The TORTS System
by markdash on Jul 3, 2009 11:04 AM PDT
84 comments
An Experimental Method for Measuring Player Efficiency
(WARNING: THAR BE STATS AHEAD, MATEYS!!!)
In thread after thread here at GSoM, statheads such as jae and others discuss the relative merits of players using statistics. The stats that seem to come up time and again are rebounds, turnovers, and shooting efficiency, as these have the highest correlation with winning than any others. I thought it would illustrative to develop a “quick and dirty” measurement to use for comparing players which account for these stats and these only.
The first question, then, becomes, “what stats do we use for each of those?” There are many ways of measuring a player’s rebounding prowess: total rebounds, rebounds per game, rebounds per 36 minutes, offensive/defensive rebounding splits, and my personal favorite, total rebound percentage (TRB%). You can probably tell which way I am going to with this, but I chose total rebound percentage because it measured a player’s rebounding ability, independent of minutes played and pace. For turnovers, I used the analog of TRB% which is turnover percentage (TO%), or the number of turnovers committed by the player per 100 possessions. Finally, for shooting efficiency I chose true shooting percentage (TS%), which factors in free throw shooting, 2-point and 3-point field goals.
Using the Hollinger NBA stats at ESPN.com, I was able to put together a database of 328 players who were eligible from last season (minimum 6 minutes played per game). I then determined the average and standard deviation of all players’ TRB%, TO%, and TS%. To normalize the value for each player, I determined the distance from the mean for each statistic in terms of standard deviations. For example, the average TS% was 53.7%. The standard deviation was 4.6%. Therefore, a player with a TS% of 58.3 would have an adjusted value of 1.0 since their contribution was one standard deviation above the mean.
This calculation was done on all stats for all players and the three values combined (with the turnover value subtracted from the sum of the other two, since turnovers are negative contributions whereas the other two improve as they get higher). I call this the “TORTS System” because it stands for T(urn)O(vers)R(ebounds)TS(%) and because I will sue the pants off of you if you steal it from me to make a profit. Think of it as an analog to OPS in baseball, which is a useful tool to measure a player’s contribution, yet ignores certain measurable which have a positive correlation to winning (OPS does not account for stolen bases or defense), and of course ignores unmeasurables. This is roughly comparable to Hollinger’s PER formula, but is much easier to calculate and is a bit more intuitive. A player below league average would have a negative value, and a player over league average a positive one. This is true for all 3 categories.
One thing I noticed immediately when I compared the values of all players were that centers generally came out on top and point guards on the bottom. This makes sense since rebounds are generally accrued at a higher rate by post players than perimeter ones, whereas turnovers and shooting percentages are relatively position-neutral. To remove this bias I grouped players by position so they are compared against their peers; position assignments were done using 82games.com.
Without further ado, I prevent the top 10 and bottom 10 at each position with occasional comments, followed by the relative ranks of YOUR GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS in their positional groups.
Top 10 Centers
1. Marcin Gortat (ORL)
2. Pau Gasol (LAL)
3. David Lee (NYK)
4. Joel Przybilla (POR)
5. Erick Dampier (DAL)
6. Dwight Howard (ORL)
7. Al Jefferson (MIN)
8. Shaquille O’Neal (PHO)
9. Tim Duncan (SAS)
10. Andris Biedrins (GSW)
This is why I think the Gortat signing is going to be outstanding value for the Mavericks. Also, I’m quite surprised to see Dampier on this list.
Bottom 10 Centers
63. J. J. Hickson (CLE)
64. Chris Kaman (LAC)
65. Sean Marks (NO)
66. Malik Allen (MIL)
67. Johan Petro (DEN)
68. Francisco Elson (MIL)
69. Hilton Armstrong (NO)
70. DeSagana Diop (CHA)
71. Chuck Hayes (HOU)
72. Joel Anthony (MIA)
One of these guys is getting paid $10m per season. Ouch.
Top 10 Power Forwards
1. Troy Murphy (IND)
2. Matt Bonner (SAS)
3. Antonio McDyess (DET)
4. Carl Landry (HOU)
5. Kevin Garnett (BOS)
6. Steve Novak (LAC)
7. James Singleton (DAL)
8. Antawn Jamison (WAS)
9. Brandan Wright (GSW)
10. Dirk Nowitzki (DAL)
Bonner and Novak’s surprising presence on this list will be explained further later.
Bottom 10 Power Forwards:
49. Yi Jianlian (NJN)
50. Shelden Williams (MIN)
51. Luc Richard Mbah a Moute (MIL)
52. Elton Brand (PHI)
53. Boris Diaw (CHA)
54. Ben Wallace (CLE)
55. Reggie Evans (PHI)
56. Brian Skinner (LAC)
57. Josh Powell (LAL)
58. Brian Cardinal (MIN)
Poor Elton Brand. First the season-ending shoulder injury, then making this “Bottom 10” list! Seriously though, he probably makes the top 10 list most years, but he shot extremely poorly in limited action last year.
Top 10 Small Forwards:
1. LeBron James (CLE)
2. Jamario Moon (MIA)
3. Marvin Williams (ATL)
4. Gerald Wallace (CHA)
5. Bobby Simmons (NJN)
6. Maurice Evans (ATL)
7. Wally Szczerbiak (CLE)
8. Danny Granger (IND)
9. Peja Stojakovic (NO)
10. Kelenna Azubuike (GSW)
All hail the King.
Bottom 10 Small Forwards:
59. Trenton Hassell (NJN)
60. Luke Walton (LAL)
61. Quinton Ross (MEM)
62. Dominic McGuire (WAS)
63. Joe Alexander (MIL)
64. Adam Morrison (LAL)
65. Jared Jeffries (NYK)
66. Ricky Davis (LAC)
67. Greg Buckner (MEM)
68. Donte Greene (SAC)
No real surprises here.
Top 10 Shooting Guards:
1. Anthony Morrow (GSW)
2. Ray Allen (BOS)
3. Brandon Roy (POR)
4. Jason Richardson (PHO)
5. Manu Ginobili (SAS)
6. Shane Battier (HOU)
7. Kobe Bryant (LAL)
8. Michael Redd (MIL)
9. Rudy Fernandez (POR)
10. Dwyane Wade (MIA)
Surprised to see the #1 guy here? I’m not. As it turns out, this system is basically tailor-made for a player like Anthony Morrow, a good rebounder (for his position) and dead-eye shooter.
Bottom 10 Shooting Guards:
57. Kyle Weaver (OKC)
59. Devin Brown (NO)
60. Tony Allen (BOS)
61. Damien Wilkins (OKC)
62. Desmond Mason (OKC)
63. DeShawn Stevenson (WAS)
64. Bobby Brown (MIN)
65. Goran Dragic (PHO)
66. Matt Carroll (DAL)
67. Marko Jaric (MEM)
Two comments: First, what the hell is Adriana Lima thinking? Second, no wonder the former Sonics played Sefolosha so much after his acquisition; just look at their other options!
Top 10 Point Guards:
1. Chris Paul (NO)
2. Eddie House (BOS)
3. Jameer Nelson (ORL)
4. Travis Diener (IND)
5. Leandro Barbosa (PHO)
6. Jose Calderon (TOR)
7. Chauncey Billups (DEN)
8. Derek Fisher (LAL)
9. Nate Robinson (NYK)
10. Mo Williams (CLE)
An obvious bias towards shooting/slashing PGs here. It’s a real testament to just how good Chris Paul is that he tops the list despite being a pass-first (and thus relatively turnover-prone) PG.
