AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:17 am Post subject: B-BALL simulation Reply with quote
I've been playing around with B-Ball, which I got from APBR file , simulating 95-96 NBA season and I've got a few questions about it
First, what is the usual difference between results generated by the same line-ups? As i've changed John Stockton to Terrel Brandon playing the same 36 minutes one time I've got about 56 wins and later about 58 (820 games season) I've been wondering about that.
And the second question is purely theoretical. As I understand it, in simulation assist is "just a pass which happened to become an assist". But as I tried reducing Stockton's possesion factor by 50% and 75% percent, he handled the ball less, had less assists but the team won around the same (about 1 win difference). So the question is what about players who seems to be assist dependent (which have majority of their shots assisted)? Shouldn't the loss of a few hundreds assists hurt them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 689
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
First, what is the usual difference between results generated by the same line-ups?
when repeating an identical simulation of 8200 games total, you shouldn't see more than a 4 game swing at most over an average of 82 games. in other words if a team is 41-41 in real life with a per game point differential of zero, in the simulation you shouldn't see a difference of more than about 39-43 to 43-39 over the span of 8200 games, and its usually less than 2-3 games (1 to 1.5 games either way). from just one single 82 game season to the next the difference can easily be more (as could flipping a coin 82 times)...
As i've changed John Stockton to Terrel Brandon playing the same 36 minutes one time I've got about 56 wins and later about 58 (820 games season) I've been wondering about that.
brandon had an excellent season in 95-96. he was the 2nd highest scoring PG in the league per game that season, had the 2nd most points per minute of all PGs, shot a ScFG% (combining 2pters, 3pters, and FTs) of over 56%, got slightly more steals per minute than stockton did, and to top that off had the lowest rate of turnovers per touch of all starting PGs in the league (and with 40% less ast/min than stockton)...
if you simulate penny hardaway from 95-96 on the 95-96 jazz replacing stockton the jazz will win even more games, because that season hardaway had one of the very best seasons since 77-78 by a PG in terms of wins generated through the stats he produced. but he also had 1/3 less assists than stockton did...
And the second question is purely theoretical. As I understand it, in simulation assist is "just a pass which happened to become an assist". But as I tried reducing Stockton's possession factor by 50% and 75% percent, he handled the ball less, had less assists but the team won around the same (about 1 win difference). So the question is what about players who seems to be assist dependent (which have majority of their shots assisted)? Shouldn't the loss of a few hundreds assists hurt them?
when you reduce stockton's touches/min by 75% in the software his touches/min actually only end up getting reduced by a little more than 1/2. you then have a starting PG who gets about 400-500 assists but still shoots a ScFG% of 60%+ with more steals than turnovers (about 135 steals and 115 turnovers) playing 36 min/g. that same season the atlanta hawks had a starting PG (mookie blaylock) with just such stats - 400-500 assists with more steals than turnovers, and that team won just 9 less games than the jazz did, with blaylock shooting worse than stockton, and without an all-NBA 1st teamer like karl malone...
do you believe there is anything in particular that would make the jazz players more assist dependant than the hawks players? that season the jazz had 68% of all their FGM assisted on (highest ratio in the league) but the hawks just 54% (2nd lowest in the league)...
also that season the hawks and jazz PFs played the most minutes on their respective teams. if prior to the season they had swapped PFs, grant long for karl malone, do you think the hawks would have won more games and the jazz less? would karl malone have scored just as well with a PG that got just 1/2 the assists than his previous PG, or would long have scored more?...
just because stockton piled up the assists doesn't mean his teammates could not score without him. stockton played close to two decades in the league and a number of players who played for the jazz during that time also played for other teams. check their stats of how they played on the jazz versus other teams to see how well they scored with and without stockton...
also in 0203 and 0304 steve nash was the starting PG on the mavs. the team went 112-52 those two seasons with ast/fgm of .586. in 0405 and 0506 without nash they were slightly better as they went 118-46, but with ast/fgm of just .513. so they seemed to play just as well with or without the assists...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:51 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Firstly, thanks for the answers.
I've been looking for players in 82games.com who had their assisted fga changeing from one season to another and it seemed to me as there was no general trend in increasing their efg%. And Dirk Nowitzki was able to keep his level of shooting despite the departure of Nash. I guess I was only interested in Korver or Hoiberg type of players who seems to have about 90% of their fga assisted. Of course I am sure that Malone or Hornacek could score without Stocton's assists.
I simulated A. Johnson replacing Stockton for those 36 min and he seemed to be about 5 wins worse than Stockton. I cheked his numbers and it seemed to me that he was very good at ballhandling with just 3% of his touches being TOs and passing with 77% of his touches (95-96 season). Of course, he was poor rebounder and his ScFg was only average. And of course his defense was not as good as Stockton's. So it seems that these Mark Jackson, Avery Johnson type of palyers are overrated by people liking "passing" pg. For me the fun part is analysing the results of the simulations and understanding why something happened. That leads to reevaluations of players as one who may look good at the first glance is in fact much worse (By this simulation I get that D. Stoudamire is in fact on of the worst starting PGs in 95-96 despite scoring 19ppg).
One thing I would like to ask is how to compute toches/min reduction? If rdeucing by 75% means reducing by half, how much is reducing by 50%?
25?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 689
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:58 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
So it seems that these Mark Jackson, Avery Johnson type of players are overrated by people liking "passing" pg.
yep...
most remember stockton primarily as a passer. but during his heyday (say 86-87 to 94-95) he averaged 15 pts/g playing 35 min/g but with very efficient shooting, a very high ScFG% of 60% (and low turnovers per touch). that's the best overall shooting of all players during that 9 year stretch except three - reggie miller, barkley, and mchale....
stockton also had by far the most total steals (over 300 more than the next player), and the 2nd highest rate of st/min next to alvin robertson. he averaged 218 steals a year - that's alot of defensive stops to his credit. heck, he could have gotten 1/2 the assists he got and he still would have been an excellent player...
as great as steve nash is, he has averaged just 65 steals a season over the past 7 years. imagine him getting 150 more steals each season like stockton did...
you can get a ton of assists but if you don't shoot well, or get steals or blocks, or play defense, or rebound, or do something else positive, those assists aren't going to generate a significant number of wins...
For me the fun part is analysing the results of the simulations and understanding why something happened.
it is a nice diagnostic tool...
That leads to reevaluations of players as one who may look good at the first glance is in fact much worse (By this simulation I get that D. Stoudamire is in fact on of the worst starting PGs in 95-96 despite scoring 19ppg).
among the PGs try jalen rose from that season, he's even worse...
One thing I would like to ask is how to compute toches/min reduction? If rdeucing by 75% means reducing by half, how much is reducing by 50%?
25?
depends on (1) the touches/min of the player's teammates, and (2) the ratio of how often each of those players shot, passed, got fouled, and turned the ball over per touch...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:27 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
When simulating J. Rose I get that he is about 14.5 wins worse than A. Hardaway that season (per 36 min). That's quite huge. I was wondering what are the gaps at other positions at various seasons.
I've got an interesting result when simulating D. Wesley - he seemed to be as good as Stockton, but than I saw that he was one of the best shooting and rebounding PGs that season and I understood why he was so good. That left me wondering about some present players. How do B. Davis, B. Knight or T. J. Ford end up in simulation than compared to guys like S. Nash or C. Billups? As i've checked the latter two were shooting over 10% better in Scfg%last season.
Also I wanted to ask how does the software calculate game pace. I've looked at some teams and they were quite close to the real life.
And how did you rate the players defensively before 82games.com data was available? Using some stats or just by watching players?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 689
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
When simulating J. Rose I get that he is about 14.5 wins worse than A. Hardaway that season (per 36 min). That's quite huge.
he wasn't too good that year - very high rate of turnovers per touch for someone with such high touches/min...
I was wondering what are the gaps at other positions at various seasons.
at 40 min/g and 82 games 14-15 wins between the best and worst starters at a specific position is pretty typical. in 05-06 for example the difference between PFs elton brand and juwan howard on a 40 min/g and 82 game basis was 16-18 wins, depending on which team you did the simulation on (brand was very good that season)...
the gap between the best and worst SGs in say 87-88 is larger, specifically because jordan had his best season statistically then. this 06-07 season the gap in SFs will also be large because adam morrison is playing so poorly statistically (yes he's not a starter but he will end up playing about 2300 minutes).....
I've got an interesting result when simulating D. Wesley - he seemed to be as good as Stockton, but than I saw that he was one of the best shooting and rebounding PGs that season and I understood why he was so good.
high ScFG% (one of the very best 3pt shooting PGs), high rebounding, also good steals, good defender, what's not to like...
That left me wondering about some present players. How do B. Davis, B. Knight or T. J. Ford end up in simulation than compared to guys like S. Nash or C. Billups?
knight and ford two of the worst starting PGs, nash and billups two of the best...
Also I wanted to ask how does the software calculate game pace. I've looked at some teams and they were quite close to the real life.
attention to detail?...
And how did you rate the players defensively before 82games.com data was available? Using some stats or just by watching players?
watch everything you can, read everything you can, take notes. more subjective than now, so god bless roland beech and his efforts for making our current analytical lives easier...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:37 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I've got a few interesting results when simulating PGs. B. J. Armstrong, D. Harper, B. Price and D. Barros ended up being inthe top 11. That seems to show that Scfg% is one of the most important stat to look upon as all these had high Scfg. On the other hand, R. Strickland, J. Kidd ended up average. But a player like T. Hardaway ended up pretty poor. I've than simulated him from 96-97 season and he got about 4 wins more, so it seems that 95-96 season was not good for him.
Anyway, I've simulated PGs on Utah, Toronto and New York (as they all had PG that played 36 min in substitution pattern) and it seems that some players can look better on different teams. So I was wondering what are biggest difference in wins than compared to the best or the worst player in that position when playing different teams (I mean that for example M. Jackson was about 1.3 wins better in NY than in Tor if compared to the worst PG I've found there - B. Shaw).
Also I would like to ask if there is any difference which periods of time a player plays in substitution pattern or the only thing that matters is playing time in your sumulation.
By the way, are you going to add a few more seasons to your simulation wihich you put in APBR files?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3604
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:10 am Post subject: Reply with quote
AGBCZAL wrote:
I've got a few interesting results ... That seems to show that Scfg% is one of the most important stat to look upon ...
How does Utah do with Steve Kerr as a replacement for Stockton?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:52 am Post subject: Reply with quote
When simulating Kerr instead of Stockton I get Utah win as much as they do with Stockton. Really, an interesting case, but Kerr gets about 12ppg with TS% of 0.664 and only 1 to per game. He also gets only 3.4 assists but with 1.1 steal per game and thats more steals than turnovers. When simulating Stockton gets about 15ppg with TS% of 0.646, he gets 11.4apg and 1.7 steals but 3 TOs per game. However, K. Malone and J. Hornacek get 27.6 and 15.4 ppg with Stockton but 28.6 and 15.9 with Kerr. Kerr is rated as +2% in defense and Stockton as -3.5%.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3604
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:13 am Post subject: Reply with quote
So in simulation, in spite of Stockton's greatly superior defense, the Jazz win just as much with Kerr at point. Main difference is that he takes a couple less shots per game, I'm guessing; leading to Malone and Hornacek shooting a bit more.
And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists. I wonder if this is realistic. Really, I suspect that it is not. Perhaps it's unrealistic to plug in a player like Kerr at PG, even though on the Bulls he was one of several who were classified as such, but without the traditional duties.
Kerr had more steals than turnovers overall in his 5 seasons in Chicago; but not at any other time in his career. This seems almost certainly to be a causal relationship, which did not transfer with Kerr to his subsequent stops in SA and Por. He also enjoyed his best shooting with the Bulls.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 689
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I've got a few interesting results when simulating PGs. B. J. Armstrong, D. Harper, B. Price and D. Barros ended up being inthe top 11. That seems to show that Scfg% is one of the most important stat to look upon as all these had high Scfg.
not only overall shooting efficiency or ScFG% but also turnovers. 3 of the 4 you mentioned had not only high overall shooting but also low turnovers per touch (lower than the average PG that season)....
in harper's case he was also a very good defender...
...a player like T. Hardaway ended up pretty poor. I've than simulated him from 96-97 season and he got about 4 wins more, so it seems that 95-96 season was not good for him.
take a look at his stats 95-96 vs 96-97. if you extrapolate his turnovers to minutes played you'll see he had about 20% more turnovers per minute in 95-96 than in 96-97 (with similar touches/min)...
...what are biggest difference in wins than compared to the best or the worst player in that position when playing different teams.
that's alot of permutations to run, i don't know offhand. it all depends on what the player you are simulating brings to the team and what the team needs to generate more wins. i do remember running penny hardaway 95-96 on different teams and seeing a large difference of 6-7 wins over 82 games, but don't know if that's the most difference you'd see....
also as a team wins more games its hard to improve it much with another great player versus a poor team adding a great player...
Also I would like to ask if there is any difference which periods of time a player plays in substitution pattern or the only thing that matters is playing time in your simulation.
players touches/min are affected by the touches/min of the other players, and how often per touch they shoot, pass, etc. thus their statistical offensive production can change based on how their touches/min change based on who their teammates are....
also playing players more in the last 4 minutes of a quarter versus the first 4 minutes of a quarter will result in the former getting more FTAs as teams are in the bonus more often towards the end of a quarter...
By the way, are you going to add a few more seasons to your simulation which you put in APBR files?
not sure, maybe at some point..
And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists. I wonder if this is realistic. Really, I suspect that it is not.
let's use the example from above - mookie blaylock played the same amount of minutes in 95-96 as stockton did but with 1/2 the assists, on a team with similar pace - 90.9 vs 91.3 poss/48min. the hawks that season without blaylock got less assists per game than the jazz got without stockton (13.8 vs 14.9 ast/g). the players playing the most minutes on that hawks team other than blaylock were their SG and PF - steve smith and grant long. the players playing the most minutes on the jazz that season other than stockton were their SG and PF, jeff hornacek and karl malone...
the hawks won just 9 less games than the jazz that year. is there something in the makeup of smith and long that makes you believe they were better at creating their own shots than hornacek and malone? are you under the impression that malone and hornacek, if traded to the hawks, or if blaylock was traded to the jazz, would score less, or shoot worse, because they couldn't create their own shots with a PG that got 1/2 the assists that stockton did?...
