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

Re: Again on the Rider's of the world

Expand Messages
  • HoopStudies
    ... bad player? I m thinking not; in fact, I m thinking that it had more to do with his absolutely horrendous defense - this is a guy who said at the beginning
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
      >
      > > -Isiah Rider was a very good example of a guy who was a "creative
      > > scorer", but who really was a bad player.
      > >
      >
      >
      > But was his ability to create his own shots the reason why he was a
      bad player? I'm thinking not; in fact, I'm thinking that it had more
      to do with his absolutely horrendous defense - this is a guy who said
      at the beginning of this season that he didn't work hard on that end
      of the floor and didn't see the need to. His stats actually show him
      to be a fairly efficient player - mid-40s shooting percentage
      throughout his career with a lot of 3s, and a pretty good amount of
      FTs until the last couple years.

      I don't have my numbers here at work and I hate speaking out of my
      bad memory, but here goes -- he was typically scoring the most for
      his team, but always less efficiently than his teammates and when he
      changed teams, the offense of his new team got worse, the offense of
      his old team got better. Would that qualify as a bad offensive
      player? Not necessarily. Not if he was being traded for outstanding
      offensive guys. I'd need to look.

      > > -All those guys left for expansion drafts -- many of them became
      high
      > > scorers on bad teams. Does that mean they're good? No. Ron
      Mercer
      > > fits that mold a little right now.
      >
      > That's attributable to the Bad Team Effect. I _know_ that this
      exists, but I want to quantify it. As of right now, my team-defense
      adjustments seem to account for it pretty well.

      The "Bad Team Effect"? A guy's teammates bring him down? Is that
      what you're saying? Do we have any evidence that Mercer was ever a
      good offensive player before? Why didn't Rider's offensive numbers
      get better when playing with better teammates?

      Other questions: Should David Robinson's efficiency get better
      because Duncan is around? Did Stephon Marbury make Kevin Garnett
      better? If Larry Hughes were to go to Chicago, would he or Mercer
      take more shots? Would Chicago get better? Was Antonio Davis a
      worse player in Indiana because he didn't score as much as he does in
      Toronto? Should Davis' efficiency have been higher when he was
      surrounded by Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, and Chris Mullin than when
      his teammates are Vince Carter, Alvin Williams, Keon Clark? Jason
      Terry has been playing on a rather pitiful team, but his efficiency
      is above average, well above Mercer's. Both bad teams and Terry
      didn't have Brand around last year.

      Answering them all is above any simple rating system.

      > > -Iverson, despite his rap as a poor shooter, has generally been
      at or
      > > above the league average efficiency because the guy gets to the
      line,
      > > passes the ball (yes), and doesn't turn the ball over all that
      much.
      >
      > I actually had Iverson as one of the 10 best players in basketball
      last year. The way I figure scoring, I assume that, as a function of
      being a member of an offense, any player on a team will make a
      specific amount of baskets per minute on the floor (which I figure
      out for each team by dividing assists by minutes played). Anything
      above that is, so to speak, gravy; the net effect is that guys who
      shoot 50% from the floor but make 4 attempts per game aren't rated
      ahead of guys who shoot 25 times a night at a 45% clip.

      I don't officially rank players with one overall number. I calculate
      things like win-loss records, net points per game, offensive and
      defensive efficiencies. By everything but offensive efficiency,
      Iverson ranked very high last year. And I checked team numbers to
      see whether the individual numbers made sense. They generally did.
      He was important. I did that again this year when he missed time and
      posted it in an earlier message.

      >
      > Today's game is predicated too much on the ability of individual
      players to create their own shots to ignore this, IMO. No team in the
      league eschews the isolation play, guys who run the pick and roll
      well are going to get freed up for more shots than those who don't,
      and when there are 2 or 3 seconds left on the shot clock then that
      create-shots ability is of tantamount importance.

      Definitely. No one is questioning that.

      >
      > > -Van Exel actually has been a pretty efficient scorer throughout
      his
      > > career, just very erratic from game to game, and a poor defender.
      >
      > Also a very underrated passer. His defense seems to be erratic as
      well; for example, he gives Gary Payton fits on both ends of the
      court.

      I think Van Exel is underrated for his passing because he too often
      comes down court and throws up an early shot. He is not a bad passer
      nor a bad shooter, but he can be a very bad decision-maker.
      Especially when he played with Shaq, it really upset his teammates
      and coaches that he would come down the court at the end of a tight
      game where he was supposed to get the ball to Shaq, but just throw up
      a 3pt shot (and he admittedly made a few). Whenever I see him, he
      makes a couple bonehead decisions a game. With a less talented
      surrounding cast now, some of those 3pt shots don't seem as
      boneheaded, of course. Context is important. Decent player, but one
      that can drive a coach crazy.
    • John W. Craven
      ... Actually, exactly the opposite. A mediocre player on a bad team will put up numbers ahead of what he s shown to be capable of. I noticed this in the
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, HoopStudies wrote:

        > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
        > >
        > > > -Isiah Rider was a very good example of a guy who was a "creative
        > > > scorer", but who really was a bad player.
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > But was his ability to create his own shots the reason why he was a
        > bad player? I'm thinking not; in fact, I'm thinking that it had more
        > to do with his absolutely horrendous defense - this is a guy who said
        > at the beginning of this season that he didn't work hard on that end
        > of the floor and didn't see the need to. His stats actually show him
        > to be a fairly efficient player - mid-40s shooting percentage
        > throughout his career with a lot of 3s, and a pretty good amount of
        > FTs until the last couple years.
        >
        > I don't have my numbers here at work and I hate speaking out of my
        > bad memory, but here goes -- he was typically scoring the most for
        > his team, but always less efficiently than his teammates and when he
        > changed teams, the offense of his new team got worse, the offense of
        > his old team got better. Would that qualify as a bad offensive
        > player? Not necessarily. Not if he was being traded for outstanding
        > offensive guys. I'd need to look.
        >
        > > > -All those guys left for expansion drafts -- many of them became
        > high
        > > > scorers on bad teams. Does that mean they're good? No. Ron
        > Mercer
        > > > fits that mold a little right now.
        > >
        > > That's attributable to the Bad Team Effect. I _know_ that this
        > exists, but I want to quantify it. As of right now, my team-defense
        > adjustments seem to account for it pretty well.
        >
        > The "Bad Team Effect"? A guy's teammates bring him down?

        Actually, exactly the opposite. A mediocre player on a bad team will put up numbers ahead of what he's shown to be "capable" of. I noticed this in the expansion years.

        > Is that
        > what you're saying? Do we have any evidence that Mercer was ever a
        > good offensive player before?

        No, in fact we have evidence that he's *not* a good offensive player, and yet he puts up attractive offensive numbers. I'm of the opinion that this is a direct result of his playing for a crappy team and being the least bad of all the bad options available.

        > Why didn't Rider's offensive numbers
        > get better when playing with better teammates?

        Well, this is exactly my point. Sorry I didn't explain myself better.

        >
        > Other questions: Should David Robinson's efficiency get better
        > because Duncan is around? Did Stephon Marbury make Kevin Garnett
        > better? If Larry Hughes were to go to Chicago, would he or Mercer
        > take more shots? Would Chicago get better? Was Antonio Davis a
        > worse player in Indiana because he didn't score as much as he does in
        > Toronto? Should Davis' efficiency have been higher when he was
        > surrounded by Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, and Chris Mullin than when
        > his teammates are Vince Carter, Alvin Williams, Keon Clark? Jason
        > Terry has been playing on a rather pitiful team, but his efficiency
        > is above average, well above Mercer's. Both bad teams and Terry
        > didn't have Brand around last year.
        >
        > Answering them all is above any simple rating system.
        >
        > > > -Iverson, despite his rap as a poor shooter, has generally been
        > at or
        > > > above the league average efficiency because the guy gets to the
        > line,
        > > > passes the ball (yes), and doesn't turn the ball over all that
        > much.
        > >
        > > I actually had Iverson as one of the 10 best players in basketball
        > last year. The way I figure scoring, I assume that, as a function of
        > being a member of an offense, any player on a team will make a
        > specific amount of baskets per minute on the floor (which I figure
        > out for each team by dividing assists by minutes played). Anything
        > above that is, so to speak, gravy; the net effect is that guys who
        > shoot 50% from the floor but make 4 attempts per game aren't rated
        > ahead of guys who shoot 25 times a night at a 45% clip.
        >
        > I don't officially rank players with one overall number. I calculate
        > things like win-loss records, net points per game, offensive and
        > defensive efficiencies. By everything but offensive efficiency,
        > Iverson ranked very high last year. And I checked team numbers to
        > see whether the individual numbers made sense. They generally did.
        > He was important. I did that again this year when he missed time and
        > posted it in an earlier message.
        >
        > >
        > > Today's game is predicated too much on the ability of individual
        > players to create their own shots to ignore this, IMO. No team in the
        > league eschews the isolation play, guys who run the pick and roll
        > well are going to get freed up for more shots than those who don't,
        > and when there are 2 or 3 seconds left on the shot clock then that
        > create-shots ability is of tantamount importance.
        >
        > Definitely. No one is questioning that.
        >
        > >
        > > > -Van Exel actually has been a pretty efficient scorer throughout
        > his
        > > > career, just very erratic from game to game, and a poor defender.
        > >
        > > Also a very underrated passer. His defense seems to be erratic as
        > well; for example, he gives Gary Payton fits on both ends of the
        > court.
        >
        > I think Van Exel is underrated for his passing because he too often
        > comes down court and throws up an early shot. He is not a bad passer
        > nor a bad shooter, but he can be a very bad decision-maker.

        Yeah, I totally agree.

        > Especially when he played with Shaq, it really upset his teammates
        > and coaches that he would come down the court at the end of a tight
        > game where he was supposed to get the ball to Shaq, but just throw up
        > a 3pt shot (and he admittedly made a few). Whenever I see him, he
        > makes a couple bonehead decisions a game. With a less talented
        > surrounding cast now, some of those 3pt shots don't seem as
        > boneheaded, of course. Context is important. Decent player, but one
        > that can drive a coach crazy.

        Yeah, I've always kind of wondered about him. He seems to be the kind of guy who is, by dint of his playing style, completely unable to "tone down" his game to accomodate better teammates. I guess that if he could, he'd still be a Laker.

        John Craven
      • thedawgsareout
        ... will put up numbers ahead of what he s shown to be capable of. I noticed this in the expansion years. I may too be mis-reading this, but wouldn t that
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
          > Actually, exactly the opposite. A mediocre player on a bad team
          will put up numbers ahead of what he's shown to be "capable" of. I
          noticed this in the expansion years.

          I may too be mis-reading this, but wouldn't that really only be the
          case if we were looking at primary statistics? Yes, the scoring
          average may go up, but any effective system of statistical analysis
          is going to show that this isn't an improvement, but merely the
          effect of more chances.

          If we're looking at a player's offensive effectiveness based in
          significant part on an efficiency ratio like points in possessions
          used, or something like that, I think the opposite effect is seen
          with secondary players. A guy that depends on teammates (Steve Kerr,
          for example) to create for him is going to have effectiveness which
          is largely a function of the quality of said teammates.

          It's my opinion (hope?) that doing something along the lines of my
          unassisted/assisted field goal project (I'm putting the results at
          www.sonicscentral.com/assists/index.html in case anyone besides DeanO
          is interested) will help to control to some extent for this effect.
        • John Craven
          ... From: thedawgsareout To: Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:08 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re:
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "thedawgsareout" <kpelton08@...>
            To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:08 PM
            Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Again on the Rider's of the world


            > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
            > > Actually, exactly the opposite. A mediocre player on a bad team
            > will put up numbers ahead of what he's shown to be "capable" of. I
            > noticed this in the expansion years.
            >
            > I may too be mis-reading this, but wouldn't that really only be the
            > case if we were looking at primary statistics? Yes, the scoring
            > average may go up, but any effective system of statistical analysis
            > is going to show that this isn't an improvement, but merely the
            > effect of more chances.

            From what I've seen so far, I don't think so. One of my points with the
            creating-shots skill was that, all other things being equal, a 45% shooter
            who takes 25 shots a game is a more skilled player than a 45% shooter who
            takes 10 shots a game. The problem is, when one team wins 20 games and the
            other wins 55, then all other things _aren't_ equal. Allen Iverson is a very
            good player; Antawn Jamison (IMO) is not.

            >
            > If we're looking at a player's offensive effectiveness based in
            > significant part on an efficiency ratio like points in possessions
            > used, or something like that, I think the opposite effect is seen
            > with secondary players. A guy that depends on teammates (Steve Kerr,
            > for example) to create for him is going to have effectiveness which
            > is largely a function of the quality of said teammates.
            >
            > It's my opinion (hope?) that doing something along the lines of my
            > unassisted/assisted field goal project (I'm putting the results at
            > www.sonicscentral.com/assists/index.html in case anyone besides DeanO
            > is interested) will help to control to some extent for this effect.
            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
          • mikel_ind
            ... Having played just a bit, I would say Jamison is very, very good, and Iverson is great; Jamison is a star, Iverson is a superstar. Mike Goodman
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
              > . . . Allen Iverson is a very
              > good player; Antawn Jamison (IMO) is not.

              Having played just a bit, I would say Jamison is very, very good,
              and Iverson is great; Jamison is a star, Iverson is a superstar.


              Mike Goodman
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.