[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

On Inflated stats
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 1 of 3  1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Panos
Posts: 30548
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
2/18/2009  12:46 PM
I know that there has been much analysis around here and in the press about the D'Antoni effect inflating players' stats. However, we should not forget that in our particular situation that its not just D'Antoni. Some of the reason our players are playing better is the return to normalcy in the club house by virtue of the banishment of Marbury, and the removal of Isiah, not just as a coach, but as a GM that consistently undermined his coach's authority. I don't think it can be overstated how much a chemistry killer like Marbury can affect a team, especially when he is the star player, and even more so when he is the point guard and controls the flow. I believe that even without the D'Antoni effect, many of our players would be playing better this year having their games rebound from DEFLATED stats the last couple of years.
AUTOADVERT
Allanfan20
Posts: 35947
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #542
USA
2/18/2009  12:51 PM
To me, the arguement is 100% assinine. Duhons stats are up b/c he's doing a good job running the system and he's improving. Plus he's getting more minutes. Nate and Lee b/c they are good players getting better. How comes Jefferies and Qs stats aren't inflated? How come Chandler isn't averaging 20 and 10? No, I'm not dissing Chandler, but by the "His stats are inflated rule" Chandler is very athletic and a nice young player and the "Next Marion" therefore, should average 20 and 10.

Lee, Nate, and Duhon are increasing their numbers because they are good players and getting opportunities. Harrington is increasing his numbers b/c he's a very good rebounder, can score a little, but is also jacking up shot after shot.

And then, the people who say that the players numbers are up b/c of the system, go and lash out on D'Antoni. It makes it even more assinine.
“Whenever I’m about to do something, I think ‘Would an idiot do that?’ and if they would, I do NOT do that thing.”- Dwight Schrute
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
2/18/2009  1:21 PM
Numbers are somehow misleading and everybody know this.
The best measure of player’s game is effectiveness and consistency.
Lee and Duhon are our most consistent and effective players with Nate following them in some distance, but he still needs some work on his brain.
Jeffries is consistent inn what he does well but he sucks in most of it.
Chan is getting there but he needs another year or two.
Al is dumb as much as talented.
Others just temp bodies, so what they do doesn't matter (and they also suck big time)
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
2/18/2009  1:23 PM

As per Mike - what he accomplished as a coach with 2-3 OK players and bunch of scrubs is amazing.
Period
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
2/18/2009  1:31 PM
The Knicks are 1st in the NBA in Field Goal Attempts, 3rd in Scoring and 27th in Field Goal Pct.

That's an inefficient team that puts up numbers through sheer volume.

i.e. their stats are inflated.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
PhilinLA
Posts: 24941
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/12/2004
Member: #696
2/18/2009  1:39 PM
Their stats are gonna remain "inflated" as long as D'Antoni's there.
http://amonthhoffundays.blogspot.com/ We got a ringer.
VDesai
Posts: 43301
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
2/18/2009  1:41 PM
Posted by islesfan:

The Knicks are 1st in the NBA in Field Goal Attempts, 3rd in Scoring and 27th in Field Goal Pct.

That's an inefficient team that puts up numbers through sheer volume.

i.e. their stats are inflated.

Except that their 11th in the league in eFG%- a far more accurate measure of shooting efficiency.
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
2/18/2009  1:44 PM
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by islesfan:

The Knicks are 1st in the NBA in Field Goal Attempts, 3rd in Scoring and 27th in Field Goal Pct.

That's an inefficient team that puts up numbers through sheer volume.

i.e. their stats are inflated.

Except that their 11th in the league in eFG%- a far more accurate measure of shooting efficiency.

For our own edification, how do they come up with that number?
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
VDesai
Posts: 43301
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
2/18/2009  1:51 PM
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by islesfan:

The Knicks are 1st in the NBA in Field Goal Attempts, 3rd in Scoring and 27th in Field Goal Pct.

That's an inefficient team that puts up numbers through sheer volume.

i.e. their stats are inflated.

Except that their 11th in the league in eFG%- a far more accurate measure of shooting efficiency.

For our own edification, how do they come up with that number?

Its a really simple number that I've explained on this site in detail in the past- but here you go, from Kevin Pelton, one of the better statheads out there:

Shooting Efficiency - If there is an on-base percentage in the NBA - a statistic that has traditionally been undervalued - it would probably be some measure of a player's efficiency in scoring points. There's a stereotype that all statistical analysts think Allen Iverson is a bad player due to his low shooting percentage that is untrue because Iverson's ability to create shots and get his teammates better looks is valuable. Still, being efficient with your shots is very important. The two most common ways of measuring the concept of shooting efficiency are Effective Field-Goal Percentage (eFG%) and what this site calls True Shooting Percentage (TS%).

