Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Gary Trent Jr.

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

  • Here's my very non-analytical thoughts on predicting Gary Trent Jr's defensive impact for the coming season: It's a contract year bitches!

    Comment


    • LJ2 wrote: View Post
      Here's my very non-analytical thoughts on predicting Gary Trent Jr's defensive impact for the coming season: It's a contract year bitches!
      i'm projecting more offensive growth than defensive.... why? because he isn't a board man and according to iverson a jumpshot gets you a bouncing car and a bunch of other cool stuff.....although non of those things get you a jump shot.

      Comment


      • chris wrote: View Post

        i'd wager the vast majority of NBA players wish they could maintain their college production in the NBA.
        i'd wager against that considering a lot of people come into the nba and don't last beyond a first contract

        Comment


        • DanH wrote: View Post

          The thing you are missing is the thing I explicitly said. I am not using the DFG% stat to predict future trends. I am comparing the stat as a predictor of future trends to any other random number, so see which is better, as a test of the relationship between the statistic and the talent or control of the player in question. I'm not coming up with projections for how a player will defend in the future, I'm testing how well the statistic captures the player's actual defensive impacts now. Predictive testing of statistics is extremely common and is the most basic pass/fail test of whether that statistic is capturing anything other than noise, and DFG% fails that test pretty handily.

          What I'm saying is this: if I was going to flip a coin, and asked you to "defend" my attempts, and I wanted heads, and I flipped 10 heads in a row, are you a bad defender? Or were you just unlucky?

          One way to check is to see if we did that experiment for 500 people, are their first 10 flips more predictive of the second ten flips than just a random guess, or an average value? In that case, it would not be, the vast majority of those samples would skew back to roughly 4-6 heads no matter what the first set of flips were. So the statistic we captured about you defending my coin flips fails the test - it doesn't predict your ability to defend the next ten "shots", therefore it probably isn't actually describing your defence on the first ten shots at all either, it was just random luck.

          DFG% fails the same test, with much bigger samples. It's not about using the statistic to actually predict future successes, it's about seeing whether there is any predictive value at all to determine whether the stat is actually measuring what you think it is (in this case, a player's ability to play good defence and prevent efficient scoring by the guy they are guarding). And it rather emphatically is not.
          Yeah so if you read my last response I gave room for it being a coincidence. I just haven't run the numbers myself to double check.

          Comment


          • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post

            Yeah so if you read my last response I gave room for it being a coincidence. I just haven't run the numbers myself to double check.
            Right but it is a coincidence. That's what I've been telling you from the beginning, DFG% is always more noise than signal so ANY pattern is a coincidence, except in the very most extreme cases and only in some of those.
            twitter.com/dhackett1565

            Comment


            • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post

              i'd wager against that considering a lot of people come into the nba and don't last beyond a first contract
              i think you're pretty much making my point... a lot of those players not making it beyond their first contract were stars on their college teams. obviously their not maintaining that star-level college production if they're out of the league after three years

              Comment


              • DanH wrote: View Post

                Right but it is a coincidence. That's what I've been telling you from the beginning, DFG% is always more noise than signal so ANY pattern is a coincidence, except in the very most extreme cases and only in some of those.
                Did I say it wasn't though? I literally said twice now that it may be a coincidence but I haven't ran the numbers to confirm but it may be. at that point what is there to argue about? Are you just trying to beat me over the head with the point that I just said.

                Comment


                • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post

                  Did I say it wasn't though? I literally said twice now that it may be a coincidence but I haven't ran the numbers to confirm but it may be. at that point what is there to argue about? Are you just trying to beat me over the head with the point that I just said.
                  So... why did you present the numbers if you have no confidence in them?

                  In any case, there's a difference between "maybe it's a coincidence" and "yes, it is, please stop using this statistic like it's not a coincidence" and I'd hope that difference was obvious.
                  twitter.com/dhackett1565

                  Comment


                  • DanH wrote: View Post

                    So... why did you present the numbers if you have no confidence in them?

                    In any case, there's a difference between "maybe it's a coincidence" and "yes, it is, please stop using this statistic like it's not a coincidence" and I'd hope that difference was obvious.
                    I didn't say I have no confidence. I left room for an alternative. I didn't get entirely dug in on these numbers. I am dug in on Trent being a bad defender. You went out to try to say the stat is completely useless and effectively are claiming it has no value.. and I am saying it is possible but I am not fully convinced until I run my own analysis. I would have to see if you looked across all the NBA .. what parameters you were looking... etc etc. You kept digging in because you sometimes frankly get lost in the argument and lost in the sauce without reading the situation properly.
                    Last edited by TrueTorontoFan; Mon Aug 8, 2022, 08:26 PM.

                    Comment


                    • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post

                      I didn't say I have no confidence. I left room for an alternative. I didn't get entirely dug in on these numbers. I am dug in on Trent being a bad defender. You went out to try to say the stat is completely useless and effectively are claiming it has no value.. and I am saying it is possible but I am not fully convinced until I run my own analysis. I would have to see if you looked across all the NBA .. what parameters you were looking... etc etc. You kept digging in because you sometimes frankly get lost in the argument and lost in the sauce without reading the situation properly.
                      I've been saying the same thing this whole time - the stat is largely useless and using it to present your argument is the wrong way to go about it, and there are much better stats to use as evidence. When asked, by you, I provided more detail. Not seeing why that warrants an attack.
                      twitter.com/dhackett1565

                      Comment


                      • DanH wrote: View Post

                        I've been saying the same thing this whole time - the stat is largely useless and using it to present your argument is the wrong way to go about it, and there are much better stats to use as evidence. When asked, by you, I provided more detail. Not seeing why that warrants an attack.
                        what attack? I literally just said that I wasn't 100 percent convinced from the jump and that going right towards saying something is useless without me doing my own research is not something I would do. It seemed a bit harsh especially when I found a lot of correlations on my early look through the stat... is it possible that you went through every nba player last year and compiled this ? yeah it is .. but I haven't I have not seen any article that suggests that it is a useless stat I haven't seen many articles on the stat in general...I already used impact stats previously so I was looking at other methods anyways. For this particular stat though... and I say this respectfully unless I either run my own analysis fully and completely or you are willing to share your entire methodology and dataframes which I am not asking you to do at this time... then I am not just going to say oh ok yes you are right it was useless. I mean at the end of the day that is kind of what peer review is about.



                        I think its just your style to ... psuedo jump down someone's throat as a way of trying to debate or argue ... I get there at times but I build up to that not start from the jump.

                        I am not being skeptical for the sake of it I am being skeptical because I would need to dig further.

                        For example Gary has high steals and deflections but both of us obviously agree that ...those two things are not necessarily the best indicators of ones overall defensive impact.
                        Last edited by TrueTorontoFan; Tue Aug 9, 2022, 02:53 PM.

                        Comment


                        • TrueTorontoFan wrote: View Post
                          I mean at the end of the day that is kind of what peer review is about.
                          Right, so go check it then. I said from the jump it's just noise and you came back with 1. a question about whether I really think it's just noise and an elaboration on how you used different DFG% for different areas of the floor (I answered yes and explained why), then 2. a response where you said I was trying to use the statistic predictively in which case it was perhaps a mistake on my part (I responded with how predictiveness is a test of what a statistic is measuring, quite specifically a test for noise, whether you want to use it for projections or not), then 3. you came back and ignored my post, claiming that I was doing predictive modeling (I responded to the best of my ability with an explanation of how the predictiveness test works for filtering out luck or noise), and then 4. finally, the discussion devolved into "well I haven't checked myself yet."

