Comments on: Layups: Best Defenders in 2011

By: ElGee

ElGee — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:17:16 +0000

#12 - Good point. I have data on every team, just less than 5 games on those weaker clubs who are rarely on TV.

By: Matt, Colombia

Matt, Colombia — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:40:58 +0000

How is extending or ending a possession not important? That's what rebounding does for a team.

By: huevonkiller

huevonkiller — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:49:46 +0000

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?page_id=9221

That isn't perfect but appears far more reasonable. I don't rely on one metric but I prefer this one much more.

By: Nathan Walker

Nathan Walker — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:01:20 +0000

(when I say "no other statistic can give us" I mean to say "that few other statistics can give us)

By: Nathan Walker

Nathan Walker — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:00:48 +0000

@Huevonkiller

Ridge plus-minus numbers have two benefits that no other statistic can give us.

First, that it is extremely conservative: a player must show continued, repeatable performance in order to do well in ridge +/- (and vice versa) because of the penalty factor. One way of thinking about it is that the algorithm basically only changes the values (up or down) when it is 'very confident.'

Second, that it is extremely predictive: using these numbers to predict any given possession is by far the most accurate of any single system, as has been shown by its very low standard errors. Next, in terms of predictive accuracy, would be statistical plus minuses and non-regularized adjusted plus-minuses...next would be something that is shown to have decent equal predictive value like Win Shares per 48 or even PER.

A theory's ability to explain the past (i.e. Points Per Game, or, Games Won) is NOT the best explainer of 'true ability.' My philosophy thesis briefly touches on the subject, so here's a primer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power

I'm not saying this to be condescending, rather to just throw out there that explaining the past is a good guess, but predicting the future is a much, much better guess.

By: Nathan Walker

Nathan Walker — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:48:38 +0000

@Huevonkiller Study after study have shown that PER overvalues rebounds. Dean Oliver's ORTG on which Win Shares are based doesn't particularly have this issue. Why are you throwing out all these ad hominem attacks on me? I'm just presenting an argument.

By: P Middy

P Middy — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:30:37 +0000

#8 - first of all, good on you for giving this a shot. I agree that there are problems with some of the method, but I like the effort. I know I wouldn't have spent the time required to make that post happen.

However, the thing about stats is that you never know what is hiding in there. I'd rather analysis skip Minnesota, Toronto, New Jersey, Cleveland, and Sacramento because of time/resource constraints than an assumption that there will not be valuable data.

By: AHL

AHL — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:20:19 +0000

#8: If Mike Miller and Brandon Jennings can make it to the tops of your lists, anything is possible!

By: Jerry

Jerry — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:59:14 +0000

#4
1. There was no study, just numbers
2. If you cite someone's name, try to at least get it somewhat right

By: huevonkiller

huevonkiller — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:58:01 +0000

Nathan your list is laughable, stop being a hypocrite. Your list is sure getting cute, don't know about reasonable though. Chris Bosh above Wade and Bryant? Steve Nash? I'll go with SPM if I want to incorporate plus-minus. Not adjusted plus minus nonsense. Nathan you're painting a fuzzy picture aren't you? Rebounds aren't that important, yet you're citing the win shares formula that clearly demonstrates Kevin Love is an elite player? What is your point? The Timberwolves are surrounded by incompetent defenders, not named Kevin Love. This has led to their struggles, counterpart PER also reflects that. Counterpart PER is the study cited in this article, and it doesn't do that correctly. So it should be mentioned.