear weight models are limited.
      > Each player's slice in pie is accomplished because he is assigned
      > with a role (ie scorer, passer, rebounder, secondary offensive
      > option, not to mention defensive roles). The hope is that a player
      > will help the team outscore another team and the strength of that
      > player in his role enables other players to succeed (or fail) in
      > their roles. So Rodman cannot just rebound and not handle the ball
      > or shoot unless Jordan scores prolifically. So it really is tough
      > compare a primary scorer with a guy in the Rodman/Outlaw role.
      > At this point, one might argue that we can compare players of
      > roles. This is true but still the problem with this is that
      > roles are not fixed or static and the scorer/passer on the bulls is
      > similar to the scorer/boarded on the jazz in role but not as much
      > statistically. So, in some senses they are the same but in some
      > are different and difficult to compare.
      > Another problem is that players often shift roles. This can
      > statistical analysis but it does give us a hint that some "role-
      > based" evaluation is the starting point for analysis. For example,
      > everyone remembers what a hot commodity Stoudamire was when he
      > came to the NBA as a primary scoring option. The second he was
      > traded and became a passer on portland he stock dropped. In 97-98,
      > when stoudamire was traded, he went from scoring 19.5 ppg and 8.1
      > with Tor to 12.4 ppg and 8.2 apg. It is unlikely that Stoudamire
      > lost so much ability in half of a year. We understand, rather,
      > Stoudamire's role changed.
      > The question than becomes is Stoudamire more valuable as a passer
      > a solid portland team or as the main scorer and passer on a crappy
      > toronto team? In this sense, the I liked the econometric paper
      > because it links effectiveness to wins created. Still it lacked
      > ability to neogtiate that fact that there are few common
      > denominantors or fixed variables in basketball stats (assuming such
      > stats as they presently exist even encompass enough of a player's
      > contributions).
      > I think the starting point for the analysis is understanding which
      > players are capable of (1) performing the most vital roles and (2)
      > performing the most amount of roles. The more roles one player can
      > fill effectively the more he frees up his teammates to do. I would
      > propose that to study players we identify all the roles we can
      > up (offensively and defensively) where possible and then view how
      > teams perform with such players in the roles versus when they have
      > other players.
      > A good example of this looking at the point guard/initiators of the
      > Lakers of 90-91 and 91-92. This is when, I'm sure you recall,
      > retired and was replaced with Sedalle Threatt. The two teams are
      > nearly identical (most key players and the coaches were the same).
      > The one major differnece was trading Magic for Threatt at the
      > point. Just looking at the stats, Magic is superior to Threatt:
      > ppg apg rpg
      > Magic 19.4 12.5 7.0
      > Threatt 15.1 7.2 3.1
      > But how this superiority reflects in wins is the real question.
      > Apparently Magic is worth 15 more wins than Threatt (58 to 43). I
      > not sure how to work back stastically to make it jive with this
      > result but this I think might be the best way to analyze players.
      > Anyway, I've babbled along long enough but to sum up I agree with
      > what most everyone else has said. I just think this role stuff
      > reflects the way NBA players function.
    • APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
      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
      Message 77 of 77 , May 5 11:21 PM
      • 0 Attachment

        This email message is a notification to let you know that
        a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the APBR_analysis

        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:

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


        skauffman <skauffman@...>
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.