Wayne Winston TrueHoop interview (deepak, 2009)
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:49 am
1 of 4
Author Message
deepak
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 664
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:03 pm Post subject: Wayne Winston TrueHoop interview Reply with quote
Interesting read so far. Wayne Winston sure doesn't hold back on his opinions.
Part 1:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-4 ... shful.html
Part 1 followup:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-4 ... -Post.html
Part 2:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-4 ... art-2.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mtamada
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 376
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: Wayne Winston TrueHoop interview Reply with quote
deepak_e wrote:
Interesting read so far. Wayne Winston sure doesn't hold back on his opinions.
Yeah, "outspoken" definitely applies to him. Those are good reads, they in fact provide a pretty large chunk of what Winston said at NESSIS, both in content and style (so it's almost like being at NESSIS, the only big thing missing from the articles is his gravelly voice).
Most of what he and the articles say is good solid stuff: APM can capture defensive contributions that box score stats cannot; APM measures what we care about i.e. are we outscoring the other team; etc.
The articles also give hints about the big question marks about APM: the standard error question (if the Mavs do really well when Player X matches up against Player Y in Game 1, how well does that really predict the chance that the Mavs will have the same success if they try to exploit that matchup in Game 2?); and the question of context or fit (players moving from a bad team to a good one and magically becoming better defensive players).
Both of those are in principle researchable questions. E.g. how stable are the APM figures (either for players or for lineups) within a playoff series? And by how much do individual players' APMs, or APM-based defensive or offensive ratings, change when they change teams -- and how does that figure compare to the changes experienced by players who stay with the same team?
(Those questions may very well have been addressed in this site already, I don't recall off the top of my head.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erivera7
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 178
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:23 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a question and I didn't really know where to post it, but I figured after reading what Winston wrote, it's somewhat relevant. When I asked Stan Van Gundy some questions at Media Day, one thing he pointed is that he hasn't seen a numerical system that accurately rates how good or how bad a player is, defensively.
My question is, how would people here respond to that? When I look at defensive numbers, usually I ref to adjusted defensive plus/minus, net defensive plus/minus, opponent PER, and whatever else. I know those metrics have their limitations in determining the worth of a player's defense, but is it a start?
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:27 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
nor does he hold back here either:
http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=108
here he calls sebastien telfair "an outstanding point guard". yet when you look at the stats, in 08-09 telfair played 2095 minutes, and among the 44 PGs in the league that played at least 1500 minutes in 08-09 he had:
- the 3rd worst overall shooting (47.5% ScFG%, 39.9% on 2s, 34.6% on 3s), that's just 42nd out of 44 PGs...
- the lowest/worst rate of rebounding (2.9 reb/48min), dead last among those 44 PGs...
- just average rates for assists per minute and steals per minute for a PG...
but because adjusted +/- is "calculated" as high for him he's outstanding?...
so here's my question for mr. winston (or any other adjusted +/- adherents) - just what exactly did sebastien telfair actually do that was outstanding?...
plus this statement is classic:
Another guy who is totally overrated is Amare Stoudemire. I mean, he's a stat stuffer.
totally overrated? in 04-05, 06-07, 07-08, and 08-09 (he missed the 05-06 season), stoudemire played the most total minutes on a phoenix suns team that averaged a 56-26 record (3rd best record among all teams those 4 years), and lead the team in total rebounds, blocked shots, and scoring, shot an excellent 61.6% ScFG%, and was the most efficient player on offense in the nba those 4 years (the best points scored per zero point team possession personally responsible for among the 340 different players that played at least 2500 total minutes those 4 seasons)...
how is the player that does all that on a team that averages 56 wins a season overrated? if stoudemire is getting all those rebounds, all those blocked shots, and all those points (very efficiently mind you), on an excellent winning team, who else praytell might be responsible for all those wins?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 191
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:12 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
although I enjoy Wayne Winston's perspective, from reading his blog posts it seems he's as dogmatic about his own version of APM as Berri is about WOW. I am somewhat surprised these individuals don't realize there is a lot of gray rather then black/white as to evaluating players. It's really off-putting.
_________________
-Rob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ryan J. Parker
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 708
Location: Raleigh, NC
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:38 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
erivera7 wrote:
I have a question and I didn't really know where to post it, but I figured after reading what Winston wrote, it's somewhat relevant. When I asked Stan Van Gundy some questions at Media Day, one thing he pointed is that he hasn't seen a numerical system that accurately rates how good or how bad a player is, defensively.
My question is, how would people here respond to that? When I look at defensive numbers, usually I ref to adjusted defensive plus/minus, net defensive plus/minus, opponent PER, and whatever else. I know those metrics have their limitations in determining the worth of a player's defense, but is it a start?
Nothing is going to give us a perfect measure without error, so we'll never have anything accurate with respect to any measure of player ability. Based on your blog post, I believe Van Gundy is simply referring to the notion that defensive stats don't jive with what he sees on video.
There are certainly ways to measure accuracy with predictions, and it's what I've been focusing on lately in this and this post. There is a lot we might want to predict, so I think this is just the tip of the iceburg. Perhaps there are other data points that identify how well a player is performing on defense that we can try to predict.
I'd be interested in Van Gundy's opinion with respect to how these models estimate defensive ability, since there is certainly much room for improvement with the team nature of defensive basketball. My guess is he's referring to maybe linear weight models that measure the value of blocks, turnovers, etc. Clearly these are flawed.
_________________
I am a basketball geek.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ryan J. Parker
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 708
Location: Raleigh, NC
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:42 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
BobboFitos wrote:
although I enjoy Wayne Winston's perspective, from reading his blog posts it seems he's as dogmatic about his own version of APM as Berri is about WOW. I am somewhat surprised these individuals don't realize there is a lot of gray rather then black/white as to evaluating players. It's really off-putting.
I give Winston credit for at least talking about uncertainty (in some portions of Mathletics, at least). But I do agree that there is a lot more room for talking about the uncertainty involved than we currently see from the most popular public figures of basketball statistics.
_________________
I am a basketball geek.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
deepak
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 664
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:19 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Part 3:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-4 ... art-3.html
This part was interesting. Is there agreement here that taking a 3-pointer at the end of the game, when down 2, is the smartest play? I never heard that before.
Quote:
Then it came down to this big debate. Do you foul when you're up three? They let Steve Nash hit a 3 to tie that game. Almost no coach will foul until there's five seconds left in the game. I think that's something we don't know the answer to. But that's something we could study.
You should definitely go for 3 at the end of the game if you're down two. I think there's no question of that. Most coaches don't. The only team that did that, that I know, was Reggie Miller and the Pacers. They always did that. They always let Reggie take that shot. They would want the buzzer to go off with the ball in the air and it worked a lot of times.
I feel like I've seen Kobe do that.
Yeah, I mean Kobe's probably done it too. But the math is solid there. If I've got the ball and I can take the shot with the horn going off, you should go for 3. You only win the overtime half the time. Suppose you have a 50% chance of hitting the two. So you make a shot half the time, and then you win in overtime half the time, you win the game just 25% of the time.
But if you shoot the 3, you've got at least a 30% chance. That's all you need to know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erivera7
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 178
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:37 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Ryan J. Parker wrote:
Nothing is going to give us a perfect measure without error, so we'll never have anything accurate with respect to any measure of player ability. Based on your blog post, I believe Van Gundy is simply referring to the notion that defensive stats don't jive with what he sees on video.
