Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ESPN unveils Real +/-

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    stooley wrote: View Post
    I'm still kinda hesitant to just completely buy into this. I wanna see more details of how its calculated.
    It passes the initial smell test in that the rankings don't look absurd (other than the odd unexpected name) but it isn't really clear from the article how it's calculated. Just reading the brief summary, it looks like there is a lot of "fuzzy math" involved, which should always raise an eyebrow or two....

    Comment


    • #17
      slaw wrote: View Post
      It passes the initial smell test in that the rankings don't look absurd (other than the odd unexpected name) but it isn't really clear from the article how it's calculated. Just reading the brief summary, it looks like there is a lot of "fuzzy math" involved, which should always raise an eyebrow or two....
      I hope the new age of basketball stats isn't made up of stuff that only people with proprietary software can really understand.
      "Bruno?
      Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
      He's terrible."

      -Superjudge, 7/23

      Hope you're wrong.

      Comment


      • #18
        stooley wrote: View Post
        I hope the new age of basketball stats isn't made up of stuff that only people with proprietary software can really understand.
        Thing is, teams have their own advanced stats we don't even see. And they are probably t least as advaced as this. Looking at these numbers, Casey's player usage makes more sense than traditional stats(other than Fields, why doesn't he play more??). I bet if you saw the Raps proprietary stats, the numbers would validate Casey playing certain players even more so.

        One kid I thought was good was John Henson and I wondered why the Bucks weren't giving him more playing time. These stats somewhat answered that question; same with another recent topic of conversation, Ed Davis.

        Traditional stats are going to stay, but if we really want to understand why coaches and FO's make some of the decisions they do, stats like these give a better picture, even if we don't 100% understand the methodology.

        Read Thibs comments on Taj Gibson in the original article and try to think of any simple stat that would properly pick up his value.
        If we knew half as much about coaching an NBA team as we think, we"d know twice as much as we do.

        Comment


        • #19
          Letter N wrote: View Post
          Yay more made up stats so people can pretend to know stuff without watching the game.
          you do know that the average 'stat nerd' almost certainly watches more basketball than a typical hardcore fan (and more than your traditional, sports-writer, 'truthiness' eye-test believer does), right? i mean, to get heavily involved in analytics speaks to an unwavering love of the game, to the degree that poring over the minutiae is exciting for them...it's not enough to 'just' watch, they want to know/understand the hows/whys of the game, and develop better means of understanding WHY/HOW something happened the way it did, because only until the 'why/how' is understood can that information actually be made useful.

          what good does knowing what happened (i.e. what a traditional box score tells you), if you don't understand how or why (what 'advanced' metrics try to do)?
          TRUE LOVE - Sometimes you know it the instant you see it across the bar.

          Comment


          • #20
            slaw wrote: View Post
            It passes the initial smell test in that the rankings don't look absurd (other than the odd unexpected name) but it isn't really clear from the article how it's calculated. Just reading the brief summary, it looks like there is a lot of "fuzzy math" involved, which should always raise an eyebrow or two....
            from a cursory review, it looks like it's simply trying to level the playing field, so to speak, and account for variances brought on by forces outside the individual's control. kind of reminds me of baseball stats that account for park effects, for instance, or FIP/xFIP (basically, evaluating a pitcher's performance by eliminating the vagaries of the defense playing behind him). +/- has generally been the weakest of the non-traditional stats, and is generally only quasi-reliable as a measure of a player's impact over a very large sample size (i.e. multiple seasons), because so much of it is based on who you're on the floor with.
            TRUE LOVE - Sometimes you know it the instant you see it across the bar.

            Comment


            • #21
              enlightenment wrote: View Post
              For some reason, I expect these forms of analytics to favour Hansbrough a bit more..
              why?
              TRUE LOVE - Sometimes you know it the instant you see it across the bar.

              Comment


              • #22
                I suppose it contributes to the idea that Lowry and Amir are the heart and soul of the team/ make winning plays etc...

                numbers aren't my forte though so hopefully some of the more gifted among us will tear this up a bit and show us the guts
                For still frame photograph of me reading the DeRozan thread please refer to my avatar

                Comment


                • #23
                  Interesting....

                  ESPN wrote:
                  RPM estimates how many points each player adds or subtracts, on average, to his team's net scoring margin for each 100 possessions played.
                  Would like to know more. Seems like it is a relative ORAT and DRAT.

                  Interesting how low DD scored on his ORPM...and how bad Val's ORPM was, as well as Ross' DRPM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=10757408

                    This is a podcast featuring Zack Lowe and Kevin Pelton.

                    It really helped me get a better idea of what rpm is and what it tells us.

                    Some notes:

                    -rpm reports on what happened rather than what will happen. if a player is put in a different role, he WILL have different results

                    -4s that don't stretch the floor or play defence are bad

                    -big men are much more important to defence, guards are much more important to offence (in top 40 defensive players, only 6 1/2/3, in top 40 offensive players only 9 4/5 (and most have a jump shot))

                    -from a team building perspective, the player's numbers relative to their position is more important (so an average defender at the 4 is equivalent to a net negative defender at the 2)
                    Last edited by stooley; Wed Apr 9, 2014, 05:55 PM.
                    "Bruno?
                    Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
                    He's terrible."

                    -Superjudge, 7/23

                    Hope you're wrong.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      yertu damkule wrote: View Post
                      why?
                      Lots of fouls = high amount of points in few minutes of play.

                      And Ive always figured Hansbrough to be an analytic favourite
                      The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        enlightenment wrote: View Post
                        Lots of fouls = high amount of points in few minutes of play.

                        And Ive always figured Hansbrough to be an analytic favourite
                        I personally despise Hansbrough - for all the activity he brings, it yields so few results, and he's a net negative defensively providing very little help and not really doing much in way of post defense.
                        twitter.com/dhackett1565

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X