Last week I revealed that thanks to Andres Alvarez, the Wins Produced calculation has been automated. Consequently – as I noted last Friday – it is now possible for more people to take these numbers and tell stories. So far, 34 people have volunteered to start writing these stories. And that means the number of voices you are about to hear in this forum is going to expand dramatically (we will work out the details of all this sometime this week).
The numbers – as Andres noted yesterday in the comments – will not be available until next Saturday. So this week we are still stuck with just my voice. And that voice is going to spend today talking about the All-NBA team.
Reviewing the All-NBA Team
Each year the media makes its selections. Some of these choices are quite obvious. LeBron James and Kevin Durant — by almost any measure — rank among the very best players in the game in 2009-10. Some of the other choices, though, seem to reflect a very common theme. Yes, let’s all say it together: Scorers are overvalued.
Here are the top five players in the NBA in points scored per game (PPG) in 2009-10:
Kevin Durant: 30.1 PPG
LeBron James: 29.7 PPG
Carmelo Anthony: 28.2 PPG
Kobe Bryant: 27.0 PPG
Dwyane Wade: 26.6 PPG
Each of these players – with the exception of Melo – was named to the All-NBA first team. And Melo was named to the All-NBA second team.
Now scoring is not the only factor the media considers. Playing for a winning team also helps. The productivity of an individual player, though, is not captured by simply noting how many points the player scores and whether or not his team tends to win. It helps to separate the player from his teammates by focusing on how all the player’s individual actions impact team wins. In other words, it helps to look at Wins Produced (at least, that is the argument in this forum).
Such a look is provided in Table One, where the Top 15 players at each position is listed.
Table One: Top 15 at Each Position in 2009-10
As one can see, the media’s evaluations and Wins Produced are not entirely consistent. A list of the top six guards does include Wade, Steve Nash and Deron Williams. Jason Kidd, Rajon Rondo, and Manu Ginobili, though, did not receive enough consideration to displace Kobe, Joe Johnson, or Brandon Roy.
Turning to the forwards, again a person who believed Wins Produced (like me) can’t quibble with the selections of LeBron and Durant. And Tim Duncan was also a good choice; although I think Duncan spent quite a bit of time at center this year (more on position assignment in a moment). Anthony, Stoudemire (who I think spent more time at forward, although as I note, one can disagree with this notion), and Nowitzki, though, could have been replaced by Gerald Wallace, Marcus Camby, Carlos Boozer, and Lamar Odom.
At center the media and Wins Produced agree on Dwight Howard. David Lee, though, could have received more consideration than Andrew Bogut. Of course, it is possible that Lee was considered a forward by the media.
When we look at minutes played, though, it does appear that Lee was a center. But as I have noted in the past, position assignments are somewhat arbitrary. Yes, power forwards and centers are clearly different from point guards and shooting guards. Hence there is a need to consider position in evaluating a player. Whether or not a player is a center or power forward, though, may be in the eye of the beholder (or best left to the designation of the team).
Calculating Wins Produced
And that returns me to the subject of Wins Produced. This model was explained in The Wages of Wins. It was also explained in an article I published in 2008 (with details reviewed in other articles, some published much earlier) as well as in Stumbling on Wins. And back in 2007 I created a website to illustrate this measurement (a website linked to at stumblingonwins.com).
This website reviews the steps one follows in calculating WP48 [steps initially reviewed in the above publications]. As people who have reviewed these steps know, at the step just prior to reaching WP48 one calculates Adjusted Production per 48 minutes [ADJ P48]. This number considers all the player’s box score statistics (weighted in terms of wins), as well as the adjustments for team defensive variables and the teammates’ production of blocked shots and assists. In other words, ADJ P48 is everything except the position adjustment.
The position adjustment involves subtracting the average ADJ P48 at a player’s position from the player’s ADJ P48. And then 0.099 – the average player’s production of wins per 48 minutes – is added back in.
For example, Rajon Rondo posted a 0.439 ADJ P48. An average point guard posts a 0.263 mark. Given these two figures, Rondo’s WP48 is calculated as follows:
Rondo’s WP48 = 0.439 – 0.263 + 0.099 = 0.275
To repeat the same calculation for any player all one needs is the player’s ADJ P48 and the average ADJ P48 at each position. Given how I allocate players across positions, here are my position averages for 2009-10.
Center: 0.433
Power Forward: 0.371
Small Forward: 0.280
Shooting Guards: 0.228
Point Guards: 0.263
With these values in hand – and the corresponding ADJ P48 for each player – anyone can see what a player’s WP48 would be at any position.
Again, all of this has been detailed in the above books, articles, and websites. But I thought it might be useful to remind everyone of these steps as they start to think about writing about NBA players from the perspective of Wins Produced.
Once Again, jbrett’s Coded Responses
Such writings – as we have seen across the past few years – can generate some negative reactions. Last year – in discussing the 2009 All-NBA teams – I repeated something originally noted by jbrett in the comments section. As jbrett observed, it appears that a number of comments offered in this forum are repetitive. Consequently, we might see a gain in efficiency by assigning letters to the comments that most frequently appear.
Hopefully everyone will once again find jbrett’s observation as funny as I did (and if what he posted last year isn’t funny enough, jbrett and I have added to this list for this year).
Again, here is what jbrett said last year (with a bit of updating):
It seems to me your blog could benefit from posting, at the beginning of each Comments section, a list of time-saving conventions for the new or un-industrious poster. I only found it a few months ago; I spent a long time reading the older articles, and eventually I bought the book. This seemed the sensible approach, though, judging from the tone of many of the comments left, not the favored one. For the benefit of the many posters who consider this site homework-optional, I submit the following list of generic positions that NEED NOT EVER BE ELABORATED UPON EVEN ONE MORE TIME:
A. I have little or no training in statistics (me, for one)
B. Obviously, any metric that says Player A (let’s say, oh, Jermaine O’Neal) is not as good as Player B (how about, um, David Lee) is clearly flawed
C. Anyone who’s ever watched a game can see that Superstar A (Allen Iverson, anyone?) is ten times the player that Serviceable Role Player B (Chauncey Billups, maybe–or how about Andre Miller?) will ever be
D. Superstar A and his ilk cannot be quantified in the same way as mortal players can; they only shoot 42 percent from the field and 28 percent from 3-point range because their teammates DEMAND they do so, by leaving them with the tough shots at the end of the 24-second clock
(See how much space that one will save, when all you have to type is ‘D’?)
E. My friend/ brother-in-law’s boss/ opinionated alter-ego hasn’t read or studied your work, but I told him the results say Mike Miller is way better the Richard Jefferson OR Rip Hamilton, and he says you’re clearly deluded
F. I haven’t read THE WAGES OF WINS or STUMBLING ON WINS, nor am I likely to, and as a result I will begin by gainsaying basic tenets of the book
G. I read your books, and I say “Nunh-unh.”
Okay, here are some new comments for this year:
H.“Marcus Camby?!!!! Sure–go ahead and put 5 Cambys on the floor, and see how many games you win.”
