Frank: Yeah – I get very uncomfortable when something requires a “fudge factor” to make the numbers all work out.The position adjustment weirds me out.It’s fine when someone like Hollinger says that yes, PER does underestimate defensive/low-usage players, but Berri and his acolytes are dead set that their formula is right for everything.

The positional adjustment you’re referring to is basically Berri admitting that his formula fails. Somehow, we’re supposed to buy the idea that a rebound from Landry Fields is more valuable than a rebound from Amar’e Stoudemire simply because guards get less rebounds in general compared to big men. It’s pretty laughable on it’s face, and even if you did have some kind of positional adjustment, why on earth would it be by the archaic PG-SG-SF-PF-C model? Does anyone think that Lebron James should be directly compared to Danillo Gallinari? Derrick Rose to Derrick Fisher?

Berri basically admits that different players have different responsibilities, but then goes off a childish model for determining those responsibilities. It’s his total lack of understanding of the game of basketball that leads him to say it’s ok if PG’s score less efficiently and get more turnovers but that there are no interaction effects between players. It turns out PG’s tend to be the team’s shot creator more often than centers do, it’s nothing magical about the PG position. Steve Kerr is a lot closer to Novak on offense than he is to Chris Paul

Frank: I agree with your point sort of but I think you (probably unintentionally) overlook the unmeasured effects a player can have on any offensive possession. Chandler is a GREAT screener and without a doubt creates better shots for others on that basis. The fact that he is such a great roller means that defenses need to crash in on him when he dives, leaving openings in other places.If Novak hits a 3 off a PNR kick-out, Chandler gets none of the credit even though his superior screening ability and his ridiculously awesome finishing ability are in large part responsible for the fact that Novak got an open shot.Similarly, guys like Bonner and Novak space the floor.If Tyson dives the lane and the guy who is supposed to rotate to him on the dive is a step slow because he’s afraid to leave Novakaine in the corner, then that’s an alleyoop and a PPP of 2 for Tyson. But Novak gets no statistical credit for the fact that the threat of his shooting is what made that shot easier for Tyson.

Honestly, there’s character limits to these posts and I can only discuss so much haha. Chandler does have a nice impact with his screening, and I do think he’s a pretty nice offensive player overall. Combined with his incredible defense, I think that makes him a fantastic player. Spacing is also a major component of the game of course, but I think people underestimate how important it is to be able to at least pass off the ball from the perimeter. Novak is a great shooter, but he’s the biggest black hole on the team in that he pretty much either shoots the ball or totally halts the offense while he waits for someone to take it from him. Maybe Kidd is not as good a 3 point shooter, but he’s immensely more effective from the perimeter. Underrated skill when evaluating floor spacers, it’s why Ray Allen and Battier are better than Novak and Korver

Like Pop said (paraphrasing) after the Knicks beat the Spurs, the most consistently accurate stat in determing who won the game is WSTMP (Who scored the most points?) If a team can win the WP battle in an individual game but lose on the scoreboard, i.e. if scoring a game solely on a single metric would lead to different winners and losers than the final score would indicate, then the metric has to be tinkered with until that outcome is an impossibility.

thenamestsam: Once you acknowledge that positions matter, you’ve accepted that a team needs a mix of skills to succeed, which means you’ve accepted interaction effects by definition. End of conversation as far as I can tell.

Yeah – I get very uncomfortable when something requires a “fudge factor” to make the numbers all work out. The position adjustment weirds me out. It’s fine when someone like Hollinger says that yes, PER does underestimate defensive/low-usage players, but Berri and his acolytes are dead set that their formula is right for everything.

massive: I think somebody above noted that the Heat pick and choose when to play hard because of their 24th ranked defensive efficiency. Well, Boston is notorious for taking it easy for the regular season, and they finished 1st in defensive efficiency last year (they’re 23rd this year, but I don’t view them as a contender this year at all). It could just be that the reduction of Joel Anthony’s minutes and Wade’s now average basketball (WP/48 of .100, WS/48 of .103) has made them a worse defensive team.

I don’t think lack of effort is a strategic plan. I just think if you spend all week getting psyched to go against Duncan, Manu and Parker (not to mention game planning them, watching film, etc.) and then one hour before you hear that those guys aren’t even showing up to the arena it HAS to affect you mentally. It’s not like conciously they’re saying “Oh, we’ll mail it in tonight now”, you just think “Oh, this shouldn’t be too hard”. It just snaps you out of your focus. Being up 10 in the first couple minutes would only amplify that effect.

As for Miami’s defense, there are real reasons to be concerned about it, but there are also reasons to think it’s at least partially effort based. Last year they were a very good defense in the regular season, but even then they allowed teams to shoot a lot of 3s at a very high percentage. Then they completely shut that down in the playoffs. This makes sense when you watch them. They crowd the paint and trap a lot to make up for a lack of size, and they rely on athleticism and effort to close out on the shooters that leaves open. That requires a high effort that can sag during the regular season. Once again this year their biggest weakness has been allowing a lot of 3s at a high percentage. If I were a betting man I’d bet they can turn it around when they need to, just like last year.

And do you guys think Miami thought it was a better strategy for them to mail in the game against Pops’ no-name Spurs roster than it is for them to crush SA in 36 minutes and watch from the bench for the 4th quarter? It’s what Mike Woodson’s Knicks would have done (and have been doing against inferior competition all year). I’m not saying that the Heat tried hard, but why aren’t we leaving open the possibility that it was Miami’s plan to get out of that game as fast as possible but simply couldn’t? It sure looked that way when the game started and Miami was up double digits after the first few minutes.

Really nice, thoughtful post. I especially like point #6. While THCJ will defend until his dying breath the viability of Chandler, Faried, Leonard, Fields, Lin as a legit NBA championship contender, I don’t think even he believes your 5 center lineup would take the NBA by storm. Once you acknowledge that positions matter, you’ve accepted that a team needs a mix of skills to succeed, which means you’ve accepted interaction effects by definition. End of conversation as far as I can tell.

On a side note, I’d love to see a wacky college coach roll out this 5 center lineup. I mean nobody thinks it would work, but I’d love to see someone try it, just like I loved reading about the crazy Grinell system that led to that kid scoring 130-whatever points. You’d have a ton of trouble getting the ball up the court, but maybe you have one guy who can do a J-Kidd style back it across half court using his wide body. On offense you have no spacing, but you should be able to volleyball it against the backboard. Tons of O-rebounds. On defense you wouldn’t give up many lay-ups…I’d pay to see someone try it.

ruruland: I should say one good shooter on play side.

ruruland: Sure. He has relatively good hands, but turnovers seem to go up when he’s confined in tighter space, many of those dropped pass turnovers attributed to passer.

He’s a good screener, mobile, with good hands and is a great finisher.all of those things crucial to play working. But without skilled PnR passer and at least a couple good shooter on the play side, it just doesn’t work nearly as well. The efficiency of play would go way down but much of it wouldn’t be reflected in Chandlers stats.

Agreed. It just seemed the argument was trending to “he just takes shots anyone could make” which is not entirely true. Obviously a good pass is easier to convert. A defense that has other things to worry about besides him makes it easier for him as well.

ruruland: Sure. He has relatively good hands, but turnovers seem to go up when he’s confined in tighter space, many of those dropped pass turnovers attributed to passer.

He’s a good screener, mobile, with good hands and is a great finisher.all of those things crucial to play working. But without skilled PnR passer and at least a couple good shooter on the play side, it just doesn’t work nearly as well. The efficiency of play would go way down but much of it wouldn’t be reflected in Chandlers stats.

I should say one good shooter on play side.

Frank: And all with a career low assist rate! Wow assists MUST be a tell-all box-score stat re: someone’s ability to make others better.

Team assist rate is low, too.