Comments on: BBR Rankings: Schedule-Adjusted Offensive and Defensive Ratings (January 7, 2011)

By: DSMok1

DSMok1 — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 04:17:58 +0000

"Yo DSmok1 - why exactly are you adjusting for resid^1.5 ?? I realize that residual represents vertical distance to the LSRL and residual^2 represents the actual distance to LSRL.....what does res^1.5 represent??" Between the two? :-) . It's just how you want to weight the average. If you use ^2, that is the same as the definition of the mean of a sample. ^1 looks a lot different for uneven samples. ^1.5 is a gut feeling. I'm going to research what exponent works the best for different objectives. I must say, I can't really follow your second paragraph...

By: Nathan Walker

Nathan Walker — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 22:28:27 +0000

Yo DSmok1 - why exactly are you adjusting for resid^1.5 ?? I realize that residual represents vertical distance to the LSRL and residual^2 represents the actual distance to LSRL.....what does res^1.5 represent??

I would like to know what you guys think about constraining an approaching-zero mean residual performance for each team? By just adjusting for league averages of zero, that means that teams with more data points have a larger influence on the data; more importantly, teams are likely to have non-zero residual averages (which I feel is counter-intuitive).

I try to get each team as close to zero as Excel lets me (but I give it generous room for error).

By: Greyberger

Greyberger — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:01:58 +0000

The depressing thing is, if I was forced to make an owner and FO power rankings, Dan and the Cavs wouldn't even be at the bottom. Sterling is definitely worse, as an owner and probably as a person. I'm not sure any owner should be personally involved in the basketball decisions no matter how involved or smart they may be. I'm thinking of you, Prokhorov. If I were you I'd only ever pick up the phone to change GMs. Every other decision is better left to your current GM or coach. Owners treat the NBA like it's a very public, very expensive card game against the other owners. They're trying to prove that they make the best decisions and are the smartest rich guy in the league. This is where my mind went when I read that recent thread at Apebears asking why there aren't more teams with a stats guy on the payroll. Some teams are just dysfunctional from the top down. When Mom and Dad (owners and GMs) fight over who gets to make the decisions, the kids (employees, players, fans) are the ones that suffer. You can run your NBA team however you want. Most owners don't start to lose it if it stops being profitable, and the consequences for bad performance is just bad press. It's a game; some of these guys really aren't taking it as seriously as their other businesses and investments.

By: Paul Alexander

Paul Alexander — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 22:51:18 +0000

Nick, that is the best I've heard it put.

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 22:38:35 +0000

Just to add to the point: At a max deal, LeBron was actually grossly underpaid for the value he brought to the Cavs. Gilbert spend 7 years getting rich off the guy, not the other way around.

By: P Middy

P Middy — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:49:52 +0000

Except for Herb Kohl. That man is a saint, and I won't hear otherwise.

By: P Middy

P Middy — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:00:30 +0000

Hey man, I'm with you. Gilbert;s situation is of his own making, and he want to put it on Bron. Like the owners as a group. They're the ones dictating where the money goes, and as such the ones fucking the league finances. But the players and the fans are the ones who are going to pay for it. As for Gilbert, I'm glad his franchise sucks. I'm glad those haters in Cleveland who took sports and made it a reason to HATE somebody got embarrassed on national TV. Bron might be self-absorbed, tone-deaf, and on the media-savvy scale somewhere between Leona Helmsley and Barry Bonds, but he's got rights to chase his happiness like everyone else.

By: Leroy Smith

Leroy Smith — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:34:55 +0000

Wait second, P Middy. You make the max money sound like something other than compensation for work performed. Gilbert's star player didn't just take the money and refused to perform. He didn't take the max money and asked for a trade. He didn't take the max money and the franchise value quickly declined. The player in question took the max money and made Gilbert's business very profitable. I hated the TV show, but more power to the player with respect to everything else that went down/Gilbert let happen.

By: P Middy

P Middy — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:04:57 +0000

Gilbert is a perfect microcosm of the ownership situation in the NBA. He let his star player run all over him, hold his franchise hostage with his talent, and payed him the max to do so. When he realized (too late) that he'd dug himself in a whole, he lost his mind, maligned the player, and made promises that he'll never be able to meet. All the while, he's part of a cabal that is going to deprive us of a season in 2011, so that he can change the rules so that letting a star player run all over him, take his franchise hostage, and eventually leave despite collecting max money doesn't hurt him financially. Someone save us from these people.

By: Jason J

Jason J — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:47:22 +0000

Don't let Dan Gilbert see these rankings.