How well would this team perform? (Ben F.. 2005)
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 5:31 am
Author Message
Ben F.
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 391
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:05 pm Post subject: How well would this team perform? Reply with quote
I ask this because I've gotten some interesting results from my simulation. I want to know how you think this team would perform in the NBA. The team is made up of a collection of good players, but doesn't really have any stars. They all shoot well, play good defense, don't really turn the ball over, and rebound well.
MPG for each player in parenthesis.
PG: Antonio Daniels (28 ), Damon Jones (16), Devin Harris (4)
SG: Manu Ginobili (32), Damon Jones (16)
SF: Shane Battier (32), Anthony Peeler (16)
PF: Jeff Foster (16), Mehmet Okur (16), Mike Sweetney (16)
C: Marcus Camby (32), Jeff Foster (16)
The question is, does a team need a star to do well? Is Ginobili really that good, or is it just because he plays with Duncan? Or using language from Dean Oliver's book, would the increased usage of possessions on this team for role players decrease their overall efficiency? Or would they still perform well?
I've just been VERY surprised by the results I've gotten from them, so was wondering if this was an error, a flaw in the design, or could actually happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
drebelx
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 14
Location: Springfield, MA (Birthplace of Basketball)
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I too am interested in how a team like that would perform. It sounds like you may be using parameters that I have thought would be ideal for a basketball team, high %'s, blocks and steals indicating good defense, low TO's and good rebounding. By the way are you neglecting assists and points scored in you simulation?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:52 am Post subject: Reply with quote
simulation shows 60+ wins in an average 82 game season, playing each nba team 273/274 games in a simulated 8200 game season (remember this is against the other nba teams and not a "draft" league where only the best 150/200 players in the league are used rather than the full 360 players in the nba)...
this is a very good defensive team (daniels, ginobili, and battier are all excellent defenders) that would have a very high Scoring FG% (.563) as a team versus their opponents (.495). the only team in the nba right now with a Scoring FG% that high is phoenix, and no one else is even close (no one else in the nba right now is even at 55%, the current league average is 51.9%)...
this team would have off/def FG%s of .465 vs. .427, shoot almost 10 more FTA/g and get 6 more reb/g than their opponents, commit less than 14 TO/g, and commit only 21 fouls/g versus 26 fouls/g by their opponents...
camby, foster, and battier would get 11 pts/g each, ginobili 20 pts/g, and daniels 15 pts/g. camby and foster would get 10 reb/g each, ginobili, daniels, and d.jones 5 ast/g each...
daniels, ginobili, and battier are easily three of the most underated players in the league, and 82games.com shows foster, battier, and ginobili having excellent +/- numbers...
as for "...would the increased usage of possessions on this team for role players decrease their overall efficiency?...", i'd like to see if there is any statistical evidence for this. for the above team the following players touches would each increase over what they are currently getting in real life in 04-05 by:
8% - camby
12% - foster
10% - battier
15% - ginobili
20% - daniels
but - camby had just as high touches/min in real life in 96-97 as he gets in the simulation, foster did in 01-02, battier did in 01-02, and daniels almost as much in 03-04 (ginobili's high in touches/min is this season), so the increased touches/min are right in line with what these players have gotten at some points in their careers...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:48 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob, your comments got me thinking. Does your simulator assume an inverse relationship between touches and efficiency, or as in BoP, possession usage and efficiency?
I would think that you would have to build in an assumption that as a player is forced to use more possessions (or more touches), his efficiency falls. Otherwise, I would suspect that your simulator would say that surrounding Fred Hoiberg with Michael Ruffin, Trent Hassell, Brevin Knight, and Tyson Chandler would likely lead to Hoiberg challenging for the scoring lead in the league without a decrease in his efficiency. Such a prediction almost surely would be false, as it would pretty much turn Hoiberg into an MVP candidate.
But building in such an assumption is tough, because the relationship between touches and efficiency surely is something that differs from player to player and is one of the more difficult relationships to estimate without bias.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:02 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob, your comments got me thinking. Does your simulator assume an inverse relationship between touches and efficiency, or as in BoP, possession usage and efficiency? ...
i have deano's book, so before i answer this, please tell me where in his book does he talk about this? i'd like to see the statistical proof of this before i respond...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kevin Pelton
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 978
Location: Seattle
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:15 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Just for the record, here are the estimated percentage of possessions and shots these players are using/taking so far this season:
Code:
Player Ps% Sh%
------------------
Daniels .20 .19
Ginobili .24 .22
Battier .14 .15
Foster .14 .14
Camby .17 .17
------------------
Lineup .89 .87
If, as Bob suggests, you use career-high figures, you can get to 100%, but the vast majority of this increase is due to Camby and I'm loathe to think that a 22-year-old rookie Camby tells us much about what he could do now. In practice, I think Daniels could probably add a fair number of possessions without a huge efficiency loss, but I'm dubious on the ability of the other four guys to do so.
Off of a spreadsheet, a frontline of Foster and Camby is probably going to get pushed around a fair bit by stouter players, I would think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:27 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
Bob, your comments got me thinking. Does your simulator assume an inverse relationship between touches and efficiency, or as in BoP, possession usage and efficiency? ...
i have deano's book, so before i answer this, please tell me where in his book does he talk about this? i'd like to see the statistical proof of this before i respond...
This is Chapter 19 of Basketball on Paper - the discussion of skill curves. I hate to speak for DeanO, but I don't think there is a way to "statistically prove" that efficiency falls as possession usage rises. But without such a relationship, the strategy for teams would be to allow the most efficient player to use all of his team's possessions. That doesn't happen because players are forced into less efficient possessions (e.g. worse shots) as their possession usage rises.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3570
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:14 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not sure if we're using this year's stats or last year's; the inclusion of a rookie suggests it's 2004-05.
Assuming we're using this year, and assuming none of these players misses many games -- a big assumption, I should say -- my eWins for the group projects to 60.3, almost exactly what BobC came up with.
The 9 non-rookies averaged 72 games last year, and only Foster and Peeler have missed significant time this year. That might be pretty close to league average "availability", so you could suppose these estimates are OK.
The lack of a "pure" point guard might also affect some of these players' effective scoring. Damon Jones might revert to that role.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:56 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob, your comments got me thinking. Does your simulator assume an inverse relationship between touches and efficiency, or as in BoP, possession usage and efficiency?
...
nope...
I would think that you would have to build in an assumption that as a player is forced to use more possessions (or more touches), his efficiency falls.
...
uh... now why would you assume that?... i wouldn't assume that at all...
you may think that intuitively this is a correct statement, but i would need to see the data proving it...
Otherwise, I would suspect that your simulator would say that surrounding Fred Hoiberg with Michael Ruffin, Trent Hassell, Brevin Knight, and Tyson Chandler would likely lead to Hoiberg challenging for the scoring lead in the league without a decrease in his efficiency.
...
is this you saying this, or the simulator? in either case you would suspect wrong...
Such a prediction almost surely would be false, as it would pretty much turn Hoiberg into an MVP candidate.
...
false, huh? uh... ok... again, who's making the predictions here, you or the simulator?...
when i simulate the above starting five (chandler, ruffin, hassell, hoiberg, and knight) against the rest of the league they win only about 40 games per average 82 game season. hoiberg gets about 20 pts/g (shooting the same very high Scoring FG% he is in real life now), chandler 15 pts/g, ruffin 4 pts/g, hassell 13 pts/g, and knight 15 pts/g, with each playing 36 min/g. all have their touches/min increased significantly, but lets look at this realistically...
coming into this season brevin knight had been in the league for 7 years. because of the current makeup of the charlotte bobcats, he is now getting his highest touches/min of his career. if i had told you prior to this season that a journeyman PG who had played over 2000 minutes in a season just once in 7 years was going be on an expansion team - and be 2nd or 3rd in the league in assists per game playing just 28 min/g, would you have believed me?...
knight is getting 8.2 astg playing just 28 min/g, stephon marbury is getting 8.3 ast/g playing 40 min/g. if nash wasn't having such an outrageous season in phoenix, we could realistically be seeing a journeyman player play less than 30 min/g leading the league in ast/g on one of the worst teams in the league....
except for possibly his rookie season, knight is having probably his best season statistically - so tell me, does the assumption for decreasing a player's efficiency with increased touches cover brevin knight? or is there a qualifier just for low touches/min SGs like fred hoiberg?...
and again this is real life, not simulation...
my point is that before making assumptions check the historical records. brevin knight is just one current example, there are more...
fred hoiberg may not shoot a very high Scoring FG% of 66% with increased touches, but in 00-01 he played 2200+ minutes for the bulls with touches per minute of 1.0 and he shot a Scoring FG% of 59%, 6th best in the league of all players playing at least 2000 minutes, so there is historical precedence for him shooting very well with increased touches and increased minutes...
But building in such an assumption is tough, because the relationship between touches and efficiency surely is something that differs from player to player and is one of the more difficult relationships to estimate without bias.
This is Chapter 19 of Basketball on Paper - the discussion of skill curves. I hate to speak for DeanO, but I don't think there is a way to "statistically prove" that efficiency falls as possession usage rises. But without such a relationship, the strategy for teams would be to allow the most efficient player to use all of his team's possessions. That doesn't happen because players are forced into less efficient possessions (e.g. worse shots) as their possession usage rises.
i read DeanO's chapter 19, and i simply don't concur with his findings. if i understand his comments correctly (and i may not be) he is saying allen iverson and jerry stackhouse are less efficient players with more touches. so let's look at this...
in 00-01 iverson scored 31 pts/g. that season i have him getting 1.5 touches/min. you will notice his Scoring FG% that season was .508, the 2nd highest of his 7 year career (not including this season), with turnovers on just 5% of his touches (about average for him). that .508 was very close to the league average Scoring FG% that season of .510....
so here you have a player who shoots or gets fouled on 54% of his touches, is shooting right at the league average Scoring FG%, but with very low turnovers on just 5% of his touches. i don't find that to be inefficient at all - on the contrary i call that being very efficient...
now look at this 04-05 season. iverson is getting close to 2.0 touches/min, is shooting a Scoring FG% of .513, right near the league average of .519, is shooting or getting fouled on 40% of his touches (he's passing more per touch this season versus in 00-01), and is getting you 30 pts/g with turnovers on - again - just 5% of his touches....
so here you see iverson getting his most and least touches/min yet being what i believe to be efficient in both cases. he was quite "inefficient" in 03-04 because he shot so poorly, his Scoring FG% that season was just .468, four percentage points below the league average. if you are shooting that poorly yet taking over 30 scoring opportunities a game (one scoring opportunity being a FGA or 2 FTAs), you're not helping your team...
as for jerry stackhouse, in 00-01 he scored 29.8 pts/g on 1.6-1.7 touches/min, both career highes for him. he did that with a Scoring FG% of .510, right at the league average that season, and right near his career Scoring FG% of .513. plus that season his turnovers per touch were at just
6%, low for him as he's had seasons with turnovers per touch of 8% and 9%. again - shooting the league average Scoring FG% with turnovers on just 6% of your touches, while shooting or getting fouled on 50% of your touches, to me is pretty efficient....
his FG% that season was just 40%, but his Scoring FG% was right at the league average because he took 810 FTAs and hit 82% of them. that's like taking an additional 405 shots but hitting them at an 82% clip...