Last edited by bchaikin on Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3604
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:16 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
...are you under the impression that malone and hornacek, if traded to the hawks, or if blaylock was traded to the jazz, would score less, or shoot worse, because they couldn't create their own shots with a PG that got 1/2 the assists that stockton did?...
Hmmm, well Mookie was a pretty good PG. What I wondered was whether Steve Kerr could fill Stockton's shoes without the Jazz players suffering dropoffs in production or efficiency.
Kerr seems to be one of those players we might call 'context dependent'. He didn't have much of a career before the Bulls placed him in the '4th-option/shooter' niche. He found a similar gig with the Spurs later, though they couldn't find him quite as many minutes.
If the simulation is truly accurate, how does one explain the apparent interchangeability of an all-world player like Stockton and a niche specialist like Kerr?
Of course, I'm also intensely interested in the value of an assist. Assists may double-count made baskets; but don't all stats other than points do this? Rebounds and steals gain possession, but they are only positive if points result.
Steals and blocks are boxscore proxies for 'defense'; DReb are, as well. Assists are registered when someone else scores; but there's probably a good correlation between the assist-getters and the guys who bring the ball up the floor, make generally good/timely passes, spread the floor, etc.
So each registered assist may represent several positive contributions on offense. Since these things improve point differential, you might say the majority of 'points' are double-counted with Ast, Reb, etc. This effectively reduces the value of, say, 20 points by a player, to a lesser % of his team's productivity.
If Assists are thought to have (or programmed to have) little or no value, why then do players pass the ball?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 689
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmmm, well Mookie was a pretty good PG.
hmmm, well steve was a pretty good shooter...
don't expect an exchange of dialogue to your questions if you refuse to respond in kind...
And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists. I wonder if this is realistic. Really, I suspect that it is not...
blaylock got 1/2 the assists stockton did in 95-96, the rest of the hawks less ast/g than the rest of the jazz. how would malone and hornacek do with blaylock as a PG?...
What I wondered was whether Steve Kerr could fill Stockton's shoes without the Jazz players suffering dropoffs in production or efficiency.
do you wonder the same about doc rivers of the 95-96 spurs?...
Last edited by bchaikin on Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
metalloids
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 6
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Can you please post a link to the B-Ball simulator? I haven't heard of it, and can't find it. Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3604
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:50 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
...
is there something in the makeup of smith and long that makes you believe they were better at creating their own shots than hornacek and malone? are you under the impression that malone and hornacek, if traded to the hawks, or if blaylock was traded to the jazz, would score less, or shoot worse, because they couldn't create their own shots with a PG that got 1/2 the assists that stockton did?...
I think Karl Malone was a better scorer, with or without a given teammate, than Grant Long. Meanwhile, there does seem to be a relationship between assisted-FG and FG%. Hornacek shot around .590 (TS%) alongside KJ in Phx; about .550 for a year and a half in Philly; and over .600 in Utah, for a while.
Watching Malone and Stockton together, they definitely enhanced one another's averages. There's not been any suggestion that players cannot create a shot, or that they are wholly dependent on passing to set them up. But players go thru ups and downs in FG% for some reason.
Thurl Bailey's shooting %'s shot up when Stock became a starter. How bout Donyell Marshall: after 8 NBA seasons shooting around 40%, he spends 2 Jazz years ~51% (FG%). He's been 42-46% ever since.
But none of this really addresses the one sticking point: Steve Kerr was no Mookie Blaylock, nor was he a John Stockton. What is missing in the translation from real NBA to B-Ball ?
And no, I don't guess '96 Doc Rivers = '96 Stockton either.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Author Message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 676
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:23 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Watching Malone and Stockton together, they definitely enhanced one another's averages.
moreso than if malone and blaylock had played together?...
There's not been any suggestion that players cannot create a shot, or that they are wholly dependent on passing to set them up.
no? then what does this mean?...
And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists. I wonder if this is realistic. Really, I suspect that it is not.
as i read this it says that you suspect that it is realistic that there should be a reduction in scoring efficiency without assists. or am i reading this incorrectly?...
But none of this really addresses the one sticking point: Steve Kerr was no Mookie Blaylock, nor was he a John Stockton.
aahh, but was mookie blaylock a john stockton, with just 1/2 the assists? if so why? if not why not?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3476
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:31 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
as i read this it says that you suspect that it is realistic that there should be a reduction in scoring efficiency without assists. or am i reading this incorrectly?...
It seems pretty obvious that a team which passes the ball will score more points than one which doesn't. Short of getting up a game, I don't know how to prove this to you.
All other things being equal, the team that shoots a better % tends to prevail. We haven't seen a player who shoots 0% on unassisted shots and 100% on assisted shots. Well, I guess everybody shoots 100% on assisted shots, in retrospect.
Not sure why you need a definitive comparison between Blaylock and Stockton, but here's the best I can do:
Code:
per36 1996 G Min Eff% Sco Reb Ast Stl TO Blk total eWins
Stockton 82 36 .630 19.1 3.4 11.7 1.8 3.1 .2 37.6 11.7
Blaylock 81 36 .525 16.6 4.6 6.3 2.7 2.4 .2 31.0 8.6
Mookie had better years in '94, '95, and '97. But Stock had 10 seasons better than any of those.
Quote:
moreso than if malone and blaylock had played together?...
I honestly don't know. Is that good enough?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
A really curious case in simulation was L. Hunter. Having extremely low touches/min (0.86) low Scfg% below average rebounding, stealing numbers, below average defense rating and very low scoring output he still ends up being average PG that year. The only thing he stood out for was low number of TOs per touch. On the other hand E. Perry, who has higher scoring numbers, higher Scfg%, higher defensive rating, a little worse rebounding numbers but higher steals ends up pretty much the same (he commits more TO's per touch though). I wonder if this is due to Hunters touches/min. Any comments?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 676
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:36 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I honestly don't know. Is that good enough?
funny, you seemed so sure before with kerr...
So in simulation, in spite of Stockton's greatly superior defense, the Jazz win just as much with Kerr at point. Main difference is that he takes a couple less shots per game, I'm guessing; leading to Malone and Hornacek shooting a bit more. And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists. I wonder if this is realistic. Really, I suspect that it is not....If the simulation is truly accurate, how does one explain the apparent interchangeability of an all-world player like Stockton and a niche specialist like Kerr?
why are you not so sure now?...
in 95-96 blaylock got just 1/2 the assists stockton got playing pretty much the same total minutes - not 10% less assists, not 20%, but just 52% of the assists stockton got. if you put blaylock on the jazz replacing stockton are you saying is it realistic that there should be a reduction in scoring efficiency with the other jazz players because malone, hornacek, et al would have to create more shots than they had to create with stockton, and thus could not shoot as well with blaylock? if so how much less? a 50% reduction in assists is a large decrease, would there be a corresponding large reduction in scoring efficiency?...
your eWins shows stockton with 25% more eWins than blaylock in 95-96 playing the same number of minutes per game. how does this translate to real wins? the jazz went 55-27 with stockton playing 36 min/g at PG. what would the team's record have been with blaylock replacing stockton? would they have won more games? less games? if so how many? the hawks went 46-36 with blaylock playing 36 min/g. would they have won more games with stockton replacing blaylock at PG because stockton had 25% more eWins? if so how many more?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3476
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Hey, Bob: Is this a game of some sort, in which you insist I answer some questions unrelated to the topic; and for each answer I give, you give me 3 more questions?
Maybe you are semi-equating Stockton and Blaylock; then you may semi-equate Mookie to Doc; then Doc to Kerr. If I can't prove any of these inequalities, then Kerr = Stockton. It's a peculiar way to respond, but it's a free country.
Stockton and Malone played so long together, thru their formative years really, that each is only defined along with the other. We don't know how Dominique would have worked with the Lakers in place of Worthy. Or Drexler in place of Pippen. The combos we don't/won't know is many times greater than what we do know.
Blaylock was never as effective as Stockton. If he'd been 'brought up with' Malone in the Jazz system, who knows? Stock is worth about 6 more wins in '96, as guessed at by eWins. Steve Kerr, the subject of my wondering, bounced around in several teams' systems, and he was never any kind of starting-caliber point guard.
I don't really expect an answer here. But now we're wondering if the sim equates Stockton and Blaylock, or why you've persistently asked whether it's so.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 676
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Stock is worth about 6 more wins in '96...
excellent...
now karl malone and grant long both played the most minutes on each team, and similar minutes, and both played PF. which one was worth more wins and by how many? the shooting guards steve smith and jeff hornacek were each 3rd on their team in minutes played, and within 9% of each other's minutes. which one was worth more wins and by how many?...
this should be interesting because both malone and hornacek shot better than long and smith, and malone had twice as many assists as long and hornacek 50% more assists than smith...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3476
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:48 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry to say, I posted stats out of an outdated eWins file. Now Stockton looks like he's 4.2 Wins/82G better than Blaylock (not 6).
Code:
eW Jazz96 eW Hawks96
17.2 Malone 9.1 Smith
10.7 Stockton 8.6 Blaylock
8.9 Hornacek 6.2 Long
3.8 Morris 5.2 Augmon
2.8 Benoit 2.9 Ehlo
2.0 Keefe 2.9 Lang
2.1 Carr 2.6 Laettner
1.2 Spencer 1.7 Henderson
.6 Ostertag 1.5 Webb
.5 Eisley 1.5 Norman
.5 Foster .4 Jordan
.0 Russell .4 Rooks
50.3 Utah .4 Bullard
43.3 Atlanta
eWins are designed to correspond to pythagorean expected wins. In '96, the Jazz had a pt-diff that suggests they were 'really' a 59-win team.
To convert team eW to expected W: xW = 2*eW - 41 (for an 82-game schedule). To reckon the xW difference between any 2 players, double their eW diff.
Atlanta has more help from their 4-thru-N guys, while Malone is as good as any 2 Hawks.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 676
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry to say, I posted stats out of an outdated eWins file. Now Stockton looks like he's 4.2 Wins/82G better than Blaylock (not 6).
no problem... he still looks significantly better than blaylock...
wow these numbers look very good. hhmm, lets see...
by how i calculate wins based on team point differential, the jazz, who actually went 55-27 in 1995-96, should have gone 58-24, while the hawks, who went 46-36, should have gone 44-38. your eWins shows:
50.3 x 2 - 41 = 59.6 which is very close to 58
for the hawks it shows:
43.3 x 2 - 41 = 45.6 which is very close to 44
this is excellent. doesn't get much closer than that...
now, if i'm reading this right, you're saying stockton is 4.2 games better than blaylock, correct? would that be:
43.3 - 8.6 + 10.7 = 45.4 eWins then x 2 -41 = 49.8 actual wins
and thus 49.8 - 45.6 = 4.2 more actual wins for the hawks with stockton rather than blaylock? is this how you are getting the 4.2 actual wins?...
since both players were in fact starting PGs for nba teams, and both just happened to play the same number of minutes, this should be a straight forward swap, correct?...
hhmm...
ok, what if we swap both stockton and malone for blaylock and grant? both stockton and blaylock were in fact starting PGs in the league, and played the same number of minutes, and both karl malone and grant long were in fact starting PFs in the league, and also played approximately the same number of minutes:
for the hawks that would be:
43.3 - 8.6 - 6.2 + 10.7 + 17.2 = 56.4 x 2 - 41 = 71.8 wins or a W-L of 72-10
for the jazz that would be:
50.3 - 10.7 - 17.2 + 8.6 + 6.2 = 37.2 x 2 - 41 = 33.4 wins or a W-L of 33-48
meaning a starting five of christian laettner, karl malone, stacey augmon, steve smith, and john stockton, with a bench of sean rooks, alan henderson, ken norman, craig ehlo, and spud webb, would match the best W-L record in league history?...
or how about just a straight swap of malone for grant?
43.3 - 6.2 + 17.2 = 54.3 x 2 - 41 = 67.6 wins or a W-L of 67-15 to 68-14
meaning on an 82 game and 36 min/g basis malone generated 22-24 more wins than did grant long. plus long wasn't even the worst starting PF in the league that season, starting PFs like kevin willis and popeye jones were even worse. would malone generate 30+ more wins than each of these two playing 36 min/g and 82 games? if so that'd be pretty impressive, considering malone shot better, scored better, and rebounded better in about 8 other seasons...
or would this not be a straight swap because a portion of malone's productivity is more dependant on stockton than it would be with blaylock because blaylock got just 1/2 assists stockton did, and thus maybe that 67-15 to 68-14 record would be somewhat worse?...
or might i be misinterpreting how to use eWins?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3476
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
...
43.3 - 8.6 + 10.7 = 45.4 eWins then x 2 -41 = 49.8 actual wins
and thus 49.8 - 45.6 = 4.2 more actual wins for the hawks with stockton rather than blaylock? is this how you are getting the 4.2 actual wins?...
More directly, (10.7 - 8.6) *2 = 4.2
Quote:
...a starting five of christian laettner, karl malone, stacey augmon, steve smith, and john stockton, with a bench of sean rooks, alan henderson, ken norman, craig ehlo, and spud webb, would match the best W-L record in league history?...
The Jazz peaked in '97, at 64-18. After their Big 3, they had Russell, Ostertag, A. Carr, Eisley, Shandon, Morris... None of whom were above-average players in 1996.
Smith is about equal to Hornacek, while the rest of the Hawks are basically better than the Jazz contingent. Since Malone played about 4% more minutes than Long, someone's got to give up a bit. Since both teams were 'overrated' by eW by a game or 2, I'd say 70-12 is about right.
