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

RE: [APBR_analysis] Re: Winston-Sagarin 2003-04 Ratings

Expand Messages
  • Michael Tamada
    Winston and Sagarin have been doing this now for what, 2-3 seasons? One thing that I d like to see is how stable their ratings are. It s possible that
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 25 4:06 PM
      Winston and Sagarin have been doing this now for what,
      2-3 seasons? One thing that I'd like to see is how
      stable their ratings are. It's possible that Turkoglu's
      high 2003-04 rating is due more to luck than to his
      actual talent level. But over a 3-year period, does he
      still show up as superior to Duncan? Or, a related
      question: how often does Duncan rank less than #1 on the
      Spurs, according to Winston-Sagarin? One could imagine
      that sheer luck might make some lucky teammate often
      pop up as #1 while Duncan comes in at #2 or #3.

      That wouldn't mean that the Winston-Sagarin ratings should
      be consigned to the laugh test dumpster, but would mean
      that any one season's ratings should be taken with Shaq-
      sized grains of salt.

      But if the ratings DO consistently show Turkoglu outperforming
      Duncan, then that would indeed mean they fail the laugh and
      LMAO tests.


      --MKT



      -----Original Message-----
      From: wimpds [mailto:wimpds@...]
      Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 1:56 PM


      My favorite part is the implication that Tim Duncan is no better
      than the third best player on the team.

      Ben

      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "McKibbin, Stuart"
      <smckibbi@c...> wrote:
      > For what its worth I thought I'd pass along an article found
      online in the
      > Orlando Sentinal.
      >
      > http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/basketball/magic/orl-
      sptmagic21102104o
      > ct21,1,4749763.story?coll=orl-sports-headlines
      >
      > It's a puff piece on Turkoglu but in it there is a list of Winston
      Sagarin's
      > Top 5 ballplayers (no one else listed). W-S sees it: 1. Turkoglu
      2. Vince
      > Carter. 3. Garnett. 4. Brad Miller. 5. Manu Ginobili.
      >
      > Laugh test be damned! Turkoglu did have good plus-minus numbers but
      > honestly.....
      >
      > Best Wishes,
      > Stuart







      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • thedawgsareout
      ... I think DanR s stuff is close enough to say with a reasonable degree of certainty, not very . ... All very true, but if Sagarin and Winston make this
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 25 7:38 PM
        > One thing that I'd like to see is how stable their ratings are.

        I think DanR's stuff is close enough to say with a reasonable degree
        of certainty, "not very".

        > It's possible that Turkoglu's high 2003-04 rating is due more to
        > luck than to his actual talent level. But over a 3-year period,
        > does he still show up as superior to Duncan? Or, a related
        > question: how often does Duncan rank less than #1 on the
        > Spurs, according to Winston-Sagarin? One could imagine
        > that sheer luck might make some lucky teammate often
        > pop up as #1 while Duncan comes in at #2 or #3.
        >
        > That wouldn't mean that the Winston-Sagarin ratings should
        > be consigned to the laugh test dumpster, but would mean
        > that any one season's ratings should be taken with Shaq-
        > sized grains of salt.

        All very true, but if Sagarin and Winston make this distinction,
        they haven't made it particularly clear to the media. All these
        articles report one-year results, not multi-year results. It's
        certainly possible that Sagarin and Winston are trying to hide the
        good stuff, they're saving that for Cuban, but why expose themselves
        to this kind of "laughter" then? Why not say nothing of the one-year
        ratings?

        And this is something that's more important than whether we think
        the results pass the laugh test. This is what the public sees of NBA
        statistics, and if it doesn't pass their laugh test, neither will
        other statistical analysis. I can't count how many blogs
        had "Moneyball for the NBA?" posts about Winval after the Washington
        Times story last spring.
      • Dean Oliver
        According to SI, Brian Cardinal was #11 by winval last year. ... Yes, Dan does very clearly point out that these are unstable from year to year. ... Following
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 25 8:48 PM
          According to SI, Brian Cardinal was #11 by winval last year.


          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "thedawgsareout"
          <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
          >
          > > One thing that I'd like to see is how stable their ratings are.
          >
          > I think DanR's stuff is close enough to say with a reasonable degree
          > of certainty, "not very".

          Yes, Dan does very clearly point out that these are unstable from year
          to year.

          >
          > All very true, but if Sagarin and Winston make this distinction,
          > they haven't made it particularly clear to the media. All these
          > articles report one-year results, not multi-year results. It's
          > certainly possible that Sagarin and Winston are trying to hide the
          > good stuff, they're saving that for Cuban, but why expose themselves
          > to this kind of "laughter" then? Why not say nothing of the one-year
          > ratings?

          Following the theory that any publicity is good publicity, even if
          it's people laughing at you. Note that Dallas has done worse since
          starting to use winval. (I think they started using it in 2002,
          though I think W-S developed it in 1999 and they might have given it
          to Dallas before 2002.)

          DeanO

          Dean Oliver
          Author, Basketball on Paper
          http://www.basketballonpaper.com
          "Dean Oliver looks at basketball with a fresh perspective. If you
          want a new way to analyze the game, this book is for you. You'll
          never watch a game the same way again. We use his stuff and it helps
          us." Yvan Kelly, Scout, Seattle Sonics
        • wimpds
          ... it ... If Dallas took it at all seriously, Turkoglu would be starting for the Mavs this season, no? Ben
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 25 9:17 PM
            >
            > Following the theory that any publicity is good publicity, even if
            > it's people laughing at you. Note that Dallas has done worse since
            > starting to use winval. (I think they started using it in 2002,
            > though I think W-S developed it in 1999 and they might have given
            it
            > to Dallas before 2002.)
            >
            > DeanO
            >

            If Dallas took it at all seriously, Turkoglu would be starting for
            the Mavs this season, no?

            Ben
          • thedawgsareout
            ... Ask Mike Gimbel about that theory for me. :) ... This old article from the _Indianapolis Star_ reprinted at APBR implies summer of 2001, at latest:
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 25 10:59 PM
              > Following the theory that any publicity is good publicity, even if
              > it's people laughing at you.

              Ask Mike Gimbel about that theory for me. :)

              > Note that Dallas has done worse since starting to use winval. (I
              > think they started using it in 2002, though I think W-S developed
              > it in 1999 and they might have given it
              > to Dallas before 2002.)

              This old article from the _Indianapolis Star_ reprinted at APBR
              implies summer of 2001, at latest:

              http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR/message/6874

              "Cuban, for one, took WINVAL's ratings into account when he adjusted
              his roster last summer. He acquired Evan Eschmeyer, Tim Hardaway and
              Danny Manning, all of whom had rated highly the previous season, and
              released Howard Eisley, who rated poorly."
            • dan_t_rosenbaum
              I have mentioned this to a few folks, but I feel that the NBA statistics community takes two steps backwards every time Winston & Sagarin (W&S) open their
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 28 1:28 PM
                I have mentioned this to a few folks, but I feel that the NBA
                statistics community takes two steps backwards every time Winston &
                Sagarin (W&S) open their mouths.

                Interestingly, Mitchell Butler - W&S best player on the Wizards last
                season - got cut from the Nuggets this week. Guess the Nuggets
                aren't going to be buying W&S product anytime soon.

                More and more, I have moved to preferring the statistical rating that
                I have derived from the adjusted plus/minus statistics. It captures
                practically everything except the noise in the adjusted plus/minus
                statistics.

                My top 5 for last season was the following.

                1. Kevin Garnett
                2. Tim Duncan
                3. Shaquille O'Neal
                4. Andrei Kirilenko
                5. Tracy McGrady

                W&S do a horrible job of handling the noise that comes with the pure
                adjusted plus/minus ratings. Here is my top five in my adjusted
                plus/minus ratings (among those playing 2,000 or more minutes).

                1. Nene
                2. Kevin Garnett
                3. Andrei Kirilenko
                4. Jason Williams
                5. Vince Carter

                Note that the differences between my pure adjusted plus/minus ratings
                and those from W&S is likely due mostly to differences in how we
                handle garbage and crunch time weighting.