I. “It’s just preposterous to try to define the value of any player’s contributions with a single statistic; therefore, anyone who attempts to do so (or anyone who enables that misguided wretch thru positive feedback or affirmation) is by definition not worthy of a scathing criticism, or even a haughty dismissal. I can’t believe I visit this blog ten times a week, I hold it in such disdain.”
(OK, that one might be a bit long-winded even for me.)
J. “These measurements are largely irrelevant because they measure only what a player has actually DONE, and not what he WOULD be able to do if he had better coaching and were playing a different position on a different team in a universe with different laws of physics where I, ZOD, were the UNDISPUTED MASTER OF ALL!”
And here are some new – more geeky – comments (one of these from DJ).
K. I saw that someone regressed their model (i.e. adjusted plus-minus or APM) on your model and this devastating and damning test (it is important you use the words “devastating” and “damning”) proves that your model is wrong. I hold this belief because 1) I am able to ignore the fact it is not clear which model is being tested, 2) I am able to ignore the obvious shortcomings APM (very inconsistent over time, most player evaluations are statistically insignificant), 3) I really have no idea how one would actually evaluate an empirical model.
L. All you’re doing is arbitrarily dividing up the team’s wins amongst the players, then making a team adjustment to hide any discrepancies. I can say this because I never read the books or the underlying empirical articles. I have read many “experts” on the Internet (and you know they are “experts” because they said so).
M. “A correlation of 0.94? Clearly that isn’t possible; therefore, you must not really be measuring anything new or unique.”
N. “Unless and until we are able to tabulate every single act that can conceivably occur on the court, and calculate their relative value in terms of wins, the metric you present here is either so incomplete as to be completely useless or hopelessly skewed and misleading.”
I’ll stop there–but, obviously, as other arguments become hackneyed, they can be assigned the next letter. Think how much easier it will be to find the genuinely interesting discussion when the endless repetitive jabber is distilled to a handful of letters one can note and skip past. It seems like an idea whose time has come. Any thoughts?
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
Wages of Wins Journal 
brgulker
May 10, 2010
Looking at that Top 15 list, I’m struck by a couple things in particular.
1) Rondo is ridiculously underappreciated.
2) David West was the 15th most productive PF in the game and only managed a .o97 WP48? Wow.
3) It’s too bad Ben Wallace’s minutes were limited due to injury at the end of the season. He was posting remarkable numbers.
palamida
May 10, 2010
Brgulker, West played 81 games and 36.4 mpg. That “inflates” his WP totals. You can see that of the 14 “above” him, only Nowitzki played more minutes.
In addition, The overall “trend” of playing “small ball” is evident in many teams employing basically a “traditional” PF at Center. Prime examples of this would be: Lee, Horford ,P. Gasol,(how cool is the fact that I need to put the P. in front of Gasol now :)), Haslem, Nene, Bosh and so forth. All of whom would also surpass West (both in Wp48 and Wp) if they were to be deployed as PF’s and not Centers.
I think the ADJp48 is a very useful addition, since Position assignment is all but an easy task. What troubles me though, is that by reassigning positions differently – the positional averages change, So basically, If one were to redo the positions, it would call for further adjustment.
The reason I’m bringing this up is the “Automated version”. It would be mighty useful if such input could be made individually, and at the end of the process the Wp48 numbers would be “recalibrated” so to speak. I guess I’m asking here is: “DRE, would such a thing be possible”?
Perhaps not initially (since many are waiting for the data to become available), but perhaps further down the line?
Thanks in advance.
palamida
May 10, 2010
Just a small note of clarification – I think durability has value. We shouldn’t overlook West’s total production: There’s value in being able to play big minutes, for an entire (almost) NBA season.
The drop-off (starters vs. 2nd or 3rd string) is quite significant at the PF position, and The Hornets get indirect marginal production from West’s ability to stay in the game longer.
His “true” value to the Hornets as a result is larger than the average (ish) mark he has posted this season.
Nick
May 10, 2010
This blog seems as though it is written by someone who hates basketball. While I respect the idea behind it, comparing it to something like fangraphs, another statistics-focused sports analysis website (for baseball), it really seems grumpy and whiny. No focus is put on individual games or standout performances game by game. The tone of this website feels almost scornful of players that it deems overrated by the mass media. And posts on this website are just as repetitive as the comments are. Regular readers of this site know what to expect from it, and are not nearly as shocked by its contents as the author intends them to be. And while jbrett’s recommendations are suggested so that there can be more individual discussion, doesn’t the very nature of a single metric to measure performance hamper discussion? If somebody calls a player better or worse than this metric suggests, they are practically laughed at, as though it’s unsophisticated to focus on any other part of basketball. Now I don’t think that my argument falls in any of those cookie cutter examples that were noted, but I would like to condense it into two points.
A. The possibility that the metric is flawed, for certain players at least, is not entertained seriously or often enough. There are readers of the website who take issue with its judgment of certain players who are intelligent enough to raise a point other than “that player scores a lot, so he is good!” That currently seems to be the only opposing point addressed.
B. The website only focuses on whole-season performances, which can be inaccurate or even irrelevant for young players or players dealing with injury. When discussion people like Brandon Roy and Kobe Bryant this year, injury needs to be in the conversation. Otherwise, it is doing them a disservice. Month by month WP48 will be a valuable resource once it becomes available.
Chris
May 10, 2010
Will Andres’ new site have splits? I think having timely data (e.g. how well a player did before or after the All Star break, etc.) would open up even more articles.
EJ
May 10, 2010
I have little or no training in statistics.
But obviously, any metric that says Kobe is not as good as Odom is clearly flawed.
Anyone who’s ever watched a game can see that Kobe Bryant is ten times the player that Lamar Odom will ever be.
Lamar Odom?!!!! Sure–go ahead and put 5 Odoms on the floor, and see how many games you win.
Kobe cannot be quantified in the same way as mortal players can; he only shoots 45 percent from the field and 33 percent from 3-point range because his teammates DEMAND him to do so, by leaving him with the tough shots at the end of the 24-second clock.
brgulker
May 10, 2010
I echo Chris’ question above. Who’s hot at the moment and who’s not could be interesting — I’m thinking specifically of Orlando post-All Star break right now.
I also think Nick’s point A. is interesting and merits further discussion, especially in relationships to Dr. Berri suggestion that defense is best measured at the team level. If the team is the sum of its parts, then there has to be some way to at least begin debating the individual contribution of each team member to team defense, right?
EJ
May 10, 2010
I have little or no training in statistics.
But obviously, any metric that says Melo is not as good as Nene is clearly flawed.
