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

Re: the Bad Team Effect

Expand Messages
  • HoopStudies
    Mike -- What your stats say to me is that there doesn t appear to be any difference in per minute stats when traded. Is that right? Your measure of shooting
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike --

      What your stats say to me is that there doesn't appear to be any
      difference in per minute stats when traded. Is that right? Your
      measure of shooting efficiency implies an improvement with good
      teams, but I think it's important to get some sense of statistical
      significance on that. It speaks to the assertion out there that
      stats are not context sensitive (something I don't believe).

      What I have generally seen (not studied as you did) is that very good
      players don't have statistical changes when changing teams. Less
      than very good players do, sometimes for better, sometimes for
      worse. You have competing effects. Going to a good team can make
      you better by freeing you up for better shots. Or it can make you
      worse because you just can't get any playing time to "get rhythm", as
      they say.

      I'd be curious to get your list of players/teams in each group.


      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
      > Common belief has it that a player can produce bigger numbers on a
      > bad team than he will on a good team. There are numerous examples
      at
      > hand: Ron Harper from Clipps to Bulls, Tony Campbell from Lakers to
      > Wolves, for example.
      >
      > I compiled 182 instances of players (active in 2001) who were
      traded
      > or otherwise changed teams, and how they performed before and after
      > their trade. I had Excel list them by ratio of their 1st and 2nd
      > teams' winning pct.
      >
      > At one end of the spectrum is Greg Anthony moving from the Knicks
      to
      > the Grizz in '96. At the other end is Mr. Anthony moving from the
      > Grizz to the Sonics in '98.
      >
      > I divided the 182 trades into 5 levels in this arrangement.
      > Anthony's first move is in the "Best-to-worst" group, and his 2nd
      > trade is in the "Worst-to-best" category.
      >
      > For purposes of comparison, I used my own "standardized" stats,
      which
      > purport to remove the effects of increased minutes, changes in game
      > pace, etc. "Eff." refers to "scoring efficiency", a combined
      > shooting pct.
      >
      > There are 36 players in each group, except the middle group, which
      > has 38. Here are average rates for each group:
      >
      > Best to Worst (Team 1 - Team 2):
      > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
      > T1 .647 25.9 .524 14.2 5.9 3.6 (2.2) 24.6
      > T2 .291 30.8 .505 13.9 6.1 3.9 (2.3) 24.9
      >
      > Good to Average:
      > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
      > T1 .610 29.0 .530 16.3 6.8 2.9 (2.1) 27.5
      > T2 .508 30.7 .517 15.2 6.8 3.3 (2.2) 26.5
      >
      > Average to Average:
      > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
      > T1 .547 28.6 .515 14.5 6.8 3.5 (2.2) 27.0
      > T2 .560 29.5 .513 14.3 6.9 3.6 (2.2) 26.2
      >
      > Average to Good:
      > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
      > T1 .465 30.2 .534 14.6 7.0 2.9 (2.0) 26.0
      > T2 .616 28.4 .533 14.4 6.9 2.6 (1.9) 25.0
      >
      > Worst to Best:
      > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
      > T1 .290 31.6 .511 14.8 6.2 4.1 (2.6) 26.7
      > T2 .641 28.2 .525 14.9 6.1 3.8 (2.3) 26.1
      >
      >
      > The group names are somewhat arbitrary. Going from a 20-win team
      to
      > a 40-win team, or going from a 35-win team to a 70-win team, you
      > still are in the "worst to best" group.
      >
      > The sample of 182 are current (as of last year) players who changed
      > teams, at any time since 1989-90. For players traded midseason, I
      > used the last full season with Team 1, and the first full season
      with
      > Team 2. In some cases, there is more than one year between the
      > seasons being considered.
      >
      > Only players with at least 400 minutes with each team were included.
      >
      > I am sure there is some sampling error produced by the selection
      > process. Players who were traded and then never had a 400-minute
      > season are selected out.
      >
      >
      > Mike Goodman
    • John Craven
      ... From: HoopStudies To: Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:06 AM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: the Bad Team
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 4, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "HoopStudies" <deano@...>
        To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:06 AM
        Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: the Bad Team Effect


