APBRmetrics

Dan Rosenbaum · Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:12 am Post subject:

I am not sure that anybody will be interested in this, but it appears that Winston and/or Sagarin might be checking in on our board here every once in awhile.

http://mb15.scout.com/fillinoisinsiderfrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=56343.topic&start=21&stop=40

I really wish one or the both of them would participate on the board. There surely would be ways short of giving away the store where they could benefit from interacting on this board. They are working for a team (the Mavs), but not in an intregral way like Sam Presti of the Spurs for whom it would be too compromising to participate in this forum.

olcoach43 · Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:27 am Post subject:

For those of you on the technical and scientific side of these issues I am curious as to where you think the emphasis should be placed- what is measured and included in your formula, or the methodology? I ask this question here because of your reference to Cuban's guys. Cuban was quoted in an article that he felt that the key to improving upon a system was to measure the right things.
If that is true, I am curious as to whether he, his coaches, or Sagarin/Winston decided on what to put in the original WINVAL?

I found this quote over at the illini board as well, and from the basketball side, it has relevance. I know that Dan might disagree, but I feel it is counter productive to ignore how the people you may want to sell to sees certain things. I am not suggesting that MagicTX is a GM,but I do agree with his assessemnt.

MagicTX86
Registered User
Posts: 309
(8/11/05 11:55:37 am
No reason to eat crow over such a call, true, but you did make a very definitive prediction on this matter with little basis to back up your position. All indications to date point to Paxson being very high on Duhon's role on the team and that he has just been waiting for Duhon to get an offer to set the market. He will be a Bull next season.

It's an art for GMs to build a team of top flight role players around the team's stars and
Paxson, so far, is showing that he really grasps this. Many GMs clearly do not.

Could it be that there could coexist competing views and systems, since basketball is/may not be like baseball due to its more dynamic nature? What I might want included and measured in a player evaluation system as a coach/GM on the basketball side may be different than what another coach/GM may want.

I think Cuban is onto something in terms of better identifying WHAT we measure. I am confident that the analysis process too often enagages irrelevant facts, data, etc.

I have read and digested from a basketball perspective the highly acclaimed book "blink" by Malcolm Gladwell and he offers great insights into the decision making process.
He refers to a concept called "thin slicing", where the great talents (Wooden, Jackson, Brown, Dean Smith, Knight, etc) are able to quickly discard irrelevant facts and make great decisions.

A classic example of this may be that of Jackson turning to the Triangle Offense and a non conventional handler (MJ) in the face of adversity (playing with the worst Post man in the league). I would call this coaching artistry, and it is a simple response that says, "Why would I want to play within a system that requires point guards and centers, when only mediocre or poor ones are availabale to me"?
I am also curious as to whether a challenge to repeat this process, with Kobe as a stand in for Jordan, is what drives Jackson back and why Kobe just may buy in.

Eli W · Joined: 01 Feb 2005 Posts: 402

Dan Rosenbaum · Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 8:51 am Post subject:

Dan Rosenbaum · Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:09 am Post subject:

olocoach, you indirectly bring up a good point about context. Put a player in a different role and his value may change quite a bit. When I find myself giving advice to basketball people, I find myself talking about roles a lot.

Most players are not asked to dramatically change roles, even if they switch teams. So how effective they were in past roles usually is a good indicator of how effective they will be in future roles. And, of course, in the cases where a player's role changes dramatically, subjective analyses are also going to have difficulty predicting what might happen to a player's effectiveness.

And on Duhon, my system probably rates him higher than almost anyone else. And by all reports, it is Skiles who has pushed for Duhon; Paxson, I think, was leaning towards sending him to Europe last season.

olcoach43 · Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:36 am Post subject:

Dan,
Actually, Duhon is a very highly rated player (34th overall) when measured by our BBIQNET system. (IQ, non-scoring positives, etc). Gordon is one of the lowest in the league due to turnovers and lack of assists, etc)
Skiles asks for two different things from them, and I think ver wisely so. As an old point guard in charge of things, Skiles wants stability at the point. Gordon can not provide that. That is why Duhon started 73 games and Gordon 3. There may be a better option for the Bulls at the point, but the answer does not lie in a choice between Duhon and Gordon. They play two different roles and offer Skiles two different things when it comes to job security. Long run, players like Gordon are a dime a dozen, while young intelligent players like Duhon are actually a rarity in the league. If I were in Skiles shoes, I would have argued for the same thing.

Tim Russell
Former College Coach
russellratings.com

Mike G · Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:51 am Post subject:

olcoach43 · Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:10 am Post subject:

Mike,
I didn't mean to light such a big fire on the Gordon comment. Smile

Gordon may well get even better, and meet very high expectations as a top player/scorer. If so it will hinge upon his improving as handler, passer, defender, rebounder and decision maker.
The dime a dozen comment is directed at all the players out there who do not want to do anything but shoot the ball. That may not apply to Gordon...he may want to, but is not yet skilled enough to do so.

Tim Russell
Former College Coach
russellratings.com

kjb · Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 863 Location: Washington, DC

I hadn't really looked all that closely at Gordon's season numbers until I read the last couple posts. He's an interesting player. I saw him up close for six games during the playoffs, in which I tracked his (and everyone else's individual defense). Links to the game-by-game defensive box scores are below. I can't seem to find game 6 for some reason.

Gordon does score a lot of points, but he's a turnover machine. He shoots the ball effectively -- in part because of a good percentage from 3pt range. His 4.5 turnovers per 48 minutes were 8th most in the league for everyone with more than 500 minutes. His PSA suggests someone who should have an offensive rating (DeanO's pts produced per 100 possessions) of around the league average, but the turnovers (and lack of assists) gave him an Ortg of 100 vs. a league avg. of 106. His PER comes in right at the league average.

I saw firsthand in the playoffs just how dangerous he could be so I'm not discounting his abilities. I guess I'd sorta figured his numbers would be a little better given his reputation. The bright side is that the turnovers are fixable -- his "Most Similar At Age" is Gilbert Arenas, who cut his turnovers per 48 from 5.3 in 03-04 to 3.5 last season.

The defensive box score links:

http://www.geocities.com/wizardskev/wizbullsgame1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/wizardskev/wizbullsgame2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/wizardskev/wizbullsgame3.htm
http://www.geocities.com/wizardskev/wizbullsgame4.htm
http://www.geocities.com/wizardskev/wizbullsgame5.htm

And, (just to pimp the hell out of myself) the SI.com article I did about the first few games of the series: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/basketball/nba/specials/playoffs/2005/05/04/defense/

Mike G · Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 11:29 am Post subject:

Ben F. · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 391

Is it possible to Allen Iverson corollary applies here (that I talked about in my post on Usage vs. Efficiency)?

Gordon's worth might be derived from being able to use a good number of possessions, without his efficiency dropping TOO far (although admittedly it is fairly low). He was 9th in the NBA last year in Usage, for players playing over 500 minutes, and the Bulls did seem like a team that didn't have a bona fide perimeter player that could shoulder a possession load - except for Gordon. Perhaps he allowed the other players to maximize their efficiency by playing at their ideal usage?

kjb · Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 863 Location: Washington, DC

Kevin Pelton · Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:14 pm Post subject: