# For Dan Rosenbaum



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I was just looking at some WWW pages on your site and read about your +/- rating system. Nifty.

So when people here bash Elton Brand, how come you don't pipe up about how he's in the top 10-15 (depending on your formula) in +/- ?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I was just looking at some WWW pages on your site and read about your +/- rating system. Nifty.
> 
> So when people here bash Elton Brand, how come you don't pipe up about how he's in the top 10-15 (depending on your formula) in +/- ?


Didn't you just do it for me?

I think he is very comparable to Jermaine O'Neal, so I think a Brad Miller/Elton Brand/Ron Artest/Trent Hassell/Jamal Crawford would be a championship-contending starting line-up. But oh well.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: For Dan Rosenbaum*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Didn't you just do it for me?
> 
> I think he is very comparable to Jermaine O'Neal, so I think a Brad Miller/Elton Brand/Ron Artest/Trent Hassell/Jamal Crawford would be a championship-contending starting line-up. But oh well.


Did you watch our team when we had those guys? 

You have to have someone that can play good D in the post. Like JO. Unlike Brand and Miller.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: For Dan Rosenbaum*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Did you watch our team when we had those guys?
> 
> You have to have someone that can play good D in the post. Like JO. Unlike Brand and Miller.


In essence, what you are saying is that if the Bulls are not good this season, there is no way this bunch could ever be championship-contending material.

The Pacers actually play pretty well when O'Neal is not in there, so I don't it is his D that makes that team so good. I also think the difference between O'Neal and Brand on defense is a little overstated. Brand is better than folks give him credit for. Throw in the fact that Brand is better on offense than O'Neal and I find the two to be very comparable.

Finally, right before the first Rose trade, Artest and Miller had the Bulls in a string of 20 or so games where I think only one team beat the Bulls by more than 12 points. Only one or two other teams in the League could boast such consistency. The Bulls were not winning all of those games but they were in every game playing gutty Ron Artest basketball. That was by far and away the best basketball the Bulls have played since the dynasty. So it is not imagine adding Brand and some maturity (and some first round draft picks) to that group and getting a championship contender.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: For Dan Rosenbaum*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> In essence, what you are saying is that if the Bulls are not good this season, there is no way this bunch could ever be championship-contending material.


Do I wish the Artest and Miller trade for Rose never happened? Yes

Did it set are team back at least 3 years? Yes

Is the core you outlined a contender? No

No post defense, below average backcourt.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Dan, 

Are you saying that your efficiency scores reflect defense? Especially if you are comparing players on different teams?

Until someone makes a better case, it is my strong opinion that Brand, Miller and Crawford are overrated by these effeciency rankings b/c they don't truly account for D.

For example:

Bulls won more games after losing Brand.

Pacers won more games after losing Miller.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I'm gonna have to side with johnston on this one , stats are nice but this is a case of 5 different players who are now on 5 different teams and in some cases years later, there are way too many variables.

team enviroment , player development by the teams the players go to, ( i dont have too much faith in the current regime's ability to cultivate talent) and other things like Artest and miller got to play with J. Oneal who i am sorry to say is a lot better than brand despite similar stats , sometimes the stats lie and this is one of those occasions, i'm sure if it were more in depth maybe it would give a clearer picture(like 4th quarter scoring ) , but everyone knows the impact difference of o'neal vs. brand 

Oneal is a #1 option on offense on a 61 win team and a good one. he is also one of the better post defenders both man and team.

brand is better suited for a supporting role as his #1 option on a 28 win team suggests because he doesn't elevate the team he is on.(like a guy like shaq or duncan or garnett would ...and yes jermaine even fits in this category though he may not be as impactful as the three i just mentioned) Its the same argument that people use on crawford that he as a #1 option only won 23 games and its just as true, JC at this time is not a quality #1 guy and is better in a group of scorers like at the end of 2002-03 (rose , curry , marshall even jay will towards the end) than as the unquestioned #1 , or as a supporting guy a #2 or 3

brand has improved his defense since being traded to L.A. but he doesn't scare or deter the other team he just stops them because they are far more likely to challenge him than they are o'neal, he is a very good defender , o'neal is an elite one.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Dan,
> 
> Are you saying that your efficiency scores reflect defense? Especially if you are comparing players on different teams?
> ...


My adjusted plus/minus ratings are completely determined by how a team does when a given player is on the floor, taking into account who he is playing with and against. So those ratings measure defensive contributions every bit as well as they do offense contributions.

