Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Knicks Morning News (Sunday, Jan 06 2013)

  • [New York Daily News] Amar’e: Remarks meant to praise Woodson, not knock D’Antoni (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 04:57:17 GMT)
    Amar’e Stoudemire went with the reliable “taken out of contextâ? defense regarding his comments that indicated he was never taught defense before Mike Woodson was promoted to Knicks head coach.

  • [New York Daily News] Melo collects 40 points as Knicks defeat Magic (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 03:25:14 GMT)
    Carmelo Anthony scored 16 of his 40 points in fourth quarter as the Knicks continued their dominance over Eastern Conference teams by defeating the Magic 114-106 on Saturday.

  • [New York Times] N.B.A. Roundup: Rajon Rondo’s Triple-Double Rallies Celtics Over Hawks (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 06:39:22 GMT)
    Rajon Rondo had 14 points, 11 rebounds and 10 assists as the Boston Celtics overcame a 19-point deficit against the Atlanta Hawks.

  • [New York Times] Nets 113, Kings 93: Nets Rout Kings, Continue Revival Under Coach Carlesimo (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 06:39:04 GMT)
    With a 20-point rout of the Kings at Barclays Center, the Nets moved to 5-1 under Coach P. J. Carlesimo and finally appear headed in the right direction.

  • [New York Times] Knicks 114, Magic 106: Anthony’s 40 Points Send Knicks Past Magic (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 06:39:04 GMT)
    Carmelo Anthony accepted Arron Afflalo’s challenge in the final minutes and poured in 40 points â?? 16 in the fourth quarter â?? to help the Knicks improve to 23-10.

  • [New York Times] Clippers Get Club-Record 12th Straight Home Win (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 06:13:32 GMT)
    Chris Paul had 27 points and nine assists, Blake Griffin added 20 points and the Los Angeles Clippers set a franchise record with their 12th straight home victory, 115-89 over the Golden State Warriors on Saturday night.

  • [New York Times] Nuggets Get 26 Points From Gallinari in Win (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:58:46 GMT)
    Kenneth Faried shook off a stomach bug to help the Denver Nuggets shake off a rare home loss.

  • [New York Times] Spurs Smack Sixers to Ride High in the West (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:46:29 GMT)
    Tony Parker and the San Antonio Spurs maintained course with a swagger in their bid for supremacy in the hotly contested Western Conference with a 109-86 rout of the road-weary Philadelphia 76ers on Saturday.

  • [New York Times] Hornets 99-96 in OT Over Mavs in Dirk’s 1st Start (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:19:33 GMT)
    Having Dirk Nowitzki back in the starting lineup was a significant step for the Dallas Mavericks.

  • [New York Times] Lakers Are Finding There Is Nothing Beautiful About Aging Lineup (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:04:47 GMT)
    After Friday’s loss to the Clippers, Kobe Bryant and the Lakers found themselves 10 games behind in the standings to the other team in Los Angeles.

  • [New York Times] Batum, Matthews Lead Blazers Over Wolves (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 04:19:58 GMT)
    Nicolas Batum and Wesley Matthews each made five 3s and scored 26 points to lead the Portland Trail Blazers over the injury-depleted Minnesota Timberwolves 102-97 on Saturday night.

  • [New York Times] Spurs Too Much for 76ers, 109-86 (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 04:13:46 GMT)
    Tony Parker had 20 points, Manu Ginobili scored 19 and the San Antonio Spurs routed the Philadelphia 76ers 109-86 on Saturday night.

  • [New York Times] Spurs Smack Sixers to Ride High in the West (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 03:58:28 GMT)
    Tony Parker and the San Antonio Spurs maintained course in their bid for supremacy in the hotly contested Western Conference with a 109-86 rout of the struggling Philadelphia 76ers on Saturday.

  • [New York Times] Harden Leads Rockets Past Cavaliers 112-104 (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 03:28:34 GMT)
    James Harden scored 29 points, including 16 in the fourth quarter, and the Houston Rockets defeated the Cleveland Cavaliers 112-104 on Saturday night.

  • [New York Times] Subs Help Nets Beats Kings for 3rd Straight Win (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 03:07:37 GMT)
    Brook Lopez scored 18 points in 17 minutes to lead six players in double figures, and the Brooklyn Nets got a nice effort from their reserves in beating the Sacramento Kings 113-93 on Saturday night for their third straight victory.

  • [New York Times] Rondo, Pierce Help Celtics Rally Past Hawks (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 03:01:39 GMT)
    Rajon Rondo had 14 points, 11 rebounds and 10 assists, and the Boston Celtics rallied to beat the Atlanta Hawks 89-81 on Saturday night.

  • [New York Times] Anthony Scores 40, Knicks Down Magic 114-106 (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 02:55:50 GMT)
    Carmelo Anthony scored 16 of his 40 points in the fourth quarter, helping the New York Knicks outlast the Orlando Magic 114-106 on Saturday night.

  • [New York Times] Hibbert Powers Pacers Past Bucks 95-80 (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 02:43:40 GMT)
    Roy Hibbert had 20 points, 15 rebounds and five blocked shots to lead the Indiana Pacers to a 95-80 victory over the Milwaukee Bucks on Saturday night.

  • [New York Times] D’Antoni Says Lakers Need Better Starts, Tighter Defense (Sun, 06 Jan 2013 02:43:31 GMT)
    Faster starts and a much improved defense are sorely needed by the Los Angeles Lakers if the 16-time NBA champions are to resurrect a bitterly disappointing campaign, according to their head coach Mike D’Antoni.

  • 119 comments on “Knicks Morning News (Sunday, Jan 06 2013)

    1. danvt

      I’m really tired of bad first quarters, like everyone else. It can seem arrogant how they don’t seem to exert as much energy as they do later in the game. However, some possible explanations are that, often early parts of games are a feeling out process and players naturally want to conserve energy. Legs are fresh and shots fall. The poorer team can catch a little lightening, especially at home. Often, as in a tennis match, it takes a while to really see who the better player / team is. However, the 36 first half points would have resulted in a loss to a good team, so, we can’t afford it against the C’s tomorrow. Also, in terms of the overall health of the team, this might have been a game where Tyson and Melo could have sat in the fourth quarter. Melo looked like his knee was bothering him a little. Other NBA teams shouldn’t be underestimated and ORL has some good players, particularly Vucevic. They made shots and you tip your hat, but you could see the effort improve on defense once the K’s realized the shots were not going to clank.

      On the positive side defensively, I thought JKidd had a really good game and doesn’t deserve the constant, “he’s to old to guard young pg’s on the perimeter” comments. He consistently went above screens as the game progressed and disrupted P&R’s effectively.

    2. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      The possessions don’t matter as much in the first quarter. We can’t even trust the stats from that quarter because no one’s trying hard.

    3. danvt

      Sometimes in a tennis match, it takes a set or two to distinguish who the better player is. That’s mostly in later rounds of a tournament, however. In the early rounds there can many times be cake walks for the top players. Similarly, if the Knicks are truly a championship contender they’ll prove it more conclusively against non playoff level opponents in the future.

    4. flossy

      Gonna go out on a limb here and guess that we won’t come out flat against Boston at home on Monday…

    5. mokers

      Really great defensive effort by Kidd playing against Nelson all day. You could see Orlando was trying to wear out melo by sending Reddick through a bunch of screens. It actually looked like it was tiring out JJ as he clanked a couple open looks afterwards. JR’s effort continues to be outstanding, but too many dribble step backs. It will be interesting to see how the Celtics guard melo and how the Knicks handle rondo.

    6. Juany8

      I thought the Bulls proved pretty conclusively the last 2 years that all NBA teams don’t play equally hard the whole season. Dallas also won a championship with like the 7th best point differential in the league 2 years ago. Oh well I guess that means Miami must not be that good since they have a worse differential and a very close record to the Knicks.

    7. ruruland

      The Honorable Cock Jowles:
      The possessions don’t matter as much in the first quarter. We can’t even trust the stats from that quarter because no one’s trying hard.

      Real question: How much better would the Knicks be, roughly, if Chandler, Kurt Thomas, Ronnie Brewer, Jason Kidd, and Pablo Prigioni played full 48 minutes?

      Also, why does it seem that Kidd is completely unaware of his own greatness when he says things like, when Dirk and Melo have been out the last couple of years his teams have had to figure out ways to win (and come out no more than .500)?

    8. danvt

      Juany8: Oh well I guess that means Miami must not be that good since they have a worse differential and a very close record to the Knicks.

      So far it seems that Miami has come back to the herd and that’s one of the best arguments that NYK has for a shot at the title. Also, last night we won a game we had to win. This is what you need to do to get good seeding in the playoffs. I’m just saying that if we really are a threat to win it all we’re going to need to roll 7’s and 11’s from here on. Amar’e is going to have to get back to vintage form. Shumpert will need to be the ball hawk we covet with the ability to hit the open look as well. In other words, there’s still room for improvement and genuine hope for it as well. Look at Kidd’s mini triple double last night. If he can be doing what he is, why can’t Amar’e?

    9. Kurt

      About the first article on STAT, Coach Pringles, and D: I think if you read it carefully we can see what seems to be going on under the surface.

      For example, this quote is telling: “According to sources, D’Antoni regularly complained to Stoudemire’s teammates in Phoenix that he needed to make more of a contribution on the defensive end.”

      Obviously D’Antoni cares about defense and has defensive schemes. That is still different from teaching and communicating them effectively. The quote suggests that D’Antoni handled lack of satisfaction with STAT’s D through passive aggressiveness rather than directly communicate with STAT how he can and should be a better defender.

      Later on in the article, STAT talks about Woodson spending lots of time going through game tape with him and clearly explaining what he had been doing wrong and what he should do better.

      Like all coaches, D’Antoni watches lots of game film and spends lots of time on defensive film. That is different from communicating and teaching his players effectively, as well as holding them accountable.

    10. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      ruruland: Also, why does it seem that Kidd is completely unaware of his own greatness when he says things like, when Dirk and Melo have been out the last couple of years his teams have had to figure out ways to win (and come out no more than .500)?

      I don’t know. Why is Ryan Hollins an NBA player?

    11. Z-man

      The Honorable Cock Jowles:
      The possessions don’t matter as much in the first quarter. We can’t even trust the stats from that quarter because no one’s trying hard.

      I, for one, believe that stats in the first quarter generally mean less than they do in the 4th quarter. Basketball is a game of adjustments. The first quarter is a time when players are feeling each other out, coaches are not sure which players are “feeling it” yet, and all but the largest deficits can be overcome. Last night’s game was a perfect example, and we’ve all seen it a million times.

      Obviously, when a team is down by 20 going into the fourth, this isn’t true. But even in those games, it could be argued that whatever happened in the first quarter was less important than what happened in the second or third (perhaps a 20-pt first quarter lead was maintained rather than lost).

      It can also be seen in substitution patterns and shot distribution charts.

      I don’t know how to validate this statistically, but having played and watched the game for 45 years, I feel pretty strongly about this.

    12. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Z-man: I, for one, believe that stats in the first quarter generally mean less than they do in the 4th quarter. Basketball is a game of adjustments. The first quarter is a time when players are feeling each other out, coaches are not sure which players are “feeling it” yet, and all but the largest deficits can be overcome. Last night’s game was a perfect example, and we’ve all seen it a million times.

      Obviously, when a team is down by 20 going into the fourth, this isn’t true. But even in those games, it could be argued that whatever happened in the first quarter was less important than what happened in the second or third (perhaps a 20-pt first quarter lead was maintained rather than lost).

      It can also be seen in substitution patterns and shot distribution charts.

      I don’t know how to validate this statistically, but having played and watched the game for 45 years, I feel pretty strongly about this.

      Sorry, but I don’t respect your supposed authority. For about eighty years, baseball authorities couldn’t even figure out why RBI is a bad stat.

      Do teams make adjustments? Yes. But basketball is a game of habit and muscle-memory. A good shooter is a good shooter in the first quarter, and he’s a good shooter in the final quarter. Players don’t magically learn how to play better after a time-out. This is not biddy league. These are guys who have been shooting the same way for twenty years.

      Unless you can show me some data — any data — that shows a significant difference in output between quarters, I’m ready to dismiss everything you presume as conjecture. Sorry.

    13. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      ruruland:
      Ronnie Brewer is a much better basketball player than Carmelo Anthony, true or false?

      Really? We’re turning this into a ridiculous black-and-white fallacy bullshit argument this quickly?

      Who would win at one-on-one? Or who is better at doing things that make a team win, relative to his positional average?

    14. Juany8

      danvt: So far it seems that Miami has come back to the herd and that’s one of the best arguments that NYK has for a shot at the title.Also, last night we won a game we had to win.This is what you need to do to get good seeding in the playoffs.I’m just saying that if we really are a threat to win it all we’re going to need to roll 7?s and 11?s from here on.Amar’e is going to have to get back to vintage form.Shumpert will need to be the ball hawk we covet with the ability to hit the open look as well.In other words, there’s still room for improvement and genuine hope for it as well.Look at Kidd’s mini triple double last night.If he can be doing what he is, why can’t Amar’e?

      I’ll agree with this, the Knicks are still a long shot to win the title, I’d say they have a 15-20% chance of winning it all, which is actually pretty incredible considering how bad it looked at the beginning of last year.

    15. Juany8

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Sorry, but I don’t respect your supposed authority. For about eighty years, baseball authorities couldn’t even figure out why RBI is a bad stat.

      Do teams make adjustments? Yes. But basketball is a game of habit and muscle-memory. A good shooter is a good shooter in the first quarter, and he’s a good shooter in the final quarter. Players don’t magically learn how to play better after a time-out. This is not biddy league. These are guys who have been shooting the same way for twenty years.

      Unless you can show me some data — any data — that shows a significant difference in output between quarters, I’m ready to dismiss everything you presume as conjecture. Sorry.

      Knicks go from around 25th in the league to 3rd in the league in the fourth quarter in terms of defensive efficiency. Dallas won a title 2 years ago while posting an incredible differential at the end of games and mediocre numbers the rest of the way. But let’s keep pretending you’ve been right about anything this year, I’m going to have a great time looking up all your posts guaranteeing the Nuggets and Wolves would be contenders this year (not to mention better than the Knicks lmao)

    16. JK47

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Really? We’re turning this into a ridiculous black-and-white fallacy bullshit argument this quickly?

      Who would win at one-on-one? Or who is better at doing things that make a team win, relative to his positional average?

      Who is better at doing things that make a team win? It ain’t Ronnie Brewer, that’s for goddamned sure.

    17. jon abbey

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Really? We’re turning this into a ridiculous black-and-white fallacy bullshit argument this quickly?

      Who would win at one-on-one? Or who is better at doing things that make a team win, relative to his positional average?

      either way. Berri’s numbers don’t measure the latter, they measure nothing except a very skewed version of basketball. as I’ve said before, if advanced stats are a step forward, his work is a step backward.

    18. DRed

      jon abbey: either way. Berri’s numbers don’t measure the latter, they measure nothing except a very skewed version of basketball. as I’ve said before, if advanced stats are a step forward, his work is a step backward.

      Because you say so? You may be right, but that’s not much of an argument.

    19. DRed

      JK47: Who is better at doing things that make a team win? It ain’t Ronnie Brewer, that’s for goddamned sure.

      This year Carmelo’s been more valuable than Brewer. Last year, when Carmelo was getting paid 17 million dollars and wasn’t trying on defense because the coach hurt his feelings, he wasn’t.

    20. JK47

      WP48 says Brewer is better than Anthony THIS YEAR, which is completely indefensible. Anybody who thinks Ronnie Brewer has “produced more wins” for this team than Carmelo Anthony does not have his head screwed on straight.

    21. DRed

      JK47:
      WP48 says Brewer is better than Anthony THIS YEAR, which is completely indefensible. Anybody who thinks Ronnie Brewer has “produced more wins” for this team than Carmelo Anthony does not have his head screwed on straight.

      Only if you look at melo as a power forward.

    22. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      “You must be dumb if you think that _____ is better than _______.”

      This is all I’ve read in this thread.

    23. mokers

      The difference between scoring in the 1st quarter and the 4th quarter is that you have 36 minutes to equalize your score if you are behind after the first quarter and 0 minutes to equalize the score if you are behind after four quarters.

      For example, take a home run for a team that is down 2-1 in the first inning and a team that is down 2-1 in the 9th inning. For counting stats and overall value of the player (I’ll use WAR in this example), the results will be the same. That’s why there are things like Win Probability added that adjust for when in the game things take place.

      http://www.fangraphs.com/scoreboard.aspx?date=2012-09-01

      Now, you are making a great argument that the Knicks should make more effort at playing defense early in the game. If the knicks win 100 – 98, scoring 25-25-25-25 is just as good as an outcome as scoring 30-25-25-20. I think you should also realize that the Knicks ability to turn up the intensity in the 4th quarter is a very good quality to have. Being able to score more points towards the end of games as compared to your opponent is a big advantage.

      Furthermore, what makes baseball much more different than basketball is that you can’t pick who is batting in baseball. If you had to pitch to the 1-4 hitters in the last 3 innings of a baseball game, the outcomes would change dramatically. In basketball, good teams that can get scores from their top performers down the stretch are going to make a huge difference in how they are winning games.

    24. jon abbey

      DRed: Because you say so?You may be right, but that’s not much of an argument.

      if debunking an insanely wrong basketball stat system was the main focus of my life, I would produce tens of thousands of words backed up by numbers and maybe that would make you happy. as it is, all you’re getting is the occasional post here, sorry.

      but I can’t say it enough: the best explanation for Dave Berri is that he is doing a study on the gullibility of people to believe any system presented, no matter how obviously wrong it is. the only other possibility is that he really believes the gibberish he spouts, and I don’t think anyone could really be that stupid.

    25. Juany8

      mokers:
      The difference between scoring in the 1st quarter and the 4th quarter is that you have 36 minutes to equalize your score if you are behind after the first quarter and 0 minutes to equalize the score if you are behind after four quarters.

      For example, take a home run for a team that is down 2-1 in the first inning and a team that is down 2-1 in the 9th inning. For counting stats and overall value of the player (I’ll use WAR in this example), the results will be the same. That’s why there are things like Win Probability added that adjust for when in the game things take place.

      http://www.fangraphs.com/scoreboard.aspx?date=2012-09-01

      Now, you are making a great argument that the Knicks should make more effort at playing defense early in the game. If the knicks win 100 – 98, scoring 25-25-25-25 is just as good as an outcome as scoring 30-25-25-20. I think you should also realize that the Knicks ability to turn up the intensity in the 4th quarter is a very good quality to have. Being able to score more points towards the end of games as compared to your opponent is a big advantage.

      Furthermore, what makes baseball much more different than basketball is that you can’t pick who is batting in baseball. If you had to pitch to the 1-4 hitters in the last 3 innings of a baseball game, the outcomes would change dramatically. In basketball, good teams that can get scores from their top performers down the stretch are going to make a huge difference in how they are winning games.

      I’d love to analyze plays by how they change the team’s probability of winning. You would need a lot of play by play data, but it would be fascinating

    26. DRed

      jon abbey: if debunking an insanely wrong basketball stat system was the main focus of my life, I would produce tens of thousands of words backed up by numbers and maybe that would make you happy. as it is, all you’re getting is the occasional post here, sorry.

      but I can’t say it enough: the best explanation for Dave Berri is that he is doing a study on the gullibility of people to believe any system presented, no matter how obviously wrong it is. the only other possibility is that he really believes the gibberish he spouts, and I don’t think anyone could really be that stupid.

      If it’s as wrong as you think it is, it should be pretty easy to show why it’s so flawed. You wouldn’t need tens of thousands of words. Certainly you could come up with something better than “that’s stupid because I say so”.

    27. BigBlueAL

      DRed: Only if you look at melo as a power forward.

      You could look at Melo as a Center or PG and he still would be producing a lot more wins than anything Brewer has done this season.

    28. flossy

      The Honorable Cock Jowles:
      “You must be dumb if you think that _____ is better than _______.”

      This is all I’ve read in this thread.

      You really must be dumb though to think Ronnie Brewer this year has been in any way, shape or form–per minute, overall, one-on-one, five on five, playing any position–than Carmelo Anthony. There is nothing Ronnie Brewer can do or has done that Carmelo Anthony has not been doing way better and in spades this year. You cannot bend over backwards far enough to ever possibly argue otherwise. And I say this as someone who was strongly against trading for Melo and deeply skeptical of him as a player.

    29. Juany8

      DRed: If it’s as wrong as you think it is, it should be pretty easy to show why it’s so flawed.You wouldn’t need tens of thousands of words.Certainly you could come up with something better than “that’s stupid because I say so”.

      It’s stupid because it assumes that defense is entirely a 5 man activity while offense and rebounds are purely individual acts. It’s stupid because it uses the incredibly mediocre and unscientific box score as it’s only source of data, instead of collecting it’s own, more valid information. It’s stupid because it assumes that players should be defined by their role, but then uses the archaic PG-SG-SF-PF-C model and insults attempts to define players by more modern standards. It’s stupid because the best basketball minds in the world, people who spend millions collecting and analyzing data vastly more refined than a simple box score, continuously make decisions that WP would call moronic.

      Most of all, it’s stupid because the person who created it thinks he has a right to personally insult anyone who disagrees with his conclusions. He feels the need to create ridiculous straw men arguments to belittle anyone who doesn’t buy into his very questionable premises. Real science doesn’t need personal insults to defend itself, it stands purely on the merits of the logic behind it.

    30. danvt

      Juany8: I’d say they have a 15-20% chance of winning it all, which is actually pretty incredible considering how bad it looked at the beginning of last year.

      Right, I mean, wow! Right now we have a punchers chance. We have reason to expect that we’ll meet the Heat again in the playoffs and this time in the second round or in the conference finals. Plus, there’s reason to expect improvement. Amar’e taking a charge last night really showed me something.

    31. jon abbey

      DRed: If it’s as wrong as you think it is, it should be pretty easy to show why it’s so flawed.You wouldn’t need tens of thousands of words.Certainly you could come up with something better than “that’s stupid because I say so”.

      I’ve made dozens and dozens of posts about this in varying degrees of detail over the last few years, feel free to hunt for those or just read juany8’s similar conclusions.

      but it’s like trying to argue that the sun revolves around the earth or there’s no such thing as global warming, it’s just fundamentally wrong.

    32. Juany8

      danvt: Right, I mean, wow!Right now we have a punchers chance.We have reason to expect that we’ll meet the Heat again in the playoffs and this time in the second round or in the conference finals.Plus, there’s reason to expect improvement.Amar’e taking a charge last night really showed me something.

      Hopefully this time we don’t be down to our 3rd string players from ridiculous injuries lol. I think it would have been a fun series last year if Shump, Baron, Amar’e, Lin, and Amar’e hadn’t dealt with health issues.

    33. Juany8

      Juany8: Hopefully this time we don’t be down to our 3rd string players from ridiculous injuries lol. I think it would have been a fun series last year if Shump, Baron, Amar’e, Lin, and Amar’e hadn’t dealt with health issues.

      Oops, and Chandler* not Amar’e twice lol

    34. danvt

      Juany8: Oops, and Chandler* not Amar’e twice lol

      True, even though I suffered through those injuries and wished we had the services of those players, I still never really thought we had a chance to make that series close last year, roster health not withstanding. That whole team was never on the court together. So, we never saw all they might have been capable of. I think roster health over the course of the season might have extended that series as well as, of course, Shump not blowing his knee out, Amar’e not punching glass, Tyson not yacking, Baron not blowing his knee out…

    35. DRed

      Juany8: It’s stupid because it assumes that defense is entirely a 5 man activity while offense and rebounds are purely individual acts. It’s stupid because it uses the incredibly mediocre and unscientific box score as it’s only source of data, instead of collecting it’s own, more valid information. It’s stupid because it assumes that players should be defined by their role, but then uses the archaic PG-SG-SF-PF-C model and insults attempts to define players by more modern standards. It’s stupid because the best basketball minds in the world, people who spend millions collecting and analyzing data vastly more refined than a simple box score, continuously make decisions that WP would call moronic.

      Most of all, it’s stupid because the person who created it thinks he has a right to personally insult anyone who disagrees with his conclusions. He feels the need to create ridiculous straw men arguments to belittle anyone who doesn’t buy into his very questionable premises. Real science doesn’t need personal insults to defend itself, it stands purely on the merits of the logic behind it.

      Berri’s model doesn’t assume that rebounds are an individual skill. It observs that rebounding is consistent over time, and therefore it is likely a result of individual skill.

      WP doesn’t properly account for individual defense. Nobody says it does. It’s an acknowledged flaw in the model.

      I’m not sure how WP insults efforts to come up with a more sophisticated definition of position. Can you show me an example?

      It’s true that a model doesn’t need insults to validate it’s results. But if Dave Berri is a dick it doesn’t mean his model isn’t valid. It means he’s a dick.

    36. flossy

      Shumpert could be about 10-14 days away… Hope we can still win with Ronnie Brewer nailed to the bench.

    37. lavor postell

      DRed: Berri’s model doesn’t assume that rebounds are an individual skill.It observs that rebounding is consistent over time, and therefore it is likely a result of individual skill.

      WP doesn’t properly account for individual defense.Nobody says it does.It’s an acknowledged flaw in the model.

      I’m not sure how WP insults efforts to come up with a more sophisticated definition of position.Can you show me an example?

      It’s true that a model doesn’t need insults to validate it’s results.But if Dave Berri is a dick it doesn’t mean his model isn’t valid.It means he’s a dick.

      His model isn’t valid because of the ridiculous assertions that can be drawn from it. Is Landry Fields still on course to be a first ballot Hall Of Famer? The Knicks would be better served giving some of Melo’s minutes to Novak and Brewer.

      I’m sure there is some value in WP and that is in identifying low usage role players, but any metric that tells me Carmelo Anthony is playing at a league average rate right now is a joke.

    38. Juany8

      DRed: Berri’s model doesn’t assume that rebounds are an individual skill.It observs that rebounding is consistent over time, and therefore it is likely a result of individual skill.

      WP doesn’t properly account for individual defense.Nobody says it does.It’s an acknowledged flaw in the model.

      I’m not sure how WP insults efforts to come up with a more sophisticated definition of position.Can you show me an example?

      It’s true that a model doesn’t need insults to validate it’s results.But if Dave Berri is a dick it doesn’t mean his model isn’t valid.It means he’s a dick.

      Simply put, Novak much closer to Steve Kerr offensively than Kevin Durant. Berri acknowledges that you need different skill sets on a floor to play basketball, but the truth is Lebron is much more of a PG than Mario Chalmers. If you’re going to adjust offensive stats to account for a player’s position, why do you reject any attempt to adjust for usage or defensive attention. Why should Harden get more credit for having a 60 TS% than Melo just because he’s a guard? They’re playing the same role!

      If you compare Melo’s offensive efficiency (TS% and turnovers) to other players near his usage historically, he’s having one of the best seasons of all time. He is having a historical offensive season. And yet WP is calling Chandler and Kidd the MVP candidates.

    39. ruruland

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Really? We’re turning this into a ridiculous black-and-white fallacy bullshit argument this quickly?

      Wait, wait, wait. Black and white fallacy?

      Are you implying that the final number WP churns out is open to interpretation? Is that not what us logical folks have been arguing with you about from the beginning?

      Is your reluctance to tell us that, yes, Brewer and Thomas are both better players than Melo this year, revealing in some way?

    40. ruruland

      Juany8: Simply put, Novak much closer to Steve Kerr offensively than Kevin Durant. Berri acknowledges that you need different skill sets on a floor to play basketball,but the truth is Lebron is much more of a PG than Mario Chalmers. If you’re going to adjust offensive stats to account for a player’s position, why do you reject any attempt to adjust for usage or defensive attention. Why should Harden get more credit for having a 60 TS% than Melo just because he’s a guard? They’re playing the same role!

      If you compare Melo’s offensive efficiency (TS% and turnovers) to other players near his usage historically, he’s having one of the best seasons of all time. He is having a historical offensive season. And yet WP is calling Chandler and Kidd the MVP candidates.

      Not only is he having a season and Kidd and Chandler are basically responsible for every Knick win this year, but the metric is telling us that the Knicks would be much better served in Kurt Thomas was taking all of Melo’s minutes.

