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

Re: the Ruben Patterson effect

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... I would actually disagree about AI this coming season for reasons I won t go into, but the point is that actually predicting how much worse a guy s
    Message 1 of 57 , Aug 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
      > wrote:
      > >... AI's 2004 season was a bit worse than his 2003 season, which
      > > was worse than his 2001 season. Why? Was that predictable? Is it
      > > age? Is it coaching? Is it injuries (the guy doesn't seem to show
      > > much pain)?
      >
      > It's age; and the injuries that come with the minutes. You may
      > safely predict another season of decline.
      >

      I would actually disagree about AI this coming season for reasons I
      won't go into, but the point is that actually predicting how much
      worse a guy's shooting percentage is going to be, or how much better
      their turnover rate is going to be seems to be important in that + or
      -4 games per season that Bob showed with Iverson. What about Jason
      Kidd between 2003 and 2004? Antoine Walker in 2003? Or Kerry
      Kittles, Toni Kukoc, Larry Krystkowiak, Negele Knight, just to stick
      with the K's? These guys had fluctuations from year to year that
      could be injury-related or age-related or role-related (a reason you
      suggest with Q). But whatever it is - random or real - if you're off
      by 4 wins per season on just a few players, that's a pretty big error.

      > >
      > > This is relevant for Q, too. His first 2 seasons in the league
      > were
      > > much better than his last two.
      >
      > His first 2 years, his shooting % was better. But his last 2 years
      > have produced more rebounds and assists.
      >
      > Q Rich's 2004 was much better than 2003 or his rookie year.

      Hmm, this is where systems matter. My system clearly suggests he's
      been down. Actually, even credits/48 minutes suggests he was down the
      last 2 years, which doesn't account for defense very well. But your
      system suggests he's been better? Either way, what is he going to do
      next year? I think he will shoot better, a couple percent better.
      His turnover rate will drop back to about 12%, rather than 14% last
      year, though I'm not as confident in that one (I'm pretty sure one
      thing that distinguishes your system is that it doesn't weight
      turnovers as strongly as most other systems). Rebounding is very much
      role-related and I'm not sure what role he'll have there. That should
      define his rebound rate. His overall defense can't get much worse
      since the Clips didn't really play much last year.

      > > I can see why he says that, but one big thing would
      > > keep me from agreeing -- consistency. In MJ's top seasons, he was
      > > dominant every night. My "game-by-game win-loss record" for MJ was
      > > typically 60+ wins and about 20 losses, implying that he had a good
      > > night about 3/4ths of the time. McGrady, on the other hand, had
      > some
      > > monster nights that made his season total look good, but also had
      > some
      > > mediocre nights, for a similar total of 47-28 that season.
      >
      > Does this relative inconsistency hurt a mediocre team as much as it
      > would an elite team? Would it actually be a Good quality with a bad
      > team?

      I think that inconsistency was more a suggestion that it would be
      tough for McGrady to maintain that average level, which he didn't
      maintain in 2004. There were other reasons he didn't maintain the
      level, such as really weak teammates.

      With regard to your question, yes, in general, inconsistency when
      you're bad is helpful. But, McGrady himself was good and being
      consistently good would have helped. His bad teammates could have
      been inconsistent and helped.

      > Mark Cuban (on his blog) gives a glowing review of Walker's year in
      > Dallas. But then, he is shopping him . . .

      Cuban is a very good marketer. It's amazing that other teams will
      occasionally talk themselves into a corner with their own bad player,
      making it evident to other teams ways to negotiate for a better deal
      in a trade. I think most teams have caught on that Walker isn't very
      useful overall, but I'm betting Cuban will get good value for him by
      talking him up.

      DeanO

      Dean Oliver
      Author, Basketball on Paper
      http://www.basketballonpaper.com
      "Oliver's book provides an insightful framework for basketball. His
      approach highlights and simplifies the basic goals of team offenses
      and defense, with an interesting description of how teamwork among
      players with different roles can be evaluated. This book is a unique
      and surprisingly practical addition to a coach's library." Dean
      Smith, Hall of Fame Basketball Coach, University of North Carolina
    • Daniel Flemming
      ... Hash: SHA1 ... No, this is wrong. It s wrong because it favours bench players. Guys like Bowen and Artest (and especially Bowen, because he s older)
      Message 57 of 57 , Aug 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
        Hash: SHA1

        On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 smckibbi@... wrote:

        > Great idea. Perhaps the criteria for deciding which swingman is guarding who
        > would be the team's overall def points per 100 possessions when the swingman
        > is on the court. The one with the lower pts/100 poss is guarding the better
        > offensive player.

        No, this is wrong. It's wrong because it favours bench players. Guys like
        Bowen and Artest (and especially Bowen, because he's older) usually don't
        guard the opposing bench's best player; they take a rest when the other
        side's coach brings his bench players onto the floor.

        You get a guy like Peterson on the Raptors, he's usually on the floor when
        the other side's bench is, and usually not when their starters are. Now,
        he's a good defender, but his stats are going to get enhanced under this
        formula.

        Here's a Modest Proposal: Track the overall offensive production per
        minute or possession of the opposing team's players that a particular
        player defends. Compare that to their offensive production per minute or
        possession while he's on the floor. A negative result means a good
        defender, a positive result means a bad one, zero means average.
        - --
        GnuPG public key available from
        http://homepage.mac.com/danflemming/gnupg_key.html
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
        Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
        Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76

        iD8DBQFBEkgWER493M5r4PIRAsXkAKCPGIxtXyXhpN6VA+qrO35/hOxNFwCdH890
        eyD+SA/LG+nvJOZv5cfzskc=
        =Fajf
        -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.