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

On Inflated stats
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34071
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127
2/18/2009  4:35 PM
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by SupremeCommander:

I care about a guy's numbers being inflated by a system. Like, is it about the number of posts made, or the quality of insight related in those posts?

Don't worry we are still working on the Search feature. Soon enough we will be able to search for your brain.

That just didn't make any sense
DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
AUTOADVERT
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
2/18/2009  4:36 PM
Posted by SupremeCommander:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by SupremeCommander:

I care about a guy's numbers being inflated by a system. Like, is it about the number of posts made, or the quality of insight related in those posts?

Don't worry we are still working on the Search feature. Soon enough we will be able to search for your brain.

That just didn't make any sense

Cut me some slack, I'm a newbie.
I just hope that people will like me
VDesai
Posts: 43301
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
2/18/2009  4:42 PM
Posted by eViL:

Always nice to see VDesai dropping science. Keep up the good work. I forgot how TS% is calculated. Should be a more widely known stat.

Thanks bro...always trying to advocate eFG/TS% when possible and challenge oversimplified analysis when applicable.
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34071
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127
2/18/2009  4:42 PM
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by SupremeCommander:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by SupremeCommander:

I care about a guy's numbers being inflated by a system. Like, is it about the number of posts made, or the quality of insight related in those posts?

Don't worry we are still working on the Search feature. Soon enough we will be able to search for your brain.

That just didn't make any sense

Cut me some slack, I'm a newbie.

Worry not, I'll take you under my wing and show you the ropes
DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
2/18/2009  4:58 PM
Posted by VDesai:
Posted by eViL:

Always nice to see VDesai dropping science. Keep up the good work. I forgot how TS% is calculated. Should be a more widely known stat.

Thanks bro...always trying to advocate eFG/TS% when possible and challenge oversimplified analysis when applicable.

y'all need to keep that kiss kiss ish in the off-topic forum...
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
2/18/2009  5:54 PM
here is one point seldom mentioned, and it was an issue where everyone said lee wasn't a fit in mda's system.

the fact is, lee is able to execute this sytem and flourish. not every player is good enough or smart enough. for instance, would currys stats be indlated? doubt it.

system or not, guys have the iq to execute. and they are getting better- see lee's foul on parker.
Anji
Posts: 25523
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 4/14/2006
Member: #1122
USA
2/18/2009  6:31 PM
Ahh, all these stats are a non-factor right now because Lee, Nate or who ever situations are not going to change any time soon to see if their Numbers are inflated.

This would be like trying to figure out the green monsters effect on left handed hitters if they only played games in Boston. Until something changes, you won't really know. The stats will be the stats.

But it is plain as day that the increased pace of the system is giving players more opportunities to score/shoot. And the reason why you don't want inflated players built up on opportunities, is that those scoring/shooting opportunities against good players or teams trend down. Especially in the playoffs.

Simply put, if you're a team built on an abundance of scoring chances with players of average talent, because the playoffs are a contest adversity and depriving teams of opportunities to score........ a team that does not win with quality or have talent to over come adversity, is a team that is never going to win. SSOL

Now I think the Suns could have won a title in the east, but that rooster was full of Freaks and Phenoms........ and still lost. I don't see any of that here. So the stats are inflated.

[Edited by - anji on 02-18-2009 6:37 PM]
"Really, all Americans want is a cold beer, warm p***y, and some place to s**t with a door on it." - Mr. Ford
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
2/18/2009  7:14 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.

This statistic would be more valuable for guards who shot a great deal of three pointers. But how is this stat more valuable to guards who have more of a mid-range game or post players who barely shot 15ft and out? Bottom line if you want to get the full picture of what a player's performance or what a team's weakness or strengths are: is through game tapes. If a opposing team wants to know if David Lee can only score off of pick/rolls or fast break points you can only know that through watching game tapes. If a coach wants to know if Chris Duhon can only knock down 3 pointers from the weakside he can only know that through game tapes. So personally I think this stat is interesting to some basketball fans but not really relevant to coaches or players. IMO basic stats combined with a lot hours with gametapes will give coaches and a player a pretty accurate depiction of their team or an individual's play.


