The 'effect of being up X'

Home for all your discussion of basketball statistical analysis.
ilardi
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:29 am

Re: The 'effect of being up X'

Post by ilardi » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:03 pm

JE wrote:I think you can just divide the coach rating by 5 to get the impact of the coaches' rating on the player rating.
That certainly sounds plausible, but it's ultimately an empirical question, right? For example (whenever you have a few minutes to spare), I think it would be informative to see a comparison of RAPM rating for each of the OKC players with and without the coaching adjustment. Does Brooks's whopping +6.2 coaching effect simply get distributed on a minutes-weighted basis across the entire roster, or are some players disproportionately "penalized" by the Brooks coaching adjustment?

In fact, I think most of us are ultimately interested in knowing, for each NBA player: (a) what is his actual +/- impact on offense/defense?; (b) how much of that impact is attributable to coaching/team context variables?; and (c) how much is fully attibutable to the player after adjusting for such coaching effects? After all, when we look at other advanced metrics (e.g., true shooting %), we never adjust for coaching effects . . . and even if we did/could, we would still also want to know what the actual unadjusted metric value was, since that's the number that tells us what the player ACTUALLY DID. Make sense?

DSMok1
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:18 pm
Location: Maine
Contact:

Re: The 'effect of being up X'

Post by DSMok1 » Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:07 pm

ilardi wrote:
JE wrote:I think you can just divide the coach rating by 5 to get the impact of the coaches' rating on the player rating.
That certainly sounds plausible, but it's ultimately an empirical question, right? For example (whenever you have a few minutes to spare), I think it would be informative to see a comparison of RAPM rating for each of the OKC players with and without the coaching adjustment. Does Brooks's whopping +6.2 coaching effect simply get distributed on a minutes-weighted basis across the entire roster, or are some players disproportionately "penalized" by the Brooks coaching adjustment?

In fact, I think most of us are ultimately interested in knowing, for each NBA player: (a) what is his actual +/- impact on offense/defense?; (b) how much of that impact is attributable to coaching/team context variables?; and (c) how much is fully attibutable to the player after adjusting for such coaching effects? After all, when we look at other advanced metrics (e.g., true shooting %), we never adjust for coaching effects . . . and even if we did/could, we would still also want to know what the actual unadjusted metric value was, since that's the number that tells us what the player ACTUALLY DID. Make sense?
Very good points. A is the easiest, splitting to B and C is the next frontier.
Developer of Box Plus/Minus
APBRmetrics Forum Administrator
GodismyJudgeOK.com/DStats/
Twitter.com/DSMok1

AcrossTheCourt
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:56 am

Re: The 'effect of being up X'

Post by AcrossTheCourt » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:45 am

Perhaps this is why "clutchess" has been difficult to find in players. Some of that noise might be due to how often you are behind/ahead, though the effect decreases the closer the game is.

J.E.
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:28 am

Re: The 'effect of being up X'

Post by J.E. » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:29 pm

ilardi wrote: After all, when we look at other advanced metrics (e.g., true shooting %), we never adjust for coaching effects . . .
I feel like we should, though. And obviously adjust for who you're playing with, too.
Does Belinelli shoot 46% on 3-pointers on average NBA team? Does Stephenson grab 6 DReb/game on an average team? If we could create 'adjusted BoxScore stats' for each player we would get a more accurate SPM.
I feel that's pretty much the next frontier in terms of improving player metrics

ilardi
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:29 am

Re: The 'effect of being up X'

Post by ilardi » Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:13 pm

J.E. wrote:
ilardi wrote: After all, when we look at other advanced metrics (e.g., true shooting %), we never adjust for coaching effects . . .
I feel like we should, though. And obviously adjust for who you're playing with, too.
Does Belinelli shoot 46% on 3-pointers on average NBA team? Does Stephenson grab 6 DReb/game on an average team? If we could create 'adjusted BoxScore stats' for each player we would get a more accurate SPM.
I feel that's pretty much the next frontier in terms of improving player metrics
Yes, but we need to see *both* (adjusted and unadjusted) forms of each metric to get the complete picture . . . i.e., it is important to see player APM numbers both with and without the coaching adjustment.

colts18
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:52 am

Re: The 'effect of being up X'

Post by colts18 » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:34 pm

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong but isn't this some kind of evidence for momentum existing?

v-zero
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:30 pm

Re: The 'effect of being up X'

Post by v-zero » Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:52 am

It is in fact evidence of anti-momentum. That is, performance above expectation will tend to cause said performance, relative to the opponent, to worsen.

Post Reply