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

Re: Winston-Sagarin 2003-04 Ratings

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Oct 25, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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 2 of 12 , Oct 25, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 12 , Oct 25, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          > 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 4 of 12 , Oct 25, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            > 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 5 of 12 , Oct 28, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 12 , Oct 28, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 12 , Oct 29, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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.