      In other words, relative to his teammates, Melo is actually hurting his team (as a below league average pf)!!!!!!!!!

    41. ruruland

      DRed: Berri’s model doesn’t assume that rebounds are an individual skill.It observs that rebounding is consistent over time, and therefore it is likely a result of individual skill.

      WP doesn’t properly account for individual defense.Nobody says it does.It’s an acknowledged flaw in the model.

      I’m not sure how WP insults efforts to come up with a more sophisticated definition of position.Can you show me an example?

      It’s true that a model doesn’t need insults to validate it’s results.But if Dave Berri is a dick it doesn’t mean his model isn’t valid.It means he’s a dick.

      You should take note of how Kidd gets many of his rebounds.

      Typically, i’d say on between 1/3 and 1/2 of his defensive rebounds, there are 1-2 teammates in the same area to get the defensive rebound.

      Now, either of those guys could grab the board, but then they’d pass it right to Kidd, wasting a couple of seconds of Kidd scanning the floor.

      Those other players almost always yield that rebound to Kidd.

      Also, when Melo is at power forward, for example, his primary responsibility once the ball is in the air is not collecting the rebound, it’s to block out his larger opponent so a teammate can swoop in without getting contested.

      Blocking out the bigger defender is a big part of getting the rebound, more important, I’d argue, than one of the guards actually collecting it.

      Melo’s Dreb% is down as a pf, that’s why.

    42. jon abbey

      any time debating Berri’s numbers is time that could be much better used for better understanding basketball. Berri’s work is a step backwards for the world in this regards, the opposite of “advanced statistics”.

    43. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      ruruland: Typically, i’d say on between 1/3 and 1/2 of his defensive rebounds, there are 1-2 teammates in the same area to get the defensive rebound.
      Now, either of those guys could grab the board, but then they’d pass it right to Kidd, wasting a couple of seconds of Kidd scanning the floor.

      Why has Kidd been an exceptional rebounder over the course of his career? Why haven’t other PGs benefited from this?

      And why don’t you acknowledge that the WP model accounts for diminishing returns on DRB?

    44. thenoblefacehumper

      I’ve asked this before but never really received a response. To anyone in the dedicated Berri camp, did you get started as a baseball fan? I really don’t mean it brashly or offensively, because it applied to me for a while. I got into baseball before I got into basketball, so I got into advanced stats in baseball (WAR, FIP, BABIP, etc.). I use them actively in my analysis and they make sense. So when I got into basketball, I thought the same thing applied. I was firmly in the Berri camp…until basic common sense told me other wise. I mean, do you really not believe that good PG play gets certain players more good looks than they would have without it, consequently making their numbers better?
      Mike Trout would be a 10 WAR player on any team, there just aren’t any interaction effects in baseball. But could a team of 12 Novaks really get the necessary looks to maintain his 3pt%? That just makes no sense.

    45. thenoblefacehumper

      The Honorable Cock Jowles:
      “You must be dumb if you think that _____ is better than _______.”

      This is all I’ve read in this thread.

      I agree that this is a bad way to go about the argument. I hate it when anti-SABR people are like “there’s no way Zobrist is better than Hamilton!!!!!” The funny thing is Fangraphs and other advanced Baseball stat outlets are much more willing to admit that their system isn’t perfect than Berri is. Every SABR person in the world would say that the best way to vote for the MVP isn’t to just pick the WAR leader, but rather to look at the top 5-10 and make an educated decision. This is despite the fact that advanced baseball stats are way further along than Berri and co., who aren’t really onto anything.

    46. ruruland

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Why has Kidd been an exceptional rebounder over the course of his career? Why haven’t other PGs benefited from this?

      And why don’t you acknowledge that the WP model accounts for diminishing returns on DRB?

      Kidd is a good point guard rebounder because of the contested rebounds he gets against smaller players, and those loose ball rebounds he anticipates.

      I don’t think there are any point guards who are as aggressive going for the ball as Kidd is, even when it’s between he and teammates.

      I think Kidd’s defensive rebounding is a positive, to be sure, but that he grabs far more of the team rebounds than his teammates. Defensive rebounds have the same marginal value at each rebound according to the formula I’m looking at. Can you show me were I’m wrong?

      That seems to overinflate his value given positional adjustments. (Kidd does things far better than many point guards and far worse than many point guards, but the things he does worse are not accounted for).

    47. Nick C.

      Kidd getting the foul line extended rebounds back when he was in NJ typically meannt an instant fast break. Had he conceded them to, say Jason Collins, I doubt the resulting possession would have been more effective. What that says about individuals rebounds I don’t quite know other than the long rebounds are probably better off in the hands of someone that can move the ball up the court.

    48. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      thenoblefacehumper: I’ve asked this before but never really received a response. To anyone in the dedicated Berri camp, did you get started as a baseball fan? I really don’t mean it brashly or offensively, because it applied to me for a while

      Yes. I’ve been a basketball fan for a long time, but my introduction to advanced stats began with Moneyball.

    49. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      thenoblefacehumper: ut could a team of 12 Novaks really get the necessary looks to maintain his 3pt%? That just makes no sense.

      No one who supports WP suggests that this is the case. There are positional adjustments in the formula, which is an admission that player output is dependent on player role. The model supports the idea that possession efficiency and possession creation are the two most important things in the game, hence why players who get offensive rebounds are so important to a winning basketball team. Marginal improvements at each position add up to a huge difference in scoring; if a team reduces its turnovers at each position by 0.5 per 48, it can expect to score approximately 2.5 more points over the course of a game. That’s the difference between a playoff team and a lottery team, in many cases. I absolutely believe that there are interaction effects in basketball, but I don’t think they’re as significant (especially in statistics that don’t change much from year to year, like rebounds and assists) as most of the posters on this board. The data suggest to me that players are largely responsible for their own production.

    50. jon abbey

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: why players who get offensive rebounds are so important to a winning basketball team.

      but we’ve seen that this obviously isn’t true, I’m not sure why anyone still insists on it. some of the best teams don’t even try for offensive rebounds (BOS, OKC), someone like Reggie Evans has been on five teams in the last seven years (and please spare me the “no one understands this but Berri” response), etc, etc. it’s not a systematic undervaluing by GMs of the PFs that Berri’s system wildly overvalues, it’s Berri’s system being fundamentally flawed.

    51. Nick C.

      Jon I get that some teams don’t crash the boards as a strategic choice, preferring to get back on defense. But how can you argue about the value of certain missed shots and then deride the offensive rebounnd?

    52. jon abbey

      Nick C.:
      Jon I get that some teams don’t crash the boards as a strategic choice,preferring to get back on defense. But how can you argue about the value of certain missed shots and then deride the offensive rebounnd?

      I’m not deriding the offensive rebound, obviously some of them are extremely valuable, some are mildly valuable, and some are pretty much worthless or at least should be registered in a different way (the ones off one’s own missed shot). as with most basketball stats, nuance is what’s missing.

      but Boston’s example in recent years has shown that they’re much less crucial than Berri thinks. last year they had the worst offensive rebounding team in history (largely by design) and came very close to making the Finals.

      also, I think attributing stats to individuals ends up with some major attribution errors, as I’ve argued here repeatedly with Chandler/Felton, as one example. as ruru said above, quite often the crucial play is the blockout of the other team’s big man, not the actual rebound.

    53. jon abbey

      Nick C.:
      That’s the crux of the problem with the individual rating stats isn’t it?

      one of them, I think the three main problems are:

      1) correctly attributing what happens to which players. for instance, turnovers are always (usually?) charged to one person, and often I think it’s the other player’s fault or at least a combination of the two.

      2) giving credit for opening up chances for teammates, whether it be drawing double teams, setting great screens, whatever.

      these are both exceedingly difficult to pin down, and I don’t really blame any current system for not fully incorporating them. but my main issue with Berri is:

      3) weighing the numbers we do have correctly, not wildly overrating offensive boards, not penalizing shooters so much for shooting “inefficiently”, etc, etc. and on the flip side, penalizing guys when they are deficient in an area. for example, without looking it up, Jason Kidd has something like 15 made 2 point FGs all season, he is zero threat if you run him off the three point line. that hurts an offense, no matter what else he contributes.

    54. BigBlueAL

      To add to one of Jon’s points, NBA box scores are at times a bit bizarre. As a fantasy sports freak you wont believe how many times Im watching a player on my team and see that he clearly got a steal or block and is not credited with it. Rebounds also are at times credited oddly. There are times when I go back and check the box score play-by-play and am stunned on what stats had been credited to certain players.

    55. Bruno Almeida

      I think there’s got to be a middle ground to think about this kind of stuff.

      I won’t throw away advanced stats simply because they sometimes show stuff that the normal eye can’t see… I watch more Pistons games than most rational human beings, and I had no idea he had like 21% of TRB%, so I’m glad that there are stats that show me that.

      but no, I won’t agree that Drummond is a better player or is more valuable than LeBron James.

      the way I see it, the best way to look at those stats is to consider the player’s role on his specific team… Drummond might be incredibly valuable on the role he plays, but there are no sure indications that he would be equally good playing 37 minutes per game.

      there are players that are able to make this jump, from being incredibly efficient statwise on a somewhat limited role, and still being really good as the star on a team (think James Harden or Steve Nash), but it’s not set in stone.

      by the way, Harden is a good example why we shouldn’t totally discard advanced stats… many people (and a lot of them in this forum, I remember) said that he wasn’t that good, that his numbers were a result of being the 3rd guy… and well, his numbers are still incredible even with a much higher usage rate.

    56. Nick C.

      What about sorting or comparing players based on usage? Low usage centers like Tyson and Brendan Haywood, high usage 2G like JR and Jordan Crawford, low usage SW like Brewer, Tony Allen and so on.

    57. johnlocke

      My two cents: Advanced statistics are a useful tool – like any piece of data (although some formulas are more defensible than others) that needs to be combined with other information and experience to draw meaningful conclusions. With respect to WP I have to agree with most of Jon Abbey’s points, particularly the idea that your stated position (pg, sg, etc) actually means very much in today’s NBA. What Melo does on the offensive end on a basketball court is much more similar to a Kobe Bryant than a Lamar Aldridge. And finally, as Bruno points out, the quantity of output or number of times you do something (production) cannot be disentangled from the percentage of time you do something (efficiency), when measuring the value of a player.

    58. ruruland

      BigBlueAL:
      To add to one of Jon’s points, NBA box scores are at times a bit bizarre.As a fantasy sports freak you wont believe how many times Im watching a player on my team and see that he clearly got a steal or block and is not credited with it.Rebounds also are at times credited oddly.There are times when I go back and check the box score play-by-play and am stunned on what stats had been credited to certain players.

      Right, in the Spurs game Melo was credited for a missed shot that Chandler too.

    59. johnlocke

      Usage is a proxy for role on the team. The question is if you increase usage will the efficiency stay the same or increase. Typically, though not always, there is a reason that a low usage player is low usage – they have a narrow, defined skill-set (relative to the skill-set of the other players on their team) – rebounding, shooting the three ball, defending – that it makes it difficult to increase their usage without the players changing their games significantly (i.e. Chandler shooting more 10-15 foot jump shots).

      Nick C.:
      What about sorting or comparing players based on usage? Low usage centers like Tyson and Brendan Haywood, high usage 2G like JR and Jordan Crawford, low usage SW like Brewer, Tony Allen and so on.

    60. ruruland

      johnlocke:
      Usage is a proxy for role on the team. The question is if you increase usage will the efficiency stay the same or increase. Typically, though not always, there is a reason that a low usage player is low usage – they have a narrow, defined skill-set (relative to the skill-set of the other players on their team) – rebounding, shooting the three ball, defending – that it makes it difficult to increase their usage without the players changing their games significantly (i.e. Chandler shooting more 10-15 foot jump shots).

      Right, players don’t use possessions, teams use them. Players take and make opportunities.

    61. Bruno Almeida

      johnlocke:
      My two cents: Advanced statistics are a useful tool – like any piece of data (although some formulas are more defensible than others) that needs to be combined with other information and experience to draw meaningful conclusions.With respect to WP I have to agree with most of Jon Abbey’s points, particularly the idea that your stated position (pg, sg, etc) actually means very much in today’s NBA.What Melo does on the offensive end on a basketball court is much more similar to a Kobe Bryant than a Lamar Aldridge. And finally, as Bruno points out, the quantity of output or number of times you do something (production) cannot be disentangled from the percentage of time you do something (efficiency), when measuring the value of a player.

      yes, that’s a fine point… simply comparing positions is not enough, you have to compare roles… Novak is supposedly a SF/PF, but his role is much more similar to Kyle Korver than Michael Kidd-Gilchrist…

      I used to think WP was a very useful tool, but I’m seeing way too many inconsistencies that bother me about it… anyway, I like seeing those lists, because if a player has a huge WP at least that’s an indication that he’s doing something, at least one thing, at an elite level on a basketball court.

    62. ruruland

      Bruno Almeida: yes, that’s a fine point… simply comparing positions is not enough, you have to compare roles… Novak is supposedly a SF/PF, but his role is much more similar to Kyle Korver than Michael Kidd-Gilchrist…

      I used to think WP was a very useful tool, but I’m seeing way too many inconsistencies that bother me about it… anyway, I like seeing those lists, because if a player has a huge WP at least that’s an indication that he’s doing something, at least one thing, at an elite level on a basketball court.

      this is very fair. Glad to see you coming around.

    63. Bruno Almeida

      ruruland: this is very fair. Glad to see you coming around.

      I was never a big fan of WP, I used it because I didn’t see any other stat that was at least marginally useful (like PER, which is awful imo).

      but I still think that the eye test alone is not enough to properly gauge contributions on a basketball court, I do believe it is possible to use both subjective analysis and analytical data to do it… maybe Synergy and other tools are the way to go, I can’t say for sure, and I don’t have enough time to dedicate to that.

    64. ruruland

      johnlocke:
      And finally, as Bruno points out, the quantity of output or number of times you do something (production) cannot be disentangled from the percentage of time you do something (efficiency), when measuring the value of a player.

      You mean the production cannot be disentangled from the efficiency? I’m missing something in the semantics.

    65. Nick C.

      ruruland: Right, players don’t use possessions, teams use them. Players take and make opportunities.

      true, but it comes off as if you are glorifying those that take/ make more and if taken too far you get the Isaiah Knicks.

    66. ruruland

      Bruno Almeida: I was never a big fan of WP, I used it because I didn’t see any other stat that was at least marginally useful (like PER, which is awful imo).

      but I still think that the eye test alone is not enough to properly gauge contributions on a basketball court, I do believe it is possible to use both subjective analysis and analytical data to do it… maybe Synergy and other tools are the way to go, I can’t say for sure, and I don’t have enough time to dedicate to that.

      Right, neither Juany, me or anyone else, even Abbey (I don’t think) have argued that the eye test is the one and only way to go way.

      that’s never been our point. I think WP is edifying in a number of ways.

    67. ruruland

      Nick C.: true, but it comes off as if you are glorifying those that take/ make more and if taken too far you get the Isaiah Knicks.

      Agreed.

      Every situation is context-dependent. Also, there are negative actions on each play that don’t get recorded by the statistics.

      Namely, a player who is strategically left open by the defense in an area of the court where most players who play his position (or role) are adequate enough, or have the requisite skills, to make the normal play, even if that play is a below average efficiency play.

      Many possessions are an opportunity decision between a low efficiency play and an even lower efficiency play.

      The players who take the high inefficiency plays — saving their less capable teammates of even lower efficiency plays — are penalized for those skills, while the non-skill players (negative skills) are not.

    68. Bruno Almeida

      ruruland: Right, neither Juany, me or anyone else, even Abbey (I don’t think) have argued that the eye test is the one and only way to go way.

      that’s never been our point. I think WP is edifying in a number of ways.

      I know, I wasn’t saying that.

      my problem with you guys is the way you say it: the whole “you’re incredibly dumb if you can’t understand that ______”

      for example, you were right about Melo, he really had it in him to become a better two-way player and passer… however, I thought Felton was a disaster and he’s had a terrible stretch of games that show exactly why I was worried about having him as the starting PG.

    69. Nick C.

      I would think it may be useful to compare your tall 3 PT shooters or low usage PGs or whatever to each other so you could argue Ryan Anderson is better than Korver or Bonner or Novak because he rebounds better and they are better than Bargnani who shoots worse. But as I type this I don’t know you need a convoluted formula for that.

    70. Bruno Almeida

      Nick C.:
      I would think it may be useful to compare your tall 3 PT shooters or low usage PGs or whatever to each other so you could argue Ryan Anderson is better than Korver or Bonner or Novak because he rebounds better and they are better than Bargnani who shoots worse.But as I type this I don’t know you need a convoluted formula for that.

      the problem with this approach is that many players have overlapping skills… for example, is Dirk Nowitzki comparable to those “tall 3 point shooters”?

    71. Nick C.

      I’ll sign on to that. Back in the day I would get pissed at Gallo for not taking a shot because realistically an imperfect look for him was still better than letting the other guys shoot.

      ruruland: Agreed.

      Every situation is context-dependent. Also, there are negative actions on each play that don’t get recorded by the statistics.

      Namely, a player who is strategically left open by the defense in an area of the court where most players who play his position (or role) are adequate enough, or have the requisite skills, to make the normal play, even if that play is a below average efficiency play.

      Many possessions are an opportunity decision between a low efficiency play and an even lower efficiency play.

      The players who take the high inefficiency plays — saving their less capable teammates of even lower efficiency plays — are penalized for those skills, while the non-skill players (negative skills) are not.

    72. Nick C.

      You got me there. You could also sort by usage. But it was more like you shouldn’t compare Brewer to JR just because they are both SW.

      Bruno Almeida: the problem with this approach is that many players have overlapping skills… for example, is Dirk Nowitzki comparable to those “tall 3 point shooters”?

    73. ruruland

      Tyson Chandler vs Tim Duncan

      Chandler shoots 74% at the rim on 5.8 attempts, 70.9 % assisted.
      http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Tyson%20Chandler

      Duncan shoots 73.4% at the rim on 4.8 attempts, 64.7 % assisted
      http://hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Tim%20Duncan

      This year, Duncan has a higher reb %, much higher assist %, higher steal %, a MUCH higher block %, a lower tunrover %, a higher +/- and plays on a team with a higher point differential …..

      http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chandty01.html

      http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01/on-off/2013/

      By all measures, Duncan is doing everything better than Chandler this year, and in many categories, by a huge margin.

      Yet, Chandler has a .333 WP/48 and Duncan a .263 WP/48.

      Duncan, playing on the best offense in the NBA, is severely punished for the 8 extra shots he takes that Chandler doesn’t take.

      The funniest part of all this: Duncan shoots those 8 shots at higher than normal efficiency compared to the average pf/center.

      Duncan, according to WP, isn’t near the player Chandler is despite doing everything better than Chandler, because Duncan takes shots that are actually good for the offense.

      That is insane.

    74. Bruno Almeida

      Nick C.:
      You got me there. You could also sort by usage. But it was more like you shouldn’t compare Brewer to JR just because they are both SW.

      it would be a useful tool to compare similar players, though, but then someone would have to decide on a number of cathegories, slot each player (when it is possible) in the cathegories and sort the data for each one… somebody might have the time to do that, but I dunno how effective that would be.

    75. Bruno Almeida

      ruruland:
      Tyson Chandler vs Tim Duncan

      Chandler shoots 74% at the rim on 5.8 attempts, 70.9 % assisted.
      http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Tyson%20Chandler

      Duncan shoots73.4% at the rim on 4.8 attempts, 64.7 % assisted
      http://hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Tim%20Duncan

      This year, Duncan has a higher reb %, much higher assist %, higher steal %, a MUCH higher block %,a lower tunrover %, a higher +/- and plays on a team with a higher point differential …..

      http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chandty01.html

      http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01/on-off/2013/

      By all measures, Duncan is doing everything better than Chandler this year, and in many categories, by a huge margin.

      Yet, Chandler has a .333 WP/48 and Duncan a .263 WP/48.

      Duncan, playing on the best offense in the NBA, is severely punished for the 8 extra shots he takes that Chandler doesn’t take.

      The funniest part of all this: Duncan shoots those 8 shots at higher than normal efficiency compared to the average pf/center.

      Duncan, according to WP, isn’t near the player Chandler is despite doing everything better than Chandler, because Duncan takes shots that are actually good for the offense.

      That is insane.

      well, there you got exhibit A of the shortcomings of WP, that’s a fact.

    76. ruruland

      Nick C.:
      I’ll sign on to that. Back in the day I would get pissed at Gallo for not taking a shot because realistically an imperfect look for him was still better than letting the other guys shoot.

      right, and so naturally, a player with a really high usage is going to take a bunch of opportunities his teammates either pass up or are incapable of taking.

      The players who don’t take those shots are ultimately rewarded, the high usage players that take them are punished.

      There are situations where high usage players are taking unnecessary shots in the context of the teammates skills (see Kobe), but that is part of why, for example Carmelo’s year is so amazing.

      For most of the time Melo is on the floor he isn’t playing alongside a shot-creator or usage player who will take some of those more difficult, but necessary shots, let alone another player who will create attention (though Felton in the pnr had this effect the first 10-15 games before teams decided to make Felton shoot)

      Durant has Westbrook to take a bunch of those possessions and draw the defense. Kobe has a bunch of guys if he chooses to use them et al.

    77. johnlocke

      Which is why it makes more sense to compare players based on usage as that is a much better proxy for role on the team than their position – esp in terms of FGA and shooting %. Chandler is ranked #281 in usage rate in the NBA this season (13.0), Tim Duncan is #7 (23.8)

      ruruland:
      Tyson Chandler vs Tim Duncan

      Chandler shoots 74% at the rim on 5.8 attempts, 70.9 % assisted.
      http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Tyson%20Chandler

      Duncan shoots73.4% at the rim on 4.8 attempts, 64.7 % assisted
      http://hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Tim%20Duncan

      This year, Duncan has a higher reb %, much higher assist %, higher steal %, a MUCH higher block %,a lower tunrover %, a higher +/- and plays on a team with a higher point differential …..

      http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chandty01.html

      http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01/on-off/2013/

      By all measures, Duncan is doing everything better than Chandler this year, and in many categories, by a huge margin.

      Yet, Chandler has a .333 WP/48 and Duncan a .263 WP/48.

      Duncan, playing on the best offense in the NBA, is severely punished for the 8 extra shots he takes that Chandler doesn’t take.

      The funniest part of all this: Duncan shoots those 8 shots at higher than normal efficiency compared to the average pf/center.

      Duncan, according to WP, isn’t near the player Chandler is despite doing everything better than Chandler, because Duncan takes shots that are actually good for the offense.

      That is…

    78. ruruland

      I agree John, it’s just that there are very few players to compare at the very high usage areas, and it’s still hard to determine just how beneficial high usage players are (though I think most of the time they can be leveraged by surrounding personnel into being maybe the most valuable commodity in the game).

      There are very few high usage players (Nick Young), who aren’t extremely talented and demand extra defensive attention. You become high usage and stay high usage in virtually all cases, because you have more to offer the team on offense than most of your teammates, not because player x decided he wants to shoot more than anyone else.

    79. ruruland

      Bruno Almeida: I know, I wasn’t saying that.

      my problem with you guys is the way you say it: the whole “you’re incredibly dumb if you can’t understand that ______”

      for example, you were right about Melo, he really had it in him to become a better two-way player and passer… however, I thought Felton was a disaster and he’s had a terrible stretch of games that show exactly why I was worried about having him as the starting PG.

      Felton had a .510 TS and a 108 ORTG prior to the second hand injury he suffered against Miami.

      I think injuries played a big part in Kobe and Melo’s offensive struggles last season. I think wrist surgery changed Gallo’s shot. These kinds of things happen to players that either temporarily depresses their numbers or alters their career trajectory.

      With Felton, given the way the floor was being spread and Chandler’s great screening (another thing that stats don’t account for and is a big part of shot-creation) I think he was getting better looks than he had throughout his career….

      I still think that when he’s healthy he’s a great fit in the offense. Even while shooting through injuries he maintained a great +/-, which shows the value of him turning the corner on pnr.

      With Melo, the 3pt element has changed his statistical efficiency (it’s also reduced the percentage of high-contested long 2s he takes), but for much of the career he’s been a good/willing passer that makes his offense/team much better.

      A WCF offense was built around his isolations/post-ups.

      Defensively, he’s always been basically passable and he’ll give you 3-5 minute spurts where he is really good.

      He’s certainly had better defensive stretches than this.

    80. johnlocke

      Totally agree. Which is why I think the Player X is better than Player Y based on WP or any one rolled up metric gets tough to defend – it ignores the role a player plays for his respective team and/or assumes that increasing usage will have no negative impact on that players’ efficiency. You could still have bands of usage that are close enough together to compare (Top 15%, 30%, etc). But overall I don’t think WP is very helpful in definitively saying Player A is better than Player B – i do think though that its useful in highlighting what low usage players are bringing to the game that is tougher to see with the naked eye (e.g., Camby or Reggie Evans’ rebound rate)

      ruruland:
      I agree John, it’s just that there are very few players to compare at the very high usage areas, and it’s still hard to determine just how beneficial high usage players are (though I think most of the time they can be leveraged by surrounding personnel into being maybe the most valuable commodity in the game).

      There are very few high usage players (Nick Young), who aren’t extremely talented and demand extra defensive attention. You become high usage and stay high usage in virtually all cases, because you have more to offer the team on offense than most of your teammates, not because player x decided he wants to shoot more than anyone else.

    81. Bruno Almeida

      well, that’s my problem, the defense… his defense in the last few games (yes, after the injury specially) was terrible…

      I don’t doubt the injury made him worse, but my problem with him is shot selection…

      if you know you’ve got a bad hand, and you’ve never been a good shooter in your whole life, then stop shooting…

      .510 TS% is still terrible, “studs” like Derek Fisher, C.J Watson, JJ Barea, Jeff Teague, Royal Ivey, even Prigioni and Lin, who are considered “terrible” shooters are better for the season than that.

      I know he has to take open shots to get the offense running better, but his shooting has been abysmal, unacceptable… Jameer Nelson could do what he does on the pick and roll and still be a much better shooter (he’s at .535 TS% with a much worse team, which could mean that he’s had less open looks than Felton).

    82. ruruland

      johnlocke:
      Totally agree. Which is why I think the Player X is better than Player Y based on WP or any one rolled up metric gets tough to defend – it ignores the role a player plays for his respective team and/or assumes that increasing usage will have no negative impact on that players’ efficiency. You could still have bands of usage that are close enough together to compare (Top 15%, 30%, etc). But overall I don’t think WP is very helpful in definitively saying Player A is better than Player B – i do think though that its useful in highlighting what low usage players are bringing to the game that is tougher to see with the naked eye (e.g., Camby or Reggie Evans’ rebound rate)

      def. agree.

    83. ruruland

      Bruno Almeida:
      well, that’s my problem, the defense… his defense in the last few games (yes, after the injury specially) was terrible…

      I don’t doubt the injury made him worse, but my problem with him is shot selection…

      if you know you’ve got a bad hand, and you’ve never been a good shooter in your whole life, then stop shooting…

      .510 TS% is still terrible, “studs” like Derek Fisher, C.J Watson, JJ Barea, Jeff Teague, Royal Ivey, even Prigioni and Lin, who are considered “terrible” shooters are better for the season than that.

      I know he has to take open shots to get the offense running better, but his shooting has been abysmal, unacceptable… Jameer Nelson could do what he does on the pick and roll and still be a much better shooter (he’s at .535 TS% with a much worse team, which could mean that he’s had less open looks than Felton).

      Yeah, Nelson is a better player. he’s pretty good.

    84. Bruno Almeida

      johnlocke:
      Totally agree. Which is why I think the Player X is better than Player Y based on WP or any one rolled up metric gets tough to defend – it ignores the role a player plays for his respective team and/or assumes that increasing usage will have no negative impact on that players’ efficiency. You could still have bands of usage that are close enough together to compare (Top 15%, 30%, etc). But overall I don’t think WP is very helpful in definitively saying Player A is better than Player B – i do think though that its useful in highlighting what low usage players are bringing to the game that is tougher to see with the naked eye (e.g., Camby or Reggie Evans’ rebound rate)

      that’s perfect, I agree 100%.

    85. lavor postell

      Meanwhile Denver getting whatever they want against the Lakers. I’ve seen at least 3 sets where Gasol is standing behind the 3 point line at the wing. Criminally bad coaching when you have two of the best post up players in the league.

    86. DRed

      ruruland:
      Tyson Chandler vs Tim Duncan

      Chandler shoots 74% at the rim on 5.8 attempts, 70.9 % assisted

      Duncan shoots73.4% at the rim on 4.8 attempts, 64.7 % assisted

      This year, Duncan has a higher reb %, much higher assist %, higher steal %, a MUCH higher block %,a lower tunrover %, a higher +/- and plays on a team with a higher point differential …..

      By all measures, Duncan is doing everything better than Chandler this year, and in many categories, by a huge margin.

      Yet, Chandler has a .333 WP/48 and Duncan a .263 WP/48.

      Duncan, playing on the best offense in the NBA, is severely punished for the 8 extra shots he takes that Chandler doesn’t take.

      The funniest part of all this: Duncan shoots those 8 shots at higher than normal efficiency compared to the average pf/center.

      Duncan, according to WP, isn’t near the player Chandler is despite doing everything better than Chandler, because Duncan takes shots that are actually good for the offense.

      That is insane.

      Tyson’s TS% is 18 points higher than Duncan’s. He gets double the offensive rebounds. It’s not insane to think Tyson is more valuable than Duncan.

    87. jon abbey

      Nick C.: true, but it comes off as if you are glorifying those that take/ make more and if taken too far you get the Isaiah Knicks.

      I lived through those years like everyone else, but it is worth noting that those teams had Z-Bo, David Lee and Jamal Crawford, all of whom have been really productive ever since. if he’d just taken Rondo instead of Balkman (he went one pick later and many argued for it at the time), were we maybe not as far away as we thought?

    88. DRed

      jon abbey:

      but Boston’s example in recent years has shown that they’re much less crucial than Berri thinks. last year they had the worst offensive rebounding team in history (largely by design) and came very close to making the Finals.

      In baseball I think we’d all agree that homeruns are valuable. But you can have a team that’s bad at hitting homeruns that’s still a good baseball team. Just because a team that’s bad at one part of basketball did well doesn’t mean that part isn’t valuable. It jsut means they were good at other things.

    89. ruruland

      DRed: Tyson’s TS% is 18 points higher than Duncan’s. He gets double the offensive rebounds.It’s not insane to think Tyson is more valuable than Duncan.

      Yes, he does have more offensive rebounds, but Duncan has a higher defensive rebound rate and overall rebound rate.

      Duncan is better in every major statistical category — to%, reb%, block %, ast %, steal %,…..

      The whole point of the post was about ts%. How did you miss that?

      The biggest reason Duncan has a lower wp/48 is because he takes more shots that help his offense.

      Also, the Spurs have always valued transition defense over offensive rebounding.

      The Knicks are one of the worst transition defenses at least in part because Chandler is always one of the last players back.

    90. DRed

      ruruland: Yes, he does have more offensive rebounds, but Duncan has a higher defensive rebound rate and overall rebound rate.

      Duncan is better in every major statistical category — to%, reb%, block %, ast %, steal %,…..

      The whole point of the post was about ts%. How did you miss that?

      The biggest reason Duncan has a lower wp/48 is because he takes more shots that help his offense.

      Also, the Spurs have always valued transition defense over offensive rebounding.

      The Knicks are one of the worst transition defenses at least in part because Chandler is always one of the last players back.

      Duncan’s a great player. He might be more valuable than Tyson. But it’s not insane to think that Chandler’s more valuable than Duncan. Claiming that WP penalizes a player for taking and making shots at a higher than average efficiency is straight up wrong. I don’t know why you think it does.

      Duncan used to average over 3 offensive rebounds a game. His numbers are lower now because he’s old, not because the Spurs have always valued transition defense over offensive rebounding.

    91. lavor postell

      jon abbey: I lived through those years like everyone else, but it is worth noting that those teams had Z-Bo, David Lee and Jamal Crawford, all of whom have been really productive ever since. if he’d just taken Rondo instead of Balkman (he went one pick later and many argued for it at the time), were we maybe not as far away as we thought?

      The biggest mistake during the Isiah era was the trade for Curry. We signed him to a fat contract and essentially gave them Joakim Noah by swapping picks in 2008. The Bulls blew the 2006 No. 2 pick by drafting Aldridge and sending him to Portland for Tyrus Thomas and Viktor Khryapa. We ended up picking Wilson Chandler.

      I was definitely hoping that the Knicks would take Rondo at 21 and when they picked Balkman I was furious. So maybe in an alternate universe the Knicks are still a damn good team, but built around Randolph, Lee, Noah, Aldridge and Rondo.

    92. ruruland

      DRed: Duncan’s a great player.He might be more valuable than Tyson.But it’s not insane to think that Chandler’s more valuable than Duncan.Claiming that WP penalizes a player for taking and making shots at a higher than average efficiency is straight up wrong.I don’t know why you think it does.

      Duncan used to average over 3 offensive rebounds a game.His numbers are lower now because he’s old, not because the Spurs have always valued transition defense over offensive rebounding.

      shots are not possessions employed. wtf?

    93. ruruland

      ruruland: shots are not possessions employed. wtf?

      lso, those shots aren’t higher than average efficiency, but they are good for the offense.

    94. DRed

      ruruland: lso, those shots aren’t higher than average efficiency, but they are good for the offense.

      Maybe. Me, I think taking efficient shots is good for the offense. You say that it’s insane to think Tyson Chandler is more effictive than Tim Duncan because Duncan takes more shots that help the offense in a way that you can’t quantify. If you can’t quantify that, I sure don’t think it’s insane to think you’re wrong.

    95. ruruland

      The most efficient offenses in NBA history could not avoid taking some amount of inefficient shots.

      Would you dispute that? Would you argue that its possible that the best NBA offenses can always create efficient opportunities regardless of defenses?

      Is there any evidence to support that?

      If not, then we must assume that even the best offenses, with ideal synergy and the perfect blend of shot creation and spacing, finishing, is going to be forced into some less than efficient opportunities.

      Also, if we look a little deeper, is it possible that efficient shots are often the result of a player put into a position where one of his options is a less efficient shot.

      Duncan taking a pst up or mid-range jumper is not as efficient as a dunk off pnr. a wide-open corner 3, a tony parker layup, but is it possible that Duncan those shots increases the likelihood of those other things occurring, or that Duncan taking those shots represents the best available opportunity.

    96. Z-man

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Sorry, but I don’t respect your supposed authority. For about eighty years, baseball authorities couldn’t even figure out why RBI is a bad stat.

      Do teams make adjustments? Yes. But basketball is a game of habit and muscle-memory. A good shooter is a good shooter in the first quarter, and he’s a good shooter in the final quarter. Players don’t magically learn how to play better after a time-out. This is not biddy league. These are guys who have been shooting the same way for twenty years.

      Unless you can show me some data — any data — that shows a significant difference in output between quarters, I’m ready to dismiss everything you presume as conjecture. Sorry.

      I appreciate your skepticism. However, what you are implying is that the psycological component of sports is either completely irrelevant, or is equally impactful during all phases of the game and season. In other words, we need to assume that players play the same way despite the time of the game, the closeness of the score, the point of the season, etc. This is an underlying assumption in many statistical models, and one with which I fundamentally disagree. I believe there are individuals (and teams and coaches) that step up under pressure (generally speaking, not every time) and those that wilt. I believe that t free throw with no time left and your team down by one is a completely different experience than one where your team is down by one in the first quarter. Regardless of their talent and experience, players are still humans with complex emotions and psycho-physiological reactions.

    97. Frank

      A perfect example of why box score metrics are never going to be complete (i’m not saying they’re terrible, they’re just obviously incomplete) came at the end of the Orlando game.

      Melo brings the ball up the floor behind 3 point line at top of key – immediately two Magic players converge on him. At the correct time, Melo passes to JR on the R wing, who swings it to Kidd for a wide open 3 in the corner – Kidd hits it, Knicks go up by 7, game over.

      Kidd gets 3 points, a 3 PPP shot
      JR gets an assist
      Melo gets nothing in the box score, even though the fear of him scoring broke the defense completely and led to the open high-efficiency shot.

      Not every example of this is as clear cut as this one, but they happen all the time – they are not outliers. when you have someone that consistently can break the defense’s principles, that is what creates good shots for others. Chandler, for instance, breaks the defense all the time when he rolls. Pretty much every cross-court pass to the open 3 off the PNR is because the defense is concerned with the dive. Yet Tyson gets zero box score credit for being integrally responsible for that shot. Certainly Novak or whoever should get credit for making that shot, but ignoring Tyson’s contribution there (which the box score does) is like ignoring George HW Bush’s role in GWB’s whole life.

      Efficient offense is about creating situations in which the defense cannot compensate correctly or quickly enough for the offensive action. Right now the Knicks have 2 elite defense breakers on the team — Chandler as a dive man (when he has the right PG) and Melo doing, well, just about anything this year. The trouble is, the box score can greatly underestimate a player’s positive impact on offensive efficiency because it doesn’t catch how players who don’t assist or score can still break the defense.

    98. jon abbey

      yes, exactly. also the primary scorer on each team is punished for being the one who the team throws the ball to when the 24 second clock is running out, which probably happens 1-5 times a game or so. if that player just holds the ball and the shot clock runs out, he is not credited with anything negative, but if he manages to get a shot up on the rim, giving his team a chance for an offensive board and another possession, he is punished with a missed shot in the box score, even though he did something positive by avoiding the violation.

    99. Frank

      btw, my 2 cents on the WP48 discussion, which we seem to revisit every 9 days.

      Which scenario presented below is better for the team?
      A: a player – we’ll just call him Ganilo Dallinari – gets the ball with 5 sec on the clock, sees the shot clock counting down, and throws up a tightly contested shot. In this setting, his FG% is 25% and his PPP= 0.5.

      B: a player – again we’ll just call him Ganilo Dallinari – gets the ball with 5 sec on the clock, sees the shot clock counting down, and passes it to another player – we’ll call him Armelo Canthony – with 1 second left on the clock. Armelo can’t get a shot off, and so there is a 24 sec violation. In this scenario, nothing is recorded on Ganilo’s box score line for this possession.

      Obviously, scenario A is better for the team because there is a 25% chance he’ll hit the shot, and a roughly 20-25% chance that shot will get O-rebounded.

      But which of these two scenarios is better for Ganilo Dallinari’s WP48?

      PER may be seriously flawed because it does probably overvalue shooting volume. But WP48 basically rewards players (by not penalizing them) for doing exactly what Gallinari did all the time when he was on the Knicks.

      And the other thing – any time any stat model thinks Anderson Varejao produces more wins per unit time than Lebron James is in need of some serious tweaking. If we remember correctly, when LBJ left the Cavs before the 10-11 season, the Varejao-led Cavs turned from a 61 win team to a 19 win team. You could put LBJ on the Wizards and they would make the 2nd round of the playoffs.

    100. Nick C.

      jon abbey: yes, exactly. also the primary scorer on each team is punished for being the one who the team throws the ball to when the 24 second clock is running out, which probably happens 1-5 times a game or so. if that player just holds the ball and the shot clock runs out, he is not credited with anything negative, but if he manages to get a shot up on the rim, giving his team a chance for an offensive board and another possession, he is punished with a missed shot in the box score, even though he did something positive by avoiding the violation.

      That’s a huge pet peeve of mine. To me it’s the awful to do the pause and pass when you initally have a shot that isn’t either absurd or asking to be blocked and there are 5 or so seconds or less on the clock.

      To argue with myself. I recall Crawford using the late in the shot clock shot as an explanation for his shooting percentage, as if he wasn’t culpable with overdribbling or jacking up plenty of lousy shots at all times. But I digress.

      On the Melo play It wasn’t just him but also JR that drew Kidds’s man. But it is a perfect example of the uncredited assist and you can so clearly see Kidd’s man running out to trap or whatever Melo and then shifting over to JR when the pass goes to him. Meanwhile the other two defenders are down on the opposite block by Tyson and hedging on Novak.

    101. jon abbey

      Frank:
      jonabbey – sometimes I think you are in my office reading my posts before I hit submit!!

      it’s a real shame that we have to go over and over such basic, fundamentally obvious stuff. I feel like we’re in a calculus class where a couple of people keep questioning the rules of addition and we have to take time out to try to bring them up to speed: “yes, 2 + 2 really is 4. yes, I know RBIs were overvalued for decades, but 2 + 2 still really is 4.”

    102. jon abbey

      although now I do want to hear the MSG public address guy say “THREE POINT GOAL, GAH-NEEEE-LO DAH-LiH-NAH-RAY!”

      :)

    103. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      ruruland: Yes, he does have more offensive rebounds, but Duncan has a higher defensive rebound rate and overall rebound rate.

      Duncan is better in every major statistical category — to%, reb%, block %, ast %, steal %,…..

      The whole point of the post was about ts%. How did you miss that?

      The biggest reason Duncan has a lower wp/48 is because he takes more shots that help his offense.

      Also, the Spurs have always valued transition defense over offensive rebounding.

      The Knicks are one of the worst transition defenses at least in part because Chandler is always one of the last players back.

      It is totally ingenuous to attack a box score stat for being a box score stat, then use awful stats like TOV% to make your claim.

      And as the WP model notes, ORB is more important than DRB. Defensive rebounding, the model says, is much more of a team activity than ORB.

      http://wagesofwins.com/2012/11/02/just-shoot-more-how-to-fool-advanced-stats/

    104. Juany8

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: It is totally ingenuous to attack a box score stat for being a box score stat, then use awful stats like TOV% to make your claim.

      And as the WP model notes, ORB is more important than DRB. Defensive rebounding, the model says, is much more of a team activity than ORB.

      http://wagesofwins.com/2012/11/02/just-shoot-more-how-to-fool-advanced-stats/

      If somebody got 5 offensive rebounds but attempted to get 30 of them in a game, would they be efficient at getting offensive rebounds? Seems to me WP has the same problem as PER, PER lets you just keep shooting to inflate your numbers, while WP encourages you to crash the boards, gamble on steals, and jump for block attempts at every possible moment. If you’re going to penalize poor attempts to score, you have to penalize poor attempts to inflate your other box score totals inefficiently.

      How about you do something useful and go collect stats for Berri? Even keeping track of charges as added turnovers would make the model more accurate.

    105. flossy

      Ganilo Dallinari’s cousin stuck a fork in the Lakers last night by nailing a 3 as the shot clock expired after Dwight Howard blocked a shot right into his hands lol

    106. Juany8

      Nick C.:
      ^ hahaha Juan that sounds like Renaldo Balkman or at least my perhaps unfair criticism of him.

      If it was unfair he’d probably still be in the league somewhere lol.

    107. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Juany8: If somebody got 5 offensive rebounds but attempted to get 30 of them in a game, would they be efficient at getting offensive rebounds? Seems to me WP has the same problem as PER, PER lets you just keep shooting to inflate your numbers, while WP encourages you to crash the boards, gamble on steals, and jump for block attempts at every possible moment. If you’re going to penalize poor attempts to score, you have to penalize poor attempts to inflate your other box score totals inefficiently.

      How about you do something useful and go collect stats for Berri? Even keeping track of charges as added turnovers would make the model more accurate.

      A front-court player who doesn’t attempt to get offensive rebounds is likely hurting his team. This is why playing your center as a shooting guard (a la Bargnani) is likely a terrible strategy.

    108. Juany8

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: A front-court player who doesn’t attempt to get offensive rebounds is likely hurting his team. This is why playing your center as a shooting guard (a la Bargnani) is likely a terrible strategy.

      Yep that was exactly what I argued.

    109. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Juany8: Yep that was exactly what I argued.

      You’re talking about “inflation.” What does that even mean?

    110. stratomatic

      1. Offensive rebounds are extremely important.

      2. Defense is extremely important.

      3. If a team sacrifices offensive rebounds to play better defense, that does not mean offensive rebounds aren’t extremely important (or vice versa). It means with this specific personel the coach believes he can create more value by getting back on defense quickly AND LOWERING THE OTHER TEAMS OFFENSIVE EFFICIENCY than by crashing the boards and trying to get an extra possession.

      There are tradeoffs throughout basketball.

      IMO anyone that thinks offensive rebounds (extra possessions) aren’t extremely important shouldn’t be commenting on stats or basketball.

    111. stratomatic

      Someone should sit down and chart abut 1000 games and see how many really tough late shot clock shots Melo/Kobe/JR/Durant/James etc… take vs. the average player.

      I mean, obviously they take more of them, but they also take way more overall shots. So the impact to their overall efficiency is probably not as large as most people think.

      For example, if they take 25 total shots and 4 of them are late second tough bail out shots vs the average player taking 13 total shots and 1.5 of them are late shot clock shots, then this is not a huge impact to TS%.

      Do you see where I’m going with this?

      I don’t think those late shot clock shots have nearly as much of an impact on TS% as people think. It’s mostly used as a way to scapegoat high scorers that aren’t so efficient. “He’s getting stuck”

      What has a much bigger impact is their actual shooting skill and shot selection.

      What would Melo’s TS% be this year if he was hitting 3s at his historical lifetime average (and he has played on some excellent teams with Billups etc..)?

      What would Melo’s TS% be this year if he was still taking as many VOLUNTARY contested long 2s as he used to take throughout his career?

      Melo is geting better results because he is shooting better and playing smarter. His role as a tough shot maker late in the clock has some minor impact (as it does with all the big guns), but it’s not what you think.

    112. stratomatic

      One point on Wins Produced.

      To understand the system properly, you have to understand that a core belief of the system is that there is some flexibility in usage with minimal impact on efficiency.

      Assume a team where everyone has equal efficiency at their current usage rate.

      Say player X scores 30 points per 36 on between 25-30 shots.

      Say player X gets hurt and we substitute a player that scores 10 points per 36 on between 8.3 and 10 shots a night.

      The intuitive belief is that the team offense is going to suffer very badly.

      Wins produced says each of the 5 players on the team (now that X is out of the lineup) will be able to up their shot count a little and the net result will be only minimal impact to the team efficiency. It also allows that some players may have an easier time upping their usage than others, but it doesn’t try to predict that. It just measures the results.

      I have tested this with Rose in and out, Melo in and out, James in and out, Wade in and out etc… and I think Wins Produced is more right than the harshest critics think. THere is an impact, but in some instances there’s almost no impact because other players are skilled enough to up their usage a LOT with no impact at all. It’s a variable based on the other players.

      The WAY MORE IMPORTANT factor is the efficiency of the player you are losing. That’s why Melo has been critical to the Knicks offense this year, but in the past it was mostly a non event when he was out. This year he’s actually creating a lot more value from his scoring.

      But in any event, PPG is UNQUESTIONABLY and WITHOUT a DOUBT wildly overrated by the basketball media, players, most GMs, most coaches, virtually all fans etc…

    Comments are closed.