Malone, Stockton, and Hornacek plus 'replacement' players were good for (17+11+9)*2-41= 35 wins. Additional talent equivalent to one more 10 eW player gets them to 55 wins. There must be a non-linearity in the ultra-simplistic formula, but I haven't met it. Teams don't seem to have more than 2 superstars, and players can only get so many minutes.
Supposing that players are equally productive in any combination is a stretch. A team needs scorers, rebounders, passers, defenders,...
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 676
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:53 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Since both teams were 'overrated' by eW by a game or 2, I'd say 70-12 is about right.
really... wow... the 2nd best record in league history?...
that 95-96 season wasn't even malone's and stockton's best seasons statistically in the league. it was malone's 11th season in the league and stockton's 12th. if you put malone and stockton from the 89-90 jazz team, which also went 55-27 (similar to the 95-96 jazz team), on the 95-96 hawks for 36 min/g and 82 games replacing long and blaylock, would the 95-96 hawks team be even better than 70-12? the same? worse?...
stockton in 89-90 shot a bit worse overall (still the 2nd best overall shooting PG behind only magic) but scored better (14%-15% more pts/g) with 20% more assists playing identical minutes compared to 95-96. he also got 33% more steals with just 10% more turnovers (67 more steals but just 26 more turnovers). malone had more turnovers and less assists in 89-90 vs 95-96, but shot much better overall and scored over 5 more pts/g, getting 31 pts/g on a very high ScFG% of 61%. as a matter of fact, that season was malone's career best for both overall shooting and scoring per game...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3476
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
What's surprising about this, Bob? In '97, the Jazz had slightly better role players and went 64-18. Another upgrade and they're in alltime-elite territory.
Malone in his 11th season hadn't yet won his first MVP. In '96, all his stats are a bit above his career averages, when standardized. If you take the greatest PF of all time, at or near his prime; and the greatest passer ever, who's also one of the deadliest shooters ever; and add substantial support -- you've got possibly the winningest team ever.
eWins doesn't really allow for time travel from a season to 6 years later. Each year has it's standardizing parameters. But what has that to do with whether Steve Kerr is as effective as John Stockton ?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 676
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
What's surprising about this..
not only surprising but quite enlightening...
eWins doesn't really allow for time travel from a season to 6 years later
understood.... annual standardization's vary....
just one more then please? - from that same season what was the eWin distribution for the 95-96 cleveland cavaliers?...
But what has that to do with whether Steve Kerr is as effective as John Stockton ?
coming to that...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1311
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
stockton in 89-90 shot a bit worse overall (still the 2nd best overall shooting PG behind only magic) but scored better (14%-15% more pts/g) with 20% more assists playing identical minutes compared to 95-96. he also got 33% more steals with just 10% more turnovers (67 more steals but just 26 more turnovers). malone had more turnovers and less assists in 89-90 vs 95-96, but shot much better overall and scored over 5 more pts/g, getting 31 pts/g on a very high ScFG% of 61%. as a matter of fact, that season was malone's career best for both overall shooting and scoring per game...
In 89-90, the Jazz averaged 96.1 possessions per game. In 95-96 that was down to 90.0 per game. Does that not matter when you're making statements like "so-and-so got 15% more pts/game in 89-90"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3476
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Code:
11.2 Brandon
6.7 Mills
6.3 Phills
5.4 Ferry
5.2 Majerle
4.3 Cage
2.9 Sura
1.9 THill
.8 Crotty
.3 Lang
.1 Marshall
.0 Miner
.0 Courtney
-.2 Amaechi
That's Donny Marshall.
These sum to 44.9
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 676
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:14 am Post subject: Reply with quote
the 95-96 cavs went 47-35. they had a per game point differential of +2.6 pts. by my calculation that's an expected W-L of 48-34...
44.9 x 2 - 41 = 48.8 expected wins...
very close...
the Cs on that cavs team were cage, hill, and amechi. the PFs were ferry, lang, courtney, with probably some hill/amechi or marshall also at PF....
ferry had 5.4 eWins. he played 33 min/g and every game. i'm guessing his backups for at least 5 min/g (to get to 38 min/g, what malone played) put those eWins to at least 6.0 to 6.2. exchanging karl malone 95-96 for ferry 95-96 and some backups to get the cleveland PF up to 38 min/g similar to malone, would that be:
44.9 - 6.1 + 17.2 = 56 x 2 - 41 = 71 actual wins?
also brandon has 11.2 eWins, stockton 10.7, and brandon played less minutes. does that mean if you swapped brandon for stockton...
the greatest passer ever, who's also one of the deadliest shooters ever
the jazz would win more games?...
B-ball simulation (AGBCZAL, 2007)
B-ball simulation (AGBCZAL, 2007)
Last edited by Crow on Tue May 10, 2011 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: B-ball simulation
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3628
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
In Brandon's career year of '96, he was apparently as good as Stockton was in any year.
Of these 2 squads, the Jazz have 3 of the 4 best players. The Cavs have 6 of the best 10. THill missed 38 G.
From the point of view of rebuilding a team around Malone: For this one season, he gets an upgrade at PG; he gives up Hornacek for 5 guys who are not as good, yet better than anyone else he had in Utah. Instead of a co-star, one other good player, and scrubs -- he's got a co-star and 7 other guys who can ball.
After Malone and Stockton, the Jazz were perennially one of the most untalented teams in the league. Hornacek put them at the next level, even though he was a sub-allstar in the last phase of his career. Earlier with Eaton they'd been contenders. Any average team in the league, most years, had better 3-thru-10 players.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
exchanging karl malone 95-96 for ferry 95-96 and some backups to get the cleveland PF up to 38 min/g similar to malone, would that be:
44.9 - 6.1 + 17.2 = 56 x 2 - 41 = 71 actual wins?
is this correct, or close to being correct? within 1-2 wins? 3-4 wins?
In Brandon's career year of '96, he was apparently as good as Stockton was in any year.
brandon got about 1/2 the actual assists stockton did in 95-96 (487 to 916). if you adjust for minutes played he would have gotten what about 60% the assists stockton got? adjust for pace and he would have gotten perhaps about 2/3 the assists stockton got?...
brandon shot a ScFG% of 56.3%, his career best. but his career best was still 6%-7% less than stockton's 63.0% ScFG% that season (and also less than about another 14 of stockton's seasons). how does a player who gets 1/3 less assists and shoots worse than...
the greatest passer ever, who's also one of the deadliest shooters ever
generate as many wins as stockton did on the 95-96 jazz?...
if brandon was as good as stockton was in 95-96, had brandon shot even better than stockton's ScFG% of 63.0% in 95-96 rather than a ScFG% of just 56.3%, would he have generated even more wins than stockton did on the 95-96 jazz?...
And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists.
is there any reduction in scoring efficiency with malone and hornacek since brandon got significantly less assists than stockton?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3628
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
... how does a player who gets 1/3 less assists and shoots worse than...
the greatest passer ever, who's also one of the deadliest shooters ever
generate as many wins as stockton did on the 95-96 jazz?...
Standardized, Brandon was about 30% better scorer (rate * eff%), 20% better rebounder, 66% the assistor (good guess!), slightly better stealer, only 65% the turnovers, and 150% better shotblocker (woopee) than Stockton, in '96.
Any player generates more wins by shooting a higher %, for whatever team. If in fact Brandon merges seamlessly with a new team, he continues his productivity. It may be better or worse; sooner or later.
I've now responded to 50 questions, Bob. All were asked after you were presented with the question about Kerr in your sim. I'm now leaving it to you, to respond or not. Someone else may attempt to answer more of your what-if's, but it won't be me.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Any player generates more wins by shooting a higher %, for whatever team.
well that's good news, because kerr had the league's 2nd best overall shooting in 95-96, behind only tim legler...
so are you saying that if brandon shot even better (not necessarily as good as stockton with a ScFG% of 63.0% but something better than his 56.3% ScFG%) he would have generated even more wins on the jazz than stockton, despite somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 less assists? well then what happened to this?:
So in simulation, in spite of Stockton's greatly superior defense, the Jazz win just as much with Kerr at point. Main difference is that he takes a couple less shots per game, I'm guessing; leading to Malone and Hornacek shooting a bit more. And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists. I wonder if this is realistic. Really, I suspect that it is not.
kerr not only shot better than brandon, he also shot better than stockton. but where brandon would get something like just 2/3 the assists stockton got, kerr would get something like only 1/3 the assists stockton got. one case you suspect is not realistic, the other, despite your brazen statements to the contrary because of a reduction in scoring efficiency due to a lack of assists, not only is realistic, but now generates as many wins as the jazz (and with brandon not as good a defender as stockton too)...
What I wondered was whether Steve Kerr could fill Stockton's shoes without the Jazz players suffering dropoffs in production or efficiency.
if the jazz players would suffer dropoffs in production or efficiency because of kerr's lack of assists, wouldn't the same hold true for brandon's lack of assists? would there be a 2/3 drop in scoring efficiency for malone, hornacek, and the rest of the jazz players with kerr, but just a 1/3 drop in scoring efficiency with brandon? all just because of assists?...
or is there some magical eWin cutoff, at which some point efficiency/production drops off (i'm guessing if there is its probably something at less than the assists than brandon gets but more than the assists kerr gets, so instead of the mendoza line we'll just call it the kerr line)? your eWins shows the jazz as good as with brandon as with stockton, but with significantly less assists. why no dropoff in production or efficiency there?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I was simmulating some centers from that 1995-96 season and it surprised me greatly that D. Robinson seems to generate about 6-7 wins more over players like H. Olajuwon, S. O'Neal, A.Sabonis, D. Mutombo. Checked his stats and it looked like his game has no flaws than, as he was dominant scorer, great rebounder, great blocker, greate defender, good steraler and had very low number of turnovers. Still, the difference was so huge that it amazed me.
So I checked some other of Robinson's seasons and it seemed that in 1994-95 he was just as good. I decided to check a few Olajuwon's and O'Neal's seasons and the closest I got was I think about 1.5 wins less by O'Neal of 93-94. So I was wondering if any other center was able to generate so many wins for his team. In particular, I was wondering about O'Neals 1999-2000 season. How does it look like than compared to these incredible seasons of Robinson?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Still, the difference was so huge that it amazed me.
try drob from 91-92... an incredible number of defensive stops through steals and blocks alone... add to that 23 pts/g on a ScFG% of 58%+...
I was wondering about O'Neals 1999-2000 season
low turnovers, but few steals and just 2/3 the blocks compared to drob's best...
Checked his stats and it looked like his game has no flaws than, as he was dominant scorer, great rebounder, great blocker, greate defender, good steraler and had very low number of turnovers. Still, the difference was so huge that it amazed me.
use the change player characteristics screen in the full season version to say swap the steal and block ratings for shaq and drob (run a sim and change shaq's steals from 2.1 to 3.7 and his shot block rating from 3.6 to 5.4, do the reverse with drob) to see the difference. or better yet change either to the low ST and BS ratings of bryant reeves. then you'll see the value in those extra defensive stops...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: Reply with quote
A really curious case in simulation was L. Hunter. Having extremely low touches/min (0.86) low Scfg% below average rebounding, stealing numbers, below average defense rating and very low scoring output he still ends up being average PG that year. The only thing he stood out for was low number of TOs per touch. On the other hand E. Perry, who has higher scoring numbers, higher Scfg%, higher defensive rating, a little worse rebounding numbers but higher steals ends up pretty much the same (he commits more TO's per touch though). I wonder if this is due to Hunters touches/min. Any comments?
What I wondered was whether Steve Kerr could fill Stockton's shoes without the Jazz players suffering dropoffs in production or efficiency.
Steve Kerr, the subject of my wondering, bounced around in several teams' systems, and he was never any kind of starting-caliber point guard.
its fun when he answers his own questions...
lindsey hunter and joe dumars were the starting PGs on the 95-96 pistons, but the primary ball handler on detroit that season was SF grant hill. he routinely brought the ball up the floor, played almost every game and 41 min/g, and for all intent and purpose assumed the role we typically consider that of a PG - that of ball distributor. his touches/min were at 1.54, right at the league average for PGs that season (the league average touches/min for SFs that season was just 0.91 touches/min, including hill's high touches/min for a SF), and that was the highest touches/min among SFs that season, even higher than bulls SF scottie pippen. hill shot the ball with 1/4 of all his touches, passed the ball with about 60% of his touches, whereas the typical PG that season shot the ball with just 1/5 of his touches and passed the ball with about 2/3 of them...
lindsey hunter had touches/min in 95-96 of just 0.86, just about 1/2 the touches/min of grant hill and the league average PG. joe dumars, the other PG (allan houston was the SG and played 37 min/g), had touches/min of 1.05. had lindsey played 36 min/g and 82 games, he would have gotten a total of about just 260 assists...
the situation was similar in chicago. while he was a PG, kerr had touches/min of just 0.85. SF pippen and SG jordan were the primary ball handlers/distributors on that bulls team with 1.47 and 1.46 touches/min. so the bulls had not 1 but 2 starters getting touches/min close to what the league average PG was getting, and on top of that the actual starting PG, ron harper, got 0.96 touches/min, and the first player off the bench, toni kukoc, a SF/PF, got 1.28 touches/min. kerr was 5th down the line on that bulls team in terms of how often he handled the ball on offense, he even brought the ball up the floor considerably less often than either pippen or jordan did despite being the "PG". kerr, harper, and kukoc all shot the same amount per touch, with between 1/3 and 1/4 of their touches, and each passed the ball with between 1/2 to 1/3 of their touches....
if you extrapolate the stats of kukoc, harper, and kerr to 36 min/g and 82 games, kukoc would have gotten something like 400 assists from the frontcourt, harper around 325 assists, and kerr 295...
