Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Derozan

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

  • Congrats to Demar, for earning that USA spot, and proving that hard work gets a guy further than too many are able to recognize. Fucking dumb "journalists" writing him off consistently, despite the performances. Go DeMar!!! Make yourself and your teammates proud!

    Comment


    • Was viewing at DD's twitter and found this pic, he looks like an raptor in this picture, even more raptor-like than Bosh

      #random
      Official Pope of the Raptors sponsored by MLSE.

      Comment


      • chico wrote: View Post
        I judge WARP by the convoluted explanation of what it is, not merely by these rankings.

        In simple terms, it's taking a guy's numbers, throwing them in with some imaginary, yet theoretically average teammates, using estimates and assumptions,
        None of that is arbitrary. Would you prefer a player's numbers be evaluated in some other context than being surrounded by average players? It normalizes the comparison between players. There are no estimates or assumptions used either - an average player will contribute towards a .500 record, since mathematically all teams will average out to .500 basketball. For every win there is a loss. Very straightforward, and an approach used in every catch-all win stat.

        and coming up with a "comparable" number to some imaginary replacement player, drawn from a pool of numbers from starters/subs (no diff,eh) from different teams under very different circumstances, even disregarding position ("position is less of a factor because the nature of position is more fluid in basketball")
        Replacement level is very easy to determine. But it is also irrelevant - it is just a low win rate. If you prefer, you can assume a replacement win rate of 0, like WS and WP do, but it is a difference that gets applied to every player, so it really doesn't impact the ratings at all. Strange thing to have a problem with.

        and guessing what his production would be playing with this imaginary, theoretical team, vs guessing what other players' production would be.
        Guessing? No, there's math involved. If you have a problem with math, say so. There are no real assumptions made - the relationship between wins and each of the statistical categories are determined by doing regression studies, not by arbitrarily assigning numbers. The imaginary theoretical team is necessary so you can compare every player and not just players who play with the same teammates.

        The number crunching is indeed done by math whizzes - the kind that love watching basketball and have a very deep appreciation for the game and it's many nuances.
        twitter.com/dhackett1565

        Comment


        • chico wrote: View Post
          Beyond seeing how useless WARP is simply by seeing the results, it doesn't take much reading through that explanation to see that it's a made up piece of crap pulled out a subjective persons ass.
          Nailed it.

          Comment


          • DanH wrote: View Post
            None of that is arbitrary. Would you prefer a player's numbers be evaluated in some other context than being surrounded by average players? It normalizes the comparison between players. There are no estimates or assumptions used either - an average player will contribute towards a .500 record, since mathematically all teams will average out to .500 basketball. For every win there is a loss. Very straightforward, and an approach used in every catch-all win stat.



            Replacement level is very easy to determine. But it is also irrelevant - it is just a low win rate. If you prefer, you can assume a replacement win rate of 0, like WS and WP do, but it is a difference that gets applied to every player, so it really doesn't impact the ratings at all. Strange thing to have a problem with.



            Guessing? No, there's math involved. If you have a problem with math, say so. There are no real assumptions made - the relationship between wins and each of the statistical categories are determined by doing regression studies, not by arbitrarily assigning numbers. The imaginary theoretical team is necessary so you can compare every player and not just players who play with the same teammates.

            The number crunching is indeed done by math whizzes - the kind that love watching basketball and have a very deep appreciation for the game and it's many nuances.
            Dude, I'm going by what is written as a description of what it is. Not all, but some examples:

            You say "There are no estimates or assumptions used either ".

            The description says:
            - "using the theoretical "winning percentage" of the team with four average players" (that's not guessing/assuming?)
            - "Also, it requires a number of assumptions - the value of assists, the trade-off between usage and efficiency, and replacement level. "
            - "A painstakingly detailed explanation of how WARP is calculated and its assumptions follows."
            - "Valuing assists is one question statistical analysis remains unable to answer with any degree of certainty, leaving us to use an estimate."
            - "This estimate is multiplied by field goals made and by 0.75 and subtracted from the prior point total to give us an estimate of offensive points created."
            - "We now have an estimate of the performance of the imaginary team on minor possessions."
            - "The relatively easy part is estimating the team's offensive rebound percentage. The one thing that needs to be considered is that each rebound grabbed by the player makes one less available for his imaginary teammates. So the teammates' percentage is calculated out of the remaining rebounds by the following formula. "
            - "The more challenging aspect is figuring out how many rebound opportunities are available to the imaginary team. This requires us to estimate the percentage of minor possessions that end in missed shots for both the player and his teammates, which is complicated by the usage adjustment made earlier."
            - "Note that .56 is used as the multiplier on missed free throws because we estimate that 44 percent of free throws are shot as part of a series of two. This is a slight overestimation due to some free throws that are not the first of two but are still not available for rebounds (technical/flagrant foul shots and three-shot fouls)."
            -"We then divide by the league-wide ratio of eFG% to field-goal percentage to get the estimated field-goal percentage of the teammates." (if you're going to have imaginary teammates, you need imaginary numbetrs too, eh)
            - "As part of this process, we've estimated how frequently these teammates are shooting from the field, ...."
            - "So what we have to do is estimate how often each of those things occur, and how many points result on average (from field goal and free throw attempts; obviously no points result from the others) and then factor in rebounding. "
            - "To evaluate these, we need to first estimate defensive possessions"
            - "then add to that 80 percent of the league average of blocks + steals per possession (which the other four imaginary teammates are theoretically generating). "
            - "Next we need to look at fouls. We can estimate how many possessions each foul results in by the formula: "
            - "This ratio is multiplied by the player's personal fouls (PF) divided by the estimated defensive possessions the player has participated in."
            - "If we add these and subtract from 100 percent, we estimate how often the imaginary opposition gets off a shot from the field. We then add in the estimated points per attempt to get points allowed per minor possession:"
            -"Available rebound opportunities are easier at the defensive end because we already know how frequently the opposing team is getting to the free throw line and attempting shots from the field. We merely need to estimate the opposition's field-goal percentage based on its FG Rating (TmFGRat)."

