FoeDiddy wrote:You guys are nerds.
The first team that starts listening to a math nerd will have the same advantage the A's had under Billy Bean
Bonn1997 wrote:Anji wrote:" I looked up win shares and didn't see anywhere that 3 point buckets are treated like home runs in baseball."This poster never said that. I said that baseball has a value system that you can assign weights more easily to for an equation like W/S to convey exactly what plays and players are and can contribute to "winning" you games. Because 4bases/homerun being the top and an out being the bottom.
Steve Novack was being dubbed the best of our three forwards, while coming in last in any stat that didn't involved 3point shooting. One aspect of his game completely distorted his W/S, as if he was achieving the a play that held the highest weight of the equation. There is no Home Run in basketball, and that was my point.
Actually, it's the exact opposite. David Berri discusses the matter in his book "Stumbling on Wins." Basketball stats are much less team-dependent and much more stable over time, including when players change teams, than baseball stats are. You can explain much more variance in wins (that is, obtain a much more valid formula) using a regression equation with the right weighting in basketball than in baseball.
Well it was in a book, so I guess im at ease...........
Anji wrote:The fact that Novack was last of the three players in any stat that his 3pt shooting didn't influence.
Not fact at all. Novak was ahead of the others by a mile and a half on plus minus as well.
Also the defensive rating was only 2 PTA per 100 possessions different. That leaves assists and Offensive Rebs and TOs. Novak's role does not include being a distributor so assists and TOs are not useful parameters for comparison. Melo is the better rebounder Novak the better shooter. Tou have not disproved anything.
Anji wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Anji wrote:" I looked up win shares and didn't see anywhere that 3 point buckets are treated like home runs in baseball."This poster never said that. I said that baseball has a value system that you can assign weights more easily to for an equation like W/S to convey exactly what plays and players are and can contribute to "winning" you games. Because 4bases/homerun being the top and an out being the bottom.
Steve Novack was being dubbed the best of our three forwards, while coming in last in any stat that didn't involved 3point shooting. One aspect of his game completely distorted his W/S, as if he was achieving the a play that held the highest weight of the equation. There is no Home Run in basketball, and that was my point.
Actually, it's the exact opposite. David Berri discusses the matter in his book "Stumbling on Wins." Basketball stats are much less team-dependent and much more stable over time, including when players change teams, than baseball stats are. You can explain much more variance in wins (that is, obtain a much more valid formula) using a regression equation with the right weighting in basketball than in baseball.
Well it was in a book, so I guess im at ease...........
You can look at the actual correlation coefficients in the book. There's actual research behind it; it's not opinion.
Bonn1997 wrote:FoeDiddy wrote:You guys are nerds.
The first team that starts listening to a math nerd will have the same advantage the A's had under Billy Bean
Math Nerds have no place in the sport of basketball..The A's never won anything plus the movie flopped.
loweyecue wrote:Anji wrote:The fact that Novack was last of the three players in any stat that his 3pt shooting didn't influence.
Not fact at all. Novak was ahead of the others by a mile and a half on plus minus as well.
Also the defensive rating was only 2 PTA per 100 possessions different. That leaves assists and Offensive Rebs and TOs. Novak's role does not include being a distributor so assists and TOs are not useful parameters for comparison. Melo is the better rebounder Novak the better shooter. Tou have not disproved anything.
Plus minus has nothing to do with W/S.
He was last in any stat that didn't involve Three point shooting, doesn't matter if it is his game or not, or if it was only by tenths of a point. How does that not prove that anything, his 3 point shooting clearly warps his W/s.
Anji wrote:loweyecue wrote:Anji wrote:The fact that Novack was last of the three players in any stat that his 3pt shooting didn't influence.
Not fact at all. Novak was ahead of the others by a mile and a half on plus minus as well.
Also the defensive rating was only 2 PTA per 100 possessions different. That leaves assists and Offensive Rebs and TOs. Novak's role does not include being a distributor so assists and TOs are not useful parameters for comparison. Melo is the better rebounder Novak the better shooter. Tou have not disproved anything.
Plus minus has nothing to do with W/S. He was last in any stat that didn't involve Three point shooting, doesn't matter if it is his game or not, or if it was only by tenths of a point. How does that not prove that anything, his 3 point shooting clearly warps his W/s.
Well it does matter if they are close. When two players are about even on defensive efficiency and miles apart on offensive efficiency they are going to have very different W/S. 3 pt shooting is not included in any defensive efficiency calculation and Melo couldn't separate himself from Novak on that. Which if your claim of being better in everything else was true he would have more than made up for the difference on the offensive side. But your claim is not true and your issue with the stat is that it makes Melo look bad.
Well that is your rational. It has nothing to do with how the system is weighted. Chandler is only a few points better in Defensive Rating per 100 than Amare, a couple points in the context of Defensive rating is lager than the same 3-5 points in offensive rating.