95-96 was 34 year old doc rivers' 13th and last season in the league. he was a PG his whole career but played SG for the spurs that season (avery johnson was the starting PG and cory alexander his backup - combined they played over 3600 minutes). river's touches/min that season and what he did per touch (how often per touch he shot, passed, got fouled, and turned the ball over) were virtually identical to kerr that year...
so the question is if you replace not only the primary ball-handler/distributor on a team, but the primary ball handler/distributor in the entire league (stockton), with a player whose touches/min are just about 1/2 that of the average PG in the league, is it realistic?...
the 95-96 jazz went 55-27 with ast/fgm of 0.684 (68 assists for every 100 fgm). in the history of the nba, since the first 82 game season (1967-68 ), a team has won 55 or more games in a season 142 times, and of those 142 times, this 0.684 ast/fgm is the 7th highest ratio of ast/fgm. not only that, but of the 6 teams with 55 or more wins with ast/fgm higher than that, 4 of those teams were also stockton lead jazz teams. so only 2 teams not with stockton as PG but with 55+ wins had ast/fgm as high as the 95-96 jazz, but 135 other teams won 55+ games in a season with ast/fgm less than the 95-96 jazz, and some with considerably less...
among those 135 teams is the 04-05, 05-06, and 06-07 mavs, who had/have ast/fgm of just 0.526, 0.500, and 0.544. the two leading scorers on those teams were dirk nowitzki and michael finley, nowitzki and jason terry, and nowitzki and josh howard. the leading scorers on the 95-96 jazz were karl malone and jeff hornacek. in all honesty i can't find any reason as to why malone and hornacek could not score as efficiently with or be as productive as nowitzki and whomever with PGs like jason terry and devin harris....
as for whether the 95-96 kerr, rivers, or hunter could replace stockton at PG - i certainly would not advocate running a simulation with a player with just 1/2 the touches/min of the league average PG as another team's starting PG and claim the results as definitive, considering none of these players were their team's primary ball handler/distributor, nor even their 2nd or 3rd (well hunter may have been his team's 3rd). however if any of the three did indeed go to the jazz replacing stockton in the jazz starting lineup hornacek would simply have slid over to the PG slot, with say kerr/hunter/rivers at the SG, as in philadelphia in 92-93 and 93-94 hornacek got 18 pts/g with 6.5 ast/g as a PG/SG on 1.41 touches/min (the league average PG got 1.44 touches/min in 92-93 and 93-94)...
If the simulation is truly accurate, how does one explain the apparent interchangeability of an all-world player like Stockton and a niche specialist like Kerr?
if the simulation is only half as accurate as eWins, it will have tread on hallowed ground...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3628
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
After 64 tangential questions, 28 repetitive quotes, and many other distractions, Bob says something :
bchaikin wrote:
... i certainly would not advocate running a simulation with a player with just 1/2 the touches/min of the league average PG as another team's starting PG and claim the results as definitive,...
...hornacek would simply have slid over to the PG slot, with say kerr/... at the SG, as in philadelphia in 92-93 and 93-94 ....
As noted earlier, Hornacek at PG in Philly -- i.e., without a high-assist PG (KJ/Stockton) to assist him -- saw his eFG% drop from around .550 in Phx to about .500 in Phl, before hitting .560 in Utah. These are not insignificant fluctuations.
If a given players 'touches' may say something about the performance of other players on the same team -- and if these touches are in fact a multiple of Assists (plus other usages) -- then whether or not one believes 'assists tend to improve FG%', one may see the causation/correlation with the 'touches' necessary to reach those assist totals.
My understanding of these BBall touches is that they're something like 'significant touches'; that is, you can't just let a Steve Kerr touch the ball a few more times to make him a more effective PG. There should be a formula, based on the % of a team's touches which are assigned to a player, which is inversely related to his dependence on others to get him his high-% shots.
Such a formula might be based on actual player histories, with their transactions and interactions and resulting eFG% ups and downs. Then one might actually postulate new combinations of players and get results more rooted in reality. And B-Ball wielders couldn't build superteams out of role players.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: Reply with quote
There should be a formula, based on the % of a team's touches which are assigned to a player, which is inversely related to his dependence on others to get him his high-% shots.
are you under some sort of impression that the only reason steve kerr shot so well with the bulls was because, oh, i don't know, perhaps he got tons more open looks due to jordan and pippen getting more attention and perhaps more double teams?
Such a formula might be based on actual player histories, with their transactions and interactions and resulting eFG% ups and downs. Then one might actually postulate new combinations of players and get results more rooted in reality.
sounds like you have yourself a project...
And B-Ball wielders couldn't build superteams out of role players.
how might one do that? and what exactly is a role player?...
Last edited by bchaikin on Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
so the question is if you replace not only the primary ball-handler/distributor on a team, but the primary ball handler/distributor in the entire league (stockton), with a player whose touches/min are just about 1/2 that of the average PG in the league, is it realistic?...
That got me thinking about D. Harper. He had low touches/min and J. Starks got about the same and passed the ball also about the same amount of touches, so I don't know if he can be considered the primary ballhandler. What about him?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
That got me thinking about D. Harper. He had low touches/min and J. Starks got about the same and passed the ball also about the same amount of touches, so I don't know if he can be considered the primary ballhandler. What about him?
compare the 95-96 knicks and the 05-06 mavericks. their team possessions per 48 min were within 3%. the mavs won 60 games (the knicks 47). compare harper to jason terry. compare starks to say oh jerry stackhouse. then compare charlie ward and gary grant to devin harris and darrell armstrong...
what about terry? he had all of 300 assists the whole season. any reason why he couldn't be a successful PG on another team, other than of course the 60 win team he was on? a team that also went to the finals that season with terry getting just as many ast/g as he did during the regular season?...
forget john stockton or even steve nash for a moment. over the past 3 seasons, who has been the better PG - jason terry or brevin knight? who has generated more wins for his team through the statistics he has produced? fwiw knight has averaged close to twice as many assists per minute compared to terry during this time...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
Any player generates more wins by shooting a higher %, for whatever team.
well that's good news, because kerr had the league's 2nd best overall shooting in 95-96, behind only tim legler...
so are you saying that if brandon shot even better (not necessarily as good as stockton with a ScFG% of 63.0% but something better than his 56.3% ScFG%) he would have generated even more wins on the jazz than stockton, despite somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 less assists?
The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is yes. Given that everything else holds the same, if a player shoots a higher % or has a higher ScFG%, that will result in more wins.
For most teams, the difference between their Offensive and Defensive PTS/100POSS is 3 or 4. Skimming through this year's stats, it's no more than around 6. So, if a player takes 20 shots at 50% and then steps that up to 55%, again given that everything else holds the same, that's 2 extra points per game for his team. That could mean a few extra wins for his team, as I see it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, J. Terry really seems to be simmilar to D. Harper on touches/min. But I was wondering about how many touches/min should be enough for a starting PG as you said Hunters at 0.9 touches/min wasn't. So would 1 touches/min suffice?
On the different note, I simulated D. Robinson's 91-92 campaign and it was even better than the ones I tried. So I decide to do a little math and it showed me that 3 blocks per game are worth around 5 wins per season. Checked this with smulation and it showed me that my math was right. Haven't checked the steals yet but the impact of steals should be even bigger. That means that these dedfensive statistics are very important and perhaps undervalued by some people. I wanted to ask how many wins M. Bol generated at his blocking peak? Was he among the better centers overall or not?
One more thing that I would like to know is why did choose the gap between the best and the worst defenders to be 10% ? It seems that even the best defenseive teams do not reduce opponents fg% by more than 2-4%.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
But I was wondering about how many touches/min should be enough for a starting PG as you said Hunters at 0.9 touches/min wasn't. So would 1 touches/min suffice?
all depends on how often the PG's teammates handle the ball on offense. take a look at damon jones. in 03-04 he was the starting PG for milwaukee for 1/3 of the season when t.j. ford went down. he was the backup before that. his numbers show about 700 assists on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis. his touches/min that season were on the high side for a PG...
the next season he's the starting PG in miami, but dwyane wade is the SG, getting more touch/min than an SG has in decades. essentially wade was filling the role of the traditional PG, and jones' touches/min are down about 1/3 from the season before (about 400 assists on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis)...
then in 05-06 jones is the backup PG in cleveland, but lebron james is the starting SF getting more touches/min than any SF had gotten in decades, and is playing 43 min/g and is the key ball distributor. now jones' touches/min are down more than half of what they were just two seasons earlier (just 240 assists on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis), and actually less than steve kerr in 95-96...
On the different note, I simulated D. Robinson's 91-92 campaign and it was even better than the ones I tried.
best i can find...
That means that these defensive statistics are very important and perhaps undervalued by some people.
any defensive statistics are important...
I wanted to ask how many wins M. Bol generated at his blocking peak? Was he among the better centers overall or not?
manute bol committed fouls at the rate of 12.5 per 100 minutes played during his career. over the past 30 seasons players playing at least 1000 minutes in a season and committing fouls at the rate of 12-13 per 100 minutes played averaged playing just 23 min/g. bol averaged only 19 min/g during his career and the most he played in a season (his rookie campaign) was just 26 min/g. so unfortunately his playing time was limited due to foul trouble...
he blocked just under 10% of all opponents FGAs during his career. he played most of his career between 85-86 and 92-93. during that time teams averaged about 7200 FGAs a season. had bol been able to play 36 min/g and 82 games, he would have faced about 5400 FGAs a season, so 10% would be about 540 blocked shots a season (mark eaton once blocked 456 shots in a single season). about 60% of blocked shots are rebounded by the defense (give or take a few percent), so perhaps about 320 defensive stops due to those blocked shots? that'd be somewhat analogous to a player getting 320 steals in a season...
fwiw in the 91-92 rick barry pro basketball scouting report (the predecessor to the pro basketball bible by barry and cohn) it has a blurb that says in 90-91 when bol was on philadelphia that 76ers opponents shot just 42% when he played, 51% when he didn't (he played 1500 minutes that season). if that had been done on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis:
(5400 x 0.51) - (5400 x .42) = 2754 - 2268 = 486 FGM prevented
or 6 less FGM per game. not all due to bol of course, but probably a huge chunk as a result of his shot blocking...
One more thing that I would like to know is why did choose the gap between the best and the worst defenders to be 10% ? It seems that even the best defensive teams do not reduce opponents fg% by more than 2-4%.
as of last week the gap in defensive FG% allowed between the best and worst teams in the nba was about 6%. some seasons have been as high as 8%. a happy medium i guess - just in case for instance tim duncan is traded to the bulls or rockets next season (both could use a good PF)...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
schtevie
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 414
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Were Manute Bol's coaches the worst ever? The foul rate cited implies that he would average 6 per 48 minutes. So what if he fouled out now and again as long as he was decreasing opponents' shooting percentage by 9% or causing a hypothetical 6 FG that wouldn't be M. Unless there was something else going on.
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3628
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
In Brandon's career year of '96, he was apparently as good as Stockton was in any year.
Of these 2 squads, the Jazz have 3 of the 4 best players. The Cavs have 6 of the best 10. THill missed 38 G.
From the point of view of rebuilding a team around Malone: For this one season, he gets an upgrade at PG; he gives up Hornacek for 5 guys who are not as good, yet better than anyone else he had in Utah. Instead of a co-star, one other good player, and scrubs -- he's got a co-star and 7 other guys who can ball.
After Malone and Stockton, the Jazz were perennially one of the most untalented teams in the league. Hornacek put them at the next level, even though he was a sub-allstar in the last phase of his career. Earlier with Eaton they'd been contenders. Any average team in the league, most years, had better 3-thru-10 players.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
exchanging karl malone 95-96 for ferry 95-96 and some backups to get the cleveland PF up to 38 min/g similar to malone, would that be:
44.9 - 6.1 + 17.2 = 56 x 2 - 41 = 71 actual wins?
is this correct, or close to being correct? within 1-2 wins? 3-4 wins?
In Brandon's career year of '96, he was apparently as good as Stockton was in any year.
brandon got about 1/2 the actual assists stockton did in 95-96 (487 to 916). if you adjust for minutes played he would have gotten what about 60% the assists stockton got? adjust for pace and he would have gotten perhaps about 2/3 the assists stockton got?...
brandon shot a ScFG% of 56.3%, his career best. but his career best was still 6%-7% less than stockton's 63.0% ScFG% that season (and also less than about another 14 of stockton's seasons). how does a player who gets 1/3 less assists and shoots worse than...
the greatest passer ever, who's also one of the deadliest shooters ever
generate as many wins as stockton did on the 95-96 jazz?...
if brandon was as good as stockton was in 95-96, had brandon shot even better than stockton's ScFG% of 63.0% in 95-96 rather than a ScFG% of just 56.3%, would he have generated even more wins than stockton did on the 95-96 jazz?...
And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists.
is there any reduction in scoring efficiency with malone and hornacek since brandon got significantly less assists than stockton?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3628
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
... how does a player who gets 1/3 less assists and shoots worse than...
the greatest passer ever, who's also one of the deadliest shooters ever
generate as many wins as stockton did on the 95-96 jazz?...
Standardized, Brandon was about 30% better scorer (rate * eff%), 20% better rebounder, 66% the assistor (good guess!), slightly better stealer, only 65% the turnovers, and 150% better shotblocker (woopee) than Stockton, in '96.
Any player generates more wins by shooting a higher %, for whatever team. If in fact Brandon merges seamlessly with a new team, he continues his productivity. It may be better or worse; sooner or later.
I've now responded to 50 questions, Bob. All were asked after you were presented with the question about Kerr in your sim. I'm now leaving it to you, to respond or not. Someone else may attempt to answer more of your what-if's, but it won't be me.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Any player generates more wins by shooting a higher %, for whatever team.
well that's good news, because kerr had the league's 2nd best overall shooting in 95-96, behind only tim legler...
so are you saying that if brandon shot even better (not necessarily as good as stockton with a ScFG% of 63.0% but something better than his 56.3% ScFG%) he would have generated even more wins on the jazz than stockton, despite somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 less assists? well then what happened to this?:
So in simulation, in spite of Stockton's greatly superior defense, the Jazz win just as much with Kerr at point. Main difference is that he takes a couple less shots per game, I'm guessing; leading to Malone and Hornacek shooting a bit more. And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists. I wonder if this is realistic. Really, I suspect that it is not.
kerr not only shot better than brandon, he also shot better than stockton. but where brandon would get something like just 2/3 the assists stockton got, kerr would get something like only 1/3 the assists stockton got. one case you suspect is not realistic, the other, despite your brazen statements to the contrary because of a reduction in scoring efficiency due to a lack of assists, not only is realistic, but now generates as many wins as the jazz (and with brandon not as good a defender as stockton too)...
