 |
APBRmetrics
The statistical revolution will not be televised.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
back2newbelf
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 280
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Since people bring up Stoudemire's injury in 07:
Stoudemire played more(!) minutes in 07, which was their bad year |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DraftGuy
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ilardi wrote: |
You can find the main article in the archives at 82games.com. I'll have an update that covers the most recent seasons and provides offensive/defensive splits (written in tandem with Aaron Barzilai, who does the ratings on basketballvalue.com) coming out in the next month or two.
As for Warrick . . . he was a poor defender (54% eFG allowed, PER allowed of nearly 20.0), turnover prone, a weak passer, and a poor offensive rebounder (for a 4), etc. His adjusted plus-minus value accounts for the play of his teammates and his replacement players on the team; it's not an artifact, as evidenced by his equally abysmal value from the most recent (07-0 season: -10.9. |
i found the article. and i forgot that basketballvalue had numbers. tx.
is -11 really bad? is it replacement level? what is the apm for players who played lt 500 minutes? is that a fair replacement level estimate? i can see from basketballvalue that warrick has about the worst number of anyone. how many grizz are below replacement level? why wouldn't coaches see that they have easily the worst player on their team playing so many minutes? wouldn't casey jacobson playing the 4 be better? isn't there a 95+ pct chance that jacobson is better? or cardinal who does play 4?
i watch the grizz a lot and warrick seems bad but not the worst player in basketball or even on the team. i know thats not how to judg the numbers. his to rate is lo and shoots well. his d is bad but it is hard to see how that completely beats his o. his per is almost as good as the per by his counterpart, unlike almost all other grizz.
how do u trust the method when so many other ways of looking at the guy say something else? i dont mean to offend. i just have the same stomach pains a lot of people do when u c apm giving something so weird.
cody |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilardi
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 265
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, -11 points-per-hundred possessions is truly awful, among the worst in the league. Give that sort of player 2000 minutes, and it's enough to singlehandedly add 10-15 extra losses a year!
To address the gist of your other questions: the adj +/- model is calibrated such that each player's rating is relative to a "league average" replacement player (i.e., the relevant context is the entire league, not just other players on that guy's own team). That means that if you replaced Warrick with a league-average player, his team would do roughly 10 points per game better on net margin (assuming he played the whole game). That's beyond huge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DraftGuy
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ilardi wrote: | Yes, -11 points-per-hundred possessions is truly awful, among the worst in the league. Give that sort of player 2000 minutes, and it's enough to singlehandedly add 10-15 extra losses a year!
To address the gist of your other questions: the adj +/- model is calibrated such that each player's rating is relative to a "league average" replacement player (i.e., the relevant context is the entire league, not just other players on that guy's own team). That means that if you replaced Warrick with a league-average player, his team would do roughly 10 points per game better on net margin (assuming he played the whole game). That's beyond huge. |
so replacement is 0? "league average replacement"?
that means that Dwight howard is not statistically different than replacement. i must not be understanding. u can understand why this is hard to grasp sometimes? if u watch the game its hard to see howard as having any chc of being replacement level. just like its hard to see warrick as the worst in the league. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilardi
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 265
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DraftGuy wrote: | is -11 really bad? is it replacement level? what is the apm for players who played lt 500 minutes? is that a fair replacement level estimate? i can see from basketballvalue that warrick has about the worst number of anyone. how many grizz are below replacement level? why wouldn't coaches see that they have easily the worst player on their team playing so many minutes? wouldn't casey jacobson playing the 4 be better? isn't there a 95+ pct chance that jacobson is better? or cardinal who does play 4?
i watch the grizz a lot and warrick seems bad but not the worst player in basketball or even on the team. i know thats not how to judg the numbers. his to rate is lo and shoots well. his d is bad but it is hard to see how that completely beats his o. his per is almost as good as the per by his counterpart, unlike almost all other grizz.
how do u trust the method when so many other ways of looking at the guy say something else? i dont mean to offend. i just have the same stomach pains a lot of people do when u c apm giving something so weird.
cody |
Cody,
To address a couple other points from your post that I missed last time:
1) Adj +/- is not the only metric that's hard on Warrick: according to the folks at Basketball Reference, his Win Shares rating was also poor. Likewise, go check out the on-off splits at 82games.com, where non-Warrick lineups do markedly better on both offense and defense.
