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

Kidd Effect, Part 2

Expand Messages
  • mikel_ind
    Dividing Jason Kidd s career into 3 parts (Dallas, Phoenix, New Jersey), here are the breakdowns with his teammates performance before and during and after
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 14, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dividing Jason Kidd's career into 3 parts (Dallas, Phoenix, New
      Jersey), here are the breakdowns with his teammates' performance
      before and during and after playing alongside him:
      (whether before or after, it's just called "without")

      in Dallas :
      (sample size 17)
      Min Pct. Sco. Reb Ast Stl (TO.) Blk
      with Kidd 24 .494 11.4 6.3 2.3 0.9 (1.7) 0.6
      without K 21 .508 09.5 6.4 2.3 1.1 (1.8) 0.6


      in Phoenix :
      (sample size 39)
      Min Pct. Sco. Reb Ast Stl (TO.) Blk
      with Kidd 23 .525 13.6 6.3 2.4 1.1 (1.7) 0.7
      without K 25 .495 12.8 6.0 2.7 1.0 (1.9) 0.7


      in New Jersey :
      (sample size 6)
      Min Pct. Sco. Reb Ast Stl (TO.) Blk
      with Kidd 27 .527 15.8 6.4 2.5 1.1 (1.7) 1.1
      before JK 28 .521 13.9 7.1 1.8 1.0 (1.6) 0.9


      Observations:

      Kidd's teams have better shooting pcts as the years go by (counter
      to the league trend).

      This is the first year that Kidd's rebounds have cut significantly
      into his teammates' rates. Actually, frontline starters MacCulloch
      and Van Horn are up, while Martin's rebounds are way down (and
      scoring way, way up).

      While scoring is the most consistently improved number, it looks as
      though this year's Nets are much more involved with ball-movement
      than last year's edition. Defense numbers are up, too.


      Mike Goodman
    • HoopStudies
      ... All very interesting and thought provoking. It took me a while to get to this thought, though: Do his teammates scoring averages go up because Kidd takes
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 14, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
        > Dividing Jason Kidd's career into 3 parts (Dallas, Phoenix, New
        > Jersey), here are the breakdowns with his teammates' performance
        > before and during and after playing alongside him:
        > (whether before or after, it's just called "without")
        >
        > in Dallas :
        > (sample size 17)
        > Min Pct. Sco. Reb Ast Stl (TO.) Blk
        > with Kidd 24 .494 11.4 6.3 2.3 0.9 (1.7) 0.6
        > without K 21 .508 09.5 6.4 2.3 1.1 (1.8) 0.6
        >
        >
        > in Phoenix :
        > (sample size 39)
        > Min Pct. Sco. Reb Ast Stl (TO.) Blk
        > with Kidd 23 .525 13.6 6.3 2.4 1.1 (1.7) 0.7
        > without K 25 .495 12.8 6.0 2.7 1.0 (1.9) 0.7
        >
        >
        > in New Jersey :
        > (sample size 6)
        > Min Pct. Sco. Reb Ast Stl (TO.) Blk
        > with Kidd 27 .527 15.8 6.4 2.5 1.1 (1.7) 1.1
        > before JK 28 .521 13.9 7.1 1.8 1.0 (1.6) 0.9
        >

        All very interesting and thought provoking. It took me a while to
        get to this thought, though:

        Do his teammates' scoring averages go up because Kidd takes fewer
        shots than his predecessors/successors? Is he really increasing the
        scoring of the team (not just his teammates)?

        I think the Pct (is that Effective FG%, btw?) and the TO's could be
        more compelling than the scoring, depending on the answer. Did you
        track the number of FTA's guys took? I would imagine that Kidd's
        ability to get the ball to guys near the basket might lead to a
        higher ratio of FTA/FGA (maybe not, though, if he is getting them
        wide open jump shots).

        Dean Oliver
      • mikel_ind
        ... A very good point, and one that immediately tempers my newfound appreciation of this player. ... It s just overall scoring pct : pts/(fga*2 + fta) I think
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 14, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
          >
          > Do his teammates' scoring averages go up because Kidd takes fewer
          > shots than his predecessors/successors? Is he really increasing
          >the
          > scoring of the team (not just his teammates)?

