APBRmetrics

How does WP or MPG compare in this test? Great question. I didn't test WP because I didn't have it matched up to player IDs -- and, frankly, it has consistently finished last in tests of this ilk. I don't even see the point in going out of my way to include it anymore. MPG is a better metric to tes...

No worries -- I realize it sounded like I was disputing things... Was just curious if you'd run a test I hadn't seen before. In any event, it seems to be a testament to the sheer power of usage rate that PER does gain ground over WS when giving extreme weight to changed rosters. Other roles/skills a...

The best metric at evaluating player value should be the one that out-of-sample prediction accuracy at 100% roster turnover rate is better than others. And that's PER (not even empirical) atm as far as public metrics go. However, player tracking metrics are not tested for large turnover rates since...

Neil, I'm sorry to say this but you're doing this community a giant disservice by acting like your way of testing metrics - computing error on the same data that was actually used to fit these models - is a valid test. Everyone, for the love of god, please get a better sense of what constitues in-s...

Treated the same way isn't for sure the same as having the same affects. Not sure how giving them avg performance marks which flies in face of all conventional wisdom lessens suspicion of rig. I think the suspicious would have more suspicion with the avg performance ratings. I.e. those metric autho...

Neil, your earlier study gave those with less than 250 minutes, mean performance rankings??? Not replacement level? Why? Given how many players score below to way way below replacement level on 14yr rapm, I wonder how replacement level isn't way lower and can't imagine the rationale / justification...

I ended up not having started yet, and another demand came up for tomorrow, so you've got a few days at least, if not more.

Mike G wrote:Neil, can you give us a 'last call' on these things? I am painstakingly re-creating eWins year by year into the past, and I'd like to get you all that I can muster in the allotted time.

I was going to start working on this today, so anything last-minute you can add now would be appreciated.

This is what I've been saying. :) I can't yet speak to the newer metrics people have sent me (btw, thanks to all who sent them in!), but plus/minus-based regressions consistently kill WS, PER, and WP. It makes sense -- those other metrics try to logically intuit their weights, but end up "baseb...

The "better" team is still better by BPM, but that's beside the point… If this trend is legitimate (i.e., BPM is systematically overvaluing players), then eWins will be a better predictor of actual NBA teams' performance. If not, then just chalk it up to the cherry-picking exercise, and kn...

Does anyone think the players at left would be competitive with those on the right? That's somewhat disingenuous, Mike -- the team on the right would have a higher BPM as well, +0.2 to -0.7. Granted, that gap works out to about 3 wins per 82 games, but it's not like the team on the left is consider...

It's not just a couple of 'corner' dwellers that make BPM in its present form look weird. And yet, a team composed of players who are good at BPM is more reliably a good team than a team composed of players good at PER, WS, etc. Perhaps that "weirdness" relative to those other metrics act...

Nevertheless, some box score stats are clear that Shaq was the uber-dominant player in the league for 5 or 6 years. PER and eWins say he's one of the top 4 players ever. BPM says he's 18th, not counting anyone's numbers before 1973-74. He ranks just below Kirilenko. The thing is, if you tweak the w...

I still believe I have the best box score metrics - but I am biased. I would put mine up against anybody's fwiw. The proof is in the pudding. :) Send me your data (preferably going back to the merger, or at least the turnover era), and I'll see how well it predicts out of sample. My email is neil.p...

So Neil, for the bop based metric, the specific usage-efficiency tradeoff is essentially non-impactful? It appears so. I was a little surprised by this; I was also surprised it didn't do better than PER in the far-out-of-sample tests. PER holds up strangely well, which I've always attributed to an ...