Effective Field-Goal Percentage was popularized by current L.A. Clippers Coach Mike Dunleavy and the Rick Barry's Pro Basketball Bible series. It adjusts for the added value of three-pointers by counting them as 1.5 field goals, thus make it more fair to three-point shooters than field-goal percentage.

eFG% = (FGM + .5*3PM)/FGA


~In other words- it corrects for the fact that 3 pointers are worth more and thus have a bigger expected payoff (and larger tolerance for missing) than a 2 pointer. This gives you a more accurate representation of the amount of points produced per the shots a team takes.

These stats are readily available at www.knickerblogger.com which is updated daily.
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
2/18/2009  2:00 PM
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by islesfan:

The Knicks are 1st in the NBA in Field Goal Attempts, 3rd in Scoring and 27th in Field Goal Pct.

That's an inefficient team that puts up numbers through sheer volume.

i.e. their stats are inflated.

Except that their 11th in the league in eFG%- a far more accurate measure of shooting efficiency.

For our own edification, how do they come up with that number?

Its a really simple number that I've explained on this site in detail in the past- but here you go, from Kevin Pelton, one of the better statheads out there:

Shooting Efficiency - If there is an on-base percentage in the NBA - a statistic that has traditionally been undervalued - it would probably be some measure of a player's efficiency in scoring points. There's a stereotype that all statistical analysts think Allen Iverson is a bad player due to his low shooting percentage that is untrue because Iverson's ability to create shots and get his teammates better looks is valuable. Still, being efficient with your shots is very important. The two most common ways of measuring the concept of shooting efficiency are Effective Field-Goal Percentage (eFG%) and what this site calls True Shooting Percentage (TS%).

Effective Field-Goal Percentage was popularized by current L.A. Clippers Coach Mike Dunleavy and the Rick Barry's Pro Basketball Bible series. It adjusts for the added value of three-pointers by counting them as 1.5 field goals, thus make it more fair to three-point shooters than field-goal percentage.

eFG% = (FGM + .5*3PM)/FGA


~In other words- it corrects for the fact that 3 pointers are worth more and thus have a bigger expected payoff (and larger tolerance for missing) than a 2 pointer. This gives you a more accurate representation of the amount of points produced per the shots a team takes.

These stats are readily available at www.knickerblogger.com which is updated daily.

Does the number take into account forced 3's taken outside of the flow of the offense when a much more efficient 2 pt shot is available? Something that this Knicks team has done often?

Oh, and thanks for the explanation.

[Edited by - islesfan on 18-02-2009 2:01 PM]
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/18/2009  2:01 PM
numbers do mean something. This notion that anyone can get lots of rebounds and score lots of points in the NBA is stupid. Lavar Postell once said the only reason Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell scored more points was because they got more shots. Actually Lavar.. its because they were better.

Here is some logic (for Isles I will keep it simple)
If your among the league leaders in rebounds its because your one of the better rebounders in the league
If you among the league leaders in scoring its because your one of the better scorers in the league.

Saying the Knicks take the most shots, score the most, and have a low % therefore writing off what good #s they have is a brutal oversimplification and not accurate. For one they do not have a post scorer. They are essentially a team that relies on ball movement and jumpshots. This is because they have no post scorers.

They also take about double the NBA average for 3 pointers.

Look... the Knicks are still not a good team, but they are a better team. They really dont have a center or a shooting guard, but they have a formula for staying in games. The players are getting better and Lee, Chandler and Nate have all shown significant improvement under this management which is what I think Panos original point was.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/18/2009  2:04 PM
Posted by islesfan:
Does the number take into account forced 3's taken outside of the flow of the offense when a much more efficient 2 pt shot is available? Something that this Knicks team has done often?

Oh, and thanks for the explanation.

[Edited by - islesfan on 18-02-2009 2:01 PM]
It does. However, they are only forced when they dont go it, and as you can see from that formula missed shots and forced shots are both accounted for equally

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
2/18/2009  2:09 PM
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by islesfan:
Does the number take into account forced 3's taken outside of the flow of the offense when a much more efficient 2 pt shot is available? Something that this Knicks team has done often?

Oh, and thanks for the explanation.