DeanO also talks about derek fisher being more efficient with less possessions with kobe and shaq around when he was on the lakers. but right now fisher is getting his most touches/min (on golden state) in 6 seasons, and his Scoring FG% is .514, better than his career Scoring FG% of .498, and his turnovers per touch are at just 4%, about average for him, and he's scoring a career best 12.6 pts/g playing just 31 min/g (he had 2 seasons with the lakers where he played more minutes)...
If, as Bob suggests, you use career-high figures, you can get to 100%, but the vast majority of this increase is due to Camby and I'm loathe to think that a 22-year-old rookie Camby tells us much about what he could do now. In practice, I think Daniels could probably add a fair number of possessions without a huge efficiency loss, but I'm dubious on the ability of the other four guys to do so.
the vast majority of players increase their touches/min after their rookie season, camby is an exception. but in any case his touches/min are now just 8% less than his rookie season. the simulation example i ran with camby has his touches/min increasing by 9%. i don't see the difference here - the simulation shows him getting touches/min that he did get at one time during his career, so that is in fact realistic...
Off of a spreadsheet, a frontline of Foster and Camby is probably going to get pushed around a fair bit by stouter players, I would think.
....
i would think not - currently marcus camby is the 3rd best defensive rebounder in the league behind kevin garnett and reggie evans. jeff foster is currently the 3rd best offensive rebounder in the league behind danny fortson and dan gadzuric. they appear to be doing their own fair share of pushing...
yes the simulation does assume players are not getting injured, i.e. players like camby and foster playing all 82 games, but remember the simulation is a model and looks at both best case and worst case (a poor peforming player playing major minutes) scenarios...
The lack of a "pure" point guard might also affect some of these players' effective scoring. Damon Jones might revert to that role....
the past 2 season antonio daniels has passed the ball with 2/3 or more of his touches, getting about 1.5 touches/min over the 2 seasons. that's about as pure of a PG as you'll find, with higher passes thrown per touch than the mike bibby's, allen iverson's, gilbert arenas's, and steve francis's of the 04-05 world...
[/b]
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: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:26 am Post subject: Reply with quote
i just went back and re-read Chapter 19. you know what's been bugging me about it this entire time? the axes seem to be reversed from what they should be. the x-axis is efficiency and the y-axis is touches.
shouldn't it be the other way around? touches is the independent variable, and efficiency is the dependent variable. right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:29 am Post subject: Reply with quote
as for the 12 chosen players that started this discussion, it's not surprising that they will win a lot of games. all 12 of them are starter or prime backup quality. there's very little dropoff between the 4th-5th and 11th-12th players. where's the Bruno Sundovs, David Harrisons, Mateen Cleaves, Obinna Ekezies, and Tierre Browns in that group?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3570
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:59 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Gabe,
To your 1st post: You might imagine that guys get touches based on their efficiency; i.e., How many touches should this guy be getting?
2nd post: There are only 10 players on this hypothetical team. One of them is only getting 4 minutes. (That's why I was leery about assumed player availablility, AKA the injury factor).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathom
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 19
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, the axes should be switched. Somewhere on APBR analysis awhile back I remember Dean posting that they were supposed to be switched.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:45 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob, the basic question is this. If there is no relationship between possession usage and efficiency, then why would the Wolves let anyone other than Hoiberg shoot if he is their most efficient player? Why would the Sixers let anyone other than Korver shoot if he is their most efficient player? Why would Seattle let anyone other than Daniels shoot if he is their most efficient player? If you were giving advice to these teams, why wouldn't your advice simply be to have their most efficient shooters shoot every time down the court?
Maybe I am dumb, but the only thing I can think of that would make that poor advice is that forcing those players into more shots would result in their efficiency falling.
This is theory, but it is also basic economics. At low possession usages, players only try to score on the chances where they have the highest probability of success - breakaways, tip-ins under the basket, wide open jumpers, etc. But as their possession usage rises, they start to add in contested shots - floaters in the lane, jump hooks over an outstretched arm, fadeaway jumpers, etc. Push their possession usage way up and they then are forced to create lots of their own shots and some of the shots become very low percentage.
Thinking about this process we can imagine that for some players their efficiency drops off precipitously as their usage increases, while for others the drop is more gradual.
Now it is tough to estimate this relationship. For example, if we use game-to-game differences in usage to estimate this relationship, it is likely the case the higher usage games were games where the player was in a favorable match-up or was healthier. Comparisons between seasons would be better, but it still would be difficult to disentangle this relationship away from players simply getting better and worse or playing for coaches that do a better job optimizing a player's talents.
Hoiberg, I think, is a decent example of what DeanO calls a skill curve. There have been three seasons where he played at least 20 minutes per game, and I will focus on those since his minutes may have been mostly garbage minutes in those other seasons. Hoiberg's efficiency seems to fall quite a bit as his usage increases. At 20 percent or higher usage, I would imagine that his efficiency would be below average.
Season Usage Efficiency
1999-00 16.5 106
2000-01 13.2 119
2003-04 11.5 121
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... efr01.html
Brevin Knight, I think, has been more efficient with higher usage. His assists per 40 minutes are the highest of his career (although not that much higher than in some previous seasons) and his shooting percentages are pretty typical for him. Charlotte has organized their offense around their point guards with even Steve Smith generating a lot of assists when he played point guard.
There have been two players, Keith Bogans and Kareem Rush, thrust into a scorer's role at the SG position. Both have seen their shooting percentages fall quite precipitously as their usage has increased from previous seasons.
But I think it is very difficult to estimate the relationhip underlying these skill curves. There are too many other things going on that are difficult to control for. In other words, it is hard to do the ceteris paribus comparisons that we would like. But at the end of the day, the nagging question is still the same. If there is not an inverse relationship between possession usage and efficiency, why don't teams have Korver, Daniels, Battier, Hoiberg, etc. shooting 30 shots per game? It could be that coaches and GMs are just dumb, but I think folks rightly realize that these players' efficiency would drop quite a bit if they were used much more intensively.
Last edited by Dan Rosenbaum on Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:55 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
S.K.
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 61
Location: Toronto
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:50 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Dan Rosenbaum wrote:
Bob, the basic question is this. If there is no relationship between possession usage and efficiency, then why would the Wolves let anyone other than Hoiberg shoot if he is their most efficient player? Why would the Sixers let anyone other than Korver shoot if he is their most efficient player? Why would Seattle let anyone other than Daniels shoot if he is their most efficient player? If you were giving advice to these teams, why wouldn't your advice simply be to have their most efficient shooters shoot every time down the court.
Dan, I think you're setting up a strawman here. Obviously increasing touches from 15% to 100% is bound to result in a huge loss of efficiency, because strategically such a thing would be ridiculously easy to defend. An increase from 15% to 20 or 22% is something different, though, and that's what I think we don't have adequate research to prove.
It's an interesting debate. I play FastBreak Basketball (computer sim) and I find the statistical realism to be excellent on a player-by-player basis, except for one funny problem - players can't seem to create their own shots. Shot distribution is almost entirely a product of the system (uptempo/outside, downtempo/inside, etc), so you have players go from 1500 FGA to 600 FGA in similar minutes simply because they've changed roles.
In real life, though, we have to assume that some portion of shot% is innate creation ability - that certain guys are going to get their touches simply because they are better at creating shots when the ball comes into their possession. So, the debate here is - how is efficiency related? It's similar to the Assist debate - how much of efficiency is system-influenced, and how much is the property of the player? Sticking Iverson on a team where he's the 3rd or 4th option for an entire season would be a fascinating test case.
It could be posited that a guy like Daniels or Ginobli, playing major roles on their respective teams, are already at their "normal" efficiency level. That is, unless possession% is raised or lowered to an extreme amount (30% or 5%), they will continue to be roughly as efficient. It certainly isn't counterintuitive to me that this might be the case. I have to back up Bob in thinking that the inverse 1:1 relationship of possession% and efficiency isn't a slam-dunk.
_________________
No books - no articles - no website.
Just opinions.
Ill-informed opinions.
Author Message
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
S.K. wrote:
Dan Rosenbaum wrote:
Bob, the basic question is this. If there is no relationship between possession usage and efficiency, then why would the Wolves let anyone other than Hoiberg shoot if he is their most efficient player? Why would the Sixers let anyone other than Korver shoot if he is their most efficient player? Why would Seattle let anyone other than Daniels shoot if he is their most efficient player? If you were giving advice to these teams, why wouldn't your advice simply be to have their most efficient shooters shoot every time down the court.
Dan, I think you're setting up a strawman here. Obviously increasing touches from 15% to 100% is bound to result in a huge loss of efficiency, because strategically such a thing would be ridiculously easy to defend. An increase from 15% to 20 or 22% is something different, though, and that's what I think we don't have adequate research to prove.
Well, of course, 100 percent possession usage is ridiculous, but teams still could push players like Hoiberg, Daniels, Korver, Battier to something between 25 and 35 percent possession usage. And the question still stands, why don't they?
