partial thread
supersub15
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 273
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: Winning a championship and having an All-NBA player Reply with quote
I wanted to see whether there was a correlation between winning an NBA championship and having players voted All-NBA First Team. I started with the 3-point era, i.e. from 1979 until now and found the following: In the 29 championships, only 6 teams did not have a player named to the All-NBA First Team, i.e. 80% of the teams have won when they had one of the top 5 players in the NBA. These 6 teams are:
2003-04 Detroit Pistons
1994-95: Houston Rockets
1989-90: Detroit Pistons
1988-89: Detroit Pistons
1981-82: Los Angeles Lakers
1978-79: Seattle Supersonics
Of those 6 teams, only the 1988-89 Pistons and the 1978-79 Sonics didn't have a player in one of the 3 all-NBA teams (mind you, the third all-NBA team was introduced for the 1988-89 season and the Sonics had Gus Williams, Jack Sickma, and Dennis Johnson, 3 legitimate candidates to the third All-NBA team, had it existed at the time).
Consequently, the rate of winning a championship goes up to 93% if you have a player among the top 15 players in the league.
I then went all the way back to the BAA and the start of the NBA, 1946-1947 to be exact, and tried to make the same correlation. In 61 championships, the winning team had at least one player in the All-NBA First Team 45 times (74%). However, if we account for teams having at least one player in the 2 or 3 All-NBA Teams, only 3 teams didn't have a player in the top 10 or 15, the aforementioned Sonics and Pistons teams and the 1978-1979 Washington Bullets team. That's 95% of the time.
Just something that intrigued me. Thoughts?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
basketballvalue
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 204
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:18 pm Post subject: Re: Winning a championship and having an All-NBA player Reply with quote
supersub15 wrote:
Consequently, the rate of winning a championship goes up to 93% if you have a player among the top 15 players in the league.
Supersub,
You mean that 93% of championship teams have a player among the top 15, right?
If it's not too hard to do, I'd be curious to know what the rate is of winning a championship given that you have at least one first-team All-NBA player (or at least one first through third team) on your roster. Might be interested to separate out the probabilities from one vs. two.
Thanks,
Aaron
http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm
http://www.basketballvalue.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
supersub15
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 273
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject: Re: Winning a championship and having an All-NBA player Reply with quote
basketballvalue wrote:
supersub15 wrote:
Consequently, the rate of winning a championship goes up to 93% if you have a player among the top 15 players in the league.
Supersub,
You mean that 93% of championship teams have a player among the top 15, right?
If it's not too hard to do, I'd be curious to know what the rate is of winning a championship given that you have at least one first-team All-NBA player (or at least one first through third team) on your roster. Might be interested to separate out the probabilities from one vs. two.
Thanks,
Aaron
http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm
http://www.basketballvalue.com
You're right about the sentence. Sorry for the confusion.
Of the 61 championship teams, 35 had multiple All-NBAers (first, second, and third teams), 31 teams had only All-NBAer (first, second, and third teams), and 3 had none.
Did I understand your question correctly? Or do you want the breakdown differently?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mountain
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 1527
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Checking over last 10 years I see 4 teams with 2 first team all-NBA players and 2 of the 4 won championship or 50% chance. Too small a sample of course but maybe supersub will want to do it for a longer span. Phoenix missed this past season and 03-04 Lakers did also.
Chance of winning with 1 all-NBA player isnt far from 1 in 5.
Chance with one player on any of the 3 all-NBA teams is only about 1 in 12-13, at least from looking at last few years.
This was a strong article by Dennis Gallagher on the topic from 18 months ago. A similar article or post based on who teams have today and what their key players have achieved in top ranks would be a good read.
http://www.82games.com/dennis.htm
Of the 7 one-Star champions all were top 6 on defensive efficiency. The average on offense was about 8.5 but 3 were near or actually below league average. If you are one-star you better be top level on defense. Teams see the advantages of 2 stars but a number of them I think are mistaken in thinking their second star is good enough (not that commmon by these standards) especially if both on offensive stars. One star and a top defense seems more feasible and cheaper than 2 stars. It may give you a legit shot but still only a modest chance with probably at least 6 other legit contenders a year?
I think 7 teams (Spurs, Suns, Rockets, Celtics, Cavs, Nuggets, Heat and Pistons) have a tandem that meets these qualifications. Chicago and Mavs join the contenders for having one star and a top 6 defense. Jazz is very close Boozer almost top 8 on PER and Kirilenko was a top defender but with his game sketchy I don't feel like giving them the slight break. I don't think Nets or anyone else makes this top player historical based cut but I'll add one spot for any dark horse and you have essentially a 10 horse race. Don't need a study to make that kind of statement but that's where I end up with a quick updating of the study.
To win a championship takes some combination of top players and top team efficiency on offense and defense or differential. It might be illuminating to construct a study that boiled in that down to:
Yes or no?
1. Top player (by Gallagher standards or otherwise)?
2. Qualifying second star?
3. A qualifying sidekick? (perhaps with a bit looser definition)
4. Top ten on offensive efficiency?
5. Top ten on defensive efficiency?
6. Top ten on point differential?
How many of last x champions had 4, 5, 6 of these?
How many others did each year? Were they any champions with less than 3 yeses?
Looks like 07 Spurs were first team with 6 since Bulls dynasty. All other champions in that timespan have had 5.
Based on performance last season I think (moving quickly) the teams score this way: Spurs 6, Suns 4 (possibly 5 if sidekick criteria is stretched), Rockets 4 (5 if Mutumbo still counts or Battier), Celtics n/a, Cavs 4, Nuggets 6, Heat 3 Chicago 4 and Mavs 4 (possibly 5 if sidekick criteria is stretched), Detroit 5.
Spurs a leader in championship construction, no surprise. Denver might be a surprise but they are top 10 on all 3 team measures and have Iverson, Anthony and Camby. The 6 criteria system is still first cut and you have to have the right stars. Denver with more time together to develop chemistry will get at least one more chance.
I'd add a 7th criteria on principle- a top 10 coach but I don't think it would change anything looking at last season, except maybe with Mike Brown of Cavs but too early to say on him and hard to say independent of team results.
Moving from last season numbers to next season, who improved? Celtics of course, probably become a 5. Chicago might become a 5 if Deng advances up top player list. Maybe Mavs or Cavs do that too- maybe. That about all I see in terms of major changes. Spurs best positioned. I don't think there is a clear #2 or 3. Pretty wide open. If a solid by the book 5 is needed next year then the list of top contenders might end up at 6-7 instead of near 10.
(If you counted a top flight 1st or 2nd team awarded 2 way player as 2 stars instead of just one some of these team scores would go up throughout the prior discussion.)
Last edited by Mountain on Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:21 pm; edited 18 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KeeneKaufmanWheeler
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 72
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Isn't this a study that might lose some validity as the composition of the league has changed (through expansion and the evolution of the salary cap)?
20 years ago there were fewer teams and therefore a higher percentage of the league was all-NBA players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Flint
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 112
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
A few thoughts. That Supersonics team and the Rockets, were the third and fourth worst teams by differential to win an NBA title. Only the Celtics and Bullets in the 1970's were worse.
So you have two teams that simply weren't very good.
The 81-82 Lakers team had Magic Johnson. His season that year was possibly the best season ever in the three point era. His not being first team all - nba was as close to cosmic injustice as you are likely to experience in the field of basketball statistics. Gus Williams!?!
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/ ... 02&y3=1982
That leaves the three Pistons teams. They had Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman on them, players unlikely to ever receive consideration from the the First Team All NBA committee. I don't know that those players were top five players in those years, but if not they were very very close.
I think what this leaves you with is the observation that you very rarely win a championship without an actual top five player, and that the All NBA team doesn't always feature the top five players.
Lol, ok, Captain Obvious, signing off
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3496
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Flint,
Why don't you just admit that you are Dave Berri?
1982 was far from Magic Johnson's best year. It was just his best rebounding year.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
asimpkins
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 244
Location: Pleasanton, CA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:18 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Great illustration of the differences in thought here. If we throw out the two seasons he was injured and played less than half the season, his 81-82 season ranks 10th out of 11 according to PER. This is because that year he was:
10th out of 11 in Usage Rate. 10th out of 11 in TS%. 10th out of 11 in Assist Rate. 7th out of 11 in Turnover Rate.
But yes, 1st out of 11 in Rebounding Rate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 678
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
The 81-82 Lakers team had Magic Johnson. His season that year was possibly the best season ever in the three point era. His not being first team all - nba was as close to cosmic injustice as you are likely to experience in the field of basketball statistics. Gus Williams!?!
fwiw simulation shows magic johnson's 81-82 season as the 2nd best in terms of wins generated by a PG - on a 40 min/g and 82 game basis - over the past 30 years (since 77-78 and when turnovers were first tracked), bettered by only his 80-81 season...
however gus williams in 81-82 was also very good, generating wins at a rate of just about 4-5 less wins than magic's 81-82 season on a 40 min/g and 82 game basis...
Last edited by bchaikin on Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Flint
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 112
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, thanks Mike G, thats something of a compliment from my view, but I am definitely not David Berri. Just a fan of his and the Knicks. Do you honestly think I would be asking how to calculate team TS% if I were an economics professor?
Also, even if that wasn't Magic's best season, for the purposes of this discussion, I think it's pretty clear he was a better player than both of the guards voted first team all nba ahead of him. Or did Gus Williams have a higher PER than Magic that year?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flint
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 112
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Bchaikin - Are you Dave Berri? C'mon, fess up. We know it's you.