                Best wishes,
                Dan
              • dan_t_rosenbaum
                The differences between these adjusted plus/minus ratings and a really good statistics-based rating are not stable over time. In fact, using 175 observations
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 28 2:18 PM
                  The differences between these adjusted plus/minus ratings and a
                  really good statistics-based rating are not stable over time. In
                  fact, using 175 observations from players who played 1,000 or more
                  minutes in both 2002-03 and 2003-04, the correlation between this
                  difference in the two years is 0.08146 with a p-value of 0.2839. In
                  other words, there is no strong evidence to suggest that the
                  differences are anything other than random error, i.e. luck.

                  But remember my statistical index is calibrated to predict adjusted
                  plus/minus ratings. It does a good job of rating players like Bruce
                  Bowen and Trent Hassell, players who contribute mostly on the
                  defensive end. The differences between adjusted plus/minus ratings
                  and other statistical ratings probably would have a positive and
                  significant correlation.

                  In my adjusted plus/minus ratings, Turkoglu and Ginobili are rated
                  lower than Duncan in both 2002-03 and 2003-04. But Turkoglu was
                  much, much better in 2003-04 than in 2002-03. Ginobili also improved
                  and Duncan was about the same in both seasons.

                  Over time I think the great power of these adjusted plus/minus
                  ratings will be to tell us how to weigh the various statistics, in
                  particular new statistics that we may get from the charting projects
                  that Roland at www.82games.com is undertaking.
                • Mike G
                  ... wrote: the statistical rating that ... captures ... Looks pretty good -- especially relative to some that we have seen. ... You say you
                  Message 8 of 12 , Oct 29 7:51 AM
                    --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "dan_t_rosenbaum"
                    <rosenbaum@u...> wrote:
                    the statistical rating that
                    > I have derived from the adjusted plus/minus statistics. It
                    captures
                    > practically everything except the noise in the adjusted plus/minus
                    > statistics.
                    >
                    > My top 5 for last season was the following.
                    >
                    > 1. Kevin Garnett
                    > 2. Tim Duncan
                    > 3. Shaquille O'Neal
                    > 4. Andrei Kirilenko
                    > 5. Tracy McGrady

                    Looks pretty good -- especially relative to some that we have seen.


                    >.. Here is my top five in my adjusted
                    > plus/minus ratings (among those playing 2,000 or more minutes).
                    >
                    > 1. Nene
                    > 2. Kevin Garnett
                    > 3. Andrei Kirilenko
                    > 4. Jason Williams
                    > 5. Vince Carter

                    You say you prefer the results of the list above, and I have to
                    agree. So how exactly do you account for the extreme difference
                    here? This (2nd list) is basically a random mix of elite and
                    mediocre players.

                    Here's a short list of players you have ranked at least 33% higher
                    than I did (mine used only last year's stats, players with 1500+
                    minutes):

                    Ervin Johnson
                    Fred Jones
                    Shawn Bradley
                    Brian Cardinal
                    Michael Curry
                    Bo Outlaw
                    Shane Battier
                    Fred Hoiberg
                    Eduardo Najera
                    Trenton Hassell
                    Andrew DeClercq
                    Bruce Bowen
                    Robert Horry
                    Doug Christie

                    Most of these guys "need" some defensive recognition that I don't
                    grant them. Others (Cardinal, Bradley) receive less credit in my
                    system, which shrinks production for low-minutes players.


                    Now here are players I've apparently "overvalued" by some 40%,
                    relative to you.

                    Malik Allen
                    Ron Mercer
                    Nikoloz Tskitishvili
                    Michael Olowokandi
                    Eddy Curry
                    DeShawn Stevenson
                    Rodney White
                    Maurice Taylor
                    Marcus Fizer
                    Zach Randolph
                    Chris Mihm
                    Dajuan Wagner
                    Corliss Williamson
                    Mark Jackson
                    Predrag Drobnjak
                    Glenn Robinson

                    Some one-dimensional guys, scorers, and journeymen. No defensive
                    stalwarts.

                    I think you are on the right track.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.