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

RE: [APBR_analysis] How did the Bucks win?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.