Actually I made a mistake. That was not Magic's best season according to Berri. That would be 88-89 where he had a WP48 of .538 and produced 32.4 wins
http://www.wagesofwins.com/MagicCareer.html
But what you wrote is very interesting though. Thanks for vaguely agreeing with me. That would possibly be a first on this site. What do your numbers show for Gervin actually? And for that matter what do they show for Rodman and Wallace?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 678
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Are you Dave Berri? C'mon, fess up. We know it's you...
ya' got me...
actually i clicked on your link and he has a stats called PAWS. i've got cats for pets so anyone creating a stats called PAWS is ok by me...
Actually I made a mistake. That was not Magic's best season according to Berri. That would be 88-89 where he had a WP48 of .538 and produced 32.4 wins...
let's compare magic's 88-89 and 80-81 stats:
year------min---pts/g---ScFG%---reb---ast----st----to---bs----g
8081---1371---21.6----.570-----320---317--127--143--27---37
8889---2886---22.5----.610-----607---988--138--312--22---77
to compare apples to apples let's normalize to minutes played (multiply his 80-81 stats by 2886/1371):
year------min---pts/g---ScFG%---reb---ast----st----to---bs----g
8081---2886---21.6----.570-----674---667--267--301--57---77
8889---2886---22.5----.610-----607---988--138--312--22---77
and if you want to be a bit more technical, adjust for pace (80-81 lakers got 103.9 poss/g, the 88-89 lakers 101.6 poss/g, so multiply his 80-81 stats by 101.6/103.9):
year------min---pts/g---ScFG%---reb---ast----st----to---bs----g
8081---2886---21.1----.570-----659---652--261--294--56---77
8889---2886---22.5----.610-----607---988--138--312--22---77
what i see here is a player who got 261 - 138 = 123 more steals, 312 - 294 = 18 less turnovers, and 34 more blocks in 80-81 vs 88-89. estimating say 55% of all blocked shots are retrieved by the defense as defensive rebounds, that'd be 123 + 18 + 34x0.55 = 123 + 18 + 19 = 160 less zero point possessions for magic in 80-81 vs 88-89 (not to mention he got more rebounds in 80-81)...
so the question is for magic's 88-89 season to generate more wins than his 80-81 season, how does he make up for this difference of 160 less zero point team possessions in 77 games or 2.1 zero point possessions per game. after all a steal is the vast majority of the time the end of your opponent's possession, and thus they do not score, and a turnover for your team most often results on a team possession where your team did not score...
to make up for 160 zero point team possessions - not to mention 52 less rebounds - he would have to have accounted for, say, more defensive stops outside of steals, such as by forcing more misses or forcing more turnovers that are not steals. a forced miss is not a defensive stop unless your team gets the defensive rebound, so approximately 160/0.66 = 242 more forced misses would have to have been forced by magic in 88-89 vs 80-81 (with no more forced turnovers), or some combination of less forced misses and more forced turnovers (the 80-81 lakers got 64% def rebs and the 88-89 lakers got 69% def rebs so i used 66% as an average)...
you could point out that magic shot better overall in 88-89, but just because magic didn't score on a certain team possession (and isn't personally responsible for a team zero point possession) doesn't mean his team didn't score on that possession. plus you could point out that magic in 88-89 got 988 - 652 = 336 more assists than in 80-81. both surely make up for some of those 160 zero point possessions and 52 less rebounds. the question is how much?...
however a PG can have significantly less assists and even shoot worse than another PG but still generate as many if not more wins through his other stats. this was pointed out in another thread:
In Brandon's career year of '96, he was apparently as good as Stockton was in any year.
some will point out that magic's better shooting and more assists in 88-89 more than make up for these zero point possessions, but simulation shows that on a 40 min/g and 82 game basis, magic's 80-81 season generates slightly more wins than his 88-89 season, 2 to 3 more wins depending which team you run the simulation on. both seasons however are among the very best in generating wins by a PG in the last 30 years...
But what you wrote is very interesting though. Thanks for vaguely agreeing with me.
you are vaguely welcome...
What do your numbers show for Gervin actually?
that same 81-82 season george gervin scored 32 pts/g for the spurs. simulation shows that - on a 40 min/g and 82 game basis - he generated wins at the rate of about 12-13 more than some of the worst win generating SGs in the league that year (like chris ford of the celtics, phil smith of the clippers/sonics, and jim brogan of the clippers), and that year i have gervin rated as a poor defender outside of steals, blocks, and defensive rebounding. but that season simulation also shows sidney moncrief as generating 4-5 more wins than gervin did on a 40 min/g and 82 game basis, and about 16-17 more wins than the worst win generating SGs. that year i have moncrief rated as an excellent defender outside of steals, blocks, and defensive rebounding...
And for that matter what do they show for Rodman and Wallace?
ben wallace's best year statistically was probably his 01-02 season (his first DPOY award). simulation shows - on a 40 min/g and 82 game basis - wallace generating as many wins as shaquille o'neal did that year (when shaq scored 27 pts/g and wallace managed less than 8 pts/g). that season wallace got 13 reb/g, 1.7 st/g, and 3.5 bs/g, but while committing less than 1 to/g and shooting a ScFG% right at the league average...
possibly rodman's best year statistically was 91-92. that year he generated - on a 40 min/g and 82 game basis - as many wins as both karl malone and horace grant...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Flint
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 112
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:51 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the response. And I did appreciate your response.
I am not a WOW expert. And I don't know exactly how he calculates wins produced. But I understand his logic I think.
For simplicity sake, here are the numbers I am looking at. Per 48.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/ ... 02&y3=1989
In Berri's book, a block, assist, ft or personal foul is worth .5 a rebound, point, steal, or shot attempt.
Sometimes I mess up my numbers, I don't have a spreadsheet set up like everyone has here. Have to figure out how to do that.
In non-scoring stats, Young Magic has an advantage of
+ 1.1 rebounds
+ 2.1 steals
+.25 blocks
+.2 turnovers
- .3 pfs
- 2.65 assists
+ .7
On the scoring end, Young Magic scores 27.9 points but he takes 20.6 shots and 7.9 fta's. So dividing the ft's by 2, this works out to a deduction of 24.55. His net from his points is 27.9 - 24.55, or 3.35
On the Scoring End Old Magic scores 28.8 points on 23.6 shots, for a net of 5.2
So Old Magic has a scoring advantage of 1.85
Overall, the 88-89 version has a 1.15 advantage, per 48.
Now, that is just how it works out with win score. REally, thats some gunky analyis. As I said, I don't know how Wins Produced works exactly. From the end notes of his book it seems like a fairly involved process. But I think the basic logic I employed above probably approximates his reasoning for why the later Magic was better. I think Wins Produced is adjusted for pace, and there is a team defensive adjustment in there as well, so that might make a difference, but I think that's the gist of it.
A much shorter way of saying it would have been that a 4% difference in TS% is a big difference in shooting efficiency. And 5 more assists per 48 is a big difference. Those things more than make up for Young Magic's non-scoring stat superiority.
I had no idea Gervin or Williams were that good. Both were before my time. I thought Gervin was Iverson-esque, but clearly I was wrong. But, it still seems like Magic was the better player than them in 81-82. So, I feel my original point stands, basically, that sort of is one less team that won without a 1st team All-NBA player.
Re Wallace -
I don't know what the exact numbers for Wallace are, but I would think he was a top five player at least one of those years 2000-5. Your model sees to be a lot more in line with Berri's conclusions than others I have read about here. I am not familiar with what you do. Do you have a link to a thread explaining it?
And re Rodman
I don't know what his best year was. Berri says in the book he was the best power forward in the league in 93-94, when, incidentally, he averaged 8.4 offensive rebounds per 48. He seems to have been pretty good in 95-96 on the best team of all time also. I think Berri rates him at a .405 that year, although he didn't play 82 games that year, and that's just off the top of my head.
But who knows, Berri probably doesn't have it right. According to his PER of 13.6 he was a below average player and the seventh best player on that team, despite averaging 18 rebounds per 40.
Lol, shouldn't say stuff like that around here Smile Thanks for the post, good night.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1311
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 3:56 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
KeeneKaufmanWheeler wrote:
Isn't this a study that might lose some validity as the composition of the league has changed (through expansion and the evolution of the salary cap)?
20 years ago there were fewer teams and therefore a higher percentage of the league was all-NBA players.
There were also less all-NBA teams back then, too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Flint wrote:
And re Rodman
I don't know what his best year was. Berri says in the book he was the best power forward in the league in 93-94, when, incidentally, he averaged 8.4 offensive rebounds per 48. He seems to have been pretty good in 95-96 on the best team of all time also. I think Berri rates him at a .405 that year, although he didn't play 82 games that year, and that's just off the top of my head.
But who knows, Berri probably doesn't have it right. According to his PER of 13.6 he was a below average player and the seventh best player on that team, despite averaging 18 rebounds per 40.
I never knew PER devalued Rodman so much. His career PER is below average. He has to be one of the more statistically uncertain players -- if you look at different stat methods, his value would range a lot.
Justin gives him a 36% chance at the HOF. I can't argue much with that because I really don't know how posterity will view him. He definitely has some chance by being so good at a couple things.
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers.
Flint
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 112
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Dean - I love BOP, great book.
PER is a pretty bizarre statistic. I really don't understand it. Rodman had a 17 PER in 91-92, which according to Bchaikin was his best season overall. As a Knicks fan, I happen to know that Eddy Curry also posted a 17 this year, while finishing second in the league in turnovers.
I look at this comp, and it makes my head spin.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/ ... 01&y2=2007
How does that work? Rodman averaged 22 rebounds per 48 that year and committed only 2 turnovers for a +20 in gaining and maintaining possession.. Curry was at +4.6. So the 15 points Curry outscored him by is less than the difference between them in their impact on possession.
How could they possibly have the same PER? I just don't get it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asimpkins
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 245
Location: Pleasanton, CA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Flint wrote:
How does that work? Rodman averaged 22 rebounds per 48 that year and committed only 2 turnovers for a +20 in gaining and maintaining possession.. Curry was at +4.6. So the 15 points Curry outscored him by is less than the difference between them in their impact on possession.
1. You suggest that Rodman was gaining +20 possessions per 48. At face value, this is as good as you claim. The reason PER doesn't rate Rodman off the charts, however, is that it doesn't consider securing a Defensive Rebound as equivalent to gaining a possession -- like you suggested. Yes, it is typically the final act in gaining the possession, but before it can happen a lot of defense is played. The entire team contributes in an effort to deny easy shots and ultimately put up a low percentage shot that will miss. And even after that everyone attempts to box out their man so that someone on the defensive team can get the rebound.
By crediting Rodman (or any player) with the full value of a possession for securing a defensive rebound you are basically rating him as single-handedly stopping an entire team. If Rodman really was one man defensive force on 16 or so plays per 48 minutes, then he would deserve the kind of credit you want to give him. I think that it is obvious that he only played a part.
2. The other difference in assumptions that PER makes is that Usage Rating matters. You point out that he only turned the ball over 2 times per 48 minutes. But that's only because his teammates didn't dare ever throw him the ball. In many of his great rebounding years his turnover rate was over 20%. His Usage Rate was down around 10% -- half of his share. When he put up a rare shot his efficiency was often terrible. Basically, any team with Rodman on the court had to play 4 on 5 on offense. PER thinks that matters, and it penalizes him for it.
My understanding is that WoW thinks otherwise. Grabbing a defensive rebound is the same as single-handedly stopping the opposing team on offense. And it doesn't matter if you are almost completely useless on offense, as long as you stay out of the way. By that criteria, then yes, Rodman would be one of the best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mountain
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 1527
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
The 6 point star & team ranking exercise I posted earlier in thread is just a rough guide on contender status. A higher number doesnt ensure victory of course. But all champs in last 10 years were at least a 5 and all finalists except the Indiana Pacers were at least a 4. The main advantage of this system it is shows stars alone don't determine but also team strength without enough star power backbone might not be enough in the playoffs on its own either. It takes an adequate combination. There may be more wiggle room about what is enough than in this presentation but the wiggle room probably isnt that large. The Pacers did better than their score because they had 4 Factor hammers, 1 major (own FG%) and at least 1 minor (FG% allowed) as described in team factor wins thread. The third team criteria of point differential does a good job of indicating when an offensive or defensive efficiency weakness is being adequate offset by the other strength.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 685
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
A much shorter way of saying it would have been that a 4% difference in TS% is a big difference in shooting efficiency.
for a simple calculation, magic shot 50.9% in 88-89 or 579 FGM on 1137 FGAs. 4% less would have been 46.9% or 533 FGM. that's 579 - 533 = 46 FGM over 77 games, or (46 x 2)/77 = 1.2 more pts/g (not counting 3pters). from a team perspective with 46 more misses that'd be about 1/3 of those misses rebounded by the offense with some subsequent scores. so that 1.2 pts/g would be in reality closer to about 1 pt/g (perhaps slightly more or less). that makes up partly for 2.1 zero point team possessions per game since a team possession is on average worth close to about 1.0 point...
And 5 more assists per 48 is a big difference.
i don't see it - in terms of wins generated or how a player's stats contribute towards his team's wins. there are many players who have rung up high numbers of assists (or ast/48min) but have contributed little to their team's fortunes (kevin porter, brevin knight), and team rates of ast/fgm do not correlate well with wins...
Rodman had a 17 PER in 91-92, which according to Bchaikin was his best season overall.
possibly his best season overall, i'd have to simulate all (or most) of his seasons to be sure...
I look at this comp (Curry/Rodman), and it makes my head spin.
fwiw when i simulate the 06-07 knicks with curry for 40 min/g and 82 games, then replace curry with rodman 91-92, the team wins on average 10-11 more games per average 82 game season with rodman...
reverse this and simulate rodman on the 91-92 pistons for 40 min/g and 82 games, then replace him with curry 06-07, the pistons win 14-15 more games with rodman per average 82 game season...
those are some huge differences...
in 06-07 curry got few rebounds, few steals, few blocks, and a ton of turnovers. as a matter of fact, the only starting C last season with less (REB+ST+BS)/40min than curry (9.1/40min) was the nets' jason collins (8.5/40min). the league average for a C (with >= 20 games started) was 13.4/40min...
also curry shot quite well in 06-07 at 57.6% (585/1016), but had 295 TOs. from a team perspective a TO is basically the same as a missed FGA rebounded by the defense (a zero point team possession). since knicks' opponents got 69% defensive rebounds, that'd be like curry committing say just 125 turnovers (like mehmet okur in 06-07) but missing an additional (295-125)/0.69 = 246 FGAs, i.e. scoring 19.5 pts/g but shooting just 585/(1016+246) = 46.4% (league average C shot 51%) with few rebs, st, and bs. who'd want that?....
