APBRmetrics

if you separate "fake blocks" ie blocks in which the offense keeps possession, from "real blocks" ie blocks where the defense gets possession, then youll see that the former drop right out of everything. then if you add in sportvu rim protection info, a lot of the value of "...

be careful, guys (iow "paper trade" for a long time first).

this isn't true in the current NBA, particularly this early in the season. I would have thought so as well, but there's already about a .97 R^2 between B-Ref's adjusted and unadjusted efficiency ratings for instance. Exactly, even in a year that should have the biggest disparity, a SoS adjustment w...

Since there isn't a massive disparity between schedules in the NBA (unlike college), I don't think it would change player results more than just a smallish amount (maybe drop East guys a spot or two as west guys move up a spot or two). this isn't true in the current NBA, particularly this early in ...

Here's one issue I have actually: using a metric trained on 2001 to 2014 data to tell you the value of certain stats decades before. Given all the huge changes the league has seen from the way teams are defended, handchecking, outside shooting, the lesser importance of post scoring, etc. I don't th...

Mike G wrote:

my two cents, then ill again shush and get out of this continuing conversation.

You may as well not say this any more.

I'm not sure I see what the problem is with blends or people who nudge their numbers. As long as the predictions are made completely out of sample, why couldn't we run the contest and find out "talkingpractice's intuiton" is the best player ranking system? i agree with this. but then it w...

i sorta agree with some of your comments in the 2nd part here. i think one issue we still disagree on is that if non public or blended metrics are used, its inevitable that people will be doing things to improve predictions. iow, its really simple to take a metric and make a 'blend' metric by simply...

my two cents, then ill again shush and get out of this continuing conversation. there's only one correct way to do this -> 1, on day x, anyone participating would submit player values for day x+1. 2, these values would then be used to predict the games of day x+1. since the point is to compare metri...

I disagree with so much of the quasi-mathematics in this thread (and its predecessors) that I don't know where to begin.

So I shall just shush, get out of your thread, and let you enjoy the last words.

Live long and prosper.

after x weeks of reading this stuff, i just cant help myself any longer... it appears that this hilarious/dangerous thread re: comparing metrics has taken over where the last hilarious/dangerous thread on comparing metrics left off -> - theres insample stuff (both obvious and less obvious) all over ...

BigLeagueInsights wrote: My guess is that the models are regression-based and all of the inputs are relatively simple box score stats.

Injuries to superstars obviously break models, and it's not clear to me how the bookies handle this.

No, and no.

Aren't the BPM's reported on bbref (other than the 2014 and 2015 values) in-sample values? I think this will greatly skew any attempts to blend BPM with other metrics, compare its performance to other metrics, etc.

to me, these results simply imply that the panel thinks that xRAPM, while being clearly the best metric they could've considered while making their rankings, is not perfect. or simply that with the current information available to us, no metric is yet (near) perfect. dont we all agree that Brow and ...

i really hope that Dr Positivity is wrong about MIN.