APBRmetrics

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

John, I like the new third year PER projection scale.

I was wondering if you had any further observations on the indicator value of "program quality" (apart from your team strength adjustment of player stats due to competition for shots, rebounds, etc.).

Some GM's seem to stick to big name schools (top 20-30?) more than others and I wonder if that returns additional value on average, beyond what is indicated by your method. Portland is one tagged as going that way recently. Using the recruiting judgment of top coaches (with the most choice) as a future quality indicator or believing that they add value in terms of learning and locking players into the fundamentals makes sense but of course there will be guys who don't really take permanent advantage of it and guys who are better than the quality of their program origin.

I wonder if any additional defensive stat that includes shot defense ("defensive rating" or expected vs actual analysis of the box scores of player's main counterpart match-up) were added to the method if it would improve prediction of overall success (beyond just PER success).

I also wonder if players weighing over 250-260 in college or above a certain body fat % are giving off a warning signal that on average suggests likelihood of less than otherwise expected return.

Want to share anything further about your consideration of these or other issues?

asimpkins · Joined: 30 Apr 2006 Posts: 245 Location: Pleasanton, CA

I'm curious about Drew Gooden ranking as the 3rd best college prospect since 2002 -- after only Beasley and Chris Paul I think. Of course, any prediction system will have anomalies, but that one really stands out.

I know nothing about college basketball, but did that guy squander a lot of potential or what? Why does the system like him so much?

kbomb · Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 9 Location: Gardena, CA

is it just me or his year-3 projections look more like rookie year projections? i find it odd that none of the players studied has year-3 projection of PER over 20. to me, those numbers look closer to what they did in their rookie seasons.

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

Gooden got to almost 20 PER in his year 3, then lost 20% off his shot attempts per 36 minutes in his contract year. How much of that was him / warranted? I don't know the story step by step in detail but I know they got him re-signed at modest cost but then they got lower production thereafter too. How much was health related? In Chicago his numbers bounced positive from the lackluster previous 2 years. Wonder which level of production he brings next season.

THWilson · Joined: 19 Jul 2005 Posts: 164 Location: phoenix

I'd be interested in seeing if there's a correlation between the model residuals and draft position.

Kevin Pelton · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject:

94by50 · Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 499 Location: Phoenix

tenkev · Joined: 31 Jul 2005 Posts: 20 Location: Memphis,TN

A huge problem with Hollinger's draft rater is that he uses PER as the dependent value and the flaws inherent in PER will be inherent in the Draft Rater. PER does a horrible job measuring defense and non-box score stuff like the value of a big man with range and of drawing double teams and setting picks. When is Hollinger going to get on the adj. +/- wagon? Its by far the most relevant measure to use in any regression analysis like this. It is more accurate with fewer biases and its high variation is not that much of a factor when it is used in this way.

Ryan J. Parker · Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 711 Location: Raleigh, NC

tenkev · Joined: 31 Jul 2005 Posts: 20 Location: Memphis,TN

I wasn't talking about adj. +/- for college years. I was talking about the running the same regression off of third year adj +/- instead of third year PER.

**John** **Hollinger** · Joined: 14 Feb 2005 Posts: 175

Adj +/- appears to have at least as many warts as PER, actually, most notably the "bad backup effect." PER is at least controlled more or less by the player in question, as opposed to what happens when he leaves the court.

As for Gooden, this is where good off-court scouting can come in. This rates pro potential, not what they'll actually become, and Gooden and Sweetney are examples of why sometimes "potential" never becomes "actual". Gooden can't remember plays and never improved, and Sweetney ate himself out of the league.

Finally, as to why no 20+ projections -- I'm looking at that. It may just be that it's more difficult to peg somebody as a surefire star than we think ... or it may be that my method is too tightly bound around the midpoint. The beauty of this is as we get more data with each passing year, the projections should automatically improve.

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

Gooden in his year 3 rated the highest on adjusted +/- of any Cav, ahead of LeBron James. In year 4 Gooden ranked the worst Cav on the same measure.

Ferry takes charge and they shift from Silas to Brown, McInnis to Snow... and Gooden from burgeoning star to role-playing big?

In 04-05 Gooden-James worked well enough under Silas / McInnis (above James' average +/-) but under Brown/Snow Gooden became one of James' worst pairs.

How much blame should go to Gooden for weaker execution and how much is it due to different handling / perhaps role, less effective with and for him?

It is about team of course, not Gooden personally, and Cavs have had a fairly high level of success doing it their chosen way. But one step short of championship.

Gooden on his 3rd team by then (and now 4th) so the story is more complicated than just the numbers and I assume much of the buzz about him is fair. But he did improve from year 1 to 3 nicely on TS%, especially on DR%, assists, blocks, TOs. He can play well. And in short Bulls run was back to career average on TS%, above on both types of rebounding, at career high on assists, blocks and 2nd best on TOs. He can still play well in non-Brown / James - Cavs system...and least for a while.

It is true he has bounced around in his performance and that might continue too and it reflects on him and is not all about that system / role. But this year might help some with sorting out how much of the decline was "context" influenced. The system that was very good for James was apparently not as good for Gooden. Could things have been made to work better- for both and ultimately the team? More like under Silas (a big, perhaps both more sympathetic and more knowledgeable about how to use an inside big)? I don't know, just arriving to the issue. Those closer know how hard it was worked and everything involved. Not every player pairing or player=coach pairing or player-role assignment-team design works out.

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

Cavs better than +2 on adjusted +/-:

04-05 4
05-06 4
06-07 3
07-08 2 James and the traded Gooden

Interesting trend.

And James after being #2 in league on this measure in 05-06, declined in 06-07 and again in 07-08.

Over the same time-period Kobe's Lakers went from 4, 3, to I think 1... and then to 5 this season. LeBron and the Cavs might benefit from a similar movement back to broader group of positive +/- contributors- by support players "picking it up" or "the system maxing their potential contribution as well" or some combination.

With the errors associated with adjusted +/- measurements these trends might not be as clear as they appear. But it still gives food for thought.

Number of +2 or better players on NBA champions last 4 years: 5, 6, 4 and 6 this season.

kevC · Joined: 28 Jun 2007 Posts: 17

John, how high would have Carl Landry have rated on your new system. I think he was your biggest miss in last year's draft.

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

Number of +2 or better players on this year's other main contenders;

(from basketballvalue / heavily affected by playoffs)

Detroit 5
Orlando 3
Dallas 5
Houston 4
Phoenix 3
New Orleans 4
Utah 6
Denver 3
San Antonio 3

(Portland 5, but not Roy by this measure)