There are certainly ways to measure accuracy with predictions, and it's what I've been focusing on lately in this and this post. There is a lot we might want to predict, so I think this is just the tip of the iceburg. Perhaps there are other data points that identify how well a player is performing on defense that we can try to predict.
I'd be interested in Van Gundy's opinion with respect to how these models estimate defensive ability, since there is certainly much room for improvement with the team nature of defensive basketball. My guess is he's referring to maybe linear weight models that measure the value of blocks, turnovers, etc. Clearly these are flawed.
Makes sense, thanks for answering my question(s).
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ryan J. Parker
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 708
Location: Raleigh, NC
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:49 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
deepak_e wrote:
Part 3:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-4 ... art-3.html
This part was interesting. Is there agreement here that taking a 3-pointer at the end of the game, when down 2, is the smartest play? I never heard that before.
Quote:
Then it came down to this big debate. Do you foul when you're up three? They let Steve Nash hit a 3 to tie that game. Almost no coach will foul until there's five seconds left in the game. I think that's something we don't know the answer to. But that's something we could study.
You should definitely go for 3 at the end of the game if you're down two. I think there's no question of that. Most coaches don't. The only team that did that, that I know, was Reggie Miller and the Pacers. They always did that. They always let Reggie take that shot. They would want the buzzer to go off with the ball in the air and it worked a lot of times.
I feel like I've seen Kobe do that.
Yeah, I mean Kobe's probably done it too. But the math is solid there. If I've got the ball and I can take the shot with the horn going off, you should go for 3. You only win the overtime half the time. Suppose you have a 50% chance of hitting the two. So you make a shot half the time, and then you win in overtime half the time, you win the game just 25% of the time.
But if you shoot the 3, you've got at least a 30% chance. That's all you need to know.
I believe a general rule is that your odds of making a 2pt shot times the odds of winning in OT need to be greater than the odds of making the 3pt shot.
So if you only make the 3pt shot 30% of the time, then you should go for the tie if you can get a 70% 2pt shot and figure to win 50% of the time in OT. In this case your odds of winning are 35% instead of 30% for the 3pt shot.
I haven't done a thorough study of this, but in practice your best bet is probably going to be the 3pt shot. Like anything else, though, "it depends". Smile
_________________
I am a basketball geek.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
deepak
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 664
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:29 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Ryan J. Parker wrote:
I believe a general rule is that your odds of making a 2pt shot times the odds of winning in OT need to be greater than the odds of making the 3pt shot.
So if you only make the 3pt shot 30% of the time, then you should go for the tie if you can get a 70% 2pt shot and figure to win 50% of the time in OT. In this case your odds of winning are 35% instead of 30% for the 3pt shot.
I haven't done a thorough study of this, but in practice your best bet is probably going to be the 3pt shot. Like anything else, though, "it depends". Smile
Yes, the math makes sense when you put it that way. Though depending on where you're playing, and how much more talent you have, your odds of winning the overtime period could be significantly more than 50%. And I don't know this for sure, but my guess is that the last 5 minutes of a game (or an overtime period) will tend to favor the better team more than any randomly picked 5 minute stretch during the game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DLew
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 224
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob,
I understand your points, but I think in this case the burden of proof is on you (or anyone who doesn't think Telfair is good) to explain why the Wolves were so much better with Telfair on the court. Winston doesn't seem to be referring to some 'calculated' adjusted plus-minus there, he is simply reciting some basic plus-minus stats. The Wolves did a lot better with Telfair in the game last year and if you don't think Telfair is good then you have to offer some other explanation. Now, luck is a perfectly valid response, and that's probably the case here (I certainly think so at least), but I think you at least have to say that you think Telfar just got lucky and then use the box score to support that. The fact of the matter is that Winston does have some evidence to support his claim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IrishHand
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:37 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Context matters. Minnesota was paper-thin and Telfair - though clearly well below-average as a PG - was still measurably superior to their other options at PG.
If you started an average D1 PG on an NBA team and backed him up with an average D2 PG, then the other players on the team will almost certainly play better with the former. It's unclear to me that that makes any sort of commentary about the player's value relative to any other PG in the league and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of "outstanding point guard" unless the only frame of reference is "point guards playing for the Minnesota Timberwolves in 2008/09".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 191
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
DLew wrote:
Bob,
I understand your points, but I think in this case the burden of proof is on you (or anyone who doesn't think Telfair is good) to explain why the Wolves were so much better with Telfair on the court. Winston doesn't seem to be referring to some 'calculated' adjusted plus-minus there, he is simply reciting some basic plus-minus stats. The Wolves did a lot better with Telfair in the game last year and if you don't think Telfair is good then you have to offer some other explanation. Now, luck is a perfectly valid response, and that's probably the case here (I certainly think so at least), but I think you at least have to say that you think Telfar just got lucky and then use the box score to support that. The fact of the matter is that Winston does have some evidence to support his claim.
Good point - clearly I can't argue with the fact the wolves were so much better w/ telfair on the court - what I could argue is that they were better possibly in spite of telfair, not because of his on court contributions.
i would be thrilled to see the clippers 2nd unit perform fantastically because of telfair, but i really dont think that will happen.
_________________
-Rob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
"...I think in this case the burden of proof is on you... to explain why the Wolves were so much better with Telfair on the court..."
so the t-wolves were so much better with telfair on the court - that makes him an outstanding PG? outstanding compared to what - the t-wolve backup PGs? the t-wolves finished at 24-58, one of the worst records in the league, and telfair played the most minutes at PG of any player on the team. if telfair was outstanding, what was chris paul in 08-09 (all-NBA 2nd team, all-D 1st team)?...
when i think of oustanding nba PGs i think of PGs like chris paul and chauncey billups, not sebastien telfair...
tell me - had either paul or billups been telfair's backup in 08-09, and not kevin ollie, bobby brown, and to some extent randy foye, and the t-wolves would have done much better when telfair was not on the floor than they actually did in 08-09, would telfair have still been outstanding with the same individual and team stats as actually occured in 08-09 when he played?...
or would his adjusted +/- or just his +/- have been worse because when he did not play then either paul or billups would have played. would you then come to some other conclusion, even though the team's stats when telfair played were the same as they were in 08-09?...
The Wolves did a lot better with Telfair in the game last year and if you don't think Telfair is good then you have to offer some other explanation.
you mean other than the explanation i gave above? read it again - telfair was (1) one of the worst overall shooting and was (2) the worst rebounding PG in the league (among all PGs with at least 1500+ minutes played). his (3) steal and assist rates were average at best, and (4) outside of his defensive rebounding, steals, and blocked shots his defense was nothing special. how does that make him outstanding?...
also as good as his unadjusted +/- was in 08-09 (+7.2), it was just as bad in 07-08 (-7.3):
http://www.82games.com/0809/08MIN1.HTM#onoff
http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN1D.HTM
but you know what? take a close look at his stats both seasons - his stats were virtually identical both seasons (and quite poor), and the team's W-L record was poor and almost identical (just 22 vs just 24 wins)...
so here is my question to all adjusted +/- adherents - this was the minnesota per 100 possession scoring in 08-09 with and without telfair:
------with telfair---w/o telfair
min------110.1-------103.3
opp------112.6-------113.0
now what if it had looked like this?