Bottom 10 Point Guards:
54. Jordan Farmar (LAL)
55. Sergio Rodriguez (POR)
56. Roko Ukic (TOR)
57. Mike Taylor (LAC)
58. Jerryd Bayless (POR)
59. Anthony Carter (DEN)
60. Juan Dixon (WAS)
61. Ronnie Price (UTA)
62. Earl Watson (OKC)
63. Brevin Knight (UTA)
And finally, your Golden State Warriors, with their ranks within their positional group:
Monta Ellis-SG-51/66
Acie Law IV-PG-42/63
Anthony Morrow-SG-1/66
Marco Belinelli-SG-52/66
Stephen Jackson-SF-57/68
Kelenna Azubuike-SF-10/68
Corey Maggette-PF-36/58
Anthony Randolph-PF-42/58
Brandan Wright-PF-9/58
Ronny Turiaf-C-37/72
Andris Biedrins-C- 10/72
This is unfair to Monta as normally he’s more efficient from the floor than he was last year. Jackson commits tons of turnovers, shoots poorly, and rebounds poorly for a SF; this system is almost tailor made to punish him. Corey Maggette would score much higher (23rd out of 69) if he were placed at his normal SF position instead of PF. Turiaf is basically an average center (something that makes sense).
Conclusions
This system has some merits but also numerous flaws. It appears to highly reward spot up shooters such as Matt Bonner, Anthony Morrow, and Eddie House. These players do not handle the ball with much frequency; many of their touches result in immediate shots, cutting their capability for turnovers relative to other players who dribble the ball. These players are also rewarded since 3-point marksmen tend to have a high TS%.
It also tends to ignore other measurable that have a positive (but diminished) correlation with winning. Passing PGs such as Nash and Deron Williams are hurt by a lack of an AST component. Energy guys like David Lee and Anderson Varejao (15th among PFs) are rewarded for rebounding, but not punished for a lack of shot-blocking ability. Of course, having a center who can send back a couple shots a game (and alter numerous others) is of value. Also, the TS% of players is considered without relation to the volume of shots taken. A player with a TS% of 58% on 20 attempts per game would be of much higher value than one with a TS% of 59% on 6 shots a game. Finally, this formula treats all three of its components equally, while I’m sure they are of differing importance. Perhaps there are easy ways to fix these flaws, but considering my aim was to develop a simple method for player efficiency, any correction would likely make the math a lot more complicated.
I applaud anyone who actually waded through this sea of information. It was as much a thought experiment as anything else, and I hope we all learned something from it.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
7 recs |
84 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Two additional things: I could actually account for shooting volume in TS% rather easily, it’s the same calculation I use to weight shooting percentages for fantasy basketball. Given enough interest I could do this rather easily.
Second, I can provide ranks/scoring/breakdown for any players not on the above lists if you are interested.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 3, 2009 11:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
interesting
now can you come up with a system that rates players as a team and duplicates the nba season results?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 3, 2009 11:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely not, I don’t think anyone has anything close to that kind of accuracy, nor was the above intended to be any sort of definitive evaluation of a player’s ability or contribution to winning.
Basically, it’s finding out how good players are in just 3 things: rebounding, turnovers, and scoring efficiency.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 3, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Awesome work, Dash!
I’m not really a stat guy at all, but on the face of it I’m concerned by two things:
1. The lack of an assist component, which you mention. I mean, sheesh, I just wrote a whole big diary about the importance of sharing! I think part of the reason I did is that assists, especially for non-guards, often seems like the red-headed stepchild of stats. (After all, assists is the #4 on the list of Stuff White People Like, ahead of Barack Obama, Wes Anderson movies, sushi, and Asian Women!) If Anthony Morrow could set up his teammates like Brandon Roy, he’d be … well, about as good as Brandon Roy.
2. The fact that you drew numbers just from last season, thereby rewarding guys with outlying good seasons (Murphy, e.g.) or outlying bad seasons (Brand, e.g.) Would it possible to re-run the numbers using a 3-2-1 weighted system for the last three seasons of data, similar to what Nate Silver and co. do for baseball projections?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 3, 2009 12:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I could do that, but it would take a ton of work, and I’m obviously not being paid for it.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 3, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Asian women? Really? That one surprised me a little bit.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 3, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
? That one surprised me a little bit.
Yeah, I prefer Salvadorenas
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 3, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
stay away from my family, racist
On 5/7, the best part of waking is up LOLDGERS in my cup.
by GameSix on Jul 6, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
stay away from my family, racist?
Your family? you the papa of ElSalvador?
Funny how you think liking someone is racist when hating them would seem racist to me?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 6, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you fell into the salvadoreño sar chasm dude. i kid.
