Re: Bias (and analysis of Pacers-Bulls)
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
> Hmm, how though does Brent Barry get a .670 defensive reboundingThis was a pretty crude approximation, the kind one can do in
> percentage? A team of five Brent Barry's would probably not
> rebound that well -- he's a good rebounder for a SG/SF type, but
> not that good, not good enough to grab defensive rebounds away
> from the Wallaces and Duncans of the league.
between class and going to the bus to go home before the Sonics
game. All I did was take his defensive rebounding percentage by
approximating the number of missed shots during the time he was in
the game and dividing his defensive rebounds by this. Then I
multiplied by five. What makes a lot more sense is looking at what
someone would theoretically do when teamed with four 'average'
This is good for offense, because we can look at how much a player
touches the ball. Someone like Barry looks fabulous in the previous
model, where we assume his current offensive efficiency will hold.
But we know it won't; Barry doesn't shoot very much. 'Teaming' him
with four average teammates, we can say he'll only use x percent of
the possessions, and his effect is not so great. This is true for
any aspect of the game, but most importantly offense.
Of course, defense is so crudely measured by steals and blocks so as
to be nearly meaningless. Somehow, Barry comes out a 'better'
defender than Payton. There's a reason I am willing to help DeanO
with his defensive statistics for the WNBA this summer. . . .
I re-calculated everything on the 'average' teammate basis, and
found much more tenable conclusions, except for the fact that
Payton's rebounding somehow made him a below-.500 player.
> So I'm not taking these regression results as gospel, that offenseI would say the same. I'm not about to advocate the Sonics playing
> is more important than defense. Even at the margin, I'm not
> convinced (which is not the same as saying that I don't believe
> your hypothesis that offense is in some sense more important than
> defense, you may very well be right. I'm merely agnostic right
Shammond Williams over Earl Watson right now based on these
findings. That said, I think they're strong enough to warrant
further analysis. And things certainly aren't looking good for
the 'defense wins championships crowd' based on what we've seen.
- --- HoopStudies <deano@...> wrote:
> maybe it is more like 4 resistors in parallel and
> with 1 resistor
> (the center) in series. Centers really can define
> how good a defense
> is, even if their teammates are not good. Maybe
> that is the case to
> be made about Iverson.
And my 4-1 resistor model basically
> means that onlyI suppose there would be some Celtics who agree with
> centers should win Defensive Player of the Year
> awards. Maybe that
> is ok.
the 4-1 model: Like Bob Cousy, who didn't do defense,
since he had Russell in the last half of his career.
Bird, of course, had Robert Parish.
I suspect there might be some minor exceptions (Jerry
West, Jason Kidd, Gary Payton, Bobby Jones, Dennis
Johnson, John Havlicek, etc.) who might provide a
benefit beyond the 4, but overall my intuition says
your model would fit pretty well. And of course the
model would probably need to be stochastic if you're a
real stickler, but a simple discrete 4-1 model I bet
would do a pretty decent job. (I'll bet a nickel.)
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball