NBA Analytics Reveal Coaching Negligence

Excellent article.

Rec, rec, rec, rec, rec.

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 5, 2011 9:22 PM PDT reply actions

Follow up post. In the 10 days following this article, coincidentally Ellis got hurt (to join Law out for the season), and Williams, Udoh, and Lin all got more playing time. Here is how they did:

Reggie Williams:
Apr13 Portland: 28pts, 5 assists, 7 rebounds on 12-18 shooting.
Apr11 Denver: 17pts, 3 assists, 3 rebounds
Apr10 Kings: 18mins, 4 points, 2 assists, 4 rebounds
Finished the season with a PER of 15, 5th best on the entire roster.

Jeremy Lin:
Apr13 Portland. 23 mins, 12 points, 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 steals. 5 for 8 shooting.
Apr11 Denver: 21 mins, 4 points, 4 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal.
Apr10 Kings: 14 mins, 4 points, 4 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 steals.
He finished the season with a PER of 14.8, 6th best on the team.
He finished with the 2nd highest adjusted plus/minus on the entire roster.
He had the highest per-48 minute steals and blocks of all NBA guards.

Ekbe Udoh:
Apr13 Portland: 3pts, 8 rebounds, 4 steals, 2 blocks
Apr11 Denver: 8pts, 4 rebs, 1 assist
Apr10 Kings: 10points, 4 rebs, 4 blocks
He didn’t put up big stats (so a low season PER), but finished with the highest adjusted plus/minus on the team.

Curry didn’t get more playing time but got more main focus. His last 3 games:
Apr13 Portland: 18pts, 9 assists, 3 rebounds.
Apr11 Denver: 27pts, 5 assists, 5 rebounds
Apr10 Kings: 27pts, 8 assists, 6 rebounds
The last 3 games he shot about 70% from the field.
He finished with the highest team win-shares and increased his lead over Ellis for a PER at 19.5.

It should be noted that in the last two games especially, teams rested their starters more. However, these few games suggest/confirm that these 4 players were being dramatically under-utilized this season. Curry, the team’s best player, sat while Dorell Wright and Ellis played significantly more minutes all year. Reggie Williams was a fringe rotation player. Acie Law played 3 times more minutes than Lin yet was a dramatically worse player. Keith Smart should be FIRED for his coaching negligence/blindness.

On a totally different note, I’m disappointed that Riley was extended. One could list a long history of extremely poor trades and decisions on his part. The overall net of his total moves is not positive. In looking at these analytics, the trade of Brandan Wright was a big mistake in a long line of poor moves. Wright has multiple metrics that suggest he is a quality, efficient, winning player with the ability to break out in the near future. If Myers looks at the analytics, hopefully he can get Riley to ship out Amundson, Law, Biedrins, and Ellis – the players with the most harmful effects for winning when they play.

by BayMind on Apr 15, 2011 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions

Most of his “big” moves were just to reduce our payroll, I think. I mean, I was happy to move Maggs for anything, and it’s not like we’re kicking ourselves for that. He didn’t help us. How about moving Randolph, Turiaf and Azubuike? Both Mr. T and Azubuike were unhealthy at the time. Randolph was a huge gamble to keep, because who knows how much we’d have to pay him once his contract expires.

Did I want David Lee? No. Did he make us a little better? Probably. Was it worth it for the price? I’d have to say no. Was it a bonehead move? Not really.

His move to pick up Dorell Wright, J.Lin, Reggie Williams and Amundson? I’m quite happy with all of those.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 15, 2011 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Well, I honestly have no idea how much Smart knows/understands about stats, but I think the clues suggest it’s not his strong point. I’ll point to something like this. I’ve never seen Keith Smart talk about any of these things, have you? And when people do ask him about the stats, he never talks about them, he’ll give a shady-sounding (in my opinion, of course) excuse about the film. Hey, maybe it’s all just how he deals with the public and behind closed doors he’s doing a lot of good things, I don’t know, but I do find the lack of evidence suspicious, you know?

by Missing Barry on Apr 6, 2011 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions

ditto what Missing Barry said. Only team insiders know what is going on, but Keith Smart is clearly not using any of the stats I’ve referenced (PER, win-share, adjusted +/-, floor time, etc), given that he plays his best player Curry only 33 minutes a game while giving Ellis and Wright significantly more minutes, Reggie Williams languishes on the bench, and Udoh and Lin have basically wasted a year where they could have really developed. Playing Ellis and Law so much also shows Smart has no clue that he keeps playing two of his three most harmful players on the floor.

by BayMind on Apr 6, 2011 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions

sounds counterproductive for trying to keep his job...

by PIRATEWARRIOR on Apr 8, 2011 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions

or a clever way to get other teams to buy into ellis, and neglect our better players...

by GoldenBlue on Apr 9, 2011 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions

In the defense of Smart

The primary objective in coaching is to communicate effectively with your players. Whether it’s teaching, directing, or motivating, you have to have a direct line of communication with your players.

Watching tape enables the enhancement of this communication, while stats do not. In other words, how can Keith Smart talk to Stephen a day after a losing game and tell him that the reason he was benched in the 3rd quarter within the 3 minute mark is not because of the back – to – back missed FGA’s, but rather the misuse of a screen that jumbled into a turnover in traffic, followed by a half-assed jog on the defensive fast break?

It’s impossible for a coach to talk a player about these things without watching a lot of film. Mind you, he’s got to do the same and take notes for the other 7-10 guys who played.

How do you talk to a player about advance stats? More importantly, why would you?

With all due respect to the occupation, it must be extremely time consuming to watch that much film, constantly prepare for the next game, conduct practice, direct games, sleep, talk to players, consolidate for reached agreements within the staff, report to Lacob and company, and then do the same thing over again the next day.

Smart has a strong vantage point, day in and day where he’s getting beat over the head with each individual’s unique habits, and what they need to work on. He probably knows that some guys will not get better while others will.

Advance stats are a GM/Scout/Agent/Fan’s game, not a head coach’s. HC’s should never be concerned about keeping tabs on the progression of players around the league – that job belongs to somebody else. Assembling talent comes with assessing the talent to a point where it almost becomes predictable.

A bad coach makes predictions, a good one makes adjustments. GM’s do not have the luxury of thinking this way, due to things like 6 year contracts worth 54 million dollars.

And if the coach can not make a rational and smart assessment of a player he watches perform every single day on the most front court of seat’s without the aid of advance stats, then he obviously shouldn’t be coaching. And if he obviously shouldn’t be coaching, I think he would’ve had a mutiny on his hands some time ago.

With that said, I agree that Smart should be fired and replaced with the best Lacob and that rat Guber can buy.

by lilboots on Apr 16, 2011 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions

And if the coach can not make a rational and smart assessment of a player he watches perform every single day on the most front court of seat’s without the aid of advance stats, then he obviously shouldn’t be coaching. And if he obviously shouldn’t be coaching, I think he would’ve had a mutiny on his hands some time ago.

I don’t agree with this, necessarily. I mean, I do, to some extent. And the truly great coaches legitimately don’t need the stats, because the stats will match what they know and see anyways. But for every other coach, the statistics are a great tool for them to use because it will keep track of what goes on over a long period of time in an objective, unbiased manner. Our brains aren’t very good at that, which is where the stats come in. We won’t really notice the difference between a guy who shoots 14 times a game and a guy who shoots 15 times a game, even being as close to the situation as a coach is. It’s hard to keep track of stuff like that over 82 games.

by Missing Barry on Apr 16, 2011 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions

How do you talk to a player about advance stats?

Presumably, for most players in the Association, in English.

More importantly, why would you?

You might do it if communicating a finding could help a player understand what he was doing well and what he was not doing well and help make adjustments accordingly.

Like people from all walks of life, sometimes professional basketball players do things that are not in their best interests as players. Sometimes they have habits that they believe are good habits but do not actually help their team win. These things can be as opaque to them as they can to the fanboys who go crazy over a high scoring average but ignore the absurdly high shot volume that it took get it.

Now how receptive a player is to this depends on many things, including how receptive and coachable the player is in general. But it’s another tool that can be used to communicate why something is important. And for some players it helps. Apparently, Houston gives Battier scouting reports on opponents’ FG% from different locations on the floor. Morey also commented that he wouldn’t do that for other players on the team, largely because it wouldn’t influence them, but it can have a place if players are receptive and can adjust with new information. Houston also launches a large number of corner threes. The coaching staff is aware that this shot is a higher rate of return than most other shots and they have adjusted their offense to make use of this as a result of the information.

And if the coach can not make a rational and smart assessment of a player he watches perform every single day on the most front court of seat’s without the aid of advance stats, then he obviously shouldn’t be coaching.

This is false. It’s a tool that some coaches can and have used to help their coaching. The concept of points per possession is not really new. It’s something that Dean Smith got from his “mentor” and used consistently to evaluate players throughout his career. He had a target that he wanted to exceed for both offensive and defensive efficiency and knew what each player did to affect this, both in practice and in games and actually used to to aid in his decisions on who to play when. Should he ‘obviously not have been coaching’? I realize that there’s some who knock him for not winning a few more championships over his career, but to deny that he was a great coach is to deny reality. Larry Brown and George Karl adopted his style to some extent as well and pay attention to data collected by statisticians.

Some people have an amazing ability to distill what they see holistically and get to the crux of what is and is not important without any aid other than their eyes and ‘instinct.’ Most of us get fooled by what we see at times, and this includes most people who rise high in the coaching profession as well. Having information at hand to help determine where our perceptions are wrong is useful. That people don’t employ it as much as they should doesn’t mean that it’s a bad idea.

by jae on Apr 17, 2011 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs

Good Visual examples

Most of us get fooled by what we see at times

.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 21, 2011 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions

I don’t get the 2nd picture – where is the visual distortion?

by BayMind on Apr 22, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions

YOu should see black dots sometimes where the white dots are at the intersections of the gray lines.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 22, 2011 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Whoa

by BayMind on Apr 23, 2011 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions

How do you talk to a player about advance stats? More importantly, why would you?

I feel like this represents you not understanding how this stuff should be applied.

Let’s take the example of Monta Ellis. Stats tell you a bunch of things about him:

1) He rebounds inadequately
2) His overall efficiency is too low.

So you don’t go up to Monta and say, “Your TS% is too low.”

You go up to him and say, “Stop taking long twos early in the shot clock. Stop driving into a set defense – run the offense instead.” “We want to see you get in there for rebounds more.”

Or let’s say you’re game-planning against the Warriors. You start by looking at the stats. “Gee, Monta shoots a lot – and he has a low TS%. That probably means we should encourage him to shoot.”

You then look at tape and try to figure out what his bad shots are, when he takes them. And then you game-plan to encourage his negative tendencies. You might notice that, for example, if the first pass to Curry isn’t available, Monta is highly likely to shoot. So you come up with the game – plan “make Monta bring it up, deny his first pass to Curry.”

(Now, if you didn’t look at advanced stats, you might come up with the opposite game plan: “Monta is their leading scorer – let’s deny him the ball and make Curry shoot.” Then you’d look at the tape and come up with ways to deny Monta the ball. As for how many teams are using advanced stats, let me ask you: how often have you seen teams try to deny Monta the ball?)

Now, yes, you might come up with this plan by watching tape. After all, the stats are simply a record of what actually happened on the floor. But because people’s eyes are subject to all sorts of biases, stats can help guide you.

The problem comes because Smart isn’t doing this. He’s not using the stats to support the tape, or the tape to support the stats.

Rather: Smart is using the tape to defend doing something the stats say is dumb.

It’s possible the stats are wrong – that he really does see something which he thinks undercuts what the stats are telling us. In which case, it should be pretty easy for Smart to make his argument. After all, none of us are rejecting in principle that such an argument could exist, rather, we’ve found all of the existing arguments we’ve heard inadequate.

What all of us wanted some Smart is not necessarily that he use stats, rather that he help us understand his process at least a little. The way he says that he looks at the tape comes off as extremely arrogant, in a way that clearly isn’t justified by his results.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 17, 2011 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

So you don’t go up to Monta and say, "Your TS% is too low."

You go up to him and say, "Stop taking long twos early in the shot clock. Stop driving into a set defense – run the offense instead." "We want to see you get in there for rebounds more."

Or let’s say you’re game-planning against the Warriors. You start by looking at the stats. "Gee, Monta shoots a lot – and he has a low TS%. That probably means we should encourage him to shoot."

Thanks for the actual explanation. My question is simply this: How would you generally communicate a specific mistake a player made during a particular moment of the game using advanced stats? The gist of my assertion was to prove that film is more useful in the sense that you must physically see (and force your player to physically see) a mistake that somebody made during a point in the game. You can not do this using statistics.

I’m not saying that advanced stats are not useful, because they obviously are. But I do think that they should be closely followed more so by assistants and people in upper management. Assistants have the time to make game-by-game measurements and inform the HC who can then look for them in tape/games and communicate them to the players. It’s sort of like the henchman surrounding the president who collect and analyze information so that it is presentable.

For all the time you would have to spend scouring tendencies, charts, percentages, etc. on a weekly basis, I think you would be hard-pressed to incorporate the full scope of review in a timely fashion. It seems to lack a realistic quality. There’s just too much to do in so little time, one would have to be selective in how they spend it and prioritize – In other words, I think watching film and game planning should be backed up through stats, not the other way around. I think Smart was saying that the tape should always be the priority.

…And I am merely saying, it’s hard to really teach players when you leave out the tape. When your job consists of constant communication, you need to find common ground within the main vein. You’re going to have studied players like Battier who thoroughly prepare and are mentally so immersed in their professionalism, and that’s great! But for the most part, I believe every coaching staff should have a specialist who works specifically in preparing through that area, and is in constant correspondence. I’d be impressed if a head coach could find time to be thoroughly caught up in that angle of the game.

by lilboots on Apr 17, 2011 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions

My question is simply this: How would you generally communicate a specific mistake a player made during a particular moment of the game using advanced stats?

Well, this is sort of like using a screwdriver to drive a nail. You might be able to do it, but it’s the wrong tool for the job.

Stats aren’t about “one particular play.” If you see somebody make a mistake, you don’t have to go to stats to talk about it. I strongly suspect that most players aren’t inclined to be able to wrap their head around stats in a dynamic way.

Rather, again, you use the stats to help you ID the problem, and then you use tape breakdown to show the player what he shouldn’t and should do. It’s a synergistic approach.

And I am merely saying, it’s hard to really teach players when you leave out the tape.

Nobody has ever suggested that stats should REPLACE tape. This is a straw-man argument, akin to the charge that gets made all the time that we stat heads should “watch the game.”

by Ronaldinho on Apr 17, 2011 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions

I’d actually use both. I’d have film to point out a specific mistake, and numbers to back up the conclusion that it is a mistake. You could tell a player something is a bad shot and have them disagree. If you have numbers to show them why it’s a bad shot (they shoot a low % on that specific shot or something), I’d think it would drive the point home to the player stronger, at least in many cases…

by Missing Barry on Apr 17, 2011 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions

You should check this out, by the way:

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/john_schuhmann/01/22/spoelstra-qa/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1

by Missing Barry on Apr 17, 2011 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions

This whole idea is based on the “assumption” that Smart’s reaction meant that he does not take stats into consideration ….which most probably is not true. I think that he probably meant that the interviewer “only” gets his info from stats. After the article was written Smart was probably kicking himself that he did not respond “both” . Who has met a coach that does not look at stats? Especially with assistants able to help with the analysis.
Every journalist is looking for that misplaced comment to find the crack to base a negative article….even players learn to give the blah, blah for the team replys so they are not negatively quoted.

by Only In Fairfax on Apr 6, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

It's more than looking at stats

It’s which stats you use, and how you interpret them.

by eldingo on Apr 6, 2011 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions

This is very true. Almost everyone uses a statistic to form a large part of their opinion of a player. This includes coaches and GMs. The problem is that points per game is often the only statistic that influences this opinion, and it’s a particularly lousy one without a larger context.

by jae on Apr 6, 2011 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions

NBA.com just released an amazing tool called StatCube.
http://www.nba.com/statscube
If you look at the lineups and netratings, it confirms what this article says, which is that almost all of the lineups with Ellis or Law are negatives, while most lineups with Curry, Udoh, Lin, or Williams are net positives.

by BayMind on Apr 21, 2011 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions

Tape and analytics are both important and should be used in conjunction, not as replacements for one another.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 5, 2011 10:08 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs

Well said

by WestCoastWarrior on Apr 6, 2011 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions

I don't have problem with someone saying they watch "the tape" -

- if they can get into specifics about what they’re seeing that’s making them go against what the stats are telling us.

I try to keep an open mind about that sort of thing. But it’s also how you can tell if the person watching the tape is looking at the right things or at superficial things. For all we know about Smart’s tape-watching, he may be getting enamored of the same aspects of Monta’s play that enamor most less-sophisticated watchers of the game. Maybe not. But it’d be nice if he was willing to talk about it.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 5, 2011 10:18 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Tape is good for things that don’t necessarily show up in stats; things like effort, individual defensive rotations, man to man defense, zone defense responsibility, aggressiveness, fatigue, basketball intelligence, team chemistry. Basically the things that you can’t quantify are good to watch on tape, whereas the more cut and dry statistics you can plug into a formula and determine value. I said this in my post above, but good teams need to utilize both, and both in good amounts. Preparation, whether that be film study or statistical study, is very important. And it’s usually pretty easy to tell the teams/players that do this the best and those that do them the worst.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 5, 2011 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions

To add to that list of things shown on tape:

Fast break execution, hands up for a rebound, body balance when making an offensive or defensive move, court vision, self control and patience vs panic, decision making, adapting to strategic changes made by the opponent.