I am not arguing that these players necesarily are at their optimal possession usage. Maybe some of these players could see very little drop in efficiency if a few more plays were run for them. That is reasonable. But a jump from 15 to 20 or 22 percent possession usage is a huge change in a player's role. If such a change does not generally result in lower efficiency, then coaches are fundamentally mis-coaching their teams. Such a claim, I think, is extreme and means that the burden of proof is on the person making such a claim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
jkubatko
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 702
Location: Columbus, OH
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:58 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
No analysis offered here, just some data. I looked for players since 1978 who met the following criteria:
a) at least 500 minutes played in the target season and the previous season
b) at least 20 possessions per 48 minutes in the target season
c) an increase of at least 1/3 in possessions per 48 minutes from the previous season to the target season
Twenty-five players met the criteria above. Here they are:
Code:
--- Poss --- ----- Off Rtg -----
Yr Yr-1 Yr Yr-1 Yr Diff
Michael Adams 1991 19.8 33.2 114 113 -1
Richard Anderson 1984 17.7 25.2 94 101 7
Thurl Bailey 1985 15.3 20.7 106 105 -1
Antoine Carr 1990 16.5 22.7 112 109 -3
Terry Catledge 1990 18.0 24.6 105 106 1
Sleepy Floyd 1991 18.5 25.5 111 104 -7
Ernie Grunfeld 1982 16.3 23.3 109 109 0
Roy Hinson 1985 12.4 21.1 99 106 7
Larry Hughes 2004 18.5 24.7 101 101 0
Lindsey Hunter 2003 13.8 22.7 98 86 -12
Don MacLean 1996 17.6 24.8 106 103 -3
Wes Matthews 1986 16.7 22.7 104 105 1
Chris Mills 2000 15.1 20.9 104 107 3
Cuttino Mobley 2000 15.0 21.7 104 106 2
Steve Nash 2001 15.1 21.2 114 115 1
Calvin Natt 1985 17.8 25.3 122 121 -1
Mike Newlin 1980 19.9 27.4 107 107 0
Johnny Newman 1998 15.3 20.6 106 107 1
Robert Reid 1989 16.8 24.6 107 97 -10
Derek Smith 1985 17.5 24.7 116 115 -1
Kelly Tripucka 1989 16.9 28.4 104 105 1
David Wesley 1996 14.5 21.0 111 116 5
Jason Williams 2002 16.9 23.8 100 95 -5
Scott Williams 1994 15.0 20.5 110 105 -5
Orlando Woolridge 1991 19.7 28.4 118 113 -5
For example, from 1990 to 1991 Michael Adams's possessions per 48 minutes increased from 19.8 to 33.2, and his offensive rating decreased from 114 to 113.
_________________
Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball-Reference.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:18 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
jkubatko wrote:
No analysis offered here, just some data. I looked for players since 1978 who met the following criteria:
a) at least 500 minutes played in the target season and the previous season
b) at least 20 possessions per 48 minutes in the target season
c) an increase of at least 1/3 in possessions per 48 minutes from the previous season to the target season
Twenty-five players met the criteria above. Here they are:
Code:
--- Poss --- ----- Off Rtg -----
Yr Yr-1 Yr Yr-1 Yr Diff
Michael Adams 1991 19.8 33.2 114 113 -1
Richard Anderson 1984 17.7 25.2 94 101 7
Thurl Bailey 1985 15.3 20.7 106 105 -1
Antoine Carr 1990 16.5 22.7 112 109 -3
Terry Catledge 1990 18.0 24.6 105 106 1
Sleepy Floyd 1991 18.5 25.5 111 104 -7
Ernie Grunfeld 1982 16.3 23.3 109 109 0
Roy Hinson 1985 12.4 21.1 99 106 7
Larry Hughes 2004 18.5 24.7 101 101 0
Lindsey Hunter 2003 13.8 22.7 98 86 -12
Don MacLean 1996 17.6 24.8 106 103 -3
Wes Matthews 1986 16.7 22.7 104 105 1
Chris Mills 2000 15.1 20.9 104 107 3
Cuttino Mobley 2000 15.0 21.7 104 106 2
Steve Nash 2001 15.1 21.2 114 115 1
Calvin Natt 1985 17.8 25.3 122 121 -1
Mike Newlin 1980 19.9 27.4 107 107 0
Johnny Newman 1998 15.3 20.6 106 107 1
Robert Reid 1989 16.8 24.6 107 97 -10
Derek Smith 1985 17.5 24.7 116 115 -1
Kelly Tripucka 1989 16.9 28.4 104 105 1
David Wesley 1996 14.5 21.0 111 116 5
Jason Williams 2002 16.9 23.8 100 95 -5
Scott Williams 1994 15.0 20.5 110 105 -5
Orlando Woolridge 1991 19.7 28.4 118 113 -5
For example, from 1990 to 1991 Michael Adams's possessions per 48 minutes increased from 19.8 to 33.2, and his offensive rating decreased from 114 to 113.
Interesting work. Here is my grouping of the results.
Positive effects (+3 or greater) - 4 cases
Very little effect (-2 to +2) - 13 cases
Negative effects (-3 or worse) - 8 cases
So it looks like the effect leans negative, but in most cases there is very little effect. The problem here is that we probably don't have the random sample of players that we would like. We cannot think of the usage increase as being random; it probably occurred for some reason. These were the cases where coaches for whatever reason thought the player could handle more possession usage. If anything, that probably should bias us in favor of finding a more positive relationship between possession usage and efficiency since these guys should be the best case scenarios. The worst case scenarios did not see their usage increased.
Teasing out this relationship empirically is very, very hard. It is difficult to come up with the right experiement, where we can truly say that other things are being held constant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:19 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
To your 1st post: You might imagine that guys get touches based on their efficiency; i.e., How many touches should this guy be getting?
that's an interesting way to look at it, but i think that's almost forcing or retrofitting the data to what you want it to be.
what is the independent variable that one would observe? touches. from that, what would one then want to calculate and plot? efficiency.
from another perspective, what would the idealized player be? one who can maintain the same efficiency with increased touches. what would this look like? if efficiency is the horizontal axis, then this would be a vertical line at some point in the plot. if you switch them so that touches is now along the horizontal, this looks much closer to what an "expected" plot should be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:29 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob, the basic question is this. If there is no relationship between possession usage and efficiency, then why would the Wolves let anyone other than Hoiberg shoot if he is their most efficient player?
...
1st - has anyone here said that there is no relationship between touches and efficiency? on the contrary, i have simply asked for statistical proof of the assumption...
2nd - is this the same team that just fired their coach? is this the same team that continues to give latrell sprewell minutes over fred hoiberg? can you honestly tell me that sprewell is such a vastly superior defender to hoiberg, or a vastly better leader such that he should be on the court, that these in and of themselves outweigh his poor Scoring FG% versus hoiberg's?..
3rd - this by chance the same team that continues to give minutes to players like michael olowokandi, mark madsen, and even ervin johnson when a much better player sits on the bench in eddie griffin, a player who would generate more wins for their team?
or are you saying the team actually knows this but for other reasons limits the minutes of players like hoiberg and griffin?...
Why would the Sixers let anyone other than Korver shoot if he is their most efficient player?
first off korver is 2nd on the team in minutes played, but - might this be the same team that has a PG that takes 29.5 scoring opportunities a game? and is the team's star and highest paid player (oops, before chris webber)?...
is this also the same team that traded for a high touches/min PF in chris webber that can't defend a lick and is not an efficient shooter/scorer that they now sit in 4th quarters?...
Why would Seattle let anyone other than Daniels shoot if he is their most efficient player?
seattle has several efficient shooters/scorer (allen/lewis), but if i were their coach i would certainly give daniels more playing time...
If you were giving advice to these teams, why wouldn't your advice simply be to have their most efficient shooters shoot every time down the court?
not every time, but certainly more touches and scoring opportunities than they are getting now if possible...
Maybe I am dumb, but the only thing I can think of that would make that poor advice is that forcing those players into more shots would result in their efficiency falling.
there are players every season that get more of an opportunity to play, and others that get less. only the teams' management can tell you why...
Thinking about this process we can imagine that for some players their efficiency drops off precipitously as their usage increases, while for others the drop is more gradual.
doesn't your thinking process even allow for the possibility to exist that for some players their efficientcy would increase with more touches?...
Brevin Knight, I think, has been more efficient with higher usage. His assists per 40 minutes are the highest of his career (although not that much higher than in some previous seasons) and his shooting percentages are pretty typical for him. Charlotte has organized their offense around their point guards with even Steve Smith generating a lot of assists when he played point guard.
i don't think charlotte has done any such thing. in reality they just happened to pick players to play major minutes who shoot more when first getting the ball than other players. their two top players in minutes played (okafor, brezec) happen to shoot the ball on 50% or more of their touches. that is naturally going to lead to more assists, unless they shoot horribly (as it is okafor is not tearing up the nets is he?)...
If there is not an inverse relationship between possession usage and efficiency, why don't teams have Korver, Daniels, Battier, Hoiberg, etc.
shooting 30 shots per game?
sorry but simply because teams don't give these players more minutes/touches does not inherently imply that there exists an inverse relationship to touches and efficiency....
korver already takes a three point shot with 1 out of every 4 touches. problem is his PG is a mite busy with the ball and that PG plays 42 min/g...
shaquille o'neal is an efficient shooter/scorer, but his scoring opportunities have decreased the past 2 seasons to about 20 per game where seasons earlier they were 25+. is his decrease in scoring opportunities due to less efficiency?...
why does battier not get more touches? maybe the same reasons james posey didn't last season despite a 60%+ Scoring FG%, one being pau gasol is the major wage earner on that team...
It could be that coaches and GMs are just dumb, but I think folks rightly realize that these players' efficiency would drop quite a bit if they were used much more intensively.
think all you want, but might these the same "folks" be the ones that signed chris webber to $20 mil/yr for the next 3 seasons, or allan houston or calvin booth or jim mcilvaine or whomever to huge contracts? again, are you assuming these teams do detailed statistical analyses like we supposedly do?...