On 5/7, the best part of waking is up LOLDGERS in my cup.
by GameSix on Jul 7, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting stuff...
I would like to see some sort of scoring volume component added, because I think using scoring efficiency without taking scoring rate into account kind of throws things off.
Overall I found it really interesting to read.
BTW I’m curious to see how the rest of the guys that were on our team last year performed (Crawford, Watson…).
Thanks for all the hard work, you seem to have a knack for this kind of stuff. And here I thought you were just a funny guy. ; )
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 3, 2009 12:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
yea I’m pretty sure markdash wins GSoM’s rookie of the year
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 3, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s a debate in the basketball stats about how important “usage” is with regard to scoring efficiency. Obviously, a high percentage scorer who takes 5 shots doesn’t get you as much as a guy with equally high percentage who takes twice as many shots, but it gets dicey when you have a guy who is elite FG% but takes few shots vs. a guy who is near average but takes a whole lot more. Where the curves intersect is really the point of debate. How much credit should be given for “shot creation” (specifically good shot creation as the number of shots a team takes doesn’t tend to change that much with substitutions).
Most people do not appreciate that taking a shot, regardless of whether or not it goes in, uses an “opportunity cost” which can be calculated as the expected rate of return on the possession, though the actual opportunity cost for a team is a product of those players on it and may differ significantly from the average and may be greatly affected by which players are on the court.
Usually, the debate breaks down with people making apologies for Iverson, claiming that he has to shoot as poorly has he has because no one else on the team can do more than drool onto a bib. History suggests that this is not true.
by jae on Jul 3, 2009 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is there any stat or stats that attempts to track shot creation?
I think developing a stat that could track good shot creation or a way to infer good shot creation would be a huge benefit to basketball.
I think off the top of my head using something like FG% of unassisted shots + FT attempts would be a decent indicator of who is able to create “good” shots.
Jae anyone you could come up with these figures from your database or is this statistic floating somewhere on the internet?
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jul 3, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is nothing good to track shot creation, in part because there’s not really any agreement in terms of what that means. The shots are there. If a guy who takes a huge number of shots leaves a lineup and is replaced by a guy who never shoots, the team tends to have the same number of shots. Whether or not they’re good shots is a different issue.
by jae on Jul 3, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about... unassisted FG% + FTA?
Don’t you think tracking… the FG% of unassisted shots + FTA would produce a good indicator of who is creating shots on there own and the effectiveness?
You have the database to track such a thing and at least intuitively it would seem like that statistic would see who has the highest FG% on unassisted baskets… not a direct correlation to shot creation but it could tell us who can be most efficient on their own.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jul 3, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thoughts on this Jae?
Anyway you could see how the numbers come up or is there anyway I could get access to you database to try and crunch the numbers myself?
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jul 4, 2009 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
About a week ago, I might have thought that this could tell you something about a player’s abilities. Then I saw the Nash on/off court statistics for Stoudemire and realized how greatly variable the assisted percentage can be.
I’ll see if anything pops up.
by jae on Jul 4, 2009 6:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds good... one thing I thought about was how would you mark the missed shots unless you had video?
Not sure how in-depth your database is but I realized how hard it would be to actually tally the players actual assisted and unassisted FGA.
Missed shots wouldn’t be marked as unassisted or assisted since the shot was missed but I guess the only thing you could do was subtract the assisted FGM from the player’s total FGA then divided the FGA unassisted by that total to find a player’s estimated unassisted FG% and the inverse by subtracting the unassisted FGM from total FGA and dividing assisted FGM by that total.
estimated AST FG% = ast FGM/(total FGA – unast. FGM)
estimated UNAST FG% = unast FGM/(total FGA – ast. FGM)
I think this could produce decent results at who is most productive scoring on their own. Regardless if you publish the numbers would love to see what you find if you could e-mail me.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jul 4, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have assisted vs. unassisted FG’s for the last 5 years, minus about 7 games that inextricably just don’t push through data for reasons I’m still not sure of.
by jae on Jul 4, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sweet but how does it categorized missed shots?