What I wondered was whether Steve Kerr could fill Stockton's shoes without the Jazz players suffering dropoffs in production or efficiency.
if the jazz players would suffer dropoffs in production or efficiency because of kerr's lack of assists, wouldn't the same hold true for brandon's lack of assists? would there be a 2/3 drop in scoring efficiency for malone, hornacek, and the rest of the jazz players with kerr, but just a 1/3 drop in scoring efficiency with brandon? all just because of assists?...
or is there some magical eWin cutoff, at which some point efficiency/production drops off (i'm guessing if there is its probably something at less than the assists than brandon gets but more than the assists kerr gets, so instead of the mendoza line we'll just call it the kerr line)? your eWins shows the jazz as good as with brandon as with stockton, but with significantly less assists. why no dropoff in production or efficiency there?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I was simmulating some centers from that 1995-96 season and it surprised me greatly that D. Robinson seems to generate about 6-7 wins more over players like H. Olajuwon, S. O'Neal, A.Sabonis, D. Mutombo. Checked his stats and it looked like his game has no flaws than, as he was dominant scorer, great rebounder, great blocker, greate defender, good steraler and had very low number of turnovers. Still, the difference was so huge that it amazed me.
So I checked some other of Robinson's seasons and it seemed that in 1994-95 he was just as good. I decided to check a few Olajuwon's and O'Neal's seasons and the closest I got was I think about 1.5 wins less by O'Neal of 93-94. So I was wondering if any other center was able to generate so many wins for his team. In particular, I was wondering about O'Neals 1999-2000 season. How does it look like than compared to these incredible seasons of Robinson?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Still, the difference was so huge that it amazed me.
try drob from 91-92... an incredible number of defensive stops through steals and blocks alone... add to that 23 pts/g on a ScFG% of 58%+...
I was wondering about O'Neals 1999-2000 season
low turnovers, but few steals and just 2/3 the blocks compared to drob's best...
Checked his stats and it looked like his game has no flaws than, as he was dominant scorer, great rebounder, great blocker, greate defender, good steraler and had very low number of turnovers. Still, the difference was so huge that it amazed me.
use the change player characteristics screen in the full season version to say swap the steal and block ratings for shaq and drob (run a sim and change shaq's steals from 2.1 to 3.7 and his shot block rating from 3.6 to 5.4, do the reverse with drob) to see the difference. or better yet change either to the low ST and BS ratings of bryant reeves. then you'll see the value in those extra defensive stops...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: Reply with quote
A really curious case in simulation was L. Hunter. Having extremely low touches/min (0.86) low Scfg% below average rebounding, stealing numbers, below average defense rating and very low scoring output he still ends up being average PG that year. The only thing he stood out for was low number of TOs per touch. On the other hand E. Perry, who has higher scoring numbers, higher Scfg%, higher defensive rating, a little worse rebounding numbers but higher steals ends up pretty much the same (he commits more TO's per touch though). I wonder if this is due to Hunters touches/min. Any comments?
What I wondered was whether Steve Kerr could fill Stockton's shoes without the Jazz players suffering dropoffs in production or efficiency.
Steve Kerr, the subject of my wondering, bounced around in several teams' systems, and he was never any kind of starting-caliber point guard.
its fun when he answers his own questions...
lindsey hunter and joe dumars were the starting PGs on the 95-96 pistons, but the primary ball handler on detroit that season was SF grant hill. he routinely brought the ball up the floor, played almost every game and 41 min/g, and for all intent and purpose assumed the role we typically consider that of a PG - that of ball distributor. his touches/min were at 1.54, right at the league average for PGs that season (the league average touches/min for SFs that season was just 0.91 touches/min, including hill's high touches/min for a SF), and that was the highest touches/min among SFs that season, even higher than bulls SF scottie pippen. hill shot the ball with 1/4 of all his touches, passed the ball with about 60% of his touches, whereas the typical PG that season shot the ball with just 1/5 of his touches and passed the ball with about 2/3 of them...
lindsey hunter had touches/min in 95-96 of just 0.86, just about 1/2 the touches/min of grant hill and the league average PG. joe dumars, the other PG (allan houston was the SG and played 37 min/g), had touches/min of 1.05. had lindsey played 36 min/g and 82 games, he would have gotten a total of about just 260 assists...
the situation was similar in chicago. while he was a PG, kerr had touches/min of just 0.85. SF pippen and SG jordan were the primary ball handlers/distributors on that bulls team with 1.47 and 1.46 touches/min. so the bulls had not 1 but 2 starters getting touches/min close to what the league average PG was getting, and on top of that the actual starting PG, ron harper, got 0.96 touches/min, and the first player off the bench, toni kukoc, a SF/PF, got 1.28 touches/min. kerr was 5th down the line on that bulls team in terms of how often he handled the ball on offense, he even brought the ball up the floor considerably less often than either pippen or jordan did despite being the "PG". kerr, harper, and kukoc all shot the same amount per touch, with between 1/3 and 1/4 of their touches, and each passed the ball with between 1/2 to 1/3 of their touches....
if you extrapolate the stats of kukoc, harper, and kerr to 36 min/g and 82 games, kukoc would have gotten something like 400 assists from the frontcourt, harper around 325 assists, and kerr 295...
95-96 was 34 year old doc rivers' 13th and last season in the league. he was a PG his whole career but played SG for the spurs that season (avery johnson was the starting PG and cory alexander his backup - combined they played over 3600 minutes). river's touches/min that season and what he did per touch (how often per touch he shot, passed, got fouled, and turned the ball over) were virtually identical to kerr that year...
so the question is if you replace not only the primary ball-handler/distributor on a team, but the primary ball handler/distributor in the entire league (stockton), with a player whose touches/min are just about 1/2 that of the average PG in the league, is it realistic?...
the 95-96 jazz went 55-27 with ast/fgm of 0.684 (68 assists for every 100 fgm). in the history of the nba, since the first 82 game season (1967-68 ), a team has won 55 or more games in a season 142 times, and of those 142 times, this 0.684 ast/fgm is the 7th highest ratio of ast/fgm. not only that, but of the 6 teams with 55 or more wins with ast/fgm higher than that, 4 of those teams were also stockton lead jazz teams. so only 2 teams not with stockton as PG but with 55+ wins had ast/fgm as high as the 95-96 jazz, but 135 other teams won 55+ games in a season with ast/fgm less than the 95-96 jazz, and some with considerably less...
among those 135 teams is the 04-05, 05-06, and 06-07 mavs, who had/have ast/fgm of just 0.526, 0.500, and 0.544. the two leading scorers on those teams were dirk nowitzki and michael finley, nowitzki and jason terry, and nowitzki and josh howard. the leading scorers on the 95-96 jazz were karl malone and jeff hornacek. in all honesty i can't find any reason as to why malone and hornacek could not score as efficiently with or be as productive as nowitzki and whomever with PGs like jason terry and devin harris....
as for whether the 95-96 kerr, rivers, or hunter could replace stockton at PG - i certainly would not advocate running a simulation with a player with just 1/2 the touches/min of the league average PG as another team's starting PG and claim the results as definitive, considering none of these players were their team's primary ball handler/distributor, nor even their 2nd or 3rd (well hunter may have been his team's 3rd). however if any of the three did indeed go to the jazz replacing stockton in the jazz starting lineup hornacek would simply have slid over to the PG slot, with say kerr/hunter/rivers at the SG, as in philadelphia in 92-93 and 93-94 hornacek got 18 pts/g with 6.5 ast/g as a PG/SG on 1.41 touches/min (the league average PG got 1.44 touches/min in 92-93 and 93-94)...
If the simulation is truly accurate, how does one explain the apparent interchangeability of an all-world player like Stockton and a niche specialist like Kerr?
if the simulation is only half as accurate as eWins, it will have tread on hallowed ground...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3628
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
After 64 tangential questions, 28 repetitive quotes, and many other distractions, Bob says something :
bchaikin wrote:
... i certainly would not advocate running a simulation with a player with just 1/2 the touches/min of the league average PG as another team's starting PG and claim the results as definitive,...
...hornacek would simply have slid over to the PG slot, with say kerr/... at the SG, as in philadelphia in 92-93 and 93-94 ....
As noted earlier, Hornacek at PG in Philly -- i.e., without a high-assist PG (KJ/Stockton) to assist him -- saw his eFG% drop from around .550 in Phx to about .500 in Phl, before hitting .560 in Utah. These are not insignificant fluctuations.
If a given players 'touches' may say something about the performance of other players on the same team -- and if these touches are in fact a multiple of Assists (plus other usages) -- then whether or not one believes 'assists tend to improve FG%', one may see the causation/correlation with the 'touches' necessary to reach those assist totals.
My understanding of these BBall touches is that they're something like 'significant touches'; that is, you can't just let a Steve Kerr touch the ball a few more times to make him a more effective PG. There should be a formula, based on the % of a team's touches which are assigned to a player, which is inversely related to his dependence on others to get him his high-% shots.
Such a formula might be based on actual player histories, with their transactions and interactions and resulting eFG% ups and downs. Then one might actually postulate new combinations of players and get results more rooted in reality. And B-Ball wielders couldn't build superteams out of role players.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: Reply with quote
There should be a formula, based on the % of a team's touches which are assigned to a player, which is inversely related to his dependence on others to get him his high-% shots.
are you under some sort of impression that the only reason steve kerr shot so well with the bulls was because, oh, i don't know, perhaps he got tons more open looks due to jordan and pippen getting more attention and perhaps more double teams?
Such a formula might be based on actual player histories, with their transactions and interactions and resulting eFG% ups and downs. Then one might actually postulate new combinations of players and get results more rooted in reality.
sounds like you have yourself a project...
And B-Ball wielders couldn't build superteams out of role players.
how might one do that? and what exactly is a role player?...
Last edited by bchaikin on Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
so the question is if you replace not only the primary ball-handler/distributor on a team, but the primary ball handler/distributor in the entire league (stockton), with a player whose touches/min are just about 1/2 that of the average PG in the league, is it realistic?...
That got me thinking about D. Harper. He had low touches/min and J. Starks got about the same and passed the ball also about the same amount of touches, so I don't know if he can be considered the primary ballhandler. What about him?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
That got me thinking about D. Harper. He had low touches/min and J. Starks got about the same and passed the ball also about the same amount of touches, so I don't know if he can be considered the primary ballhandler. What about him?
compare the 95-96 knicks and the 05-06 mavericks. their team possessions per 48 min were within 3%. the mavs won 60 games (the knicks 47). compare harper to jason terry. compare starks to say oh jerry stackhouse. then compare charlie ward and gary grant to devin harris and darrell armstrong...
what about terry? he had all of 300 assists the whole season. any reason why he couldn't be a successful PG on another team, other than of course the 60 win team he was on? a team that also went to the finals that season with terry getting just as many ast/g as he did during the regular season?...
forget john stockton or even steve nash for a moment. over the past 3 seasons, who has been the better PG - jason terry or brevin knight? who has generated more wins for his team through the statistics he has produced? fwiw knight has averaged close to twice as many assists per minute compared to terry during this time...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
Any player generates more wins by shooting a higher %, for whatever team.
well that's good news, because kerr had the league's 2nd best overall shooting in 95-96, behind only tim legler...
so are you saying that if brandon shot even better (not necessarily as good as stockton with a ScFG% of 63.0% but something better than his 56.3% ScFG%) he would have generated even more wins on the jazz than stockton, despite somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 less assists?
The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is yes. Given that everything else holds the same, if a player shoots a higher % or has a higher ScFG%, that will result in more wins.
For most teams, the difference between their Offensive and Defensive PTS/100POSS is 3 or 4. Skimming through this year's stats, it's no more than around 6. So, if a player takes 20 shots at 50% and then steps that up to 55%, again given that everything else holds the same, that's 2 extra points per game for his team. That could mean a few extra wins for his team, as I see it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, J. Terry really seems to be simmilar to D. Harper on touches/min. But I was wondering about how many touches/min should be enough for a starting PG as you said Hunters at 0.9 touches/min wasn't. So would 1 touches/min suffice?
On the different note, I simulated D. Robinson's 91-92 campaign and it was even better than the ones I tried. So I decide to do a little math and it showed me that 3 blocks per game are worth around 5 wins per season. Checked this with smulation and it showed me that my math was right. Haven't checked the steals yet but the impact of steals should be even bigger. That means that these dedfensive statistics are very important and perhaps undervalued by some people. I wanted to ask how many wins M. Bol generated at his blocking peak? Was he among the better centers overall or not?
One more thing that I would like to know is why did choose the gap between the best and the worst defenders to be 10% ? It seems that even the best defenseive teams do not reduce opponents fg% by more than 2-4%.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
But I was wondering about how many touches/min should be enough for a starting PG as you said Hunters at 0.9 touches/min wasn't. So would 1 touches/min suffice?
all depends on how often the PG's teammates handle the ball on offense. take a look at damon jones. in 03-04 he was the starting PG for milwaukee for 1/3 of the season when t.j. ford went down. he was the backup before that. his numbers show about 700 assists on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis. his touches/min that season were on the high side for a PG...
the next season he's the starting PG in miami, but dwyane wade is the SG, getting more touch/min than an SG has in decades. essentially wade was filling the role of the traditional PG, and jones' touches/min are down about 1/3 from the season before (about 400 assists on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis)...
then in 05-06 jones is the backup PG in cleveland, but lebron james is the starting SF getting more touches/min than any SF had gotten in decades, and is playing 43 min/g and is the key ball distributor. now jones' touches/min are down more than half of what they were just two seasons earlier (just 240 assists on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis), and actually less than steve kerr in 95-96...
On the different note, I simulated D. Robinson's 91-92 campaign and it was even better than the ones I tried.
best i can find...
That means that these defensive statistics are very important and perhaps undervalued by some people.
any defensive statistics are important...