          A very good point, and one that immediately tempers my newfound
          appreciation of this player.
          >
          > I think the Pct (is that Effective FG%, btw?) and the TO's could be
          > more compelling than the scoring, depending on the answer. Did you
          > track the number of FTA's guys took? I would imagine that Kidd's
          > ability to get the ball to guys near the basket might lead to a
          > higher ratio of FTA/FGA (maybe not, though, if he is getting them
          > wide open jump shots).
          >
          > Dean Oliver

          It's just overall scoring pct : pts/(fga*2 + fta)
          I think I am liking the term "effective shooting percent", in that a
          made 3 is more effective than a made 2, and FT are generally
          effective. Both of those means of scoring make effective pct higher
          than "FG pct" (with a few exceptions, like Shaq).


          Mike G
        • thedawgsareout
          ... I think this leads naturally into a follow-up question -- even if we believe Kidd is improving his teammates offense (count me unconvinced), is that
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 14, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            > Do his teammates' scoring averages go up because Kidd takes fewer
            > shots than his predecessors/successors? Is he really increasing
            > the scoring of the team (not just his teammates)?

            I think this leads naturally into a follow-up question -- even if we
            believe Kidd is improving his teammates' offense (count me
            unconvinced), is that enough to make up for his own offensive
            efficiency?

            Here are a couple posts I made elsewhere on the subject which I
            think sum up my feelings and conserve my time by keeping me from
            having to re-type everything (I'm quite certain the tables will come
            out all wrong, but forgive my ignorance on how to make them look
            better):

            --------------------------------

            I've always viewed the 'make teammates better' argument as
            questionable at best. For one thing, who's to say whether someone
            really did or not?
            How do we know that if playing for another team, Rashard Lewis
            wouldn't be a scrub? Or Desmond Mason an all-star. They've only
            played with one point guard!

            In the case of Kidd, let's look at the available evidence.

            Van Horn


            Year PPG Sco. Eff* FG% Adj. FG %
            00-01 17.0 1.06 .435 .481
            01-02 15.6 1.03 .438 .483
            Hmm ... it appears Van Horn's numbers are virtually the same other
            than points per game.

            Kenyon Martin
            00-01 12.0 0.95 .445 .446
            01-02 15.9 1.04 .467 .478

            Year PPG Sco. Eff* FG% Adj. FG %

            Martin has clearly improved, but this is a situation where I think
            attributing a significant portion of this improvement to Kidd would
            be a mistake. Keyon Martin's 24 and in his second year in the NBA.
            Of course he should be improving from year one to year two,
            regardless of who his point guard is.

            On the opposite end of the spectrum, while I don't disagree that
            Jordan made his teammates better offensively -- all those double-
            teams are bound to do that -- I think Scottie Pippen should be more
            recognized for his own talents. Everybody holds up the fact that
            Pippen's game declined when he left Chicago as evidence that he was
            supported by Jordan. But this just in -- most 34-year old players
            are declining, regardless of environment.

            One last Kidd table:

            Shawn Marion


            Year PPG Sco. Eff* FG% Adj. FG %
            00-01 17.3 1.07 .480 .489
            01-02 18.5 1.06 .486 .499
            There was a lot of talk last year about how Kidd had made The Matrix
            into a star, but he seems to be holding up just fine this season on
            his own.

            I think Jason Kidd is a very good point guard, but giving him credit
            for the efforts of others is unfair to both him and them.

            *Scoring efficiency = points/(fga + (.4*fta))

            ------------------------------------

            Again, the different personnel has to be kept in mind. Two of New
            Jersey's starters, MacCulloch and Kittles, were not at Marbury's
            disposal last year. Both, at 52.7% and 46.7% respectively, shoot
            better than the team average.

            Taking them and Kidd away reduces the Nets' field goal percentage to
            1073/2428 = 44.2%, a 2% increase, about the same as non-Marbury
            players have seen in Phoenix.

            Unfortunately, the Nets haven't given us much to go on with regards
            to comparing players from last season and this. Only four players --
            Van Horn, Martin, Aaron Williams, and Lucious Harris -- have played
            both seasons.

            Two of these, Van Horn (-0.3%) and Williams (+0.9%) have seen only
            negligible changes.

            Martin has improved by 2%, but again that is more likely due to
            actually being a better player than anything relating to Kidd.

            That leaves Lucious Harris, whose record does make a very strong
            case for Kidd improving his play. He had never before in his career
            made better than 46% from the field, only 42.5% last year, and has
            suddenly improved to 48%. At 42.5%, he's a warm body. At 48%, he's a
            very capable backup. That's a significant improvement perhaps
            attributatble to Kidd.

