APBRmetrics

The discussion of the analysis of basketball through objective evidence, especially basketball statistics.
It is currently Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:34 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
On Ingram: http://bkref.com/tiny/k24nw Of young 2nd year starters his size in last 8 seasons, Ingram is about the 35th percentile on BPM. His RPM is a weak -1.6. Better than his horrendous first year but pretty bad for a starter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
More reaction to the Z Lowe story http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2399 ... lakers-NBA

Irving will not stay in San Antonio. No way Spurs want Fultz. I dunno if Spurs are adamant about Ingram but it is a whack position. He isn't that good. The Clips aren't going to offer the package Lowe outlines. At least I wouldn't. If DeRozan, Wiggins or J Parker are involved, it should be to go to a 3rd team. In general, I think other teams will end up involved. Otto Porter and picks is one of the more realistic options. The Sixers offer would be too. Lowe's package for Miami is not juicy at all. It should probably need to be Dragic / J Johnson and picks. There is very little chance Rockets offer Capela.

Spurs might have gotten a package that didn't include salary ballast earlier but it far less likely going forward. This probably goes into pre-season or beyond. I can't see teams offering best deals til they see him play. Who he will play for is key. He may only want Lakers. If so, then they'll sign him next summer. Does LeBron want him? Over nothing, sure. But he probably wants something else. A star PG or rim protecting big or any star who isn't a SF and an uncommunicative one. Odds are Leonard goes to a rental team. Then ends up somewhere else. I dunno what is best realistic return for Kawhi; but I assume it willing be considerably less than the Spurs reportedly requested from Lakers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
Depth charts http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/depth-charts/nba.aspx
are bloated in summer and Rotoworld is slow to clean out guys who are gone or likely gone. And classification are sometimes off. But 8 teams have 6-7 guys listed at a position. Spurs have 2 such positions, SG and PF. It may not indicate a design priority but it might. Will be interesting to see if these surpluses last into season. A design with heavy emphasis on SG and PF may be the future. At least worth more study. Spurs shown with 13 guys at these 2 positions. Nobody else with more than 9. Might be worth including SFs but a lot of SFs are compromises, not being as good at ball handling, shooting and passing as SGs and not as good on inside scoring, defense, rebounding & setting picks as PFs. Might be important to be versatile but better at one set of versality emphasis or the other instead of not really that good at either set. Some SFs are good at both sets or most of them of course. They'd be fine. Looking for design principles but not necessarily going to be rigid about it.

New Orleans and Memphis have 6 PGs. At this point I'd say that is more driven by uncertainty than design. PGs have the handle and passing but weakest on defense. Most common surplus is at SG. Shooting is very important. Brooklyn leads with SFs. Might be attempt to have everying. May be attempting too much. Dallas only other team besides Sam Antonio with 6 PFs. Doing that alone may be not as good as doing both.

In end it comes down to who actually plays, where and how. May be better to shift to height / length and weight over imprecise position classifications. There was a recent article about increase in minutes given to mid-sized players, so these thoughts are not all new. More to check in future and in the past.

Warriors last season gave 80-85% of minute to guys 6-4 to 6-9, with Curry the main (and slight) exception. Rockets and Spurs had at least 35% minute outside this range. Nit sure what is average, yet. Wonder if % in this range increases next season. Boston wasn't close to Warriors concentration either. Hayward will help some next season. Teams aren't likely to Fe to Warriors concentration level without conscious effort. Warriors level may not have conscious goal... but might deserve to be. Cavs were close to 80%. Pacers had more 40% outside the range. May be something to change, along with massive change in shot distribution to much, much more Moreyball. OKC nothing special on mid-size concentration but sone signs of moving that direction. Heat alright but not real high. Bucks, Pelicans low. Utah low concentration (despite Rubio). Wolves, even lower. Raptors even lower. Sixers even less. Blazers competing for lowest.

Is mid-sized concentration important or essential? I dunno but when Warriors are first and Cavs are second I'd give it a hard look. Skills found at greater size or longer than average wingspan might be missed by the simple model but the simple model is intended to be start of learning something, not to be absolute.