The fact that Novack is last of Amare and Melo in anything that doesn't involve 3point shooting and can be claimed to the best is my problem. Taking the stat that he has distorted as a counter point does nothing for me when it's obviously I'm pointing his three point shooting warps his value.
How was Melo's shooting location for that game?..Good eh????
holfresh wrote:How was Melo's shooting location for that game?..Good eh????
That kind of post invites guys from ''the other side'' to post back next time Melo has a bad game.
Time to grow up?
Bonn1997 wrote:At the rim: 61.5%
3 to 9 feet: 20.8% (not a typo)
10 to 15 feet: 39.8%
16 to 23 feet: 31.0%
3 pointers: 29.1% (or an effective FG% of 44.1)http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name...
Bonn, just wanted to say that Melo has fewer than 50 attempts in some of these categories. aka the same amount of clutch shots he has attempted... so you are terribly inconsistent as a basketball scientist. license revoked!
raven wrote:holfresh wrote:How was Melo's shooting location for that game?..Good eh????
That kind of post invites guys from ''the other side'' to post back next time Melo has a bad game.
Time to grow up?
Time to grow up..wow....haven't heard that in quite some time...
By the way, this is a message board where there is different free floating ideas and opinions...Makes it more interesting won't you say???
I had a feeling this thread would be bumped.
holfresh wrote:raven wrote:holfresh wrote:How was Melo's shooting location for that game?..Good eh????
That kind of post invites guys from ''the other side'' to post back next time Melo has a bad game.
Time to grow up?
Time to grow up..wow....haven't heard that in quite some time...
By the way, this is a message board where there is different free floating ideas and opinions...Makes it more interesting won't you say???
Define ''interesting''.
I just said that since the last month or so has been pretty bad from a discussion standpoint, nothing apart the ''us against them'' kind of topic.
Melo has a good game, supporters show up and brag about it. Melo has a bad game? The other do the same, while the supporters duck it out, waiting for the next good game to post something.
Is that what you find interesting?
raven wrote:holfresh wrote:raven wrote:holfresh wrote:How was Melo's shooting location for that game?..Good eh????
That kind of post invites guys from ''the other side'' to post back next time Melo has a bad game.
Time to grow up?
Time to grow up..wow....haven't heard that in quite some time...
By the way, this is a message board where there is different free floating ideas and opinions...Makes it more interesting won't you say???
Define ''interesting''.
I just said that since the last month or so has been pretty bad from a discussion standpoint, nothing apart the ''us against them'' kind of topic.
Melo has a good game, supporters show up and brag about it. Melo has a bad game? The other do the same, while the supporters duck it out, waiting for the next good game to post something.
Is that what you find interesting?
If you need an explanation, I'm actually mocking the author and his reliance on STATs and his use of such to promote his "slanted" views on the very thing u think u are calling me out on...U can see this in my earlier post in this very thread where I'm telling him about his propaganda...U might also notice I didnt engage him mainly because I don't find it interesting...But where have u been??...Discussions on this board broke down years ago...Don't forget Frye versus DLee or Gallo versus Chanlder...It's what happens now..we pit one player against another, check the other thread, keeping Novak versus JR is brewing...This particularly I don't find interesting...It might help if you know a little history before u go trying to call someone out...
I think "growing up" is just a terrible idea, and would seriously reduce the entertainment value of this site.
BasketballJones wrote:I think "growing up" is just a terrible idea, and would seriously reduce the entertainment value of this site.
You are correct , as always
+1
crzymdups wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:At the rim: 61.5%
3 to 9 feet: 20.8% (not a typo)
10 to 15 feet: 39.8%
16 to 23 feet: 31.0%
3 pointers: 29.1% (or an effective FG% of 44.1)http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name...
Bonn, just wanted to say that Melo has fewer than 50 attempts in some of these categories. aka the same amount of clutch shots he has attempted... so you are terribly inconsistent as a basketball scientist. license revoked!
Which does he have fewer than 50? That does not sound plausible. Regardless, I posted this because it's the same pattern for his whole career.
The number of seasons has no bearing on the reliability of each player's percentage. The number of observations for each player does. And that number is not even one-twentieth of what you'd need for each player. You could have 44 shots spread over five thousand seasons and it still wouldn't make the FG% any more reliable.
Bonn1997 wrote:The number of seasons has no bearing on the reliability of each player's percentage. The number of observations for each player does. And that number is not even one-twentieth of what you'd need for each player. You could have 44 shots spread over five thousand seasons and it still wouldn't make the FG% any more reliable.
Not only that, but I'd wager that a players abilities change over time so that you couldn't expect the same performance from year to year. The difference wouldn't be explained only by some "expected" variability. You would have to introduce a new element to account for players declining ability after it reaches some theoretical peak. For example, I doubt that Melo will still be shooting as well in his 3,475th season as he might in his 10th season. Just a thought.