Unless you watch every play how do you know if missed shots were from isos or a missed jumpshot from a pass?
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jul 4, 2009 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No such data is recorded. Assists themselves are a subjective measure and are not awarded equally by all scorers. Some teams have rather large splits for assisted/unassisted baskets home/away. Some scorers seem to award an assist to whomever touched the ball last before the guy who actually scored. Some actually believe that the pass has to have led to a much easier shot.
by jae on Jul 5, 2009 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
shot clock?
whenever y’all go deep into the statistical worm-hole, I always wonder if there is any consideration for whether the FGA were early/middle or late shot clock, and whether that is even measured … just seems that the clock has an impact on several possessions per period, in addition to the last shot of each quarter, and that would impact both % and all the associated stats related to it …
by hardcore on Jul 5, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, similar to football and tackles.
I know assists differ from scorer to scorer much like tackles in the NFL. I believe I read a fantasy football article one time that pointed to Carolina and Miami being the most generous with tackles etc.
So what do you plan on using as the divisor if you’re looking into this data? Are you going to use the formula I suggested? Did you think of something else?
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jul 5, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
There’s a debate in the basketball stats about how important "usage" is with regard to scoring efficiency. Obviously, a high percentage scorer who takes 5 shots doesn’t get you as much as a guy with equally high percentage who takes twice as many shots, but it gets dicey when you have a guy who is elite FG% but takes few shots vs. a guy who is near average but takes a whole lot more. Where the curves intersect is really the point of debate. How much credit should be given for "shot creation" (specifically good shot creation as the number of shots a team takes doesn’t tend to change that much with substitutions).
That’s absolutely right. I certainly wouldn’t value scoring rate nearly as much as scoring efficiency, but you’d think that it should figure in somehow. Obviously, some guys just refuse to shoot the ball unless they are absolutely sure it has a great chance of going in. That’s a great thing, but it’s obvious that LeBron’s TS% of 59.1 last year was much more valuable than Tarence Kinsey’s 59.5. That’s an extreme example, but the point is still the same that someone who scores efficiently at a high rate is more valuable than a player who scores with the same efficiency at a low rate.
It’s way over my head, but it seems like there should be a way to mathematically deal with this issue. It seems like you have a much better grasp on the whole thing than I do. Jae, why don’t you just take a week (or the next five years. you know, whatever), figure all this stuff out, put up your own stats website and permanently “retire” from whatever it is that you do. =P
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 3, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
History suggests that this is not true.
History doesn’t suggest anything, history records what actually happened. Maybe those guys coulda shoulda taken more shots but history says iverson took them and since we have to assume as pros they knew what they were doing apparently he was the best option? Speculate all you want but that won’t change the facts.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 3, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and since we have to assume as pros they knew what they were doing
We do not need to make that assumption. If you chose to, so be it. I have witnessed enough mistakes of judgement among professional players and coaches, often repeating the same errors, to indicate that your assumption is not always correct.
I am not changing facts. You seem to be overly prone to confusing your interpretation with facts, and seemingly unable to challenge your own preconceived notions; you confuse these notions with “facts”.
by jae on Jul 3, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
C’mon dude. It’s a fact that in ‘00/01 Lynch, Ratliff, McKie, Hill, Snow et al. could do more than drool into a bib. I have the evidence to prove it. But it’s a little soggy.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 3, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*
Make that “no more” … flubbed the punchline!
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 3, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
History doesn’t suggest anything, history records what actually happened.
Hardly ever true.
History is always taken from the point of view if the victor. If it makes you look good you will jot it down for further generations to marvel at how great you are, if something makes you look bad you will conveniently leave it out of the history books.
This happens now as well as in the past.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Jul 3, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hardly ever true.
If it’s accurate “history” it is by definition history, if it is twisted “history” it is only fabrication, not history. There’s no reason to think that the NBA fabricated Iverson’s points over the years is there? If so then you guys might be correct but I doubt it cause Stern seems to go out of his way to belittle Iverson with things like dictating his clothing options so I doubt that stern would falsify Iverson’s points to make him look better?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 3, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not his point total that’s in question. It’s how much what he did helped (or hindered) his team from winning.
