Re: How did the Bucks win?
> >Is Michael Redd really that good, along with Desmond?court -
> Well - considering the team played MUCH better when Redd was off the
> 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
> 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
Author, Basketball on Paper
"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
- 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
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?