[/b]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jkubatko
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 702
Location: Columbus, OH
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:44 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Dan Rosenbaum wrote:
The problem here is that we probably don't have the random sample of players that we would like.
Exactly, which is why I only offered data and no analysis. Absent data from a controlled experiment, quantifying the effect of an increase in possessions on efficiency is basically impossible.
_________________
Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball-Reference.com
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: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:15 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
for what it's worth, i don't see anything even close to a correllation when plotting Justin's numbers:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
NickS
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 384
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:23 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
It would be great if we could figure out a way to test this. I have to credit the recent discussion on player performance relative to minutes with convincing me that, on average, players play better when they are given more minutes.
That makes me at least consider the possibility that players could play better with more touches, though I'm skeptical.
But it would be great to try to find some hard numbers.
Justin could you generate the following statistics?
1) Efficiency and Usage rates for players that play at least 1000 min in yr 1 & 2, in situations where team wins in year 1 exceed year 2 wins by at least 10 (normalized for 82 games)?
2) The same except in reverse with year 2 wins eceeding year 1 wins.
I'm curious to try to use team strength as a proxy for players that have to "go beyond" their abilities. In general we think that on a good team players may shoot a lot or they may shoot a little but they have the luxury of being able to play their role and have the team cover for some deficiencies. On a bad team players have to do more things.
Note that all else being equal bad teams have lower efficiency ratings as a team than good teams so we would expect players on bad teams to have a lower average efficiency.
If we don't see a drop off in efficiency when players go from good situations to bad it would make me much more likely to believe that players are, on average, able to absorb more responsibility without losing efficiency. If we do see a significant drop off it might suggest other studies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:41 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
think all you want, but might these the same "folks" be the ones that signed chris webber to $20 mil/yr for the next 3 seasons, or allan houston or calvin booth or jim mcilvaine or whomever to huge contracts? again, are you assuming these teams do detailed statistical analyses like we supposedly do?...
I am not saying that coaches or GMs never make mistakes or that they do detailed statistical (or financial) analyses. But this relationship between possession usage and efficiency is a fundamental concept. I think it is the central reason why scorers are so highly valued at all levels of basketball. Personally, without it I just do not know how I would organize my thoughts about basketball.
Now it may very well be that conventional wisdom about this relationship is overblown, but my questions are genuine. Without this relationship, why wouldn't it be a good idea to be getting Hoiberg, Battier, Daniels, and Korver 25 to 35 percent of the possessions? Without an inverse relationship between possession usage and efficiency, I just do not know how to begin to start answering this question.
And if Hoiberg played 35 minutes a night and was pushed to 25 to 35 percent of his team's possessions and he maintained anything close to his present efficiency, he would be the MVP of the league. I don't think anyone else would be even close. So the question here is, how can both Flip Saunders and now Kevin McHale both be so dumb not to realize that they have an MVP on their team and it isn't Kevin Garnett.
Without positing an inverse relationship between possession usage and efficiency, how can I refute such an argument? What can I possibly say that would be persuasive that Hoiberg is not an MVP-caliber player that is being held back by his coaches?
Now I do believe there are cases where coaches can change the offensive scheme in a way that better suits particular players and that can lead to a positive relationship between efficiency and possession usage. But I think that is fundamentally different from arguing that Hoiberg is an MVP-caliber player being held back by his coaches. And once again, without positing an inverse relationship between efficiency and possession usage, I just don't know what to say to someone who says that Hoiberg is an MVP-caliber player who is being held back by his coaches. I just don't know how to refute that argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 865
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
There's a name for guys who could maintain Hoiberg's effiency over 25-35% of his team's possessions -- Michael Jordan.
Now, folks are welcome to argue that Hoiberg is as good as Jordan, but as DeanO might say, that'd be a minority opinion.
As far as the overall discussion goes, I think that Dean's work on skill curves is illustrative. Some players can maintain efficiency as they use more possessions -- some may even increase efficiency up to a point. However, there comes a point at which a player won't be able to maintain efficiency when he uses X possessions. Where X falls is different for individuals. I don't believe for a second that Hoiberg could maintain his efficiency while using 35% of his team's possessions because it would require him taking shots of increasing difficulty and it would make him a greater defensive focus.
The brief tracking of defensive stats that we've done shows that a hand in the fact matters. A lot. http://www.82games.com/saccon.htm
I do think this area could use more study -- there's not a ton of evidence on either side of the issue.
Last edited by kjb on Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
drebelx
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 14
Location: Springfield, MA (Birthplace of Basketball)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:56 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Hoiberg! I entered him in another discussion almost like this one saying the same thing that is being said here, that he should be playing more.
One look at his career numbers and I knew right away I was really wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Dan Rosenbaum wrote:
Without an inverse relationship between possession usage and efficiency, I just do not know how to begin to start answering this question.
And if Hoiberg played 35 minutes a night and was pushed to 25 to 35 percent of his team's possessions and he maintained anything close to his present efficiency, he would be the MVP of the league. I don't think anyone else would be even close. So the question here is, how can both Flip Saunders and now Kevin McHale both be so dumb not to realize that they have an MVP on their team and it isn't Kevin Garnett.
Without positing an inverse relationship between possession usage and efficiency, how can I refute such an argument? What can I possibly say that would be persuasive that Hoiberg is not an MVP-caliber player that is being held back by his coaches?
let me preface what i'm about to say with the caveat that i don't necessarily believe it.
however...
perhaps what you're saying has something to do with the structure of the efficiency ratings? could there be something inherent in them that gives players like Hoiberg an undeserving bounce in their ratings?
that would be an error (or miscalculation) on a much more fundamental level, but it seems like we're patently discounting the possibility of that occurring, no?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
S.K.
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 61
Location: Toronto
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
gabefarkas wrote:
perhaps what you're saying has something to do with the structure of the efficiency ratings? could there be something inherent in them that gives players like Hoiberg an undeserving bounce in their ratings?
that would be an error (or miscalculation) on a much more fundamental level, but it seems like we're patently discounting the possibility of that occurring, no?
I wouldn't call it an error, simply a lack of information. In this case, what we're missing (and what the usage/efficiency debate is about) is exactly how much of Hoiberg's efficiency is a product of his own ability, and how much is a product of an ideal usage of that ability by system/teammates. Hoiberg is the poster-child for players who (the theory goes) must be used properly in order to maintain effiency, given his limitations.
The difficulty is that we can't test this, because players of Hoiberg's type are rarely given the opportunity to prove us right/wrong.
_________________
No books - no articles - no website.
Just opinions.
Ill-informed opinions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Roland_Beech
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 43
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:01 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
this is a great discussion.
like Dan, many of us I'm sure assume that players would lose some level of efficiency with more possession usage, but as Bob points out, we don't really have any concrete proof of this.
certainly the issue of being able to create a shot seems important, for a guy like Hoiberg, 95% of his made FG's this year have been assisted, and 96% last year (Korver is 84% this year, 96% in limited minutes last year...on the other hand A.Daniels is 31% this year, 45% last year).
Can teams work harder to get significantly more 'catch+shoot' plays for these accurate jump shooter types like Hoiberg and Korver? maybe Dean can chime in on the realities of trying to call more plays for certain guys. It would seem likely that if Hoiberg is going to up his shots it's not going to be by driving to the hoop more often...
There have of course been a number of notable -primarily jump shot- guys who have been big scorers -- Reggie Miller, etc, although unfortunately I don't have data before 02-03 so some of these classic guys are hard for me to discuss
looking at this season, if you sort players by FGA/40 minutes or something, of the top 50 guys, only a few have assisted FG levels of 66% or more:
14. Kapono - 82% assisted FG's (14th in fga/min when you put in a minimum minutes played cutoff)
24. Jamison - 70%
32. Garnett - 68%
36. White (Den time) - 68%
43. Wells - 71%
49. Maggette - 70%
52. Marion - 71%
55. Ming - 73%
56. Stojakovic - 74%
on the other hand a lot of the heavy shooters (yeah, yeah, I should have used possessions instead of fga) are under 50% assisted buckets, including Iverson (22%), Gordon (49%), J.Richardson (49%), B.Davis (31% in NO), McGrady (40%), Kobe (30%), Ray Allen (45%), Antoine (43% in ATL), LeBron (44%), Arenas (39%)...and that's just guys in the top 20...point guards it should be noted almost always have low assisted rates since as Bob points out, they have the ball in their hands to begin with, and may not give it up!
Of course, Peja can light it up when healthy and was 77% assisted last season too...but I do think guys in the 80% and 90% range would generally have a more difficult time getting more shots unless a team really can construct an offense to get catch+shoot shots off screens etc
what makes a Reggie Miller or Peja more capable of higher possession usage but not a guy like Kerr or Hoiberg? Speed/Size/Offensive Scheme/Just plain Talent?
We are charting play types which I think has myriad applications, one of which is surely related to this -- maybe there's no hard limit to how many times a guy can drive the ball and get a shot off, or get a jumper off the dribble, but there is a limit to how often a guy can catch and go up?
One thing I still wonder about is why Shaq didn't get more shots in last year's NBA finals -- after all he was
G1: 13-16 FG, 8-12 FT, 5 Orebs, 6 T/O
G2: 10-20 FG, 9-14 FT, 3 Orebs, 3 T/O
G3: 7-14 FG, 0-2 FT, 2 Orebs, 2 T/O
G4: 16-21 FG, 4-11 FT, 3 Orebs, 2 T/O
G5: 7-13 FG, 6-16 FT, 2 Orebs, 1 T/O
...and yes the general consensus on this is one word: Kobe-itis
Is there a limit though to how often you can run a post up play? Did Shaquille pass up a lot of possible shots, leading to his outrageous shooting numbers? (53-84 or .630) Would he have a lower FG% if they had gone to him more?
Anyway, I digress...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 865
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:13 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
The thing with catch and shoot guys is that defenses should be better able to take that away if that guy is going to be a primary option. Just stay with the guy and deny the pass.
Theoretically a team could run plays for the catch and shoot guy -- screens and whatnot to free the shooter in his spot. At some point, though, the defense is going to catch on and force the offense to do something different. At some point, the defense is going to figure out a way to force the shooter to make some tougher shots.