If Dunleavy is relying heavily on this mechanism to coach, maybe that's part of the reason why the Clippers have only 13 wins
Panos
Posts: 30548
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
2/18/2009  7:26 PM
Posted by franco12:

here is one point seldom mentioned, and it was an issue where everyone said lee wasn't a fit in mda's system.

the fact is, lee is able to execute this sytem and flourish. not every player is good enough or smart enough. for instance, would currys stats be indlated? doubt it.

system or not, guys have the iq to execute. and they are getting better- see lee's foul on parker.


That's true. I forgot about that haters' argument :)
Panos
Posts: 30548
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
2/18/2009  7:27 PM
Posted by bitty41:


This statistic would be more valuable for guards who shot a great deal of three pointers. But how is this stat more valuable to guards who have more of a mid-range game or post players who barely shot 15ft and out? Bottom line if you want to get the full picture of what a player's performance or what a team's weakness or strengths are: is through game tapes. If a opposing team wants to know if David Lee can only score off of pick/rolls or fast break points you can only know that through watching game tapes. If a coach wants to know if Chris Duhon can only knock down 3 pointers from the weakside he can only know that through game tapes. So personally I think this stat is interesting to some basketball fans but not really relevant to coaches or players. IMO basic stats combined with a lot hours with gametapes will give coaches and a player a pretty accurate depiction of their team or an individual's play.


If Dunleavy is relying heavily on this mechanism to coach, maybe that's part of the reason why the Clippers have only 13 wins


Dunleavy is relying on someone to coldcock a member of the other team if they get down by 50.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
2/18/2009  7:31 PM
Posted by Panos:
Posted by bitty41:


This statistic would be more valuable for guards who shot a great deal of three pointers. But how is this stat more valuable to guards who have more of a mid-range game or post players who barely shot 15ft and out? Bottom line if you want to get the full picture of what a player's performance or what a team's weakness or strengths are: is through game tapes. If a opposing team wants to know if David Lee can only score off of pick/rolls or fast break points you can only know that through watching game tapes. If a coach wants to know if Chris Duhon can only knock down 3 pointers from the weakside he can only know that through game tapes. So personally I think this stat is interesting to some basketball fans but not really relevant to coaches or players. IMO basic stats combined with a lot hours with gametapes will give coaches and a player a pretty accurate depiction of their team or an individual's play.


If Dunleavy is relying heavily on this mechanism to coach, maybe that's part of the reason why the Clippers have only 13 wins


Dunleavy is relying on someone to coldcock a member of the other team if they get down by 50.

Only he screwed up he got confused and thought it was Amare Stoudamire you know the old "Trent Tucker" routine
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
2/19/2009  10:11 AM
Posted by bitty41:
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.

This statistic would be more valuable for guards who shot a great deal of three pointers. But how is this stat more valuable to guards who have more of a mid-range game or post players who barely shot 15ft and out? Bottom line if you want to get the full picture of what a player's performance or what a team's weakness or strengths are: is through game tapes. If a opposing team wants to know if David Lee can only score off of pick/rolls or fast break points you can only know that through watching game tapes. If a coach wants to know if Chris Duhon can only knock down 3 pointers from the weakside he can only know that through game tapes. So personally I think this stat is interesting to some basketball fans but not really relevant to coaches or players. IMO basic stats combined with a lot hours with gametapes will give coaches and a player a pretty accurate depiction of their team or an individual's play.


If Dunleavy is relying heavily on this mechanism to coach, maybe that's part of the reason why the Clippers have only 13 wins

Great post Bitty. My feelings exactly
I just hope that people will like me
DrAlphaeus
Posts: 23751
Alba Posts: 10
Joined: 12/19/2007
Member: #1781
2/19/2009  10:38 AM
The only numbers that really matter are a no. 1 thru 8 standing in your conference at the end of 82 games.
Baba Booey 2016 — "It's Silly Season"
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
2/19/2009  10:41 AM
Posted by DrAlphaeus:

The only numbers that really matter are a no. 1 thru 8 standing in your conference at the end of 82 games.

That's what's funny. There are people who think winning ~60 games a year for four consecutive years is an inflated stat too. Like its easy or something.

[Edited by - blueseats on 02-19-2009 10:42 AM]
Page 3 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 
« 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