My statistical ratings are derived from the adjusted plus/minus ratings and in my latest version, players like Ron Artest, Kirk Hinrich, Bruce Bowen, and Trent Hassell have identical statisical ratings and adjusted plus/minus ratings, suggesting that even the statistical ratings are picking up defense.

On that point, Crawford does slightly better on the adjusted plus/minus rating than on the statistical rating, suggesting that there is something that he contributed to the Bulls that is not picked up in the statistics.

Miller, Brand, and Jermaine O'Neal are all better on the statistical measure than the adjusted plus/minus, suggesting as you say that each of them are a bit worse (not a lot worse) than their statistics suggest. All three, however, are very good players with either measure.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> My adjusted plus/minus ratings are completely determined by how a team does when a given player is on the floor, taking into account who he is playing with and against. So those ratings measure defensive contributions every bit as well as they do offense contributions.


Isn't the biggest determinant of the plus\minus how you compare to your teammates?

So doesn't Crawford's plus\minus for example really most compare him to guys like Gill and Brunson?

=============================

Hollinger's 2003 rankings (you have his book, right) have the Pacers (JO) as the 3rd best defender against PFs.

Brand was 19th.

Is this inconsistant with your rankings? 

If so, what are the pros\cons of each system.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Isn't the biggest determinant of the plus\minus how you compare to your teammates?
> 
> So doesn't Crawford's plus\minus for example really most compare him to guys like Gill and Brunson?
> ...


Regular plus/minus statistics depend very heavily on who substitutes for a given player (and who he is playing with and against). I use a regression framework to account for who a player is playing with and against, so the comparisons to teammates do not effect my ratings in the critical way they do regular plus/minus statistics.

In a lot of ways, my adjusted plus/minus statistics and regular plus/minus statistics are not the same animal and so intuition about one does not carry over to the other.

One limitation to what I do is that it is tricky to get reliable offensive versus defensive ratings, so it is hard for me to compare to Hollinger's work. Defensive statistics are a nice indicator, but they are much noiser than offensive statistics, so it is hard to get overly excited about them. For example teams that never double down in the post will typically have post defenders with worse defensive statistics in matchup-based defensive statistics, like what Hollinger uses. These statistics also miss help defense completely or could be problematic when a player doesn't always match up with the same position player from the other team.

My adjusted plus/minus statistics are noisy too, but that is why I combine them with regular statistics in much of what I do.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Dan, I think your work is excellent. Perhaps the best proxy for overall effectiveness I have seen based upon the rankings vs. my subjective opinion.

And thanks for taking the time to respond.

BUT....



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> One limitation to what I do is that it is tricky to get reliable offensive versus defensive ratings, so it is hard for me to compare to Hollinger's work.


I have a hard time believing a stats guy telling me that JO and Brand are very comparalbe if they don't feel confident enough in their model to have a seperate ranking for defense.

That's OK. I have not seen anyone be able to do this.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I added a bit more about Hollinger's methods above.

Basically, what I am saying is that overall Brand is rated a little more highly than O'Neal. Perhaps O'Neal is a much, much better defender than Brand, but that would imply that Brand is a much, much, much better offensive player than O'Neal.

So I suggest something a little more conservative that perhaps the convential wisdom about the difference between O'Neal's and Brand's defense is overstated.

Finally, O'Neal has an effective field goal percentage of 49 percent (the same as Crawford), which is absolutely atrocious for an All-Star caliber big man. There is only one other PF or C in my top 100 players with an effective field goal percentage less than 50 percent - Ben Wallace. But Ben Wallace can get away with that because he uses only 16 percent of his team's offensive possessions, while O'Neal uses a whopping 28 percent.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I added a bit more about Hollinger's methods above.
> 
> Basically, what I am saying is that overall Brand is rated a little more highly than O'Neal. Perhaps O'Neal is a much, much better defender than Brand, but that would imply that Brand is a much, much, much better offensive player than O'Neal.
> ...


i would agree that brand's offense and oneal's offense on a statsheet are probably well in brand's favor , but it doesn't take into effect how those points come about which is my main concern when talking of how players impact games.

Brand tends to get the easier baskets, more putbacks , he runs the floor better so he gets more easy baskets in that fashion as well , but, the way they get points at the end of games is the biggest indicator of why jermaine is a better offensive player , I am the type of person who greatly weighs what a player does when the defenses clamp down at the end of games and it becomes much more intense. Brands post game is one of power and of facing up and driving using his bulk , while O'neal is a player who relies on a turnaround/fadeaway more than anything else when he really needs a basket , overall in a game brand's is more effective but its not an option that is always open to him, teams tend not to allow you to do what you do best at the end of games. Any bulls fan can attest to the opposing players clamping down on Curry and his jump hook in the 2nd halves of games greatly diminishing him and since he doesn't yet have an effective counter to that the bulls tend to have problems unless someone else steps up at the end of games. But the point is with O'neal is that his main shot of choice though a lower % shot , that rarely gets him FT's is something he can always go to and thus makes him more effective in tighter situations.