[Edited by - islesfan on 18-02-2009 2:01 PM]
It does. However, they are only forced when they dont go it, and as you can see from that formula missed shots and forced shots are both accounted for equally

I'm not sure what you're saying but if good missed shots are accounted for equally with forced missed shots then it doesn't take bad play into account.

If the Knicks weren't always taking bad and forced shots, I wouldn't even bring it up but we've all seen them play and know it has to be taken into consideration.

[Edited by - islesfan on 18-02-2009 2:11 PM]
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
2/18/2009  2:12 PM
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by islesfan:

The Knicks are 1st in the NBA in Field Goal Attempts, 3rd in Scoring and 27th in Field Goal Pct.

That's an inefficient team that puts up numbers through sheer volume.

i.e. their stats are inflated.

Except that their 11th in the league in eFG%- a far more accurate measure of shooting efficiency.

For our own edification, how do they come up with that number?

Its a really simple number that I've explained on this site in detail in the past- but here you go, from Kevin Pelton, one of the better statheads out there:

Shooting Efficiency - If there is an on-base percentage in the NBA - a statistic that has traditionally been undervalued - it would probably be some measure of a player's efficiency in scoring points. There's a stereotype that all statistical analysts think Allen Iverson is a bad player due to his low shooting percentage that is untrue because Iverson's ability to create shots and get his teammates better looks is valuable. Still, being efficient with your shots is very important. The two most common ways of measuring the concept of shooting efficiency are Effective Field-Goal Percentage (eFG%) and what this site calls True Shooting Percentage (TS%).

Effective Field-Goal Percentage was popularized by current L.A. Clippers Coach Mike Dunleavy and the Rick Barry's Pro Basketball Bible series. It adjusts for the added value of three-pointers by counting them as 1.5 field goals, thus make it more fair to three-point shooters than field-goal percentage.

eFG% = (FGM + .5*3PM)/FGA


~In other words- it corrects for the fact that 3 pointers are worth more and thus have a bigger expected payoff (and larger tolerance for missing) than a 2 pointer. This gives you a more accurate representation of the amount of points produced per the shots a team takes.

These stats are readily available at www.knickerblogger.com which is updated daily.

Player eFG
Danilo Gallinari 58.50
Tim Thomas 56.40
David Lee 56.20
Chris Duhon 52.20
Nate Robinson 50.60
Al Harrington 49.60
Anthony Roberson 49.50
Quentin Richardson 48.00
Wilson Chandler 47.20
Jared Jeffries 42.70

Danilo is not playing much, as well as Tim and Robertson.
Othervise it looks close to what it is - bolow 50 you suck as shooter


[Edited by - arkrud on 02-18-2009 2:13 PM]
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
VDesai
Posts: 43301
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
2/18/2009  2:13 PM
I think its fairly simple. The Knicks are a slightly above average offensive team and a below average to poor defensive team (as evidenced in their being 3rd to last at opponents eFG).
VDesai
Posts: 43301
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
2/18/2009  2:17 PM
Posted by arkrud:
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by islesfan:

The Knicks are 1st in the NBA in Field Goal Attempts, 3rd in Scoring and 27th in Field Goal Pct.

That's an inefficient team that puts up numbers through sheer volume.

i.e. their stats are inflated.

Except that their 11th in the league in eFG%- a far more accurate measure of shooting efficiency.

For our own edification, how do they come up with that number?

Its a really simple number that I've explained on this site in detail in the past- but here you go, from Kevin Pelton, one of the better statheads out there:

Shooting Efficiency - If there is an on-base percentage in the NBA - a statistic that has traditionally been undervalued - it would probably be some measure of a player's efficiency in scoring points. There's a stereotype that all statistical analysts think Allen Iverson is a bad player due to his low shooting percentage that is untrue because Iverson's ability to create shots and get his teammates better looks is valuable. Still, being efficient with your shots is very important. The two most common ways of measuring the concept of shooting efficiency are Effective Field-Goal Percentage (eFG%) and what this site calls True Shooting Percentage (TS%).

Effective Field-Goal Percentage was popularized by current L.A. Clippers Coach Mike Dunleavy and the Rick Barry's Pro Basketball Bible series. It adjusts for the added value of three-pointers by counting them as 1.5 field goals, thus make it more fair to three-point shooters than field-goal percentage.

eFG% = (FGM + .5*3PM)/FGA


~In other words- it corrects for the fact that 3 pointers are worth more and thus have a bigger expected payoff (and larger tolerance for missing) than a 2 pointer. This gives you a more accurate representation of the amount of points produced per the shots a team takes.

These stats are readily available at www.knickerblogger.com which is updated daily.