Iverson was a prodigious scorer. That was true when his team was winning and it was true when his team stunk. He was a constant, and as a constant appears to have far, far less influence on his team’s record than the popular vision of him as a great player seems to believe. Subtract him from the team that stunk and put in less accomplished scorers and the team did better than they had with him playing.
by jae on Jul 4, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Watson was 14th out of 63 point guards, Crawford 27th.
Watson rates highly for the same reasons a lot of the other PGs on the list do—he wasn’t your traditional “set up the offense” PG, he was more of a spot-up shooter. The stats bear this out as he scores well in both TO% and TS% (he shot 56.4 TS% last year, quite surprising) whereas his rebounding was pretty much average for a point guard (5.6%).
Crawford scored better than he would have other wise been expected because of his fluky scoring efficiency last year. His TO% was good, his REB% bad, but normally his shooting would drag him down rather than buoy his numbers.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 3, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice.
Always good to look at things a different way.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jul 3, 2009 2:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Whats the point?
This is an interesting idea for a stat and props to you for all the work you did with it, but looking at the top ten lists it is immediately apparent that they are NOT BY ANY MEANS the top 10 players I would want on my team at any given position. WHAT IS THIS STAT TRYING TO TELL US?
by freerandolph on Jul 4, 2009 11:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would say this is a useful tool for role players. You don’t really want to use such a system for evaluating “star” talent since it doesn’t account for assists, and by extension ballhandling, so you couldn’t just put 5 of the top guys on the floor at the same time, most likely. You need someone to handle the ball.
But in terms of your 4th-12th guys on your roster, the above lists are a useful tool. A guy like Luke Walton just shouldn’t be getting minutes for a championship team. Maybe that’s why the Onion wrote that article about him.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 4, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My next fanpost is going to be a statistical examination of whether Asian chicks are hotter than white chicks.
The bad news for Sleepy Freud is that my preliminary calculations indicate that this is so.
The bad news for Nauticus is that this includes Dot Indians, Siberians, and Persians, not just the slanty-eyed asians of whom he is so fond.
Maybe if white chicks didn’t turn the damn ball over so much and stopped settling for contested threes…
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 5, 2009 8:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe if white chicks didn’t turn the damn ball over so much and stopped settling for contested threes…
Dunleavey made it impossible for the white chicks to get a fair trial.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 5, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Statistically...
It’s been shown that “hotness” is a myth.
We are talking about, hoops, right? ;-)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 5, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s been shown that "hotness" is a myth.
It’s like beer, the one you are holding at the moment is the best.
I saw an Asian chick at the grocery store recently that would give your theory about the non superiority of asian women a strong test sleepy, but then I saw a blond chick today that bailed you out . Tomorrow is another day.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 5, 2009 11:30 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Skep, man
I live in New York City, and it’s the middle of steamy July. Literally every day I see hundreds of women, of all races, who give pretty much all my mental facilities “a strong test,” including my ability to think clearly about anything and my ability to put one foot in front of the other…
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 6, 2009 7:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I live in New York City, and it’s the middle of steamy July. Literally every day I see hundreds of women, of all races, who give pretty much all my mental facilities "a strong test,"
Haha, No pressure but if you are around hudson and spring streets one of them is my daughter.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 6, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoa dude
I am literally ON HUDSON & SPRING right now. Are you watching me?
Just of curiosity, what does your daughter look like? ;—)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 6, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not like Hudson and Spring is a well-travelled corner, either: it’s an old industrial area (now hipsterish) right on the Hudson river near what used to be land’s end. It’d be like saying “if you’re anywhere near 25th and Rhode Island” (my old corner in SF) and having me be there.
For all I know, Skeptic’s daughter works at my office…
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 6, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For all I know, Skeptic’s daughter works at my office…
For all you know Skeptic is one of those good looking women that make it hard to get any work done…
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 6, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW...
You want to grab a sandwich at the deli downstairs in about an hour? How’s the salad bar there?