By crediting Rodman (or any player) with the full value of a possession for securing a defensive rebound you are basically rating him as single-handedly stopping an entire team.
correct, however....
If Rodman really was one man defensive force on 16 or so plays per 48 minutes, then he would deserve the kind of credit you want to give him. I think that it is obvious that he only played a part.
he was all-D 1st team 7 times in 8 seasons, and DPOY in 89-90 and 90-91, and not because of his rebounding. he was quite possibly the best defensive player over a stretch of a decade (late 1980s to late 1990s) who wasn't a premier shot blocker. when playing for the spurs/bulls in the mid-1990s he often guarded shaq rather than david robinson or a bulls C...
The other difference in assumptions that PER makes is that Usage Rating matters. You point out that he (rodman) only turned the ball over 2 times per 48 minutes. But that's only because his teammates didn't dare ever throw him the ball. In many of his great rebounding years his turnover rate was over 20%.
in curry's and rodman's first 6 seasons in the league (curry has played just six years), curry's rate of turnovers per touch were much higher than rodman's. curry turned the ball over with 12% of his touches (1 turnover for every 8-9 touches on offense) and rodman turned the ball over with 9% of his touches (1 turnover for every 11 touches on offense). there is very little a player can do on offense to help his team (i.e. generate wins) when he turns the ball over on a very high rate of 1 out of every 8-9 touches (1 out of every 7-8 touches curry's last 2 seasons), unless he limits his touches or contributes on offense in a major way without the ball, such as with excellent offensive rebounding (or by getting to the line a ton and hitting his FTs), but curry has been a poor offensive rebounder (and while he gets to the line a ton has a career FT% of less than 65%)...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
asimpkins
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 245
Location: Pleasanton, CA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
he was all-D 1st team 7 times in 8 seasons, and DPOY in 89-90 and 90-91, and not because of his rebounding. he was quite possibly the best defensive player over a stretch of a decade (late 1980s to late 1990s) who wasn't a premier shot blocker. when playing for the spurs/bulls in the mid-1990s he often guarded shaq rather than david robinson or a bulls C...
No argument there. PER does not measure defensive (or any other) contributions that don't show up in the box score, and it has never claimed to do so. PER is a summary of box score accomplishments, and it is on that level that it ranks Rodman to be an average player. Rodman was almost certainly a much more valuable player because of his defensive abilities, but that is beyond the scope of what PER sets out to measure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Flint wrote:
How does that work? Rodman averaged 22 rebounds per 48 that year and committed only 2 turnovers for a +20 in gaining and maintaining possession.. Curry was at +4.6. So the 15 points Curry outscored him by is less than the difference between them in their impact on possession.
How could they possibly have the same PER? I just don't get it.
Curry also scored more efficiently (at a higher TS%), and did so in 5 less MPG. Remember that PER is a per-minute stat, so stretch out Curry's production by 40/35 MPG difference.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Flint
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 112
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Bchaikin - Are you including ft's in your analysis of Magic? The 4% difference in TS% reflects the difference there. The 88-89 version shot 91% from the line. Young Magic was at 76%. If you included ft's rather than just fg's, does that make an impact?
Re assists, I don't diagree that assists are less important than turnovers, rebounds, attempts, and points. But it is an advantage for Old Magic.
Your simulations are interesting, and absolutely in line with how I would view Rodman's value relative to Curry's. I just find it amazing, ridiculous really, that PER rates Curry's contributions last year as being equal to Rodman at his absolute prime. Rodman averaged just two less offensive rebounds per 48 than Curry did overall. Curry last year was one of only two centers in the three point era to average less than ten rebounds per 48 and five turnovers. (Darryl Dawkins is the other.) And his assist numbers were horrible. He was basically without historic precedent, which is why the Curry Line feature over at Yahoo, a basketball version of the Mendoza line, was so apt. And yet, because he scores well his PER was well above average. This doesn't make sense.
Btw- do you have a link to a post in which you have described the simulation process?
ASimpkins - re the WOW crediting players with team defensive accomplishments, I just don't really buy it. I know it is the big bone of contention, but I don't care to argue the point. I can only say that I saw Eddy Curry allow so many second chance opportunities last year, it killed me. There was one game against Detroit, a three overtime game we actually won, where Curry allowed Mohammed three offensive boards that led to thre crucial second chance buckets. Especially for a center, I think those d-boards matter a lot.
And re Rodman, the basic point to me here is that Rodman's stats were much better in every way than Curry other than a small difference in scoring efficiency, (that year anyway), and a big difference in points scored. How much difference can those extra points Curry scores really make?
Having Rodman out there does force his teammates to take more shots, but thats what most ballers do, they take shots. Yes, they did so less efficiently than Curry did last year, for sure. But Rodman was hardly useless on offense. He generated 4.3 more shots per 48 than Curry did on the offensive end. In my mind, there is no way a 60% ts% can make up that difference.
