Is reducing workload effective way to increase value?-ScottS
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 5:01 am
Author Message
Scott S
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 46
Location: East Rutherford, NJ
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:45 pm Post subject: Is reducing workload an effective way to increase value? Reply with quote
In my post for 48MoH this week, I looked into whether or not players with more MPG and GP early in their career tend to burn out at higher rates. (The answer is yes.) I estimate magnitudes and look at possible causes. I also look into effectively reducing workload while maximizing value.
http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2010/09/ ... #more-9697
Let me know what you think and if you've seen any other related data on this subject.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Crow
Joined: 20 Jan 2009
Posts: 804
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:13 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
What else did you consider besides you're adopted model? Any consideration to a fatigue-based model similar to the baseball model you mentioned at the start where minutes over some threshold (along with any other measures of "heavy workload") were explicitly weighted more heavily and maybe increasingly so, rather than in linear fashion? Or some consideration of shots per game over a threshold? Is that more important than other forms of work? Would it enhance the model to have both minutes and shots- or even down to inside shots and FTAs? Any interest in taking the analysis to perimeter vs big-man?
Would you say any more about why you "...selected players with at least 2,000 minutes from the ages 28 and 29" as opposed to those between say 26-27 or 24-25? Was it a significant choice to you or did you just need to make one to pull a workable dataset? Any interest in pulling other ages?
"Clearly, resting the second of back-to back road games or games when nursing an injury would be expected to have a more significant impact on career longevity."
Are there players were either or both of these or other forms of workload impact reductions (time in blowouts, sitting in April or whatever) were done more strongly than usual that you could compare to some other players where it has done less than usual or even "usual" to test and document this conventional wisdom or give it more wisdom? What, in fact, are the "usuals" for this activity?
Is there anything else that could be done with similar analysis?
What about the guys with low longevity ratios where it was not because of injury or at least not clearly suspected to be from injury because of lost games? What distinguishes them from the guys with better ratios? Among the items that could be considered: usage, overall FG%, "having the 3 point shot adequately" passing quality / turnovers, general defense, being on a winning team, the size of market or contract size at a certain age (could matter for several reasons), specifically facing the actual presence of a tough competitor (by some measure) at their position, the influence of coach or GM preference for continuity or change or a college or NBA level suspension "red-flag" andwhatever else you can think to check.
What about something fairly opposite to your first study- the longevity affects of getting a major chance at a sustained level of x minutes by y age or year in the league (and probably excluding the instant above average young players to focus on the next levels down) for players judged near equal at some point, whether it be at y + z year in the league or in the draft?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scott S
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 46
Location: East Rutherford, NJ
PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I selected ages 28 and 29 to try to closer reflect the impact on
overworking the Spurs key players. A later age may have even been
better for this purpose, but there wouldn't be enough data.
Other patterns that I noticed were that tall players, shooters and
even the interaction was favorable with a long career. Short athletes
tended to have shorter careers . I thought passers might last longer but it didn't show up in a quick check.
Usg was higher for the "burnouts", but not statistically significantly, given I only had 200 or so observations. I thought about using draft pick number, but it would have trended to a study more similar to the one you referenced. The fact that MPG was such a strong factor predicting future success indicates to me that perception creates or limits opportunity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
schtevie
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 408
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:22 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Scott, reading your interesting article, I take the proper conclusion to be quite different than what you emphasize.
The article is entitled "Is reducing workload an effective way to increase value?", and your bottom line calculation is " To try to put this in perspective, I did a quick estimate and found that the typical 82 games “saved” before age 28 tend to add, over the course of their career, about 1/4 of the wins contributed by that player for an 82 game season."
The proper conclusion then seems to be: reducing workload is a highly ineffective way to increase value. To the contrary, it is an effective way of reducing value. From the perspective of both the team's interest and that of the player, who would want to trade a year of wins now for what is (only a possible - should catastrophic injury occur) one quarter of that in the distant future?
There could well be a deeper truth (according with majority opinion, I would guess) regarding optimal trade offs on the margin, and you discuss what some of these might be (e.g. taking days off on back to backs.) But I don't see your approach and results really establishing this. Am I missing something?
To get to that truth (if so desired) one needs to begin with at least an implicit theory of injury as it relates to maximizing single season team wins/play-off competitiveness. (The relationship with longevity then would follow.) And there is compelling evidence (I think) that the best players get "over played" in every season, as do the second tier, and probably the third, etc.
But it is interesting nonetheless that despite this, your results strongly suggest that player usage is globally optimal for teams and players alike.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scott S
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 46
Location: East Rutherford, NJ
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess I was kind of vague in some of my assertions. I really meant that, in the instances for not fully healthy players, it is worthwhile at times. First of all, a player's value is usually lowered when injured (I think I mentioned this) My estimate of .25 compared value for full games missed versus increased value later, you would almost never expect to make up 100%. Maximizing this is more of a subjective matter. I wasn't trying to say that a random game should not be played or even that teams tend to rest players efficiently, but rather that maximum efficiency needs to balance both high use and rest.
