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

Boston-New Jersey playoffs, 2002

Expand Messages
  • sonicdk2
    Here s an application of splitting the win/loss record into games above and below a player s mean. I did it for only the stars of the Nets-Celtics game. Paul
    Message 1 of 4 , May 19, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's an application of splitting the win/loss record into games
      above and below a player's mean. I did it for only the stars of the
      Nets-Celtics game.

      Paul Pierce:
      points scored +13.6%*
      (in other words, Celtics are 13.6% more likely to win when Paul
      scores above his average.)
      offensive rebounds -5.5%
      defensive rebounds -10.5% (?)
      Assists: +2.0%

      * indicates statistical significance at .05 level per test.

      The result for drebs was near significance (10.7% was cutoff for
      significance), and splitting by the median rather than the mean
      yielded significance (-13.3%). So Kenyon, with his subpar
      rebounding, should let Paul get those defensive boards, then give the
      celtics a taste of their own medicine: set a screen on him so he has
      trouble getting down the court (should sound familiar to those
      reading the APBR site posts). Thus Paul won't get downcourt very
      fast and the offense will miss their #1 option, and maybe he'll score
      less.


      ANTOINE WALKER
      points: -2.7%
      off rebounds: -4.2%
      def rebounds: -3.5%
      assists: +38.8%*

      cutoff for significance again is 10.7%

      So obviously van horn should key on getting walker to shoot rather
      than pass.

      JASON KIDD
      points: +12.8%*
      off rebs: +5.8%
      def rebs: +6.0%
      assists: +16.7%*

      cutoff for significance: 10.5%

      Keep Jason from scoring. Good luck trying to stop him from passing
      to the open man!


      dennis keefe
    • HoopStudies
      ... the ... the ... has ... score ... Actually, an interesting thing about both conference finals is that they both feature teams that rely on the refs.
      Message 2 of 4 , May 19, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "sonicdk2" <sonicdk2@y...> wrote:
        > Here's an application of splitting the win/loss record into games
        > above and below a player's mean. I did it for only the stars of
        the
        > Nets-Celtics game.
        >
        > Paul Pierce:
        > points scored +13.6%*
        > (in other words, Celtics are 13.6% more likely to win when Paul
        > scores above his average.)
        > offensive rebounds -5.5%
        > defensive rebounds -10.5% (?)
        > Assists: +2.0%
        >
        > * indicates statistical significance at .05 level per test.
        >
        > The result for drebs was near significance (10.7% was cutoff for
        > significance), and splitting by the median rather than the mean
        > yielded significance (-13.3%). So Kenyon, with his subpar
        > rebounding, should let Paul get those defensive boards, then give
        the
        > celtics a taste of their own medicine: set a screen on him so he
        has
        > trouble getting down the court (should sound familiar to those
        > reading the APBR site posts). Thus Paul won't get downcourt very
        > fast and the offense will miss their #1 option, and maybe he'll
        score
        > less.
        >

        Actually, an interesting thing about both conference finals is that
        they both feature teams that rely on the refs. Boston needs fouls to
        be called tightly to win games. The Lakers rely on refs not calling
        much against Shaq down low. Given that refs usually swallow their
        whistles in the playoffs, this gives a rather substantial advantage
        to both Jersey and the Lakers. Generally, I don't like series where
        you have teams of such great contrast in that type of style. It
        means that there will be a lot of complaining about the refs, which
        there was in yesterday's Sac-LA game.

        If Pierce can draw fouls, the Celtics have a very good chance.

        >
        > ANTOINE WALKER
        > points: -2.7%
        > off rebounds: -4.2%
        > def rebounds: -3.5%
        > assists: +38.8%*
        >
        > cutoff for significance again is 10.7%
        >
        > So obviously van horn should key on getting walker to shoot rather
        > than pass.

        I think I found the same thing a few years ago. Walker gets a little
        excited when he makes 2 in a row, then thinks he can make anything
        from anywhere with anyone on him.

        >
        > JASON KIDD
        > points: +12.8%*
        > off rebs: +5.8%
        > def rebs: +6.0%
        > assists: +16.7%*
        >
        > cutoff for significance: 10.5%
        >
        > Keep Jason from scoring. Good luck trying to stop him from passing
        > to the open man!

        I've generally found that the Nets offense is pretty robust. It's
        not a very efficient offense, but it's pretty robust to strategy
        variations. I really found just one reasonable statistical indicator
        for them -- keep them from getting high percentage 3 pt shots. They
        don't shoot a lot of them, but try to keep them from being good
        ones. In attacking them, you need to get to the basket and draw
        fouls. Boston standing at the 3pt line without driving probably
        won't win. Though not nearly as strong an indicator as it is for
        Boston and the Lakers, the Nets don't like tightly called games.
      • alleyoop2
        I noticed most of the guys in this study have a high correlation between assists and winning, and I think cause and effect may be backwards here. Assists only
        Message 3 of 4 , May 20, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I noticed most of the guys in this study have a high correlation
          between assists and winning, and I think cause and effect may be
          backwards here. Assists only result from made field goals; when you
          win you normally make more field goals than the other team, and
          normally that means you'll end up with more assists.