        > Mike --
        >
        > What your stats say to me is that there doesn't appear to be any
        > difference in per minute stats when traded. Is that right? Your
        > measure of shooting efficiency implies an improvement with good
        > teams, but I think it's important to get some sense of statistical
        > significance on that. It speaks to the assertion out there that
        > stats are not context sensitive (something I don't believe).
        >
        > What I have generally seen (not studied as you did) is that very good
        > players don't have statistical changes when changing teams. Less
        > than very good players do, sometimes for better, sometimes for
        > worse. You have competing effects. Going to a good team can make
        > you better by freeing you up for better shots. Or it can make you
        > worse because you just can't get any playing time to "get rhythm", as
        > they say.
        >

        Well, I stand corrected... for now, anyway. I'm kind of curious to see how
        the different positions grade out. I completely agree (now) that an Elton
        Brand won't get any worse statistically moving to a better team (and may
        even get better as he's surrounded by teammates who can pass him the ball),
        but what about those Michael Finley-esque 2s and 3s?

        One other thing: I'm not so sure about only ranking players by win
        differential. In the little bit of study I've done of this, the BTE doesn't
        seem to apply to teams that have won more than 30 games or so, and there
        isn't a reciprocal Good Team Effect that I have seen.

        Sounds like something I need to do myself (heh).

        John Craven

        > I'd be curious to get your list of players/teams in each group.
        >
        >
        > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
        > > Common belief has it that a player can produce bigger numbers on a
        > > bad team than he will on a good team. There are numerous examples
        > at
        > > hand: Ron Harper from Clipps to Bulls, Tony Campbell from Lakers to
        > > Wolves, for example.
        > >
        > > I compiled 182 instances of players (active in 2001) who were
        > traded
        > > or otherwise changed teams, and how they performed before and after
        > > their trade. I had Excel list them by ratio of their 1st and 2nd
        > > teams' winning pct.
        > >
        > > At one end of the spectrum is Greg Anthony moving from the Knicks
        > to
        > > the Grizz in '96. At the other end is Mr. Anthony moving from the
        > > Grizz to the Sonics in '98.
        > >
        > > I divided the 182 trades into 5 levels in this arrangement.
        > > Anthony's first move is in the "Best-to-worst" group, and his 2nd
        > > trade is in the "Worst-to-best" category.
        > >
        > > For purposes of comparison, I used my own "standardized" stats,
        > which
        > > purport to remove the effects of increased minutes, changes in game
        > > pace, etc. "Eff." refers to "scoring efficiency", a combined
        > > shooting pct.
        > >
        > > There are 36 players in each group, except the middle group, which
        > > has 38. Here are average rates for each group:
        > >
        > > Best to Worst (Team 1 - Team 2):
        > > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
        > > T1 .647 25.9 .524 14.2 5.9 3.6 (2.2) 24.6
        > > T2 .291 30.8 .505 13.9 6.1 3.9 (2.3) 24.9
        > >
        > > Good to Average:
        > > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
        > > T1 .610 29.0 .530 16.3 6.8 2.9 (2.1) 27.5
        > > T2 .508 30.7 .517 15.2 6.8 3.3 (2.2) 26.5
        > >
        > > Average to Average:
        > > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
        > > T1 .547 28.6 .515 14.5 6.8 3.5 (2.2) 27.0
        > > T2 .560 29.5 .513 14.3 6.9 3.6 (2.2) 26.2
        > >
        > > Average to Good:
        > > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
        > > T1 .465 30.2 .534 14.6 7.0 2.9 (2.0) 26.0
        > > T2 .616 28.4 .533 14.4 6.9 2.6 (1.9) 25.0
        > >
        > > Worst to Best:
        > > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
        > > T1 .290 31.6 .511 14.8 6.2 4.1 (2.6) 26.7
        > > T2 .641 28.2 .525 14.9 6.1 3.8 (2.3) 26.1
        > >
        > >
        > > The group names are somewhat arbitrary. Going from a 20-win team
        > to
        > > a 40-win team, or going from a 35-win team to a 70-win team, you
        > > still are in the "worst to best" group.
        > >
        > > The sample of 182 are current (as of last year) players who changed
        > > teams, at any time since 1989-90. For players traded midseason, I
        > > used the last full season with Team 1, and the first full season
        > with
        > > Team 2. In some cases, there is more than one year between the
        > > seasons being considered.
        > >
        > > Only players with at least 400 minutes with each team were included.
        > >
        > > I am sure there is some sampling error produced by the selection
        > > process. Players who were traded and then never had a 400-minute
        > > season are selected out.
        > >
        > >
        > > Mike Goodman
        >
        >
        >
        > 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
        ... That seems to be largely the case. Interesting to me is how assist rates seem to change. The context has been largely stripped away by the way I keep
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 4, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
          > Mike --
          >
          > What your stats say to me is that there doesn't appear to be any
          > difference in per minute stats when traded. Is that right? Your
          > measure of shooting efficiency implies an improvement with good
          > teams, but I think it's important to get some sense of statistical
          > significance on that. It speaks to the assertion out there that
          > stats are not context sensitive (something I don't believe).