            There's enough estimating going on there to choke a herd of raptors. As to your " If you have a problem with math, say so.", all I can say is that my education and career successes would indicate I have a great appreciation for math. What I don't have an appreciation for is misapplication of math. What I see here is equivalent to what I saw way too often from techie genius programmers I've managed. The kind of guys who got so buried in complex tech manipulation that they couldn't be trusted, and rightly so, to pay near enough attention to basic functionality of business needs and operation, and were unable to see the flaws in their work in relation to actual application.

            " The imaginary theoretical team is necessary so you can compare every player and not just players who play with the same teammates."

            So taking various players' actual numbers, while playing for different teams under different circumstances, and imagining/estimating how they'd look while playing with the same imaginary average team, means something to you? It means sfa to me.

            "The number crunching is indeed done by math whizzes - the kind that love watching basketball and have a very deep appreciation for the game and it's many nuances."

            The kind that say All-Star and Team USA DeMar DeRozan is the 17th best SG in the league and that Waiters and Olapido are much better. I'd say that's ignorant of nuances of the game, and totally dependent on complex formulas based on a shit load of estimates and assumptions applied to some imaginary team play. Shit man, it's taking a baseball analytic, where despite it being a game made up of teams, virtually every play accounted to a player is independent of players around him and what they do, and tries to apply it to a sport that is so team and teammate dependent, to say nothing of how stats can be greatly affected by opponents (starters/subs, focus of defense or not).

            I saw someone comparing Waiters 28 games (half as a sub, half of the other half vs other also-rans playig out the string), against DeMar's full season. Guessing/estimating/assuming how those incomparable stats hold up playing with the same imaginary team, may be okay for building a video game, but it has nothing to do with reality, imo.

            Comment


            • Ugh, of course there are estimates used. Literally everything we do is estimates. But the way you speak of estimates, I assumed that you meant ungrounded estimates - if you have a problem with mathematical estimates, then I have a hard time imagining you do indeed use math as much as you say.

              The kind that say All-Star and Team USA DeMar DeRozan is the 17th best SG in the league and that Waiters and Olapido are much better. I'd say that's ignorant of nuances of the game, and totally dependent on complex formulas based on a shit load of estimates and assumptions applied to some imaginary team play.
              Ah, I see, you've completely ignored everything I said. Now I get it.

              If you want to keep presenting those rankings as an evaluation of WARP you are either unable to understand English or being deliberately disingenuous. I've stated, several times, that those rankings are NOT based on WARP, which is a fairly straightforward aggregation stat (probably the lesser of it, WP and WS, but still solid), but based on projections - projections which differ radically from what the past year's WARP tells us about these players. WARP tells us that DD was dramatically better than both Waiters and Oladipo. So why do you use Waiters vs DD vs Oladipo as an argument against WARP?
              twitter.com/dhackett1565

              Comment


              • DanH wrote: View Post
                Ugh, of course there are estimates used. Literally everything we do is estimates. But the way you speak of estimates, I assumed that you meant ungrounded estimates - if you have a problem with mathematical estimates, then I have a hard time imagining you do indeed use math as much as you say.


                Ah, I see, you've completely ignored everything I said. Now I get it.

                If you want to keep presenting those rankings as an evaluation of WARP you are either unable to understand English or being deliberately disingenuous. I've stated, several times, that those rankings are NOT based on WARP, which is a fairly straightforward aggregation stat (probably the lesser of it, WP and WS, but still solid), but based on projections - projections which differ radically from what the past year's WARP tells us about these players. WARP tells us that DD was dramatically better than both Waiters and Oladipo. So why do you use Waiters vs DD vs Oladipo as an argument against WARP?

