 |
APBRmetrics
The statistical revolution will not be televised.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tsherkin
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 247
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| gabefarkas wrote: | | How do you know this? From game film? |
Yep.
| schtevie wrote: | | If the goal is to make a meaningful comparison of two players, playing different positions, in distinctly different eras, over which time so many aspects of the game were dramatically transformed, my first and best piece of advice would be to abandon the goal. |
They didn't play different positions, not really. Duncan may have been labeled a PF for most of his career but his playing style hasn't appreciably changed since he switched to a C label and Robinson retired. He's a 6'11, 260-pound dude who hammers around in the post but has enough range to play the high post and the PnR. His label is incidental.
The comment about eras is significant, though.
| Quote: | | Failing that, the best you can do is compare the players in terms of rankings within their own era, e.g. Kareem had an X%ile TS% in year Y vs. so and so for Duncan. Not as sexy a result, but at least such a comparison has some nutritional value. |
It's something to start with, anyhow, an interesting point.
| DSMok1 wrote: | | Basically, you feel that there is a relationship between pace and usage--post players tend to take a higher proportion of shots in slow-paced games and guards and wings a higher proportion in fast-paced games. I could see that. I wonder if a study could be formulated to figure out if that's the case? |
It's worth looking into. My point wasn't quite that, though, it was more that the possessions Kareem used were slower possessions. For his part, I would expect him to get the ball as much in the modern era, but his USG% would rise because the number of total possessions would shrink and the possessions that went to peripheral players would decline. I think that's the main reason Duncan's USG% is a little higher. I do not have proof of this and it requires study to see if I'm right or wrong, however. It does, however, feel correct from what I've seen in my experience with the game. Post players slow the game down, star players tend to use a significant proportion of the team's possessions regardless of era, etc.
| Quote: |
That's the wrong approach to take if you want a scientific answer! I personally think pace adjustment is the right approach here. I would take each player's TS%, the league-average TS%, and USG% and go from there. |
I realize, that's why I made it clear that it didn't work and was looking for a better adjustment. It's also not the one used by the person with whom I was conversing.
It's a pain, but could you walk me through what you would do with those numbers? I'm really not as adept with that type of adjustment as I'd like to be, which is to say I don't even really know where to start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 865
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MikeG's approach seems pretty solid to me. Look at each player's contributions to his own team. What percentage of the points did he score? What percentage of the shots did he take? Etc.
If I were looking at this, I'd try several different approaches and see what comes out. A straight pace adjustment makes sense to me, even if you don't like the results. 
I twitched on acollard's suggestion that higher percentage opportunities will occur more often if the game is played at a faster pace. Not necessarily. The game used to be played at a much faster pace because they took worse shots -- racing up the floor to take mid-range jumpers, for example. League shooting percentages got better as the pace slowed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acollard
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Location: MA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kjb, I was talking about overall numbers of chances, not percentage of chances, if I didn't make that clear. I don't think that a fast pace inherently results in an inefficient offense (2000s era Pheonix), though I agree that historical context does need to be considered, because things like leaguewide shooting average do vary a significant amount.
But I was answering the original question about pace, and I do think that all other things being equal (though they rarely are) a faster pace would lead to more high percentage shots per game.
I disagree with Mike G's method, because as DsMok pointed out, it takes into account team defense, which is not what was not part of the original question. By taking into account Milwaukee and SAS's scoring defense/48, it isn't just reflecting scoring prowess.
Like a lot of other people have said, I think looking at their ranking for TS%, USG% and even PPG in each season will be the simplest and best way to handle it. Or to just shrug and say they were both great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3596
Location: Hendersonville, NC
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| acollard wrote: | ... By taking into account Milwaukee and SAS's scoring defense/48, it isn't just reflecting scoring prowess.
.. |
Are you saying that scoring 35 points in a 186-184 game is the same 'scoring prowess' as scoring 35 in an 86-84 struggle?
(We're talking Tripucka vs Jordan here.)
Both Kareem and Duncan were defensive stalwarts while they were playing all those minutes and scoring all those points. If they'd been defensive slouches, the NBA at large would have scored more points against their teams; and their % of points scored would obviously be lower.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
