http://nyloncalculus.com/2015/09/28/int ... t-quality/
KOBE and SHAC stats can also be found on our player shooting pages along with all sorts of other goodies: http://nyloncalculus.com/stats/player-s ... reakdowns/
Any thoughts, comments, questions?
Introducing KOBE: A measure of shot quality
Re: Introducing KOBE: A measure of shot quality
Important good work of course, but imo, the article should say more about "the accuracy of the model". Explain what the chart means completely in baby steps / multiple sentences. The chart alone is not enough for a general audience. Every chart is an opportunity for the reader to go blank, get lost or misinterpret unless you actually talk thru the right way to understand what you want them to see. What appears self evident is not grasped a lot on average I think.
In general I think more needs to be done to try to ensure that every reader can grasp the main points by
actually saying everything not just showing it and if possible flow from main pont to point. There is a lot of higher level stuff that could perhaps be saved for the end or further moved to the footnotes (beyond what is done already). The additional detail is often an obstacle at getting the 3-5 main points thru clearly and that is the most important task.
My impression is that many would read this article will end up feeling it is written above them and essentially just move on, perhaps not to return to the topic.
But that is just one opinion and might be out of step.
In general I think more needs to be done to try to ensure that every reader can grasp the main points by
actually saying everything not just showing it and if possible flow from main pont to point. There is a lot of higher level stuff that could perhaps be saved for the end or further moved to the footnotes (beyond what is done already). The additional detail is often an obstacle at getting the 3-5 main points thru clearly and that is the most important task.
My impression is that many would read this article will end up feeling it is written above them and essentially just move on, perhaps not to return to the topic.
But that is just one opinion and might be out of step.
Re: Introducing KOBE: A measure of shot quality
A few format issues that make it hard to read (for me anyway):
- Shot distances are scrambled. Why not put them shortest to longest?
- Defender distances are scrambled. Why not closest to furthest?
- Too many digits (clutter) in the FG% columns. Why not lose the leading zero and that 4th decimal place?
It looks as if the avg FGA is defended by a player about an inch taller than the shooter.
In general, it seems odd to assign terms like "better" and "worse" to such a measure. A team made of players who only shoot when they're wide open would not be "better" than anyone.
- Shot distances are scrambled. Why not put them shortest to longest?
- Defender distances are scrambled. Why not closest to furthest?
- Too many digits (clutter) in the FG% columns. Why not lose the leading zero and that 4th decimal place?
It looks as if the avg FGA is defended by a player about an inch taller than the shooter.
Doesn't KOBE tend to give lower ratings to shorter players? And point guards are frequently required to shoot when nobody else can get open.Chris Paul is among one of the worst players in KOBE. This may seem odd to some people because he’s one of the five or so, best players in the NBA but think about his shot selection. There’s a lot of midrange shots and there’s a lot of contested midrange shss ots. He just happens to be a magician at pull up jumpers from the elbows.
In general, it seems odd to assign terms like "better" and "worse" to such a measure. A team made of players who only shoot when they're wide open would not be "better" than anyone.