APBRmetrics

Manchvegasbob · Joined: 03 Aug 2008 Posts: 52

http://newengland.comcastsportsnet.com/wickedgoodsports/celtics/out-of-the-gate-whats-down-with-the-celtics/

As has been mentioned here - Boston is in an offensive funk compared to last year. There are obviously lots of ways to break it down with regard to points per possession, etc., but it seemed a lot simpler than that when just focusing on the shooting.

However, I'd be interested in what folks thought about the disparity that I found with regard to the Wins Produced value for the team versus the teams actual wins. Through 10 games, it was pretty much dead on last year with the WP = 9.8 and wins = 9, but this year through 10, the WP value doesn't come close to their 8 wins (WP = 4.7).

Thoughts on what might be going on with this metric or my analysis?

Mike G · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject:

WP is a hoax, created to see how gullible people can be?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong

Manchvegasbob · Joined: 03 Aug 2008 Posts: 52

Really? Please elaborate, as I've seen some decent correlations presented and was of the opinion that WP was a decent avenue to evaluate a players net worth on the team.

Perhaps there is another thread on the board where you have bludgeoned the topic to death - if so, please direct me to it and I'll give it a read.

Thanks

Harold Almonte · Joined: 04 Aug 2006 Posts: 616

The 2008 stats are WProduced or WScore? Have they the team defense adjust allocated? Boston is still the second best defense of the league. WP has compensations for WS's scoring underrating. Everybodys's numbers should be a little higher, specially Allen and Powe's. The numbers should reflect a 7-3 record (pyth) or one game less, but Boston won against tougher defenders (and SOS) than last year (first 10).

Mike G · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject:

You could probably search by 'berri' in the search function at top. As well as I can discern, he's never corrected any of the obvious errors that dozens of people have pointed out here. He hasn't appeared here to answer any questions. Last time I checked his blog, it looked like he was still the primary defender of his 'system', using various pseudonyms, talking to himself.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong

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

Mike G · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject:

at WoW, one 'DJ' says:

Neil Paine · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 774 Location: Atlanta, GA

In all fairness, Durant hasn't really been very good -- there's a reason the Thunder's offensive efficiency is more than 11 points/100 poss. worse than the league's average...

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

Neil Paine · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 774 Location: Atlanta, GA

Especially not one who looks like he got his glasses from the windshield of a '68 Catalina, right?

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

Surely not. Cool

_________________
I am a basketball geek.

Kevin Pelton · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:24 am Post subject:

Neil Paine · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 774 Location: Atlanta, GA

Oh, there have definitely been bigger offenders than Durant -- Watson, Collison, Mason, Petro, Wilcox, Westbrook, etc. But Durant's the alpha dog here (using 29.5% of OKC's possessions when on the court), and with an offensive rating of 94.9 he's probably not going to lead the offense to any great heights. It's true that Berri's metric badly underrates shot creation, but even with that huge usage % taking pressure off his teammates, if a guy posts an efficiency that low (compared to the league average of 105.7 per Dougstats), his team is simply not going to be a very good offensive club.

Neil Paine · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 774 Location: Atlanta, GA

And, yeah, the "deck chair" remark was just the kind of attention-grabbing hyperbole we've come to know and love from Berri, wasn't it?

Kevin Pelton · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:25 am Post subject: