 |
APBRmetrics
The statistical revolution will not be televised.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
deepak
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 665
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mtamada
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 377
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: Wayne Winston TrueHoop interview |
 |
|
| deepak_e wrote: | Interesting read so far. Wayne Winston sure doesn't hold back on his opinions.
|
Yeah, "outspoken" definitely applies to him. Those are good reads, they in fact provide a pretty large chunk of what Winston said at NESSIS, both in content and style (so it's almost like being at NESSIS, the only big thing missing from the articles is his gravelly voice).
Most of what he and the articles say is good solid stuff: APM can capture defensive contributions that box score stats cannot; APM measures what we care about i.e. are we outscoring the other team; etc.
The articles also give hints about the big question marks about APM: the standard error question (if the Mavs do really well when Player X matches up against Player Y in Game 1, how well does that really predict the chance that the Mavs will have the same success if they try to exploit that matchup in Game 2?); and the question of context or fit (players moving from a bad team to a good one and magically becoming better defensive players).
Both of those are in principle researchable questions. E.g. how stable are the APM figures (either for players or for lineups) within a playoff series? And by how much do individual players' APMs, or APM-based defensive or offensive ratings, change when they change teams -- and how does that figure compare to the changes experienced by players who stay with the same team?
(Those questions may very well have been addressed in this site already, I don't recall off the top of my head.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erivera7
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 185
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a question and I didn't really know where to post it, but I figured after reading what Winston wrote, it's somewhat relevant. When I asked Stan Van Gundy some questions at Media Day, one thing he pointed is that he hasn't seen a numerical system that accurately rates how good or how bad a player is, defensively.
My question is, how would people here respond to that? When I look at defensive numbers, usually I ref to adjusted defensive plus/minus, net defensive plus/minus, opponent PER, and whatever else. I know those metrics have their limitations in determining the worth of a player's defense, but is it a start?
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nor does he hold back here either:
http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=108
here he calls sebastien telfair "an outstanding point guard". yet when you look at the stats, in 08-09 telfair played 2095 minutes, and among the 44 PGs in the league that played at least 1500 minutes in 08-09 he had:
- the 3rd worst overall shooting (47.5% ScFG%, 39.9% on 2s, 34.6% on 3s), that's just 42nd out of 44 PGs...
- the lowest/worst rate of rebounding (2.9 reb/48min), dead last among those 44 PGs...
- just average rates for assists per minute and steals per minute for a PG...
but because adjusted +/- is "calculated" as high for him he's outstanding?...
so here's my question for mr. winston (or any other adjusted +/- adherents) - just what exactly did sebastien telfair actually do that was outstanding?...
plus this statement is classic:
Another guy who is totally overrated is Amare Stoudemire. I mean, he's a stat stuffer.
totally overrated? in 04-05, 06-07, 07-08, and 08-09 (he missed the 05-06 season), stoudemire played the most total minutes on a phoenix suns team that averaged a 56-26 record (3rd best record among all teams those 4 years), and lead the team in total rebounds, blocked shots, and scoring, shot an excellent 61.6% ScFG%, and was the most efficient player on offense in the nba those 4 years (the best points scored per zero point team possession personally responsible for among the 340 different players that played at least 2500 total minutes those 4 seasons)...
how is the player that does all that on a team that averages 56 wins a season overrated? if stoudemire is getting all those rebounds, all those blocked shots, and all those points (very efficiently mind you), on an excellent winning team, who else praytell might be responsible for all those wins?... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Cambridge, MA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
although I enjoy Wayne Winston's perspective, from reading his blog posts it seems he's as dogmatic about his own version of APM as Berri is about WOW. I am somewhat surprised these individuals don't realize there is a lot of gray rather then black/white as to evaluating players. It's really off-putting.
_________________
http://pointsperpossession.com/
@PPPBasketball |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryan J. Parker
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 711
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| erivera7 wrote: | I have a question and I didn't really know where to post it, but I figured after reading what Winston wrote, it's somewhat relevant. When I asked Stan Van Gundy some questions at Media Day, one thing he pointed is that he hasn't seen a numerical system that accurately rates how good or how bad a player is, defensively.
My question is, how would people here respond to that? When I look at defensive numbers, usually I ref to adjusted defensive plus/minus, net defensive plus/minus, opponent PER, and whatever else. I know those metrics have their limitations in determining the worth of a player's defense, but is it a start? |
Nothing is going to give us a perfect measure without error, so we'll never have anything accurate with respect to any measure of player ability. Based on your blog post, I believe Van Gundy is simply referring to the notion that defensive stats don't jive with what he sees on video.
There are certainly ways to measure accuracy with predictions, and it's what I've been focusing on lately in this and this post. There is a lot we might want to predict, so I think this is just the tip of the iceburg. Perhaps there are other data points that identify how well a player is performing on defense that we can try to predict.
I'd be interested in Van Gundy's opinion with respect to how these models estimate defensive ability, since there is certainly much room for improvement with the team nature of defensive basketball. My guess is he's referring to maybe linear weight models that measure the value of blocks, turnovers, etc. Clearly these are flawed.
_________________
I am a basketball geek. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryan J. Parker
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 711
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BobboFitos wrote: | | although I enjoy Wayne Winston's perspective, from reading his blog posts it seems he's as dogmatic about his own version of APM as Berri is about WOW. I am somewhat surprised these individuals don't realize there is a lot of gray rather then black/white as to evaluating players. It's really off-putting. |
I give Winston credit for at least talking about uncertainty (in some portions of Mathletics, at least). But I do agree that there is a lot more room for talking about the uncertainty involved than we currently see from the most popular public figures of basketball statistics.
_________________
I am a basketball geek. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deepak
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 665
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Part 3:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-45-10/Wayne-Winston--Mark-Cuban-s-Stats-Expert-Isn-t-Bashful--Part-3.html
This part was interesting. Is there agreement here that taking a 3-pointer at the end of the game, when down 2, is the smartest play? I never heard that before.
| Quote: |
Then it came down to this big debate. Do you foul when you're up three? They let Steve Nash hit a 3 to tie that game. Almost no coach will foul until there's five seconds left in the game. I think that's something we don't know the answer to. But that's something we could study.
You should definitely go for 3 at the end of the game if you're down two. I think there's no question of that. Most coaches don't. The only team that did that, that I know, was Reggie Miller and the Pacers. They always did that. They always let Reggie take that shot. They would want the buzzer to go off with the ball in the air and it worked a lot of times.
I feel like I've seen Kobe do that.
Yeah, I mean Kobe's probably done it too. But the math is solid there. If I've got the ball and I can take the shot with the horn going off, you should go for 3. You only win the overtime half the time. Suppose you have a 50% chance of hitting the two. So you make a shot half the time, and then you win in overtime half the time, you win the game just 25% of the time.
But if you shoot the 3, you've got at least a 30% chance. That's all you need to know.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erivera7
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 185
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan J. Parker wrote: |
Nothing is going to give us a perfect measure without error, so we'll never have anything accurate with respect to any measure of player ability. Based on your blog post, I believe Van Gundy is simply referring to the notion that defensive stats don't jive with what he sees on video.
There are certainly ways to measure accuracy with predictions, and it's what I've been focusing on lately in this and this post. There is a lot we might want to predict, so I think this is just the tip of the iceburg. Perhaps there are other data points that identify how well a player is performing on defense that we can try to predict.
I'd be interested in Van Gundy's opinion with respect to how these models estimate defensive ability, since there is certainly much room for improvement with the team nature of defensive basketball. My guess is he's referring to maybe linear weight models that measure the value of blocks, turnovers, etc. Clearly these are flawed. |
Makes sense, thanks for answering my question(s).
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryan J. Parker
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 711
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| deepak_e wrote: | Part 3:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-45-10/Wayne-Winston--Mark-Cuban-s-Stats-Expert-Isn-t-Bashful--Part-3.html
This part was interesting. Is there agreement here that taking a 3-pointer at the end of the game, when down 2, is the smartest play? I never heard that before.
| Quote: |
Then it came down to this big debate. Do you foul when you're up three? They let Steve Nash hit a 3 to tie that game. Almost no coach will foul until there's five seconds left in the game. I think that's something we don't know the answer to. But that's something we could study.
You should definitely go for 3 at the end of the game if you're down two. I think there's no question of that. Most coaches don't. The only team that did that, that I know, was Reggie Miller and the Pacers. They always did that. They always let Reggie take that shot. They would want the buzzer to go off with the ball in the air and it worked a lot of times.
I feel like I've seen Kobe do that.
Yeah, I mean Kobe's probably done it too. But the math is solid there. If I've got the ball and I can take the shot with the horn going off, you should go for 3. You only win the overtime half the time. Suppose you have a 50% chance of hitting the two. So you make a shot half the time, and then you win in overtime half the time, you win the game just 25% of the time.
But if you shoot the 3, you've got at least a 30% chance. That's all you need to know.
|
|
I believe a general rule is that your odds of making a 2pt shot times the odds of winning in OT need to be greater than the odds of making the 3pt shot.
So if you only make the 3pt shot 30% of the time, then you should go for the tie if you can get a 70% 2pt shot and figure to win 50% of the time in OT. In this case your odds of winning are 35% instead of 30% for the 3pt shot.
I haven't done a thorough study of this, but in practice your best bet is probably going to be the 3pt shot. Like anything else, though, "it depends". 
_________________
I am a basketball geek. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deepak
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 665
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan J. Parker wrote: |
I believe a general rule is that your odds of making a 2pt shot times the odds of winning in OT need to be greater than the odds of making the 3pt shot.
So if you only make the 3pt shot 30% of the time, then you should go for the tie if you can get a 70% 2pt shot and figure to win 50% of the time in OT. In this case your odds of winning are 35% instead of 30% for the 3pt shot.
I haven't done a thorough study of this, but in practice your best bet is probably going to be the 3pt shot. Like anything else, though, "it depends". |
Yes, the math makes sense when you put it that way. Though depending on where you're playing, and how much more talent you have, your odds of winning the overtime period could be significantly more than 50%. And I don't know this for sure, but my guess is that the last 5 minutes of a game (or an overtime period) will tend to favor the better team more than any randomly picked 5 minute stretch during the game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DLew
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 224
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bob,
I understand your points, but I think in this case the burden of proof is on you (or anyone who doesn't think Telfair is good) to explain why the Wolves were so much better with Telfair on the court. Winston doesn't seem to be referring to some 'calculated' adjusted plus-minus there, he is simply reciting some basic plus-minus stats. The Wolves did a lot better with Telfair in the game last year and if you don't think Telfair is good then you have to offer some other explanation. Now, luck is a perfectly valid response, and that's probably the case here (I certainly think so at least), but I think you at least have to say that you think Telfar just got lucky and then use the box score to support that. The fact of the matter is that Winston does have some evidence to support his claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IrishHand
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Context matters. Minnesota was paper-thin and Telfair - though clearly well below-average as a PG - was still measurably superior to their other options at PG.
If you started an average D1 PG on an NBA team and backed him up with an average D2 PG, then the other players on the team will almost certainly play better with the former. It's unclear to me that that makes any sort of commentary about the player's value relative to any other PG in the league and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of "outstanding point guard" unless the only frame of reference is "point guards playing for the Minnesota Timberwolves in 2008/09". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Cambridge, MA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DLew wrote: | Bob,
I understand your points, but I think in this case the burden of proof is on you (or anyone who doesn't think Telfair is good) to explain why the Wolves were so much better with Telfair on the court. Winston doesn't seem to be referring to some 'calculated' adjusted plus-minus there, he is simply reciting some basic plus-minus stats. The Wolves did a lot better with Telfair in the game last year and if you don't think Telfair is good then you have to offer some other explanation. Now, luck is a perfectly valid response, and that's probably the case here (I certainly think so at least), but I think you at least have to say that you think Telfar just got lucky and then use the box score to support that. The fact of the matter is that Winston does have some evidence to support his claim. |
Good point - clearly I can't argue with the fact the wolves were so much better w/ telfair on the court - what I could argue is that they were better possibly in spite of telfair, not because of his on court contributions.
i would be thrilled to see the clippers 2nd unit perform fantastically because of telfair, but i really dont think that will happen.
_________________
http://pointsperpossession.com/
@PPPBasketball |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"...I think in this case the burden of proof is on you... to explain why the Wolves were so much better with Telfair on the court..."
so the t-wolves were so much better with telfair on the court - that makes him an outstanding PG? outstanding compared to what - the t-wolve backup PGs? the t-wolves finished at 24-58, one of the worst records in the league, and telfair played the most minutes at PG of any player on the team. if telfair was outstanding, what was chris paul in 08-09 (all-NBA 2nd team, all-D 1st team)?...
when i think of oustanding nba PGs i think of PGs like chris paul and chauncey billups, not sebastien telfair...
tell me - had either paul or billups been telfair's backup in 08-09, and not kevin ollie, bobby brown, and to some extent randy foye, and the t-wolves would have done much better when telfair was not on the floor than they actually did in 08-09, would telfair have still been outstanding with the same individual and team stats as actually occured in 08-09 when he played?...
or would his adjusted +/- or just his +/- have been worse because when he did not play then either paul or billups would have played. would you then come to some other conclusion, even though the team's stats when telfair played were the same as they were in 08-09?...
The Wolves did a lot better with Telfair in the game last year and if you don't think Telfair is good then you have to offer some other explanation.
you mean other than the explanation i gave above? read it again - telfair was (1) one of the worst overall shooting and was (2) the worst rebounding PG in the league (among all PGs with at least 1500+ minutes played). his (3) steal and assist rates were average at best, and (4) outside of his defensive rebounding, steals, and blocked shots his defense was nothing special. how does that make him outstanding?...
also as good as his unadjusted +/- was in 08-09 (+7.2), it was just as bad in 07-08 (-7.3):
http://www.82games.com/0809/08MIN1.HTM#onoff
http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN1D.HTM
but you know what? take a close look at his stats both seasons - his stats were virtually identical both seasons (and quite poor), and the team's W-L record was poor and almost identical (just 22 vs just 24 wins)...
so here is my question to all adjusted +/- adherents - this was the minnesota per 100 possession scoring in 08-09 with and without telfair:
------with telfair---w/o telfair
min------110.1-------103.3
opp------112.6-------113.0
now what if it had looked like this?
------with telfair---w/o telfair
min------110.1-------113.0
opp------112.6-------103.3
would telfair's +/- and adjusted +/- be different? because how does what happened when telfair was not on the floor determine how good he was when he was on the floor? i ask because his stats, and his teammates stats when he played, are identical in both instances....
this is similar to the thread entitled "adjusted plus-minus update" where adjusted +/- adherents were claiming that chris paul's defense was poor one season but excellent the next despite what happened when he was on the floor both seasons being literally the same... |
|
| 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