2) Yes, Cardinal would represent an upgrade. Why don't coaches see this and adjust minutes accordingly? Probably because Warrick has so much greater athleticism and overall upside potential; in essence, he has world-class hardware but third-rate software (low basketball IQ), and it appears to me that some coaches convince themselves they can overcome such IQ limitations with their own brilliant coaching schemes. Also, of course, coaches will usually cut more slack to young players like Warrick in the hopes that they'll grow into smarter/wiser players. The savviest coaches, though, would give more minutes instead to guys like Cardinal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the mystery of the Grizzlies' nosedive from 49 wins in 2005-06 to 22 wins in 2006-07...
no mystery, memphis was 16th in the league in offense (most points scored per team possession on offense) in 05-06 when they went 49-33, but were actually better on offense in 06-07 when they went just 22-60 as they were 13th in the league in offense...
but they dropped from 2nd in the league in defense (least points allowed per team defensive possession) in 05-06 to 30th - dead last in 06-07. again no surpise as they lost their 3 best defensive players from 05-06 in battier, jones, and jackson, who also happened to play the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th most total minutes on the team in 05-06, and over 1/3 of the team's total minutes played that year...
Gasol was hurt in 06-07, playing 1000 fewer minutes than in 05-06, and much less effective.
much less effective? in 06-07 he shot overall better than in 05-06, rebounded better (both offensively and defensively), blocked shots better, scored better on a per minute basis, with a similar rate of turnovers per touch and fouls committed. he was significantly better on offense in 06-07 than in 05-06 - how much worse do you have him on defense in 06-07 vs 05-06 for him to have been much less effective overall?...
82games.com shows grizzlies counterpart defense for when gasol was on the floor shooting about 6% better in eFG% in 06-07 vs 05-06, about 5% better in scoring per 48 min, and about 10% better in PER. is that enough to offset his better offensive contributions in 06-07 such that he was much less effective overall in 06-07 vs 05-06?... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harold Almonte
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 616
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I can barely hear two new magic names in that equation: Oden and Durant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilardi
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 265
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have offense/defense splits calculated from the seasons in question (will try to post them soon, though), so was merely inferring Gasol's poorer defense in 06-07 based on:
1) his low overall adj +/- from 06-07 of -3.2 (per 100 poss), as compared with his 07-08 rating of +5.3 and his 05-06 rating of +4.8.
2) the abysmal defensive play of the entire team that season, perhaps (as John Hollinger astutely noted) due in large measure to the mid-season coaching change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DraftGuy
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ilardi wrote: |
Cody,
To address a couple other points from your post that I missed last time:
1) Adj +/- is not the only metric that's hard on Warrick: according to the folks at Basketball Reference, his Win Shares rating was also poor. Likewise, go check out the on-off splits at 82games.com, where non-Warrick lineups do markedly better on both offense and defense.
|
yes i checked. but they arent saying he is near the worst in the leage. so i guess ur saying u believe he is the worst in the league.
| Ilardi wrote: |
2) Yes, Cardinal would represent an upgrade. Why don't coaches see this and adjust minutes accordingly? Probably because Warrick has so much greater athleticism and overall upside potential; in essence, he has world-class hardware but third-rate software (low basketball IQ), and it appears to me that some coaches convince themselves they can overcome such IQ limitations with their own brilliant coaching schemes. Also, of course, coaches will usually cut more slack to young players like Warrick in the hopes that they'll grow into smarter/wiser players. The savviest coaches, though, would give more minutes instead to guys like Cardinal. |
i like cardinal but i dont like him 15 pts better per game. do u have any doubts about this?
replacement is 0, right? so the grizz only have on player left above replacement. or 2 if they keep antoine walker. what should we win? ten games? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have offense/defense splits calculated from the seasons in question (will try to post them soon, though), so was merely inferring Gasol's poorer defense in 06-07 based on:
1) his low overall adj +/- from 06-07 of -3.2 (per 100 poss), as compared with his 07-08 rating of +5.3 and his 05-06 rating of +4.8.
gasol was very very good in 06-07. check his stats with those of say elton brand in 06-07, they are very similar across the board. that season was one of brand's best - one of his best in terms of offensive efficiency (his 05-06 season was better), and gasol was the better rebounder that year. for him to have been much less effective overall in 06-07 than in 05-06, he would have had to have been simply atrocious on defense, and i don't see any evidence for this...
2) the abysmal defensive play of the entire team that season, perhaps (as John Hollinger astutely noted) due in large measure to the mid-season coaching change.
the grizzlies were 2nd best in the league in defense in 05-06 with fratello. but when he was let go and barone took over at end of dec 06/start of jan 07 the team had a W-L record of 6-24 and was already 25th in the league in least points allowed per team defensive possession (i.e. 6th most points allowed per team defensive possession). so the team was already one of the 6 worst in the league defensively when barone became coach... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilardi
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 265
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DraftGuy wrote: | | Ilardi wrote: |
Cody,
To address a couple other points from your post that I missed last time:
1) Adj +/- is not the only metric that's hard on Warrick: according to the folks at Basketball Reference, his Win Shares rating was also poor. Likewise, go check out the on-off splits at 82games.com, where non-Warrick lineups do markedly better on both offense and defense.
|
yes i checked. but they arent saying he is near the worst in the leage. so i guess ur saying u believe he is the worst in the league.
| Ilardi wrote: |
2) Yes, Cardinal would represent an upgrade. Why don't coaches see this and adjust minutes accordingly? Probably because Warrick has so much greater athleticism and overall upside potential; in essence, he has world-class hardware but third-rate software (low basketball IQ), and it appears to me that some coaches convince themselves they can overcome such IQ limitations with their own brilliant coaching schemes. Also, of course, coaches will usually cut more slack to young players like Warrick in the hopes that they'll grow into smarter/wiser players. The savviest coaches, though, would give more minutes instead to guys like Cardinal. |
i like cardinal but i dont like him 15 pts better per game. do u have any doubts about this?
replacement is 0, right? so the grizz only have on player left above replacement. or 2 if they keep antoine walker. what should we win? ten games? |
1) Yes, based on the available evidence, I'd say Warrick has been one of the worst players in the league for the past 3 seasons. But with a young player of his eye-popping athleticism, it's not out of the question that he could improve somewhat in the years ahead.
2) Cardinal would not be good for +15 ppg as a replacement for Warrick, since: (a) we're only talking about an avg of 20-25 mpg (not 48); (b) Cardinal is old enough to anticipate some decline in play next year; (c) his rating from last year is noisy due to low minutes. But I'd expect an overall improvement in the neighborhood of +5 ppg if Cardinal replaced all of Warrick's minutes.
3) Yes, the Grizz will be bad next year, but not record-setting bad. Players typically improve up until age 27, and they have a very young roster (guys like Gay, Lowry, Conley, Crittendon, etc. should all be better next year). Also, adding guys like Marc Gasol should help. I haven't done a projection yet for 08-09 Grizz, but if I had to give a ballbark guess off the top of my head, I'd expect in the neighborhood of 25 wins.
Last edited by Ilardi on Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilardi
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 265
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bchaikin wrote: | I don't have offense/defense splits calculated from the seasons in question (will try to post them soon, though), so was merely inferring Gasol's poorer defense in 06-07 based on:
1) his low overall adj +/- from 06-07 of -3.2 (per 100 poss), as compared with his 07-08 rating of +5.3 and his 05-06 rating of +4.8.
gasol was very very good in 06-07. check his stats with those of say elton brand in 06-07, they are very similar across the board. that season was one of brand's best - one of his best in terms of offensive efficiency (his 05-06 season was better), and gasol was the better rebounder that year. for him to have been much less effective overall in 06-07 than in 05-06, he would have had to have been simply atrocious on defense, and i don't see any evidence for this...
2) the abysmal defensive play of the entire team that season, perhaps (as John Hollinger astutely noted) due in large measure to the mid-season coaching change.
the grizzlies were 2nd best in the league in defense in 05-06 with fratello. but when he was let go and barone took over at end of dec 06/start of jan 07 the team had a W-L record of 6-24 and was already 25th in the league in least points allowed per team defensive possession (i.e. 6th most points allowed per team defensive possession). so the team was already one of the 6 worst in the league defensively when barone became coach... |
Looking at the on-off splits posted on 82games, the Grizz were considerably worse defensively in 06-07 with Gasol on the court (4.3 points worse per 100 possessions). So, he made an already horrible defensive team worse.
Compare that with 05-06, where the elite-defense Grizz were almost as good with Gasol on the court as they were with him off.
In 06-07 Gasol allowed his opposing counterparts an eFG% of about 54%, compared with an eFG% allowed of only 48% in 05-06.