Anyone who’s ever watched a game can see that Melo is ten times the player that Nene will ever be.
Nene?!!!! Sure–go ahead and put 5 Nenes on the floor, and see how many games you win.
Melo cannot be quantified in the same way as mortal players can; he only shoots 46 percent from the field and 31 percent from 3-point range because his teammates DEMAND him to do so, by leaving him with the tough shots at the end of the 24-second clock.
Phil
May 10, 2010
I’ll echo Nick’s point B; I would be interested to see more isolated instances of player production. I enjoyed this year’s Nuggets v Jazz playoff breakdown a lot, as well as last year’s comparison of Kobe’s and Lebron’s games against the Knicks.
For instance, who had the best game of the season? In terms of win/loss record this doesn’t mean much, but the fan in me still gets excited over individual games (that the cynic in me deems “random noise”).
Did Duncan really decline that much at the end of the season? Did Ginobli really improve? What spurred the Laker’s end-of-season struggles, and conversely, what spurred the Suns’ end-of-season success?
Yes, player production fluctuates a lot on a game-by-game, so any small sample can be misleading. But I’d still like to see the “noise”. Am I alone?
stephanieg
May 10, 2010
So, how about those Mavericks? Any speculation on why the WP and efficiency differential didn’t line up very well there?
Also, this might be a dumb question, but you’ve said before that a rebound in 2000 is worth about as much as a rebound as 1980. What about compared to everyone’s production at your position though? Would an 11 rpg C in a league of 12 rpg C’s produce less wins than an 11 rpg player in a diluted 10 rpg league? Or am I speaking gibberish? Or is the effect so tiny I shouldn’t even think about it?
palamida
May 10, 2010
Stephanieg, regarding the Mavs – was that a question? What do you mean by, didn’t line up?
You mentioned efficiency differential. While it’s true that WoW was derived “from it”, that particular stat is widely considered a good predictor of team future performance and of evaluation of current “strength”. That is precisely why despite the national media’s perception – Dallas was never the favorite in that series.
The Spurs possessed a considerably superior Eff. Diff (5.6, compared to Dallas’s 2.8). HC adv. put this series more along the lines of a coin flip.
(for reference – the Spurs Vegas line was roughly 2.5 ). So in that particular series If judging by differential – there was no “upset”. Mind you this is hardly a “WoW story”. Opposing metrics disagree on the production of individuals – not teams. A clear evidence of this can be demonstrated by this year’s TrueHoops smackdown where 5 out of 7 experts picked the Spurs to win the series.
As for WoW, I don’t understand your question.
Dallas does in fact employ an elite win producer in Jason Kidd. It also employs 2 highly productive Centers. Looking past that, we see mostly average players. Some of whom (Mostly Marion, who used to be an elite win producer in his prime, but has not been one for several seasons) had been somewhat more productive in the past.
The Spurs, Employ two elite win producers in Duncan and Ginobili, while also getting comparable (comparable to Dallas’s “B grade producers) production from the likes of Parker, Blair,etc. On top of that the Spurs (similarly to Dallas) employ several players who hover around the average. The Sum of the Spurs roster (as evident by their superior efficiency differential) surpasses it’s Mavs counterpart.
If you want to discuss “upsets”, I’d certainly call the Suns sweep – an upset and not the Mavs series.
The story here, I think, has a lot to do with “conventional wisdom” seeing Nowitzki as one of the more productive players in the league – A superstar. Whilst in his prime he was in fact a “superstar” (albeit, always somewhat overrated as he was never a true “elite” win producer – which in my book means a legitimate MVP candidate) he is not one anymore, or at least hasn’t been for the last couple of seasons and given his age – it’s unlikely he’ll attain his peaks of days past, again.
If I totally misunderstood you, I apologize and I urge you to clarify your question.
As for the 2000/1980 business, The value of a rebound has remained fairy fixed. Whatever difference there is, is in fact small – I’m sure Dberri can provide the relevant numbers.
I’m not really following the whole 12/11/10 thingy.
From what I can glean, I can say this:
Naturally the value of a rebound isn’t the same in a league where for example an average center takes 15 rebounds p48 or 5. Seeing as the averages across the positions (and in the league as a whole) remained fairy consistent throughout the years – this isn’t a major issue. Dberri did in fact (if memory serves) from time to time present the actual averages (not just for rebounds) that were posted in recent years. As for methodology i’m not sure if Dberri uses the 15 year avg for position adjustments or rather each specific season’s averages are applied to each season’s data set. I can see pros and cons to both methods, personally. I’m not sure there’s much interest in pursuing this subject, though. If anyone here is interested in discussing it, I might be persuaded to join :), but honestly, I’m quite sure there is no such interest. I hope that answers at least part of your question\s.
robbieomalley
May 10, 2010
No wonder Khandor always organized his points like this…
i.
ii.
iii.
He could have just stopped there. He is a huge proponent of i.
As for Nicks second point I know it has been discussed here that being young and/or being injured is relevant (CP3 is a .450+ level player, so clearly injuries have hurt him). As well we know that the average WP48 for rookies is around .050, which makes Evans and Curry’s production look better. While it may not have been discussed in this particular post both those topics have been talked about before.
pmpballer
May 10, 2010
personally i think its impossible to accurately gauge individual performances because there are many circumstances that play into that players performance for that game. Even being sick could play a huge part. I think that the purpose of anybody who follows this blog has come to understand that this type of statistical analysis isn’t here to gauge who has the most basketball talent. Rather its a metric that tries to accurately gauge how much a player has an effect on his team’s outcome.
The lakers don’t win based on how well kobe does but rather how pau, lamar, or bynum do. And this metric accurately shows how important each of these players are.
Tommy_Grand
May 10, 2010
Kneel before Zod.
ilikeflowers
May 10, 2010
Nick,
[1] Tone is certainly subjective, so everyone’s opinion on it is definitely valid.
[2] I would think that the more accurate a metric is that the less discussion would be needed as far as who’s better than who. Less discussion on this point seems like a good thing to me. It frees up time for the discussion of other things like marginal value.
[3] Do you have any specific points that have been unaddressed regarding A?
[4] Regarding B, ranking players by wins produced instead of wp48 gives credit to players who play through injury or who just don’t get injured much or who play more minutes thereby keeping backups on the bench more. In spite of his lesser per minute productivity, Kobe has been the top producer of wins at SG for some seasons (I think) and from that standpoint can be considered the “best” SG during those years.
David
May 10, 2010
I’m curious to know what went into some of the positional assignments. For example, why was Marcus Camby a PF? I’ve always thought of him as a C, and thats certainly where he played after being trade to Portland, and I imagine he earned a large chunk of minutes there with the Clippers. Similarly, I’ve always though Bargnani was the C for the Raptors and that Bosh primarily played PF. What am I missing?
palamida
May 10, 2010
As for Camby I think you said it yourself…
I’m pretty sure he was primarily a C in Portland.
In Clipperland, I suspect he was basically a PF whenever he was on the court alongside Kaman (and Deandre Jorden as well, even though Idk how much PT they shared).
Camby “resides” in the high post when playing with Kaman – the latter in the low post.
Who checks the opposing Center on the block? as opposed to who is stepping out to perimeter to contest 15-18 feet shots of opposing Pf’s? If you can answer such questions, (I can’t personally, even though I assume\imagine Camby being the more “mobile” big, steps out more often than not).
Considering Camby even tends to do his little “top of the key” routines, where he initiates some high-low action and setting High ball screens – I think it’s fair to call him A part time PF, at least in a Clipper uniform where he played alongside more traditional centers.
As for Bosh\Bargs, I watched quite a few Raptors games myself this past season and despite his seemingly perimeter orientation (not that Bosh isn’t “perimeter oriented”), It was mostly Bargnani who was “parked” in the paint, trying ever so unsuccessfully to “protect” the rim. That’s on the defensive end. On the other end, i’d be hard pressed calling him a center, even though both players had their fair share (again, completely subjective, perhaps someone can provide some data on the matter) of Iso plays called for them on the block. Naturally it’s a question of matchups as well, both offensively and defensively.
It’s worth noting though, that at least as far as WoW is concerned this isn’t really a big deal. The positional averages for both PF’s and Centers are very similar. In a sense we can simply call them both “Big Men” and use the middle ground (meaning, the average of the PF and Center). So in truth, it’s not that important if Camby (or any other big) is a 4.5, a 4.78, or what have you- the difference is marginal.
When we turn to counterpart production though, there does seem to be a difference. For instance I recall a “Courtside Analyst” post that presented evidence that Bogut has been consistently more dominant when comparing his production when match up against “PF’s that are deployed as Centers” – Horford, Lee, Nene, etc, than when matched up against traditional Centers – for instance – Haywood,Bynum,Howard etc. Perhaps Ty can provide a link here. In any event If we examine WoW alone, The only distinction that really matters is when distinguishing SF’s from PF’s.
Alvy
May 10, 2010
When I read the first comment left by Nick and a few others, I can see why this forum needs contributors. I don’t know what D. Berri does when he’s not lecturing, etc., but I assume he probably doesn’t have enough time to specifically cover every team, every night. In other words, these topics (individual performances, conclusions about late-season success, etc.) will probably begin to appear once appropriate contributors start writing and using the WP metric.
The only real complain about this blog, but not the metric, was in a particular post—I forget what it was titled, but it was about randomness in the playoffs, and how “shit happens.” I can agree with that, but when a highly favored team by everyone in the world loses four times to a team that didn’t get any attention while only winning twice, just isn’t a result of random shit occurring. This is where I cannot wait for individual writers contributing to the forum.
arturo
May 10, 2010
Prof.
Quick math note . The actual calculation you’re showing is :
WP48 = ADJ P48– PositionAdjustment + 0.099
Where the position adjustment is calculated based on the Estimated Position.
So for
Stephen Curry
WP48 =0.304- 72%*(0.263)-28%*(0.228)+.099=0.151
Oh and I am amazed at the leap someone like Durant made in the second half of the season (0.292 for the season but only 0.240 at the halfway point so .344 in the last 41 games). I ‘d love to see and article on the players who had the largest differentials in the first and second half of the season (“Making the Leap vs Jumping the Shark”)
Russell
May 10, 2010
I really enjoyed looking at the table linked to in this article. It’s kind of sad to see time catch up with the once unbelievable Shawn Marion, but that is life. Maybe he’ll have a Ben Wallace-esque resurgance next season (further linking the arguably most underrated players to ever post a plus .400 WP48). I really hope Chris Paul can make a full recovery from injury next season, and it’s fun to see the sports writers (not in voting but in general commentary) starting to catch up to what WoW has said about Rondo for a while.
All that being said, I wish you would cut out the straw man schtick.
Italian Stallion
May 10, 2010
I love this model despite some minor issues.
However, after suffering through several seasons of Quentin Richardson being a Knick, I find it hard to believe he could be a LOT better than Melo last year.
I concede that QRich was so horrible in NY he could only be better in Miami.
I also concede that Melo is very overrated.
But this seems a bit extreme for any Knicks fan to accept. QBrick was a major cause acid reflux in my home for several years. :)
ilikeflowers
May 10, 2010
Alvy,
I assume that you’re talking about the eastern conf finals from last year. That 4-2 difference isn’t really that big. Looking at home and away efficiency diff’s (as opposed to just overall) you would expect this series to go 7 games since it was unlikely that either team was going to win on the road. Once Orlando won any road game prior to game 7 a 4-2 outcome was the most likely result. Similarly, once Cleveland won any road game prior to game 6 a seemingly dominant 4-1 outcome was very likely.
I’m not saying that the result was actually due to randomness. Efficiency diff predicts 95% of the outcomes IIRC, so that leaves strategy (matchups etc..), injuries, and random effects to explain the rest. The question is how does one differentiate between strategy and random effects when dealing with such a small sample size (in this case just one early road game completely changes the expected outcome)? I think that I’m disagreeing with both you and the professor since I don’t see any evidence to prefer randomness over strategy and vice versa. Both factors even could have been equally relevant.
The interesting thing is that this year Orlando is even more likely to defeat Cleveland 4-2 than they were last year though Cleveland would still be favored by efficiency diff and home court.
Home and away efficiency diffs:
2008-2009
Orl (10.6, 3.5)
Cle (16.3, 3.9)
2009-2010
Orl (12.5, 3.6)
Cle (9.7, 4.5)
ilikeflowers
May 10, 2010
Dallas is in a world of hurt. Marion and Dirk are in serious decline and Kidd’s productivity has to be ready to plummet soon as well. They have a replacement for Dampier and Beaubois might develop into a star at the point, but they’ve gotta jettison Dirk and Marion.
ilikeflowers
May 10, 2010
IS,
don’t jinx yourself or the Knicks will find a way to sign Melo!
brgulker
May 10, 2010
Not sure how I missed this the first time but nice to see jerebko on this list as well.
John Giagnorio
May 10, 2010
Didn’t realize that Orlando had passed Cleveland for the best regular season efficiency differential. The playoffs so far make a bit more sense :)
Alvy
May 10, 2010
ilikeflowers,
yeah, thanks, that was actually the series I was referring to. I also want to agree that match-ups, and game plan had more to do with the outcome than randomness, but I am now recalling that LeBron three and Lewis FG in game one…
Anyway, thanks for sharing the efficiency differential for this year too, I wasn’t aware of them.
palamida
May 11, 2010
Alvi and Ilike I’d like to offer some extra input on the Orlando\Cavs matchup. I actually meant to do it yesterday, but got tied up and Ilike beat me to the punch :p
For starters it’s worth noting that while Orlando had a monstrous second half this season, They probably wouldn’t have surpassed the Cavs if it weren’t for Lebron sitting out the last 5-6 games.
Also If one believes Jamison is a huge addition, then one can argue that the Cavs differential slights their “true” ability somewhat.
Last season was a far more interesting tale, imo.
Ilike is correct, essentially: After that series many voices were heard providing a wide array of “explanations” for the “upset”. some of the more prominent ones had to do with the matchup (namely Dwight Howard single coverage was disastrous), others alluded to the tactical adv. Orlando possessed at the coaching position – V. Gundy vs. Brown, and many other such “explanations”. Most of these explanations overlooked the simple fact that this wasn’t such a huge upset to begin with. Even if take the numbers at face value (more on that in a sec) Orlando probably had about 30-35% chance of winning the series, where as about 20-25% was reserved for Orlando taking it in 6. While that is an “upset”, it’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility and I can’t see how the “shit happens” argument is less valid, than any other.
When we look at the bigger picture though, we can argue that if matchups for example were such a big issue – it’s surprising that more “upsets” do not occur on a yearly basis. Mind you, this isn’t just the “national media” or casual fans: The Cavs acquired the services of Shaq, a move that was driven by their evident belief that their lack of ability to cover DH – cost them the series. Looking at matchups iirc, their season series was even last season (often the season series is looked at when considering matchups). Did DH dominate that series? off course. But idk of many teams who can single cover this particular big man. If anything I would think that Varejao is just as capable as anyone of slowing him down. (probably more suitable for the task than a washed-up Shaq). Personally I think the issues run even deeper: The Cavs last season did something few teams have done in the past; remember all those records they broke? consecutive wins in double digits, etc? In the NBA it’s customary for teams to rest their starters when the game is out of reach. What usually happens is that at a certain point, the trailing opponent sits their starters as well. It’s like a non written contract: “this is a long and grueling season” – ” Instead of wearing our starters out in a game that in all likelihood is going to be lost even if we try our best – we concede”. I think anyone familiar with the NBA, knows what kind of situation i’m talking about. The Cavs did not play like this that season: Lebron would stay on the court deep in the 4th, with double digit leads.
I have no idea why they employed this “strategy” but it’s hard to argue that they didn’t. This “non-written contract”, this “rule of engagement” is exactly why the Knicks and Nuggets got into that brawl a few years back. I think that this Cavs practice might have artificially “inflated” their efficiency differential. The data is self-selected – few teams (if any) have employed such strategies. The Cavs finished last season with an efficiency differential that was simply “too good” for them.
their mark was iirc, the 3rd best in history and i’d be hard pressed in calling that team the 3rd best in history. We can see more evidence of that this season: The Cavs were virtually the same team this season (with the addition of Shaq, Parker and Moon – and later Jamison) all of whom are players that most if not all metrics agree are productive players. and yet the Cavs – regressed in terms of differential. It is my contention that they weren’t “that” good to begin with.
It’s also worth noting that during the regular season, Orlando was an elite road team, if any team had a real shot of getting a win in Cleveland, it was probably them. I think that series was a lot closer than advertised to begin with and while still being the underdogs – the Magic had a decent chance of winning the series (including in 6 games). As it turned out – they did. It’s hard to argue that the “shit happens” argument – meaning the less likely outcome occurred – at random is an inaccurate depiction of reality, and that in fact – there was a very good reason why it “went down” the way it did.
If the series would have been played a 1000 times, how many of those would have Orlando taken? I suspect that number is a lot closer to 500 than than you might think. Naturally I have no way of backing that up, so it is what it is… food for thought?
Matthew Dalton
May 11, 2010
Dave,
I really see a problem with the concept of position adjustment. So, the premise is that every team needs a player from each position on the court at every time. But why? Surely you need somebody who can dribble the ball up the court, and that person isn’t going to be Dwight Howard. But why does that person need to be a “point guard” – or more specifically, why does that person need to be as short as a typical point guard?
Position adjustment essentially adjusts for the fact that shorter players are less productive. Apparently being tall is a helpful attribute for a basketball player. So why adjust that away?
For example, Magic Johnson has, I believe, the highest WP48 of any NBA player since they started keeping all the relevant stats. And the Lakers won a lot of games with him playing “point guard.” Why? Because he was a tall, skilled guy who was much more productive than the short guys who normally play the position.
My point is that teams would probably be better off, all things being equal, playing taller players, and position adjustment tends to obscure this fact. The Cavs, for example, would be better off giving Mo Williams’ minutes to Anthony Parker, even both have roughly equal Wp48 (at least at mid-Season). Let Lebron bring the ball up – I’m sure he’s capable of it.
And why should David Lee be viewed as a less good player because he plays on a short team? That’s the Knicks’ problem, not his problem! At power forward he’s got a .308 wp48, good for 3rd best, but at center he’s only .247, or 5th best.
What the Knicks lack is a good player in the 6-11, 7 feet height area (i.e. not Eddy Curry!)
What do you think?
cheers,
Matt
palamida
May 11, 2010
Matt, I’m not Dave, but I’ll address some of the issues you raised – hope that’s alright with you :p.
Paying\being the PG (unlike other positions) requires specialized skill set. In the free world, in terms of absolute “basketball talent” there are guys whom are 5 ft. tall for instance, but are more apt at many (probably all) of the skills required. Some could probably hit their FT’s at over 95%. Hit their 3’s at over 50%, make incredibely difficult passes far more consistently than any NBA Guard, etc;
The trouble is, that their length (and width) would make them an utter liability on the defensive end (and rebounding wise), and in just about every “real game situation” they would be an equal liability offensively: Yes, they could win the NBA’s 3 pt contest, but in a real game they wouldn’t even be able to get their shot off – they’d be blocked. hence there’s no room for them. What this means, is that in the NBA we have guys who possess the required skill set (to varying degrees) with the “entry level” – height. The way the game is played favors tall players. Guys who are extremely tall are a rarity. Guys who are extremely talented – are a rarity as well. By in large It’s better to be tall (and not so talented) than talented (but not so tall). In the rare occurrences you have both rarities embodied in a single player – you hit jackpot. Off course Magic was a beast. Not many people though, possess his talent and are this tall at the same time.
“why does that person need to be as short as a typical point guard?”. He doesn’t. but the Pg position is like no other in that respect – a couple of inches matter less than less talent. Being a PG is about a lot more than “dribbling the ball up the court”. for starters the pick n’ roll offense is probably the most efficient “set play” in basketball. Having the skills to execute it’s principles to your full advantage appears to be more important than being 6’1 as opposed to 6’2, for example. Newer rules (the hand-check for one) made small differences in height even less important at the Pg position when compared to differences in talent.
