| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DSMok1
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 595
Location: Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Looking at KG from a Statistical +/- perspective: his SPM to date is 2.88--good but not great. That's fourth on the Celts, behind Rondo (5.41), Pierce (4.54) and 'Sheed (4.60). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
IrishHand
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Qscience wrote: | You know to be honest Wayne really set himself up when he said those remarks about KDurant. If you do not study the game itself your stats are absolutely worthless to a professional. Those stats become an amatuerish view of the game and to be honest more self serving than truth.
Hopefully Wayne stops trying to make news with theories that are not tested and true because it really hurts quote this stat field in general. |
Concur 100%.
Baffling to me that Abbott continues to use Winston as an authoritative source all things considered. I suppose sensational>accurate/insightful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What, specifically, about it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsill
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | jsill, if you have the numbers at hand, would you mind posting what you got for the Rockets?
Just curious |
OK, so bear in mind a few things as you look at these numbers. Most players are between -2 (that's about the 10th percentile) and +2 (that's about the 90th percentile). The very best in the league are up towards +4 or +5, and the very worst are around -4 or -5. Also, there's a lot of inevitable uncertainty in an estimate based on less than half a season. Remember also that 0 is a minutes-weighted average player, which means a fairly decent player (maybe 3rd or 4th best on a .500 team). So roughly speaking, it's a guy who is probably fairly priced around a mid-level salary or maybe even a little more.
This is with a minutes cutoff of 200 minutes.
Kyle Lowry 2.609
Chuck Hayes 1.987
Chase Budinger 1.045
David Andersen 0.733
Aaron Brooks -0.123
Carl Landry -0.127
Shane Battier -0.189
Trevor Ariza -0.923
Luis Scola -1.035 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deepak
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 664
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jsill wrote: | | Quote: | jsill, if you have the numbers at hand, would you mind posting what you got for the Rockets?
Just curious |
OK, so bear in mind a few things as you look at these numbers. Most players are between -2 (that's about the 10th percentile) and +2 (that's about the 90th percentile). The very best in the league are up towards +4 or +5, and the very worst are around -4 or -5. Also, there's a lot of inevitable uncertainty in an estimate based on less than half a season. Remember also that 0 is a minutes-weighted average player, which means a fairly decent player (maybe 3rd or 4th best on a .500 team). So roughly speaking, it's a guy who is probably fairly priced around a mid-level salary or maybe even a little more.
This is with a minutes cutoff of 200 minutes.
Kyle Lowry 2.609
Chuck Hayes 1.987
Chase Budinger 1.045
David Andersen 0.733
Aaron Brooks -0.123
Carl Landry -0.127
Shane Battier -0.189
Trevor Ariza -0.923
Luis Scola -1.035 |
I appreciate it.
Is this possession-weighted, with minute cutoff? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsill
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, possessions-weighted, with a minutes cutoff of 200 minutes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
habetw4
Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Posts: 22
Location: CT
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't spend much time looking at plus/minus leaderboards and I hadn't heard MVP-level praise for Deng so it was a surprise to see him at the top of the list when he's performing at a level exactly in line with his statistical career norm.
_________________
I'm a twitterererer: @tomhaberstroh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deepak
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 664
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jsill wrote: | | Yes, possessions-weighted, with a minutes cutoff of 200 minutes. |
Thanks.
Your result for David Andersen serves as a good illustration of "Winston's Theorem", I think.
Andersen is a poor defender, rebounder, and a low-efficiency scorer. What he brings the Rockets at this stage is a floor-spacer at the 5 position. It looks like that attribute is important enough to offset all the things he doesn't do well. In particular, its given more spacing for the Rockets penetrators and for Landry to do his thing in the post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsill
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Your result for David Andersen serves as a good illustration of "Winston's Theorem", I think.
Andersen is a poor defender, rebounder, and a low-efficiency scorer. What he brings the Rockets at this stage is a floor-spacer at the 5 position. It looks like that attribute is important enough to offset all the things he doesn't do well. In particular, its given more spacing for the Rockets penetrators and for Landry to do his thing in the post. |
That's certainly plausible, but let's also not forget plain old estimation error (i.e. random noise) as a possibility. 35 games is not a lot of data, although (based on 08-09 experiments) I did find that you could get OK results (10-12% R-squared) predicting the rest of the season with a data set that small.
I'd also note that Andersen has a very low turnover rate (1.0 per 36 minutes). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
basketballvalue
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 208
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jsill wrote: |
By the way, the thing I learned from that TrueHoop piece which made me happiest is that Aaron is working for the Grizzlies. Well, maybe that's old news to some of you, but not to me. Congrats to Aaron!
|
Thanks, I appreciate it. Interestingly, that quote from Winston led the local sports talk radio host in Memphis, Chris Vernon, to have me on his show yesterday. You can listen to it on his archive here if you're interested:
http://chrisvernon.blogspot.com/2010/01/grizzlies-statistical-analyst-aaron.html
I'm not so sure it's great radio, but special thanks go to kp0 (Kevin Pelton) for prompting me over gtalk so I didn't sound like an idiot as well as Henry for some general advice about interviewing.
To confirm some q's that came up on this thread, I do only rate about 2/3rds of the league, so the minutes are about 300 right now for the 1 year cutoff. Choosing that cutoff can have an impact on the adjusted results. The results are all per 100 possessions. The only adjusted numbers as labeled adjusted, things like Offensive Rating are unadjusted as you noted.
However, I feel I should mention that I personally tend to be wary of:
1. 1 year numbers (or 3/8 year numbers) due to the high noise, but I have it on bv.com because people always ask about it.
2. Situations where the adjustment has dramatically affected the net rating (overall on - overall off). Since I have KG at +8 per 100 possessions net (Celts +12 when he's on minus +4 when he's off), I'm comfortable that the 1 year number adjusted him down but only to about +3. You have to really trust all the adjustments to think that his true value is -6 when his net is +8.
3. Overvaluing the plus-minus results. I think it's a number that should be looked at, but really only one piece of the puzzle. It's what I have up on bv.com because I thought it was where I could make a contribution, not because I think it is the only way to look at it. My work for the Grizzlies involves a lot more than plus-minus.
Thanks,
Aaron
PS Sorry I haven't been so good at staying visible on the boards here, I'm trying to do better this year.
_________________
www.basketballvalue.com
Follow on Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsill
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought you sounded very smooth. Congrats on the interview!
The interview with Chris Wallace was also interesting. Interesting to hear that the stats guys (or at least, the stats guys he was talking to at the time) were high on Shelden Williams. Certainly, his conventional statistics looked great in college. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