Finally, thanks for the info about the Grizzlies' poor defense in 06-07 even under Fratello . . . nice to know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DraftGuy
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ilardi wrote: | 1) Yes, based on the available evidence, I'd say Warrick has been one of the worst players in the league for the past 3 seasons. But with a young player of his eye-popping athleticism, it's not out of the question that he could improve somewhat in the years ahead.
2) Cardinal would not be good for +15 ppg as a replacement for Warrick, since: (a) we're only talking about an avg of 20-25 mpg (not 4; (b) Cardinal is old enough to anticipate some decline in play next year; (c) his rating from last year is noisy due to low minutes. But I'd expect an overall improvement in the neighborhood of +5 ppg if Cardinal replaced all of Warrick's minutes.
3) Yes, the Grizz will be bad next year, but not record-setting bad. Players typically improve up until age 27, and they have a very young roster (guys like Gay, Lowry, Conley, Crittendon, etc. should all be better next year). Also, adding guys like Marc Gasol should help. I haven't done a projection yet for 08-09 Grizz, but if I had to give a ballbark guess off the top of my head, I'd expect in the neighborhood of 25 wins. |
+5 ppg is still about 13 wins. oh well. well have a few replacement level guys this year. if theyre all 0, thats an improvement over everyone but the departed miller cardinal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looking at the on-off splits posted on 82games, the Grizz were considerably worse defensively in 06-07 with Gasol on the court (4.3 points worse per 100 possessions). So, he made an already horrible defensive team worse.
this webpage:
http://www.82games.com/0607/06MEM17D.HTM
simply shows that that the grizzlies - as a team - were better defensively when gasol was not on the court for 1863 minutes. what does that say about gasol as an individual? are you saying this means gasol was worse as a defender individually? this webpage:
http://www.82games.com/0607/06DEN18D.HTM
shows denver was better defensively when marcus camby did not play in 06-07. are you saying this somehow infers camby as an individual made his team worse defensively in 06-07? btw camby was all-D 1st team in 06-07...
In 06-07 Gasol allowed his opposing counterparts an eFG% of about 54%, compared with an eFG% allowed of only 48% in 05-06.
in 06-07 the league average C took about 825 FGA per 3000 minutes. gasol played in just 59 games but had he played in 82 (at 36 min/g) he'd have played close to 3000 minutes...
the difference between allowing an eFG% of 48% vs 54% in 825 FGAs is 396 vs 446 FGM, or 50 FGM, or less than 1 two pt FGM per game, or about 1.2 pts/g. gasol himself in 06-07 upped his scoring on a 36 min/g basis from 18.7 in 05-06 to 20.7 in 06-07, an increase of 2.0 pts/g (and with better overall shooting in 06-07). this not to mention his better rebounding and shot blocking in 06-07 vs 05-06...
again i still do not see how gasol was much less effective overall in 06-07 than in 05-06. what evidence suggests this to you?...
out of curiosity, this webpage:
http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/06/03/offensive-and-defensive-adjusted-plus-minus/
shows C brad miller with a slightly better off adj +/-, but a much better def adj +/- than C/PF amare stoudemire for 07-08. are these numbers similar to your adj +/- system? if so what is this telling us?...
i ask as both players played mostly C for their teams, both played the 2nd most total minutes on their teams, yet phoenix won 17 more games (55-27 vs 38-44)...
if miller had played the 2nd most minutes on phoenix, would the suns have been better or worse? and had stoudemire played the 2nd most minutes on sacramento, would the kings have been better or worse?... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilardi
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 265
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The eFG% and on-off splits don't provide definitive evidence of Gasol's lack of defensive prowess in 06-07, but they're suggestive, especially in light of his aberrantly poor overall adj +/- number in that injury-plagued season (when he nonetheless managed to put up strong boxscore stats).
Much more definitive evidence will come from the defensive adj +/- stat from that season, which I hope to make available once I finish a book I'm working on. (Note to self: spend less time on this forum over the next few weeks.)
Players like Chris Paul, A. Stoudemire, Carmelo, and Al Jefferson - who have weak overall adj +/- despite putting up impressive boxscore stats - almost invariably end up having poor defensive adj +/-. (For those who recall, I made a similar argument several weeks ago regarding the evidence of poor defensive play on the part of CP3, only to have Eli's defensive adj +/- numbers come out thereafter and provide validation of my point.) |
|
| 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
