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

Re: Counting good and bad games

Expand Messages
  • HoopStudies
    ... (or ... pretty ... As I say, these are not a measure of overall contribution. I do think that a player MUST have a good value here to be considered a
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 17, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
      > I had thought that multiplying these columns by minutes per game
      (or
      > by MPG/240), one might reach some clarity; but Whitney plays
      pretty
      > good minutes, so he'd still come out looking like the team MVP.
      >
      > I dunno, Dean.

      As I say, these are not a measure of overall contribution. I do
      think that a player MUST have a good value here to be considered a
      great player. But a good value here doesn't mean that they are a
      great player. It's a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

      That means that Finley and Jordan weren't great this year. It
      doesn't mean that Hoiberg is great. It means that his offensive
      rating was higher than his defensive rating in more games than not.
      That's the definition of the record. It says nothing about whether a
      game rating of 140 on the offensive end created 2 points or 30
      points. It says nothing about whether the defensive rating of 87
      came in the last 2 minutes of a game already decided or by grabbing
      30 rebounds in a crucial game.

      I know a lot of people are looking for the Holy Grail of basketball
      statistics. I ain't. This measure doesn't mean MVP. It's a summary
      of how consistently a player met one goal of many he may have over
      the season. I find it very interesting because no other Holy Grail
      statistics even attempt to look at consistency. I find this number
      interesting because it does often indicate how good a good player's
      team can be. Jordan's best record was about 72-10, so was the
      Bulls. Kinda neat. The Wizards' record better reflects Hamilton's
      and Jordan's individual records than Whitney's. Kinda interesting.
      Says to me that Whitney isn't the driving force in that team winning,
      though he's been an effective role player. Maybe he should take on a
      bigger role? Over the course of a long career, I'd expect these
      numbers to reflect individual value a bit more -- team record in the
      games an individual plays is kind of like that, something like a
      pitcher's win-loss record in baseball. But mostly, these records are
      just another indicator in a long line of indicators of quality.

      (Yes, the Wes Person record was in error. 46-30 is what it should
      have said.)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.