I wanted to ask how many wins M. Bol generated at his blocking peak? Was he among the better centers overall or not?
manute bol committed fouls at the rate of 12.5 per 100 minutes played during his career. over the past 30 seasons players playing at least 1000 minutes in a season and committing fouls at the rate of 12-13 per 100 minutes played averaged playing just 23 min/g. bol averaged only 19 min/g during his career and the most he played in a season (his rookie campaign) was just 26 min/g. so unfortunately his playing time was limited due to foul trouble...
he blocked just under 10% of all opponents FGAs during his career. he played most of his career between 85-86 and 92-93. during that time teams averaged about 7200 FGAs a season. had bol been able to play 36 min/g and 82 games, he would have faced about 5400 FGAs a season, so 10% would be about 540 blocked shots a season (mark eaton once blocked 456 shots in a single season). about 60% of blocked shots are rebounded by the defense (give or take a few percent), so perhaps about 320 defensive stops due to those blocked shots? that'd be somewhat analogous to a player getting 320 steals in a season...
fwiw in the 91-92 rick barry pro basketball scouting report (the predecessor to the pro basketball bible by barry and cohn) it has a blurb that says in 90-91 when bol was on philadelphia that 76ers opponents shot just 42% when he played, 51% when he didn't (he played 1500 minutes that season). if that had been done on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis:
(5400 x 0.51) - (5400 x .42) = 2754 - 2268 = 486 FGM prevented
or 6 less FGM per game. not all due to bol of course, but probably a huge chunk as a result of his shot blocking...
One more thing that I would like to know is why did choose the gap between the best and the worst defenders to be 10% ? It seems that even the best defensive teams do not reduce opponents fg% by more than 2-4%.
as of last week the gap in defensive FG% allowed between the best and worst teams in the nba was about 6%. some seasons have been as high as 8%. a happy medium i guess - just in case for instance tim duncan is traded to the bulls or rockets next season (both could use a good PF)...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
schtevie
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 414
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Were Manute Bol's coaches the worst ever? The foul rate cited implies that he would average 6 per 48 minutes. So what if he fouled out now and again as long as he was decreasing opponents' shooting percentage by 9% or causing a hypothetical 6 FG that wouldn't be M. Unless there was something else going on.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3628
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
In Brandon's career year of '96, he was apparently as good as Stockton was in any year.
Of these 2 squads, the Jazz have 3 of the 4 best players. The Cavs have 6 of the best 10. THill missed 38 G.
From the point of view of rebuilding a team around Malone: For this one season, he gets an upgrade at PG; he gives up Hornacek for 5 guys who are not as good, yet better than anyone else he had in Utah. Instead of a co-star, one other good player, and scrubs -- he's got a co-star and 7 other guys who can ball.
After Malone and Stockton, the Jazz were perennially one of the most untalented teams in the league. Hornacek put them at the next level, even though he was a sub-allstar in the last phase of his career. Earlier with Eaton they'd been contenders. Any average team in the league, most years, had better 3-thru-10 players.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
exchanging karl malone 95-96 for ferry 95-96 and some backups to get the cleveland PF up to 38 min/g similar to malone, would that be:
44.9 - 6.1 + 17.2 = 56 x 2 - 41 = 71 actual wins?
is this correct, or close to being correct? within 1-2 wins? 3-4 wins?
In Brandon's career year of '96, he was apparently as good as Stockton was in any year.
brandon got about 1/2 the actual assists stockton did in 95-96 (487 to 916). if you adjust for minutes played he would have gotten what about 60% the assists stockton got? adjust for pace and he would have gotten perhaps about 2/3 the assists stockton got?...
brandon shot a ScFG% of 56.3%, his career best. but his career best was still 6%-7% less than stockton's 63.0% ScFG% that season (and also less than about another 14 of stockton's seasons). how does a player who gets 1/3 less assists and shoots worse than...
the greatest passer ever, who's also one of the deadliest shooters ever
generate as many wins as stockton did on the 95-96 jazz?...
if brandon was as good as stockton was in 95-96, had brandon shot even better than stockton's ScFG% of 63.0% in 95-96 rather than a ScFG% of just 56.3%, would he have generated even more wins than stockton did on the 95-96 jazz?...
And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists.
is there any reduction in scoring efficiency with malone and hornacek since brandon got significantly less assists than stockton?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3628
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
... how does a player who gets 1/3 less assists and shoots worse than...
the greatest passer ever, who's also one of the deadliest shooters ever
generate as many wins as stockton did on the 95-96 jazz?...
Standardized, Brandon was about 30% better scorer (rate * eff%), 20% better rebounder, 66% the assistor (good guess!), slightly better stealer, only 65% the turnovers, and 150% better shotblocker (woopee) than Stockton, in '96.
Any player generates more wins by shooting a higher %, for whatever team. If in fact Brandon merges seamlessly with a new team, he continues his productivity. It may be better or worse; sooner or later.
I've now responded to 50 questions, Bob. All were asked after you were presented with the question about Kerr in your sim. I'm now leaving it to you, to respond or not. Someone else may attempt to answer more of your what-if's, but it won't be me.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Any player generates more wins by shooting a higher %, for whatever team.
well that's good news, because kerr had the league's 2nd best overall shooting in 95-96, behind only tim legler...
so are you saying that if brandon shot even better (not necessarily as good as stockton with a ScFG% of 63.0% but something better than his 56.3% ScFG%) he would have generated even more wins on the jazz than stockton, despite somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 less assists? well then what happened to this?:
So in simulation, in spite of Stockton's greatly superior defense, the Jazz win just as much with Kerr at point. Main difference is that he takes a couple less shots per game, I'm guessing; leading to Malone and Hornacek shooting a bit more. And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists. I wonder if this is realistic. Really, I suspect that it is not.
kerr not only shot better than brandon, he also shot better than stockton. but where brandon would get something like just 2/3 the assists stockton got, kerr would get something like only 1/3 the assists stockton got. one case you suspect is not realistic, the other, despite your brazen statements to the contrary because of a reduction in scoring efficiency due to a lack of assists, not only is realistic, but now generates as many wins as the jazz (and with brandon not as good a defender as stockton too)...
What I wondered was whether Steve Kerr could fill Stockton's shoes without the Jazz players suffering dropoffs in production or efficiency.
if the jazz players would suffer dropoffs in production or efficiency because of kerr's lack of assists, wouldn't the same hold true for brandon's lack of assists? would there be a 2/3 drop in scoring efficiency for malone, hornacek, and the rest of the jazz players with kerr, but just a 1/3 drop in scoring efficiency with brandon? all just because of assists?...
or is there some magical eWin cutoff, at which some point efficiency/production drops off (i'm guessing if there is its probably something at less than the assists than brandon gets but more than the assists kerr gets, so instead of the mendoza line we'll just call it the kerr line)? your eWins shows the jazz as good as with brandon as with stockton, but with significantly less assists. why no dropoff in production or efficiency there?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I was simmulating some centers from that 1995-96 season and it surprised me greatly that D. Robinson seems to generate about 6-7 wins more over players like H. Olajuwon, S. O'Neal, A.Sabonis, D. Mutombo. Checked his stats and it looked like his game has no flaws than, as he was dominant scorer, great rebounder, great blocker, greate defender, good steraler and had very low number of turnovers. Still, the difference was so huge that it amazed me.
So I checked some other of Robinson's seasons and it seemed that in 1994-95 he was just as good. I decided to check a few Olajuwon's and O'Neal's seasons and the closest I got was I think about 1.5 wins less by O'Neal of 93-94. So I was wondering if any other center was able to generate so many wins for his team. In particular, I was wondering about O'Neals 1999-2000 season. How does it look like than compared to these incredible seasons of Robinson?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Still, the difference was so huge that it amazed me.
try drob from 91-92... an incredible number of defensive stops through steals and blocks alone... add to that 23 pts/g on a ScFG% of 58%+...
I was wondering about O'Neals 1999-2000 season
low turnovers, but few steals and just 2/3 the blocks compared to drob's best...
Checked his stats and it looked like his game has no flaws than, as he was dominant scorer, great rebounder, great blocker, greate defender, good steraler and had very low number of turnovers. Still, the difference was so huge that it amazed me.
use the change player characteristics screen in the full season version to say swap the steal and block ratings for shaq and drob (run a sim and change shaq's steals from 2.1 to 3.7 and his shot block rating from 3.6 to 5.4, do the reverse with drob) to see the difference. or better yet change either to the low ST and BS ratings of bryant reeves. then you'll see the value in those extra defensive stops...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: Reply with quote
A really curious case in simulation was L. Hunter. Having extremely low touches/min (0.86) low Scfg% below average rebounding, stealing numbers, below average defense rating and very low scoring output he still ends up being average PG that year. The only thing he stood out for was low number of TOs per touch. On the other hand E. Perry, who has higher scoring numbers, higher Scfg%, higher defensive rating, a little worse rebounding numbers but higher steals ends up pretty much the same (he commits more TO's per touch though). I wonder if this is due to Hunters touches/min. Any comments?
What I wondered was whether Steve Kerr could fill Stockton's shoes without the Jazz players suffering dropoffs in production or efficiency.
Steve Kerr, the subject of my wondering, bounced around in several teams' systems, and he was never any kind of starting-caliber point guard.
its fun when he answers his own questions...
lindsey hunter and joe dumars were the starting PGs on the 95-96 pistons, but the primary ball handler on detroit that season was SF grant hill. he routinely brought the ball up the floor, played almost every game and 41 min/g, and for all intent and purpose assumed the role we typically consider that of a PG - that of ball distributor. his touches/min were at 1.54, right at the league average for PGs that season (the league average touches/min for SFs that season was just 0.91 touches/min, including hill's high touches/min for a SF), and that was the highest touches/min among SFs that season, even higher than bulls SF scottie pippen. hill shot the ball with 1/4 of all his touches, passed the ball with about 60% of his touches, whereas the typical PG that season shot the ball with just 1/5 of his touches and passed the ball with about 2/3 of them...
lindsey hunter had touches/min in 95-96 of just 0.86, just about 1/2 the touches/min of grant hill and the league average PG. joe dumars, the other PG (allan houston was the SG and played 37 min/g), had touches/min of 1.05. had lindsey played 36 min/g and 82 games, he would have gotten a total of about just 260 assists...
the situation was similar in chicago. while he was a PG, kerr had touches/min of just 0.85. SF pippen and SG jordan were the primary ball handlers/distributors on that bulls team with 1.47 and 1.46 touches/min. so the bulls had not 1 but 2 starters getting touches/min close to what the league average PG was getting, and on top of that the actual starting PG, ron harper, got 0.96 touches/min, and the first player off the bench, toni kukoc, a SF/PF, got 1.28 touches/min. kerr was 5th down the line on that bulls team in terms of how often he handled the ball on offense, he even brought the ball up the floor considerably less often than either pippen or jordan did despite being the "PG". kerr, harper, and kukoc all shot the same amount per touch, with between 1/3 and 1/4 of their touches, and each passed the ball with between 1/2 to 1/3 of their touches....
if you extrapolate the stats of kukoc, harper, and kerr to 36 min/g and 82 games, kukoc would have gotten something like 400 assists from the frontcourt, harper around 325 assists, and kerr 295...
95-96 was 34 year old doc rivers' 13th and last season in the league. he was a PG his whole career but played SG for the spurs that season (avery johnson was the starting PG and cory alexander his backup - combined they played over 3600 minutes). river's touches/min that season and what he did per touch (how often per touch he shot, passed, got fouled, and turned the ball over) were virtually identical to kerr that year...
so the question is if you replace not only the primary ball-handler/distributor on a team, but the primary ball handler/distributor in the entire league (stockton), with a player whose touches/min are just about 1/2 that of the average PG in the league, is it realistic?...
the 95-96 jazz went 55-27 with ast/fgm of 0.684 (68 assists for every 100 fgm). in the history of the nba, since the first 82 game season (1967-68 ), a team has won 55 or more games in a season 142 times, and of those 142 times, this 0.684 ast/fgm is the 7th highest ratio of ast/fgm. not only that, but of the 6 teams with 55 or more wins with ast/fgm higher than that, 4 of those teams were also stockton lead jazz teams. so only 2 teams not with stockton as PG but with 55+ wins had ast/fgm as high as the 95-96 jazz, but 135 other teams won 55+ games in a season with ast/fgm less than the 95-96 jazz, and some with considerably less...
among those 135 teams is the 04-05, 05-06, and 06-07 mavs, who had/have ast/fgm of just 0.526, 0.500, and 0.544. the two leading scorers on those teams were dirk nowitzki and michael finley, nowitzki and jason terry, and nowitzki and josh howard. the leading scorers on the 95-96 jazz were karl malone and jeff hornacek. in all honesty i can't find any reason as to why malone and hornacek could not score as efficiently with or be as productive as nowitzki and whomever with PGs like jason terry and devin harris....
as for whether the 95-96 kerr, rivers, or hunter could replace stockton at PG - i certainly would not advocate running a simulation with a player with just 1/2 the touches/min of the league average PG as another team's starting PG and claim the results as definitive, considering none of these players were their team's primary ball handler/distributor, nor even their 2nd or 3rd (well hunter may have been his team's 3rd). however if any of the three did indeed go to the jazz replacing stockton in the jazz starting lineup hornacek would simply have slid over to the PG slot, with say kerr/hunter/rivers at the SG, as in philadelphia in 92-93 and 93-94 hornacek got 18 pts/g with 6.5 ast/g as a PG/SG on 1.41 touches/min (the league average PG got 1.44 touches/min in 92-93 and 93-94)...
If the simulation is truly accurate, how does one explain the apparent interchangeability of an all-world player like Stockton and a niche specialist like Kerr?
if the simulation is only half as accurate as eWins, it will have tread on hallowed ground...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3628
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
After 64 tangential questions, 28 repetitive quotes, and many other distractions, Bob says something :
bchaikin wrote:
... i certainly would not advocate running a simulation with a player with just 1/2 the touches/min of the league average PG as another team's starting PG and claim the results as definitive,...