            In order to think about this a little better, I decided to create a
            theoretical game. On one side, you'd have Marbury, Harris, Martin,
            Van Horn, and Williams. On the other, you'd replace Marbury with
            Kidd. That would mean using the 2000-01 statistics for the first
            team and the 2001-02 statistics for the second. I assigned
            approximate possessions used out of 100 and then multiplied that by
            the player's corresponding offensive efficiency (pts/(fga+(.4*fta)
            +to) to get how productive they'd be. Here are the results:


            Old Nets Plays Off. Eff. 'Points'
            Marbury 30 .96 28.9
            Harris 10 .92 9.2
            Martin 20 .82 16.4
            Van Horn 25 .94 23.5
            Williams 15 .92 13.9
            Team Total 100 - 91.9

            New Nets Plays Off. Eff. 'Points'
            Kidd 22.5 .78 17.6
            Harris 17.5 1.06 18.5
            Martin 20 .89 17.8
            Van Horn 25 .91 22.9
            Williams 15 .91 13.6
            Team Total 100 - 90.4

            I'm quite certain that thanks to Kidd's defensive superiority,
            the 'new' Nets would win, but it would be a lot closer than a lot of
            people would expect, in my opinion.
          • harlanzo
            As a Nets fan (perhaps the only Nets fan) and someone who has frequently viewed both Marbury and Kidd, I feel compelled to chime in on this subject. I ll tell
            Message 5 of 12 , Feb 14, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              As a Nets fan (perhaps the only Nets fan) and someone who has
              frequently viewed both Marbury and Kidd, I feel compelled to chime in
              on this subject. I'll tell you my first reaction to the Marbury-Kidd
              trade was not favorable. I felt Marbury was a potential star (and I
              still think he is), four years younger than Kidd and locked up to a
              long term deal. Conversely, I never had really seen Kidd play and
              his numbers looked odd and ugly to me. In addition, for those who
              thought he was a winner, I never saw him do much in the playoffs.
              (The only time the Suns advanced past the first round they beat a
              Spur team with no Duncan and KJ starting for Kidd who had broken his
              ankle).

              I agreed that Marbury did not always run the best offensive sets and
              Kidd was probably better but I did not think the difference would be
              great. Indeed, the trade has looked great for Jersey. Granted
              Marbury did not have this NJ squad to play with but forgetting
              numbers and just watching the games, Kidd is a much better defender
              (Marbury may have potential but he often is disinterested on D) and
              he runs a great fast break---always looking to push the ball for easy
              baskets. I am not sure that he is really that much better than
              Marbury in the half court but he is at least a little better.

              It's tough to tell who Kidd has made specifically better because
              VHOrn looks the same and Kittles and Martin were both injured when
              Marbury was around. Harris looks a lot better with Kidd (last year
              he looked worse than your average playground player). Of course he
              is not trying to start so that reduction in minutes and time against
              bench players may also help him. Aaron Williams is just a banger who
              picks up garbage and is useful in that role but is not really going
              to be affected by whoever the point guard is.

              Kidd is a horrendous shooter but I have to conclude that I am
              converted to the notion that he is better for the Nets right now than
              Marbury would have been. This is not to say that Marbury can't
              eclipse in a couple of years or that Marbury age-28 won't be better
              than Kidd age-28. However, all we can judge is result and Kidd has
              been pretty good. (I don't believe the notion that he is the MVP of
              the league is but that's another story).

              As for the question of whether there is a Kidd effect--I'm not sure.
              I think that to get a better handle of this question we have to look
              at other point guards too and see whether others have this effect or
              whether improvement is random or based on outside factors (like the
              maturation or decline of players who played with the specific pg).
            • HoopStudies
              ... Having lived for one awful year in Jersey, I developed a soft spot for the team, especially in the shadow of the Knicks, who I never did like. I also like
              Message 6 of 12 , Feb 14, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
                > As a Nets fan (perhaps the only Nets fan) and someone who has
                > frequently viewed both Marbury and Kidd, I feel compelled to chime

                Having lived for one awful year in Jersey, I developed a soft spot
                for the team, especially in the shadow of the Knicks, who I never did
                like. I also like Byron Scott from his playing days. That's not an
                admission of being a Nets Fan, but perhaps that will come out in my
                therapy group.


                > been pretty good. (I don't believe the notion that he is the MVP
                of
                > the league is but that's another story).
                >

                He is the sentimental favorite. Kinda like Iverson was last year.
                Neither is the best player in the league, but this league really
                likes to spread around that MVP award. Jordan is good evidence of
                that.

                > As for the question of whether there is a Kidd effect--I'm not
                sure.
                > I think that to get a better handle of this question we have to
                look
                > at other point guards too and see whether others have this effect
                or
                > whether improvement is random or based on outside factors (like the
                > maturation or decline of players who played with the specific pg).

                Van Horn has not improved, as several have pointed out. It's hard to
                say for sure how to look at it. I thought MikeG's approach was quite
                good, but not covering my last question. Having done similar studies
                on lotsa players, I know how hard it is to answer that question.
                Lots of confounding effects. I still think it would be fun to have
                one big season long tournament where you mix up the players in every
                game. Everyone plays 82 games, but the player whose teams win the
                most games is considered the best. I haven't thought how to mix up
                the players -- random, random with some structure, etc. It would be
                kinda fun, though. The NBA would have a ball with it. The NBPA
                would kill me.

                Dean Oliver
                Journal of Basketball Studies
              • alleyoop2
                Guys, here s some more thoughts on Kidd and the Nets: 1) Their offense isn t any better than last year s; their entire improvement results from the fact that
                Message 7 of 12 , Feb 15, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Guys, here's some more thoughts on Kidd and the Nets:

                  1) Their offense isn't any better than last year's; their entire
                  improvement results from the fact that their defense has gone from
                  nearly the worst to the best.

                  2) There's been a lot of talk about Lucious Harris' improvement; keep
                  in mind that he's rarely on the court at the same time as Kidd - he's
                  been used as the backup point for most of the season.

                  3) The Suns are better on offense and worse on defense this year than
                  last year.

                  All of which leads me to the conclusion that Marbury was and is the
                  better offensive player, but that Kidd is so much better on defense
                  that NJ has still come out ahead on the deal.

                  I think the previous study that Kidd improved guys around him may
                  still hold up--the problem is Kidd himself. Compared to Marbury, Kidd
                  is worse enough that he still makes the overall offense worse. I
                  should keep in mind also that I'm comparing him to a fantastic
                  offensive player; if he had replaced Greg Anthony or somebody I'm
                  sure we'd find Kidd improved the offense.

                  In fact I think the biggest difference in the Nets this year isn't
                  Kidd for Marbury; it's that they replaced Johnny Newman, who had to
                  be about the worst starting 2 guard in the league, with Kerry
                  Kittles, who is certainly among the top ten.



                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                  > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
                  > > As a Nets fan (perhaps the only Nets fan) and someone who has
                  > > frequently viewed both Marbury and Kidd, I feel compelled to
                  chime
                  >
                  > Having lived for one awful year in Jersey, I developed a soft spot
                  > for the team, especially in the shadow of the Knicks, who I never
                  did
                  > like. I also like Byron Scott from his playing days. That's not
                  an
                  > admission of being a Nets Fan, but perhaps that will come out in my
                  > therapy group.
                  >
                  >
                  > > been pretty good. (I don't believe the notion that he is the MVP
                  > of
                  > > the league is but that's another story).
                  > >
                  >
                  > He is the sentimental favorite. Kinda like Iverson was last year.
                  > Neither is the best player in the league, but this league really
                  > likes to spread around that MVP award. Jordan is good evidence of
                  > that.
                  >
                  > > As for the question of whether there is a Kidd effect--I'm not
                  > sure.
                  > > I think that to get a better handle of this question we have to
                  > look
                  > > at other point guards too and see whether others have this effect
                  > or
                  > > whether improvement is random or based on outside factors (like
                  the
                  > > maturation or decline of players who played with the specific pg).
                  >
                  > Van Horn has not improved, as several have pointed out. It's hard
                  to
                  > say for sure how to look at it. I thought MikeG's approach was
                  quite
                  > good, but not covering my last question. Having done similar
                  studies
                  > on lotsa players, I know how hard it is to answer that question.
                  > Lots of confounding effects. I still think it would be fun to have
                  > one big season long tournament where you mix up the players in
                  every
                  > game. Everyone plays 82 games, but the player whose teams win the
                  > most games is considered the best. I haven't thought how to mix up
                  > the players -- random, random with some structure, etc. It would
                  be
                  > kinda fun, though. The NBA would have a ball with it. The NBPA
                  > would kill me.
                  >
                  > Dean Oliver
                  > Journal of Basketball Studies
                • mikel_ind
                  ... [DeanO had written:] ... That s what prompted me to do this little case study. ... Also recall that Pippen had his strongest seasons in 94 and 95, when
                  Message 8 of 12 , Feb 15, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "thedawgsareout" <kpelton08@h...> wrote:

                    [DeanO had written:]
                    > > Do his teammates' scoring averages go up because Kidd takes fewer
                    > > shots than his predecessors/successors? Is he really increasing
                    > > the scoring of the team (not just his teammates)?
                    >
                    > I've always viewed the 'make teammates better' argument as
                    > questionable at best.

                    That's what prompted me to do this little case study.

                    >.... while I don't disagree that
                    > Jordan made his teammates better offensively -- all those double-
                    > teams are bound to do that -- I think Scottie Pippen should be more
                    > recognized for his own talents. Everybody holds up the fact that
                    > Pippen's game declined when he left Chicago as evidence that he was
                    > supported by Jordan.

                    Also recall that Pippen had his strongest seasons in 94 and 95, when
                    Jordan was not playing. In fact, you could say the Bulls were better
                    without Jordan than they had been before Pippen.

                    >
                    > *Scoring efficiency = points/(fga + (.4*fta))
                    >

                    I could have sworn the FTA conversion was more like .47-.48 per
                    possession. This is only a small tweak in the shooting efficiency of
                    most players, whereas .40 is pretty major.

                    .40 seems to imply that 20% of all FTA are and-ones and techs.

                    >.... MacCulloch and Kittles, were not at Marbury's
                    > disposal last year. Both, at 52.7% and 46.7% respectively, shoot
                    > better than the team average.
                    >
                    > Taking them and Kidd away reduces the Nets' field goal percentage
                    to
                    > 1073/2428 = 44.2%, a 2% increase, about the same as non-Marbury
                    > players have seen in Phoenix.

                    It seems to me that a good-shooting PG tends to increase the shooting
                    pct of everyone else, in general. That is, no one needs to feel
                    compelled to launch a low-pct shot. For example, Magic's Lakers and
                    Stockton's Jazz.

                    > That leaves Lucious Harris, whose record does make a very strong
                    > case for Kidd improving his play. He had never before in his career
                    > made better than 46%

                    Lucious Harris' career scoring stats:
                    (Standardized per-36-minute rates)

                    yr team pct scoring
                    94 Dal .470 9.2
                    95 Dal .540 13.9
                    96 Dal .546 14.0
                    97 Phl .461 8.8
                    98 NJe .467 7.4
                    99 NJe .471 9.2
                    00 NJe .500 10.4
                    01 NJe .492 11.1
                    02 NJe .561 16.5

                    Without Kidd, Harris struggles to reach 50% efficiency. With Kidd,
                    (Dallas or New Jersey), he is 55%.

                    > In order to think about this a little better, I decided to create a
                    > theoretical game. On one side, you'd have Marbury, Harris, Martin,
                    > Van Horn, and Williams. On the other, you'd replace Marbury with
                    > Kidd. That would mean using the 2000-01 statistics for the first
                    > team and the 2001-02 statistics for the second. I assigned
                    > approximate possessions used out of 100 and then multiplied that by
                    > the player's corresponding offensive efficiency (pts/(fga+(.4*fta)
                    > +to) to get how productive they'd be. Here are the results:
                    >
                    >
                    > Old Nets Plays Off. Eff. 'Points'
                    > Marbury 30 .96 28.9
                    > Harris 10 .92 9.2
                    > Martin 20 .82 16.4
                    > Van Horn 25 .94 23.5
                    > Williams 15 .92 13.9
                    > Team Total 100 - 91.9
                    >
                    > New Nets Plays Off. Eff. 'Points'
                    > Kidd 22.5 .78 17.6
                    > Harris 17.5 1.06 18.5
                    > Martin 20 .89 17.8
                    > Van Horn 25 .91 22.9
                    > Williams 15 .91 13.6
                    > Team Total 100 - 90.4
                    >
                    > I'm quite certain that thanks to Kidd's defensive superiority,
                    > the 'new' Nets would win, but it would be a lot closer than a lot
                    of
                    > people would expect, in my opinion.