          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
          > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "sonicdk2" <sonicdk2@y...> wrote:
          > > Here's an application of splitting the win/loss record into games
          > > above and below a player's mean. I did it for only the stars of
          > the
          > > Nets-Celtics game.
          > >
          > > Paul Pierce:
          > > points scored +13.6%*
          > > (in other words, Celtics are 13.6% more likely to win when Paul
          > > scores above his average.)
          > > offensive rebounds -5.5%
          > > defensive rebounds -10.5% (?)
          > > Assists: +2.0%
          > >
          > > * indicates statistical significance at .05 level per test.
          > >
          > > The result for drebs was near significance (10.7% was cutoff for
          > > significance), and splitting by the median rather than the mean
          > > yielded significance (-13.3%). So Kenyon, with his subpar
          > > rebounding, should let Paul get those defensive boards, then give
          > the
          > > celtics a taste of their own medicine: set a screen on him so he
          > has
          > > trouble getting down the court (should sound familiar to those
          > > reading the APBR site posts). Thus Paul won't get downcourt very
          > > fast and the offense will miss their #1 option, and maybe he'll
          > score
          > > less.
          > >
          >
          > Actually, an interesting thing about both conference finals is that
          > they both feature teams that rely on the refs. Boston needs fouls
          to
          > be called tightly to win games. The Lakers rely on refs not
          calling
          > much against Shaq down low. Given that refs usually swallow their
          > whistles in the playoffs, this gives a rather substantial advantage
          > to both Jersey and the Lakers. Generally, I don't like series
          where
          > you have teams of such great contrast in that type of style. It
          > means that there will be a lot of complaining about the refs, which
          > there was in yesterday's Sac-LA game.
          >
          > If Pierce can draw fouls, the Celtics have a very good chance.
          >
          > >
          > > ANTOINE WALKER
          > > points: -2.7%
          > > off rebounds: -4.2%
          > > def rebounds: -3.5%
          > > assists: +38.8%*
          > >
          > > cutoff for significance again is 10.7%
          > >
          > > So obviously van horn should key on getting walker to shoot
          rather
          > > than pass.
          >
          > I think I found the same thing a few years ago. Walker gets a
          little
          > excited when he makes 2 in a row, then thinks he can make anything
          > from anywhere with anyone on him.
          >
          > >
          > > JASON KIDD
          > > points: +12.8%*
          > > off rebs: +5.8%
          > > def rebs: +6.0%
          > > assists: +16.7%*
          > >
          > > cutoff for significance: 10.5%
          > >
          > > Keep Jason from scoring. Good luck trying to stop him from
          passing
          > > to the open man!
          >
          > I've generally found that the Nets offense is pretty robust. It's
          > not a very efficient offense, but it's pretty robust to strategy
          > variations. I really found just one reasonable statistical
          indicator
          > for them -- keep them from getting high percentage 3 pt shots.
          They
          > don't shoot a lot of them, but try to keep them from being good
          > ones. In attacking them, you need to get to the basket and draw
          > fouls. Boston standing at the 3pt line without driving probably
          > won't win. Though not nearly as strong an indicator as it is for
          > Boston and the Lakers, the Nets don't like tightly called games.
        • sonicdk2
          ... True, in a sense I agree with your assessment of cause an effect, but assists are also an indication of the manner by which team points are scored (rather
          Message 4 of 4 , May 20, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "alleyoop2" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
            > I noticed most of the guys in this study have a high correlation
            > between assists and winning, and I think cause and effect may be
            > backwards here. Assists only result from made field goals; when you
            > win you normally make more field goals than the other team, and
            > normally that means you'll end up with more assists.

            True, in a sense I agree with your assessment of cause an effect, but
            assists are also an indication of the manner by which team points are
            scored (rather than creating one's own shot, or by free throws.) My
            main focus with assists is to see who an opponent should focus on
            defensively if they want to make sure the opponent doesn't make too
            many timely passes to the open man.

            Other players show weaker relations of assists with winning, so it's
            not as important to shut down that aspect of their game--such as guys
            who like to keep the ball, looking for a shot, and then pass at the
            last few seconds--they might get an assist but it's not a great
            winning strategy and so the passing lanes don't need to be covered so
            tightly with such a player. Am I making sense?

            Change the way the opponent plays and that may put them at a
            disadvantage.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.