Ben F.
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 391
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:05 pm Post subject: How well would this team perform? Reply with quote
I ask this because I've gotten some interesting results from my simulation. I want to know how you think this team would perform in the NBA. The team is made up of a collection of good players, but doesn't really have any stars. They all shoot well, play good defense, don't really turn the ball over, and rebound well.
MPG for each player in parenthesis.
PG: Antonio Daniels (28 ), Damon Jones (16), Devin Harris (4)
SG: Manu Ginobili (32), Damon Jones (16)
SF: Shane Battier (32), Anthony Peeler (16)
PF: Jeff Foster (16), Mehmet Okur (16), Mike Sweetney (16)
C: Marcus Camby (32), Jeff Foster (16)
The question is, does a team need a star to do well? Is Ginobili really that good, or is it just because he plays with Duncan? Or using language from Dean Oliver's book, would the increased usage of possessions on this team for role players decrease their overall efficiency? Or would they still perform well?
I've just been VERY surprised by the results I've gotten from them, so was wondering if this was an error, a flaw in the design, or could actually happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
drebelx
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 14
Location: Springfield, MA (Birthplace of Basketball)
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I too am interested in how a team like that would perform. It sounds like you may be using parameters that I have thought would be ideal for a basketball team, high %'s, blocks and steals indicating good defense, low TO's and good rebounding. By the way are you neglecting assists and points scored in you simulation?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:52 am Post subject: Reply with quote
simulation shows 60+ wins in an average 82 game season, playing each nba team 273/274 games in a simulated 8200 game season (remember this is against the other nba teams and not a "draft" league where only the best 150/200 players in the league are used rather than the full 360 players in the nba)...
this is a very good defensive team (daniels, ginobili, and battier are all excellent defenders) that would have a very high Scoring FG% (.563) as a team versus their opponents (.495). the only team in the nba right now with a Scoring FG% that high is phoenix, and no one else is even close (no one else in the nba right now is even at 55%, the current league average is 51.9%)...
this team would have off/def FG%s of .465 vs. .427, shoot almost 10 more FTA/g and get 6 more reb/g than their opponents, commit less than 14 TO/g, and commit only 21 fouls/g versus 26 fouls/g by their opponents...
camby, foster, and battier would get 11 pts/g each, ginobili 20 pts/g, and daniels 15 pts/g. camby and foster would get 10 reb/g each, ginobili, daniels, and d.jones 5 ast/g each...
daniels, ginobili, and battier are easily three of the most underated players in the league, and 82games.com shows foster, battier, and ginobili having excellent +/- numbers...
as for "...would the increased usage of possessions on this team for role players decrease their overall efficiency?...", i'd like to see if there is any statistical evidence for this. for the above team the following players touches would each increase over what they are currently getting in real life in 04-05 by:
8% - camby
12% - foster
10% - battier
15% - ginobili
20% - daniels
but - camby had just as high touches/min in real life in 96-97 as he gets in the simulation, foster did in 01-02, battier did in 01-02, and daniels almost as much in 03-04 (ginobili's high in touches/min is this season), so the increased touches/min are right in line with what these players have gotten at some points in their careers...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:48 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob, your comments got me thinking. Does your simulator assume an inverse relationship between touches and efficiency, or as in BoP, possession usage and efficiency?
I would think that you would have to build in an assumption that as a player is forced to use more possessions (or more touches), his efficiency falls. Otherwise, I would suspect that your simulator would say that surrounding Fred Hoiberg with Michael Ruffin, Trent Hassell, Brevin Knight, and Tyson Chandler would likely lead to Hoiberg challenging for the scoring lead in the league without a decrease in his efficiency. Such a prediction almost surely would be false, as it would pretty much turn Hoiberg into an MVP candidate.
But building in such an assumption is tough, because the relationship between touches and efficiency surely is something that differs from player to player and is one of the more difficult relationships to estimate without bias.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:02 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob, your comments got me thinking. Does your simulator assume an inverse relationship between touches and efficiency, or as in BoP, possession usage and efficiency? ...
i have deano's book, so before i answer this, please tell me where in his book does he talk about this? i'd like to see the statistical proof of this before i respond...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kevin Pelton
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 978
Location: Seattle
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:15 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Just for the record, here are the estimated percentage of possessions and shots these players are using/taking so far this season:
Code:
Player Ps% Sh%
------------------
Daniels .20 .19
Ginobili .24 .22
Battier .14 .15
Foster .14 .14
Camby .17 .17
------------------
Lineup .89 .87
If, as Bob suggests, you use career-high figures, you can get to 100%, but the vast majority of this increase is due to Camby and I'm loathe to think that a 22-year-old rookie Camby tells us much about what he could do now. In practice, I think Daniels could probably add a fair number of possessions without a huge efficiency loss, but I'm dubious on the ability of the other four guys to do so.
Off of a spreadsheet, a frontline of Foster and Camby is probably going to get pushed around a fair bit by stouter players, I would think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:27 am Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
Bob, your comments got me thinking. Does your simulator assume an inverse relationship between touches and efficiency, or as in BoP, possession usage and efficiency? ...
i have deano's book, so before i answer this, please tell me where in his book does he talk about this? i'd like to see the statistical proof of this before i respond...
This is Chapter 19 of Basketball on Paper - the discussion of skill curves. I hate to speak for DeanO, but I don't think there is a way to "statistically prove" that efficiency falls as possession usage rises. But without such a relationship, the strategy for teams would be to allow the most efficient player to use all of his team's possessions. That doesn't happen because players are forced into less efficient possessions (e.g. worse shots) as their possession usage rises.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3570
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:14 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not sure if we're using this year's stats or last year's; the inclusion of a rookie suggests it's 2004-05.
Assuming we're using this year, and assuming none of these players misses many games -- a big assumption, I should say -- my eWins for the group projects to 60.3, almost exactly what BobC came up with.
The 9 non-rookies averaged 72 games last year, and only Foster and Peeler have missed significant time this year. That might be pretty close to league average "availability", so you could suppose these estimates are OK.
The lack of a "pure" point guard might also affect some of these players' effective scoring. Damon Jones might revert to that role.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:56 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob, your comments got me thinking. Does your simulator assume an inverse relationship between touches and efficiency, or as in BoP, possession usage and efficiency?
...
nope...
I would think that you would have to build in an assumption that as a player is forced to use more possessions (or more touches), his efficiency falls.
...
uh... now why would you assume that?... i wouldn't assume that at all...
you may think that intuitively this is a correct statement, but i would need to see the data proving it...
Otherwise, I would suspect that your simulator would say that surrounding Fred Hoiberg with Michael Ruffin, Trent Hassell, Brevin Knight, and Tyson Chandler would likely lead to Hoiberg challenging for the scoring lead in the league without a decrease in his efficiency.
...
is this you saying this, or the simulator? in either case you would suspect wrong...
Such a prediction almost surely would be false, as it would pretty much turn Hoiberg into an MVP candidate.
...
false, huh? uh... ok... again, who's making the predictions here, you or the simulator?...
when i simulate the above starting five (chandler, ruffin, hassell, hoiberg, and knight) against the rest of the league they win only about 40 games per average 82 game season. hoiberg gets about 20 pts/g (shooting the same very high Scoring FG% he is in real life now), chandler 15 pts/g, ruffin 4 pts/g, hassell 13 pts/g, and knight 15 pts/g, with each playing 36 min/g. all have their touches/min increased significantly, but lets look at this realistically...
coming into this season brevin knight had been in the league for 7 years. because of the current makeup of the charlotte bobcats, he is now getting his highest touches/min of his career. if i had told you prior to this season that a journeyman PG who had played over 2000 minutes in a season just once in 7 years was going be on an expansion team - and be 2nd or 3rd in the league in assists per game playing just 28 min/g, would you have believed me?...
knight is getting 8.2 astg playing just 28 min/g, stephon marbury is getting 8.3 ast/g playing 40 min/g. if nash wasn't having such an outrageous season in phoenix, we could realistically be seeing a journeyman player play less than 30 min/g leading the league in ast/g on one of the worst teams in the league....
except for possibly his rookie season, knight is having probably his best season statistically - so tell me, does the assumption for decreasing a player's efficiency with increased touches cover brevin knight? or is there a qualifier just for low touches/min SGs like fred hoiberg?...
and again this is real life, not simulation...
my point is that before making assumptions check the historical records. brevin knight is just one current example, there are more...
fred hoiberg may not shoot a very high Scoring FG% of 66% with increased touches, but in 00-01 he played 2200+ minutes for the bulls with touches per minute of 1.0 and he shot a Scoring FG% of 59%, 6th best in the league of all players playing at least 2000 minutes, so there is historical precedence for him shooting very well with increased touches and increased minutes...
But building in such an assumption is tough, because the relationship between touches and efficiency surely is something that differs from player to player and is one of the more difficult relationships to estimate without bias.
This is Chapter 19 of Basketball on Paper - the discussion of skill curves. I hate to speak for DeanO, but I don't think there is a way to "statistically prove" that efficiency falls as possession usage rises. But without such a relationship, the strategy for teams would be to allow the most efficient player to use all of his team's possessions. That doesn't happen because players are forced into less efficient possessions (e.g. worse shots) as their possession usage rises.
i read DeanO's chapter 19, and i simply don't concur with his findings. if i understand his comments correctly (and i may not be) he is saying allen iverson and jerry stackhouse are less efficient players with more touches. so let's look at this...
in 00-01 iverson scored 31 pts/g. that season i have him getting 1.5 touches/min. you will notice his Scoring FG% that season was .508, the 2nd highest of his 7 year career (not including this season), with turnovers on just 5% of his touches (about average for him). that .508 was very close to the league average Scoring FG% that season of .510....
so here you have a player who shoots or gets fouled on 54% of his touches, is shooting right at the league average Scoring FG%, but with very low turnovers on just 5% of his touches. i don't find that to be inefficient at all - on the contrary i call that being very efficient...
now look at this 04-05 season. iverson is getting close to 2.0 touches/min, is shooting a Scoring FG% of .513, right near the league average of .519, is shooting or getting fouled on 40% of his touches (he's passing more per touch this season versus in 00-01), and is getting you 30 pts/g with turnovers on - again - just 5% of his touches....
so here you see iverson getting his most and least touches/min yet being what i believe to be efficient in both cases. he was quite "inefficient" in 03-04 because he shot so poorly, his Scoring FG% that season was just .468, four percentage points below the league average. if you are shooting that poorly yet taking over 30 scoring opportunities a game (one scoring opportunity being a FGA or 2 FTAs), you're not helping your team...
as for jerry stackhouse, in 00-01 he scored 29.8 pts/g on 1.6-1.7 touches/min, both career highes for him. he did that with a Scoring FG% of .510, right at the league average that season, and right near his career Scoring FG% of .513. plus that season his turnovers per touch were at just
6%, low for him as he's had seasons with turnovers per touch of 8% and 9%. again - shooting the league average Scoring FG% with turnovers on just 6% of your touches, while shooting or getting fouled on 50% of your touches, to me is pretty efficient....
his FG% that season was just 40%, but his Scoring FG% was right at the league average because he took 810 FTAs and hit 82% of them. that's like taking an additional 405 shots but hitting them at an 82% clip...
