This is Google's cache of viewtopic.php?p=29988&sid=6fac6aef50ea3fac1ee993ce3ccc15a2. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 14, 2011 01:19:22 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more

Text-only version
These search terms are highlighted: jsill  
APBRmetrics :: View topic - Investigating the Winston Theorem
APBRmetrics Forum Index APBRmetrics
The statistical revolution will not be televised.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Investigating the Winston Theorem
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    APBRmetrics Forum Index -> General discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DSMok1



Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 595
Location: Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
IrishHand



Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
gabefarkas



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

habetw4 wrote:
Didn't know Aaron worked with the Grizzlies, either. Awesome news. Also, that was the first time I've ever seen Luol Deng in MVP talks. Probably a good chance it is the last.

Surprised to see this:

http://basketballvalue.com/topplayers.php?year=2009-2010&mode=summary&sortnumber=94&sortorder=DESC

What, specifically, about it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
jsill



Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
deepak



Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 664

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
jsill



Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, possessions-weighted, with a minutes cutoff of 200 minutes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
habetw4



Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Posts: 22
Location: CT

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
habetw4 wrote:
Didn't know Aaron worked with the Grizzlies, either. Awesome news. Also, that was the first time I've ever seen Luol Deng in MVP talks. Probably a good chance it is the last.

Surprised to see this:

http://basketballvalue.com/topplayers.php?year=2009-2010&mode=summary&sortnumber=94&sortorder=DESC

What, specifically, about it?


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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
deepak



Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 664

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
jsill



Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
basketballvalue



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 208

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
jsill



Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    APBRmetrics Forum Index -> General discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
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