I just don’t get the criticism about Keith Smart wanting to look at tape. The tape shows everything that actually happens in the game. I’ve seen subtle player mistakes that I otherwise would never have noticed because I rewound and rewatched my own recordings. This has happened since back when Don Nelson was a coach. So why not look at the tape?

by IQofaWarrior on Apr 5, 2011 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions

There’s plenty of valid criticisms about smart, most of which should be higher up the list than him preferring to watch tape. The NBA and many of its greatest coaches managed just fine without the use of advanced statistics, which are a fairly new discovery. As such, I believe advanced statistics should be a tool to complement what coaches have always done, and not a replacement. Too often, stat-heads hold statistics up as the word of God, when they are just one aspect among many that result in positive coaching outcomes. The argument should not be around whether tape or advanced stats is more valuable, but rather how each can used to strengthen the overall quality of coaching.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 5, 2011 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions

I completely agree

It should just be “another tool in the toolbox” as far as game strategies go.

by IQofaWarrior on Apr 5, 2011 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions

It's not that watching tape is bad, per se

It’s how you watch tape, and if you cross examine that against advanced stats. If a high number of different stat methods ALL point to something, yet you insist it’s wrong and the tape and your opinion are right, well, something doesn’t wash there. To then stubbornly refuse to respect these statistical methods….

Also, all these things like having your hands up, fatigue, etc, that folks are saying you can get from watching tape, well, it all comes out in the wash. Meaning the stats will get worse on a player if he fatigues a lot, or if he doesn’t hustle (hands up, other things) on D. The stats cover that. Sure, watch tape of specific things as a teaching utensil. But when judging your best lineups and whether players are truly helping more than their hurting, you have to cross examine your gut against the numbers.

The things i’d want to know about, regarding the stats, is how they measure things like, for instance, Lin’s +/- vs Monta’s, when just about every time Lin sees minutes it’s in garbage time. I like Lin, especially his D and hustle (think he’s a jump shot away from being our clear backup PG, if not already.)

But this is a great read, thanks. All the Monta lovers seriously need to read this, all of it (i know it’s long.) When tons of articulate fans say these things, starting quickly into the season, only to then have MULTIPLE stat companies back up what we’re saying, well, at what point do you start listening and not trusting your eyes so much?

The fact Smart is oblivious to this stuff, and in the face of it scoffs at it…does not bode well if he is to be kept. Stupid is as stupid does. It’s a organizational culture thing.

As we keep on saying: If Smart is kept it means Lacob is a fool. What’s it going to be Lacob? Keep the stubborn man of blind faith against all reason? Or move on.

And to all you Monta lovers. Try to drop the bias. The #s support what the Curry lovers have been trying to explain to you all. You can say (and probably do to all this stuff) that “well, Monta’s #s are hurt by him having to do so much.” But, he doesn’t know how to not do so much, it’s who he is, so even if you could get him to “play more within himself and the team flow,” he wouldn’t be able to so that point is moot.

We don’t mean to be pompous, but we say it over and over. Monta, when he’s not on an incredible run, is hurting you. He gives, but he takes away too, and he doesn’t know how to stop the hurting because he’s oblivious to the fact he is hurting you.

If there’s a good Monta trade to be had and we can get on with this thing with Curry, Lee, Dorell, a defensive minded BIG SG and whoever we can start grooming at C, AB until then….then make that trade.

The irony is that Monta was right, they can’t play together and win consistently. But it’s him who clearly needs to be the one traded. And his value, after the hollow #s he’s put up, make it so a shrewd GM could get a solid trade for him.

This offseason will really show us a lot. Smart and Monta being central in how new management see things.

by supersugarCrisp on Apr 5, 2011 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

Good post and some good points. For me personally I’d never make a judgment based solely on the statistics. I’d have to verify it with what I see. Stats can be skewed to support any number of claims, but your eyes can’t be lied to. I hope we never reach the point at which the human element is taken out of sports, where watching a game can be replaced with reading a box score, or where a friendly back and forth with a stranger at a sports bar can turn into a ‘my-stat-is-greater-than-yours- showdown. I know I’m repeating myself, but advanced statistics, watching game film, gut feeling, should all be intertwined and work together.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 5, 2011 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions

I think you'll find very few people on this board who use stats without also watching the games.

I mean, look, the criticisms that we stat-heads make about Monta – that he’s a terrible defender, that he misses too many shots – are things that you will also notice if you watch the game, if you watch closely.

But it’s hard to watch a game that closely. Our attention wanes. When watching a game, it’s a lot easier to notice steal which leads to a fast break going the other way than it is to notice the missed steal which led to an easy layup for the other team. It’s easy – and we’ve seen this at least a dozen times this season – to remember the late-game heroics and forget the half-dozen missed shots early which made the late-game heroics necessary.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 5, 2011 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs

My personal judgment from watching every game this season is that, while both are pretty bad defenders, Curry is a worst defender than Ellis. The advanced statistics, however, probably tell a different story. I don’t know if there are statistics that quantify individual defense by itself, but what I suspect is this: My eyes tell me Curry is a horrible defender, fouls far too often, gets beat off the dribble by far inferior players, cannot defend the post well at all, and save for gambling for steals, is an all around bad defender. The advanced statistics might show that the team gives up less points when Curry is on the floor. So while advanced statistics might be able to give you an overall view, I prefer to rely on what I see in a game if I want to get down to the specifics.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 6, 2011 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions

My eyes tell me Curry is a horrible defender, fouls far too often, gets beat off the dribble by far inferior players, cannot defend the post well at all, and save for gambling for steals, is an all around bad defender.

One of my biggest worries with coaches, especially ones who don’t understand statistics well, is how they actually go about figuring out the importance of each of these things. They could all very well be true, but the next step is figuring out how important each foul is, how important each steal is when he does success, compared to how bad getting beat is, etc. I suspect many coaches have things they look for on film (like how often a guy blows a defensive assignment), and make judgments based on that, but without ever taking the next step of figuring out how important a blown defensive assignment is relative to say, a steal made, or a rebound gained, or a shot made, or a shot missed, etc.

So for this quote, that’s one point I would bring up – even if you’re making a completely accurate read on what Curry does and what he doesn’t do compared to Monta, it could very well be that the relative importance of each that you have in you mind is wrong. If you haven’t taken the time to try to figure out the relative importance of each (which most people haven’t, so don’t take this as a personal shot at you or anything), is there a good reason to think you have an accurate idea of it? If the end results are telling you something different than you see….well, there might be a few possible explanations for why that is.

by Missing Barry on Apr 6, 2011 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

I think my main point to the post was that often times your eyes and the stats can tell different stories, and sometimes they can be complete opposite ends of the spectrum. From watching games, I can see the individual defensive weaknesses of both Ellis and Curry. Curry’s weaknesses I’ve listed above—Monta’s weaknesses are mostly around gambling too much or taking the “easy way out”. He goes for nearly every steal, and it often results in an easy bucket for the other team. If he gambled less and played position defense, is there any reason why he can’t be a better defender? He’s athletically gifted, supremely quick, and has pretty good hands. He just needs to stop being lazy on defense.

But as you said, I really have no clue which player’s defensive lapses are more harmful to the team.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 6, 2011 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions

I think Monta could probably be “better”, but I honestly don’t think he can be anything but bad. I don’t think he’s all that quick. Going straight forward and up? Sure, we see how explosive he is in those directions all the time on the offensive end. Defense is more about lateral quickness, though, and Monta’s not nearly as quick in that area. His biggest deficiency, though, is his lack of size, bulk, and length. His overall physical package, from a defensive standpoint, just isn’t very good. But then again, consistent effort does go a long way.

by Missing Barry on Apr 6, 2011 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions

Monta often also looses vision on his man and falls out of position far enough so that no length or quickness in any direction will allow him to recover.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 6, 2011 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions

To me, the situation you describe -

- when your eyes are telling you a different story than the unambiguous statistical one – is to take it as an invitation to try to look and see what it is that I’m missing when I watch the game.

Because the stats are capturing something, right? So it’s either something flukey – always possible with +/- and small sample sizes – or it’s something real.

It doesn’t take “advanced” statistics to suggest that Curry’s a better defender by the way. Even the simple stuff, like opponents efg%, tells the same story.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 6, 2011 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

As someone once said:

Why the hell would I care about the stats so much if I didn’t watch the games?

by Spider Jerusalem on Apr 6, 2011 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

Stats can be skewed to support any number of claims, but your eyes can’t be lied to

Well, I’ll first start by saying I don’t think the “human” element of sports is going away – I think that’s the main appeal of sports, and will continue to be so in the future. I never see anyone actually advocating just running a Monte Carlo sim, not playing the game, and calling it a day, you know? As to this quote….well, I have to say I think it’s completely inaccurate. Stats can be skewed, but there really are proper ways of using statistics. Picking and choosing your stats isn’t one of them. It’s about being consistent and removing bias, and honestly, if you’re well versed in the statistics and the subject matter, it’s pretty easy to tell when someone is using them correctly. On the other hand, our brains, our perceptions, our eyes….they’re a whole mess of bias. They can be lied to. Here’s an easy example – A and B are the same shade. Our ability to keep track of what we see accurately, our ability to remember things accurately…..just our observation skills in general are very questionable. Definitely not humans greatest strength.

I’m also very wary of “gut feeling”. Gut feelings are basically our subconscious telling us something. Sometimes, they can be our brain recognizing a pattern it’s seen many times before and giving you the proper feeling on how to respond to it. However, we also tend to find patterns in randomness, and I haven’t figured out how to know whether a gut feeling should be trusted or not. It might be based on a sound, subconscious principle you know. On the other hand, it might be based on a completely bogus thing you were raised with but is simply wrong (like the gut feeling that a guy who scores a lot is good, since we were all raised to think scoring points is the best thing a player can do)…..

by Missing Barry on Apr 6, 2011 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, the notion that our eyes don't lie to us is pretty dubious.

Read some of the recent research on the unreliability of eye-witness testimony … it’s actually pretty frightening.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 6, 2011 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

If you know what to look for, I think your eyes are pretty trustworthy. So for example if you’re going to watch an entire game focusing solely on Monta’s defense, I think at the end of the game you’d have a pretty good idea of how good he was. I’ve spent entire games watching Udoh, for instance, and I’ve come away with the evaluation that he is a very good defender in all aspects (statistics won’t show the whole story in that regard) and a very poor rebounder (statistics will show you part of the story here).

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 6, 2011 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions

watching Udoh, for instance, and I’ve come away with the evaluation that he is a very good defender in all aspects (statistics won’t show the whole story in that regard)

Opponents have scored roughly 104 pts per 100 possessions when he’s on court, versus 113 when he’s not. Far too small a sample size to tell “the whole story,” but reaching the point where it probably says something.

and a very poor rebounder (statistics will show you part of the story here).

6.1 rebounds per 36 minutes, or 9.7% total rebound pct. What part of his poor rebounding are these numbers not telling you?

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 6, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions

well, in terms of rebounding

I think part of the story is that he is not getting the numbers, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he is hurting the team. While he’s defending, other players (*cough*Lee*cough*) are getting the rebounds that Udoh is creating (by blocking or altering shots).

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 6, 2011 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Eh. That seems like an excuse to me.

Are Lee’s rebounding numbers much better when he’s on the court?

Was he a good rebounder in college?

by Ronaldinho on Apr 6, 2011 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions

in fact...

according to 82games (updated today), the total rebounding differential on/off court is 0.0%.

http://www.82games.com/1011/10GSW15.HTM

The eFG% differential is still -3.8% on defense and +1.9% on offense. I would have expected those numbers to drop over the last month since he’s been getting more playing time (and more pt with starters), but they’ve been steady.

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 6, 2011 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

according to 82games (updated today), the total rebounding differential on/off court is 0.0%.

Of course, that’s simple +/-, and the baseline Udoh is being compared to is players on the worst rebounding team in basketball…..

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions

yeah, I know

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions

The better measure would be how the lineups he’s in compare in terms of their rebounding percentage to the expected rebounding percentage based on the sum of the individuals on the court (adjusted for the autocorrelation that occurs based on the fact that their individual performances are computed in part from the lineup being examined).

If Udoh is often being subbed in and out for Radman (a lousy individual rebounder) and the lineup doesn’t change is one thing. If he can swap places with Biedrins and show little change in the lineup’s rebounding says something quite a bit different.

by jae on Apr 7, 2011 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions

most of this year he was subbing in for Biedrins

or being subbed for by Amundson

both (apparently) much better rebounders

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions

Out of curiosity, have you run the numbers on who Udoh seems to be helping on the boards? Since he’s not getting many rebounds himself, someone else must be benefiting, else lineups with him would not be almost as good as lineups without.

I have the raw data for this but haven’t written the code to isolate influence yet. If you’ve got it, it’s better than me having to duplicate the work.

by jae on Apr 7, 2011 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions

I haven't done player pairs

it’s something I plan to do eventually, but by all means, feel free to tackle that one

plenty of people have asked me about it

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions

my guess is that Lee is being helped the most

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions

Yep I agree

Lee has been on a rebounding tear lately

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions

That's the sort of guess I'd like to see backed up by more data -

- because Lee has been playing a LOT more minutes than Udoh, so it’s not like Lee has been playing primarily with Udoh on the court.

It’s certainly an interesting question, though. Since Udoh seems to block out well, and he’s clearly becoming a defensive force, it’s easy to imagine that he would help other rebounders.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 7, 2011 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions

Oh definitely, I just don’t have that information available to me easily.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions

That first statistic doesn’t tell me how good of an individual defender he is. I’d like that type of stat — one that could give me a view of just how “good” a player is from an individual point.

And for rebounds, that stat shows how many rebounds he himself comes down with. It doesn’t show the rebounds he gave up due to poor boxing out, or on the other hand the rebounds he tips to teammates. Again, I’d like a stat that tells me the whole story in the same way my eyes do.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 6, 2011 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions

So would a lot of people.

Probably the best judge of how someone is as an individual defender is efg% against.

Of course, it’s not perfect, because it relies on a subjective evaluation of when someone is supposed to be guarded by him. If he’s supposed to rotate, and his man gets the basket because he left him alone, that shouldn’t count against him. Does it? Dunno. Depends on the person making the evaluation.

The problem with “our eyes” is that unless you’re spending a lot of time breaking down tape, and understand the responsibilities of the scheme, it’s often hard to know who to credit or blame. For example, did we give up a rebound because Udoh didn’t box out? Or was his boxing out someone else who he perceived as a bigger threat and was wrong? Or was he following his assignment – sometimes to block out someone other than “you man” – and the guy it looks like he was supposed to be boxing out got untouched?

But, most importantly, one really has to note that it’s really hard to see most things that don’t happen: the rebounds not gotten, for example, don’t often feel like they’re the responsibility of the guy who didn’t get them. YOu just know the other team got the offensive rebound.

So I think it’s somewhat naive to think that your eyes tell you the “whole story.” They really don’t, not unless you understand the scheme and have the time to break down each play multiple times on tape and examine it. To pretend you know the whole story from watching the game without that is, well, just silly.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 6, 2011 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions

well

I saw this quote from Smart on last night’s game:

"We’ve charted all the possessions alone that David has guarded Aldridge and he’s done a great job. We need to guard our own man and stay out of rotations, but helps with rebounding and contesting shots. If you trap every time, you are constantly in scramble mode. We wanted to force Aldridge off the block and get him out as high as we can. Now he won’t dribble and it’s a fade away jump shot. We will live with that. We just couldn’t give them multiple looks."

They’re clearly doing some “charting”, which I assume has some statistics to go along with it.

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 6, 2011 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

That first statistic doesn’t tell me how good of an individual defender he is.

Well, it kind of does. Once you get to the point where you can isolate Udoh specifically, the change in team performance does tell you exactly how good Udoh’s defense is. Of course, we’re not really at that point right now….

We can do the same thing with rebounding, by the way. Just need sample size.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions

Our eyes do lie...

I am all for a new wave of analytics being used in determining what players are the most effective. This tool in conjunction with a strong background in a sport can be very effective. I was a big fan of “Moneyball” and I feel that if the Warriors embraced this new wave they might finally be able to change things around.

“Moneyball” described a phenomona known as a “Five Tool Player” where by looking at how someone hit, threw, ran, and caught you could judge how much of a big league success they would be. This turned out to be easily refuted by looking at statistics. What I am saying is that our eyes tell us stories that are not true.

As for people looking at the right things during a game… you should check out this CLASSIC psychological study that shows we don’t always pay attention to the most important or most unique aspect of an event.

http://www.frucomerci.com/2007/11/28/visual-attention-test/

by Underhand Free-throw on Apr 6, 2011 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Gut feelings are basically our subconscious telling us something.