------with telfair---w/o telfair
min------110.1-------113.0
opp------112.6-------103.3
would telfair's +/- and adjusted +/- be different? because how does what happened when telfair was not on the floor determine how good he was when he was on the floor? i ask because his stats, and his teammates stats when he played, are identical in both instances....
this is similar to the thread entitled "adjusted plus-minus update" where adjusted +/- adherents were claiming that chris paul's defense was poor one season but excellent the next despite what happened when he was on the floor both seasons being literally the same...
page 2
Author Message
IrishHand
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:14 am Post subject: Reply with quote
^
Good post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DLew
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 224
PostPosted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:05 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob,
I don't want to upset you here. I hope you noticed that in my post I agreed with your assessment by saying that I thought Telfair's strong plus-minus last year was most likely due to luck (or randomness, whatever you want to call it). I think your new post provided a better argument for why we should believe this to be the case.
With regards to your more general question as to why what happens when he's off the court matters, the logic behind such methods is that team performance is mostly due to players other than Telfair (80% when he's on the court, 100% when he's off the court) so just looking at team performance isn't going to tell us much about him. However, by looking at what happens when he's off the court we can figure out how good his teammates are, and then we can compare that to how good his team is when he's in the game and see his effect. Now, as you have pointed out this approach is flawed for a number of reasons, but I think you would have to acknowledge that it is not without some logical underpinnings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Qscience
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
Posts: 69
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
PostPosted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:15 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is what is missing from his game:
He only has about 17 ft of range to his shot.
He is not a good rebounder
His court IQ is really low for a point guard.
Low Pct from the field
Perimeter Defense ranked 50th among guards = per
His ability to dish in the paint accuracy 5His win val was just under 2 for playing over 24minutes a game that was very weak.
3rd per
So if he doesnt shoot, drive, pass, rebound, or make good decisions on the move. Then why would he even call out Telfair for being a good player?(wait an outstanding player) He is simply at "this stage" in his career a borderline 8-10th man.
Quote:
I am sure the Timberwolves did not realize that in Telfair they already had an outstanding point guard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3563
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:41 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Qscience wrote:
He only has about 17 ft of range to his shot...
From the arc, he hit .519 eFG% -- quite a bit higher than his overall .481 TS%.
No idea what to make of these notations:
Quote:
Perimeter Defense ranked 50th among guards = per
His ability to dish in the paint accuracy 5His win val was just under 2 for playing over 24minutes a game that was very weak.
3rd per
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bbarnwell
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 26
Location: Brookline, MA
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:37 am Post subject: Reply with quote
When there's such a bizarre shift in team performance that stands in the face of Telfair's personal performance, I think there needs to be some examples provided beyond a single year of one player's career to prove Winston's point here.
If what we were seeing regarding Telfair was a skill, there should be evidence that a) Telfair's been able to produce this sort of performance out of his teammates in the past and/or b) There are other players who have had similarly poor individual lines in the past (or been tossed around the league like so much flotsam), but have driven a significant rise in their teammates APM.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Ilardi
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 263
Location: Lawrence, KS
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bbarnwell wrote:
When there's such a bizarre shift in team performance that stands in the face of Telfair's personal performance, I think there needs to be some examples provided beyond a single year of one player's career to prove Winston's point here.
If what we were seeing regarding Telfair was a skill, there should be evidence that a) Telfair's been able to produce this sort of performance out of his teammates in the past and/or b) There are other players who have had similarly poor individual lines in the past (or been tossed around the league like so much flotsam), but have driven a significant rise in their teammates APM.
Telfair's overall average APM in my six-year model (03-09) was -2.86 (-0.48 offense; -2.37 defense). That makes him one of the weaker PGs in the league over that span. Nonetheless, his APM last year (using the same 6-year dataset to reduce errors, but weighting ~68% toward last season) was much better: +2.28 (+3.37 offense; - 1.08 defense; se = 1.09).
Telfair came into the league 5 seasons ago at age 19, and we certainly expect to see some improvement in APM from 19 to 24: on average, about +3.0 points. Thus, even though he has been a clearly below-average player over the entire span of his career, it doesn't strike me as implausible that he had a more positive impact last season. On the other hand, to call him "outstanding" (a la Winston) seems like a stretch . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 685
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:07 am Post subject: Reply with quote
"...it doesn't strike me as implausible that he had a more positive impact last season..."
really? i notice that you did not say that the team simply played better when telfair was on the floor, or that telfair's "...strong +/-... was most likely due to luck...". you have actually said that he had a more positive impact last season...
so here's my question - doing what? what did telfair actually do in 08-09 such that he had a more positive impact in 08-09 than in 07-08 (or in any of his previous seasons)?...
i ask as here is a comparison of his 08-09 versus his 07-08 stats (and also his stats previous to 07-08 ):
year--ScFG%--2FG%--3FG%--FT%--reb/40-ast/40-to/40-st/40-pts/40
3yrs---.468----.411----.309----.778----2.9-----6.0----3.0----1.3----13.9 (04-05 to 06-07)
0708--.457----.432----.281----.743----2.8-----7.3----2.3----1.2----11.5
0809--.475----.399----.346----.819----2.4-----6.5----2.8----1.4----14.1
and just for comparison, here are the league averages for PGs (minus telfair's stats) from those same seasons:
year--ScFG%--2FG%--3FG%--FT%--reb/40-ast/40-to/40-st/40-pts/40
3yrs---.517----.454----.353----.798----3.9-----6.7----2.7----1.5----15.8 (04-05 to 06-07)
0708--.524----.465----.361----.799----4.0-----6.9----2.6----1.5----15.7
0809--.525----.459----.363----.817----4.1-----6.7----2.7----1.5----16.0
i don't see much difference in telfair's 08-09 vs his 07-08 stats. he shot poorly both seasons, 5%-7% worse overall (ScFG%) than what just the league average PG shot, and upwards of 12%-14% worse overall than the best shooting PGs, his rebounding was significantly worse than just the league average PG, and for example in 08-09 his rate of turnovers per 40 minutes was more but his rates for assists and scoring less than just those of the league average PG...
the fact is that statistically his numbers look quite poor in both 08-09 and 07-08, and these webpages:
http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN1C.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0809/08MIN1.HTM#bypos
seem to infer that his defense was worse than average to poor, but that certainly minnesota defense against PGs when telfair played was not very good, only average at best. so i don't see any evidence that he was an excellent or even a very good defender...
i do see that the t-wolves shot a bit better in eFG% when he was on the floor in 08-09 versus 07-08:
http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN1D.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0809/08MIN1.HTM#onoff
telfair----on------off
0708---.478----.489
0809---.493----.469
did you see telfair play alot in both 07-08 and 08-09? might you have some statistical evidence that it was telfair's non-assist passes (rather than assist or non-assist passes of other t-wolves players) that resulted in the t-wolves higher eFG% in 08-09? i ask because again telfair's rate for assists per minute was less in 08-09 than it was in 07-08...
adjusted +/- adherents like to claim that box score stats don't tell the whole story, and that adjusted +/- tells more. but you know what's funny about all this? here you have 3 different people all doing adjusted +/-, yet:
- one claims telfair was "...outstanding..." in 08-09...
- another claims "outstanding" seems like a stretch but that telfair had "...a more positive impact last season..." than in previous seasons...
- and a third saying "...I thought Telfair's strong plus-minus last year was most likely due to luck..."
so which is it? what does adjusted +/- say about sebastien telfair in 08-09? because the stats certainly do seem to indicate that he's played poorly in both 07-08 and 08-09...
and please don't respond with:
...If you choose to make an effort to understand adjusted plus-minus then you'll likely come around, but I suspect you've already made up your mind about it...
because lots of people in this discussion group, me included, are making an effort to try to understand it...
nor respond like this:
"...I will say that questioning along these lines indicates that you still don't understand what we have been saying about the noise associated with adjusted plus-minus. Because of the large standard errors on the coefficient estimates in all the results that are publicly available it is pointless to engage in most player vs. player debates. This is not to say that you can't empirically test the validity of adjusted plus-minus using the publicly available numbers, you can, but not with a sample size of two players..."
because this current debate is not between just adjusted +/- adherents and those who do not calculate it, but is between 3 different proponents of calculated adjusted +/- coming up with 3 different evaluations for the same player...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
TrueHoop
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 5
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:41 am Post subject: Winston addressed bad backups, in the case of Telfair Reply with quote
Probably doesn't change all that much, but FYI, from his blog http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=139:
Quote:
Several of you thought that Telfair’s +6 points rating (per 48 minutes) was probably due to the “bad backups.” This is not the case. Telfair’s primary backups Foye and Ollie were not bad last season. Foye had a +3 rating and Ollie a +2 rating. My figures in previous post were adjusted +/- by the way. I guess maybe the lesson is that Foye and Ollie played poorly at the point, but then surely they played great during the rest of their time on the court.
[/url]
_________________
Henry Abbott
http://www.truehoop.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 864
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:51 am Post subject: Reply with quote
So, Telfair was "outstanding," and Foye and Ollie were "not bad." Sorta makes me wonder how Minnesota managed just 24 wins with such strong performance from the PG position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3563
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:21 am Post subject: Re: Winston addressed bad backups, in the case of Telfair Reply with quote
TrueHoop wrote:
.. from his blog http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=139:
Quote:
...Foye and Ollie played poorly at the point, but then surely they played great during the rest of their time on the court.
I'm guessing this is tongue-in-cheek.
Telfair, Foye, and Ollie totalled 66.4 mpg last year. Telfair and Ollie, the more 'pure' PG's, totalled 36 mpg. Leaving just 12 mpg in which Foye could have been the PG.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:47 pm Post subject: Re: Winston addressed bad backups, in the case of Telfair Reply with quote
TrueHoop wrote:
Probably doesn't change all that much, but FYI, from his blog http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=139:
Quote:
Several of you thought that Telfair’s +6 points rating (per 48 minutes) was probably due to the “bad backups.” This is not the case. Telfair’s primary backups Foye and Ollie were not bad last season. Foye had a +3 rating and Ollie a +2 rating. My figures in previous post were adjusted +/- by the way. I guess maybe the lesson is that Foye and Ollie played poorly at the point, but then surely they played great during the rest of their time on the court.
So Telfair, Foye, and Ollie all had positive +/- ratings, and between them they played in excess of 5400 minutes. However, the T-Wolves scored 97.18 points per 48 minutes, and gave up 102.06 points per 48 minutes. That's a difference of -4.88 points per 48 minutes. Given this, I'm left wondering who was on the court at PG for Minnesota when they were giving up nearly 5 more points per 48 than they were scoring.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
jsill
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 73
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
So Telfair, Foye, and Ollie all had positive +/- ratings, and between them they played in excess of 5400 minutes. However, the T-Wolves scored 97.18 points per 48 minutes, and gave up 102.06 points per 48 minutes. That's a difference of -4.88 points per 48 minutes. Given this, I'm left wondering who was on the court at PG for Minnesota when they were giving up nearly 5 more points per 48 than they were scoring.
I don't blame folks for being a bit skeptical of the APM-based conclusion that Telfair was quite good last year. However, I don't think a criticism of this form is necessarily valid. In theory, at least, it could simply be the case that all of Minnesota's PGs were better-than-average NBA players last year, but the team was bad overall because the Minnesota PG play was more than cancelled out by their weaknesses at other positions.
Now, it may seem somewhat surprising that the APM technique could reach that conclusion, since (as you suggest) *somebody* had to be running the point while Minnesota was getting outscored. Don't forget that more than one of those guys can be on the floor at the same time, though, so if the team tends to do better in those cases, then the APM technique may be inclined to infer that those guys are good. There may also be other, more subtle reasons why APM comes to the conclusion it does (after all, it is a giant regression and as such is a bit complicated and can't be reduced completely and precisely to a one or two sentence description).
In any case, there's nothing contradictory about claiming that all the players who played at a certain position for a bad team were good. Of course, that's not to say that APM is necessarily right in this case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IrishHand
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the point of the objection is that pretty well any other analytical approach contradicts the notions that Telfair was outstanding and Ollie/Foye were not bad.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Qscience
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
Posts: 69
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
So Telfair, Foye, and Ollie all had positive +/- ratings, and between them they played in excess of 5400 minutes. However, the T-Wolves scored 97.18 points per 48 minutes, and gave up 102.06 points per 48 minutes. That's a difference of -4.88 points per 48 minutes. Given this, I'm left wondering who was on the court at PG for Minnesota when they were giving up nearly 5 more points per 48 than they were scoring.
Why was Telfair playing 27min a game and his quote backup Foye 35?
It sounds like either bad coaching or that possibly some bad data has been passed on to Wayne cause if Minn. was -4 pts how was every guard positive
Still a good read either way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3563
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:52 am Post subject: Reply with quote
jsill wrote:
... the team was bad overall because the Minnesota PG play was more than cancelled out by their weaknesses at other positions.
... more than one of those guys can be on the floor at the same time, though, so if the team tends to do better in those cases, then the APM technique may be inclined to infer that those guys are good. ..
Isn't this the only possible interpretation? Other than that the APM is simply wrong, that is?
IrishHand wrote:
... pretty well any other analytical approach contradicts the notions that Telfair was outstanding and Ollie/Foye were not bad.
Not sure if these qualify as 'analytical', but Win Shares, PER, and eWins seem to concur. An 'average' player has PER = 15, WS and eW per 484 min = 1.0 .
In order of minutes (divided by 82, for per-game 'availablility'):
Code:
per 36 min. eWins Win Shs
Wolves pos M/82 Sco Reb Ast /484 PER /484
Gomes SF 32 15 6 2 .74 12.5 .46
Foye PG 30 16 3 4 .84 13.7 .60
Miller SG 29 12 8 4 .87 13.8 .84
Telfair PG 26 12 2 5 .46 10.8 .18
Love PF 25 15 14 1 1.41 18.3 1.25
Jefferson C 22 23 12 1 2.09 23.1 1.29
Smith,C PF 18 19 7 2 1.11 16.9 1.03
Carney SG 15 13 4 1 .44 12.1 .60
Cardinal PF 11 7 6 2 .09 8.1 .48
Ollie PG 10 8 3 4 .20 9.9 .68
McCants SG 8 14 4 1 .44 9.9 -.23
These 3 methods concur that the only above-avg members of the team (playing > 5 mpg) were their front line of bigs. Miller's line looks more like that of a PF than a G.
Still, if Jefferson, Love, and Smith are 'overrated' by their stats, and the PG's are underrated, that's exactly the kind of thing we hope APM reveals, isn't it?
I notice the Wolves were 19-51 with Foye in the lineup and 5-7 when he was missing. It would seem they'd be especially taxed to come up with adequate guard play at these times; and that Telfair would be especially crucial during these games.
They were 17-32 (and 13-17 under McHale) when Jefferson went down, so 7-24 without him.
Author Message
deepak
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 664
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:03 pm Post subject: Wayne Winston TrueHoop interview Reply with quote
Interesting read so far. Wayne Winston sure doesn't hold back on his opinions.
Part 1:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-4 ... shful.html
Part 1 followup:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-4 ... -Post.html
Part 2:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-4 ... art-2.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mtamada
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 376
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: Wayne Winston TrueHoop interview Reply with quote
deepak_e wrote:
Interesting read so far. Wayne Winston sure doesn't hold back on his opinions.
Yeah, "outspoken" definitely applies to him. Those are good reads, they in fact provide a pretty large chunk of what Winston said at NESSIS, both in content and style (so it's almost like being at NESSIS, the only big thing missing from the articles is his gravelly voice).
Most of what he and the articles say is good solid stuff: APM can capture defensive contributions that box score stats cannot; APM measures what we care about i.e. are we outscoring the other team; etc.
The articles also give hints about the big question marks about APM: the standard error question (if the Mavs do really well when Player X matches up against Player Y in Game 1, how well does that really predict the chance that the Mavs will have the same success if they try to exploit that matchup in Game 2?); and the question of context or fit (players moving from a bad team to a good one and magically becoming better defensive players).
Both of those are in principle researchable questions. E.g. how stable are the APM figures (either for players or for lineups) within a playoff series? And by how much do individual players' APMs, or APM-based defensive or offensive ratings, change when they change teams -- and how does that figure compare to the changes experienced by players who stay with the same team?
(Those questions may very well have been addressed in this site already, I don't recall off the top of my head.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erivera7
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 178
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:23 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a question and I didn't really know where to post it, but I figured after reading what Winston wrote, it's somewhat relevant. When I asked Stan Van Gundy some questions at Media Day, one thing he pointed is that he hasn't seen a numerical system that accurately rates how good or how bad a player is, defensively.
My question is, how would people here respond to that? When I look at defensive numbers, usually I ref to adjusted defensive plus/minus, net defensive plus/minus, opponent PER, and whatever else. I know those metrics have their limitations in determining the worth of a player's defense, but is it a start?
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:27 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
nor does he hold back here either:
http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=108
here he calls sebastien telfair "an outstanding point guard". yet when you look at the stats, in 08-09 telfair played 2095 minutes, and among the 44 PGs in the league that played at least 1500 minutes in 08-09 he had:
- the 3rd worst overall shooting (47.5% ScFG%, 39.9% on 2s, 34.6% on 3s), that's just 42nd out of 44 PGs...
- the lowest/worst rate of rebounding (2.9 reb/48min), dead last among those 44 PGs...
- just average rates for assists per minute and steals per minute for a PG...
but because adjusted +/- is "calculated" as high for him he's outstanding?...
so here's my question for mr. winston (or any other adjusted +/- adherents) - just what exactly did sebastien telfair actually do that was outstanding?...
plus this statement is classic:
Another guy who is totally overrated is Amare Stoudemire. I mean, he's a stat stuffer.
totally overrated? in 04-05, 06-07, 07-08, and 08-09 (he missed the 05-06 season), stoudemire played the most total minutes on a phoenix suns team that averaged a 56-26 record (3rd best record among all teams those 4 years), and lead the team in total rebounds, blocked shots, and scoring, shot an excellent 61.6% ScFG%, and was the most efficient player on offense in the nba those 4 years (the best points scored per zero point team possession personally responsible for among the 340 different players that played at least 2500 total minutes those 4 seasons)...
how is the player that does all that on a team that averages 56 wins a season overrated? if stoudemire is getting all those rebounds, all those blocked shots, and all those points (very efficiently mind you), on an excellent winning team, who else praytell might be responsible for all those wins?...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 191
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:12 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
although I enjoy Wayne Winston's perspective, from reading his blog posts it seems he's as dogmatic about his own version of APM as Berri is about WOW. I am somewhat surprised these individuals don't realize there is a lot of gray rather then black/white as to evaluating players. It's really off-putting.
_________________
-Rob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ryan J. Parker
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 708
Location: Raleigh, NC
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:38 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
erivera7 wrote:
I have a question and I didn't really know where to post it, but I figured after reading what Winston wrote, it's somewhat relevant. When I asked Stan Van Gundy some questions at Media Day, one thing he pointed is that he hasn't seen a numerical system that accurately rates how good or how bad a player is, defensively.
My question is, how would people here respond to that? When I look at defensive numbers, usually I ref to adjusted defensive plus/minus, net defensive plus/minus, opponent PER, and whatever else. I know those metrics have their limitations in determining the worth of a player's defense, but is it a start?
Nothing is going to give us a perfect measure without error, so we'll never have anything accurate with respect to any measure of player ability. Based on your blog post, I believe Van Gundy is simply referring to the notion that defensive stats don't jive with what he sees on video.
There are certainly ways to measure accuracy with predictions, and it's what I've been focusing on lately in this and this post. There is a lot we might want to predict, so I think this is just the tip of the iceburg. Perhaps there are other data points that identify how well a player is performing on defense that we can try to predict.
I'd be interested in Van Gundy's opinion with respect to how these models estimate defensive ability, since there is certainly much room for improvement with the team nature of defensive basketball. My guess is he's referring to maybe linear weight models that measure the value of blocks, turnovers, etc. Clearly these are flawed.
_________________
I am a basketball geek.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ryan J. Parker
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 708
Location: Raleigh, NC
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:42 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
BobboFitos wrote:
although I enjoy Wayne Winston's perspective, from reading his blog posts it seems he's as dogmatic about his own version of APM as Berri is about WOW. I am somewhat surprised these individuals don't realize there is a lot of gray rather then black/white as to evaluating players. It's really off-putting.
I give Winston credit for at least talking about uncertainty (in some portions of Mathletics, at least). But I do agree that there is a lot more room for talking about the uncertainty involved than we currently see from the most popular public figures of basketball statistics.
_________________
I am a basketball geek.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
deepak
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 664
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:19 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Part 3:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-4 ... art-3.html
This part was interesting. Is there agreement here that taking a 3-pointer at the end of the game, when down 2, is the smartest play? I never heard that before.
Quote:
Then it came down to this big debate. Do you foul when you're up three? They let Steve Nash hit a 3 to tie that game. Almost no coach will foul until there's five seconds left in the game. I think that's something we don't know the answer to. But that's something we could study.
You should definitely go for 3 at the end of the game if you're down two. I think there's no question of that. Most coaches don't. The only team that did that, that I know, was Reggie Miller and the Pacers. They always did that. They always let Reggie take that shot. They would want the buzzer to go off with the ball in the air and it worked a lot of times.
I feel like I've seen Kobe do that.
Yeah, I mean Kobe's probably done it too. But the math is solid there. If I've got the ball and I can take the shot with the horn going off, you should go for 3. You only win the overtime half the time. Suppose you have a 50% chance of hitting the two. So you make a shot half the time, and then you win in overtime half the time, you win the game just 25% of the time.
But if you shoot the 3, you've got at least a 30% chance. That's all you need to know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erivera7
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 178
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:37 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Ryan J. Parker wrote:
Nothing is going to give us a perfect measure without error, so we'll never have anything accurate with respect to any measure of player ability. Based on your blog post, I believe Van Gundy is simply referring to the notion that defensive stats don't jive with what he sees on video.
There are certainly ways to measure accuracy with predictions, and it's what I've been focusing on lately in this and this post. There is a lot we might want to predict, so I think this is just the tip of the iceburg. Perhaps there are other data points that identify how well a player is performing on defense that we can try to predict.
I'd be interested in Van Gundy's opinion with respect to how these models estimate defensive ability, since there is certainly much room for improvement with the team nature of defensive basketball. My guess is he's referring to maybe linear weight models that measure the value of blocks, turnovers, etc. Clearly these are flawed.
Makes sense, thanks for answering my question(s).
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ryan J. Parker
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 708
Location: Raleigh, NC
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:49 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
deepak_e wrote:
Part 3:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-4 ... art-3.html
This part was interesting. Is there agreement here that taking a 3-pointer at the end of the game, when down 2, is the smartest play? I never heard that before.
Quote:
Then it came down to this big debate. Do you foul when you're up three? They let Steve Nash hit a 3 to tie that game. Almost no coach will foul until there's five seconds left in the game. I think that's something we don't know the answer to. But that's something we could study.
You should definitely go for 3 at the end of the game if you're down two. I think there's no question of that. Most coaches don't. The only team that did that, that I know, was Reggie Miller and the Pacers. They always did that. They always let Reggie take that shot. They would want the buzzer to go off with the ball in the air and it worked a lot of times.
I feel like I've seen Kobe do that.
Yeah, I mean Kobe's probably done it too. But the math is solid there. If I've got the ball and I can take the shot with the horn going off, you should go for 3. You only win the overtime half the time. Suppose you have a 50% chance of hitting the two. So you make a shot half the time, and then you win in overtime half the time, you win the game just 25% of the time.
But if you shoot the 3, you've got at least a 30% chance. That's all you need to know.
I believe a general rule is that your odds of making a 2pt shot times the odds of winning in OT need to be greater than the odds of making the 3pt shot.
So if you only make the 3pt shot 30% of the time, then you should go for the tie if you can get a 70% 2pt shot and figure to win 50% of the time in OT. In this case your odds of winning are 35% instead of 30% for the 3pt shot.
I haven't done a thorough study of this, but in practice your best bet is probably going to be the 3pt shot. Like anything else, though, "it depends". Smile
_________________
I am a basketball geek.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
deepak
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 664
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:29 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Ryan J. Parker wrote:
I believe a general rule is that your odds of making a 2pt shot times the odds of winning in OT need to be greater than the odds of making the 3pt shot.
So if you only make the 3pt shot 30% of the time, then you should go for the tie if you can get a 70% 2pt shot and figure to win 50% of the time in OT. In this case your odds of winning are 35% instead of 30% for the 3pt shot.
I haven't done a thorough study of this, but in practice your best bet is probably going to be the 3pt shot. Like anything else, though, "it depends". Smile
Yes, the math makes sense when you put it that way. Though depending on where you're playing, and how much more talent you have, your odds of winning the overtime period could be significantly more than 50%. And I don't know this for sure, but my guess is that the last 5 minutes of a game (or an overtime period) will tend to favor the better team more than any randomly picked 5 minute stretch during the game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DLew
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 224
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob,
I understand your points, but I think in this case the burden of proof is on you (or anyone who doesn't think Telfair is good) to explain why the Wolves were so much better with Telfair on the court. Winston doesn't seem to be referring to some 'calculated' adjusted plus-minus there, he is simply reciting some basic plus-minus stats. The Wolves did a lot better with Telfair in the game last year and if you don't think Telfair is good then you have to offer some other explanation. Now, luck is a perfectly valid response, and that's probably the case here (I certainly think so at least), but I think you at least have to say that you think Telfar just got lucky and then use the box score to support that. The fact of the matter is that Winston does have some evidence to support his claim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IrishHand
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:37 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Context matters. Minnesota was paper-thin and Telfair - though clearly well below-average as a PG - was still measurably superior to their other options at PG.
If you started an average D1 PG on an NBA team and backed him up with an average D2 PG, then the other players on the team will almost certainly play better with the former. It's unclear to me that that makes any sort of commentary about the player's value relative to any other PG in the league and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of "outstanding point guard" unless the only frame of reference is "point guards playing for the Minnesota Timberwolves in 2008/09".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 191
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
DLew wrote:
Bob,
I understand your points, but I think in this case the burden of proof is on you (or anyone who doesn't think Telfair is good) to explain why the Wolves were so much better with Telfair on the court. Winston doesn't seem to be referring to some 'calculated' adjusted plus-minus there, he is simply reciting some basic plus-minus stats. The Wolves did a lot better with Telfair in the game last year and if you don't think Telfair is good then you have to offer some other explanation. Now, luck is a perfectly valid response, and that's probably the case here (I certainly think so at least), but I think you at least have to say that you think Telfar just got lucky and then use the box score to support that. The fact of the matter is that Winston does have some evidence to support his claim.
Good point - clearly I can't argue with the fact the wolves were so much better w/ telfair on the court - what I could argue is that they were better possibly in spite of telfair, not because of his on court contributions.
i would be thrilled to see the clippers 2nd unit perform fantastically because of telfair, but i really dont think that will happen.
_________________
-Rob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 686
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:00 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
"...I think in this case the burden of proof is on you... to explain why the Wolves were so much better with Telfair on the court..."
so the t-wolves were so much better with telfair on the court - that makes him an outstanding PG? outstanding compared to what - the t-wolve backup PGs? the t-wolves finished at 24-58, one of the worst records in the league, and telfair played the most minutes at PG of any player on the team. if telfair was outstanding, what was chris paul in 08-09 (all-NBA 2nd team, all-D 1st team)?...
when i think of oustanding nba PGs i think of PGs like chris paul and chauncey billups, not sebastien telfair...
tell me - had either paul or billups been telfair's backup in 08-09, and not kevin ollie, bobby brown, and to some extent randy foye, and the t-wolves would have done much better when telfair was not on the floor than they actually did in 08-09, would telfair have still been outstanding with the same individual and team stats as actually occured in 08-09 when he played?...
or would his adjusted +/- or just his +/- have been worse because when he did not play then either paul or billups would have played. would you then come to some other conclusion, even though the team's stats when telfair played were the same as they were in 08-09?...
The Wolves did a lot better with Telfair in the game last year and if you don't think Telfair is good then you have to offer some other explanation.
you mean other than the explanation i gave above? read it again - telfair was (1) one of the worst overall shooting and was (2) the worst rebounding PG in the league (among all PGs with at least 1500+ minutes played). his (3) steal and assist rates were average at best, and (4) outside of his defensive rebounding, steals, and blocked shots his defense was nothing special. how does that make him outstanding?...
also as good as his unadjusted +/- was in 08-09 (+7.2), it was just as bad in 07-08 (-7.3):
http://www.82games.com/0809/08MIN1.HTM#onoff
http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN1D.HTM
but you know what? take a close look at his stats both seasons - his stats were virtually identical both seasons (and quite poor), and the team's W-L record was poor and almost identical (just 22 vs just 24 wins)...
so here is my question to all adjusted +/- adherents - this was the minnesota per 100 possession scoring in 08-09 with and without telfair:
------with telfair---w/o telfair
min------110.1-------103.3
opp------112.6-------113.0
now what if it had looked like this?
