 |
APBRmetrics
The statistical revolution will not be televised.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Harold Almonte
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 616
|
 Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 10:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Everybody wants to link usage and efficiency because economists (WOW among them) think that scoring efficiency and not usage is the measure of the scoring IQ and must be the measure of scoring Power. When they weighted all the basketball skills by regression, they forgot how to weight ballhandling (causes, they did it only with effects: TOs, assists), the main action of the game. The best ballhandlers not only touch the ball more time, they take almost all decissions (create) about which players will have, instead of themselves, the highest usage (who will score). Ballhandling-The capacity to carry the ball to the ring (scoring skill and productivity)-and Efficiency, overall decide the players usage. Efficiency is just a part not the whole, and that's why David Lee is not the NBA scoring leader, and Bibby has a higher usage than Kevin Martin.
Lower scoring IQ a player has, a more difficult scheme you need to use for him to score, and overall that's against the economy of the game (at the offensive end).
Last edited by Harold Almonte on Sat May 05, 2007 11:58 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mtamada
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 4:25 am Post subject: Another persepective on team context and teamwork |
|
|
Beyond the usage vs. efficiency debate is a broader debate about how player's performances will vary in different team contexts or while playing different team roles (PG vs SG, go-to scorer vs role player, etc.)
Crew racing, while seemingly dependent only on how well a rower can row, also has a lot of team context issues; some seemingly inferior rowers can help their boat go faster, at least according to Cambridge University's crew team.
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i35/35a05601.htm
(I think that article is available to non-subscribers.)
Although I do believe that Alan Iverson is generally overrated by fans, players, and sportswriters, I also believe that his ability to generate those stats while at high usage levels does, in many cases at least, help make his teammates better, either by letting them concentrate on taking fewer and better shots, or by drawing the defense to him and giving his teammates more open shots period.
I.e. I think he's a very good but not great player. The statistics show readily enough that he is not a great player -- but I think he's a bit better than the statistics show, for reasons of team context and teamwork. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 865
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fascinating article. It makes me think of Haywood with the Wizards. Haywood is slow, awkward, uncoordinated, not very strong, gets pushed around, and sometimes just plain looks bad out on the court. Yet every year the Wizards are better when he's on the floor, especially on the defensive end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 9:11 am Post subject: Re: Another perspective on team context and teamwork |
|
|
| mtamada wrote: | Beyond the usage vs. efficiency debate is a broader debate about how player's performances will vary in different team contexts or while playing different team roles (PG vs SG, go-to scorer vs role player, etc.)
Crew racing, while seemingly dependent only on how well a rower can row, also has a lot of team context issues; some seemingly inferior rowers can help their boat go faster, at least according to Cambridge University's crew team.
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i35/35a05601.htm
|
The crew article seems to make the point that affability can overwhelm power and strength. There are some indications that this sort of psychological factor does matter and that it can be measured. thebbiq.com is going that way, for instance, in hoops.
The usage vs efficiency debate is, as you suggest, underlain by more complex context- and coaching-related things. But it is a simple model of behavior that has been, in my experience, reliable in making predictions. It suggests interaction among players and coaches, something that people can't really debate exists and has some impact. The question of how large the impact is remains, but I'd suggest that the process of looking for how large that impact is and how exactly it manifests itself is one of the biggest contributions we can make. I'd like to think that we've already made headway toward understanding this.
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harold Almonte
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 616
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Although I do believe that Alan Iverson is generally overrated by fans, players, and sportswriters, I also believe that his ability to generate those stats while at high usage levels does, in many cases at least, help make his teammates better, either by letting them concentrate on taking fewer and better shots, or by drawing the defense to him and giving his teammates more open shots period. |
Not only high usage level; the quality of his usage. The fact that he could manage to have average carreer stats (in terms of efficiency) taking a lot of bad, difficult and clutch shots (against or not his will, or coachs's will), just says good things about his talent.
| Quote: | The crew article seems to make the point that affability can overwhelm power and strength. There are some indications that this sort of psychological factor does matter and that it can be measured. thebbiq.com is going that way, for instance, in hoops.
The usage vs efficiency debate is, as you suggest, underlain by more complex context- and coaching-related things. But it is a simple model of behavior that has been, in my experience, reliable in making predictions. It suggests interaction among players and coaches, something that people can't really debate exists and has some impact. The question of how large the impact is remains, but I'd suggest that the process of looking for how large that impact is and how exactly it manifests itself is one of the biggest contributions we can make. I'd like to think that we've already made headway toward understanding this.
|
Groupal theories and leadership conduct are applied to team sports. Some experts say Prouds/Narcicists Napoleonic leaders (A.I, Jordan, Kobe, Arenas, etc) are the best to reach success. Altruists (Garnett, Nowitzki) are not so good. Selfishs (some Knicks) are the worsts, and of course Humbles can't be leaders. High post offense would be good when you have a highly concentrated (post) power, Triangle when you have non-concentrated several powerful leaders, Motion and Princenton and distributed offense when you don't have a stronger leader personality. Every team would want to have the ideal Detroit, Suns and Spurs cooperativism, but players have their different ranges of egocentrism. It's a matter of fitting them like is done with skills and stats. |
|
| 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