The amount of work you must go through for a lot of your stats is mindboggling and very impressive and i do appreciate you sharing them with us, but I think this is an instance where they not quite telling the whole story


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Basically, what I am saying is that overall Brand is rated a little more highly than O'Neal. Perhaps O'Neal is a much, much better defender than Brand, but that would imply that Brand is a much, much, much better offensive player than O'Neal.


You failed to add the disclaim that this assumes your methodolgy is 100% accurate.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> My adjusted plus/minus statistics are noisy too, but that is why I combine them with regular statistics in much of what I do.


No analysis, be it statistical or non-statisitcal, is 100% accurate. I try to point that out often and use words like "perhaps" and "suggest" to imply that there is uncertainty around everything that I say. I am not sure that folks who do non-statistical analyses generally are so careful.

On the clutch play issue, Brand averages 15.9 points per 48 minutes of clutch play on 51.6 percent effective field goal shooting (counting free throws and three pointers). He averages 10.9 rebounds per 48, 3.5 blocks per 48, 3.9 assists per 48, and 2.1 turnovers per 48.

O'Neal averages 22.7 points per 48 on 46.0 percent effective field goal shooting. He averages 12.9 rebounds per 48, 2.9 blocks per 48, 1.2 assists per 48, and 2.3 turnovers per 48.

So O'Neal scores and rebounds more, almost never passes, but is generally less efficient. All in all, I would just about call it a draw.


----------



## davidR (Jul 23, 2002)

Dan,

Since your rankings are basically based on regression, have you tried looking at second order effects to estimate whether or not certain pairs of players play well together? Granted the number of extra terms needed to do that is huge, but if there were any significant second order effects I think it would be interesting.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Johnston, 

I think the crux of your argument doesn't take any statistical consideration at all for me to disagree with.

Saying Players 1, 2, and 3 would never be anything because they didn't "win enough" when they were 1) too young and 2) on a team with gaping holes seems counterintuitive.

If Bulls fans should understand anything (I'm skeptical they or management does, however), it's that:

1) Putting together too many young players is putting them in a position to fail.

and

2) Even the best players can't single-handedly lead a team with gaping positional and experience holes at other positions very far. If it's too much to expect the absolute best player ever to do it, it's double or triple unrealistic to expect lesser (although perhaps good) players to do that.

To draw a metaphor, the Bulls have spent the last six years (and appear intent on spending the next several) training soldiers in modern combat and then sending them into battle against with swords and pitchforks. Even more amazingly, we seem to conclude that the soldiers are somehow inadequate when they routinely get slaughtered.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Johnston,
> 
> I think the crux of your argument doesn't take any statistical consideration at all for me to disagree with.
> ...


That's not my primary arguement at all. 

My arguement is that Brand, Miller, Artest, Crawford and Hassel are not a "championship-contending starting line-up" because you need a better backcourt and better post D.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> So O'Neal scores and rebounds more, almost never passes, but is generally less efficient. All in all, I would just about call it a draw.


I read through your work again.

JO's adjusted +\- is higher than Brand's, right?

I am sure that I am oversimplying this, but it's only when you go back to formula's very similar to the efficiency formula that Brand makes a quantum leap. 

No surprise there b/c he ranks #3 in the NBA's efficiency stat.

In fact, it appears that that for Brand it's based 80% on his good stats and only 20% on his +\-.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Blocks per 40 minutes have a coefficient of 1.564.

This is where I get skeptical b/c as Hollinger states... 



> In some cases, like with Ben Wallace, the blocks are truly indicative of the player's defensive prowess. In others, like Shawn Bradley, it just highlights his only defenseive skill.


All blocks are not the same. Clearly, 2 players can have very similar rebounds and blocks shots but be much different defenders.

Such as in the case of JO and Brand.

p.s. On a similar note, just by steals and blocks, Crawford is viewed as a superior defender to Hinrich.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

One last note....

Hopefully you have not gotten too bored or too frustrated at me at this point...

Brand's actually +/- differencial last year was +1.6 ppg.

Your new score has him at +8 ppg

That's a 500% difference.

Does the magnitude of this adjustment concern you? How much of an outlier compared to the other evaluations is this?