Lebron and Dwade led the league last season in the lowest %assisted. Does that mean they “create” more shots for themselves than say, Kobe, or Melo? not necessarily. Lebron does indeed play a lot of point-forward. In many possessions he’s the one taking the ball up the court and more importantly the ball is in his hands the moment the offense “really” initiates (meaning when the half court line is crossed). That leads to him obtaining a high number of assists and indirectly to him having less of his shots – assisted. He doesn’t usually receive the entry pass – he drives. Wade plays a similar role – the Ball is in his hands. He makes the decisions. He too racks up assists and has a low %assisted.
In Cleveland – Mo Williams often simply spots up for 3’s, while Lebron is handling the ball – meaning essentially being a wing player on offense and not your run of the mill PG. So to a certain extent, what you’re suggesting is already happening and has been happening throughout Lebron’s entire career. Would the Cavs be better off with playing with AP as their PG? that’s certainly plausible, but that has little to do with his height – that would be possible because Cleveland already employs a player in LBJ, that can essentially be deployed as the main distributor, ball handler and director of the offense i.e – a PG. or in Lebron’s case a point-forward. In summation players with the ability to “be a PG” often come in small packages and very rarely come in Forward\Center size. When they do – they’re as productive as anyone whose ever played the game.
As for Lee this point has been discussed to exhaustion, most prominently using the case of Rashard Lewis.
Yes, Lee “suffers” (as you say, 0.300 vs. 0.250) when compared to other Centers. It’s not his “fault” that he’s deployed in that manner. Would he be a better player if he played PF along a “real” center? etc.
Wp measures A player’s contribution to his team, in relative terms. When the Knicks elect to deploy Lee in this manner (Center), they “force” us to compare him to other centers and in the process “hurting” his value. It’s a good thing we have eyes then :)
His Wp48 (and ADJP48) accurately measures his contribution to his team, but that’s just the data.
just the “how” and “how much”, not the “why”.
Take the year end numbers for instance: If player X is below player Y, should we deduce that player Y is better? certainly not. We use the data to make decisions, and in the process of our decision making – we interpret the data, using additional tools we have at our disposal.
The data isn’t the end, it’s the beginning.
I for one, think it’s better to leave Lee’s numbers as they are because that was his “true” contribution to his team’s production. When we start breaking the data down, I think most readers here will promptly agree, and easily see through this “conundrum” and make the proper adjustments. Therefore – there is no issue here, really.
We’re not robots, we do not think that you can plug player X in team A and get his reported production – no matter what- there are other factors to consider, always.
Matthew Dalton
May 11, 2010
Palamida,
your description of a point guard’s special role in the game certainly sounds plausible to me, but I wonder if it’s actually true. For example, consider the following 2 lineups: 1) of Tim Duncan, Marcus Camby, Dwight Howard, Pau Gasol and Gerald Wallace and 2) Jason Kidd, Dwyane Wade, Lebron James, marcus Camby and Dwight Howard .
Which team would be better?
There’s no obvious “point forward” on team 1. Would they have trouble advancing the ball? Would they be turning it over all the time? I don’t know, but the ADJ P48 of that team is higher than team 2, even though team 2 is the top win producers at each position.
This is all hypothetical, but it might be an interesting experiment for a coach to try one day.
Dre
May 11, 2010
Hey guys, corrected some mistakes on the last video as well as added a column for ADJ P48, for anyone who wanted the raw number without Position adjustment. I also go over some of the all-nba team:
Italian Stallion
May 11, 2010
palamida,
The problem with attributing every “upset” to some kind of random probability event is that your model could be wrong or incomplete and you’ll never figure that out.
To be clear, I’m not claiming that point differential is entirely bogus, but I think you have to consider the possibility that there are other predictive factors that can improve on it a great deal.
To be quite honest, I think elite Vegas gamblers would probably laugh at anyone that only used point differential to predict the outcome of basketball series.
PD is almost certainly the first thing that anyone contemplating gambling looks at before he learns anything at all about actually predicting results well enough to outperform the Vegas odds.
brgulker
May 11, 2010
Because we all know how accurately gamblers predict the outcome of sporting events?
Italian Stallion
May 11, 2010
Matthew,
I’ve been arguing something along the same line.
IMO, assigning a player to one of the 5 traditional positions does not always reflect their actual skill set and contribution because there are many “hybrid” players out there.
It’s clearly valuable to know that player “X” had a WP48 of “Y”, contributed “Z” wins deployed the way he was, when assigned to a certain position.
However, I think it would also be valuable to know how productive a player was compared to all the other players in the league without the adjustment.
Then as a separate exercise someone could subjectively decide how a player’s specific skill set could best be used with other players of other skill sets to try to create a better team that was not necessarily made up of the 5 traditional positions.
Teams go through that subjective exercise anyway when they build a team. So they should have those non positional adjusted figures to work with also.
I have suggested that D.Berri publish “both” when he analyzes players and teams because it would give us another path of discussion.
Italian Stallion
May 11, 2010
brgulker,
It might be an interesting exercise to use PD vs. the Las Vegas odds and see which is more predictive.
I haven’t the faintest idea what it would show, but I’d be willing to bet on the Vegas lines blindly and those odds lines are not even designed to maximize the probability of being correct. They are designed to bring in an equal amount of money on each team.
I’d bet 100K that the best basketball handicappers in Vegas would crush PD.
Dre
May 11, 2010
Italian,
Just for the record, I’ve added that column to the tool I am working on. For the position adjustment does have an influence on how we perceive a player but usually the influence is only large with jumps of 2 positions.
Something I also think is cool is the bars I’ve added for seeing what a player does well, which is theory helps to see if putting a bunch of players together would help the team or possibly clog certain factors (5 players that can’t score but all rebound well for instance)
I do feel the position adjustment is not that major unless a player is completely assigned wrongly( Dwight Howard as a Point Guard would get credit for 10 more wins a season), as most adjacent positions have an adjustment close to each other. That said, it is valuable to see the unadjusted number.
ilikeflowers
May 11, 2010
Dre,
Something that I’ve been wanting to see for a long time is a player’s ws and wp48 variability over time. StDev, Min, Max, Median etc… for a season, half-season, multiple seasons would be awesome. I’m sure that you have a big todo list already of cool stuff that can be added once the site is up and running – if this isn’t on the list already then please add it. Thanks again for putting in the work to make the new site a reality.
marparker
May 11, 2010
It seems that in the ECF the tables have turned. Orlando is now the team that has swept its way through the playoffs while Clev has had to play a tough series to get the finals. It would be fitting if the outcome was reversed as well.
In the WCF the team with the best point guard in the west is probably going to be sacrificing itself to the Lakers, just like last year.
Not much has changed at all really. If only I could have seen it coming I would be rich!