------with telfair---w/o telfair
min------110.1-------113.0
opp------112.6-------103.3
would telfair's +/- and adjusted +/- be different? because how does what happened when telfair was not on the floor determine how good he was when he was on the floor? i ask because his stats, and his teammates stats when he played, are identical in both instances....
this is similar to the thread entitled "adjusted plus-minus update" where adjusted +/- adherents were claiming that chris paul's defense was poor one season but excellent the next despite what happened when he was on the floor both seasons being literally the same...
page 2
Author Message
IrishHand
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:14 am Post subject: Reply with quote
^
Good post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DLew
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 224
PostPosted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:05 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob,
I don't want to upset you here. I hope you noticed that in my post I agreed with your assessment by saying that I thought Telfair's strong plus-minus last year was most likely due to luck (or randomness, whatever you want to call it). I think your new post provided a better argument for why we should believe this to be the case.
With regards to your more general question as to why what happens when he's off the court matters, the logic behind such methods is that team performance is mostly due to players other than Telfair (80% when he's on the court, 100% when he's off the court) so just looking at team performance isn't going to tell us much about him. However, by looking at what happens when he's off the court we can figure out how good his teammates are, and then we can compare that to how good his team is when he's in the game and see his effect. Now, as you have pointed out this approach is flawed for a number of reasons, but I think you would have to acknowledge that it is not without some logical underpinnings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Qscience
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
Posts: 69
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
PostPosted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:15 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is what is missing from his game:
He only has about 17 ft of range to his shot.
He is not a good rebounder
His court IQ is really low for a point guard.
Low Pct from the field
Perimeter Defense ranked 50th among guards = per
His ability to dish in the paint accuracy 5His win val was just under 2 for playing over 24minutes a game that was very weak.
3rd per
So if he doesnt shoot, drive, pass, rebound, or make good decisions on the move. Then why would he even call out Telfair for being a good player?(wait an outstanding player) He is simply at "this stage" in his career a borderline 8-10th man.
Quote:
I am sure the Timberwolves did not realize that in Telfair they already had an outstanding point guard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3563
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:41 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Qscience wrote:
He only has about 17 ft of range to his shot...
From the arc, he hit .519 eFG% -- quite a bit higher than his overall .481 TS%.
No idea what to make of these notations:
Quote:
Perimeter Defense ranked 50th among guards = per
His ability to dish in the paint accuracy 5His win val was just under 2 for playing over 24minutes a game that was very weak.
3rd per
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bbarnwell
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 26
Location: Brookline, MA
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:37 am Post subject: Reply with quote
When there's such a bizarre shift in team performance that stands in the face of Telfair's personal performance, I think there needs to be some examples provided beyond a single year of one player's career to prove Winston's point here.
If what we were seeing regarding Telfair was a skill, there should be evidence that a) Telfair's been able to produce this sort of performance out of his teammates in the past and/or b) There are other players who have had similarly poor individual lines in the past (or been tossed around the league like so much flotsam), but have driven a significant rise in their teammates APM.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Ilardi
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 263
Location: Lawrence, KS
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
bbarnwell wrote:
When there's such a bizarre shift in team performance that stands in the face of Telfair's personal performance, I think there needs to be some examples provided beyond a single year of one player's career to prove Winston's point here.
If what we were seeing regarding Telfair was a skill, there should be evidence that a) Telfair's been able to produce this sort of performance out of his teammates in the past and/or b) There are other players who have had similarly poor individual lines in the past (or been tossed around the league like so much flotsam), but have driven a significant rise in their teammates APM.
Telfair's overall average APM in my six-year model (03-09) was -2.86 (-0.48 offense; -2.37 defense). That makes him one of the weaker PGs in the league over that span. Nonetheless, his APM last year (using the same 6-year dataset to reduce errors, but weighting ~68% toward last season) was much better: +2.28 (+3.37 offense; - 1.08 defense; se = 1.09).
Telfair came into the league 5 seasons ago at age 19, and we certainly expect to see some improvement in APM from 19 to 24: on average, about +3.0 points. Thus, even though he has been a clearly below-average player over the entire span of his career, it doesn't strike me as implausible that he had a more positive impact last season. On the other hand, to call him "outstanding" (a la Winston) seems like a stretch . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bchaikin
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 685
Location: cleveland, ohio
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:07 am Post subject: Reply with quote
"...it doesn't strike me as implausible that he had a more positive impact last season..."
really? i notice that you did not say that the team simply played better when telfair was on the floor, or that telfair's "...strong +/-... was most likely due to luck...". you have actually said that he had a more positive impact last season...
so here's my question - doing what? what did telfair actually do in 08-09 such that he had a more positive impact in 08-09 than in 07-08 (or in any of his previous seasons)?...
i ask as here is a comparison of his 08-09 versus his 07-08 stats (and also his stats previous to 07-08 ):
year--ScFG%--2FG%--3FG%--FT%--reb/40-ast/40-to/40-st/40-pts/40
3yrs---.468----.411----.309----.778----2.9-----6.0----3.0----1.3----13.9 (04-05 to 06-07)
0708--.457----.432----.281----.743----2.8-----7.3----2.3----1.2----11.5
0809--.475----.399----.346----.819----2.4-----6.5----2.8----1.4----14.1
and just for comparison, here are the league averages for PGs (minus telfair's stats) from those same seasons:
year--ScFG%--2FG%--3FG%--FT%--reb/40-ast/40-to/40-st/40-pts/40
3yrs---.517----.454----.353----.798----3.9-----6.7----2.7----1.5----15.8 (04-05 to 06-07)
0708--.524----.465----.361----.799----4.0-----6.9----2.6----1.5----15.7
0809--.525----.459----.363----.817----4.1-----6.7----2.7----1.5----16.0
i don't see much difference in telfair's 08-09 vs his 07-08 stats. he shot poorly both seasons, 5%-7% worse overall (ScFG%) than what just the league average PG shot, and upwards of 12%-14% worse overall than the best shooting PGs, his rebounding was significantly worse than just the league average PG, and for example in 08-09 his rate of turnovers per 40 minutes was more but his rates for assists and scoring less than just those of the league average PG...
the fact is that statistically his numbers look quite poor in both 08-09 and 07-08, and these webpages:
http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN1C.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0809/08MIN1.HTM#bypos
seem to infer that his defense was worse than average to poor, but that certainly minnesota defense against PGs when telfair played was not very good, only average at best. so i don't see any evidence that he was an excellent or even a very good defender...
i do see that the t-wolves shot a bit better in eFG% when he was on the floor in 08-09 versus 07-08:
http://www.82games.com/0708/07MIN1D.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0809/08MIN1.HTM#onoff
telfair----on------off
0708---.478----.489
0809---.493----.469
did you see telfair play alot in both 07-08 and 08-09? might you have some statistical evidence that it was telfair's non-assist passes (rather than assist or non-assist passes of other t-wolves players) that resulted in the t-wolves higher eFG% in 08-09? i ask because again telfair's rate for assists per minute was less in 08-09 than it was in 07-08...
adjusted +/- adherents like to claim that box score stats don't tell the whole story, and that adjusted +/- tells more. but you know what's funny about all this? here you have 3 different people all doing adjusted +/-, yet:
- one claims telfair was "...outstanding..." in 08-09...
- another claims "outstanding" seems like a stretch but that telfair had "...a more positive impact last season..." than in previous seasons...