Looking at....

Table 4: Overall Plus/Minus Ratings for the Top 20 Players in 2002-03 and 2003-04

It would appear that Sabonis is the only other player that is this large an outlier. And subjectively, I woulld have to question his numbers as well.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> That's not my primary arguement at all.
> ...


Is there a guy who's played Shaq better than Brad Miller?

Also, assuming we didn't put the "blow it up" plan into effect and trade Brand, we're also looking at a guy like JRich, Battier, or Joe Johnson in our backcourt more likely than not.

In 02, we more likely than not would have been drafting quite a bit lower than #2. How far down? Would we have been looking at a Nene or Amare Stoudemire or Jiri Welsch pick? With Miller and Brand in the fold, and a guy like JRich with our 01 #4 pick, it would have made sense to take a flyer on a guy like Amare to "groom" behind Brand and Miller.

Would we have been looking at the same FAs if we had those guys?

Obviously you can't totally re-cast the past, but you have to at least assume we'd have made some effort to fill in the holes that would have existed had we not blown up the team.

Honestly, if I were the Bulls, I wouldn't have been that forward thinking. I would have taken Curry in 01, and gone with a Curry/Brand/Miller lineup. I don't think they would be a top defensive lineup by any stretch, but I think Miller and Brand are both decent. I think the 3 of them could conceivably be the best 3 some of big men in the league. Do they give up too many points? Well, maybe, but they still score way more than they give up.

In 02, Caron Butler, bad knees and all was a guy I desperately wanted. That would have left us with a long-run lineup of:

Miller, Curry
Brand
Butler, Mercer
Artest, Hassell
Crawford

That's of course leaving free agents out of the equation- we would have had some money to spend there that we didn't spend on Marshall. Probably we'd have been looking at PGs and defensive mined bigs. FWIW, I was also screaming for Carlos Boozer on draft night 02.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Miller, Curry
> Brand
> Butler, Mercer
> ...


Yes, that's better than our lineup.

The question is it a "championship-contending starting line-up"?

Personally, in the East alone, I would rather have Detroit or Miami or Indiana's squad.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Johnston, let me address a few (but perhaps not all) of the very nice points that you make.

First of all, I am not really trying to argue that Brand is clearly better than O'Neal. I am trying for a weaker argument - that Brand and O'Neal are pretty similar in their overall productivity.

O'Neal is better than Brand on his pure plus/minus, but the difference (while important) is less than one standard error, so it is hard to conclude that it is due to anything other than random chance. But the standard error is pretty large, so that is not a fully satisfying explanation, I understand.

So yes, Brand does catch back up to O'Neal using the statistical measure, but remember this is a statistical measure that nails players like Hinrich, Hassell, Bowen, and Artest - guys who are supposed to have defensive abilitites that are hard to measure using statistics. (This is more true with some of my latest work, which much of what I have said in this thread is based upon.) In essence, what this statistical measure is saying is that the guys Brand plays like tend to have better adjusted plus/minus ratings than do guys who play like O'Neal. Is that completely convincing evidence? No, but non-statistical conjecture typically is not overly convincing to the skeptical either.

Also, I do place more weight on the statistical rating, because it is measured with much less noise. It doesn't jump around as much as the adjusted plus/minus ratings.

And yes, Brand is an outlier in terms of the difference between his statistical and adjusted plus/minus ratings. So there is reason for concern here and reason for you to be skeptical of my claim that the two players are pretty comparable. This is part of the reason that I try not to say that Brand is better than O'Neal even though my statistics would suggest that he might be. I try to be more conservative and just say that they are pretty similar in overall productivity, although they get there in different ways.

And yes, I do put a lot of weight on blocks because on average they matter a lot. And yes, Hollinger makes a good point, but the argument that O'Neal's blocks indicate that he is a good defender, but Brand's don't is not something that I can really refute with statistics. In fact, with too many claims like that, statistics really would have no value and we would be back to non-statistical evaluations that share all of the same problems as statistcal analyses and then some.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Have you ever used historical stats for players in the 80s or early 90s to see how your rankings turned out? It would be interesting to see how various hall of fame players turned up in your rankings. 

I'm guessing you don't have the resources though, or that they didn't keep so many stats back then?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Johnston, let me address a few (but perhaps not all) of the very nice points that you make.


That's for taking the time to do so. It was fun looking through your methodolgy again. Overall, just great stuff.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rwj333</b>!
> Have you ever used historical stats for players in the 80s or early 90s to see how your rankings turned out? It would be interesting to see how various hall of fame players turned up in your rankings.
> 
> I'm guessing you don't have the resources though, or that they didn't keep so many stats back then?