Rodman's team will take the 22.6 odd shots and free throws Curry took at a lower efficiency, granted. But say that we assume something ridiculous, that even with Rodman's contribution of 10 points on 10.2 net shots (adding up fga and .5fta) at 57.4%, those 22.6 shots only go in at a 50% ts% rate. that means his team scores 22.6 points, four less than Curry. However Rodman's team takes 4.3 more shots. So their net point total, if you carry through the 50% ts%, is 26.9, or .3 more than Curry.
And we haven't even assessed the damage Curry does to the Knicks with his turnovers. Rodman commits two. And in the course of taking the extra 12.x shots he doesn't take that Curry does, his teammates commit turnovers. But I really doubt they commit three more turnovers taking those extra shots. Overall, there are a lot less turnovers being committed by Rodman's team.
Many people seem to think Rodman was an offensive liability. I think the numbers show Rodman had to be a much much more valuable player to have on the court on the offensive end than Curry. Offensive rebounds are more important than scoring from the center position in my mind than shooting. Even a very efficient and prolific scoring center is going to have a hard time keeping up with a center who shoots almost as well as he does on lower volume, but outrebounds him offensively by a good margin. The extra shots his teams take are just a huge source of value.
I think its ridiculous that Rodman isn't going to the Hall of Fame. Somehow people lump him in with Horry I think, as a role player who hooked up with great teammates. I think Berri's view is much more accurate. Rodman was the best player on the Piston Championship teams, and as important to the Bulls teams when he was on the court as any player other than Jordan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Statman
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 241
Location: Arlington, Texas
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Flint wrote:
and as important to the Bulls teams when he was on the court as any player other than Jordan.
I assume you mean other than Jordan OR Pippen.
_________________
Dan
My current national college player rankings (and other stuff):
http://www.pointguardu.com/f136/statman ... post355594
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Flint
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 112
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
i don't know that Pippen was better than Rodman. Considering how well he rebounded that year, and especially his 8.2 orpg, I would say no. But he clearly took a lot of rebounds from his teammates defensively. I don't know, see p. 144 of the WOW and let me know what you think. Personally, I preferred Rodman as a player, but I may be alone in my love of rebounders. I think my own playing style (in high school) makes me view the game a bit differently than most.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Statman
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 241
Location: Arlington, Texas
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:01 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Flint wrote:
i don't know that Pippen was better than Rodman. Considering how well he rebounded that year, and especially his 8.2 orpg, I would say no. But he clearly took a lot of rebounds from his teammates defensively. I don't know, see p. 144 of the WOW and let me know what you think. Personally, I preferred Rodman as a player, but I may be alone in my love of rebounders. I think my own playing style (in high school) makes me view the game a bit differently than most.
I guess I just don't get how you look at things. You just made a point of talking about the huge disparity between Rodman & Curry - since Rodman was better (or MUCH better in case of rebounding) statistically at everything other than TS%, usage, & scoring.
Well - Pippen was better than Rodman at everything statistically other than rebounding (obviously) - MUCH better in scoring, assists, usage, steals, blocks, A/TO, TS%, win shares (including PW%), & PER.
It sounds like to me the ONLY thing that seems to matter to you is if the guy is a great rebounder & possibly a good defender. He can be pretty much a complete non entity offensively (outside of offensive rebounds) - and you don't seem to think that affects his team negatively whatsoever.
Whether you want to believe it or not - usage matters.
As for giving credit to role players (Rodman is the most extreme epitome of that - his role was solely rebounding & defense) as being the backbone to a good team- that is all fine & dandy. However, to seemingly ignore the role of higher usage players (especially an ALL AROUND great player like Pippen) as being vital in a lineup so that a good role player or two can see court time despite their limitations in certain areas (usually offensively) seems short sighted.
I wonder what the final score would be between a team full of Scottie Pippens and a team full of Dennis Rodmans? Those Bulls teams couldn't win a championship without Pippen imo. They still would have won championships (although maybe not at impressively) without Rodman.
Dennis Rodman NEEDS players like Jordan, Pippen, David Robinson, Thomas, Dumars, etc. in order for his team to succeed because of his own obvious limitations. He can then help make them & his team greater. Those players don't NEED a player like Rodman in the lineup to succeed - although it doesn't hurt.
_________________
Dan
My current national college player rankings (and other stuff):
http://www.pointguardu.com/f136/statman ... post355594
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3564
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:59 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I am pretty sure Berri ranked Rodamn as the best player in the NBA thru 1999 or 2000, by which time he was truly a bit player. He had outlived his usefulness, there was no niche role in which he was considered valuable, and yet Berri thought he was the best player around.
Flint drifted from a reasonable argument that peak (1992) Rodman was more valuable than 2007 Curry, to 2nd-best player on the greatest team ever (Bulls), to best player on the champion (1989-90) Pistons.