I have always thought that Great coaches have a natural ability to absorb and process what they see and make the same decisions that a statistical analysis would support. This is especially important for in-game adjustments. I though Nelson had this. Smart does not. In any case this ability should be sharpened with real statistical analysis as much as possible.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 6, 2011 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Great article you should check out:

When I first met Bill Walsh, we had developed this football system that was supposed to measure success on any NFL play. If you’re first-and-ten and you gain five yards, is that a success or is that a failure? We kind of graded out the plays and the people in the plays based on that. We came up with a statistical system based on four years of NFL data looking at every play, a team’s winning, and we could tell you how you did on this down and how that affected your team’s chances of scoring.

But we needed a way to validate that. We went to Coach Walsh so he could help validate us. So we asked him some very simple questions. So, on first-and-ten, what’s a success? He said well, four yards is probably not a success, five yards probably is. Somewhere in between.

Our numbers showed that four-and-a-half yards was the threshold.

Then on second down he says well, I think you need to gain at least half a yard. And that’s exactly what our numbers showed also.

What we learned from that, and I would never use this quote because it’s very self-promoting, but he once said to our CEO: “I have no idea how he gets it, but he’s in my brain.” And he was talking about me. That was kind of like the biggest compliment that he could ever give me, because that’s all I was trying to do.

There are people out there like Jerry West and Bill Walsh who can make really good decisions without a spreadsheet behind them. But there are only a few of them. And so the goal is to create a mathematical system or methodology to use data and information that can make as good a decision as Walsh and West made, in a more structured and regimented way, so anyone can make them.

So what you’re saying is absolutely true. The goal is to take what’s between Bill Walsh’s ears and put it in a spreadsheet, so people can actually understand what it all means.

by Missing Barry on Apr 6, 2011 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

It's worth pointing out that he may not have been overly analytical -

- but for years Walsh was derided as being to intellectual to be a real football coach. People talked about him as being incredibly cerebral, and it wasn’t really a compliment.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 6, 2011 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions

I know I’m repeating myself.

So why do you do it? Your point — that statistical and scouting-based analysis should be used in tandem — is something no one would disagree with. Nothing wrong with saying it, but repeating it is kinda dull.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 6, 2011 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions

I say “I know I’m repeating myself” to cover my butt, because I know some assholes here would call me out on it if I didn’t.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 6, 2011 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions

On a board like this, when you say silly, misleading, and/or obvious things, you can generally expect to be challenged. That’s just how it works in the blogosphere. No need to be a baby about it.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 7, 2011 4:11 AM PDT up reply actions

Stats can be skewed to support any number of claims, but your eyes can’t be lied to

This is not true. Your eyes get lied to all the time. People are notoriously bad a identifying things that are important and things that are not important.

And this notion that “stats can be skewed” shows no understanding of statistical methodology. People can make bs arguments with numbers attached to them to support just about anything. This is not the same thing as using statistics.

by jae on Apr 6, 2011 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

It’s nothing personal, but “your eyes can’t be lied to” is blatantly false. Just completely wrong.

If your eyes don’t lie to you, why is it that one person can say that Monta is a good defender and other people will say he is a bad defender?

But I thought their subjective opinions were objective truths?

The great thing about statistics are that they are unbiased. No personal vendettas, no confirmation bias, no off court actions influencing on court performance perceptions, just a standardized account of what actually went on during the game.

You need to reconsider that one’s eyes can’t be biased. It is this mentality that makes people reluctant to accept statistics as legitimate, because they do not want to admit that they are not good judges themselves.

by belilaugh on Apr 7, 2011 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions

The great thing about statistics are that they are unbiased.

Except if they are not proven statistically significant, cherry picked, used in an unappropriated context, wrong, not referenced, or just made up. That is why the stats tab of this site could be real useful as a quick reference for reliable states (once generally agreed as reliable).

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 8, 2011 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions

You are confusing the statistical measures with interpretation and presentation. Cherry picking a set of numbers is a bias of the presenter.

by jae on Apr 8, 2011 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions

You know - you're the only one here who "just makes up" stats.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 8, 2011 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Those were not stats. I even stated that in my post. That was a hypothetical data set used to evaluate a theory for the sake of argument. Real stats for what I was discussing don’t even exist as far as I know. Only a moron would confuse them with real stats.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 8, 2011 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions

That was a hypothetical data set used to evaluate a theory for the sake of argument.

“made up”

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 8, 2011 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

“Made up” with the assumptions stated in the post.
Open up a statistics text book and tell me there is no made up data. Examples, problems, etc. That would not discredit the book for its purpose.
Perhaps you could help me find some real historical data regarding a team’s odds for winning a championship prior to the season starting. These might be available from betting sites but my company blocks these. These Odds would be very subjective at best.

I know it is fun to jump on this dog pile to crush my spirit. But I refuse to show any weakness or cry Uncle!!!!

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 8, 2011 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions

"Made up" with the assumptions stated in the post.

First of all, you didn’t state that you made up the data until someone asked. Second, usually when you have a model, there is a set of assumptions that affect how the input variables determine the output variables. But the input data should be REAL. If your intention was to run a SIMULATION (fake data), you should have made that clear.

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 8, 2011 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

How exactly do you know that Smart is oblivious to stats and prefers only to looking at the tape? Because of the quote stated above? If that’s the case, then I think that quote is taken out of context. To me, I read that as Keith Smart replying to people who are asking him questions based solely on the stats and not analyzing the video of what actually happened in the game.

Just as you say that you should cross check the video tape with the stats, you must also cross check the stats with the tape as well to make sure the conclusions drawn from the stats fits what actually happens in the game.

Looking at the stats, one can conclude that Anthony Randolph a stud. Looking at the tape, one can conclude that he’s a total moron with no idea what to do with the ball. Looking at the stats, Kelly Dwyer wrote an article that blamed Don Nelson for not playing Anthony Morrow enough. Looking at the tape, one can see that back then, Morrow could not dribble and could not make a play for himself, and Don Nelson couldn’t put him on the floor until Morrow learned how to do that.

So my point is that I think when Keith Smart cites “the tape”, he is responding to those who try to make conclusions based solely on stats without watching the tape to try to get a more complete picture of what actually happened.

by IQofaWarrior on Apr 6, 2011 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

You may be right -

- but again, when somebody has presented Smart with a statistical argument – and a few people have done so – his response has been vague generalities about “the tape” and not specific comments about how the players play.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 6, 2011 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

But that’s the point, statistics give you the overview while tape gives you the specifics of how players play. If you see something in the stats, you should go back and try to find the details in the tape.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 6, 2011 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions

The problem isn't looking at the tape -

- it’s the vague generalities about what he sees there.

If you’re going to disagree with what the stats tell you, you ought to have a specific reason. Smart’s refusal to give his specific reasons sounds suspiciously, to my mind, like he doesn’t actually have a specific reason that will stand up to scrutiny.

Given his overall coaching acumen, or rather lack thereof, I’m not inclined to give him a lot of benefit of the doubt here.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 6, 2011 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Also, every coach looks at tape.

That’s the bare minimum that every coach at any level does. It’s not exactly a confidence-inspiring reference that indicates some sort of otherworldly dedication and/or insight.

by Spider Jerusalem on Apr 6, 2011 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Smart’s refusal to give his specific reasons sounds suspiciously, to my mind, like he doesn’t actually have a specific reason that will stand up to scrutiny

I believe that this has more to do with the fact that no coach is stupid enough to let himself be dragged into discussing negative details about individual players in a public forum or interview. Would you?

by Only In Fairfax on Apr 6, 2011 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

I disagree.

He’s being asked to defend his rotations. Somebody raises a point which has some merit which suggests that he’s playing the wrong players.

It wouldn’t take much, and it wouldn’t take anything but praise. eg, “Letting Monta make the decisions opens up the floor for other players, for example with such-and-such a player last night. If you look at the tape, you’ll see how blah-blah-blah, and that’s what I’m trying to exploit.”

Nobody’s asking him to say negative things about his players. We’re asking him to explain the positive things he sees which we don’t.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 6, 2011 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

I agree with your point about rotations...

as with that subject he could talk more about the concept/method of the rotation…..however…dont complain that a coach doesnt go on about a particular players negative play other than "he was off tonight’ etc was my meaning. I used to cringe when Nellie would give a public lambasting of someone…it is counter productive and causes uneeded resentment…one on one in private is fine of course. In “any” type of teamwork endeaver only bad leaders publicly discuss individual team members mistakes….and in answer to this as well …..

Players are adults and get paid a lot of money to play in public. They should not be sheltered from a truthful discussion of details positive or negative

.

Killer has said that he is a mid level leader at work so he should understand this I would have thought?

by Only In Fairfax on Apr 8, 2011 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions

I am much nicer than my bosses. Did you miss the comment where I got fired on my birthday. I still think a good leader does not white wash a situation. To act one way in pubic and another in private to me is two faced and a sign of a bad leadership. A respected leader can constructively deliver negative criticism fairly and in the right context. Ideally that should be balanced with positive encouragement. What should be discussed in public is debatable but as pubic entertainers players need to have a thick skin.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 8, 2011 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions

discussing negative details

Players are adults and get paid a lot of money to play in public. They should not be sheltered from a truthful discussion of details positive or negative.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 6, 2011 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions

I doubt Smart is against using statistics. His interview response was probably less a commentary about his views of tape vs. statistics and more his aversion to reporters asking smart aleck questions.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 6, 2011 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions

RE how do we know he isn't using stats?

No. There is strong evidence that Keith Smart does not use any stats or quantitative analysis, because he does EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what multiple numbers are saying! It’s not even close. He plays several players significantly more minutes than his best player (Curry), under-utilizes and stunts the development of his best adjusted +/- guys (Williams, Udoh, Lin), while giving disproportionately high minutes to his most harmful players on the floor (Ellis, Law).

by BayMind on Apr 6, 2011 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions

Looking at the stats, one can conclude that Anthony Randolph a stud. Looking at the tape, one can conclude that he’s a total moron with no idea what to do with the ball.

Well, not exactly. I think one must actually look at the stats before saying something like this. Looking at the stats, one can conclude that there is something that Randolph does well. He’s been a good rebounder. They say that he’s been successful blocking shots.

If one only looks at those stats, they’re not really “looking at the stats” though. And if they look at his scoring efficiency, his turnovers, his lack of assists, one concludes that, well, he doesn’t shoot well, doesn’t pass the ball effectively and turns the ball over too much. There are other possible reasons for this other than him being a total moron with low BBIQ, but if you really look at what he’s done statistically, you don’t get the impression that he’s a total stud. You get the impression that he’s got some talent for doing some things real well, but in the total package, it hasn’t come together and he could well hurt himself with lousy shooting and decision making.

by jae on Apr 6, 2011 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

That may be true if one analyzed ALL of the stats

but that’s not what I heard back when Randolph was around. I kept hearing people blame Nellie for not playing Randolph, and they kept bringing up stats about how good or how much potential Randolph had back then.

I can’t remember what stats were brought up. It may have been rebounding, or blocked shots, or that he’s “on his way to a triple double”, or his early stats were comparable to some previous great player, and therefore, Nellie is an idiot for not playing him more.

It may be true that if one looked at the stats deep enough, there would be evidence of Randolph’s lack of BBIQ and decision making. And I presume there is, since I trust your stat analysis experience. But I saw Randolph’s spaz-like decision making early on from directly “watching the tape”. And back then, the tape evidence countered the opinions I heard about Randolph, and supported why Nellie yanked Randolph from the game.

by IQofaWarrior on Apr 6, 2011 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

The issue with Randolph was that the things he did well were things that tend to be stable and predict some success, things that if a player didn’t do well, it’s tough to improve much. The things he did not as well included some areas (scoring efficiency, turnovers) where players are more likely to improve. Do players ever become less spaz-like low bb-iq disappointments? I think some of them do.

The other issue was that by not playing Randolph, Nellie instead went with a small ball lineup that was getting killed, and lacked one area where it was clear Randolph could help. It was not like Randolph was sitting so that good players could play. It was that Randolph was sitting while Maggs was getting pt at PF, while Hunter was getting court time, while players who had no future with the team as an inside presence were out there and we were losing games.

by jae on Apr 6, 2011 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, but now that gets into the whole area of discussion about yanking players off the floor as a “teaching” technique for shaping their game. The coach has to send the message to the player that they need to earn their minutes on the floor by executing what the coach asks them to do. And if they keep making the same mistakes even though the coach tells them not to, then they don’t deserve to be on the floor, regardless of what they can contribute. Otherwise, what motivation would the player have to clean up and refine their game?

I’ve seen Nellie yank several players for reasons like this: Marco Belinelli, Brandan Wright, Anthony Randolph, and Andris Biedrins. This season, I’ve seen Keith Smart do that to Andris Biedrins and Stephen Curry. I’d be surprised if there aren’t other coaches who will yank a player for similar reasons, even if that player has skills that the team needs, because they want the player to clean up his game first.

by IQofaWarrior on Apr 6, 2011 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions

have any of these players been helped by yanking?

three of them are no longer with the team, and Biedrins appears on the way out

maybe we should not be yanking them and instead let them grow on the court the way that other teams do it

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 6, 2011 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions

The question should be: Did the players help themselves and worked on cleaning up their game when they got yanked? It’s not a guarantee that a player will learn and grow just from playing on the floor. They have to take self responsibility by putting work into improving or cleaning up their game, getting more aggressive, studying plays, etc.

Also, I heard on one of Nellie’s radio shows that he doesn’t yank a player just because it’s one mistake, but because it’s the 3rd or 4th time he’s seen that SAME mistake. He said the same thing when he talked about Biedrins. He left Biedrins alone for a few weeks to get back into the game, but that didn’t work, so he had to yank him to try to wake him up.

And besides, what kind of message do you think it sends to the players if you are the coach and you allow other players to play despite making the same mistakes over and over again? It sets the mindset and tone to the other players that they don’t have to raise their game or play sharply in order to get on the floor.

Fo example, if you were a player, and you saw Brandan Wright’s lackadaisical energy on the floor, and you saw that the coach ALLOWED that on the floor, what motivation would you have to hustle and play hard? If you saw that the coach allowed Biedrins to play scared and not try to score on the opponent, what motivation would you have to score?

I understand the idea of “letting them grow on the court”, but they have to show signs that they are growing and progressing, like Ekpe Udoh. Otherwise, if they keep doing the same things wrong, it’s back to the bench they go until they get it in their heads that they’re screwing up.

by IQofaWarrior on Apr 7, 2011 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

even Udoh wasn't really getting significant time

until Biedrins went out with injury

but I’m talking about young guys like Wall or Cousins or Monroe

rookies have to take their lumps on the court, I feel strongly about that

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions

Without watching Wall, Cousins, or Monroe and getting a feel for what kind of psychological mindset they have and whether they’ve shown signs of growth, I can’t compare them against BWright, AR, Biedrins, and Marco.

I do understand what you’re saying. But personally, I’m of the belief that EVERYTHING has to be earned, even minutes on the floor. You have to earn the right to be on the active list instead of the inactive list. You have to earn your right to be a bench player. You have to earn your right to be a starter. You have to earn your right to take your lumps against actual NBA opponents in a real game. Otherwise, it’s back to practice, back to the tape, and back to the homework you go.

by IQofaWarrior on Apr 7, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions

I actually agree with both of you. You have to earn it as a player, but the gray area to me is what, exactly, it means to earn it. John Wall earns PT simply by being the future of the franchise – by being that kind of talent. Unless he’s totally dogging it and just flat out not trying to become a good player, you play him over guys who might even be better than he is right now (and right now, I don’t think John Wall is very good from the perspective of how he helps his team win games). Basically, what a guy needs to do to “earn” time depends on the individual himself. It’s not the same for everyone, and the bar is subtantially lower for young players than old players.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions

right

my thought is that the guy “earned it” when you drafted or signed him

if they didn’t think you could play, they shouldn’t sign you in the first place

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions

I agree to some extent and think free agents should consider a teams intention before signing. Also there is a limited # of minutes available and some players get signed as backups in case of injury. Prospects get picked for their future potential. That ability might not be court ready for years if ever. Besides are the premadonna players not self entitled enough? Imagine players showing up to practice and games with their lawyers sounding like little league parents because they do not get enough PT. When you get hired and do not perform you get fired, they just get to sit on the bench. This is sports, let them compete for their job.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 7, 2011 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Fo example, if you were a player, and you saw Brandan Wright’s lackadaisical energy on the floor, and you saw that the coach ALLOWED that on the floor, what motivation would you have to hustle and play hard?

Well, I’m not convinced that BW was as lackadasical as he looked. THe flip side is the question “what message does it send if you bench a player who’s helping the team win in favor of a player who’s not helping the team win, because the worse player looks more energetic out on the court?”

Furthermore, a big part of the problem some of us had with Nellie – and now Smart – is the way that some players got a long leash, and others got a very short one.

eg, under Nellie, Stephen Jackson and Monta Ellis basically wouldn’t get yanked for anything – despite making plenty of mistakes. This year we’ve seen that continue, with a clear double standard applying to Monta and Curry, for example.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 7, 2011 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions

First, it depends on what criteria you are using to judge if a player is “helping the team win”. Is your criteria based on statistics? Scoring? Execution on the floor?

