Comments on: Championship Usage Patterns and “The Secret”

By: Joel

Joel — Wed, 19 May 2010 15:35:50 +0000

Neil,

I think this just demonstrates that the rankings of modified shot percentages have a very weak correlation with a team's ability to win games.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Wed, 19 May 2010 13:54:31 +0000

Good call, Brian. Here's the sequel to this post, which sets up the study in those terms:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6013

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 19 May 2010 04:11:38 +0000

There might be a bit of an issue with sorting things by minutes played. This confounds players who get minutes due to their role in the offense vs. other reasons, e.g. defense and rebounding. Notice guys like Bruce Bowen, Dennis Rodman etc. getting a lot of minutes despite a small role in the offense. What might make more intuitive sense is to take the top 5 minute-getters on each championship team, then sort those by usage and take that average. The optimal combination, figured this way, is going to be more skewed towards the "alpha dog" formula.

By: izzy

izzy — Tue, 18 May 2010 22:46:41 +0000

I don't think it's fair to say that by averaging the results of different teams with different contexts creates the ideal usage breakdown. And even if it does, subscribing to the usage breakdown as a team (i.e. The Bobcats) does not mean that you have chemistry. Chemistry goes beyond the usage breakdown--chemistry is knowing exactly where each teammate is on the floor so you can kick it to the corner for an easy three or hit your man for that telepathic alleyoop. My gut tells me there are flaws in this article, but I that's just my gut--I'll save it for others to help articulate my intuitions (which is unfair, but hey, I'm tryin)

By: Luke

Luke — Tue, 18 May 2010 22:45:27 +0000

Well, since each of these teams won, I find it hard to say that any of these combinations don't/won't work. I think you'd have to look at what the makeup of the teams that they beat was (and by how badly) to see which combination works "best."

By: Mike G

Mike G — Tue, 18 May 2010 19:52:59 +0000

Wait a minute. You've just averaged in 9 Bill Russell Usg% with 6 Michael Jordan Usg% (plus everyone in between) and conclude the ideal Usg% for your #1 minutes player is somewhere in between? And so, Ideally, you'd advocate getting rid of a Jordan or a Russell, in favor of guys who shoot less (or more) because that's more 'ideal'? No, Jordan is the guy to keep; compliment his 36% with a 10% Rodman, etc. Around Russell's 15%, a bunch of 25's.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Tue, 18 May 2010 18:45:11 +0000

Good point, and that made me think of another baseball example -- Earl Weaver. Weaver didn't know or care anything about sabermetrics (it didn't really even exist for most of his managerial career), but he somehow intuited a strategic model that was really similar to the model that sabermetrics eventually came up with. It seems like that's the mark of a great coach, being able to intuitively make decisions that are later confirmed by quantitative analysis.

By: Jason J

Jason J — Tue, 18 May 2010 18:24:55 +0000

"Strangely, though, the 2010 playoff team this "Secret" formula would have predicted to win the most often through chemistry? The Bobcats. Proving that sometimes it really is about basketball... Basketball talent, that is." I think this is another indicator of what a great coach Larry Brown is. I'm sure he doesn't "know" what usage percentage breakdown his players should optimally have, but he seems to have a great sense of how his team should best operate on offense - be it a one man show in Phili or a perfect team split in Detroit or Charlotte.

By: DSMok1

DSMok1 — Tue, 18 May 2010 16:03:41 +0000

VERY intriguing work, Neil. I look forward to more in this vein.