Rodman won't get to the HOF anytime soon. Working against him are emotional/social problems that sabotaged some of his teams (SA '95, notably). Bulls managed to corral him for the most part, but still there was the photographer-kicking incident and others.
Statistically, he was near the lowest-of-the-low in some stats (scoring, FT%), and highest-ever in others (rebounding). One in ten rating systems may rank his career highly enough; but it's doubtful that will sway the Hall.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
asimpkins
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 245
Location: Pleasanton, CA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:23 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Flint wrote:
ASimpkins - re the WOW crediting players with team defensive accomplishments, I just don't really buy it. I know it is the big bone of contention, but I don't care to argue the point.
I don't really want to argue the point either. I'm not really trying to change your mind on who's-better-than-who as much as I was trying to explain why PER works the way it does. Your previous post expressed a lot of bewilderment on the matter (though perhaps it was just rhetorical). You may not ultimately agree with the assumptions that PER makes, but they are coherent and understandable:
Credit defensive rebounds at about 1/3 of a possession instead of the entire possession, and penalize players for hiding on the offensive end. That's how a fantastic one-dimensional rebounder like Rodman ends up ranked about the same as a good one-dimensional scorer like Curry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 864
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: Reply with quote
When I read Berri's book, I thought I was starting to see some merit to his approach. And there may be some merit -- it's a good book. But...then I look a little closer and, I dunno.
Out of curiosity, I ran a search at b-r.com for the top rebound rates since 1977-78. Players needed at least 15,000 minutes to qualify. Then I ran Berri's simplified Win Score metric on those players -- pts + reb + stl + .5 x ast + .5 x blk - fga - tov - .5 x fta - .5 x pf. Then I divided by minutes to get a per minute Win Score.
According to this metric, Rodman rates as the 2nd best player among the top rebounders behind only Charles Barkley. He ranks ahead of players like David Robinson, Shaq, Moses Malone, Hakeem, Larry Bird, KG, Tim Duncan, Kareem, Karl Malone, Dirk, and Elton Brand.
I dunno, but to me there's something not right with a sytem that rates Rodman as "better" than players like Bird, Duncan, Shaq, and Kareem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Statman
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 241
Location: Arlington, Texas
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
kjb wrote:
When I read Berri's book, I thought I was starting to see some merit to his approach. And there may be some merit -- it's a good book. But...then I look a little closer and, I dunno.
Out of curiosity, I ran a search at b-r.com for the top rebound rates since 1977-78. Players needed at least 15,000 minutes to qualify. Then I ran Berri's simplified Win Score metric on those players -- pts + reb + stl + .5 x ast + .5 x blk - fga - tov - .5 x fta - .5 x pf. Then I divided by minutes to get a per minute Win Score.
According to this metric, Rodman rates as the 2nd best player among the top rebounders behind only Charles Barkley. He ranks ahead of players like David Robinson, Shaq, Moses Malone, Hakeem, Larry Bird, KG, Tim Duncan, Kareem, Karl Malone, Dirk, and Elton Brand.
I dunno, but to me there's something not right with a sytem that rates Rodman as "better" than players like Bird, Duncan, Shaq, and Kareem.
Any player that gets alot of rebounds, and doesn't do much of anything offensively (doesn't take, therefore miss, many shots and doesn't touch the ball enough to garner many turnovers) will rate very well in Berri's system.
As far as I can tell - Berri's system is flawed most in terms of overvaluing low usage/big rebound players, much the same way it can be argued that PER is flawed by overvaluing huge usage/low efficiency players.
Neither system (obviously by the nature of linear weights) sees any value of defensive stopper/no offense no rebounding (aka Bruce Bowen) type player.
If Dan R. ever fully hashed out and updated his system (he may have, I dunno) - that would almost certainly be the best player "ranking" system I know of.
_________________
Dan
My current national college player rankings (and other stuff):
http://www.pointguardu.com/f136/statman ... post355594
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 685
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
...to me there's something not right with a sytem that rates Rodman as "better" than players like Bird, Duncan, Shaq, and Kareem.
agreed - but i can see rodman rated almost as good as some of the very best PFs. on a very poor offensive team, like for example the 02-03 denver nuggets, simulation shows - on a 40 min/g and 82 game basis - dennis rodman 91-92 generating 8-9 more wins than juwan howard 02-03. but it also shows PFs like karl malone 89-90, elton brand 05-06, tim duncan 04-05, larry bird 87-88 (ok SF not PF), and shawn marion 05-06 generating 14-15 more wins per average 82 game season replacing howard. so rodman here generates 6-7 less wins, quite a large differense....
but on a good offense, very poor defensive team (like the 05-06 seattle sonics, and whose PFs were not a key reason for the team's good offense), or on a team replacing a starting PF who was both a poor defender and a poor rebounder, like the 95-96 cleveland cavaliers (danny ferry, but who shot well and committed few turnovers), on a 40 min/g and 82 game basis simulation shows rodman generating close to as many wins (within 1-2 wins) as the above mentioned star PFs....