...hornacek would simply have slid over to the PG slot, with say kerr/... at the SG, as in philadelphia in 92-93 and 93-94 ....
As noted earlier, Hornacek at PG in Philly -- i.e., without a high-assist PG (KJ/Stockton) to assist him -- saw his eFG% drop from around .550 in Phx to about .500 in Phl, before hitting .560 in Utah. These are not insignificant fluctuations.
If a given players 'touches' may say something about the performance of other players on the same team -- and if these touches are in fact a multiple of Assists (plus other usages) -- then whether or not one believes 'assists tend to improve FG%', one may see the causation/correlation with the 'touches' necessary to reach those assist totals.
My understanding of these BBall touches is that they're something like 'significant touches'; that is, you can't just let a Steve Kerr touch the ball a few more times to make him a more effective PG. There should be a formula, based on the % of a team's touches which are assigned to a player, which is inversely related to his dependence on others to get him his high-% shots.
Such a formula might be based on actual player histories, with their transactions and interactions and resulting eFG% ups and downs. Then one might actually postulate new combinations of players and get results more rooted in reality. And B-Ball wielders couldn't build superteams out of role players.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: Reply with quote
There should be a formula, based on the % of a team's touches which are assigned to a player, which is inversely related to his dependence on others to get him his high-% shots.
are you under some sort of impression that the only reason steve kerr shot so well with the bulls was because, oh, i don't know, perhaps he got tons more open looks due to jordan and pippen getting more attention and perhaps more double teams?
Such a formula might be based on actual player histories, with their transactions and interactions and resulting eFG% ups and downs. Then one might actually postulate new combinations of players and get results more rooted in reality.
sounds like you have yourself a project...
And B-Ball wielders couldn't build superteams out of role players.
how might one do that? and what exactly is a role player?...
Last edited by bchaikin on Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
so the question is if you replace not only the primary ball-handler/distributor on a team, but the primary ball handler/distributor in the entire league (stockton), with a player whose touches/min are just about 1/2 that of the average PG in the league, is it realistic?...
That got me thinking about D. Harper. He had low touches/min and J. Starks got about the same and passed the ball also about the same amount of touches, so I don't know if he can be considered the primary ballhandler. What about him?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
That got me thinking about D. Harper. He had low touches/min and J. Starks got about the same and passed the ball also about the same amount of touches, so I don't know if he can be considered the primary ballhandler. What about him?
compare the 95-96 knicks and the 05-06 mavericks. their team possessions per 48 min were within 3%. the mavs won 60 games (the knicks 47). compare harper to jason terry. compare starks to say oh jerry stackhouse. then compare charlie ward and gary grant to devin harris and darrell armstrong...
what about terry? he had all of 300 assists the whole season. any reason why he couldn't be a successful PG on another team, other than of course the 60 win team he was on? a team that also went to the finals that season with terry getting just as many ast/g as he did during the regular season?...
forget john stockton or even steve nash for a moment. over the past 3 seasons, who has been the better PG - jason terry or brevin knight? who has generated more wins for his team through the statistics he has produced? fwiw knight has averaged close to twice as many assists per minute compared to terry during this time...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
Any player generates more wins by shooting a higher %, for whatever team.
well that's good news, because kerr had the league's 2nd best overall shooting in 95-96, behind only tim legler...
so are you saying that if brandon shot even better (not necessarily as good as stockton with a ScFG% of 63.0% but something better than his 56.3% ScFG%) he would have generated even more wins on the jazz than stockton, despite somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 less assists?
The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is yes. Given that everything else holds the same, if a player shoots a higher % or has a higher ScFG%, that will result in more wins.
For most teams, the difference between their Offensive and Defensive PTS/100POSS is 3 or 4. Skimming through this year's stats, it's no more than around 6. So, if a player takes 20 shots at 50% and then steps that up to 55%, again given that everything else holds the same, that's 2 extra points per game for his team. That could mean a few extra wins for his team, as I see it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, J. Terry really seems to be simmilar to D. Harper on touches/min. But I was wondering about how many touches/min should be enough for a starting PG as you said Hunters at 0.9 touches/min wasn't. So would 1 touches/min suffice?
On the different note, I simulated D. Robinson's 91-92 campaign and it was even better than the ones I tried. So I decide to do a little math and it showed me that 3 blocks per game are worth around 5 wins per season. Checked this with smulation and it showed me that my math was right. Haven't checked the steals yet but the impact of steals should be even bigger. That means that these dedfensive statistics are very important and perhaps undervalued by some people. I wanted to ask how many wins M. Bol generated at his blocking peak? Was he among the better centers overall or not?
One more thing that I would like to know is why did choose the gap between the best and the worst defenders to be 10% ? It seems that even the best defenseive teams do not reduce opponents fg% by more than 2-4%.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
But I was wondering about how many touches/min should be enough for a starting PG as you said Hunters at 0.9 touches/min wasn't. So would 1 touches/min suffice?
all depends on how often the PG's teammates handle the ball on offense. take a look at damon jones. in 03-04 he was the starting PG for milwaukee for 1/3 of the season when t.j. ford went down. he was the backup before that. his numbers show about 700 assists on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis. his touches/min that season were on the high side for a PG...
the next season he's the starting PG in miami, but dwyane wade is the SG, getting more touch/min than an SG has in decades. essentially wade was filling the role of the traditional PG, and jones' touches/min are down about 1/3 from the season before (about 400 assists on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis)...
then in 05-06 jones is the backup PG in cleveland, but lebron james is the starting SF getting more touches/min than any SF had gotten in decades, and is playing 43 min/g and is the key ball distributor. now jones' touches/min are down more than half of what they were just two seasons earlier (just 240 assists on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis), and actually less than steve kerr in 95-96...
On the different note, I simulated D. Robinson's 91-92 campaign and it was even better than the ones I tried.
best i can find...
That means that these defensive statistics are very important and perhaps undervalued by some people.
any defensive statistics are important...
I wanted to ask how many wins M. Bol generated at his blocking peak? Was he among the better centers overall or not?
manute bol committed fouls at the rate of 12.5 per 100 minutes played during his career. over the past 30 seasons players playing at least 1000 minutes in a season and committing fouls at the rate of 12-13 per 100 minutes played averaged playing just 23 min/g. bol averaged only 19 min/g during his career and the most he played in a season (his rookie campaign) was just 26 min/g. so unfortunately his playing time was limited due to foul trouble...
he blocked just under 10% of all opponents FGAs during his career. he played most of his career between 85-86 and 92-93. during that time teams averaged about 7200 FGAs a season. had bol been able to play 36 min/g and 82 games, he would have faced about 5400 FGAs a season, so 10% would be about 540 blocked shots a season (mark eaton once blocked 456 shots in a single season). about 60% of blocked shots are rebounded by the defense (give or take a few percent), so perhaps about 320 defensive stops due to those blocked shots? that'd be somewhat analogous to a player getting 320 steals in a season...
fwiw in the 91-92 rick barry pro basketball scouting report (the predecessor to the pro basketball bible by barry and cohn) it has a blurb that says in 90-91 when bol was on philadelphia that 76ers opponents shot just 42% when he played, 51% when he didn't (he played 1500 minutes that season). if that had been done on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis:
(5400 x 0.51) - (5400 x .42) = 2754 - 2268 = 486 FGM prevented
or 6 less FGM per game. not all due to bol of course, but probably a huge chunk as a result of his shot blocking...
One more thing that I would like to know is why did choose the gap between the best and the worst defenders to be 10% ? It seems that even the best defensive teams do not reduce opponents fg% by more than 2-4%.
as of last week the gap in defensive FG% allowed between the best and worst teams in the nba was about 6%. some seasons have been as high as 8%. a happy medium i guess - just in case for instance tim duncan is traded to the bulls or rockets next season (both could use a good PF)...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
schtevie
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 414
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Were Manute Bol's coaches the worst ever? The foul rate cited implies that he would average 6 per 48 minutes. So what if he fouled out now and again as long as he was decreasing opponents' shooting percentage by 9% or causing a hypothetical 6 FG that wouldn't be M. Unless there was something else going on.
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3628
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
In Brandon's career year of '96, he was apparently as good as Stockton was in any year.
Of these 2 squads, the Jazz have 3 of the 4 best players. The Cavs have 6 of the best 10. THill missed 38 G.
From the point of view of rebuilding a team around Malone: For this one season, he gets an upgrade at PG; he gives up Hornacek for 5 guys who are not as good, yet better than anyone else he had in Utah. Instead of a co-star, one other good player, and scrubs -- he's got a co-star and 7 other guys who can ball.
After Malone and Stockton, the Jazz were perennially one of the most untalented teams in the league. Hornacek put them at the next level, even though he was a sub-allstar in the last phase of his career. Earlier with Eaton they'd been contenders. Any average team in the league, most years, had better 3-thru-10 players.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
exchanging karl malone 95-96 for ferry 95-96 and some backups to get the cleveland PF up to 38 min/g similar to malone, would that be:
44.9 - 6.1 + 17.2 = 56 x 2 - 41 = 71 actual wins?
is this correct, or close to being correct? within 1-2 wins? 3-4 wins?
In Brandon's career year of '96, he was apparently as good as Stockton was in any year.
brandon got about 1/2 the actual assists stockton did in 95-96 (487 to 916). if you adjust for minutes played he would have gotten what about 60% the assists stockton got? adjust for pace and he would have gotten perhaps about 2/3 the assists stockton got?...
brandon shot a ScFG% of 56.3%, his career best. but his career best was still 6%-7% less than stockton's 63.0% ScFG% that season (and also less than about another 14 of stockton's seasons). how does a player who gets 1/3 less assists and shoots worse than...
the greatest passer ever, who's also one of the deadliest shooters ever
generate as many wins as stockton did on the 95-96 jazz?...
if brandon was as good as stockton was in 95-96, had brandon shot even better than stockton's ScFG% of 63.0% in 95-96 rather than a ScFG% of just 56.3%, would he have generated even more wins than stockton did on the 95-96 jazz?...
And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists.
is there any reduction in scoring efficiency with malone and hornacek since brandon got significantly less assists than stockton?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3628
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
... how does a player who gets 1/3 less assists and shoots worse than...
the greatest passer ever, who's also one of the deadliest shooters ever
generate as many wins as stockton did on the 95-96 jazz?...
Standardized, Brandon was about 30% better scorer (rate * eff%), 20% better rebounder, 66% the assistor (good guess!), slightly better stealer, only 65% the turnovers, and 150% better shotblocker (woopee) than Stockton, in '96.
Any player generates more wins by shooting a higher %, for whatever team. If in fact Brandon merges seamlessly with a new team, he continues his productivity. It may be better or worse; sooner or later.
I've now responded to 50 questions, Bob. All were asked after you were presented with the question about Kerr in your sim. I'm now leaving it to you, to respond or not. Someone else may attempt to answer more of your what-if's, but it won't be me.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Any player generates more wins by shooting a higher %, for whatever team.
well that's good news, because kerr had the league's 2nd best overall shooting in 95-96, behind only tim legler...
so are you saying that if brandon shot even better (not necessarily as good as stockton with a ScFG% of 63.0% but something better than his 56.3% ScFG%) he would have generated even more wins on the jazz than stockton, despite somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 less assists? well then what happened to this?:
So in simulation, in spite of Stockton's greatly superior defense, the Jazz win just as much with Kerr at point. Main difference is that he takes a couple less shots per game, I'm guessing; leading to Malone and Hornacek shooting a bit more. And no apparent reduction in scoring efficiencies despite having to create shots without assists. I wonder if this is realistic. Really, I suspect that it is not.
kerr not only shot better than brandon, he also shot better than stockton. but where brandon would get something like just 2/3 the assists stockton got, kerr would get something like only 1/3 the assists stockton got. one case you suspect is not realistic, the other, despite your brazen statements to the contrary because of a reduction in scoring efficiency due to a lack of assists, not only is realistic, but now generates as many wins as the jazz (and with brandon not as good a defender as stockton too)...
What I wondered was whether Steve Kerr could fill Stockton's shoes without the Jazz players suffering dropoffs in production or efficiency.
if the jazz players would suffer dropoffs in production or efficiency because of kerr's lack of assists, wouldn't the same hold true for brandon's lack of assists? would there be a 2/3 drop in scoring efficiency for malone, hornacek, and the rest of the jazz players with kerr, but just a 1/3 drop in scoring efficiency with brandon? all just because of assists?...
or is there some magical eWin cutoff, at which some point efficiency/production drops off (i'm guessing if there is its probably something at less than the assists than brandon gets but more than the assists kerr gets, so instead of the mendoza line we'll just call it the kerr line)? your eWins shows the jazz as good as with brandon as with stockton, but with significantly less assists. why no dropoff in production or efficiency there?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I was simmulating some centers from that 1995-96 season and it surprised me greatly that D. Robinson seems to generate about 6-7 wins more over players like H. Olajuwon, S. O'Neal, A.Sabonis, D. Mutombo. Checked his stats and it looked like his game has no flaws than, as he was dominant scorer, great rebounder, great blocker, greate defender, good steraler and had very low number of turnovers. Still, the difference was so huge that it amazed me.
So I checked some other of Robinson's seasons and it seemed that in 1994-95 he was just as good. I decided to check a few Olajuwon's and O'Neal's seasons and the closest I got was I think about 1.5 wins less by O'Neal of 93-94. So I was wondering if any other center was able to generate so many wins for his team. In particular, I was wondering about O'Neals 1999-2000 season. How does it look like than compared to these incredible seasons of Robinson?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Still, the difference was so huge that it amazed me.
try drob from 91-92... an incredible number of defensive stops through steals and blocks alone... add to that 23 pts/g on a ScFG% of 58%+...
I was wondering about O'Neals 1999-2000 season
low turnovers, but few steals and just 2/3 the blocks compared to drob's best...