- and a third saying "...I thought Telfair's strong plus-minus last year was most likely due to luck..."
so which is it? what does adjusted +/- say about sebastien telfair in 08-09? because the stats certainly do seem to indicate that he's played poorly in both 07-08 and 08-09...
and please don't respond with:
...If you choose to make an effort to understand adjusted plus-minus then you'll likely come around, but I suspect you've already made up your mind about it...
because lots of people in this discussion group, me included, are making an effort to try to understand it...
nor respond like this:
"...I will say that questioning along these lines indicates that you still don't understand what we have been saying about the noise associated with adjusted plus-minus. Because of the large standard errors on the coefficient estimates in all the results that are publicly available it is pointless to engage in most player vs. player debates. This is not to say that you can't empirically test the validity of adjusted plus-minus using the publicly available numbers, you can, but not with a sample size of two players..."
because this current debate is not between just adjusted +/- adherents and those who do not calculate it, but is between 3 different proponents of calculated adjusted +/- coming up with 3 different evaluations for the same player...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
TrueHoop
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 5
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:41 am Post subject: Winston addressed bad backups, in the case of Telfair Reply with quote
Probably doesn't change all that much, but FYI, from his blog http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=139:
Quote:
Several of you thought that Telfair’s +6 points rating (per 48 minutes) was probably due to the “bad backups.” This is not the case. Telfair’s primary backups Foye and Ollie were not bad last season. Foye had a +3 rating and Ollie a +2 rating. My figures in previous post were adjusted +/- by the way. I guess maybe the lesson is that Foye and Ollie played poorly at the point, but then surely they played great during the rest of their time on the court.
[/url]
_________________
Henry Abbott
http://www.truehoop.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 864
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:51 am Post subject: Reply with quote
So, Telfair was "outstanding," and Foye and Ollie were "not bad." Sorta makes me wonder how Minnesota managed just 24 wins with such strong performance from the PG position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3563
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:21 am Post subject: Re: Winston addressed bad backups, in the case of Telfair Reply with quote
TrueHoop wrote:
.. from his blog http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=139:
Quote:
...Foye and Ollie played poorly at the point, but then surely they played great during the rest of their time on the court.
I'm guessing this is tongue-in-cheek.
Telfair, Foye, and Ollie totalled 66.4 mpg last year. Telfair and Ollie, the more 'pure' PG's, totalled 36 mpg. Leaving just 12 mpg in which Foye could have been the PG.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:47 pm Post subject: Re: Winston addressed bad backups, in the case of Telfair Reply with quote
TrueHoop wrote:
Probably doesn't change all that much, but FYI, from his blog http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=139:
Quote:
Several of you thought that Telfair’s +6 points rating (per 48 minutes) was probably due to the “bad backups.” This is not the case. Telfair’s primary backups Foye and Ollie were not bad last season. Foye had a +3 rating and Ollie a +2 rating. My figures in previous post were adjusted +/- by the way. I guess maybe the lesson is that Foye and Ollie played poorly at the point, but then surely they played great during the rest of their time on the court.
So Telfair, Foye, and Ollie all had positive +/- ratings, and between them they played in excess of 5400 minutes. However, the T-Wolves scored 97.18 points per 48 minutes, and gave up 102.06 points per 48 minutes. That's a difference of -4.88 points per 48 minutes. Given this, I'm left wondering who was on the court at PG for Minnesota when they were giving up nearly 5 more points per 48 than they were scoring.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
jsill
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 73
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
So Telfair, Foye, and Ollie all had positive +/- ratings, and between them they played in excess of 5400 minutes. However, the T-Wolves scored 97.18 points per 48 minutes, and gave up 102.06 points per 48 minutes. That's a difference of -4.88 points per 48 minutes. Given this, I'm left wondering who was on the court at PG for Minnesota when they were giving up nearly 5 more points per 48 than they were scoring.
I don't blame folks for being a bit skeptical of the APM-based conclusion that Telfair was quite good last year. However, I don't think a criticism of this form is necessarily valid. In theory, at least, it could simply be the case that all of Minnesota's PGs were better-than-average NBA players last year, but the team was bad overall because the Minnesota PG play was more than cancelled out by their weaknesses at other positions.
Now, it may seem somewhat surprising that the APM technique could reach that conclusion, since (as you suggest) *somebody* had to be running the point while Minnesota was getting outscored. Don't forget that more than one of those guys can be on the floor at the same time, though, so if the team tends to do better in those cases, then the APM technique may be inclined to infer that those guys are good. There may also be other, more subtle reasons why APM comes to the conclusion it does (after all, it is a giant regression and as such is a bit complicated and can't be reduced completely and precisely to a one or two sentence description).
In any case, there's nothing contradictory about claiming that all the players who played at a certain position for a bad team were good. Of course, that's not to say that APM is necessarily right in this case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IrishHand
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the point of the objection is that pretty well any other analytical approach contradicts the notions that Telfair was outstanding and Ollie/Foye were not bad.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Qscience
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
Posts: 69
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
So Telfair, Foye, and Ollie all had positive +/- ratings, and between them they played in excess of 5400 minutes. However, the T-Wolves scored 97.18 points per 48 minutes, and gave up 102.06 points per 48 minutes. That's a difference of -4.88 points per 48 minutes. Given this, I'm left wondering who was on the court at PG for Minnesota when they were giving up nearly 5 more points per 48 than they were scoring.
Why was Telfair playing 27min a game and his quote backup Foye 35?
It sounds like either bad coaching or that possibly some bad data has been passed on to Wayne cause if Minn. was -4 pts how was every guard positive
Still a good read either way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3563
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:52 am Post subject: Reply with quote
jsill wrote:
... the team was bad overall because the Minnesota PG play was more than cancelled out by their weaknesses at other positions.
... more than one of those guys can be on the floor at the same time, though, so if the team tends to do better in those cases, then the APM technique may be inclined to infer that those guys are good. ..
Isn't this the only possible interpretation? Other than that the APM is simply wrong, that is?
IrishHand wrote:
... pretty well any other analytical approach contradicts the notions that Telfair was outstanding and Ollie/Foye were not bad.
Not sure if these qualify as 'analytical', but Win Shares, PER, and eWins seem to concur. An 'average' player has PER = 15, WS and eW per 484 min = 1.0 .
In order of minutes (divided by 82, for per-game 'availablility'):
Code:
per 36 min. eWins Win Shs
Wolves pos M/82 Sco Reb Ast /484 PER /484
Gomes SF 32 15 6 2 .74 12.5 .46
Foye PG 30 16 3 4 .84 13.7 .60
Miller SG 29 12 8 4 .87 13.8 .84
Telfair PG 26 12 2 5 .46 10.8 .18
Love PF 25 15 14 1 1.41 18.3 1.25
Jefferson C 22 23 12 1 2.09 23.1 1.29
Smith,C PF 18 19 7 2 1.11 16.9 1.03
Carney SG 15 13 4 1 .44 12.1 .60
Cardinal PF 11 7 6 2 .09 8.1 .48
Ollie PG 10 8 3 4 .20 9.9 .68
McCants SG 8 14 4 1 .44 9.9 -.23
These 3 methods concur that the only above-avg members of the team (playing > 5 mpg) were their front line of bigs. Miller's line looks more like that of a PF than a G.
Still, if Jefferson, Love, and Smith are 'overrated' by their stats, and the PG's are underrated, that's exactly the kind of thing we hope APM reveals, isn't it?
I notice the Wolves were 19-51 with Foye in the lineup and 5-7 when he was missing. It would seem they'd be especially taxed to come up with adequate guard play at these times; and that Telfair would be especially crucial during these games.
They were 17-32 (and 13-17 under McHale) when Jefferson went down, so 7-24 without him.