Secondly, it sends the message to the other players that you expect every player to play hard, hustle hard, and compete for everything. It sends the message that lackadaisicalness, timidness, tentativeness, hesitation, etc is not allowed on the floor. It sends the message that everyone has to raise their intensity to their max and get focused on the game, their teammates, and the opponent.

As for the short vs long leash, that’s 2 coaches with 2 different styles of coaching and player management who exhibit this short/long leash behavior with the players. That suggests to me that Nellie and Smart will not be the last coach we see who gives players short or long leashes.

As for why it’s done, I would speculate that those with the longer leashes have earned the coach’s trust as far as understanding the game plan, the plays being called, or other basic elements of the game. Those with the shorter leash haven’t done the things required to earn a longer leash, or they keep making the same mistakes that cut their leash short.

by IQofaWarrior on Apr 7, 2011 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Is your criteria based on statistics? Scoring? Execution on the floor?

The statistical argument for Wright is clear. The argument against him is that he looked lost on defense sometimes (although not to AR-like proportions) and that he looked lackadasical. ALthough it’s not clear if that last fact is a function of anything other than his default expression and round-shouldered posture.

It sends the message that lackadaisicalness, timidness, tentativeness, hesitation, etc is not allowed on the floor.

I’m not remotely sure that, for example, BW showed those things.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 7, 2011 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions

I remember doing a video analysis of BWright once earlier this season. For a guy that was supposed to be fighting for minutes, he didn’t show any “fire” or “energy” when he was on the floor, and I’m not referring to his expression or posture.

I remember writing about how on one particular play, he was setting a screen on an opponent, and the guard told him to switch sides, and he very slowly stepped around the opponent to switch sides on the screen. That made me scratch my head wondering why he switched so slowly, why he didn’t “hustle” to the new position. Lou and Gadz would have quickly jumped to the other side as soon as they were told to change sides. So I did see signs of BWright’s lack of energy in my own analysis.

Btw, I was speaking more in general terms with regards to lackadaisicalness, timidness, tentativeness, and hesitation. In the case of BWright, I would put him under “tentativeness” and “timidness”.

by IQofaWarrior on Apr 7, 2011 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Here's the issue:

Whether or not you get your hands up for a rebound – to pick one example – is less important than whether or not you actually get the rebound.

Now, to a certain extent, I agree with you. The tape SHOULD reveal mistakes players are making, and help the coaches to help the players improve.

But things like body balance, self control, whatever – if you’re looking at those things and they’re making you to decide to play Monta Ellis more and Stephen Curry less, then you’re using the tape wrong. Because the tape shows you HOW players accomplish what they accomplish. The stats show you what the players actually accomplish.

So when somebody says, “why are you playing the guys who aren’t getting it done?” “I look at the tape” is a lousy answer.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 5, 2011 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions 6 recs

He definitely should look at tape, though sometimes it seems like he uses it as an excuse and I suspect he doesn’t necessarily understand the stats.

by Missing Barry on Apr 6, 2011 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

RE

Nothing wrong with watching the tape (unless you’re a non-expert which Smart may be at tape analysis). Watching the tape is standard for all coaches, though it’s a question of how in-depth some teams get versus others.
However, it’s a problem if Keith Smart isn’t using any stats or quantitative analysis at all. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests he isn’t, given that he sits his best player on the bench too long, under utilizes his three best adjust plus/minus guys, and completely overplays two of his three most harmful players.

by BayMind on Apr 6, 2011 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions

From the article that Missing Barry posted, teams actually DO quantitatively track and have stats on defensive responsibilities, every defensive possession and if each player was playing proper man/zone/help defense, and the same on the offensive side. Many teams keep this info proprietary so the average fan has no idea.
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/john_schuhmann/01/22/spoelstra-qa/index.html#

by BayMind on Apr 6, 2011 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah – the biggest advantage a team has over us, since we’re capable of charting everything that happens on a play by play basis (Synergy does this, for instance), is that the team can also take into account what, exactly, the player is being asked to do/what his responsibilities are on a given play.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions

Warriors do game charting

we just don’t know how much

but Smart talked about charting Lee against Aldridge after the game the other night – said that Lee tends to match up well against him

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions

Well, there’s one piece of information in favor of Smart, at least.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions

Well, I would disagree with the notion that those things don’t show up in stats. Depends on the stats you’re talking about, but there are ways of measuring them – at the very least, they should show up in +/-. But yes, I do agree that both tape and statistics need to be used for sound analysis, and I think any team/coach not doing both (it is their job, after all), is being irresponsible. My mentality is something along the lines of “the stats tell you what happened, the tape tells you why it happened”….

by Missing Barry on Apr 6, 2011 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

things like effort, individual defensive rotations, man to man defense, zone defense responsibility, aggressiveness, fatigue, basketball intelligence, team chemistry

You can certainly quantify the score of a game. If those things you mention did not influence the relative score of a game, why do they matter?

by jae on Apr 6, 2011 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions

I love these "bash Keith Smart" posts

I mean, haven’t we beaten this dead horse enough? The guy was basically an interim coach anyways, a placeholder until they found a better coach of next season. Unless he went out and totally blew away expectations, he was going to get canned. It’s not as if we need more negativity about Keith Smart. Guess what – he’s going to be fired. So let’s lay off him, okay?

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 5, 2011 11:07 PM PDT reply actions

We're not as sure of his being fired as you

I’d love to believe that, then sure, i’d lay off the man. He’s a perfectly nice, good person. It’s not personal, it’s how much our new ownership gets this stuff that we’re concerned with.

by supersugarCrisp on Apr 5, 2011 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Here's an article from March

http://www.csnbayarea.com/03/17/11/bSteinmetzb-Smarts-relationship-with-Cur/landing_steinmetz_v3.html?blockID=442587&feedID=5986
Basically, a reporter is saying the same thing this post is saying, except three weeks earlier. He goes as far as to say that it is a “forgone conclusion” that Smart will be fired. Nobody expects him to say. I doubt Keith expects to stay. Simply put, assistant coaches who are suddenly promoted to head coaches are not expected to keep that position for long, especially if they underwhelm as a head coach. Earlier in the season, these posts would have been fine. Now, it just feels like pouring oil on the fire.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 5, 2011 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

it just feels like pouring oil on the fire

Maybe it was starting to go out and the BBQ wasn’t over yet?

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 7, 2011 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions

you based the horse to death, but you still need to poke him to make sure he stays dead

by Nemecide on Apr 6, 2011 5:35 AM PDT up reply actions

I'll happily stop beating him when he's actually dead (read: fired).

by Spider Jerusalem on Apr 6, 2011 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Some of us might hope that Smart saves his job by picking up a calculator or that the Owner/GM seek a statistically competent coach for his replacement.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 6, 2011 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Monta one of worst players?

im not sure exactly how effeciency is measured or what other stats determine a players worth in games, so educate me. i know for certain that Monta’s effeciency is higher than steph curry’s so where is the line drawn? Monta sits in effeciancy at 25th in the leauge, David lee at 21st and curry at 39th. im a monta lover but that doesnt go without saying he definitly takes and gives. again im not very educated on the matter pertaining to advanced stats i would just like an explanation to it.

by Desmond William Couch on Apr 6, 2011 7:04 AM PDT reply actions

i know for certain that Monta’s effeciency is higher than steph curry’s so where is the line drawn?

WHAT!?!

You have to consider BOTH sides of the court.

You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk

by LostHawkGSW on Apr 6, 2011 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 6, 2011 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions

lol

by Desmond William Couch on Apr 6, 2011 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions

lol

"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin

by HUNGRY HUNTER on Apr 6, 2011 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions

I’m assuming you’re referring to PER (player efficiency rating)? It’s not a particularly useful stat, to be honest. The stat the poster is using is adjusted +/-. +/- is a stat that looks at how a team does when a player is on the floor, and how a team does when the player is off the floor. If a team is 5 points better than an opponent per 100 possessions when Player X is on the floor, and 5 points worse than an opponent per 100 possessions when Player X is off the floor, Player X gets a plus/minus of +10. “Adjusted” +/- takes this one step farther by applying regression analysis to control for quality of teammates and opponents. Conceptually, it tells us exactly what we want to know – how a player helps his team win games. Realistically, there are some issues, mainly high variance in a single season sample, but with large enough samples it gives us pretty good data. We have two years now where Monta has been fairly close to the bottom of the league, and David Lee has been quite a bit below average, as well. This is pretty strong evidence, especially knowing how bad they are defensively, and looking at something like TS% (the measure of “efficiency” we all use around here), that neither of them are helping us win.

by Missing Barry on Apr 6, 2011 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

+/-

Considering then that Monta is on the floor 90% of the game on a bad team with no bench would then kill his +/- rating…Right? verses if he played a normal amount of minutes on a elite team with a strong bench?

by Only In Fairfax on Apr 6, 2011 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions

This is one of my many Smart complaints.

Monta’s outrages minutes are crazy—same with Nellie. Smarts excuse seems to be that we have no PG backup verses no SG backup which is kinda true..although I do remember Reggie playing some decent PG backup min in the past.

by Only In Fairfax on Apr 6, 2011 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions

Good question, but no. The adjusted plus/minus accounts for per-minute, not total minutes so Ellis or any other player on a losing team isn’t disproportionately punished (except for their own sucking), and also takes into account which teammates you are playing with as well as what players the other team has on the floor at the same time.
It’s pretty dramatic that the team plays SIGNIFICANTLY better when Ellis is not on the floor, compared to say Curry, Williams, Udoh, or Lin.
Ellis sure can fill up a highlight reel, but part of the reason he plays so much on this team, is because his game is tailored for subjective fans or coaches. Any of the dozen sophisticated NBA teams that actually use stats as GM’s or coaches would not touch him with a 10 foot pole.

by BayMind on Apr 6, 2011 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

his game is tailored for subjective fans or coaches

This is a great point but it also opens up the possibility that he could tailor his game to an objective (advanced stat focused) coach if given the opportunity. So a really clever GM or coach would touch him with a 10 foot pole if they thought his basketball value was underutilized and basketball value was above market value.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 6, 2011 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions

because his game is tailored for subjective fans or coaches

I would say “superificial” instead of “subjective.” Low BBall IQ for Ellis and his supporters. He needs to be around coaches and players that don’t give a crap about the show he puts on. Of course, perhaps it’s the fans that care about the show more than anyone, and he cares most about what they think. That would make sense judging how he plays with more energy and passion at home.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 7, 2011 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions

No.

by Missing Barry on Apr 6, 2011 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions

To further follow up on this question, you can look at adjusted plus/minus stats over the past 6+ years. There are players, like Garnett in Minnesota, or Ray Allen in Seattle, or many other players who played on completely horrible teams with bad records and often got blown out, and yet they still had positive adjusted plus/minus scores. Ellis and Law have two of the worst on the team, yet they kept getting too much playing time all year, suggesting Smart doesn’t look at these types of stats.

by BayMind on Apr 6, 2011 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions

suggesting Smart doesn’t look at these types of stats

I think there are a lot of coaches that would know to not keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Like I say, Smart is nuts.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 7, 2011 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions

No.

Having a strong bench would actually make Monta’s +/- worse – because remember it’s the difference between having him in and not, and if “having him not in” means the quality of players coming in are better, that would make the difference between Monta being on and off court less.

This defense is brought up a lot, but the simple truth is that you can look at other good players who play a lot of minutes on bad teams and you see that they don’t have similarly horrid +/-’s. For example KG in some of the bad Minny years.

There are lots of examples of players having a good +/- on a bad team.

To the extent that playing too many minutes are hurting Monta’s +/-, it’s because he is getting tired and peforming below his peak ability. I absolutely, positively believe that this negatively impacts his stats – although how much would be hard to judge. But that’s an impact based on HIS performance, not based on the quality of the team.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 6, 2011 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Considering then that Monta is on the floor 90% of the game on a bad team with no bench would then kill his +/- rating…Right? verses if he played a normal amount of minutes on a elite team with a strong bench?

Not necessarily.

The “Monta played all the time on a bad team” argument got used a lot last year, but at the end of the season, he didn’t play 90% of the minutes. He played somewhere around 65% of the minutes, meaning that there was a rather large sample (including whole games) and quite a bit of non-garbage time where the team played better without him.

This year he is playing ~85% of the minutes, but the same story is being told as it was last year when there was a better sample. And the “big minutes on a bad team” doesn’t seem to drag down Dorell in the same way. Yes, Monta plays more minutes than Dorell, but Dorell plays big minutes, and the team is better with him on the court than without. Simply assigning it to a ‘bad team with no bench’ wouldn’t account for Monta looking bad, but Dorell not looking so bad.

by jae on Apr 6, 2011 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Dorell plays big minutes, and the team is better with him on the court than without

This affirms my intuition about him. I just love his game, other than the fact that his FG% could definitely be better. Great guy to have.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 7, 2011 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions

I love Dorell, just think he shoots a bit too much. Mostly prefer to see him as a spot up shooter. He does so many other things, and we already have other capable offensive players, that we really don’t need him to take on a very big role offensively.

by Missing Barry on Apr 8, 2011 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions

No, but we certainly can’t complain about his 3 pt FG%. We keep getting him open, he’ll keep knockin’ them down. Huge help on offense in that respect.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 11, 2011 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Oh definitely, he should take every good look set shot he gets at 3. I’d just prefer he try to create for himself less.

by Missing Barry on Apr 12, 2011 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions

are you at all worried about the Dubs turning into a team that just shoots too many jump shots?

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Apr 12, 2011 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Hmmm. Well, to some degree, sure. On the other hand, we’re the second best 3 point shooting team in the league at 39% (that’s a very nice 58.5% TS%), and it would open things up a bit more for more Curry/Lee pick and rolls.

by Missing Barry on Apr 12, 2011 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions

Curry and Lee pick and roll

seriously, it is hard to imagine what this team could play like if they ever figured out how to reliably execute this!

It seems like such a natural fit, and would really open up so many other aspects of the game (especially with Lee’s passing, I could see all sorts of “hockey assists” coming out of these plays)

I was just thinking though, that DWright’s little pump fake and drive move is valuable, just to keep the other team worried about him driving (even a little worried)

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Apr 12, 2011 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions

i know for certain that Monta’s effeciency is higher than steph curry’s so where is the line drawn?

You might want to re-examine what you think you know for certain.

(I’m not sure what stat you are using to get those numbers, perhaps PER? PER is a very mis-named stat because it actually have very little to do with efficiency. When most people talk about efficiency, they’re talking about some form of points per shot. The most popular of those is TS%, which is a field goal percentage which accounts for both 3-pt shots and FTs).

PER, on the other hand, primarily rewards usage, which has nothing to do with efficiency.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 6, 2011 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

that is why i ask

im looking at the difference between player effeciency rating and effeciancy by nba.com standards and im starting to see what your talking about

by Desmond William Couch on Apr 6, 2011 7:28 AM PDT reply actions

Player Efficiency Rating and “NBA Efficiency” are poorly titled. They do not reflect true efficiency in terms of points scored per possession. Both have demonstrated flaws that reward decisively in-efficient play. But given their names, I can see how someone might be confused.

by jae on Apr 6, 2011 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions

ok i found it

Curry 19.12 Monta 18.92 thats PER both sides of the court, the difference is miniscule. they both play terrible defense. difference is, monta has won games with buzzer beaters, sent us to OT, top 3 in steals (at least some type of Defensive stat) and outscores by a good margin. recently, monta has been dishing the ball out for double assist games and has slowly but surely realized how to flow better with the team (includes less TOs). im sure that a big reason to this is smarts failure to utilize curry to his potential but my point is that people are not giving exact numbers but just saying curry is ahead.

by Desmond William Couch on Apr 6, 2011 7:41 AM PDT reply actions

Just addressed this above, feel free to respond with any more questions you have. Reply button helps.

by Missing Barry on Apr 6, 2011 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions

@MissingBarry, your response to Desmond got pushed up by a lot of replies in between, so I brought it back down here
-——————————
I’m assuming you’re referring to PER (player efficiency rating)? It’s not a particularly useful stat, to be honest. The stat the poster is using is adjusted +/-. +/- is a stat that looks at how a team does when a player is on the floor, and how a team does when the player is off the floor. If a team is 5 points better than an opponent per 100 possessions when Player X is on the floor, and 5 points worse than an opponent per 100 possessions when Player X is off the floor, Player X gets a plus/minus of +10. "Adjusted" +/- takes this one step farther by applying regression analysis to control for quality of teammates and opponents. Conceptually, it tells us exactly what we want to know – how a player helps his team win games. Realistically, there are some issues, mainly high variance in a single season sample, but with large enough samples it gives us pretty good data. We have two years now where Monta has been fairly close to the bottom of the league, and David Lee has been quite a bit below average, as well. This is pretty strong evidence, especially knowing how bad they are defensively, and looking at something like TS% (the measure of "efficiency" we all use around here), that neither of them are helping us win.

by BayMind on Apr 6, 2011 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Ok, to make this as simple an issue as possible

It seems as though our new owners love advanced stats and they want the Warriors to be a top team in using and analysing advanced stats in the decision making process.
If Smart does not share that philosophy (and is not winning), he will not be the head coach of our team in the long term.
Period. End of story.

by WestCoastWarrior on Apr 6, 2011 8:54 AM PDT reply actions

It seems as though our new owners love advanced stats and they want the Warriors to be a top team in using and analysing advanced stats in the decision making process.