Checked his stats and it looked like his game has no flaws than, as he was dominant scorer, great rebounder, great blocker, greate defender, good steraler and had very low number of turnovers. Still, the difference was so huge that it amazed me.
use the change player characteristics screen in the full season version to say swap the steal and block ratings for shaq and drob (run a sim and change shaq's steals from 2.1 to 3.7 and his shot block rating from 3.6 to 5.4, do the reverse with drob) to see the difference. or better yet change either to the low ST and BS ratings of bryant reeves. then you'll see the value in those extra defensive stops...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: Reply with quote
A really curious case in simulation was L. Hunter. Having extremely low touches/min (0.86) low Scfg% below average rebounding, stealing numbers, below average defense rating and very low scoring output he still ends up being average PG that year. The only thing he stood out for was low number of TOs per touch. On the other hand E. Perry, who has higher scoring numbers, higher Scfg%, higher defensive rating, a little worse rebounding numbers but higher steals ends up pretty much the same (he commits more TO's per touch though). I wonder if this is due to Hunters touches/min. Any comments?
What I wondered was whether Steve Kerr could fill Stockton's shoes without the Jazz players suffering dropoffs in production or efficiency.
Steve Kerr, the subject of my wondering, bounced around in several teams' systems, and he was never any kind of starting-caliber point guard.
its fun when he answers his own questions...
lindsey hunter and joe dumars were the starting PGs on the 95-96 pistons, but the primary ball handler on detroit that season was SF grant hill. he routinely brought the ball up the floor, played almost every game and 41 min/g, and for all intent and purpose assumed the role we typically consider that of a PG - that of ball distributor. his touches/min were at 1.54, right at the league average for PGs that season (the league average touches/min for SFs that season was just 0.91 touches/min, including hill's high touches/min for a SF), and that was the highest touches/min among SFs that season, even higher than bulls SF scottie pippen. hill shot the ball with 1/4 of all his touches, passed the ball with about 60% of his touches, whereas the typical PG that season shot the ball with just 1/5 of his touches and passed the ball with about 2/3 of them...
lindsey hunter had touches/min in 95-96 of just 0.86, just about 1/2 the touches/min of grant hill and the league average PG. joe dumars, the other PG (allan houston was the SG and played 37 min/g), had touches/min of 1.05. had lindsey played 36 min/g and 82 games, he would have gotten a total of about just 260 assists...
the situation was similar in chicago. while he was a PG, kerr had touches/min of just 0.85. SF pippen and SG jordan were the primary ball handlers/distributors on that bulls team with 1.47 and 1.46 touches/min. so the bulls had not 1 but 2 starters getting touches/min close to what the league average PG was getting, and on top of that the actual starting PG, ron harper, got 0.96 touches/min, and the first player off the bench, toni kukoc, a SF/PF, got 1.28 touches/min. kerr was 5th down the line on that bulls team in terms of how often he handled the ball on offense, he even brought the ball up the floor considerably less often than either pippen or jordan did despite being the "PG". kerr, harper, and kukoc all shot the same amount per touch, with between 1/3 and 1/4 of their touches, and each passed the ball with between 1/2 to 1/3 of their touches....
if you extrapolate the stats of kukoc, harper, and kerr to 36 min/g and 82 games, kukoc would have gotten something like 400 assists from the frontcourt, harper around 325 assists, and kerr 295...
95-96 was 34 year old doc rivers' 13th and last season in the league. he was a PG his whole career but played SG for the spurs that season (avery johnson was the starting PG and cory alexander his backup - combined they played over 3600 minutes). river's touches/min that season and what he did per touch (how often per touch he shot, passed, got fouled, and turned the ball over) were virtually identical to kerr that year...
so the question is if you replace not only the primary ball-handler/distributor on a team, but the primary ball handler/distributor in the entire league (stockton), with a player whose touches/min are just about 1/2 that of the average PG in the league, is it realistic?...
the 95-96 jazz went 55-27 with ast/fgm of 0.684 (68 assists for every 100 fgm). in the history of the nba, since the first 82 game season (1967-68 ), a team has won 55 or more games in a season 142 times, and of those 142 times, this 0.684 ast/fgm is the 7th highest ratio of ast/fgm. not only that, but of the 6 teams with 55 or more wins with ast/fgm higher than that, 4 of those teams were also stockton lead jazz teams. so only 2 teams not with stockton as PG but with 55+ wins had ast/fgm as high as the 95-96 jazz, but 135 other teams won 55+ games in a season with ast/fgm less than the 95-96 jazz, and some with considerably less...
among those 135 teams is the 04-05, 05-06, and 06-07 mavs, who had/have ast/fgm of just 0.526, 0.500, and 0.544. the two leading scorers on those teams were dirk nowitzki and michael finley, nowitzki and jason terry, and nowitzki and josh howard. the leading scorers on the 95-96 jazz were karl malone and jeff hornacek. in all honesty i can't find any reason as to why malone and hornacek could not score as efficiently with or be as productive as nowitzki and whomever with PGs like jason terry and devin harris....
as for whether the 95-96 kerr, rivers, or hunter could replace stockton at PG - i certainly would not advocate running a simulation with a player with just 1/2 the touches/min of the league average PG as another team's starting PG and claim the results as definitive, considering none of these players were their team's primary ball handler/distributor, nor even their 2nd or 3rd (well hunter may have been his team's 3rd). however if any of the three did indeed go to the jazz replacing stockton in the jazz starting lineup hornacek would simply have slid over to the PG slot, with say kerr/hunter/rivers at the SG, as in philadelphia in 92-93 and 93-94 hornacek got 18 pts/g with 6.5 ast/g as a PG/SG on 1.41 touches/min (the league average PG got 1.44 touches/min in 92-93 and 93-94)...
If the simulation is truly accurate, how does one explain the apparent interchangeability of an all-world player like Stockton and a niche specialist like Kerr?
if the simulation is only half as accurate as eWins, it will have tread on hallowed ground...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3628
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
After 64 tangential questions, 28 repetitive quotes, and many other distractions, Bob says something :
bchaikin wrote:
... i certainly would not advocate running a simulation with a player with just 1/2 the touches/min of the league average PG as another team's starting PG and claim the results as definitive,...
...hornacek would simply have slid over to the PG slot, with say kerr/... at the SG, as in philadelphia in 92-93 and 93-94 ....
As noted earlier, Hornacek at PG in Philly -- i.e., without a high-assist PG (KJ/Stockton) to assist him -- saw his eFG% drop from around .550 in Phx to about .500 in Phl, before hitting .560 in Utah. These are not insignificant fluctuations.
If a given players 'touches' may say something about the performance of other players on the same team -- and if these touches are in fact a multiple of Assists (plus other usages) -- then whether or not one believes 'assists tend to improve FG%', one may see the causation/correlation with the 'touches' necessary to reach those assist totals.
My understanding of these BBall touches is that they're something like 'significant touches'; that is, you can't just let a Steve Kerr touch the ball a few more times to make him a more effective PG. There should be a formula, based on the % of a team's touches which are assigned to a player, which is inversely related to his dependence on others to get him his high-% shots.
Such a formula might be based on actual player histories, with their transactions and interactions and resulting eFG% ups and downs. Then one might actually postulate new combinations of players and get results more rooted in reality. And B-Ball wielders couldn't build superteams out of role players.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: Reply with quote
There should be a formula, based on the % of a team's touches which are assigned to a player, which is inversely related to his dependence on others to get him his high-% shots.
are you under some sort of impression that the only reason steve kerr shot so well with the bulls was because, oh, i don't know, perhaps he got tons more open looks due to jordan and pippen getting more attention and perhaps more double teams?
Such a formula might be based on actual player histories, with their transactions and interactions and resulting eFG% ups and downs. Then one might actually postulate new combinations of players and get results more rooted in reality.
sounds like you have yourself a project...
And B-Ball wielders couldn't build superteams out of role players.
how might one do that? and what exactly is a role player?...
Last edited by bchaikin on Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
so the question is if you replace not only the primary ball-handler/distributor on a team, but the primary ball handler/distributor in the entire league (stockton), with a player whose touches/min are just about 1/2 that of the average PG in the league, is it realistic?...
That got me thinking about D. Harper. He had low touches/min and J. Starks got about the same and passed the ball also about the same amount of touches, so I don't know if he can be considered the primary ballhandler. What about him?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
That got me thinking about D. Harper. He had low touches/min and J. Starks got about the same and passed the ball also about the same amount of touches, so I don't know if he can be considered the primary ballhandler. What about him?
compare the 95-96 knicks and the 05-06 mavericks. their team possessions per 48 min were within 3%. the mavs won 60 games (the knicks 47). compare harper to jason terry. compare starks to say oh jerry stackhouse. then compare charlie ward and gary grant to devin harris and darrell armstrong...
what about terry? he had all of 300 assists the whole season. any reason why he couldn't be a successful PG on another team, other than of course the 60 win team he was on? a team that also went to the finals that season with terry getting just as many ast/g as he did during the regular season?...
forget john stockton or even steve nash for a moment. over the past 3 seasons, who has been the better PG - jason terry or brevin knight? who has generated more wins for his team through the statistics he has produced? fwiw knight has averaged close to twice as many assists per minute compared to terry during this time...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
Any player generates more wins by shooting a higher %, for whatever team.
well that's good news, because kerr had the league's 2nd best overall shooting in 95-96, behind only tim legler...
so are you saying that if brandon shot even better (not necessarily as good as stockton with a ScFG% of 63.0% but something better than his 56.3% ScFG%) he would have generated even more wins on the jazz than stockton, despite somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 less assists?
The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is yes. Given that everything else holds the same, if a player shoots a higher % or has a higher ScFG%, that will result in more wins.
For most teams, the difference between their Offensive and Defensive PTS/100POSS is 3 or 4. Skimming through this year's stats, it's no more than around 6. So, if a player takes 20 shots at 50% and then steps that up to 55%, again given that everything else holds the same, that's 2 extra points per game for his team. That could mean a few extra wins for his team, as I see it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
AGBCZAL
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, J. Terry really seems to be simmilar to D. Harper on touches/min. But I was wondering about how many touches/min should be enough for a starting PG as you said Hunters at 0.9 touches/min wasn't. So would 1 touches/min suffice?
On the different note, I simulated D. Robinson's 91-92 campaign and it was even better than the ones I tried. So I decide to do a little math and it showed me that 3 blocks per game are worth around 5 wins per season. Checked this with smulation and it showed me that my math was right. Haven't checked the steals yet but the impact of steals should be even bigger. That means that these dedfensive statistics are very important and perhaps undervalued by some people. I wanted to ask how many wins M. Bol generated at his blocking peak? Was he among the better centers overall or not?
One more thing that I would like to know is why did choose the gap between the best and the worst defenders to be 10% ? It seems that even the best defenseive teams do not reduce opponents fg% by more than 2-4%.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
But I was wondering about how many touches/min should be enough for a starting PG as you said Hunters at 0.9 touches/min wasn't. So would 1 touches/min suffice?
all depends on how often the PG's teammates handle the ball on offense. take a look at damon jones. in 03-04 he was the starting PG for milwaukee for 1/3 of the season when t.j. ford went down. he was the backup before that. his numbers show about 700 assists on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis. his touches/min that season were on the high side for a PG...
the next season he's the starting PG in miami, but dwyane wade is the SG, getting more touch/min than an SG has in decades. essentially wade was filling the role of the traditional PG, and jones' touches/min are down about 1/3 from the season before (about 400 assists on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis)...
then in 05-06 jones is the backup PG in cleveland, but lebron james is the starting SF getting more touches/min than any SF had gotten in decades, and is playing 43 min/g and is the key ball distributor. now jones' touches/min are down more than half of what they were just two seasons earlier (just 240 assists on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis), and actually less than steve kerr in 95-96...
On the different note, I simulated D. Robinson's 91-92 campaign and it was even better than the ones I tried.
best i can find...
That means that these defensive statistics are very important and perhaps undervalued by some people.
any defensive statistics are important...
I wanted to ask how many wins M. Bol generated at his blocking peak? Was he among the better centers overall or not?
manute bol committed fouls at the rate of 12.5 per 100 minutes played during his career. over the past 30 seasons players playing at least 1000 minutes in a season and committing fouls at the rate of 12-13 per 100 minutes played averaged playing just 23 min/g. bol averaged only 19 min/g during his career and the most he played in a season (his rookie campaign) was just 26 min/g. so unfortunately his playing time was limited due to foul trouble...
he blocked just under 10% of all opponents FGAs during his career. he played most of his career between 85-86 and 92-93. during that time teams averaged about 7200 FGAs a season. had bol been able to play 36 min/g and 82 games, he would have faced about 5400 FGAs a season, so 10% would be about 540 blocked shots a season (mark eaton once blocked 456 shots in a single season). about 60% of blocked shots are rebounded by the defense (give or take a few percent), so perhaps about 320 defensive stops due to those blocked shots? that'd be somewhat analogous to a player getting 320 steals in a season...
fwiw in the 91-92 rick barry pro basketball scouting report (the predecessor to the pro basketball bible by barry and cohn) it has a blurb that says in 90-91 when bol was on philadelphia that 76ers opponents shot just 42% when he played, 51% when he didn't (he played 1500 minutes that season). if that had been done on a 36 min/g and 82 game basis:
(5400 x 0.51) - (5400 x .42) = 2754 - 2268 = 486 FGM prevented
or 6 less FGM per game. not all due to bol of course, but probably a huge chunk as a result of his shot blocking...
One more thing that I would like to know is why did choose the gap between the best and the worst defenders to be 10% ? It seems that even the best defensive teams do not reduce opponents fg% by more than 2-4%.
as of last week the gap in defensive FG% allowed between the best and worst teams in the nba was about 6%. some seasons have been as high as 8%. a happy medium i guess - just in case for instance tim duncan is traded to the bulls or rockets next season (both could use a good PF)...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
schtevie
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 414
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Were Manute Bol's coaches the worst ever? The foul rate cited implies that he would average 6 per 48 minutes. So what if he fouled out now and again as long as he was decreasing opponents' shooting percentage by 9% or causing a hypothetical 6 FG that wouldn't be M. Unless there was something else going on.