| Author | Thread |
| AUTOADVERT |
|
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34057 Alba Posts: 35 Joined: 4/28/2006 Member: #1127 |
1/14/2011 1:50 PM LAST EDITED: 1/14/2011 1:57 PM
martin wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:martin wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:ItalianStallion wrote:This link gives you the distribution of wins for each player on each team. Correlation does not imply causality... that's my fundamental beef with his analysis. Meaning: statistics don't imply victories. I do think the model is slightly theoretically misguided. But I will say I have played around with this link (http://nerdnumbers.com/automated-wins-produced) and I actually now think it does serve one useful purpose. If you sort the data by TEAM you get a feel for which players need to be upgraded in order for a team to be good. To go back to the Minnesota example, Love and Ridnour are the only players that significantly contribute to the team winning. Which intuitively seems correct because htey are the only Wolves I think that could help a team out immediately. To use the Knicks as an example, Landry Fields, Raymond Felton, Amare Stoudemire, Danilo Gallinari, Wilson Chandler, Ronny Turiaf, Toney Douglas, Shawne Williams are the guys that contribute positively to the team's success. I agree with that. (I disagree with the beta coefficients. Walker is a -0.1 so he isn't "hurting" the Knicks despite not being a positive.) I think you're dead-on in saying that "I have a feeling it's misleading in the way most of us have already used it (I see the Lee 16.7 and Amare 8.9 data points being compared when in fact they probably shouldn't cause that may not be in the intention of the author)." I think the information was presented that way in the article, when I actually don't know what the primary purpose is. The WSJ isn't exactly a sports journalism linch pin, so shame on me. Now That I've had sometime to sort the data, I think if you group it on a TEAM basis, it can be a useful tool. Anyway, feel free to discuss but I don't HATE this the way I did before I got play around with it. But please feel free to criticize any point you disagree with because I enjoy stat debates safe travels DLeethal wrote:
Lol Rick needs a safe space
|
|
TMS
Posts: 60684 Alba Posts: 617 Joined: 5/11/2004 Member: #674 USA |
1/14/2011 2:20 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:TMS wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Gallo is significantly below average for a starter in the NBA though. Does he rebound well? No. Does he create shots for his teammates well? If so, I see no statistical evidence of it. Does he block shots well? No. Does he get a good number of steals? No. The only two things he does better than the average starter are shoot from the perimeter and draw fouls. Although he has good skills in those two areas, he only utilizes those skills well enough to put up 15 PPG. using a stats chart with as many anomalies as this one demonstrates is an idiotic way of judging an NBA player's value to a team. After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
|
|
GodSaveTheKnicks
Posts: 23952 Alba Posts: 21 Joined: 11/21/2006 Member: #1207 USA |
1/14/2011 2:27 PM
TMS wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:TMS wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Gallo is significantly below average for a starter in the NBA though. Does he rebound well? No. Does he create shots for his teammates well? If so, I see no statistical evidence of it. Does he block shots well? No. Does he get a good number of steals? No. The only two things he does better than the average starter are shoot from the perimeter and draw fouls. Although he has good skills in those two areas, he only utilizes those skills well enough to put up 15 PPG. I dunno what this Arturo guy is basing his stat on but scroll up and read what I wrote in response to what you wrote to me. Let's try to elevate the level of discourse in this byeetch. Please
|
|
TMS
Posts: 60684 Alba Posts: 617 Joined: 5/11/2004 Member: #674 USA |
1/14/2011 3:16 PM
GodSaveTheKnicks wrote:TMS wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:TMS wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Gallo is significantly below average for a starter in the NBA though. Does he rebound well? No. Does he create shots for his teammates well? If so, I see no statistical evidence of it. Does he block shots well? No. Does he get a good number of steals? No. The only two things he does better than the average starter are shoot from the perimeter and draw fouls. Although he has good skills in those two areas, he only utilizes those skills well enough to put up 15 PPG. i read it & i don't think comparing Lebron to Carmelo is a fair way to valuate his impact on a team... i don't think anyone ever argued that Melo is on Lebron's level... i said it's ridiculous to use this stat chart as a measure of Melo's value when there are so many other anomalies u can point to that goes against empirical evidence gained from watching these guys play... i dunno if the arturo chart link i posted is the exact same one that Berri used to reach his conclusions, but the 22.3 wins produced figure for Dwight Howard that Berri cited according to the article martin posted seems to correlate on this chart as well. After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