          That seems to be largely the case. Interesting to me is how assist
          rates seem to change.

          The context has been largely stripped away by the way I keep track of
          statistics.

          Obviously, if you want to take the minutes-per-game number provided,
          multiply by min/36, you can get a better idea of changes in per-
          game scoring, etc. The minutes are certainly the thing that changes
          most, so per-game numbers do likewise.

          Most bad teams are bad defensively (as good teams tend to be better
          than average defensively); since my "rates" have already had team-
          defensive adjustments (ppg allowed), this context is also removed.

          Finally, my scoring rates have shooting pct factored in. So, by
          factoring it back out, you get closer to a guy's "raw" per-game
          scoring.

          To summarize: going to a worse team increases minutes, increases
          scoring attempts, and reduces shooting pct. Once these are factored
          out, you see the results I posted earlier.

          >
          > What I have generally seen (not studied as you did) is that very
          good
          > players don't have statistical changes when changing teams. Less
          > than very good players do, sometimes for better, sometimes for
          > worse. You have competing effects. Going to a good team can make
          > you better by freeing you up for better shots. Or it can make you
          > worse because you just can't get any playing time to "get rhythm",
          as
          > they say.

          I agree, on the intuitive level. My list mostly consists of average-
          and-better players. The 400-minute qualification excludes players
          who "came out of nowhere" on a deep bench, as well as those
          who "disappeared" when traded to a better team.
          I don't know if this is a major element in a more comprehensive
          survey; I just wanted a decent set of measurements, as well as a
          manageably sized survey.


          Mike G
        • alleyoop2
          You could practically create your own micro-study just with Greg Anthony. I was reading this the other day and then it occurred to me that after this year he
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 5, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            You could practically create your own micro-study just with Greg
            Anthony. I was reading this the other day and then it occurred to me
            that after this year he will AGAIN be at the top of the good-to-bad
            list when his Portland to Chicago move gets put in.

            To me, there's two good tests for a rating system. One is the David
            Wesley Test - when a guy changes positions so that his points/assists
            rates are altered, he still should rate about the same. The second is
            the Greg Anthony Test - when a guy goes from a good team to a crap
            team or vice versa, he should still rate about the same.

            At the same time, I try to keep in my mind that there's other stuff
            going on between seasons. For example, I have Greg Anthony doing a
            fair amount better this season than a year ago, which would be
            worrying if I hadn't been in Portland last season and known that a)
            his ankle was bothering him all year, and b) in the spirit of last
            season's Portland clubhouse, he openly gave up on the season about
            halfway through, to the point where he stopped doing pre-game work
            that he done religiously for the previous two and a half seasons.

            Anyway, don't mean to ramble, but wanted to share those thoughts with
            the crowd.