                I get what you're saying Dan H lol. Do you happen to know what the ranking of the top 10 shooting guards would be if WARP was used correctly and not as a projection? I would love to see what the actual ranking would be.
                I relish negativity and disappointment. It is not healthy. Somebody buy me a pony.

                Comment


                • just for further context, the previous year, ESPN projected lowry as #8 PG in the league for the 2013-2014 season using their WARP projections.

                  Comment


                  • Not to drag this away from a WARP conversation, but....two observations from being in the states lately. First, listened to a couple of guys on nba radio (isola and stackhouse) and they were dissecting what had gone wrong with the twolves. They talked about drafting Flynn at six when you could have had curry or derozan. Almost in the same breath. Random but we are so used to bringing him down, it was nice to hear an unbiased positive sentiment. Second, more random thought. Went to get a terrible coffee at dunkin donuts. To get into the store you had to pull the oversized "DD" door handles. DD? Dunkin donuts? How did this never become a thing?

                    Comment


                    • chico wrote: View Post
                      I saw someone comparing Waiters 28 games (half as a sub, half of the other half vs other also-rans playig out the string), against DeMar's full season. Guessing/estimating/assuming how those incomparable stats hold up playing with the same imaginary team, may be okay for building a video game, but it has nothing to do with reality, imo.
                      That was me.

                      And that was not my point.

                      I made a joke how someone else thought Waiters was better than DD than myself (a jab at imanshumpert and a joke of how much of an argument was made earlier this year)

                      It was then blown out of proportion by people actually taking the statement seriously and saying that Waiters hasn't done sh*t.

                      I noted that closing out last season (28 games is not a small sample size) Waiters produced at a rate better than DD. Implying that if you think Waiter's has done nothing, then DD has also done nothing, which we know to be utter BS.

                      Followed by 2 pages of hate....and the implication that I must clearly be insane to suggest even something like Waiters being better than DD....which he currently is not.

                      But congrats to DD for making the national team all the same

                      Comment


                      • Kevin pelton is annoying because he refuses to integrate anything qualitative in his analysis. Every article is just a list of warp. He did the same thing with the draft. Apparently he think a sticking to the state religiously makes his projections more legitimate.
                        "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


                        • stooley wrote: View Post
                          Kevin pelton is annoying because he refuses to integrate anything qualitative in his analysis. Every article is just a list of warp. He did the same thing with the draft. Apparently he think a sticking to the state religiously makes his projections more legitimate.
                          True. Though to be fair he does put plenty of qualifiers in the description. Even in the SG article he mentions that his model would have DD top 10 if he had another good season, so clearly he expects him to do well, he just doesn't override the projections. There's merit to that when most people's projections are nothing but guesswork - introducing his own guesswork, even if it makes sense, into these projections would make them no different than anything else out there.
                          twitter.com/dhackett1565

                          Comment


                          • DanH wrote: View Post
                            True. Though to be fair he does put plenty of qualifiers in the description. Even in the SG article he mentions that his model would have DD top 10 if he had another good season, so clearly he expects him to do well, he just doesn't override the projections. There's merit to that when most people's projections are nothing but guesswork - introducing his own guesswork, even if it makes sense, into these projections would make them no different than anything else out there.
                            Regardless of the math, the qualifiers or the amount of estimating into the formula, any rankings that has DD well behind Waiters, Oladipo and many others for next season, is complete BS. So the formula might be nice, but on it's own, all it proved is that it is skewed towards inexperienced players and is generally not a good indicator of next season projection.

                            If he had incorporated his own opinions beyond the math, he might not have stood out from other rankings, but he might actually have produced rankings that are accurate. Better to be right than to stand out in this case.
                            Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                            If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                            Comment


                            • OldSkoolCool wrote: View Post
                              That was me.

                              And that was not my point.

                              I made a joke how someone else thought Waiters was better than DD than myself (a jab at imanshumpert and a joke of how much of an argument was made earlier this year)

                              It was then blown out of proportion by people actually taking the statement seriously and saying that Waiters hasn't done sh*t.

                              I noted that closing out last season (28 games is not a small sample size) Waiters produced at a rate better than DD. Implying that if you think Waiter's has done nothing, then DD has also done nothing, which we know to be utter BS.

                              Followed by 2 pages of hate....and the implication that I must clearly be insane to suggest even something like Waiters being better than DD....which he currently is not.

                              But congrats to DD for making the national team all the same
                              First off, not everyone will pick up on inside digs at banned users (which is quite petty anyway) but you seemed to defend the point so you own it regardless.

                              It isn't blowing it out of proportion to accurately state that waiters has yet to produce at the NBA level in a significant way (to paraphrase - he hasn't done shit).

                              Implying that 28 games of per 36 projected production is he equivalent of DD's 82 game, 38 MPG is insane. Dismissing Waiters 28 projections is not at all the same as saying DD didn't do shit for his season.
                              Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                              If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                              Comment


                              • wait a minute...imanshumpert is banned?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X