|
|
EwingsGlass
Posts: 27500 Alba Posts: 2 Joined: 4/29/2005 Member: #893 USA |
1/14/2011 4:42 PM LAST EDITED: 1/14/2011 4:45 PM
TMS wrote:GodSaveTheKnicks wrote:Valid point. Obviously win shares are not the greatest tool for comparing players but it might do a decent job in IDing players who are stealthily critical to their teams. Defining a franchise player as someone who contribute 25-30 wins is a bit too high a bar that eliminates everyone except for Lebron and Chris Paul. I disagree slightly. As with any statistic, it is always important to ask "yeah, but what does it really mean". Win Shares on a particular team mean that Player was statistically associated with X wins on that team that won Y games. It is probably a good measurement of who is statistically more valuable to their team than a measurement of who is the better player. For example, on the Knicks Landry Fields is a very good rebounder. But if you put Fields next to David Lee and Reggie Evans, he probably won't get many rebounds, so calculating his rebound rate per 100 opportunities gives you his comparative rebounding skill as against his teammates and makes him the best rebounder on the Knicks, but on other teams, it may be lower. So, when you look at Melo and the Nuggets, the fact that all of the starters are relatively efficient speaks to a cohesive team and explains his lower "Wins Produced". It also means that if you take Chandler or Fields off this team, you need to look at what they do well in comparison to the team they are going to in order to accurately predict their Wins Added. Now look at Melo as an example, despite being on a team with some pretty good big men, Melo is still a pretty decent rebounder and pulls in roughly 20% of the defensive rebounds available when he is on the court and 6.6% of the offensive rebounds. Our SF's are a bit worse than that on this team, which does not have the rebounding presence Denver has. So, if you replaced Chandler and/or Gallo with Melo, I would expect Fields rebounds to decrease, Melo's rebounds to increase and his overall efficiency rating to increase. Then, considering Melo would be playing on the Knicks with an offensive PF that demands help defense, (unlike his current situation where he is double-covered in help defense), I would expect him to get a few more open looks and a few more layups. I would expect his effective field goal percentage to increase. Meanwhile, a Wilson Chandler or Landry Fields on the Nuggets would not get the benefit of defenders doubling in the paint. I would expect their eFGs to decrease. These ratings are completely situational. So here's the nut: Melo is a top player. I think guys like Melo and Amare make the players around them better, even if they are not the ball handlers getting the credit for the assists like Lebron does, or getting the open looks. Maybe a guy like Lebron can do his thing even in double coverage. Not many players can do that. Without disrespect to Chandler, if people think that Chandler would be this good without Amare, I think that looking at Shawn Marion's team changes make an decent example. On Phoenix, with Nash and Amare, he was getting a lot of open looks and had a very high eFG. Mind you, on other teams, he has played with Bosh, Wade and now Dirk. Nonetheless, his eFG has decreased. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mariosh01.html I'm not saying Chandler hasn't improved his 3pt shot or worked on putting the ball on the floor and getting into the paint, but I am saying some of his improvement is attributable to the signings of Felton and Amare, and that it is easier to hit the corner three when Amare is doubled and it is easier to slam the alley oop when Felton is motoring down court. I think that Melo would get a similar tangible benefit. In short, I think his eFG will go up by .50 points as well. You know I gonna spin wit it
|
|
TMS
Posts: 60684 Alba Posts: 617 Joined: 5/11/2004 Member: #674 USA |
1/14/2011 5:02 PM
EwingsGlass wrote:TMS wrote:GodSaveTheKnicks wrote:Valid point. Obviously win shares are not the greatest tool for comparing players but it might do a decent job in IDing players who are stealthily critical to their teams. Defining a franchise player as someone who contribute 25-30 wins is a bit too high a bar that eliminates everyone except for Lebron and Chris Paul. i agree w/everything u just said except for: Win Shares on a particular team mean that Player was statistically associated with X wins on that team that won Y games. It is probably a good measurement of who is statistically more valuable to their team than a measurement of who is the better player. i think your explanations using Landry Fields & Wilson Chandler in comparison to Melo are valid, but the Win Shares statistic just has too many other counter examples that point to its unreliability as a measuring stick to even consider in formulating my opinion of a player's value to his respective team... look at the examples i cited above... how can any reliable sample be taken from these kinds of results to formulate any reasonable valuation of any player? it seems totally arbitrary to me. After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
|