            John Hollinger




            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "HoopStudies" <deano@r...>
            > To: <APBR_analysis@y...>
            > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:06 AM
            > Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: the Bad Team Effect
            >
            >
            > > Mike --
            > >
            > > What your stats say to me is that there doesn't appear to be any
            > > difference in per minute stats when traded. Is that right? Your
            > > measure of shooting efficiency implies an improvement with good
            > > teams, but I think it's important to get some sense of statistical
            > > significance on that. It speaks to the assertion out there that
            > > stats are not context sensitive (something I don't believe).
            > >
            > > What I have generally seen (not studied as you did) is that very
            good
            > > players don't have statistical changes when changing teams. Less
            > > than very good players do, sometimes for better, sometimes for
            > > worse. You have competing effects. Going to a good team can make
            > > you better by freeing you up for better shots. Or it can make you
            > > worse because you just can't get any playing time to "get
            rhythm", as
            > > they say.
            > >
            >
            > Well, I stand corrected... for now, anyway. I'm kind of curious to
            see how
            > the different positions grade out. I completely agree (now) that an
            Elton
            > Brand won't get any worse statistically moving to a better team
            (and may
            > even get better as he's surrounded by teammates who can pass him
            the ball),
            > but what about those Michael Finley-esque 2s and 3s?
            >
            > One other thing: I'm not so sure about only ranking players by win
            > differential. In the little bit of study I've done of this, the BTE
            doesn't
            > seem to apply to teams that have won more than 30 games or so, and
            there
            > isn't a reciprocal Good Team Effect that I have seen.
            >
            > Sounds like something I need to do myself (heh).
            >
            > John Craven
            >
            > > I'd be curious to get your list of players/teams in each group.
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
            > > > Common belief has it that a player can produce bigger numbers
            on a
            > > > bad team than he will on a good team. There are numerous
            examples
            > > at
            > > > hand: Ron Harper from Clipps to Bulls, Tony Campbell from
            Lakers to
            > > > Wolves, for example.
            > > >
            > > > I compiled 182 instances of players (active in 2001) who were
            > > traded
            > > > or otherwise changed teams, and how they performed before and
            after
            > > > their trade. I had Excel list them by ratio of their 1st and
            2nd
            > > > teams' winning pct.
            > > >
            > > > At one end of the spectrum is Greg Anthony moving from the
            Knicks
            > > to
            > > > the Grizz in '96. At the other end is Mr. Anthony moving from
            the
            > > > Grizz to the Sonics in '98.
            > > >
            > > > I divided the 182 trades into 5 levels in this arrangement.
            > > > Anthony's first move is in the "Best-to-worst" group, and his
            2nd
            > > > trade is in the "Worst-to-best" category.
            > > >
            > > > For purposes of comparison, I used my own "standardized" stats,
            > > which
            > > > purport to remove the effects of increased minutes, changes in
            game
            > > > pace, etc. "Eff." refers to "scoring efficiency", a combined
            > > > shooting pct.
            > > >
            > > > There are 36 players in each group, except the middle group,
            which
            > > > has 38. Here are average rates for each group:
            > > >
            > > > Best to Worst (Team 1 - Team 2):
            > > > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
            > > > T1 .647 25.9 .524 14.2 5.9 3.6 (2.2) 24.6
            > > > T2 .291 30.8 .505 13.9 6.1 3.9 (2.3) 24.9
            > > >
            > > > Good to Average:
            > > > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
            > > > T1 .610 29.0 .530 16.3 6.8 2.9 (2.1) 27.5
            > > > T2 .508 30.7 .517 15.2 6.8 3.3 (2.2) 26.5
            > > >
            > > > Average to Average:
            > > > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
            > > > T1 .547 28.6 .515 14.5 6.8 3.5 (2.2) 27.0
            > > > T2 .560 29.5 .513 14.3 6.9 3.6 (2.2) 26.2
            > > >
            > > > Average to Good:
            > > > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
            > > > T1 .465 30.2 .534 14.6 7.0 2.9 (2.0) 26.0
            > > > T2 .616 28.4 .533 14.4 6.9 2.6 (1.9) 25.0
            > > >
            > > > Worst to Best:
            > > > Tm Pct. Min. Eff. Sco. Reb Ast (TO). Total
            > > > T1 .290 31.6 .511 14.8 6.2 4.1 (2.6) 26.7
            > > > T2 .641 28.2 .525 14.9 6.1 3.8 (2.3) 26.1
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > The group names are somewhat arbitrary. Going from a 20-win
            team
            > > to
            > > > a 40-win team, or going from a 35-win team to a 70-win team, you
            > > > still are in the "worst to best" group.
            > > >
            > > > The sample of 182 are current (as of last year) players who
            changed
            > > > teams, at any time since 1989-90. For players traded
            midseason, I
            > > > used the last full season with Team 1, and the first full season
            > > with
            > > > Team 2. In some cases, there is more than one year between the
            > > > seasons being considered.
            > > >
            > > > Only players with at least 400 minutes with each team were
            included.
            > > >
            > > > I am sure there is some sampling error produced by the selection
            > > > process. Players who were traded and then never had a 400-
            minute
            > > > season are selected out.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Mike Goodman
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@y...
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >
            > >
            > >
          • Michael K. Tamada
            ... These are good tests, but might be overly stringent. I don t know if there are any statistical rating schemes that can accurately correct for position
            Message 5 of 10 , Feb 5, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, alleyoop2 wrote:

              > You could practically create your own micro-study just with Greg
              > Anthony. I was reading this the other day and then it occurred to me
              > that after this year he will AGAIN be at the top of the good-to-bad
              > list when his Portland to Chicago move gets put in.
              >
              > To me, there's two good tests for a rating system. One is the David
              > Wesley Test - when a guy changes positions so that his points/assists
              > rates are altered, he still should rate about the same. The second is
              > the Greg Anthony Test - when a guy goes from a good team to a crap
              > team or vice versa, he should still rate about the same.

              These are good tests, but might be overly stringent. I don't know if
              there are any statistical rating schemes that can accurately correct for
              position changes or changes in team context.

              I actually did do, not a micro-study of Greg Anthony, but a micro-micro
              study of him. This was about 3-4 years ago, when he was with the Sonics,
              just before he went to the Blazers. He spent only one year with the
              Sonics; in November it seemed to me that he was playing awful basketball.
              I finally decided to test this: I started calculating his plus-minus
              rating, as is sometimes done for hockey players. This was just before the
              play-by-play sheets for games were available on the web, so I'd just
              listen to the games, note the score when Anthony came in, and note the
              score when he exited. My subjective notion was that he was costing the
              Sonics a point a minute.

              And the statistics showed that was almost exactly what was happening!
              Payton would come out, Anthony would go in, and whatever the score was,
              for each minute that Anthony was in, the Sonics would fall behind (or have
              their lead shrink) by almost exactly a point.

              Unless the game had garbage time, Payton was playing about 40 minutes a
              game, and Anthony about 8. Imagine what pressure the Sonics faced,
              knowing that with Payton in there, they needed to build at least an 8
              point lead, because when Payton sat and Anthony came in, those 8 points
              would evaporate.

              I don't know what the plus-minus ratings are for other players, but -1
              point per minute has to be about as bad as can be.

              Obviously there are a lot of contaminating factors with plus-minus
              ratings: who were Greg's teammates on the floor? Which 5 players were
              they facing? And compared to Payton, just about any PG is going to be
              looking relatively bad.

              But the plus-minus stat was I think valid for Anthony
              because it confirmed what I was seeing subjectively: Greg Anthony early
              that season was a terrible player, shooting too much, missing way too
              much, and playing bad defense. This was when the Sonics were playing the
              Bob Kloppenburg/George Karl trapping and double-teaming defense. Anthony
              was clueless about the defense, he would just randomly leave his man to go
              over and double-team the ball, creating huge holes in the Sonics defense
              and resulting in easy baskets. Double-team traps were an effective ploy
              for the Sonics (during the regular season that is; they and the Sonics
              usually flopped in the playoffs), but Anthony's double-teams were the
              opposite of effective: instead of putting pressure on the offense he was
              creating holes in the defense.

              But that was Nov. and Dec. and maybe January.

              By mid-season however Greg Anthony was improving. So much so that I
              stopped keeping track of the stat even before the All-star game. By the
              last half of the season he was IMO one of the best backup PGs in the NBA.
              E.g. although he shot only 43%, he shot 42% on 3-pointers, and his overall
              adjusted FG% was 52% and his overall shooting efficiency (including FTs)
              was 54%. Those numbers are especially good when you consider how
              execrable they had been in the first half of the season.


              So there are things that go on beyond simply switching teams from good to
              bad or bad to good. Even within a season, without switching teams or
              positions, a player's stats can change; in the case of Anthony those
              statistical changes reflect a true change in his quality of play.

              Possibly it took Anthony half the season to get used to his new team,
              especially the trapping defense. The LA Times sportswriters say that it
              takes players who join the Lakers at least half a season to get used to
              the triangle offense. But I don't know if it's team switching that
              caused Anthony's bad first half and good second half, or just that
              sometimes players play well and sometimes they don't.


              --MKT
            • mikel_ind
              ... were ... be ... This may be a good example of why the +/- value is sometimes screwy. Payton was carrying the Sonics, basically. The team wasn t the same
              Message 6 of 10 , Feb 5, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                >
                > Obviously there are a lot of contaminating factors with plus-minus
                > ratings: who were Greg's teammates on the floor? Which 5 players
                were
                > they facing? And compared to Payton, just about any PG is going to
                be
                > looking relatively bad.

                This may be a good example of why the +/- value is sometimes screwy.
                Payton was carrying the Sonics, basically. The team wasn't the same
                without him. Unless his backup was pretty good (capable of
                starting), there would be a pronounced difference.

                Put another way: without Payton, the Sonics sucked; and Anthony was
                the one guy that was always in when Payton was out.

                > So there are things that go on beyond simply switching teams from
                good to
                > bad or bad to good. Even within a season, without switching teams
                or
                > positions, a player's stats can change; in the case of Anthony those
                > statistical changes reflect a true change in his quality of play.

                Actually, in 4 of the 5 groups I delineated, players seem to do worse
                their first year after a trade. Even if they are up to speed by mid-
                year, the effects of the bad 1st-half will show.

                The only group that showed improvement upon trading was best-to-worst
                (team) players, and it was about 1%, and probably attributable to
                more regular minutes.

                It looks like Anthony going from Vancouver to Seattle caused his
                productivity to drop about 10% for the year. (see Sheet 3, column AC)


                Mike Goodman
              • mikel_ind
                ... Yep, Anthony is way up from last year, particularly in assists, which have almost tripled (3.0 to 8.1, per-36 min.). ... points/assists ... is ... Anthony
                Message 7 of 10 , Feb 5, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "alleyoop2" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                  > You could practically create your own micro-study just with Greg
                  > Anthony. I was reading this the other day and then it occurred to
                  >me
                  > that after this year he will AGAIN be at the top of the good-to-bad
                  > list when his Portland to Chicago move gets put in.

                  Yep, Anthony is way up from last year, particularly in assists, which
                  have almost tripled (3.0 to 8.1, per-36 min.).

                  > To me, there's two good tests for a rating system. One is the David
                  > Wesley Test - when a guy changes positions so that his
                  points/assists
                  > rates are altered, he still should rate about the same. The second
                  is
                  > the Greg Anthony Test - when a guy goes from a good team to a crap
                  > team or vice versa, he should still rate about the same.

                  Anthony is obviously a guy who needs minutes, but not every player
                  fits this mold. He gets assists, when asked to be the PG, and his
                  scoring doesn't suffer.

                  You just never know how a given player will respond to being asked to
                  do more or less. Truck Robinson went from Phoenix to New York and
                  was relieved of his scoring duties (he was playing alongside Bernard
                  King). Truck complained like hell, and basically gave up.

                  Vin Baker's problems cannot be attributed to his going to a better
                  team.

                  Every case is different, and even players who remain in place can
                  suddenly swoon or burst into greatness one year.


                  Mike Goodman
                  > > >
                • Michael K. Tamada
                  ... It s true that Payton was (and still is) a PG of paramount importance to his team. But not quite as much as you seem to be implying here. Remember, in
                  Message 8 of 10 , Feb 5, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, mikel_ind wrote:

                    > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Obviously there are a lot of contaminating factors with plus-minus
                    > > ratings: who were Greg's teammates on the floor? Which 5 players
                    > were
                    > > they facing? And compared to Payton, just about any PG is going to
                    > be
                    > > looking relatively bad.
                    >
                    > This may be a good example of why the +/- value is sometimes screwy.
                    > Payton was carrying the Sonics, basically. The team wasn't the same
                    > without him. Unless his backup was pretty good (capable of
                    > starting), there would be a pronounced difference.

                    It's true that Payton was (and still is) a PG of paramount importance to
                    his team. But not quite as much as you seem to be implying here.
                    Remember, in 1998 the Sonics won 61 games. (Actually, I did not remember
                    this stuff, I had to look it up.) They were therefore not like the Sonics
                    of 2002 and 2001 who are/were a slightly-above .500 team WITH Payton, and
                    much worse than .500 without him. One-man teams do not win 61 games.

                    The 1998 Sonics had a second-team all-NBA power forward, Vin Baker.
                    Detlef Schrempf was just one year off his last all-star year. Dale Ellis,
                    Hersey Hawkins, and Sam Perkins provided role-playing long-distance
                    bombing support.

                    So with any kind of decent backup PG, the Sonics were not a team that
                    would fall one point per minute behind its opposition. In fact, I'd say
                    that without Payton, but with a decent backup PG they were a team that was
                    probably around .500 level, and therefore a backup PG should have about a
                    zero plus/minus rating. Certainly not -1 point per minute, as Greg
                    Anthony had early on.

                    > Put another way: without Payton, the Sonics sucked; and Anthony was

                    That's an accurate description of the Sonics in 2002 and 2001 and for that
                    matter 2000 and 1999 (the year that Baker went bust). But not accurate in
                    1998, when Anthony was there. A more accurate description would be that
                    without Payton, the Sonics were mediocre -- or should have been. But
                    Anthony early in the season was making them suck at a point per minute.

                    > the one guy that was always in when Payton was out.

                    There's more to it than that: that's the way the Sonics (and Anthony)
                    played in the first half of the season, but in the second half Anthony was
                    highly productive. I didn't keep plus/minus stats then but I wouldn't be
                    surprised if he was close to 0 in the second half of the season.



                    --MKT
                  • mikel_ind
                    Michael T: I stand corrected, and henceforth I will either look it up, or leave Sonics commentary to the many Sonics fans in the group. ... that ... But ...
                    Message 9 of 10 , Feb 6, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Michael T: I stand corrected, and henceforth I will either look it
                      up, or leave Sonics commentary to the many Sonics fans in the group.

                      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:

                      > On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, mikel_ind wrote:
                      >
                      > > without Payton, the Sonics sucked; and Anthony was
                      >

                      >..... A more accurate description would be
                      that
                      > without Payton, the Sonics were mediocre -- or should have been.
                      But
                      > Anthony early in the season was making them suck at a point per
                      minute.
                      >
                      > > the one guy that was always in when Payton was out.
                      >
                      > There's more to it than that: that's the way the Sonics (and
                      Anthony)
                      > played in the first half of the season, but in the second half
                      Anthony was
                      > highly productive. ...>
                      >
                      > --MKT

                      Anthony played 13 mpg (80 G), Payton played 38 mpg; Nate McMillan
                      even played 279 minutes that year. So GP and Anthony had to be on
                      the floor together for at least 1/3 of the minutes Anthony played.

                      So I was wrong all over.

                      But I do concur that Anthony's year-end stats suggest he was one of
                      the better backup PGs in '98.


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