However, now that Kobe is getting older/less productive it makes the the “Kobe Argument” less fun. I’m just watching to see good basketball be played.
Dre
May 11, 2010
Ilikeflowers,
Ok! Something easier to add in the short run will be a wish list I can display with an ordering or likelihood it will occur. Per game stats(both team and player) is of huge interest to me and of course also somewhat more difficult to accomplish :)
marparker
May 11, 2010
IS,
There is plenty of empirical evidence that the vegas lines are designed to be correct and not designed to get half the action on each side of the line.
There are many other derivative type bets that can based off the line. There are also a very small percentage of betters who can inflict the most damage to sportsbooks’ profits.
That the line is designed to get 50% action on each side is the most common misconception about “vegas”
palamida
May 11, 2010
IS , a clarification:
The Vegas line was cited simply to demonstrate the “consensus”. I did not imply that PD “crushes” Vegas handicappers or anything of the sort (even though, it’d make for an intreseting study). As you say, lines are decided upon in an attempt to draw equal money on both sides – they represent, in that respect – the popular opinion.
For those who still don’t follow….
If the popular opinion was that the Spurs were the favorites, gamblers would have flocked and bet the Spurs at those odds (2.5) since it represented great value – as a result – the line would have shifted. Since that didn’t happen, (namely, the odds remained fixed) I deduce from that, that “popular opinion” was in fact that Dallas were the favorites. That’s the point I was making, I guess I wasn’t clear about that.
To your other point, I didn’t say I attribute every upset as to pure randomness. I only claimed that other arguments made at the time of this specific upset, didn’t exactly scream – Eureka! to me.
Not only is PD not “entirely Bogus”, we can do a little study, just to demonstrate how not “entirely bogus” it really is. If we take a playoff series, and do a log7 kind of thing, using only PD and a fixed number for HC adv. (say… 3.5?) how often would you expect us to correctly predict the winner? (numbers of games won and lost aside, just the winner). I suspect that number will be extremely high. Haven’t done it myself, but if someone has a free afternoon – it surely could be done.
Perhaps we’ll need to take out of the sample certain specific cases – probably instances were a key player was active through most of the season but out for the entire series (Kg last year, Bogut this year, etc). Predictions? guesses? Let’s hear ’em: “what would that number be for say.. the last 15 seasons?”.
Just to be clear, again, I’m not comparing PD to handicapping of any sort. Since the vast majority of outcomes can be predicted by using this method (again, IF that’s true), and we do expect a certain element of luck, after all, these are not infinite series of occurrences, it’s very logical to assume every single\random\arbitrary\given “upset” is in fact the result of randomness (or rather mostly the result of one). I think the burden of proof is on anyone claiming that a particular series’s outcome is the result of anything else. With that said, none of the other “methods” alone would even come close to explaining other series as well as PD alone. Not particular team vs. team match ups, not coaches, not anything else that was suggested. Is it possible that combining a couple of methods would predict better than PD alone? certainly. That’s what Handicappers do, I assume. PD as a baseline and then..idk.. additions; Last 10 games? last 20? incorporating perfomance in terms of four factors (for instance, team X is “suscebtible” to good Efg% teams), whatever, you name it.
I’m sure some improvement can be made over PD in such a method, and god knows there’s plenty of people looking for this type of “edge”. But even if that were possible and true, I don’t see how it changes the overall picture. Let’s suppose there was a “hidden” factor that made The Cavs more likely to be bested by Orlando. Perhaps it boosted their chances by 5%. maybe even 10%. That’s a lot if we were gambling men, but since we’re not… I don’t think it’s that significant. This was a sports match. The Cavs were the favorites (to what extent exactly, no one can say). They lost. The primary cause of this defeat has to be chance. If the media\experts\whomever believed the Cavs were 70% favorites, or 80%, or 55% – it doesn’t really matter, since we can’t replay this series to infinity we’ll never know the real likelihood, someones was close to the truth, that’s for sure. The higher that likelihood was, the more the mind tends to attribute certain reasoning and dismiss randomness, but the truth is – it was mostly randomness one way of another. I think it was Brian Eno who once listened to a recording of random street noises for 2 weeks straight. After that span, he could see the composer’s signature and handiwork in that recording.
I hope that illustrates my point.
palamida
May 11, 2010
Matthew, this one goes out to you :p
Hypothetical as they come, so forgive me if i’ll forsake data when addressing this issue and indulge in pure conjecture, just this once.
When I picture the lineups you have presented this is what I see: The first lineup’s biggest problem wouldn’t be advancing the ball. That would be a challenge though: Full court press would in fact make it extremely hard for them to advance. They’ll inbound, but then they will have to either pass or put the ball on the deck. Dribbling high, and akwardly it shouldn’t be too hard for the “Dwades” to simply swipe the ball, and while trapping and guarding the passing lines, to intercept if needed, a good % of passes. Since the Big men would only have 8 second to cross half court, it’s not like they would be able to “take their time”. Wallace will certainly be trapped often, as he poses the most “danger” in this regard. It will be challenging.
Looking past that, I see a lot of… waste.
Since outside Wallace all these guys are basically a non factor 20 feet and out, (Gasol and Camby to a lesser extent), The “Dwades” will clog, double team, triple team, and front their defensive assignments every chance they’ll get. There’s only one ball, and without it you can’t be in the paint for more than 3 seconds. Assuming one guy has the ball inside, the others (the other “centers”, I mean) will pretty much be useless – their ability to get inside and score+rebound will be null, or at least dulled. The guy who gets the entry pass, assuming it’s a guy with a mismatch, will have his hands full (it’ll be hard for these guys to drive, hence the need for a pass). If he even catches the ball (his fronting guard will try to swipe it before that), will immeditely be aided by an additional player\s guarding from behind. The open guys left, would be useless unless they cut to the paint, in which case the big man with the ball would need to be successful in delivering the pass, in traffic, through a see of hands. That’s probably easier said then done.
By then btw, the “Dwades” will try to perform a switch and leave Camby\Howard on him.
Sure, they can all crash the offensive boards, and they’d have great success in that field, but that would cost them when the “Dwades” will storm the court and probably beat them down the court the other end, more often than not – even after makes. All in all I think the two teams would be quite even, with the edge going to the Dwades, and that’s being very cautious. Offensively The Dwades would have a lot more going for them.
If the Big men do not step out all the way to the 3 pt line, the Dwades can just take uncontested 3’s all day long. If they do, they will simply drive, and look to dish to an open spot up shooter, a cutter in the lane or even simply settle for an uncontested (relatively uncontested) mid range shot. That’s not half bad. Offensive rebounds would probably be scarce.
The extra ADJP48, Imo, would not be translated into wins. Most probably it will even go the other way around – But that is just a wild guess.
It was fun, though – Incubator test cases are loads of fun.
