APBRmetrics

thanks for your feedback. I've thought about most of the things in this thread but I'm still unsure of what it all means. Sure, we can measure how much a coach follows "analytic" philosophy, but that's pretty meaningless in the big picture. Also, adherence to those issues would be coming from management, so I think it would be more of an indictment of the franchise than the coach.

Crow - in regards to pythag expected wins; I've looked into it previously and the numbers per year for each coach had so much variance that I don't think it displays anything meaningful.

This is one of the first issues in a long time that I have no opinion or insights into. Really, all I wanted to know if the Raptors should fire Casey but I'm clueless.

Thanks for the observation about Pythagorean wins variance.

If you are a GM and unsure if you should fire a Coach, there might be two rules of thumb: 1) If you face a high risk of bring fired within 6 months if things don't improve, then yeah heavily consider it; and 2) If you have thought about firing him for 2-3 years and are still thinking about it, then the same thing. In the Toronto case the first doesn't apply right now. The second probably doesn't but might be next January. Have they tried everything possible to fix the defense? Is there a defensive coordinator to fire or hire? I might settle for changing 1-3 guys in the main rotation for now. DeRozan, Vasquez ...

No mention of Randy Wittman?

He's got John Wall surrounded by shooters and a couple of useful big men in Gortat and Nene, and all too often the defense is bailed out because Wall or another shooter is taking a midrange jumper instead of pursuing something more valuable. Wall is open because that's what smart defenses want, Wittman.... It's too bad because Wall is really good at finding shooters. The team could be a lot better on offense, especially with Pierce as the 4.

AcrossTheCourt wrote:... The team could be a lot better on offense, especially with Pierce as the 4.

But you predicted they'd win 42 games, and they're on pace to win 45 or 46.
Did you think they'd underachieve even more than they have?
If Pierce is the 4, is Nene` the 3 ?

I just realized that I misunderstood JE's coach RAPM so I wanted to throw this out there.

compile an entire roster's VORP for year X + aging curve for each player and compare it to year Y. Then repeat for the year after ad nauseam.

Frankly, I feel like im missing something here because this seems like it would tell us exactly how effective a coach has been at getting the most out of their roster (and if this is the case, I feel like it would have been done already).


I originally thought should just be applied to new additions to teams to see if they performed better or worse than they did for other teams, but I realized that too many team's have too much roster continuity for this.

Thoughts?

ampersand5 wrote:I just realized that I misunderstood JE's coach RAPM so I wanted to throw this out there.

compile an entire roster's VORP for year X + aging curve for each player and compare it to year Y. Then repeat for the year after ad nauseam.

Frankly, I feel like im missing something here because this seems like it would tell us exactly how effective a coach has been at getting the most out of their roster (and if this is the case, I feel like it would have been done already).


I originally thought should just be applied to new additions to teams to see if they performed better or worse than they did for other teams, but I realized that too many team's have too much roster continuity for this.

Thoughts?

Actually working on this right now but with BPM rather than VORP (as VORP is dependent on playing time).

italia13calcio wrote:

ampersand5 wrote:I just realized that I misunderstood JE's coach RAPM so I wanted to throw this out there.

compile an entire roster's VORP for year X + aging curve for each player and compare it to year Y. Then repeat for the year after ad nauseam.

Frankly, I feel like im missing something here because this seems like it would tell us exactly how effective a coach has been at getting the most out of their roster (and if this is the case, I feel like it would have been done already).


I originally thought should just be applied to new additions to teams to see if they performed better or worse than they did for other teams, but I realized that too many team's have too much roster continuity for this.

Thoughts?

Actually working on this right now but with BPM rather than VORP (as VORP is dependent on playing time).

You're excellent.Is there anyway I can assist? I would love to see these numbers.

I think VORP/per game is the ideal metric to use here (this avoids the problems of players missing time due to injury). It is incumbent on the coach to allocate minutes efficiently. Looking at a roster's collective BPM will tell you a whole lot less about team quality than its collective vorp.

ampersand5 wrote: You're excellent.Is there anyway I can assist? I would love to see these numbers.

I think VORP/per game is the ideal metric to use here (this avoids the problems of players missing time due to injury). It is incumbent on the coach to allocate minutes efficiently. Looking at a roster's collective BPM will tell you a whole lot less about team quality than its collective vorp.

Sure. I'm still working on the BPM aging curve, but I should be done soon. I'll let you when I have that ready.

Wittman definitely pops into mind. He's in love with the long 2, has Beal's development seemingly stunted, and essentially the offense is John Wall doing something. I don't think its a great roster he has, but the offense could be massively better, and the pythag wins are at 40, so they've lucked into a few.

Mike G wrote:

AcrossTheCourt wrote:... The team could be a lot better on offense, especially with Pierce as the 4.

But you predicted they'd win 42 games, and they're on pace to win 45 or 46.
Did you think they'd underachieve even more than they have?
If Pierce is the 4, is Nene` the 3 ?

Randy was their coach last year, so I don't understand why that matters. If he was a new coach, sure, but he's not and it's only like 3-4 wins over that estimate and their Pythag. wins are a little lower. In fact, they won 44 games last year. He's not surging ahead.

Nene gets hurt a ton so you could use Pierce at the 4 whenever that happens or use Nene/Pierce as the frontcourt and stagger a bit with Gortat.

Wittman definitely pops into mind. He's in love with the long 2, has Beal's development seemingly stunted, and essentially the offense is John Wall doing something. I don't think its a great roster he has, but the offense could be massively better, and the pythag wins are at 40, so they've lucked into a few.

Yes, they're 4-2 in overtimes, 12-7 in all games decided by 4 or less. Is that all luck, or are they good in close games? If the latter, that doesn't look bad for the coaching.

Maybe Wittman has somehow stunted Beal -- who last year shot too much (for his %), and this year missed 18 games. Is the coach also responsible for major improvement by Porter and Temple?

Last year, Ariza led the team in VORP/BPM, was up there with Wall and Gortat in WS. Somehow they got nothing for him?
Webster is done. Replacing these guys is a quite old Paul Pierce.

Wizards' minutes have come from players averaging 28.6 years old. (Last year 26.3) Only 6 teams are older. Should some younger guys be getting more minutes?

italia13calcio wrote:

ampersand5 wrote: You're excellent.Is there anyway I can assist? I would love to see these numbers.

I think VORP/per game is the ideal metric to use here (this avoids the problems of players missing time due to injury). It is incumbent on the coach to allocate minutes efficiently. Looking at a roster's collective BPM will tell you a whole lot less about team quality than its collective vorp.

Sure. I'm still working on the BPM aging curve, but I should be done soon. I'll let you when I have that ready.

also, another thought on this - there is a huge issue of rookies. If a team has the number 1 draft pick, the player has a much higher chance of making an impact than a second rounder. Coaches shouldn't get credit for Durant being an allstar.

Mike G wrote:

Wittman definitely pops into mind. He's in love with the long 2, has Beal's development seemingly stunted, and essentially the offense is John Wall doing something. I don't think its a great roster he has, but the offense could be massively better, and the pythag wins are at 40, so they've lucked into a few.

Yes, they're 4-2 in overtimes, 12-7 in all games decided by 4 or less. Is that all luck, or are they good in close games? If the latter, that doesn't look bad for the coaching.

Maybe Wittman has somehow stunted Beal -- who last year shot too much (for his %), and this year missed 18 games. Is the coach also responsible for major improvement by Porter and Temple?

Last year, Ariza led the team in VORP/BPM, was up there with Wall and Gortat in WS. Somehow they got nothing for him?
Webster is done. Replacing these guys is a quite old Paul Pierce.

Wizards' minutes have come from players averaging 28.6 years old. (Last year 26.3) Only 6 teams are older. Should some younger guys be getting more minutes?

At the least I'd give Porter more of a shot. He's benched Gortat repeatedly in late game situations as well, which I don't get.

That said, Grunfeld does take a ton of the blame there, he's possibly the worst GM in the league.

Mike G wrote:

Wittman definitely pops into mind. He's in love with the long 2, has Beal's development seemingly stunted, and essentially the offense is John Wall doing something. I don't think its a great roster he has, but the offense could be massively better, and the pythag wins are at 40, so they've lucked into a few.

Yes, they're 4-2 in overtimes, 12-7 in all games decided by 4 or less. Is that all luck, or are they good in close games? If the latter, that doesn't look bad for the coaching....

NBA scores are pretty distorted around the 0 line, so I think you'll have to be a little bit extra careful about drawing conclusions about coaches based on that stuff.

http://www.pedantic.org/~nate/NBA_scores.png

That's why I said 12-7 doesn't look bad for the coaching.
I'd also say it looks better than 7-12.