                    It might depend on the coaching. Coach A might assign his players to
                    guard themselves, and Coach B might try for more mismatches.

                    Actually, Harris takes about as many shots per minute as Kidd does.
                    Setting Harris and Kidd to 20 plays each might tip the scale.

                    Mike Goodman
                  • HoopStudies
                    ... fewer ... more ... was ... when ... better ... Whoa. Pippen scored the most when Jordan was gone, but whether he was at his best is not clear. I m not
                    Message 9 of 12 , Feb 15, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "thedawgsareout" <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                      >
                      > [DeanO had written:]
                      > > > Do his teammates' scoring averages go up because Kidd takes
                      fewer
                      > > > shots than his predecessors/successors? Is he really increasing
                      > > > the scoring of the team (not just his teammates)?
                      > >
                      > > I've always viewed the 'make teammates better' argument as
                      > > questionable at best.
                      >
                      > That's what prompted me to do this little case study.
                      >
                      > >.... while I don't disagree that
                      > > Jordan made his teammates better offensively -- all those double-
                      > > teams are bound to do that -- I think Scottie Pippen should be
                      more
                      > > recognized for his own talents. Everybody holds up the fact that
                      > > Pippen's game declined when he left Chicago as evidence that he
                      was
                      > > supported by Jordan.
                      >
                      > Also recall that Pippen had his strongest seasons in 94 and 95,
                      when
                      > Jordan was not playing. In fact, you could say the Bulls were
                      better
                      > without Jordan than they had been before Pippen.
                      >

                      Whoa. Pippen scored the most when Jordan was gone, but whether he
                      was at his best is not clear. I'm not sure what "the Bulls were
                      better without Jordan than they had been before Pippen" means.
                      You're not saying, I assume, that the Bulls were better in '94
                      and '95, but something about how good the Bulls were in '83 time
                      frame relative to about 1987.

                      > >
                      > > *Scoring efficiency = points/(fga + (.4*fta))
                      > >
                      >
                      > I could have sworn the FTA conversion was more like .47-.48 per
                      > possession. This is only a small tweak in the shooting efficiency
                      of
                      > most players, whereas .40 is pretty major.
                      >
                      > .40 seems to imply that 20% of all FTA are and-ones and techs.
                      >

                      0.4 works for _teams_ quite well. Someone did some work here to
                      suggest that something closer to 0.48 works better for individuals.
                      I'm still trying to reconcile how that could be.

                      The 0.4 accounts for and-ones, techs, and, in the team sense, for the
                      team offensive rebounds that individuals don't get credit for and
                      maybe something else I'm forgetting.


                      Dean Oliver
                    • alleyoop2
                      I don t know what happened to my last post, so if this gets posted twice, please forgive me. Three things about Kidd and the Nets: 1) Lucious Harris is rarely
                      Message 10 of 12 , Feb 15, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I don't know what happened to my last post, so if this gets posted
                        twice, please forgive me.

                        Three things about Kidd and the Nets:

                        1) Lucious Harris is rarely on the court at the same time Kidd is; in
                        fact, he's been Jersey's backup point guard most of the season. I
                        don't see how Kidd can be credited for his improved play.

                        2) The Nets aren't better on offense this year, despite adding
                        Kittles and MacCulloch and getting the aforementioned career year
                        from Harris. While Kidd may have boosted some of the other guy's
                        stats, keep in mind that Kidd himself is a far inferior scorer to
                        Marbury, so this really shouldn't be a surprise. You can also see
                        this with the Suns, who are better on offense than last year.

                        3) The Nets defense, on the other hand, has gone from one of the
                        worst to about the best. Kittles and MacCulloch have something to do
                        with this too, but I think this is Kidd for Marbury's major impact --
                        that it was an offense for defense swap, but Kidd was better enough
                        defensively that the Nets still came out ahead.

                        Also, Dean, I was using 0.4 in the past but I went through a bunch of
                        game logs recently and have found 0.44 to be closer. Maybe I'm being
                        dense, but I don't see how there'd a difference between the # for
                        teams and individuals either.