DeanO also talks about derek fisher being more efficient with less possessions with kobe and shaq around when he was on the lakers. but right now fisher is getting his most touches/min (on golden state) in 6 seasons, and his Scoring FG% is .514, better than his career Scoring FG% of .498, and his turnovers per touch are at just 4%, about average for him, and he's scoring a career best 12.6 pts/g playing just 31 min/g (he had 2 seasons with the lakers where he played more minutes)...
If, as Bob suggests, you use career-high figures, you can get to 100%, but the vast majority of this increase is due to Camby and I'm loathe to think that a 22-year-old rookie Camby tells us much about what he could do now. In practice, I think Daniels could probably add a fair number of possessions without a huge efficiency loss, but I'm dubious on the ability of the other four guys to do so.
the vast majority of players increase their touches/min after their rookie season, camby is an exception. but in any case his touches/min are now just 8% less than his rookie season. the simulation example i ran with camby has his touches/min increasing by 9%. i don't see the difference here - the simulation shows him getting touches/min that he did get at one time during his career, so that is in fact realistic...
Off of a spreadsheet, a frontline of Foster and Camby is probably going to get pushed around a fair bit by stouter players, I would think.
....
i would think not - currently marcus camby is the 3rd best defensive rebounder in the league behind kevin garnett and reggie evans. jeff foster is currently the 3rd best offensive rebounder in the league behind danny fortson and dan gadzuric. they appear to be doing their own fair share of pushing...
yes the simulation does assume players are not getting injured, i.e. players like camby and foster playing all 82 games, but remember the simulation is a model and looks at both best case and worst case (a poor peforming player playing major minutes) scenarios...
The lack of a "pure" point guard might also affect some of these players' effective scoring. Damon Jones might revert to that role....
the past 2 season antonio daniels has passed the ball with 2/3 or more of his touches, getting about 1.5 touches/min over the 2 seasons. that's about as pure of a PG as you'll find, with higher passes thrown per touch than the mike bibby's, allen iverson's, gilbert arenas's, and steve francis's of the 04-05 world...
[/b]
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: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:26 am Post subject: Reply with quote
i just went back and re-read Chapter 19. you know what's been bugging me about it this entire time? the axes seem to be reversed from what they should be. the x-axis is efficiency and the y-axis is touches.
shouldn't it be the other way around? touches is the independent variable, and efficiency is the dependent variable. right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:29 am Post subject: Reply with quote
as for the 12 chosen players that started this discussion, it's not surprising that they will win a lot of games. all 12 of them are starter or prime backup quality. there's very little dropoff between the 4th-5th and 11th-12th players. where's the Bruno Sundovs, David Harrisons, Mateen Cleaves, Obinna Ekezies, and Tierre Browns in that group?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3570
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:59 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Gabe,
To your 1st post: You might imagine that guys get touches based on their efficiency; i.e., How many touches should this guy be getting?
2nd post: There are only 10 players on this hypothetical team. One of them is only getting 4 minutes. (That's why I was leery about assumed player availablility, AKA the injury factor).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathom
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 19
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, the axes should be switched. Somewhere on APBR analysis awhile back I remember Dean posting that they were supposed to be switched.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:45 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob, the basic question is this. If there is no relationship between possession usage and efficiency, then why would the Wolves let anyone other than Hoiberg shoot if he is their most efficient player? Why would the Sixers let anyone other than Korver shoot if he is their most efficient player? Why would Seattle let anyone other than Daniels shoot if he is their most efficient player? If you were giving advice to these teams, why wouldn't your advice simply be to have their most efficient shooters shoot every time down the court?
Maybe I am dumb, but the only thing I can think of that would make that poor advice is that forcing those players into more shots would result in their efficiency falling.
This is theory, but it is also basic economics. At low possession usages, players only try to score on the chances where they have the highest probability of success - breakaways, tip-ins under the basket, wide open jumpers, etc. But as their possession usage rises, they start to add in contested shots - floaters in the lane, jump hooks over an outstretched arm, fadeaway jumpers, etc. Push their possession usage way up and they then are forced to create lots of their own shots and some of the shots become very low percentage.
Thinking about this process we can imagine that for some players their efficiency drops off precipitously as their usage increases, while for others the drop is more gradual.
Now it is tough to estimate this relationship. For example, if we use game-to-game differences in usage to estimate this relationship, it is likely the case the higher usage games were games where the player was in a favorable match-up or was healthier. Comparisons between seasons would be better, but it still would be difficult to disentangle this relationship away from players simply getting better and worse or playing for coaches that do a better job optimizing a player's talents.
Hoiberg, I think, is a decent example of what DeanO calls a skill curve. There have been three seasons where he played at least 20 minutes per game, and I will focus on those since his minutes may have been mostly garbage minutes in those other seasons. Hoiberg's efficiency seems to fall quite a bit as his usage increases. At 20 percent or higher usage, I would imagine that his efficiency would be below average.
Season Usage Efficiency
1999-00 16.5 106
2000-01 13.2 119
2003-04 11.5 121
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... efr01.html
Brevin Knight, I think, has been more efficient with higher usage. His assists per 40 minutes are the highest of his career (although not that much higher than in some previous seasons) and his shooting percentages are pretty typical for him. Charlotte has organized their offense around their point guards with even Steve Smith generating a lot of assists when he played point guard.
There have been two players, Keith Bogans and Kareem Rush, thrust into a scorer's role at the SG position. Both have seen their shooting percentages fall quite precipitously as their usage has increased from previous seasons.
But I think it is very difficult to estimate the relationhip underlying these skill curves. There are too many other things going on that are difficult to control for. In other words, it is hard to do the ceteris paribus comparisons that we would like. But at the end of the day, the nagging question is still the same. If there is not an inverse relationship between possession usage and efficiency, why don't teams have Korver, Daniels, Battier, Hoiberg, etc. shooting 30 shots per game? It could be that coaches and GMs are just dumb, but I think folks rightly realize that these players' efficiency would drop quite a bit if they were used much more intensively.
Last edited by Dan Rosenbaum on Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:55 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
S.K.
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 61
Location: Toronto
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:50 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Dan Rosenbaum wrote:
Bob, the basic question is this. If there is no relationship between possession usage and efficiency, then why would the Wolves let anyone other than Hoiberg shoot if he is their most efficient player? Why would the Sixers let anyone other than Korver shoot if he is their most efficient player? Why would Seattle let anyone other than Daniels shoot if he is their most efficient player? If you were giving advice to these teams, why wouldn't your advice simply be to have their most efficient shooters shoot every time down the court.
Dan, I think you're setting up a strawman here. Obviously increasing touches from 15% to 100% is bound to result in a huge loss of efficiency, because strategically such a thing would be ridiculously easy to defend. An increase from 15% to 20 or 22% is something different, though, and that's what I think we don't have adequate research to prove.
It's an interesting debate. I play FastBreak Basketball (computer sim) and I find the statistical realism to be excellent on a player-by-player basis, except for one funny problem - players can't seem to create their own shots. Shot distribution is almost entirely a product of the system (uptempo/outside, downtempo/inside, etc), so you have players go from 1500 FGA to 600 FGA in similar minutes simply because they've changed roles.
In real life, though, we have to assume that some portion of shot% is innate creation ability - that certain guys are going to get their touches simply because they are better at creating shots when the ball comes into their possession. So, the debate here is - how is efficiency related? It's similar to the Assist debate - how much of efficiency is system-influenced, and how much is the property of the player? Sticking Iverson on a team where he's the 3rd or 4th option for an entire season would be a fascinating test case.
It could be posited that a guy like Daniels or Ginobli, playing major roles on their respective teams, are already at their "normal" efficiency level. That is, unless possession% is raised or lowered to an extreme amount (30% or 5%), they will continue to be roughly as efficient. It certainly isn't counterintuitive to me that this might be the case. I have to back up Bob in thinking that the inverse 1:1 relationship of possession% and efficiency isn't a slam-dunk.
_________________
No books - no articles - no website.
Just opinions.
Ill-informed opinions.
Author Message
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
S.K. wrote:
Dan Rosenbaum wrote:
Bob, the basic question is this. If there is no relationship between possession usage and efficiency, then why would the Wolves let anyone other than Hoiberg shoot if he is their most efficient player? Why would the Sixers let anyone other than Korver shoot if he is their most efficient player? Why would Seattle let anyone other than Daniels shoot if he is their most efficient player? If you were giving advice to these teams, why wouldn't your advice simply be to have their most efficient shooters shoot every time down the court.
Dan, I think you're setting up a strawman here. Obviously increasing touches from 15% to 100% is bound to result in a huge loss of efficiency, because strategically such a thing would be ridiculously easy to defend. An increase from 15% to 20 or 22% is something different, though, and that's what I think we don't have adequate research to prove.
Well, of course, 100 percent possession usage is ridiculous, but teams still could push players like Hoiberg, Daniels, Korver, Battier to something between 25 and 35 percent possession usage. And the question still stands, why don't they?
I am not arguing that these players necesarily are at their optimal possession usage. Maybe some of these players could see very little drop in efficiency if a few more plays were run for them. That is reasonable. But a jump from 15 to 20 or 22 percent possession usage is a huge change in a player's role. If such a change does not generally result in lower efficiency, then coaches are fundamentally mis-coaching their teams. Such a claim, I think, is extreme and means that the burden of proof is on the person making such a claim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
jkubatko
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 702
Location: Columbus, OH
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:58 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
No analysis offered here, just some data. I looked for players since 1978 who met the following criteria:
a) at least 500 minutes played in the target season and the previous season
b) at least 20 possessions per 48 minutes in the target season
c) an increase of at least 1/3 in possessions per 48 minutes from the previous season to the target season
Twenty-five players met the criteria above. Here they are:
Code:
--- Poss --- ----- Off Rtg -----
Yr Yr-1 Yr Yr-1 Yr Diff
Michael Adams 1991 19.8 33.2 114 113 -1
Richard Anderson 1984 17.7 25.2 94 101 7
Thurl Bailey 1985 15.3 20.7 106 105 -1
Antoine Carr 1990 16.5 22.7 112 109 -3
Terry Catledge 1990 18.0 24.6 105 106 1
Sleepy Floyd 1991 18.5 25.5 111 104 -7
Ernie Grunfeld 1982 16.3 23.3 109 109 0
Roy Hinson 1985 12.4 21.1 99 106 7
Larry Hughes 2004 18.5 24.7 101 101 0
Lindsey Hunter 2003 13.8 22.7 98 86 -12
Don MacLean 1996 17.6 24.8 106 103 -3
Wes Matthews 1986 16.7 22.7 104 105 1
Chris Mills 2000 15.1 20.9 104 107 3
Cuttino Mobley 2000 15.0 21.7 104 106 2
Steve Nash 2001 15.1 21.2 114 115 1
Calvin Natt 1985 17.8 25.3 122 121 -1
Mike Newlin 1980 19.9 27.4 107 107 0
Johnny Newman 1998 15.3 20.6 106 107 1
Robert Reid 1989 16.8 24.6 107 97 -10
Derek Smith 1985 17.5 24.7 116 115 -1
Kelly Tripucka 1989 16.9 28.4 104 105 1
David Wesley 1996 14.5 21.0 111 116 5
Jason Williams 2002 16.9 23.8 100 95 -5
Scott Williams 1994 15.0 20.5 110 105 -5
Orlando Woolridge 1991 19.7 28.4 118 113 -5
For example, from 1990 to 1991 Michael Adams's possessions per 48 minutes increased from 19.8 to 33.2, and his offensive rating decreased from 114 to 113.
_________________
Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball-Reference.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:18 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
jkubatko wrote:
No analysis offered here, just some data. I looked for players since 1978 who met the following criteria:
a) at least 500 minutes played in the target season and the previous season
b) at least 20 possessions per 48 minutes in the target season
c) an increase of at least 1/3 in possessions per 48 minutes from the previous season to the target season
Twenty-five players met the criteria above. Here they are:
Code:
--- Poss --- ----- Off Rtg -----
Yr Yr-1 Yr Yr-1 Yr Diff
Michael Adams 1991 19.8 33.2 114 113 -1
Richard Anderson 1984 17.7 25.2 94 101 7
Thurl Bailey 1985 15.3 20.7 106 105 -1
Antoine Carr 1990 16.5 22.7 112 109 -3
Terry Catledge 1990 18.0 24.6 105 106 1
Sleepy Floyd 1991 18.5 25.5 111 104 -7
Ernie Grunfeld 1982 16.3 23.3 109 109 0
Roy Hinson 1985 12.4 21.1 99 106 7
Larry Hughes 2004 18.5 24.7 101 101 0
Lindsey Hunter 2003 13.8 22.7 98 86 -12
Don MacLean 1996 17.6 24.8 106 103 -3
Wes Matthews 1986 16.7 22.7 104 105 1
Chris Mills 2000 15.1 20.9 104 107 3
Cuttino Mobley 2000 15.0 21.7 104 106 2
Steve Nash 2001 15.1 21.2 114 115 1
Calvin Natt 1985 17.8 25.3 122 121 -1
Mike Newlin 1980 19.9 27.4 107 107 0
Johnny Newman 1998 15.3 20.6 106 107 1
Robert Reid 1989 16.8 24.6 107 97 -10
Derek Smith 1985 17.5 24.7 116 115 -1
Kelly Tripucka 1989 16.9 28.4 104 105 1
David Wesley 1996 14.5 21.0 111 116 5
Jason Williams 2002 16.9 23.8 100 95 -5
Scott Williams 1994 15.0 20.5 110 105 -5
Orlando Woolridge 1991 19.7 28.4 118 113 -5
For example, from 1990 to 1991 Michael Adams's possessions per 48 minutes increased from 19.8 to 33.2, and his offensive rating decreased from 114 to 113.
Interesting work. Here is my grouping of the results.
Positive effects (+3 or greater) - 4 cases
Very little effect (-2 to +2) - 13 cases
Negative effects (-3 or worse) - 8 cases
So it looks like the effect leans negative, but in most cases there is very little effect. The problem here is that we probably don't have the random sample of players that we would like. We cannot think of the usage increase as being random; it probably occurred for some reason. These were the cases where coaches for whatever reason thought the player could handle more possession usage. If anything, that probably should bias us in favor of finding a more positive relationship between possession usage and efficiency since these guys should be the best case scenarios. The worst case scenarios did not see their usage increased.
Teasing out this relationship empirically is very, very hard. It is difficult to come up with the right experiement, where we can truly say that other things are being held constant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:19 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
To your 1st post: You might imagine that guys get touches based on their efficiency; i.e., How many touches should this guy be getting?
that's an interesting way to look at it, but i think that's almost forcing or retrofitting the data to what you want it to be.
what is the independent variable that one would observe? touches. from that, what would one then want to calculate and plot? efficiency.
from another perspective, what would the idealized player be? one who can maintain the same efficiency with increased touches. what would this look like? if efficiency is the horizontal axis, then this would be a vertical line at some point in the plot. if you switch them so that touches is now along the horizontal, this looks much closer to what an "expected" plot should be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 690
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:29 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob, the basic question is this. If there is no relationship between possession usage and efficiency, then why would the Wolves let anyone other than Hoiberg shoot if he is their most efficient player?
...
1st - has anyone here said that there is no relationship between touches and efficiency? on the contrary, i have simply asked for statistical proof of the assumption...
2nd - is this the same team that just fired their coach? is this the same team that continues to give latrell sprewell minutes over fred hoiberg? can you honestly tell me that sprewell is such a vastly superior defender to hoiberg, or a vastly better leader such that he should be on the court, that these in and of themselves outweigh his poor Scoring FG% versus hoiberg's?..
3rd - this by chance the same team that continues to give minutes to players like michael olowokandi, mark madsen, and even ervin johnson when a much better player sits on the bench in eddie griffin, a player who would generate more wins for their team?
or are you saying the team actually knows this but for other reasons limits the minutes of players like hoiberg and griffin?...
Why would the Sixers let anyone other than Korver shoot if he is their most efficient player?
first off korver is 2nd on the team in minutes played, but - might this be the same team that has a PG that takes 29.5 scoring opportunities a game? and is the team's star and highest paid player (oops, before chris webber)?...
is this also the same team that traded for a high touches/min PF in chris webber that can't defend a lick and is not an efficient shooter/scorer that they now sit in 4th quarters?...
Why would Seattle let anyone other than Daniels shoot if he is their most efficient player?
seattle has several efficient shooters/scorer (allen/lewis), but if i were their coach i would certainly give daniels more playing time...
If you were giving advice to these teams, why wouldn't your advice simply be to have their most efficient shooters shoot every time down the court?
not every time, but certainly more touches and scoring opportunities than they are getting now if possible...
Maybe I am dumb, but the only thing I can think of that would make that poor advice is that forcing those players into more shots would result in their efficiency falling.
there are players every season that get more of an opportunity to play, and others that get less. only the teams' management can tell you why...
Thinking about this process we can imagine that for some players their efficiency drops off precipitously as their usage increases, while for others the drop is more gradual.
doesn't your thinking process even allow for the possibility to exist that for some players their efficientcy would increase with more touches?...
Brevin Knight, I think, has been more efficient with higher usage. His assists per 40 minutes are the highest of his career (although not that much higher than in some previous seasons) and his shooting percentages are pretty typical for him. Charlotte has organized their offense around their point guards with even Steve Smith generating a lot of assists when he played point guard.
i don't think charlotte has done any such thing. in reality they just happened to pick players to play major minutes who shoot more when first getting the ball than other players. their two top players in minutes played (okafor, brezec) happen to shoot the ball on 50% or more of their touches. that is naturally going to lead to more assists, unless they shoot horribly (as it is okafor is not tearing up the nets is he?)...
If there is not an inverse relationship between possession usage and efficiency, why don't teams have Korver, Daniels, Battier, Hoiberg, etc.
shooting 30 shots per game?
sorry but simply because teams don't give these players more minutes/touches does not inherently imply that there exists an inverse relationship to touches and efficiency....
korver already takes a three point shot with 1 out of every 4 touches. problem is his PG is a mite busy with the ball and that PG plays 42 min/g...
shaquille o'neal is an efficient shooter/scorer, but his scoring opportunities have decreased the past 2 seasons to about 20 per game where seasons earlier they were 25+. is his decrease in scoring opportunities due to less efficiency?...
why does battier not get more touches? maybe the same reasons james posey didn't last season despite a 60%+ Scoring FG%, one being pau gasol is the major wage earner on that team...
It could be that coaches and GMs are just dumb, but I think folks rightly realize that these players' efficiency would drop quite a bit if they were used much more intensively.
think all you want, but might these the same "folks" be the ones that signed chris webber to $20 mil/yr for the next 3 seasons, or allan houston or calvin booth or jim mcilvaine or whomever to huge contracts? again, are you assuming these teams do detailed statistical analyses like we supposedly do?...
[/b]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jkubatko
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 702
Location: Columbus, OH
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:44 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Dan Rosenbaum wrote:
The problem here is that we probably don't have the random sample of players that we would like.
