APBRmetrics

My calculated positions:



Column D.

EvanZ wrote:My calculated positions:



Column D.

I need them back to 1978, though--hence my quandary. I know yours are good for recent years.

EvanZ wrote:My calculated positions:



Column D.

Can you provide your formula for position calculation? Are you also factoring in height/weight (I ask, because you correctly listed Hayes's position as 4/5)?

I don't use height/weight. It's a weighted (no pun intended) sum of his position in the matchup file from basketball-value.com. So, if he's given as a 4.5, that means he spends roughly 50% in the 4th spot in the matchup and 50% in the 5th spot.

These are the position designations according to basketball-value for Sacramento:
So, for example, let's say that the lineup consists of Fredette, Evans, Salmons, Thompson, Hayes. In that case the matchup file will have Hayes as a 5. But, now let's say the first three are the same, but Cousins is in for Thompson. Then Hayes will be listed as a 4 and Cousins as a 5. In my play-by-play code, I simply keep track of all that and do the weighted average.

DSMok1, have you tried calculating ASPM, by position? I imagine the formula might be very different for front-court players versus PGs, for instance.

deepak wrote:DSMok1, have you tried calculating ASPM, by position? I imagine the formula might be very different for front-court players versus PGs, for instance.

I doubt it. A rebound is a rebound, a shot is a shot, a point is a point.

I investigated whether the current formula was biased toward any specific position, and it wasn't. I really want to avoid trying to position adjust, because positions are an extremely nebulous thing.

We have seen, and we may see again, lucid arguments of why assists by PG are more critical than assists by PF, or a block from a G is not as meaningful as one from a C, etc., because these are part of the job descriptions.

Then another bloc has and may yet argue that a player classified as a G is better/worse than when he's called a F -- because of his rebounding/passing, relative to these positions' norms.

I'm with DSMok1 on this. Points is points.

DSMok1 wrote:I investigated whether the current formula was biased toward any specific position, and it wasn't. I really want to avoid trying to position adjust, because positions are an extremely nebulous thing.

Gotta completely agree with you there - I don't do any position adjustments for the same reason. I think our weights are fairly close in general, and I've not had any need for position adjustments.

Was it last year when Berri had Landry Fields rated as one of the best players in the league - mainly because of his rebound rate was much better than other SG's? If he had called him a SF, he would have been practically just another decent player.

Statman wrote:

DSMok1 wrote:I investigated whether the current formula was biased toward any specific position, and it wasn't. I really want to avoid trying to position adjust, because positions are an extremely nebulous thing.

Gotta completely agree with you there - I don't do any position adjustments for the same reason. I think our weights are fairly close in general, and I've not had any need for position adjustments.

Was it last year when Berri had Landry Fields rated as one of the best players in the league - mainly because of his rebound rate was much better than other SG's? If he had called him a SF, he would have been practically just another decent player.

But what I'm suggesting is a different sort of position adjustment. The question for me isn't how many more rebounds you're getting relative to others at your position. But rather how valuable are rebounds at your position. In the case of Landry Fields, if it was found that rebounds picked up by SFs are more valuable than rebounds picked up by SGs, than Fields would actually benefit from being treated as a SF.

On defense it seems that centers and forwards are more important. They bring "intangible" value not seen in a traditional boxscore. I assume this is the reason for the rebound discrepancy.

Rebounds are not more important at certain positions, rather, certain positions are more important defensively.

I just added 2011 ASPM numbers to my website:

http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/aspm-a ... 2011-aspm/

Lebron was MVP by my numbers, with a pretty wide margin, but Rose was second by total VORP.