Should check offensive and defensive correlations. Or make that, team analysts should or should have already.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
For Raptors basically all the high minute player pairs worked well in regular season then bombed in playoffs overall (I haven't looked by series, assuming the differences are the expected ones). This was true for pairs between Lowry, DeRozan and Anunoby. Teams needs to know what went wrong with these and decide if it was specific circumstances and / or if it is fixable. While these pairs follows a general falling off, they were among least good big minute pairs in both regular season and playoffs. Perhaps partly due to high frequency against starters. But that isn't an acceptable excuse if contention for a title is the operating principle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
For Celtics, the least strong raw team plus minus in regular season is associated with Morris pairs. In playoffs it is Morris sometimes but also Brown and more consistently Brown.

The biggest pair strength is probably with Tatum. Which is a compliment for him and his pick and maybe raises some concern about the rest of the pair design not being as consistently good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
For Wizards, the starters and starters with one change were good in regular season. Easy coaching. But it was starters and coaching that lost the playoffs, not the much criticized bench. In regular season the worst pairs were frequently with Oubre and some with Morris. Wall - Gortat was actually one of the better main pairs. But in playoffs the bad pairs were most commonly with Beal. Brooks needs to fix that if their future is going to be different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
For Bucks, the player pair issue in regular season was meh to bad results for pairs involving a combo of Brogdon, Snell, Middleton and Maker. In playoffs there was some of the same bad pairs but the clear worst pair was Giannis with Jabari. It was been meh to bad for years. If they still believe this I their future core, I can only shake my head... and say NO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
For Sixers in regular season most main pairs worked. Among those that didn't, the names McConnell and Saric were most frequent. In playoffs overall almost nothing worked well enough. The only notable pair that worked in playoffs (and regular season) was Embid - Redick. Simmons had some of the worst playoff pairs. So did Saric and Covington. No way they change out Simmons at this point. Saric and Covington? You could rationalize it or give them another go before deciding.

I've not bumped into any analysis of the above teams on player pair basis. If you have, I'd appreciate the links to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
For Pacers in regular season the weakest big minute pairs tended to have Bogdanovic, Stephenson or Sabonis or two of them. Stephenson is gone but are the other two for certain core or still being evaluated? I'd study them more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
For Spurs in playoffs the bad to horrendous big minute player pairs involved Aldridge, Gay, Green, Murray and Mills heavily. Any change outs of these guys? Nope. Any intention to make major changes in pair usage? I doubt it, but we'll see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
Blazers embarrassed in playoffs. Changes? Not much, not to the core.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
For TWolves in playoffs, all the big minutes sucked from bad to incredibly terrible. Butler-Towns was the least bad main pair. Towns- Wiggins was close to worst, 4 times worse than the best which was already bad. But hey lets lock up Towns and lets essentially let Butler keep seething with no public support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
For Pelicans the main pairs worked fine in playoffs. Must have lost on bench pairs or some other level of coach tinkering.

For Thunder in regular season the weak pairs involved Felton, George, Grant and Patterson. Bring em all back. In playoffs nothing worked but Presti preaches continuity. Maybe a few change outs are coming soon. Enough for real contention? Probably not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5231
For Jazz in regular season the weaker pairs generally involved Hood, Favors and Rubio. In playoffs it was Gobert, Crowder, Mitchell, O'Neale. That is kinda a long list. Add the coach and GM. The playoff bright spots were generally Mitchell, Favors and Ingles pairs. Not Gobert. Some of the pre-playoff critique of Gobert may have been on target.


Of course all this player pair talk is based on raw data. I tried to stay big picture accordingly. True RAPM playoff pair would be better. A crude manual adjustment of player pair data by regular season RAPM or RPM would be possible but I'd prefer true RAPM pair data.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:20 pm
Posts: 37
On the Jazz, the pairs that wind up looking good are those that spent a majority of their time against the Thunder, while those that spent a majority of their time against the Rockets look poor (the top four 4-man lineups involve Rubio and some combo of Mitchell/Ingles/Favors/Gobert).

Not sure there's much really to take from the data other than that the Rockets are a much tougher opponent than the Thunder, especially with Rubio out/Favors hobbled.

I imagine there are some similar stories on other teams (eg Pelicans probably all look great vs Blazers and all pretty meh vs Warriors).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group