Comments on: The 2008-09 All-APBRmetrics Team

By: internapoli city

internapoli city — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:55:18 +0000

Thanks, I have recently been looking for info about this topic for a long time and yours is the best I've came upon so far. But, what in regards to the conclusion? Are you sure in regards to the supply?

By: photographer

photographer — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 19:08:06 +0000

Hello there, I discovered your web site by means of Google at the same time as searching for a comparable topic, your site came up, it appears to be like great. I've bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

By: merl

merl — Fri, 22 May 2009 10:12:10 +0000

Why does Yao come first for APM and Dwight comes first for SPM yet neither player registers on the other stat? Makes you question plus/minus....?

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:20:31 +0000

EWA seems like the best way to use PER for all NBA teams.

By: Zach Morris

Zach Morris — Tue, 19 May 2009 08:39:35 +0000

Just to add to Haushinkaa2's original critique and Neil's (excellent) response, I believe the Roland Ratings are a composite of an adjusted plus/minus rating and a modified per rating(or at least some sort of box score based metric) because when Roland was creating the system the composite ratings passed the smell test better than either of the individual measures. So at least in regards to that specific metric Haushinkaa2's complaint may be valid. Of course the flip side of the Roland Ratings passing the smell test better than other systems is that the rankings seem better at first glance. Even players who are ranked higher in the Roland Rankings than the conventional wisdom would suggest (Nene, Odom, Thaddeus Young, Brendan Haywood etc.) make sense to people who follow the game closely and these players generally do well in the other metrics (it is a composite of per and adjusted +/- after all). So from a completely non intellectual perspective its hard for me to consider the Roland Rankings invalid or useless. Which might be Haushinkaa's original point. Hope I didn't steer the conversation back in the wrong direction.

By: Mountain

Mountain — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:04:17 +0000

It would be interesting to see which regular season metrics are most consistent with playoff performance for the top guys or broader. Some insiders scorn the attempt to compute / refine very or all inclusive metrics but it still seems worth checking this.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:57:40 +0000

@ Mountain,

Man, you're really breaking out the calculator today :) All great info that you provided in your posts.

But just to add to my suggestion of a longer study, I think perhaps a five-year timespan could provide a rough gauge on the consistency of these metrics, and how they correlate with each other. I say five because its probably the most practical given the accessibility in the resources for analysis...it might be able to include non-box score stats such as APM, depending on how far back the data necessary for its computation has been available. Then again, I don't know if the data for systems like WARP and Roland Rating have been available for that long either.

By: gdth

gdth — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:37:25 +0000

My $.02 about ratings at the top agreeing, while ratings lower down don't..

Think horseracing..in a 12 horse field, easy to pick out 2-3 favorites (good in may categories), almost impossible to distinguish between 8th-12th best horses...

Hold true in mamy (most?) competitive endeavors..Another example, world-championship chess: 4-5 WC contenders (Anand/Topolav/Kraminik/Carlsen)...but #50-100 by FIDE rating, virtually interchangeable...

No matter what the 'ruler'/scale, outliers at the very top readily identifiable... down below, lost in the crowd...

By: Mountain

Mountain — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:33:35 +0000

Dave Berri at his blog: "So this contest really is not a “test” of anyone’s ability to evaluate teams. Again, this is because a) I think we essentially have the same evaluation and b) the playoffs are simply not designed to test that evaluation. Of course if I get this test right, then we will forget everything I just said and conclude that I really do know something :)" Ok so this doesn't matter. Or it might. The regular season gave a fuller test and several versions of Wins Produced compiled by another person not the author faired poorly compared to the rest of the metric and non-metric based competition that was won by Bill Simmons. But this doesn't matter. Or it might. I'll leave it there.

By: Mountain

Mountain — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:16:21 +0000

P.S. Not directly on this exact topic but I wondered how Dave Berri's Wins Produced for teams would have done for predicting the playoffs and why he choose to go with efficiency differential ... , home court advantage, and any relevant injuries" instead. If Wins Produced is the product of the best academic research why not use it? For the first two rounds it would have been the same except it would have taken the Spurs in the first round and the Celtics except for the injury factor and I can understand switching for that reason. But if Wins Produced does exactly what efficiency differential, home court advantage, and any relevant injuries does and the author of Wins Produced used them for his playoff predictions rather than his own model was that academically sound model really that important or better than the rest of the stuff out there and better than the stuff other people without a PhD level formal statistical training are using? Just asking.