Italian Stallion
May 11, 2010
marparker,
The reason the Vegas odds tend to be “correct” is that like most markets, the gambling market is quite efficient over time. That’s what makes it so darn hard to win. The consensus of public opinion is great at creating a very good odds line. You have to be very sharp and have some unique insights to find the isolated cases where any odds line off by enough to profit.
By supplying a “theoretically correct” line, bookmakers are typically going to get a good split of action, but that’s not always the case.
But in most cases it would be foolish for any bookmaker to encourage or hold a lot of action in one direction unless they feel confident the line is wrong and the public is going the wrong way.
I’m not a sports gambler, but I am a winning horse player (probably an even more difficult task because of the higher take) . I don’t gamble professionally, but it has been a secondary course of income for quite awhile.
Italian Stallion
May 11, 2010
Dre,
I am sure I am speaking for everyone when I say thank you for all your efforts!
palamida
May 11, 2010
Mr. Parker, as previously said, I’m not a “gambler” myself and perhaps because of that I believe that what you call misconception is fact.
Please enlighten us, What sort of empirical evidence are you referring to?
As a side note i’d like to add to IS’s comment; Without checking this I’m quite certain that in the vast majority of the cases, the “popular opinion” is in fact quite correct, thus the “Vegas” line is correct.
Back to you, Mr Parker :)
I find your claim to be odd, to be honest and I’d like to tell you why. I have a habit of glancing at “lines” because I find it interesting. I can recall numerous occasions where “popular opinion” was clearly mistaken and for reasons that are very apparent – the Spurs-Mavs series is a fine example of such a case: The Spurs had better ED but they “under performed” their pyth. expectation while the Mavs were the exact opposite – they “over performed” in terms of their ED and Pyth. Exp. Thus the Mavs had considerably more wins, better win %, and the HC adv. Since most folks, judge by wins (which is usually a reliable method, considering team don’t stray that far, on average from their pyth. exp.), the “popular opinion” was that the Mavs were the clear favorites, which was obviously not the case. Mind you, i’m not saying it wasn’t the case because of the final outcome – i’m alluding to the fact that most experts (and many non-experts yet somewhat more knowledgeable individuals) picked the Spurs to win – not as a form of value betting – they believed the Spurs were the favorites. I find it odd that the Vegas line would “represent” the “popular opinion” and not the “correct” opinion if indeed it was geared towards being “correct” and not simply geared toward the obvious explanation, meaning – splitting the action. That’s quite a coincidence. I can cite more less recent examples to demonstrate this point, but I can’t say that I recall even a single time where the “Vegas line” reflected a sentiment that ran in clear contradiction to “popular opinion”. With that in mind I’m skeptical about your claim, but I’d be happy to hear details on the data you’re referring to. It goes without saying, this has very little to do with WoW, but nevertheless, I think other readers of this blog might be interested as well in what you have to add to the matter.
Just to be clear – I’m not writing tongue in cheek here! I expressed my skepticism and the reasons for it, but perhaps I’m missing something all together, because like I said I have no experience in capping\betting whatsoever, so please – enlighten me.
todd2
May 11, 2010
An observation and another (sorry!) intangibles rant: I watched Steve Nash drive baseline this weekend vs the Spurs and nobody stopped him. Three defenders collapsed into no man’s land, not guarding him or their own players. They couldn’t decide whether to defend a shot attempt or a pass and ended up doing neither. It led me to think that a good passer/penetrator can contribute beyond simply making a shot or an assist. At minimum they’re stretching and distorting defenses and boosting their own team’s cumulative fg%. Offensively, players like Verajao, Noah and Glen Davis (23 vs MIA in game 2?) benefit mainly from the largesse of their team mates. Surely they should get less credit for their scoring and their team mates more? Can we get an adjustment for big guys who simply catch the ball and lay it in rather than creating their own shot? Or find some way to spread more of the credit around?
palamida
May 11, 2010
Todd, seems to me that if big men who can catch (in traffic) and convert at a high clip didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be any reason for defenses to address Nash’s pass or shot dilemma. They’d cover the shot.
If we’re arguing here that all big men are equally adept at this, then sure, we should deduce credit.
Since they’re not… I don’t really see your point here.
Catching is a skill. Finishing is a skill. knowing when to cut to the basket, and where exactly is a skill. If say… Varejao can do that more frequently than say…Elton Brand – he IS “creating” shots.
As far as the evidence go – charting is needed to be done before we can say anything conclusive. But simply stating that “Can we get an adjustment for big guys who simply catch the ball and lay it in rather than creating their own shot?” is hardly based on evidence. You made many (dubious) assumptions in just a couple of sentences, I feel that to a certain extent the burden of proof is on those who make such claims.
Not a rant, just an observation.
palamida
May 11, 2010
A quick look just for reference at %assisted of PF who played at least 25 mpg in at least 10 games.
This group averages 62.3%.
KG leading the pack with a whopping 82.1%.
Jamison (Cle) 79.8%.
Haslem 76.3%
Varejao 76%
Troy Murphy 75%
That’s the top (or bottom?) five.
On the other end we have:
Zach Randolph 47.7%
Odom 49.7%
Bosh 49.8%
Blatch 53.6%
Beasley 54.1%
There are about a million ways to interpret this data, don’t have the time to even begin delving into it right now, so I’m just putting it out there.
All these numbers are for this past season.
todd2
May 11, 2010
Love those stats you posted, haven’t seen those before. Kind of the direction I was heading. Where can I find them? Also agree that some kind of charting should be done. Points in the paint can happen for a variety of reasons. You’re arguing that all big men aren’t the same and I concur. How can we differentiate? Some score because of the skills you’ve mentioned and others by serendipity. Box scores make it tricky to distinguish the two. I do like to rant to spur debate, if for no other reason. And I learned something from your post. Kudos again to the prof for this great site!
palamida
May 12, 2010
Todd, the numbers are from Hoopdata.com.
jbrett
May 12, 2010
todd2,
This may going in a direction other than the one you intended, but I think you have described a very valid explanation for the empirical value WoW assigns to assists. I was never quite sure about its inclusion (even though I believe Magic was the best player ever), but you make a good case that Nash does in fact “make his teammates better-” simply by getting them better shots, not just with better passing skills, but also with the mere dual threat of pass/shoot. I don’t think I’m saying this well, but I would be curious if the addition to a team of a recognizedly superior passer is reflected in an increased FG% of his teammates over past performance.
mobile comparison
May 16, 2010
Such very strong opinions on the game and its players. It just goes to show how much passion people can have on something they are fond about. Keep up the good discussions.
Mike
reservoirgod
June 6, 2010
dberri:
Can you also post the average win score for each position this season? For those of us that don’t use Silverlight, the average win score would make it easy to calculate est. wp48 using boxscore data.