I’m hoping the reason Smart’s rotations have improved is due to pressure from over his head. That would bode well for the future.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 7, 2011 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions

Smart is terrible whether you use stats, advanced stats, or "the tape"

Nice guy but the degree of his coaching ineptitude really makes you wonder if he was really learning anything while on the sidelines as an assistant coach for so many seasons.

Law > Curry to close out games just isn’t sane by any metric. Even if by some miracle Law is looking better in that one individual game, you need to think of the future and Curry’s long-term development.

No Pick & Roll even though the highest paid player on this roster (for this season & unfortunately many more seasons in the future) thrived in Pick & Roll from his previous team.

Doesn’t reign in his players for taking terrible shot selection when there’s plenty of time on the clock. I understand this team is run & gun …. but long contested fadeaway shots with 10+ seconds on the clock should result in the type of long benching Smart loves to give Curry.

The only point in your post I’ll dispute is how Biedrins is one of the two most harmful players on this team. With Biedrins salary and how terrible this team defensively rebounds & plays post-offense ….. Biedrins must have those minutes. Even if Biedrins is stinking up the joint you have to hope he can pick it up a little bit just to get some trade value.

It’s painful but building up players for trade value can be even more important than winning games sometimes.

by srsrs on Apr 6, 2011 10:17 AM PDT reply actions

A Different Angle

To blame Monta for the majority of problems affecting the Warriors’ record this year is a little illogical. Consider this:

- Most teams preparing to play the Warriors consider Monta their number one problem to deffend, because of his quickness, his attacking the hoop and his shooting from anywhere on the court.

- Monta is among the leading scorers in the league, who cares about efficiency?

- Monta has demostrated all year that he is the most committed player on the team to try to turn this franchise into a winning one.

- The statistical difference between him and Curry does not make it worth applying it to why the Warriors have the present record.

- Just about any team on the league would love to have Monta on their roster.

- Even if he was pretty bad, it is not his fault he plays long minutes, that is a coaching decision.

- Lately, he has improved his passing, his assisting and his pick and roll skills.

- To try to turn one player against another on the same team is counter productive, him and Curry are considered the best back court duo in the league in terms of offensive production.

- Curry and Monta have been getting along just fine all year, there is good chemistry between the two. I wonder if they laugh when they read all these blog hate talk.

IMHO, coaching bears the main responsibility for the Warriors’ record this year, for reasons that I do not want to list now. I feel a coaching revamping, among other things, is needed in order to give the Warriors a realistic chance to make it to the playoffs next year.

by Roan on Apr 6, 2011 1:05 PM PDT reply actions

Most teams preparing to play the Warriors consider Monta their number one problem to deffend, because of his quickness, his attacking the hoop and his shooting from anywhere on the court.

That just isn’t true. Teams don’t gameplan in the regular season. There isn’t enough practice time to scheme around specific opponents.

Monta is among the leading scorers in the league, who cares about efficiency?

People who like to win? Scoring efficiency is the most important factor in winning (and losing) games.

Monta has demostrated all year that he is the most committed player on the team to try to turn this franchise into a winning one.

Sure. He’s said the right things, had a pretty good attitude, and his son is cute. Unfortunately he hasn’t gotten any better with his shot selection and still can’t play defense very well.

The statistical difference between him and Curry does not make it worth applying it to why the Warriors have the present record.

Que?

Just about any team on the league would love to have Monta on their roster

Hopefully we’ll find this out pretty soon.

Even if he was pretty bad, it is not his fault he plays long minutes, that is a coaching decision.

No argument here. I’m pretty sure everyone blames Smart for how much Monta is on the floor.

Lately, he has improved his passing, his assisting and his pick and roll skills.

Has he? Or has he just had a string of a couple games where his assist totals are shiny? Monta is known for amazing streaks that stick in people’s brains and gloss over the 9-30 nights (sometimes these events happen simultaneously).

To try to turn one player against another on the same team is counter productive, him and Curry are considered the best back court duo in the league in terms of offensive production.

They’re considered the best backcourt in terms of PPG. Mostly because they’re the backcourt that has the highest combined PPG. No one is trying to turn one player against another, mainly because none of us has coercive power over the mind of Monta or Curry. At least I think no one does.

Curry and Monta have been getting along just fine all year, there is good chemistry between the two. I wonder if they laugh when they read all these blog hate talk.

I doubt they get together with a box of dunkaroos and trawl GSoM for humor. But if this is the best we can expect with good chemistry, then maybe we should try a different equation? :rimshot:

IMHO, coaching bears the main responsibility for the Warriors’ record this year, for reasons that I do not want to list now. I feel a coaching revamping, among other things, is needed in order to give the Warriors a realistic chance to make it to the playoffs next year.

I agree. One of those other things is getting rid of the players that aren’t very good and replacing them with ones that are better.

by Spider Jerusalem on Apr 6, 2011 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions

To Spider Jerusalem

Well, I guess you have an answer for every comment in my blog, and I respect them. However, for better or for worse, I think that the organization does not have any plans to get rid of Monta, Curry, Lee and D. Wright any time soon. Just get used to see this core of players in Warriors uniforms for the next 2 – 3 years.

by Roan on Apr 6, 2011 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions

I think that the organization does not have any plans to get rid of Monta, Curry, Lee and D. Wright any time soon

They might not have plans, but I think they’d like to move at least a couple of these guys. If they’re looking at advanced stats, they will be quite anxious to make some serious changes. If not, the Dubs will continue to have losing records.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 7, 2011 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions

No one is blaming Monta. The stats show that Monta is being disproportionately used way too much, and that when he plays he is one of the most harmful players on the team in terms of winning. It isn’t his fault. The point of this thread is to illustrate how Keith Smart is completely mis-using his players, and presenting quantitative evidence that suggests he is not using stats or does not understand stats to help him make decisions.

by BayMind on Apr 6, 2011 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Injuries must be considered here...

     This may, or may not, have anything to do with coach Smart….you have to consider that Udoh and Curry started the season with injury issues. He may be limiting their minutes in an effort to see them through the season as healthily as possible without hurting their development. In a losing season like this, giving them 5 more minutes per game is not going to be a big deal. Getting them hurt could crush us for years to come.
     Regarding Monta, what is Smart going to do, not play the big shot on his team?! Get real. The team has not decided whether to keep Monta or not, so Smart, just like any other coach in the NBA, is going to keep Monta on the floor and let him lead whether he leads us in the right direction or not.
        As for Jeremy Lin, he does some good things, but if he played more minutes – and at more critical times – he would increase his chances for mistakes, and their impact would be more profound. He is playing the correct amount of minutes for someone of his talent/experience level. I think the stats are a bit off. If Lin was that good in practice Lacob or Guber would be telling Smart to play him. If Lin doesnt play more minutes next year, we will have a reason to really question the situation.

by warriorsvictim on Apr 6, 2011 2:55 PM PDT reply actions

Jeremy Lin

Jeremy Lin has very good reports from college, Summer League and D League playing. Could we have a dark horse in disguise but who has not really been given a more ample chance to show his playing value in the NBA because Warriors coaching has not played him more minutes due to the coaching neglencies addressed in the main subject of this blog?

by Roan on Apr 6, 2011 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

I think if he gets a jump shot, he’s going to be starting point guard material. He’s got good size for a PG, tenacious defense, solid ability to penetrate and seems to be a team player with winning in mind. He may be a scoring PG, but he could still be effective.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 7, 2011 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Regarding Monta, what is Smart going to do, not play the big shot on his team?! Get real.

The league is full of “big shots”. None of them play as many minutes as Monta does.

by jae on Apr 6, 2011 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions

The only way to know what we have in Jeremy Lin, is to give him 15+ minutes a game. The Warriors are already out of the playoff race, there are only a half dozen games left, Acie Law is done for the season, and Ellis plays too much as it is. Multiple metrics show that Lin could be a huge sleeper, and the Warriors need to find out before the season if over before some smart team like the Spurs, Mavericks, Heat, Lakers, or Celtics snag him when he isn’t tied to a contract with us. There is pretty much ZERO reason to keep Lin sitting on the bench right now, except for the fact that Keith Smart doesn’t think Lin is deserving of a NBA job (an irrational bias), and this may or may not be related to the fact that Keith Smart himself only played in the NBA for 2 games and a total of 12 minutes.

by BayMind on Apr 6, 2011 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions

hahahahahahaha

Lin could be a huge sleeper… what are you saying? Do you understand this is the same guy shooting .393 from the field, and has no jumper to speak of? That most of his stats have come from playing at the end of games, usually against weaker units when the outcome has already been decided? He had his “best” game against the the Lakers… and the Lakers won 117-89. What stats are you talking about?

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 6, 2011 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Interesting, I don’t think we’ve been watching the same games. In the recent Maverick’s upset win, I suggest you look at the play by play. Lin enters the game with the Warriors down 10 points. 6 minutes and a half minutes later when Lin leaves, the team is only down 1 and has momentum. This was not in garbage time. There are many many cases of this I can bring up, though I suspect you aren’t interested in facts that may contradict your pre-conceived ideas. The shooting percentage is low, yes, however if you’re fair you would agree it’s difficult to play when the coach is constantly yanking you and giving you only a few minutes here and there. Lin’s FG% after the all star break has been significantly better though.

by BayMind on Apr 6, 2011 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Because obviously small sample sizes are great for making future predictions

He played in 21 games Pre-All Star. he’s played in 5 games post All Star.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 6, 2011 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions

How, in fact, can we increase the sample size without playing him?

That 39.3% shooting comes from that very same sample size, you know.
If Coach Smart gives him minutes, we’ll see if he flops like you think or exceeds your expectations.

by Fuu on Apr 6, 2011 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Fine, whatever

actions speak louder than words, after all. Let’s see how he plays when he gets big minutes against the starting lineups in the NBA.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions

That’s what we’re saying too. Give Lin more playing time since his current metrics suggest he could be valuable. Plus, the warriors are already out of the playoff race. Plus, Acie Law is out for the season. Really, there is no good reason to keep sitting him on the bench.
It isn’t his fault that he’s played fewer games after the all star break, but if you look at his 20 games in the D-league, he shot 48%FG and 39%3-PT, so it’s not like he can’t shoot. Most players will admit it’s difficult to shoot when your coach is only putting you in there briefly, like Keith Smart does. Still, even in limited playing time (and not garbage time), Lin’s last 5 games after the all star break have shown some ridiculously good adjusted plus/minus stats, not to mention win shares and PER significantly higher than Law’s.

by BayMind on Apr 7, 2011 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions

Ok

Let Lin play, and we’ll see who analyzed Lin correctly using the stats.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions

You're definitely missing the point here.

Honestly, most of us couldn’t care less about the “I told you so” which may come at the end of this argument. We simply want to see Jeremy Lin have the chance to play and produce in the NBA for the Golden State Warriors, since we don’t believe he’s had a fair opportunity yet.

by Fuu on Apr 7, 2011 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Also, Baymind, I take issue with how you cite adjusted plus/minus as some sort of amazing stat

It’s not. It has a lot of issues. There are lots of problems with adjusted plus minus. I don’t want to right now, but if you want, I’ll give you a full rebuttal of why adjusted plus/minus is not a good way to identify under-utilized players.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 6, 2011 7:18 PM PDT reply actions

I would love to hear your “rebuttal” of why adjusted plus/minus is not a good way to identify under-utilized players, especially if you can comment on the two articles I linked explaining why it WAS a valuable statistic, and even useful for players with limited playing time.

by BayMind on Apr 6, 2011 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions

My rebuttal against the two articles

First of all, the New York Times article that you linked to did not say that it was a valuable statistic. Here’s a quote:

There are many other examples where the individual plus/minus stats clash with conventional wisdom about a player. How seriously should we take those counter-intuitive stats?

The article isn’t about how useful the stat is. It’s asking the readers whether or not these stats accurately reflect the actual play of the players. It’s not arguing that adjusted plus/minus is a good stat. It’s asking the readers whether they think it is a good stat.

The other article you referenced was done by the creator of the adjusted plus-minus. In another article (the link is below), he talks about the problems with adjusted plus-minus. Here’s some quotes

It is important to note that the adjusted +/- rating is not a "holy grail" statistic that perfectly captures each player’s overall value. The ratings reported here are limited by a number of factors. First, because they are estimates calculated using a complex statistical model, such ratings tend to be somewhat "noisy" with substantial estimation error unless a very large sample of games is used. In practice, even a full NBA season does not provide an adequate sample size to fully eliminate this issue. The use of only half a season’s worth of data exacerbates the problem, as indicated by the relatively high standard errors presented below.

adjusted +/- ratings can help NBA teams, their fans, and the media identify hidden gems, but the results must be one piece of a broader assessment of the player.

Yeah, that’s right. The creator of the plus/minus says that it is flawed, especially for players who had not have lots of playing time (like Jeremy Lin). Even a full NBA season does not eliminate the error in the analysis. He obviously didn’t mean to use it as a predictive stat for minimally used players, unlike what you are saying in your post.
http://www.82games.com/barzilai2.htm
This is only half of my rebuttal

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 6, 2011 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

It’s interesting that a large part of your argument is in demanding statistical significant requiring huge sample sizes before you’ll accept what multiple different quant numbers are all saying, yet seem much more accepting of vague, subjecting methods related to “watching the tape”.
What aspect of the original post related to playing time for multiple players are you objecting to? Is it that the numbers say Ellis and Law are played too much? Or that Curry, Williams, Udoh, and Lin are being underplayed? I’m trying to understand what aspect of the stats informing playing time that you have a problem with.

by BayMind on Apr 7, 2011 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions

Second Half of the rebuttal

Some stats people have also done some work on it (starts at page 11)
http://jse.sagepub.com/content/11/1/29.full.pdf+html
They find that the standard error is still significant even if you have

five years of data

. Meaning that even if you have 5 years worth of data, adjusted plus/minus still is not statistically significant and cannot be used as a real “stat.” Also, here’s what might be the most important part of the article:

Looking at 239 players who played in both 2007-08 and 2008-09, we see that only 7% of a player’s adjusted plus–minus in the latter year is explained by what he did in the prior campaign. So it does not appear that the adjusted plus–minus results provide much information about a player’s future performance.

That’s right. Here’s a statistical takedown of the plus/minus. It’s can’t predict future performance. The data doesn’t lie.
Here’s the full text if you can’t access the pdf (the title is “Working in the Land of the Metricians” if you want to Google it)

Again, the problem with plus–minus is that a player’s teammates can affect his
measure. Consequently, as a player’s teammates change, a player will see his
plus-minus value fluctuate. To combat this problem, people have introduced
adjusted plus–minus. The approach involves using a regression that is designed
to control for the impact of a player’s teammates on his plus–minus value.21
Although in theory the quality of teammates has been controlled, two issues
suggest otherwise.
First is the issue of statistical significance. Table 2 presents the adjusted plus–
minus results for the 10 players who logged at least 1,000 min for the LA Lakers
in 2008-09. For only two players—Lamar Odom and Jordan Farmer—do we see a
coefficient that is at least twice the value of the standard error. Only one other
player—Derek Fisher—has a coefficient that is 1.5 times the value of the standard
error. In sum, by traditional measures of statistical significance, most players on the
Lakers—according to this metric—did not have a statistically significant impact on
team outcomes in 2008-09.
What we see for the Lakers is what we tend to see for all players. Looking at 666
player observations from the 2007-08 and 2008-09 seasons, we find that only 10.2%
of players evaluated had an adjusted plus–minus coefficient that was at least twice
the value of the corresponding standard error. And only 20.4% of coefficients were
at least 1.5 times the value of the standard errors. In sum, for most players, it appears
the results are not statistically significant.
The authors of this method have argued that increasing the amount of data results
in smaller standard errors. And that is true. Coefficients were estimated for 292 players
who played in both 2007-08 and 2008-09. For this data set, 14.7% of players had
a coefficient that was twice the value of a standard error. Looking at the 1.5 threshold,
we find that 26.0% of coefficients surpass this mark.
An even greater gain is seen if 5 years of player data are examined. Estimating a
coefficient for 373 players who played for five seasons, we see that 38.9% of coefficients
are at least twice the value of the standard error. And 50.4% surpass the 1.5
threshold. Although more data do increase the level of statistical significance, it is
still the case that most players—even when 5 years of data are used—are not found
by this method to have a statistically significant impact on outcomes.
The issue of statistical significance is not the only problem with adjusted plus–
minus. The issue of consistency over time—which we discussed with respect to the
unadjusted plus–minus metric—remains a problem. Looking at 239 players who
played in both 2007-08 and 2008-09, we see that only 7% of a player’s adjusted
plus–minus in the latter year is explained by what he did in the prior campaign.
So it does not appear that the adjusted plus–minus results provide much information
about a player’s future performance.

(unfortunately I can’t post the table)

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 6, 2011 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Try this link

http://www.suu.edu/faculty/berri/BerriBradbury2010.pdf

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 6, 2011 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Ugh, I have to say, that paper makes me cringe. I think you pulled out some appropriate things from it for this conversation, I just hate the overall theme of the paper itself. The entire point is to try to belittle people doing research outside of the academic world, dismiss the validity of their work, and establish that the only possible way to do valid research is this one method they do it (peer reviewed journals).

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

I don't trust professors from Southern Utah named Berri

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions

Professors in general are a shifty bunch. We shouldn’t trust any of them!

by jae on Apr 7, 2011 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions

so I've heard

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions

I hear the same about Southern Utes!

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions

Thanks for providing this. It is interesting. Adjusted +/- definitely has noise issues, though I’m less convinced the idea that it can’t predict the future is a legitimate criticism. In the context of this conversation, it definitely is (if we’re trying to justify more PT for someone – in essence, saying that more PT in the future will allow them to help the team more), but in the context of how useful adjusted plus/minus is, I’m less sure that not being very predictive (especially when using small samples) is that bad of a thing. We know that the role a player is in matters, and matters a lot. If a players role and how he is used changes often, a measure of his past value may still be accurate while not being predictive. If that’s the case, we just have to remember to use it properly – as a measure of past value, rather than a good predictor of future value.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

Also, changes in player talent may be a big factor here, especially with such a noisy metric that takes multiple years of data to start giving you a solid idea of a guys performance.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

And here's some one year adjusted plus/minuses for you to chew on (from basketballvalue)

Vlad Rad is a +8.24
John Wall is a -9.78 on the Wizards
David West is a -1.16 on the Hornets
Tyreke Evans is a -2.11 on the Kings
Kevin Martin is a -4.23 on the Rockets
Rajon Rondo is a -3.56 on the Celtics
So obviously Keith Smart should play Vlad Rad more minutes, while everyone else I listed should play less minutes.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 6, 2011 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions

There's also a reason we use a 2 year sample.'

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 6, 2011 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions

Okay then here's some two year adjusted plus minuses

Vlad Rad: +2.72
David West: -3.32
Tyreke Evans: -2.86
Rajon Rondo: -0.92
Kevin Martin: -3.00
Luis Scola: -1.41
Joakim Noah: -3.47
Wesley Matthews: -5.21
So obviously we should play Vlad Rad more, and these other players less

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 6, 2011 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions

ummm better stretch that to 3 years then haha

go rowand

by lincypoo i wuv u on Apr 6, 2011 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Why don't we just go back 10 years, then? or 20?

My point is proven

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 6, 2011 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions

It's really not.

The larger the sample, the more accurate the result will be.

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 6, 2011 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Look at my rebuttal

The adjusted plus/minus isn’t statistically significant even with five years of data.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 6, 2011 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Really?

Take a look at the RAPM 4 year. You’ll notice it’s very good.

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 7, 2011 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

I think you're sensationalizing the flaws of the metric.

Not meant to be used as a predictive measurement for under-utilized players? Fine. I accept. Let’s throw out for now the results achieved by Lin, Udoh, Williams, et al.
Yet, the horrendous adjusted +/- of Ellis, Lee, and Biedrins (sorry, I’m feeling lethargic and don’t want to look them up…) were the results of normal or excessive utilization. As stated, the larger the sample size, the higher the accuracy.
So, by extension, wouldn’t the Warriors, a non-contending team, be wise to test out its possible commodities rather than stick with the ones proven to be bad?
Additionally, those players you listed could stand to play fewer minutes. You make it seem as if they perform above-average at all times while on the court, while most definitely they have their fallibilities. I’m sure you know that, but you’re misrepresenting yourself.

by Fuu on Apr 6, 2011 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Look at my rebuttal above

my point is that the adjusted plus/minus is not a good analysis of players. If you look at the article I cited, it failed to be statistically significant even when given a 5 year sample (is that large enough for you?). For comparison, the average NBA career is 4.71 years. If you want to say Ellis should play less, uses stats other than the adjusted plus/minus. (BTW, I actually do believe that Ellis should be playing less).

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 6, 2011 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions

doubleteapot, I respect a solid counter viewpoint, so please answer me these two questions:
1. You didn’t totally dismiss the use of stats or quantitative analysis, to help inform team decisions. I previously cited win shares, PER, adjusted plus minus, and floor time units in the article above. If you think all of these are garbage, then WHICH stats would you use? Then, use your stat to look at the roster and tell me if it says something completely different. It likely won’t.
2. Dorrell Wright plays practically as many heavy minutes as Monta Ellis does on the team, and yet almost all the exact same stats we used, showed that Wright is much less harmful to the team when he is on the court compared to Ellis. It even breaks it down by offensive and defensive adjusted plus minus.

by BayMind on Apr 7, 2011 4:54 AM PDT up reply actions

No I like to use stats

what I have a problem with is this quote

The NY Times covered the validity of adjusted plus/minus before even for players with limited playing time, and noted how reliable the stat has been over the past few years in helping clever teams identify under-utilized players languishing on other teams.

I just don’t believe that adjusted plus/minus has been as “reliable” as you make it out to be.
I’m fine with using wins share, etc. I use them too, actually, But I don’t like to use adjusted plus/minus.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions

Do you like the concept behind plus/minus? Have any other reasons/evidence against it?

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions

I've never felt that plus/minus was truly a good indicator of a player

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions

Why not? From a conceptual standpoint, it tells us exactly what we want to know, right? How the player affects his team and his opponents performance.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Well one of the problems is that if a bad player is always on the court with a good player

then his plus/minus will be biased
2.) If the player has terrible, terrible people who are replacing him, then his plus/minus will also be biased. For example, if a team is +6 with the player on the court, but -12 with him off the court, it may not be just due to his skill, but the lack of skill of his substitutes.
This is why I don’t like regular plus/minus.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions

Conceptually, the “adjusted” plus minus should deal with the problem of bad backups and bad teammates. In practice, I’m not sure that it works all that well. It has some clear problems when sets of players play almost all their minutes together.

And of course there are different “adjustments”, based on the time one looks over and how much one weights recent play vs play quite some time in the past.

by jae on Apr 7, 2011 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions

Oh definitely, but that’s why there’s adjusted +/-!

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions

I have my arguments against adjusted plus/minus earlier
Also, another problem with adjusted plus/minus is that it says nothing about a player’s skills, or anything else he does. Which is why GMs should not be using plus/minus to trade for players. Because the player might thrive in one system, but fail in another. It’s not good for comparing players between teams.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions

Well, I definitely agree it’s not the end all be all. Performance comes in a context, and the GM has to understand that context. That said, I still think it can be useful for comparing players across teams. It’s just necessary to keep in mind the role the players production came in. You definitely can’t assume it will translate to a different role.

Actually, for myself, my biggest concern is something along the lines jae pointed out:

It has some clear problems when sets of players play almost all their minutes together.

I have my suspicions that it may have some correlation/independance issues. The other obviously big issue is noise. Needs large sample size, which poses some problems in itself. Conceptually, I think it’s exactly what I want to know, practically, of course, it’s not perfect.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions

The players all being on the court together was an issue with the Pistons a few years ago. Ben Wallace, Rasheed, Hamilton, Prince and Billups played a large part of their minutes together, and most of their minutes were good. The ‘adjustment’ then relies on a very small number of minutes where one is subbed out to adjust the other 4 to figure out the isolated component of the player. In such a case it means that a majority of a player’s minutes may have very, very little influence on his overall outcome. The sample size doesn’t grow with them playing together. It grows with one or more of them sitting.

by jae on Apr 7, 2011 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, I definitely think that’s a legitimate concern.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions

Would you agree that a statistics motivated coach should develop a rotation that avoids inhibiting a clean statistical analysis? A least early in the season so that later in the season and in the playoffs, the talent could be maximized. I assume that rotation would include playing more combinations and limiting starter minutes.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 7, 2011 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Eh, not so sure about that. I think they should be trying to play guys in rotations that make sense from a fit standpoint and put them in roles that maxmize their abilities, but I’m not sure they need to be doing it in a way where the stats will be most useful after a season of play. A good coach should be able to see what the stats say long before the stats become useful, anyways.

by Missing Barry on Apr 8, 2011 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions

Well one of the problems is that if a bad player is always on the court with a good player

The question is simply this:

How often does this actually happen?

If a really good player and a really bad player played exactly the same minutes, it would be impossible for plus-minus to differentiate them.

That’s a theoretical problem with the stat, but in practical terms it’s really a non-issue.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 7, 2011 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions

Well, I wouldn’t say it’s a total non-issue, but I wouldn’t say it’s a huge issue, either. There are varying degrees of how much of a problem it is based on the sample size of the time spent not playing together, along the lines of what jae is talking about.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions

This is true. Conceptually, it’s fine. Practically, it may be running the risk of too many variables beyond the player’s influence affecting a single metric.

by jae on Apr 7, 2011 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions

Also one thing we are forgetting

it that the plus/minus stat was stolen from hockey in the first place.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions

Are we supposed to be suspicious of the measure because hockey had it first? I mean I know that Canadians are a shifty, suspicious bunch, but…

by jae on Apr 7, 2011 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions

No I just felt like saying it

just to remind people that the plus/minus stat was created for hockey, not basketball

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions

What does this even mean? Both sports require high levels of teamwork and chemistry to succeed. Adjusted plus minus may not be relevant for baseball, but it’s more relevant for basketball than for hockey because there are so much fewer goals in hockey to give better information.

by BayMind on Apr 7, 2011 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions

+/- is relevant to baseball, too! Tango has done some stuff with it. It’s just harder in baseball because you don’t really get nearly the same kinds of substitutions that allow you to do good +/- comps.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions

Fair enough. So aside from your beef with adjusted plus minus, which stat would you use then, besides win share? Because win share still says similar things about Curry, Ellis, Williams, Udoh, Law, and Lin… I just want to make sure we’re on the same page that it doesn’t appear that Smart is using quantitative analysis in his coaching decisions.

Also, I forgot to add a question mark to my earlier 2nd question, but what I meant to ask was how do you account for the fact that Dorrell Wright’s metrics look much better than Ellis’, even he also plays a ton of minutes on a losing team (the same team) that gets blown out a lot?

by BayMind on Apr 7, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions

I use a lot of stats

But I’m too lazy to type them all up. I do want Keith Smart to get fired, though.
As for Dorell’s stats: which stats are you talking about? Adjusted plus minus? Offensive rating? Dorell’s stats look better because he’s not the ballhandler, and is more of a catch-and-shoot guy. I’ll be able to answer more clearly when you talk about the specific stats.
Also, I’m studying for a midterm, so I really want to make this quick.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions

On second thought, I'll stop arguing

I really don’t have time. See you.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions

One thought I had when reading over some of the stuff Berri is saying:

0, in adjusted +/- terms, represents an average performance. If a guy puts up a coefficient of 0, he is average. Of course, a coefficient of 0 cannot be statistically significant from 0, no matter how large your dataset. I would suspect the population of NBA players represents some sort of common looking distribution – something like a t-test distribution, though it might be skewed in a 5 year sample because the far left side players will be dropping out of the sample because they don’t last in the NBA. Anyways, the point I’m getting at – the majority of players probably won’t be that different from 0 from a “true talent level” standpoint, so with any standard error, you’re going to see a lot of them not be different from 0 from a statistically significant standpoint. The ones that will are the really good players, and really bad players, which represents the minority of players in the NBA. I’m not sure what Berri’s saying is all that unexpected, or undermines the validity of the metric. Thoughts?

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions

Thinking about it a little more, what I’d prefer to see reported is the standard error for a given # of minutes, rather than the proportion of players that are different from 0 at a statistically significant level. So basically give us an idea of what confidence interval we’re looking at in a given sample size – is it plus/minus 5, 10? 1, 2? I think that’s useful information. I’m not really sure what Berri is giving us, and his argument to dismiss the numbers, are.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions

I’m not sure what Berri’s saying is all that unexpected, or undermines the validity of the metric.

To be honest, I don’t think Berri is all that good a statistician. Because it illustrates my point, let me quote from an e-mail exchange I had with him a few months back…

DB:

I sense this is going to waste my time, but I thought I would ask…. Have you actually taught econometrics?

I have taught it more than once, and I can assure you that it is perfectly legitimate to refer to elasticities in evaluating the economic significance of an coefficient. Elasticities are discussed in detail in the introductory econometrics book by AH Studenmund. And I have presented elasticities in published research. Furthermore, elasticities are discussed in both microeconomics and Managerial Economics (classes I teach at the undergraduate and graduate level).

When Guy starts arguing that I should be “embarrassed” in citing a method that is commonly used in economics and econometrics, you know this is not a person you should be citing. Perhaps someone else should start being “embarrassed”.

EZ:

Dave,
Of course, I have not taught econometrics. I am an engineering professor. I didn’t say that elasticities are “wrong” or “bad”. I said it may be more useful to use standardized coefficients, as Guy pointed out, and as I’m sure many people have told you. Is there a particular reason you have not done that or won’t show the data?

DB:

Other than you and Guy, literally no one else has asked for this. So you are alone on an island with Guy.

And in all the papers I have published that have used elasticities, no one mentioned standardized coefficients. No one.

In fact, the software I am using to estimate this regression doesn’t offer this option. I could use different software (I have different econometic software), but I frankly don’t understand why this is necessary. Again, to look at economic significance we often look at how a percentage change in X leads to a percentage change in Y. This is very standard stuff.

So you are literally on your own on this (well, you got Guy on your side). What specifically is the problem you have with elasticities? Again, this very standard in economics and econometrics.

I also wonder, how many classes in econometrics have you actually taken?

His response to my question was basically, uh, my software doesn’t do it. I couldn’t believe it. That was an answer I expect from a first or second year graduate students, not a guy teaching economics!

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Wait you know him in person?

Then could you email him asking about adjusted plus/minus?

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm not on good terms with him now

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions

for obvious reasons

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions

Do you know Bradbury then?

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions

no

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Also what kind of engineering are you doing?

Maybe you can help me with my classes :D

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm in mechanical engineering

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions

If I were to get a masters in that…how does it pay? I’m starting to look into grad school, looking primarily at statistics right now but engineering and a couple other math-based options interest me somewhat….so, how would you say they compare?

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions

I think ME is a relatively well-paying field for the MS

if you’re interested in statistics within the realm of engineering, you could do optimization and design

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions

math is probably also a good bet

because you can have a lot of options (finance, consulting, industry, etc).

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions

if I had to do it over again...

I might have majored in pure math and just been a “quant”

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 7, 2011 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Definitely an option I’m considering.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Soooooooo

I’m guessing you can’t explain Schrodinger’s Equation to me. Or can you? Also, I might need help on multivariable calculus later.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Definitely doesn’t reflect well on him. Let’s say I have my doubts about him, as well, and that was from before reading this email exchange.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions

As an economist, I completely agree.

Translation: he is not wasting his time when everyone uses elasticities as the standard to measure changes. It is an easier way of saying f u.

by outqast on Apr 7, 2011 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, I think the conversation was going a better direction before you started cherrypicking examples to try to make your point. I mean, I get that it helps drive the point home….but you seem like an intelligent enough poster, seems like we can have a higher level conversation without resorting to that kind of thing and muddying the water, you know? It’s not good statistics.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions

Agreed. Does anyone else find it amusing though, that some are demanding statistical significant requiring huge sample sizes before they’ll accept what multiple different quant numbers are all saying, whereas they are much more accepting of vague, subjecting methods related to “watching the tape”?

by BayMind on Apr 7, 2011 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions

Here's an article that best sums up my belief

http://celticshub.com/2010/03/06/will-coaches-listen-to-stat-heads/

And that represents the closest thing to a consensus that emerged from this panel: The best decisions will be made when coaches consider advanced stats not alone, but alongside everything else — what their eyes tell them, what the film shows and the psychology of each individual player.

Unfortunately, psychology, team chemistry, and “watching the tape” does have an effect on a team. Obviously, it’s hard to quantify, which is somewhat troublesome, but I just think that sometimes the stats ignore the human element of the game. Basketball is a game that relies heavily on team chemistry and other unquantifiable things, unlike baseball, where, especially in batting, one man controls his own fate.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions

You said: “Basketball is a game that relies heavily on team chemistry”
--
Thing is, there are stats that quantify team chemistry for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 player floor time results. You can actually assign values to this instead of leaving it vague.
Also, if you read the article Missing Barry posted yesterday, it shows that a lot of things you consider to be unquantifiable, are actually tracked in painstaking detail every single game and broken down in an analytical way.

by BayMind on Apr 7, 2011 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions

Did you read the article?

In it, Avery Johnson said that even though the stats said that the Mavs played the Warriors better with Dirk at center, they failed to win with Dirk at center. Because the players were used to playing with Dampier at center. That’s an “unquantifiable stat” and that’s part of team chemistry.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions

I think you’re misinterpreting the article. The article says that in 2005 there were very clear stats about how to respond to a very specific opposing lineup by putting Nowitzki at center, and the Mavs then won 4 of the next 5 to advance in the playoffs. So it worked perfectly.
Avery Johnson’s example of 2007 makes no sense. It implies he used 2005 data for a 2007decision. Also, I actually looked up the play by play and box scores of this playoff series:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=270503009
In game 1, the game was lost in the 4th quarter, where Diop was playing center in the 4th quarter.
In game 2, the team won with Dampier at center.
Games 3-6, Diop STARTED at center all those games, and the Mavericks lost the series.

So, either Avery Johnson didn’t really understand how to use stats in making decisions, or his memory is pretty hazy given that he cites a Nowitzki-at-Center example when most of that series actually had Diop at center.

by BayMind on Apr 7, 2011 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/series?series=gswdal

by BayMind on Apr 7, 2011 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions

One thing that’s always struck me on the statistics side of things….when we’re looking at coaches and GM’s and how they should use this information, especially ones who are former players, they generally lack the education to really understand how to properly use statistics.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions

If Lacob was serious about statistics he should require all player and staff attend statistics classes every year. No Joke. At least they would all be on the same page when stats were brought up in practice etc. And Monta would hopefully no longer need to feel defensive when stats are discussed.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 7, 2011 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions

Now that sounds like a waste of time.

Given how some of the people here – who are substantially better educated than NBA players – seem to be totally clueless when it comes to understanding what statistics and modelling are all about, I think it’d be a complete waste of time.

You can make players attend, but you can’t make them pay attention. NBA coaches have a hard enough time getting players to pay attention to game film and make adjustments based on it.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 7, 2011 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions

I kind of agree. Not sure how I would do it specifically, but I think educating the people involved in decisionmaking is a good thing. If nothing else, at least lay out the basic way of thinking about statistics to them. It doesn’t even have to relate to basketball at all, just a “how to use statistics properly/what stat people mean when they say things” kinda education.

by Missing Barry on Apr 8, 2011 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions

Oh and I apologize if I rubbed you the wrong way

sorry about that

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah I sorta regretted it after I posted it

but I felt that not a lot of people would actually take the trouble to read my rebuttal, and I was up reaaaaaaaaaaally late, so I wasn’t thinking as clearly

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions

Ha, no problem, we can still go back to having a good conversation on the topic.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions

In my Fire Keith Smart thread...several weeks ago..

I have to confess to not having used statistical analysis a great deal in my assumption that he should be fired (maybe if I had it would have gotten more recs…lol). I just know hoops through experience of the game both watching, playing and being coached and made my judgement based on this.

I dont believe you can run a team through statistics alone and the mk1 human eyeball through watching tape, will actually show you WHY the end result statistic occurred.

It is therefore imperative to view the tape to fully understand what the stats might suggest. The question some seem to misunderstand is while stats are important, they are very much the end result… which in itself is relatively meaningless if you wish to improve your teams performance, UNLESS you understand how and why? the end result created that stat.

In short…. there is a reason why the CFO/Bean Counter does not run the company and that is the simple fact that he does not incorporate the entire picture, but specialises in one area. A coach is no different to a CEO…he should have officers/partners/managers/assistants that each have a skill set and report their findings. The job of the coach/CEO is to then make a considered/reflective judgement based on what he has seen and heard. Therefore Keith Smart does not have to have the statistical skills that some think a head coach should have…but what he SHOULD have is someone on the team to make note of such things and deliver those findings during post game analysis/debrief.

The question is, do the Warriors have such a person? and judging by the above…there would be a stampede of people it seems wishing to take the job! ;)

'In Lacob We Trust'......

by BritWarriorGSW on Apr 6, 2011 7:18 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs

I love this comment

rec’d

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 6, 2011 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions

A different poster above remarked that quantitative analysis helps tell you the results and bottom line for each player, and looking at tape can help explain why. All teams watch tape (as they should), though they may differ in terms of the depth and level of their tape analysis. Keith Smart seems to not use any of the quant metrics though, given the way he makes decisions about Ellis, Curry, Williams, Udoh, Law, and Lin (basically the complete opposite of what the numbers clearly say).
As for demeaning a coach who uses stats, I’m sorry but this is the future. The Spurs, Mavs, Heat, Lakers, Rockets, Celtics, Blazers, and many other teams either use heavy inputs from stats to inform coaching decisions, and this article even shows that the Heat coach basically built up the quant division over the past 10 years.
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/john_schuhmann/01/22/spoelstra-qa/index.html#

by BayMind on Apr 6, 2011 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions

OK...you need to put your defensive heckles back down...

Where did I ‘demean’ a coach who uses stats?

If you bothered to read properly, I actually advocated the inclusion of a ‘stats’ guy to assist the coach.

Therefore Keith Smart does not have to have the statistical skills that some think a head coach should have…but what he SHOULD have is someone on the team to make note of such things and deliver those findings during post game analysis/debrief

So I am aware of the ‘future’ as you call it, I simply observed that the ‘stats’ guy will not be the head coach, but a valuable part of the coaching team.

I find it always better to truly read someones post and try to understand what they might be saying, before going defensive and accusing them of something they didn’t say.

'In Lacob We Trust'......

by BritWarriorGSW on Apr 7, 2011 5:54 AM PDT up reply actions

So I am aware of the ‘future’ as you call it, I simply observed that the ‘stats’ guy will not be the head coach, but a valuable part of the coaching team.

And this is how it should be.

The problem comes when a statistical approach does not sit right with what a coach ‘feels’ or thinks he ‘sees’ and gets ignored. I remember Mullin and Nellie saying something to the effect of how they used statistics to confirm what they saw or knew. That’s not a particularly utilization. More important is what to do with it conflicts with what you think you know.

Good managers have to be willing to accept the advice of their advisors.

Dean Oliver recently left his consulting gig with the Nuggets for a job writing (for ESPN IIRC). I wonder how much he’ll tell or be able to tell about how they used his advice.

by jae on Apr 7, 2011 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions

I am a huge believer of TEAM ethos...

To that end, someone that can provide the statistical element to that which I might not see, is in my personal book and to be honest, any decent manager/coaches book, a very useful asset to have.
Equally there will be times where the stat line may say X… yet the stats guy might not know ‘why’… (see what I did there)… ;)
So I fully agree.. a good manager is definitely one that is prepared to accept the advice of others…total agreement.

'In Lacob We Trust'......

by BritWarriorGSW on Apr 7, 2011 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions

Great post.

But who are candidates? Realistically.

JVG (If for the right amount of $) and Shaw are my favorites. Spoelstra is still on top. Frank is ok too. Who else?

"I'm not a big vegetable guy'' he says. -Tim Lincecum

by ejdacanay on Apr 7, 2011 11:08 AM PDT reply actions

What about sloan?

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions

In addition to Sloan being a fantastic coach, I actually think our roster would fit what he does extremely well. His flex offense (as it’s commonly referred to) generally works best with big men who can pass (check, David Lee, Udoh, and Biedrins if he can remember how to play basketball, Vlad if he comes back), guys who cut well off the ball (Lee, Biedrins, again, if he remembers how to play, Monta), and is very pick and roll heavy, which seems like it should fit Curry and our big men well. Curry isn’t the elite creator Deron or Stockton were, but he’s a better scorer than either of them, and I think overall we just have a lot of nice pieces for what Sloan likes to do. He would be a fantastic hire.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions

I would like to see some sort of Princeton

I’m not sure who runs it still though. With Lee’s ability to pass from the post and our great plethora of outside shooters, I think we might be able to pull it off.

"I'm not a big vegetable guy'' he says. -Tim Lincecum

by ejdacanay on Apr 7, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions

I’ve never been a big fan of the Princeton offense. My biggest issue with it is the lack of screens, it’s heavily dependant on ball movement and cuts. Especially wary of how that’d play at the NBA level.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions

I would love to see Sloan trying to coddle Biedrins and build his confidence. Might as well bring in R Lee Ermey also.

With all due respect, I am a Analyst Hall of Fame candidate. If you are offended by my comment, I did write "With all due respect".

by KillaContract on Apr 7, 2011 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Hahahaha! That would be absolutely hilarious.

“You had best roll to the basket or I will unscrew your head and sh*t down your neck!”

by IQofaWarrior on Apr 7, 2011 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs

I was going to 'flag' this...

For making me burst out laughing… so a rec will have to do!

'In Lacob We Trust'......

by BritWarriorGSW on Apr 7, 2011 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Great post

by srsrs on Apr 7, 2011 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions

wow

just super funny!
my co-workers just looked at me for busting out laughing

rec’d

and rec’d for Andris too, the guy needs to go through boot camp to toughen up

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Apr 8, 2011 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions

Any 49ers fans agree with this?

Keith Smart is like Mike Singletary:

1) He took over and showed signs of improvement his first year.
2) He’s a “player’s coach”
3) He also shows no ability to make smart decisions involving gameplan (rotations)
4) Loves to look at the film (tape)

If we keep Smart another year, the players will stop trusting him because we will keep underachieving with his talent. This team was a 40-45 win team, and Smart has taken away wins with his stupidity. He’s handled Stephen Curry horribly, benching him at every mistake and not allowing him to build his confidence. Curry has not improved his second season because of this. Smart would rather give minutes to Acie Law and Vladimir Radmanovic.

I’ll tell you why we’ve beaten three playoff teams in a row: Andris Biedrins and Acie Law are injured! We’ve had a nine-man rotation with 9 players who belong in an NBA rotation (Yes, even Radman deserves 5-10 minutes, he can shoot still, as long as he is not our only big!). Smart has had no choice but to have a good rotation. Can he realize this and learn rotation mathematics in the offseason? I’m not sure. I rather try for Brian Shaw or Jeff Van Gundy or Ron Adams. Smart should never be more than an assistant, just like Singletary.

WHAT!??!?!?!?!?!?!

by true torture on Apr 7, 2011 11:42 AM PDT reply actions

No

I disagree. This team was not a 40-45 win team… not with our “defense,” especially in such a strong Western Conference.

If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.

by doubleteapot on Apr 7, 2011 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions

I’m actually beginning to come back around to the idea it is. We should finish with 36 or 37 wins. That’s with poor coaching from Smart – bad rotations, some players used poorly, etc.. That’s with David Lee underperforming, and Biedrins playing like a D-leaguer. It’s not that big of a jump to get to 40, but yes, obviously defense is a huge problem. Two things to note – we’re two wins above our pythag expected W-L record, so maybe it’s farther away than it appears, but still, I don’t think it’s that big of a jump, and coaching alone could go a long ways in this case.

by Missing Barry on Apr 7, 2011 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions

I think the big issue is looking at how badly Lee started the season and how little we've gotten from Biedrins this year.

Obviously, one never should assume perfect health, but I don’t see why those two factors alone can’t be worth 7-10 wins. But, of course, Biedrins may not bounce back so we can’t pencil in those wins.

And I don’t see why smarter rotations – more minutes for Reggie, bringing Monta down to something more reasonable which might help his per-minute numbers – as well as not giving Monta the rope to take his dumbest shots couldn’t be worth another 4-5.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 7, 2011 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Exactly.

Hopefully we get someone to play center this offseason, and/or some depth. This year I predicted 45 wins and it was banking on Biedrins being at least somewhat productive. If someone told me we would get what we got out of the center position I would have said 35. Centers are important, especially since our PF is inconsistent on defense.

WHAT!??!?!?!?!?!?!

by true torture on Apr 7, 2011 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, I was expecting Biedrins to play better than he did, too. Well, at least hoping. If he had been his old self, we would have beasted this year some very good teams.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 8, 2011 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions

CAN WE GET SOME VOTE FOR THE Warrior GIrls please

PLEASE LET US BEAT THE KINGS WE NEED YOUR VOTE Show them who has the best fans and dance team HERE IS THE LING TO VOTE.. WE NEED THIS WIN
http://www.nba.com/dancecontest/2011/

by SKHovey on Apr 7, 2011 9:01 PM PDT reply actions

Curry as a defender vs Monta

Do the stats factor in that Monta regularly guards the best guard on the other team? If not, I’m not sure I’d be anointing Curry as a better defender when he’s guarding Derek Fisher for most of the game while Monta is guarding Kobe. Other than a OKC game this year, Curry routinely is put on the lesser threat night in and night out, that one game he asked to guard Westbrook and did a pretty good job if i recall.

Either way, neither of them are good defenders.

by kyzah on Apr 7, 2011 9:45 PM PDT reply actions

You guard your position. Wing players guard wing players, point guards guard point guards. There are limited circumstances where Monta guards point guards, but usually he guards wing players because he is one.

by DubsFan408 on Apr 7, 2011 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions

yup

Monta is guarding Kobe. Other than a OKC game this year, Curry routinely is put on the lesser threat night in and night out,…

You kinda danced around the core reason here.
Monta covers the SG on the other team in most cases. It just happens to be that most SGs are the bigger scoring threats

and yes:

Either way, neither of them are good defenders.

but we still like to argue about who is the marginally worse defender

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Apr 8, 2011 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions

Adjusted plus/minus is supposed to factor out and not punish a player for playing against better competition or having terrible teammates. The stats show that when other Warrior players beside Ellis are on the floor defending the opposing shooting guard, that the adjusted defensive numbers are dramatically better when Ellis is not on the floor.

Ellis is almost a perfect example of a supremely skilled offensive player whose regular highlight-reel plays really ingrain in the minds and memories of fans or coaches who are using subjective, imperfect memories to judge who is playing well. He’s a good litmus test in terms of whether one understands quantitative metrics or not.

by BayMind on Apr 8, 2011 6:01 AM PDT up reply actions

I haven’t been watching the Warriors much lately, so maybe it’s just a new development, but seriously, when did this “Monta guards the best player” idea start to form? It sure wasn’t the truth for the 2/3-3/4 of the season I watched. That’s what Dorell is for. Monta just guards the wing that produces better matchups for the team. No, I do not give extra credit to a wing for guarding a wing. You guard your position, it’s a normal thing to do.

As for “the statistics”, well, there are a few different ways of looking at it. The most damning evidence in Monta’s case is how much our team defense suffers when he’s on the floor. Regardless of who he chooses to guard, our defense as a whole gets a lot worse with him. That’s not a good thing.

by Missing Barry on Apr 8, 2011 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions

damn

Acie Law has one of the worst adjusted per-minute or per-48 plus/minuses on the entire team – the reason for this is while he is average offensively, he is one of the absolute worst in the league in defense,

Exhibit A for checking the data before drawing conclusions.
I had really thought his D was what kept him on the floor. Turns out, the propaganda machine known as Smart’s mouth tricked me into thinking this.
Damn, looks like I’ll have to go back and watch the tape

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Apr 8, 2011 10:24 AM PDT reply actions

But keep in mind the data is subject to a large amount of random variation. I wouldn’t feel confident in drawing conclusions from it on Acie Law, to be honest.

by Missing Barry on Apr 8, 2011 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions

Turns out, the propaganda machine known as Smart’s mouth tricked me into thinking this.

I think that there’s something akin to Nichols Law of catcher defense going on here. Acie’s defensive reputation is a result of being inept on offense. The (perhaps natural) assumption that he must be able to do something leads to the conclusion that he must be able to play defense.

by jae on Apr 8, 2011 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions

The link doesn't work for me :(

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 8, 2011 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions

It looks like it’s dead now. Thanks to triple D for finding another link.

by jae on Apr 8, 2011 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions

yah, it’s broken for me too

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Apr 8, 2011 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions

google FTW!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Nichols_Law_Of_Catcher_Defense

…Nichols’ Law of Catcher Defense states that a catcher’s defensive reputation is inversely proportional to their offensive abilities. Therefore light-hitting catchers get good defensive reputations and top hitters like Ted Simmons wind up with lousy reputations. One can note that many catchers have lost a reputation for glovework once they began hitting better and that the opposite is also true, further reinforcing Nichols’ Law.

interesting…makes sense too

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Apr 8, 2011 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions

BRAVO

We should print some flyers of this and hand them out at around Oracle during the last home game. Smart’s head will explode if he tries to read and comprehend all these facts. Where’s the tape???

by Throw up the Dub on Apr 8, 2011 11:21 PM PDT reply actions

nice article which basically backs up what I've been saying since the first month of the season..

FIRE SMART
TRADE MONTA

by radinc on Apr 9, 2011 12:35 AM PDT reply actions

Due Diligence

GSoM seems to like refer to +/- a lot so I figured I would fool around a bit on basketballvalue (thanks Gov) and see what I found. Couple of questions/observations though:

1) If hypothetical player has +10 +/- does is that essentially a result of “total team point differential when hypothetical player is on court / total games played”? So could I say hypothetical team scores 10 more points per game when hypothetical player is on the court?

2) There’s been a lot of debate around whether Ekpe Udoh was a better draft pick than Greg Monroe. Looking at their 1 year adjusted +/-, Udoh has a +9.48 and Monroe has a -7.24. Would the assertion, “Ekpe Udoh is a better player than Greg Monroe” be accurate? If so, why? If not, why?

As you all know, I’m more of a “film” guy than a “stat” guy, so I’m just trying to see both sides of the coin. So I ask that any responses to these questions be done with a measure of civility. Thank you ahead of time.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 9, 2011 1:54 PM PDT reply actions

For #1, essentially, yes. It’s supposed to be “per 100 possessions”, I believe, which is roughly equivalent to a game. For #2, no, on the basis of random variation. 1 year of adjusted +/- is very noisy. Also keep in mind that the analysis should go beyond just “who’s a better player right now”. We should also be interested in who will be better in the future, I think.

by Missing Barry on Apr 9, 2011 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Other stats like win shares and PER still say similar things though – Curry is better than Ellis, and the team would win more if Reggie, Udoh, and Lin played more (and played Ellis and Law significantly less)

by BayMind on Apr 9, 2011 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions

I wonder why Udoh’s +/- is so high when his individual statistics look pretty poor?

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 9, 2011 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Two possible explanations

1. He’s really good at defense.
2. Random variation (i.e. “noise”) based on a small sample size.

I’d guess there’s a fair bit of #1 in there, but I think it’d be a mistake to come to any firm conclusions based on 920 career minutes played.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 9, 2011 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions

The short answer is that Udoh seems to be so good at defense that he makes a real difference when he's on the floor.

But we should temper our optimism about that with the fact that we’re talking about a very small sample size here – Udoh didn’t play for the first two months of the season, and was only slowly worked into the lineup.

by Ronaldinho on Apr 9, 2011 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions

The stats tell the bottom line, but this is where studying the tape can help explain why the numbers are the way they are (confirmation). My guess is that Udoh is a great help defender, and also does a good job boxing out without actually rebounding himself, and these things don’t necessarily show up on his personal stats. But, the stats are definitely saying that when Udoh and Lin are on the floor, the Warriors extend the lead the most or close the gap the most, significantly more than the next players on the team. There are too many examples of this happening when one bothers to go into the play by play of many Warrior games this year.

by BayMind on Apr 11, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions

Though it’s worth keeping random variation in mind – +/- is a noisy stat, and it’s not necessarily apparent that the +/- numbers are actually accurate in this case and aren’t just a sample size fluke.

by Missing Barry on Apr 11, 2011 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Anthony Randolph played 1100 minutes in his rookie season. I wasn’t around here back then, so I can only assume that sample size issues were frequently brought into the conversation. Interestingly, if you go back and look at the unadjusted (on/off) +/- rates for that the 08-09 team, not a single player was positive. While every player on that team had a negative rating, the net rating of several players was positive (Morrow, Bukie, Turiaf, SJ, and CJ). Randolph had a negative net rating (-0.6).

http://www.82games.com/0809/0809GSW.HTM

Let’s contrast that with this year’s team. This year there are three players with + ratings (actual rating, not just net): Udoh, Lin, and Radmanovic. The players with net positive ratings are Curry, D. Wright, Reggie, Thornton, Udoh, Lin, Radmanovic, Bell, and Adrien. Udoh has the largest net rating on the team (+10.6).

Sample size are small for both Randolph and Udoh. Biedrins was better in 08-09 than we was this year, so that probably accounts for some of Randolph’s lower +/-. Randolph was also younger, and I understand the argument about potential.

Udoh’s net rating is so large, that it is hard to believe it’s simply random variation. He’s actually played 24% of the total possible minutes during the season. I think it’s due to a combination of 1) him being – at the very least – good (I think we can agree on that right?) and 2) Biedrins being apparently god awful this season (-8.9 rating).

The thing is, if you think Udoh’s +10.6 rating is completely random, doesn’t that imply that Biedrins’ rating is completely random? I don’t think that one can be random and the other is not, can it? If so, explain to me how that would work.

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 11, 2011 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions

link to current season

http://www.82games.com/1011/1011GSW.HTM

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 11, 2011 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions

it is hard to believe it’s simply random variation

Could be true. I’m not of the mind that it definitely has to all be random variation or anything, just that I’m not sure we can tell how much is random variation compared to talent. A very high positive is definitely a better sign for Udoh than nothing at all.

by Missing Barry on Apr 11, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions

As further followup to that statement:

1) him being – at the very least – good (I think we can agree on that right?) and 2) Biedrins being apparently god awful this season (-8.9 rating).

3) Random variation. All three factors (Udoh’s talent level, Biedrins talent level, random variation) are definitely in play, it’s just difficult to isolate any individual factor at this point.

by Missing Barry on Apr 11, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions

This.

We’re just beginning to get a handle on Udoh’s talent level, and there’s no way to say if his gaudy +/- is a representation of his true talent level or not.

by Spider Jerusalem on Apr 11, 2011 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions

As for Randolph a few years ago, I think most of us were really excited about him but didn’t exactly see him as a good player in the present after his rookie year. We saw him as a very good athlete with raw skills, and tons of potential, who came on strong at the end of the season, and was good at things players don’t tend to improve and needed work on things players do tend to improve. We were more excited about his future than convinced he was a good player in the present – he still very obviously needed to learn the basics of how to play the game of basketball…

by Missing Barry on Apr 11, 2011 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Just curious, what can someone do with unadjusted +/-? Why not use adjusted every time?

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 11, 2011 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Because without a decent sample, the adjusted +/- can be even more noisy.

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 11, 2011 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions

So for smaller sets of data, you want to use unadjusted to get the best overall picture, and for large sets of data you want to use adjusted. Correct?

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 11, 2011 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Generally, but you really can't feel too comfortable about +/- without at least two seasons of data.

by Spider Jerusalem on Apr 11, 2011 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions

In smaller sets, like a single season, the way I do it is I look at unadjusted (keeping in mind that there’s still quite a bit of variance there, so you can only assume it’s suggesting something, and not that it’s definitely accurate). I then also look at adjusted just to see if it’s telling me something completely different from unadjusted. Russell Westbrook is a good example – he’s sporting a ghastly ~~10.04 unadjusted this year, which is actually worst in the NBA. On the other hand, he actually has a positive adjusted +/~~. No other player in the bottom 30 of unadjusted +/- has a positive adjusted +/-, the next player is Noah at 37th on the list. What this suggests is that his unadjusted number is a function of the teammates he plays with and the opponents he tends to match up with. I suspect, if we watched OKC often, we’d find he’s always in the game to try to lead the offense when Durant is on the bench. It does not tell us this for sure. However, it does at least suggest there might be more to the story.

Then, I go back and look at unadjusted/adjusted from past years to see what story they tell.

by Missing Barry on Apr 12, 2011 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions

he’s sporting a ghastly -10.04 unadjusted this year, which is actually worst in the NBA. On the other hand, he actually has a positive adjusted

by Missing Barry on Apr 12, 2011 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions

I always just write out “plus-minus” to avoid the stupid strikethroughs.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 12, 2011 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah I never remember to….

by Missing Barry on Apr 12, 2011 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions

Just curious, what can someone do with unadjusted +/-? Why not use adjusted every time?

The methods for creating the adjustment have their own error and work on a number of assumptions that may not be true in a significant number of cases.

The noise introduced by a small sample is pronounced. A larger sample helps in some ways, but in other ways it further clouds things. Adjustments are made by looking at what teammates did when a player was not on the court, in some cases spanning more than one season. This requires some assumption that the play of teammates was consistent enough over that time period such that the ‘adjustment’ isn’t overly influenced by teammates playing better or worse in the past for reasons entirely independent of the player being evaluated.

by jae on Apr 12, 2011 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions

Ah ha...

Exactly what I discussing above! Stats have to be used in combination with Tape! Stats on their own just dont tell the whole story, but when used in combination…do intend make a very compelling case.

'In Lacob We Trust'......

by BritWarriorGSW on Apr 11, 2011 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions

I think Udoh's the better player right now.

But he’s also 3 years older. This is significant. Monroe will put up better numbers and will honestly be a really valuable trade piece if he can keep up this production. Udoh doesn’t really have much value. That’s why it was a bad pick. When the next star is up for the taking, do you think they’ll take the young center putting up 14-9 (arbitrary number but a reasonable case for Monroe in the near future) on decent efficiency (yet not good on defense and rebounding kinda hollow) or a 8-6 guy with horrible efficiency but excellent defense (that can’t be completely quantified) ?

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 9, 2011 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions

But Monroe’s team is better when he’s not on the court. He’ll be a nice role player for the Pistons but I don’t expect anything all that special out of him.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 9, 2011 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions

Keep in mind that seems to be a pretty common thing with young players. Monroe is still only 20 years old…it happens. Wizards are worse with Wall on the court. Bulls were worse with Rose on the court his rookie year. Magic were slightly worse with Dwight on the court his rookie year, Cavs only slightly better with Lebron on the court his rookie year. The general point is few rookies play winning basketball from the beginning, especially rookies who are on the younger side of things. It’s something that takes experience, and I wouldn’t hold it against a guy as young as Monroe.

by Missing Barry on Apr 10, 2011 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions

I guess that should bode well for Udoh’s future that he has such a good +/- in his rookie year. Maybe that speaks to his maturity. Who knows, I’ll be interested to watch how the careers of both play out.

by Slightly Hyphy on Apr 10, 2011 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions

Maybe, but always keep age in mind. Udoh right now is the age Monroe will be in 3 seasons from now. Heck, he’s a year older than Derrick Rose, who like I said, was a big negative as a rookie but since then has developed into the player we see today – the one the writers are about to [wrongly] give an MVP award to….

by Missing Barry on Apr 10, 2011 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Udoh started out the season rusty, too, without a training camp. That gives me more optimism about next season. He may actually return to decent rebounding, where he was at his last year in college.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 11, 2011 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Honestly, he was a pretty poor rebounder his last year in college, too. 93 in the country in offensive rebound % and 319 in defensive rebound %. Not good for an NBA big man prospect at all. At least from an individual perspective. I think our best hope is that he does things (like box out) that make it so he doesn’t hurt team rebounding, even if he doesn’t necessarily get the rebounds himself. I don’t think there’s much hope he ever gets a lot of rebounds individually.

by Missing Barry on Apr 12, 2011 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions

No, I don’t expect him to be a good rebounder. But as Jae pointed out, he didn’t expect Udoh to be this bad, based on his college numbers. For me, considering Udoh’s other skills, decent rebounding will still be below average. I’m not expecting him to be average, but I’m hoping that he’ll do better next year than this.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 12, 2011 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Oh ok. I do believe that’s a solid assumption. Regression towards the mean works in Udoh’s favor in this case.

by Missing Barry on Apr 12, 2011 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions

With his ability to pass, I think he must have good composure and BB IQ. I think he’ll turn out okay. He’s big enough, that’s for sure.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 11, 2011 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions

I have it on good authority

that joe lacob has read this post

by radinc on Apr 10, 2011 3:26 AM PDT reply actions

NO wonder he tells us to tone it down

he reads post like these

All we need to do is win win win no matter what,
Got the Dubs on my mind I could never get enough,
and everytime they step into the building all the three pointers go UP,
And they STAY DERE AND THEY STAY DERE

by Dinney on Apr 10, 2011 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions

If ownership has any say in rotations or lineups (which I highly doubt), then give Udoh and Jeremy Lin 30+ minutes in the final 2 games. The team is totally out of the playoff race, Ellis and Law are hurt, you can develop some young promising players more before the season ends, plus potentially improve your lottery pick. It’s a win-win. It’s irresponsible at this point to continue playing your starters 45+ minutes. Dorrell Wright played the entire game last night, 48 minutes, against the Kings! WHY???? Keith Smart is acting against the best interests of the team right now in a desperate attempt (and completely irresponsible-to-the-team) to win as many games as possible when there is no reason to anymore.

Jeremy Lin finally got to play a bit last night against the Kings, and in 14 minutes he was extremely efficient in putting up 4 assists, 4 rebounds, 4 points, and 2 steals. There’s really no downside to seeing what you actually have in this kid, before you go into the off-season. He could legitimately be a quality player who the Warriors lose to a more clever/sophisticated team in the off-season, simply because he languished on the bench this season because he was valued as more of a cheap marketing ploy than recognized for the legit skill and value he brings to winning games.

by BayMind on Apr 11, 2011 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions

To pre-emptively address doubleteapot (who, based on last night’s game comments thread appears to have a personal vendetta against Jeremy Lin all game long), I should note that Lin’s +/- was a -5, however if you look at the play by play he was mostly paired with Al Thornton, who based on multiple metrics is one of the worst defenders in the entire league when he is on the floor (not just one of the worst on the defensively-poor Warriors). Thornton is like Acie Law in that their net is extremely harmful due to their league-worst defense, but most fans can’t tell because they seem average offensively.
Based on the most updated PER’s (a flawed stat but still), Jeremy Lin has the 6th highest PER on the team among the current roster.

by BayMind on Apr 11, 2011 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions

Keith Smart is acting against the best interests of the team right now in a desperate attempt (and completely irresponsible-to-the-team) to win as many games as possible when there is no reason to anymore.

Consider this: Smart probably realizes that he’s on his way out. It’s a strong likelihood. He has very, very little to gain from trying to improve the team’s lot for next season. Wins on his resume still look better for him in searching for his next job than losses do.

Somewhat related, while there’s no reason to play Dorell 48 minutes at this point since it raises probability that he could be hurt, I find it highly unlikely that extra minutes in the remaining garbage time games will really do much if anything for any player’s development.

by jae on Apr 11, 2011 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions

Agreed.

'In Lacob We Trust'......

by BritWarriorGSW on Apr 11, 2011 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Dorrell Wright “led” the team in minutes again, 38 this time after going the full 48 the night before… with a fabulous 8 for 23 shooting job too. Keith Smart is beyond desperate to keep his job, but he isn’t even doing it intelligently. I wonder if it has ever occurred to him that his starters might actually play better if they get a breather every 8-9 minutes or so, rather than consistently playing 14 minutes straight. I’m not sure he has any sort of pre-thought out substitution plan going into games…

by BayMind on Apr 11, 2011 8:54 PM PDT reply actions

Who do you want to sit him for? Al Thornton?

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 11, 2011 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Reggie can play the 3. He’s got long arms and most 3’s aren’t as fast, so he may be able to defend them at the same level he defends 2’s. Not good, but it’s not like Reggie is a bad player overall. He’s no Dorell, but he’s got some real talent.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 11, 2011 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions

the problem is then you have Curry/Monta/Reggie

too small, no defense

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

by Evanz on Apr 13, 2011 4:43 AM PDT up reply actions

This team really needs to trade one of the starting guards. The team is going nowhere with two undersized no defense guards. Ellis just put up monster stats this year (and is the worse of the two metrics wise), so I’m hoping he can be off loaded onto some team that can give us some more legit big men, or to help us get out from Biedrins contract.

by BayMind on Apr 13, 2011 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions

For a PG, Curry’s not really undersized. He’s also not awful on defense, if you believe the plus-minus numbers (though his foul rate is awfully high for a PG).

Agreed with your basic point, though. I’m in favor of any deal that allows the Ws to unload Biedrins, Monta, and/or Lee (in that order of priority) without taking on equally onerous contracts. Any draft picks or actual talent coming back our way would just be gravy.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 13, 2011 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions

Well, I’d prefer to trade Monta for a bigger off-guard, personally, in order to solve that problem.

The playoffs are coming! I'm so excited to see who we're going to draft in the... uh.. playoffs.

by Naticus on Apr 13, 2011 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions

At this point I think it’s more valuable for the team to find out more about what they have sitting on the bench. There’s no point playing Dorrell Wright 48 minutes a game in a lottery season.
On an unrelated note, it seems like there is no structure or offensive philosophy on the team. Last night, Lin was basically regulated to drive and dish plays, which were dependent on his teammates to make open shots (which they didn’t). It may be a good idea to explore a Lin-to-DavidLee pick’n roll in the last game of the season, given that both players’ strengths are playing the pick’n roll.

by BayMind on Apr 12, 2011 8:26 AM PDT reply actions

Very interesting. In the 1st half of this Blazers game, they ran the Lin/DavidLee pick and roll several times and it was absolutely lethal. Lin drove for 2 layups, and two other times he found Lee running open for easy dunks. This could be a very potent play moving forward – the pick and roll plays to Lin’s strengths as a driver/slasher and distributor, and Lee moves well and is a good finisher. Lin needs to work on his jump shot big time – 500 shots a day over the summer is the prescription.

by BayMind on Apr 13, 2011 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions

Ultimately....any coach worth a grain of salt...

…would recognise one of the most effective and basic forms of attack in basketball…‘TPnR’

Especially when you have ‘bigs’ that can actually catch the ball well and both Lee and Andris have good hands catching a ball on the move. Why GSW does not employ this most basic of manouvres is quite beyond me.

Hopefully a new coach that see’s the benefit of this with the players we have…just might structure some offense that uses the assets on court at that time, the best.

'In Lacob We Trust'......

by BritWarriorGSW on Apr 19, 2011 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions

The more we hear no news, the more ANTSY I get that this organization might actually keep KS on as head coach. There are some serious concerns related to his ability to best utilize his own players, to teach/develop them, rotations, or to identify strengths and weaknesses of his own players and also the opposition.
There are too many available candidates who could do a better job.

by BayMind on Apr 21, 2011 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions

Network Bar

Golden State Of Mind -

NBA Analytics Reveal Coaching Negligence

Do you like this story?

Comments