                          So... check. Or at least please stop with the multiple paragraph interrogation of my methods if you can't be bothered to do the checks your entire point rests upon. If my responding with multiple paragraphs of I think quite reasonable and thorough explanations of my position to your questions just results in you shrugging your shoulders and saying well maybe, well that's a bit of a waste of my time, which I didn't consider it to be at the time, I thought you were asking in good faith.

                          In the meantime, yes, I've actually done the legwork so I'm going to continue to present my position with a fair degree of certainty, having, you know, done the legwork. I look very forward to the results of your review.
                          twitter.com/dhackett1565

                          Comment


                          • Here, a miniature demonstration of the sort of comparison you can do:

                            I took the top 100 shot defenders (in terms of DFGA) last season for 3 point attempts. I took the top 100 from the season before as well. As it turned out, there were ~50 guys who were on both lists. (I did this to make the data gathering quicker for this demonstration, I have previously done this for the whole league). But these highest volume defenders are where you'd expect the most stable results.

                            The average deviation (good or bad) from expected 3PT% for the opponent last year was ~2%. So the good defenders on average reduced their opponents' 3PT% by 2%, and the bad ones increased it by 2%.

                            Then I looked at how much each player's defensive FG% impact changed from last year to the year prior. The average change from one year to the next was 2.6%. That means, on average, the top 50 guys in terms of defended shots had their defensive FG% impact change by more than it's starting point value - meaning they were, on average, likely to see a performance change big enough to swing them from positive to negative or vice versa. These are the highest volume, theoretically most stable sample of players in the league, and the year to year instability is larger than the value we are trying to measure on average!

                            Now, 3PT% is an extreme case, but I've done the legwork before and spoiler alert, this pattern holds up for all non-paint field goal ranges, over the entire league or high volume samples like the above. It's only in the paint (rim protection) that the highest volume group starts to look like the numbers could have anything remotely close to stability, and even that goes away if looking at lower volume rim protectors.
                            twitter.com/dhackett1565

                            Comment


                            • DanH wrote: View Post

                              Right, so go check it then. I said from the jump it's just noise and you came back with 1. a question about whether I really think it's just noise and an elaboration on how you used different DFG% for different areas of the floor (I answered yes and explained why), then 2. a response where you said I was trying to use the statistic predictively in which case it was perhaps a mistake on my part (I responded with how predictiveness is a test of what a statistic is measuring, quite specifically a test for noise, whether you want to use it for projections or not), then 3. you came back and ignored my post, claiming that I was doing predictive modeling (I responded to the best of my ability with an explanation of how the predictiveness test works for filtering out luck or noise), and then 4. finally, the discussion devolved into "well I haven't checked myself yet."

                              So... check. Or at least please stop with the multiple paragraph interrogation of my methods if you can't be bothered to do the checks your entire point rests upon. If my responding with multiple paragraphs of I think quite reasonable and thorough explanations of my position to your questions just results in you shrugging your shoulders and saying well maybe, well that's a bit of a waste of my time, which I didn't consider it to be at the time, I thought you were asking in good faith.

                              In the meantime, yes, I've actually done the legwork so I'm going to continue to present my position with a fair degree of certainty, having, you know, done the legwork. I look very forward to the results of your review.

                              bite me with this ... and yes I was asking with good faith but tthe way you are addressing it is not.

                              Comment


                              • DanH wrote: View Post
                                Here, a miniature demonstration of the sort of comparison you can do:


                                Now, 3PT% is an extreme case, but I've done the legwork before and spoiler alert, this pattern holds up for all non-paint field goal ranges, over the entire league or high volume samples like the above. It's only in the paint (rim protection) that the highest volume group starts to look like the numbers could have anything remotely close to stability, and even that goes away if looking at lower volume rim protectors.
                                you made a point earlier about there being al ot of noise with 3 point shot but I asked what about beyond 15 feet but within 3 point shot and between 6-15 feet...

                                and again don't ever suggest I am doing this in bad faith again.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X