Player eFG
Danilo Gallinari 58.50
Tim Thomas 56.40
David Lee 56.20
Chris Duhon 52.20
Nate Robinson 50.60
Al Harrington 49.60
Anthony Roberson 49.50
Quentin Richardson 48.00
Wilson Chandler 47.20
Jared Jeffries 42.70

Danilo is not playing much, as well as Tim and Robertson.
Othervise it looks close to what it is - bolow 50 you suck as shooter


[Edited by - arkrud on 02-18-2009 2:13 PM]

For individuals- true shooting is even better

True Shooting Percentage goes a step further by factoring in a player's performance at the free-throw line and considering their efficiency on all types of shots.

TS% = Pts/(2*(FGA + (.44*FTA)))

Former Sonics guard Brent Barry - Rick's son - led the NBA in both categories in 2006-07, posting a 62.6% effective field-goal percentage and a 66.6% True Shooting Percentage. Barry has led the NBA in True Shooting Percentage three times, including twice while in Seattle. Rashard Lewis (58.7%) was the most efficient Sonics shooter by True Shooting Percentage.

Unfortunately Knickerblogger doesn't do true shooting for a team.

On a rough basis, you should calibrate your scale by moving it up 5-10% when looking at TS% or eFG%.

Ray Allen is a guy who's not scoring as much as he used to, but his been remarkable with his efficiency from the field this year for being a long range shooter.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/18/2009  2:23 PM
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by islesfan:
Does the number take into account forced 3's taken outside of the flow of the offense when a much more efficient 2 pt shot is available? Something that this Knicks team has done often?

Oh, and thanks for the explanation.

[Edited by - islesfan on 18-02-2009 2:01 PM]
It does. However, they are only forced when they dont go it, and as you can see from that formula missed shots and forced shots are both accounted for equally

I'm not sure what you're saying but if good missed shots are accounted for equally with forced missed shots then it doesn't take bad play into account.

If the Knicks weren't always taking bad and forced shots, I wouldn't even bring it up but we've all seen them play and know it has to be taken into consideration.

[Edited by - islesfan on 18-02-2009 2:11 PM]
that just the point... if your ranked 11th how can you be a poor shooting team? Seems to me your shot selection is pretty good based on the %.

If anything harping on the Knicks taking a ton of bad shots is suggesting the Knicks would be an elite offensive team, except they take too many ill advised shot, and therefore are only 'good' or in the top 3rd.

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34071
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127
2/18/2009  2:24 PM
Posted by islesfan:
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by islesfan:
Does the number take into account forced 3's taken outside of the flow of the offense when a much more efficient 2 pt shot is available? Something that this Knicks team has done often?

Oh, and thanks for the explanation.

[Edited by - islesfan on 18-02-2009 2:01 PM]
It does. However, they are only forced when they dont go it, and as you can see from that formula missed shots and forced shots are both accounted for equally

I'm not sure what you're saying but if good missed shots are accounted for equally with forced missed shots then it doesn't take bad play into account.

If the Knicks weren't always taking bad and forced shots, I wouldn't even bring it up but we've all seen them play and know it has to be taken into consideration.

[Edited by - islesfan on 18-02-2009 2:11 PM]

I agree with you isles, but EFG essentially is a starting point.

***

Personally, I prefer base stats to EFG or TSP. You effectively make calculations in your head when checking points, percentages, attempts, free throw attempts, hustle stats, assists, and turnovers.

I think we all can recognize that Kevin Durant (25.9 PPG on .482) and Kevin Martin (24.0 PPG on .419) score a similar amount, but how those stats are accumulated are completely different. And Kevin Martin is a valuable asset because of his distance shooting and the types of shots he's taking. But Kevin Durant is clearly a superior SG, yet Martin gets a bonus in EFG because he hits 2.2-5.2 (.425) threes versus Durant's 1.4-3.2 (.437). And you can tell all these things by interpretting the base stats.
DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
VDesai
Posts: 43301
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
2/18/2009  2:28 PM
Supreme- but your basically made an argument for eFG% with what you wrote. Actually when you look at TS%- since it takes into account how great Kevin Martin is at getting to the line, it moves him up to the 28th most efficient offensive player in the league by that measure and far better represents his true value than just his .419% FG%
Andrew
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #1
USA
2/18/2009  2:31 PM
I wondering how 6 extra field goal attempts a game (compared to middle of the pack team for attempts) for the entire team can really inflate a single players stats.
PURE KNICKS LOVE
Page 1 of 3  1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
On Inflated stats
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy