 |
APBRmetrics
The statistical revolution will not be televised.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jeffpotts77
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Cambridge, MA
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| davis21wylie2121 wrote: | | Reading the PER description at Alleyoop.com, it seems like having the results match his intuition (or conventional wisdom) may indeed have been a factor in the development of PER |
Thanks for reminding me of this. I've read this explanation before but it was long enough ago that I'd forgotten about it. While I agree with the results of Hollinger's formulas, I can't help but be curious about how he arrived at the specific weights.* If he did, if fact, calibrate his formulas until the results matched what his intuition was telling him, then we have to be careful not to criticize Bill Simmons for disagreeing with the results based on his own conflicting intuitions.
As a proponent of Hollinger's ratings systems, I feel compelled to defend them. But it's a mistake to characterize his results as a product of science, without a hint of prejudice.
* Mostly I'm referring to the points/accomplishment formula in his finalist rankings and, to a lesser extent, his PER formula. Granted, he explains the weights for his PER formula in his books, but it's also possible he tinkered with them until the results looked right and then came up with explanations after. I don't mean this to be slanderous toward Hollinger, as I have a great deal of respect for his work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Statman
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 217
Location: Arlington, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| penbeast0 wrote: | | In 1971 it was 17 and 8, less than half the teams in the league made the playoffs so the 8th seeds would actually be above average teams . . . harder foes for the champions. |
Except the ABA had MANY players that would normally be in the NBA.
_________________
Dan
My current ratings stuff:
http://www.pointguardu.com/f136/statmans-ratings-56243/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KD
Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike G wrote: | | KD wrote: | | ... screen and roll defense was the weakness. It's long been Phil Jackson's biggest weakness. ... |
But they did very well vs the Jazz -- perhaps the ultimate pick and roll (is that the same thing?) team.
Now that I look at it, the '97 matchup featured a Bulls team that should have been heavy favorites; but the Jazz played them nearly even, in total points. In '98, they were evenly matched, but Chi outscored Utah by 8 per contest.
Would you say by the end the Bulls had finally figured out the screen/roll? At least Utah's version?
EDIT: OK, in '98 there was that 96-54 game. Other than that one, the Bulls won 3-2, by an average 1.0 ppg. |
Certainly not, as your edit shows. A twenty-game series would have likely ended in a 10-10 tie. Harper was slowing down by then, and Kerr was absolutely useless defensively in both series. The Jazz won the first game of the 1998 Finals in OT, and it should have been a blowout. Stockton destroyed Kerr down the stretch, and once Harper had sat on the bench for an extended period of time, he because stiff as a board and not much of an improvement on Steve -- and nobody has more respect for Harper's contributions to those titles than I. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KD
Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Harold Almonte wrote: | Calibrating? Isn't PER a without team adjusts formula? Wouldn't be easy to discover that?
KD
| Quote: | | but it wasn't the biggest weakness. |
I don't argue the backourt had troubles with screen and roll issues, but I still think Longley was the biggest positional and zone weakness (he would be like the horse of chess), but just if you have the right lineup to explode it, and you got how to entertain Rodman first, who was capable to shame some good PFs and even Cs. |
Longley (and his backups) SHOULD have been the biggest weakness, in theory, but Chicago made sure that this wasn't an issue. Save for a regular season loss to the Rockets during the 1996-97 season, I can't recall a game where the opponents backcourt absolutely trapised across Chicago's lane without any reflex from the Bulls. Rodman was gone from that game, I believe, and I think Longley may have been hurt.
Again, he IS the biggest weakness heading into the game, and on paper -- but in practice the thing that Chicago had the biggest issues defending (which bled into Jackson's Los Angeles years, Gary Payton or not ...) was the screen and roll. I'd say that the weakness was a result of having to pay attention to the lack of a shot-blocker in the lane, but Shaq wasn't too bad at swatting shots or making a difference, and those Laker teams still weren't all that hot on S/R D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harold Almonte
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 616
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's a surprise realize that a top 5 def. eff. team had that kind of defensive troubles, as athleticals as they were. But however, S/Rs and P/Rs are not too high efficient way of scoring until you penetrate the paint, and low percentage of FGA are these kinds of rolls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
basketballvalue
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 204
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| davis21wylie2121 wrote: | | jeffpotts77 wrote: | I also wonder this about the PER formula. Might he have calibrated it in such a way to make certain the rankings matched his intuition?
Unless John himself responds, these are rhetorical questions, of course. But has anyone else here wondered this? |
Reading the PER description at Alleyoop.com, it seems like having the results match his intuition (or conventional wisdom) may indeed have been a factor in the development of PER:
|
John can defend himself and I look forward to a detailed post from him about how he developed it, but I don't read the quote as an indicator that PER was calibrated to come up with the results he wanted. On the contrary, his writeups in Pro Basketball Prospectus really explained in detail how all the factors were determined. It's all very fact based with the exception of assists, a shortcoming he acknowledges and emphasizes. In the quote you provided, I think he was just saying that the system passes a sanity check as the results seem reasonable.
Thanks,
Aaron
www.basketballvalue.com
www.basketballvalue.com/teamvsteam.php
P.S. One thing that I think could be interesting would be to calculate PER on a per possession basis, instead of using season or game totals. However, this would involve parsing the play-by-plays line by line in a way similar to what I'm doing for basketballvalue.com now. This would be a lot of work and I am doubtful it would significantly impact the results as he already accounts for pace at the team level. However, it would let you assess PER for different stretches of a game (e.g. LeBron taking over in the conference finals). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KD
Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Harold Almonte wrote: | | It's a surprise realize that a top 5 def. eff. team had that kind of defensive troubles, as athleticals as they were. But however, S/Rs and P/Rs are not too high efficient way of scoring until you penetrate the paint, and low percentage of FGA are these kinds of rolls. |
Well, this is nitpicking at its finest. They were 1st, 4th, and 3rd at eff. during the last run. And, actually, the S/R D was worse during the first run of rings -- Paxson tried gamely, but Mark Price and Isiah'er were two of the finest ever at splitting and scoring. Blaylock also killed them the second time around.
"Kill" being a relative term with these Bulls, of course. They got it together long enough in the Finals to win all those rings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harold Almonte
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 616
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The best team ever, with the right offensive system they needed, given they weren't the clasical power arrange, Guard-Center (This could be the Simmons's dasdain). They blew such superiority that put them in phsycologic advantage (SA this year) even with refs. They had the privilege to master with impunity an oportune gun, the dirty play, being Rodman the master of flop and dirtiness (although Rodman said Stockton was the dirtiest of dirtyness), and Jordan another great trash talker (so egocentric that he didn't allow other players's shine, nor humiliations attempts without a quick answer). |
|
| 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
