Re: the Ruben Patterson effect
- --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>I would actually disagree about AI this coming season for reasons I
> >... 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.
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.
> >Hmm, this is where systems matter. My system clearly suggests he's
> > This is relevant for Q, too. His first 2 seasons in the league
> > 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.
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 wouldI think that inconsistency was more a suggestion that it would be
> > 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
> > monster nights that made his season total look good, but also had
> > 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
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 inCuban is a very good marketer. It's amazing that other teams will
> Dallas. But then, he is shopping him . . .
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.
Author, Basketball on Paper
"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
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----