Exactly, which is why I only offered data and no analysis. Absent data from a controlled experiment, quantifying the effect of an increase in possessions on efficiency is basically impossible.
_________________
Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball-Reference.com
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: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:15 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
for what it's worth, i don't see anything even close to a correllation when plotting Justin's numbers:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
NickS
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 384
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:23 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
It would be great if we could figure out a way to test this. I have to credit the recent discussion on player performance relative to minutes with convincing me that, on average, players play better when they are given more minutes.
That makes me at least consider the possibility that players could play better with more touches, though I'm skeptical.
But it would be great to try to find some hard numbers.
Justin could you generate the following statistics?
1) Efficiency and Usage rates for players that play at least 1000 min in yr 1 & 2, in situations where team wins in year 1 exceed year 2 wins by at least 10 (normalized for 82 games)?
2) The same except in reverse with year 2 wins eceeding year 1 wins.
I'm curious to try to use team strength as a proxy for players that have to "go beyond" their abilities. In general we think that on a good team players may shoot a lot or they may shoot a little but they have the luxury of being able to play their role and have the team cover for some deficiencies. On a bad team players have to do more things.
Note that all else being equal bad teams have lower efficiency ratings as a team than good teams so we would expect players on bad teams to have a lower average efficiency.
If we don't see a drop off in efficiency when players go from good situations to bad it would make me much more likely to believe that players are, on average, able to absorb more responsibility without losing efficiency. If we do see a significant drop off it might suggest other studies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Rosenbaum
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 541
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:41 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bchaikin wrote:
think all you want, but might these the same "folks" be the ones that signed chris webber to $20 mil/yr for the next 3 seasons, or allan houston or calvin booth or jim mcilvaine or whomever to huge contracts? again, are you assuming these teams do detailed statistical analyses like we supposedly do?...
I am not saying that coaches or GMs never make mistakes or that they do detailed statistical (or financial) analyses. But this relationship between possession usage and efficiency is a fundamental concept. I think it is the central reason why scorers are so highly valued at all levels of basketball. Personally, without it I just do not know how I would organize my thoughts about basketball.
Now it may very well be that conventional wisdom about this relationship is overblown, but my questions are genuine. Without this relationship, why wouldn't it be a good idea to be getting Hoiberg, Battier, Daniels, and Korver 25 to 35 percent of the possessions? Without an inverse relationship between possession usage and efficiency, I just do not know how to begin to start answering this question.
And if Hoiberg played 35 minutes a night and was pushed to 25 to 35 percent of his team's possessions and he maintained anything close to his present efficiency, he would be the MVP of the league. I don't think anyone else would be even close. So the question here is, how can both Flip Saunders and now Kevin McHale both be so dumb not to realize that they have an MVP on their team and it isn't Kevin Garnett.
Without positing an inverse relationship between possession usage and efficiency, how can I refute such an argument? What can I possibly say that would be persuasive that Hoiberg is not an MVP-caliber player that is being held back by his coaches?
Now I do believe there are cases where coaches can change the offensive scheme in a way that better suits particular players and that can lead to a positive relationship between efficiency and possession usage. But I think that is fundamentally different from arguing that Hoiberg is an MVP-caliber player being held back by his coaches. And once again, without positing an inverse relationship between efficiency and possession usage, I just don't know what to say to someone who says that Hoiberg is an MVP-caliber player who is being held back by his coaches. I just don't know how to refute that argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 865
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
There's a name for guys who could maintain Hoiberg's effiency over 25-35% of his team's possessions -- Michael Jordan.
Now, folks are welcome to argue that Hoiberg is as good as Jordan, but as DeanO might say, that'd be a minority opinion.
As far as the overall discussion goes, I think that Dean's work on skill curves is illustrative. Some players can maintain efficiency as they use more possessions -- some may even increase efficiency up to a point. However, there comes a point at which a player won't be able to maintain efficiency when he uses X possessions. Where X falls is different for individuals. I don't believe for a second that Hoiberg could maintain his efficiency while using 35% of his team's possessions because it would require him taking shots of increasing difficulty and it would make him a greater defensive focus.
The brief tracking of defensive stats that we've done shows that a hand in the fact matters. A lot. http://www.82games.com/saccon.htm
I do think this area could use more study -- there's not a ton of evidence on either side of the issue.
Last edited by kjb on Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
drebelx
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 14
Location: Springfield, MA (Birthplace of Basketball)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:56 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Hoiberg! I entered him in another discussion almost like this one saying the same thing that is being said here, that he should be playing more.
One look at his career numbers and I knew right away I was really wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Dan Rosenbaum wrote:
Without an inverse relationship between possession usage and efficiency, I just do not know how to begin to start answering this question.
And if Hoiberg played 35 minutes a night and was pushed to 25 to 35 percent of his team's possessions and he maintained anything close to his present efficiency, he would be the MVP of the league. I don't think anyone else would be even close. So the question here is, how can both Flip Saunders and now Kevin McHale both be so dumb not to realize that they have an MVP on their team and it isn't Kevin Garnett.
Without positing an inverse relationship between possession usage and efficiency, how can I refute such an argument? What can I possibly say that would be persuasive that Hoiberg is not an MVP-caliber player that is being held back by his coaches?
let me preface what i'm about to say with the caveat that i don't necessarily believe it.
however...
perhaps what you're saying has something to do with the structure of the efficiency ratings? could there be something inherent in them that gives players like Hoiberg an undeserving bounce in their ratings?
that would be an error (or miscalculation) on a much more fundamental level, but it seems like we're patently discounting the possibility of that occurring, no?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
S.K.
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 61
Location: Toronto
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
gabefarkas wrote:
perhaps what you're saying has something to do with the structure of the efficiency ratings? could there be something inherent in them that gives players like Hoiberg an undeserving bounce in their ratings?
that would be an error (or miscalculation) on a much more fundamental level, but it seems like we're patently discounting the possibility of that occurring, no?
I wouldn't call it an error, simply a lack of information. In this case, what we're missing (and what the usage/efficiency debate is about) is exactly how much of Hoiberg's efficiency is a product of his own ability, and how much is a product of an ideal usage of that ability by system/teammates. Hoiberg is the poster-child for players who (the theory goes) must be used properly in order to maintain effiency, given his limitations.
The difficulty is that we can't test this, because players of Hoiberg's type are rarely given the opportunity to prove us right/wrong.
_________________
No books - no articles - no website.
Just opinions.
Ill-informed opinions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Roland_Beech
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 43
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:01 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
this is a great discussion.
like Dan, many of us I'm sure assume that players would lose some level of efficiency with more possession usage, but as Bob points out, we don't really have any concrete proof of this.
certainly the issue of being able to create a shot seems important, for a guy like Hoiberg, 95% of his made FG's this year have been assisted, and 96% last year (Korver is 84% this year, 96% in limited minutes last year...on the other hand A.Daniels is 31% this year, 45% last year).
Can teams work harder to get significantly more 'catch+shoot' plays for these accurate jump shooter types like Hoiberg and Korver? maybe Dean can chime in on the realities of trying to call more plays for certain guys. It would seem likely that if Hoiberg is going to up his shots it's not going to be by driving to the hoop more often...
There have of course been a number of notable -primarily jump shot- guys who have been big scorers -- Reggie Miller, etc, although unfortunately I don't have data before 02-03 so some of these classic guys are hard for me to discuss
looking at this season, if you sort players by FGA/40 minutes or something, of the top 50 guys, only a few have assisted FG levels of 66% or more:
14. Kapono - 82% assisted FG's (14th in fga/min when you put in a minimum minutes played cutoff)
24. Jamison - 70%
32. Garnett - 68%
36. White (Den time) - 68%
43. Wells - 71%
49. Maggette - 70%
52. Marion - 71%
55. Ming - 73%
56. Stojakovic - 74%
on the other hand a lot of the heavy shooters (yeah, yeah, I should have used possessions instead of fga) are under 50% assisted buckets, including Iverson (22%), Gordon (49%), J.Richardson (49%), B.Davis (31% in NO), McGrady (40%), Kobe (30%), Ray Allen (45%), Antoine (43% in ATL), LeBron (44%), Arenas (39%)...and that's just guys in the top 20...point guards it should be noted almost always have low assisted rates since as Bob points out, they have the ball in their hands to begin with, and may not give it up!
Of course, Peja can light it up when healthy and was 77% assisted last season too...but I do think guys in the 80% and 90% range would generally have a more difficult time getting more shots unless a team really can construct an offense to get catch+shoot shots off screens etc
what makes a Reggie Miller or Peja more capable of higher possession usage but not a guy like Kerr or Hoiberg? Speed/Size/Offensive Scheme/Just plain Talent?
We are charting play types which I think has myriad applications, one of which is surely related to this -- maybe there's no hard limit to how many times a guy can drive the ball and get a shot off, or get a jumper off the dribble, but there is a limit to how often a guy can catch and go up?
One thing I still wonder about is why Shaq didn't get more shots in last year's NBA finals -- after all he was
G1: 13-16 FG, 8-12 FT, 5 Orebs, 6 T/O
G2: 10-20 FG, 9-14 FT, 3 Orebs, 3 T/O
G3: 7-14 FG, 0-2 FT, 2 Orebs, 2 T/O
G4: 16-21 FG, 4-11 FT, 3 Orebs, 2 T/O
G5: 7-13 FG, 6-16 FT, 2 Orebs, 1 T/O
...and yes the general consensus on this is one word: Kobe-itis
Is there a limit though to how often you can run a post up play? Did Shaquille pass up a lot of possible shots, leading to his outrageous shooting numbers? (53-84 or .630) Would he have a lower FG% if they had gone to him more?
Anyway, I digress...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 865
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:13 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
The thing with catch and shoot guys is that defenses should be better able to take that away if that guy is going to be a primary option. Just stay with the guy and deny the pass.
Theoretically a team could run plays for the catch and shoot guy -- screens and whatnot to free the shooter in his spot. At some point, though, the defense is going to catch on and force the offense to do something different. At some point, the defense is going to figure out a way to force the shooter to make some tougher shots.