Resting a game or portion of a game could certainly be worthwhile when a player seems to be an injury risk at that point and/or future contributions are expected to be much more important than the current (playoffs)
Scott S
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 46
Location: East Rutherford, NJ
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:45 pm Post subject: Is reducing workload an effective way to increase value? Reply with quote
In my post for 48MoH this week, I looked into whether or not players with more MPG and GP early in their career tend to burn out at higher rates. (The answer is yes.) I estimate magnitudes and look at possible causes. I also look into effectively reducing workload while maximizing value.
http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2010/09/ ... #more-9697
Let me know what you think and if you've seen any other related data on this subject.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Crow
Joined: 20 Jan 2009
Posts: 804
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:13 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
What else did you consider besides you're adopted model? Any consideration to a fatigue-based model similar to the baseball model you mentioned at the start where minutes over some threshold (along with any other measures of "heavy workload") were explicitly weighted more heavily and maybe increasingly so, rather than in linear fashion? Or some consideration of shots per game over a threshold? Is that more important than other forms of work? Would it enhance the model to have both minutes and shots- or even down to inside shots and FTAs? Any interest in taking the analysis to perimeter vs big-man?
Would you say any more about why you "...selected players with at least 2,000 minutes from the ages 28 and 29" as opposed to those between say 26-27 or 24-25? Was it a significant choice to you or did you just need to make one to pull a workable dataset? Any interest in pulling other ages?
"Clearly, resting the second of back-to back road games or games when nursing an injury would be expected to have a more significant impact on career longevity."
Are there players were either or both of these or other forms of workload impact reductions (time in blowouts, sitting in April or whatever) were done more strongly than usual that you could compare to some other players where it has done less than usual or even "usual" to test and document this conventional wisdom or give it more wisdom? What, in fact, are the "usuals" for this activity?
Is there anything else that could be done with similar analysis?
What about the guys with low longevity ratios where it was not because of injury or at least not clearly suspected to be from injury because of lost games? What distinguishes them from the guys with better ratios? Among the items that could be considered: usage, overall FG%, "having the 3 point shot adequately" passing quality / turnovers, general defense, being on a winning team, the size of market or contract size at a certain age (could matter for several reasons), specifically facing the actual presence of a tough competitor (by some measure) at their position, the influence of coach or GM preference for continuity or change or a college or NBA level suspension "red-flag" andwhatever else you can think to check.
What about something fairly opposite to your first study- the longevity affects of getting a major chance at a sustained level of x minutes by y age or year in the league (and probably excluding the instant above average young players to focus on the next levels down) for players judged near equal at some point, whether it be at y + z year in the league or in the draft?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scott S
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 46
Location: East Rutherford, NJ
PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I selected ages 28 and 29 to try to closer reflect the impact on
overworking the Spurs key players. A later age may have even been
better for this purpose, but there wouldn't be enough data.
Other patterns that I noticed were that tall players, shooters and
even the interaction was favorable with a long career. Short athletes
tended to have shorter careers . I thought passers might last longer but it didn't show up in a quick check.
Usg was higher for the "burnouts", but not statistically significantly, given I only had 200 or so observations. I thought about using draft pick number, but it would have trended to a study more similar to the one you referenced. The fact that MPG was such a strong factor predicting future success indicates to me that perception creates or limits opportunity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
schtevie
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 408
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:22 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Scott, reading your interesting article, I take the proper conclusion to be quite different than what you emphasize.
The article is entitled "Is reducing workload an effective way to increase value?", and your bottom line calculation is " To try to put this in perspective, I did a quick estimate and found that the typical 82 games “saved” before age 28 tend to add, over the course of their career, about 1/4 of the wins contributed by that player for an 82 game season."
The proper conclusion then seems to be: reducing workload is a highly ineffective way to increase value. To the contrary, it is an effective way of reducing value. From the perspective of both the team's interest and that of the player, who would want to trade a year of wins now for what is (only a possible - should catastrophic injury occur) one quarter of that in the distant future?
There could well be a deeper truth (according with majority opinion, I would guess) regarding optimal trade offs on the margin, and you discuss what some of these might be (e.g. taking days off on back to backs.) But I don't see your approach and results really establishing this. Am I missing something?
To get to that truth (if so desired) one needs to begin with at least an implicit theory of injury as it relates to maximizing single season team wins/play-off competitiveness. (The relationship with longevity then would follow.) And there is compelling evidence (I think) that the best players get "over played" in every season, as do the second tier, and probably the third, etc.
But it is interesting nonetheless that despite this, your results strongly suggest that player usage is globally optimal for teams and players alike.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scott S
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 46
Location: East Rutherford, NJ
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess I was kind of vague in some of my assertions. I really meant that, in the instances for not fully healthy players, it is worthwhile at times. First of all, a player's value is usually lowered when injured (I think I mentioned this) My estimate of .25 compared value for full games missed versus increased value later, you would almost never expect to make up 100%. Maximizing this is more of a subjective matter. I wasn't trying to say that a random game should not be played or even that teams tend to rest players efficiently, but rather that maximum efficiency needs to balance both high use and rest.
Resting a game or portion of a game could certainly be worthwhile when a player seems to be an injury risk at that point and/or future contributions are expected to be much more important than the current (playoffs)