                        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                        > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                        > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "thedawgsareout" <kpelton08@h...>
                        wrote:
                        > >
                        > > [DeanO had written:]
                        > > > > Do his teammates' scoring averages go up because Kidd takes
                        > fewer
                        > > > > shots than his predecessors/successors? Is he really
                        increasing
                        > > > > the scoring of the team (not just his teammates)?
                        > > >
                        > > > I've always viewed the 'make teammates better' argument as
                        > > > questionable at best.
                        > >
                        > > That's what prompted me to do this little case study.
                        > >
                        > > >.... while I don't disagree that
                        > > > Jordan made his teammates better offensively -- all those
                        double-
                        > > > teams are bound to do that -- I think Scottie Pippen should be
                        > more
                        > > > recognized for his own talents. Everybody holds up the fact
                        that
                        > > > Pippen's game declined when he left Chicago as evidence that he
                        > was
                        > > > supported by Jordan.
                        > >
                        > > Also recall that Pippen had his strongest seasons in 94 and 95,
                        > when
                        > > Jordan was not playing. In fact, you could say the Bulls were
                        > better
                        > > without Jordan than they had been before Pippen.
                        > >
                        >
                        > Whoa. Pippen scored the most when Jordan was gone, but whether he
                        > was at his best is not clear. I'm not sure what "the Bulls were
                        > better without Jordan than they had been before Pippen" means.
                        > You're not saying, I assume, that the Bulls were better in '94
                        > and '95, but something about how good the Bulls were in '83 time
                        > frame relative to about 1987.
                        >
                        > > >
                        > > > *Scoring efficiency = points/(fga + (.4*fta))
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > > I could have sworn the FTA conversion was more like .47-.48 per
                        > > possession. This is only a small tweak in the shooting
                        efficiency
                        > of
                        > > most players, whereas .40 is pretty major.
                        > >
                        > > .40 seems to imply that 20% of all FTA are and-ones and techs.
                        > >
                        >
                        > 0.4 works for _teams_ quite well. Someone did some work here to
                        > suggest that something closer to 0.48 works better for
                        individuals.
                        > I'm still trying to reconcile how that could be.
                        >
                        > The 0.4 accounts for and-ones, techs, and, in the team sense, for
                        the
                        > team offensive rebounds that individuals don't get credit for and
                        > maybe something else I'm forgetting.
                        >
                        >
                        > Dean Oliver
                      • Michael K. Tamada
                        On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, HoopStudies wrote: [...] ... Just off the top of my head, I wonder if that s the key, the .4 is based on major possessions or
                        Message 11 of 12 , Feb 15, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, HoopStudies wrote:

                          [...]

                          > > > *Scoring efficiency = points/(fga + (.4*fta))
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > I could have sworn the FTA conversion was more like .47-.48 per
                          > > possession. This is only a small tweak in the shooting efficiency
                          > of
                          > > most players, whereas .40 is pretty major.
                          > >
                          > > .40 seems to imply that 20% of all FTA are and-ones and techs.
                          > >
                          >
                          > 0.4 works for _teams_ quite well. Someone did some work here to
                          > suggest that something closer to 0.48 works better for individuals.
                          > I'm still trying to reconcile how that could be.
                          >
                          > The 0.4 accounts for and-ones, techs, and, in the team sense, for the
                          > team offensive rebounds that individuals don't get credit for and
                          > maybe something else I'm forgetting.


                          Just off the top of my head, I wonder if that's the key, the .4 is based
                          on "major possessions" or "possessions". Possibly the .48 is based on
                          "minor possession" or "plays"?

                          Although now I'm wondering why that major/minor distinction would lead to
                          different deflation factors for free throws ... no time to try to figure
                          it out at the moment.


                          --MKT
                        • McKibbin, Stuart
                          Alleyoop2 said: Also, Dean, I was using 0.4 in the past but I went through a bunch of game logs recently and have found 0.44 to be closer. Maybe I m being
                          Message 12 of 12 , Feb 15, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Alleyoop2 said: "Also, Dean, I was using 0.4 in the past but I went through a bunch of
                            game logs recently and have found 0.44 to be closer. Maybe I'm being
                            dense, but I don't see how there'd a difference between the # for
                            teams and individuals either."

                            The difference that I've found in charting the Lakers this year is that the same players shoot the T's (Kobe, Richmond) and the bigger players (Shaq, Walker) get the lion's share of the "and-1's". That is, the T's and And-1's aren't equally distributed.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.