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

How did the Bucks win?

Expand Messages
  • nickouli5
    I look at the PER and only Redd and Mason really did positive in per differential. Turns out Redd actually had the lowest on off court rating ironically by
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I look at the PER and only Redd and Mason really did positive in per
      differential.

      Turns out Redd actually had the lowest on off court rating ironically
      by FAR.

      How is this possible?

      How did the Bucks manage 41 wins with Michael Redd and Desmond Mason
      and a bunch of mediocre players?

      Was it the fact they played in the East that helped inflate their
      record?

      Did they just play their distinct roles very well?

      Is Michael Redd really that good, along with Desmond?
    • Daniel Dickey
      ... Well - considering the team played MUCH better when Redd was off the court - I don t think we can call him that good yet. Now with Mason - the team
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        >From: "nickouli5" <NikoTMP@...>
        >Reply-To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
        >To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: [APBR_analysis] How did the Bucks win?
        >Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 07:25:44 -0000

        >Is Michael Redd really that good, along with Desmond?

        Well - considering the team played MUCH better when Redd was off the court -
        I don't think we can call him "that good" yet.

        Now with Mason - the team played much better with him on the court. He
        seemed to make the biggest positive influence on the team of any regular
        player. Plus he was better than average in PER and PER differential.

        _________________________________________________________________
        FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now!
        http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
      • Dean Oliver
        ... court - ... I d still call him quite good. As DanR has pointed out, there is a lot of noise in some of these data. My methods have the ability to
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          > >Is Michael Redd really that good, along with Desmond?
          >
          > Well - considering the team played MUCH better when Redd was off the
          court -
          > I don't think we can call him "that good" yet.

          I'd still call him quite good. As DanR has pointed out, there is a
          lot of noise in some of these data. My methods have the ability to
          incorporate Roland's data into them and those data can make a
          difference. With Redd, they lower his win-loss record from 10.3-4.1
          to 9.4-5.0. One game of difference is a reasonable sized difference,
          but he is still a good player.

          The benefit of the method for incorporating context is that it reduces
          noise that is in the data and still gives credit for what the
          individual did to cause some of that team problem. It may miss things
          like picks on the offensive end, but it does account for defensive
          stuff quite well (Redd's defense takes a hit here, whereas his offense
          stays about the same).

          >
          > Now with Mason - the team played much better with him on the court. He
          > seemed to make the biggest positive influence on the team of any
          regular
          > player. Plus he was better than average in PER and PER differential.

          His individual win-loss record goes from 5.5-4.5 to 5.8-4.2, still an
          average player.

          DeanO

          Dean Oliver
          Author, Basketball on Paper
          http://www.basketballonpaper.com
          "Oliver goes beyond stats to dissect what it takes to win. His breezy
          style makes for enjoyable reading, but there are plenty of points of
          wisdom as well. This book can be appreciated by fans, players,
          coaches and executives, but more importantly it can be used as a text
          book for all these groups. You are sure to learn something you didn't
          know about basketball here." Pete Palmer, co-author, Hidden Game of
          Baseball and Hidden Game of Football
        • nickouli5
          Whats weird is that most of the NBA elite are barely capable of getting 45 wins being the ONLY player on their team. And we are talking about very good
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Whats weird is that most of the NBA elite are barely capable of
            getting 45 wins being the ONLY player on their team. And we are
            talking about very good players, the ELITE of the league. Guys like
            Duncan, Shaq and KG. Guys who can win 45 games by themselves
            probably.

            Its just when I see a team like the Bucks win 41 games I wonder how
            they get it done. Jordan alone with poor support couldn't win much
            more than 41, why can Michael Redd do the same?
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.