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 6, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For all I know, Skeptic’s daughter works at my office…
Haha, maybe? IIRC there’s tall buildings on all four corners so jae will have to work out the odds.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 6, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NE and NW corners are tallish buildings (9-10 floors).
SE corner is a parking lot, and SW corner is a deli where I’m meeting OM for lunch tomorrow…
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 7, 2009 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what does your daughter look like? ;—)
Hi Sleepy, Typical California girl, blond about 5’5" athletic looking, was a softball pitcher in high school. You’d like her, she got my sweet personality.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 6, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This seemed as good a place as any to mention that Andrea Bargnani just got a 5 year, $50m extension from the Raptors.
QUE?!?!?!?
He’s slightly above average in offensive efficiency, but more importantly, he’s a TERRIBLE rebounder for a PF (don’t even think about how he fares as a Center). He also is supposedly a terrible defender, blocked shots aside.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 8, 2009 9:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That’s the dumbest extension I’ve seen in a long long time.
Bargnani is among the least effective players in the league. I don’t think a 7-footer has ever rebounded worse. If he could actually play SF, he might be an adequate player. But he can’t.
Many metrics rate him as terrible. He was terrible by wins produced. He was superterrible by plus-minus (Raptors actually outscored their opponents when he sat, something true only for him).
by jae on Jul 8, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s the dumbest extension I’ve seen in a long long time.
Since Jackson’s last year?
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 8, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps dumber. Bargnani may be the single least effective regular rotation player in the league, now that Morrison is a full time paperweight.
Bargnani is being rewarded for being the #1 pick. It’s a common error that many teams make, still thinking that their judgment in the past warrants the contracts going forward.
by jae on Jul 8, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the Bargnani hatred. Note that I think this extension is ridiculous and that he’s a below average player, but “least effective rotation player” in the league? There are some absolute stiff backup Cs, and some truly terrible backup PGs as well. At least Bargnani scores at slightly above average efficiency.
Why is he so bad?
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 8, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s the rebounding.
He takes the place of a c or pf in the Raptor’s lineup, positions that net you your most rebounds. He’s a gigantic deficit. Given that he doesn’t pass the ball well and isn’t especially good (or bad, but not good) at avoiding turnovers, the lone thing he does is score. Given that finding a guard or SF who can score and who will likely pass better is not hard, there’s no advantage to playing Bargnani as opposed to a stiff at an interior position alongside another SF.
He was above average this last year shooting the ball and there’s reason to suspect that it may be for real. I’m probably judging him more on the years before, when he was Adam Morrison bad, but I still find few players who don’t combine the statistical abysmality in terms of individual low production with the plus-minus deficit he shows indicating that things beyond the individual box score line weren’t helping him. Looking at all players who had 25 or more mpg, I don’t see a whole lot of backup stiff centers who aren’t more worthwhile. I see a few whom I’d perhaps like to have on my roster less (Telfair, Rasual Butler, maybe another guy).
by jae on Jul 8, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Rasual
IIRC, a couple of months ago I actually had to waste a few minutes of my life convincing a fellow GSoMer that Rasual Butler is not good. Man I love this place!
While we wait for any news about Amare, “Worst NBA Starting Five” (among guys who got regular PT, say > 25 mins per game) could be an interesting topic. Sifting through my JAE class notes…
PG — Telfair
SG — Rasual Butler
SF — Stojakovic (66 minutes a night to Rasual + Peja??? No wonder the Hornets regressed despite having the best PG in the universe…)
PF — Bargnani
C — Hawes (not sure whether he’s actually the worst or not, but as with Bargnani it’s fun to write his name just to see how you respond, JAE…)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 8, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What an epically bad team, though Stojakovic had good plus minus numbers. Peja can still nail the long ball. I think we can do worse replacing him with Al Thornton who is an underwhelming rebounder at the 3 to go along with extremely subpar scoring efficiency. Of course, like Hawes, Bargnani and Telfair, Thornton is still young enough that he might improve to the level of merely mediocre, but at 25, I see less potential for that in him.
Jermaine O’Neal’s performance last year might warrant sliding him in there ahead of Hawes actually. Given that Hawes is probably improving and O’neal is only going to get worse, We might want to swap there too if we’re going for abysmal. Granted, Oneal won’t stay healthy, so we’ll need Spencer to play a bunch too.
by jae on Jul 8, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, Rasual actually shot at a league-average level last year!
Unfortunately for his career he has a TS% of 50.0.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 8, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly had no idea Butler was that bad until that discussion. I know I was never overly impressed with him when I watched him, but I figured if the Hornets were giving him so many minutes he couldn’t be THAT bad (admittedly, a very bad way of judging a player’s merit) and at one point he was even owned by someone for a couple months in the fantasy league I was in (admittedly an even worse way of judging talent)
I knew Hawes was bad…..but I didn’t realize he was worse on the boards than the PFs we complain about in addition to being one of the least efficient scoring big men in the league.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 9, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup … another data point to cite when anyone says that Biedrins, with his non-escalating 5/$45M deal that takes him up to age 27, is overpaid.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 8, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How did your lunch go?
Did you see a young lady stalking you in the deli?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 8, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup.
Only a matter of time before I start calling you “Dad”… ;-)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 8, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You got Yankee tickets?
Her current boyfriend is a NY sports writer and takes her to games with him. I doubt she’d give up the locker room visits.
Funny, I told her I know of someone who works at her corner and she sounded highly bored :>) , anyone daddy knows is automatically lame I guess.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 8, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And not to be outdone by the Raptors’ extension of Bargnani, the Cleveland Cavaliers have given Anderson Varejao a 6 year, $50 million extension.
Rowell ain’t looking so bad anymore!
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 9, 2009 8:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Varejao at $50 over 6 is infinitely better than Bargnani. They’d have to have maxed Varejao to equal the idiocy of the Bargnani extension. Varejao actually improved the Cavs performance when he stepped on the court.
by jae on Jul 9, 2009 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Infinitely better than 0 is still zero.
Or is it?
At any rate, they overpaid him.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 9, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually think Varejao is a useful player. I wouldn’t be unhappy to have him on my team, although not at that contract. He’s been a good (sometimes a bit better) rebounder as a 4/5 and he doesn’t shoot himself in the foot with bad shots. His flopping defense isn’t fun to watch, but it seems to be reasonably effective. Worth that contract? Probably not, but if you’re going to overpay someone, overpaying a guy who is a net positive is a better move than overpaying someone who is a net negative.
by jae on Jul 9, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if Varejao’s agent did a dance in his underwear when he saw the Bargnani extension.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 9, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d probably swap the Maggette contract for the Varejao contract
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 9, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meh, no thanks. For a team like the Warriors, efficient scoring is hard enough to come by. I think we don’t really need that kind of energy guy, we need good guys.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 9, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently it’s only $50 mil if he reaches a boatload of incentives. Article I read put it more around $42 mil.
by rjnarayen on Jul 10, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I probably should have really looked at the specifics of the deal. It also has a team option for that 6th year (buyout unknown) so it could be a 5 year deal instead. Much more palatable than the reported 6 year, $50m.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 10, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I too applaud you for all those words..I mean all those info.
I definitely learned something; All this reading will put me to sleep…in a good way. Serious! Now I can fall asleep knowing that in most categories, the Warriors boy made the list. And in the top 10 too.
Um, 2010 playoff here we come? Wait, summer league first. LGW!
Thanks for the info.
by Shells on Jul 9, 2009 10:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Now I can fall asleep knowing that in most categories, the Warriors boy made the list. And in the top 10 too.
Haha, the top 10 useless achievements of 2009?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 9, 2009 10:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, unfortunately this means the Warriors have a bunch of good role players. Something we already knew, I think.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 9, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this means the Warriors have a bunch of good role players. Something we already knew, I think.
Yeah , they proved they can roll over consistently.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 9, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
useless?
I’m not a stats person. In fact, in the eyes from shells, anything the Warriors boys do (in relations to basketball) is considered good, very good.
Now, stop being mean!
by Shells on Jul 9, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now, stop being mean!
Clam up?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 9, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