Can't do the adjusted plus/minus ratings and the statistical ratings really wouldn't be calibrated right. But I will probably do something like that at some point.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Just curious, Dan, as I had originally forgot to mention this, but it was one of my points of contention with your statistical system. Why did you feel the need put more weight on "clutch" or "close/late" situations? I don't have the exact clock formula that you used on hand, but just off memory, I remember that the performance in a tied game with 2 minutes left would be more heavily considered than a tied game with 30 minutes left. Aren't both situations inherently equal in regards to the end result? If you make a free throw in the first situation, it adds one point. The second situation, ditto. Why the differentiation of status for the two situations?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I agree Dan, Brand and JO are very comparable. Both play excellent post defense and get most of their blocks on their own man. JO is probably better on defense though. On offense, Brand is more productive even though JO is a good offensive player as well.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> I agree Dan, Brand and JO are very comparable. *Both play excellent post defense* and get most of their blocks on their own man. J


Not much evidence to support that statement...

Per Hollinger in 2003, Pacers 3rd best defense against PFs; Clippers 19th best.

JO - 9 votes for NBA All Defense from NBA head coaches; Brand 0 votes.

JO's +/- difference is +6.6 pts/game; Brand is 1.6 pts/ game.

Objectively and subjectively, that's not similar D.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> Just curious, Dan, as I had originally forgot to mention this, but it was one of my points of contention with your statistical system. Why did you feel the need put more weight on "clutch" or "close/late" situations? I don't have the exact clock formula that you used on hand, but just off memory, I remember that the performance in a tied game with 2 minutes left would be more heavily considered than a tied game with 30 minutes left. Aren't both situations inherently equal in regards to the end result? If you make a free throw in the first situation, it adds one point. The second situation, ditto. Why the differentiation of status for the two situations?


In a given game, you are of course correct. When you score does not matter.

But in 100 games that are tied with 30 minutes left, a lot of them become blowout wins or losses and that extra point would not have much effect on the chances of winning.

Far fewer games tied with 2 minutes left end in blowouts. An extra point there has a much greater effect on the odds of winning. Thus, I weight the late game situation more heavily.

On the hand, everything is exactly opposite if instead of comparing a tied game at 2 and 30 minutes left to a 10 point lead 2 and 30 minutes left. In that situation an extra point has much better chance of affecting the odds of winning in the situation where there are 30 minutes left. Thus, I weight the late game situation less heavily.

On average, I weight the 4th quarter the same as all of the other quarters, but it varies more depending on game situation.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> In a given game, you are of course correct. When you score does not matter.
> 
> ...


I see. However, I always assumed the only reason to weight certain situations more and less was to adjust for effort levels. Obviously, in garbage minutes, the worst players are on the floor, and no one cares about playing team ball, but simply padding their own stats. However, in games that are tied, with 30 minutes left, every player is obviously still making their maximum effort. In addition, statistical abnormalities would still exist though, in regards with games that were tightly contested throughout. For the player who contributed more in the first and second quarters, he suffers in your evaluation, while the player who performs better in the latter portions of the game benefits, when in reality, both had similar effects on the game.


----------



## Jaywalk (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Not much evidence to support that statement...


Its opinion, I've seen Brand play over 150 times in the past few seasons. I'll take that over defensive stats which are still pretty inaccurate because it cant factor in some things.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Just a bump for Dan.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> I see. However, I always assumed the only reason to weight certain situations more and less was to adjust for effort levels. Obviously, in garbage minutes, the worst players are on the floor, and no one cares about playing team ball, but simply padding their own stats. However, in games that are tied, with 30 minutes left, every player is obviously still making their maximum effort.


The effort rationale is only part of it. I am also trying to come up with a metric that measures which players most help their teams win. Since lots of close games in the second and third quarters end up being blowouts, per minute played performance in clutch time has more of an effect on winning than does performance in close games in the second and third quarter.

In addition, I disagree that players are playing at the maximum when games are close in the second and third quarters. At least according to my observations, intensity noticeably picks up at the end of close ballgames. 



> In addition, statistical abnormalities would still exist though, in regards with games that were tightly contested throughout. For the player who contributed more in the first and second quarters, he suffers in your evaluation, while the player who performs better in the latter portions of the game benefits, when in reality, both had similar effects on the game.


Yes, this is true. But this is a funny sample - tightly contested games throughout. Again, some tightly contested games early end in blowouts, some end in close games. My weighting scheme roughly equates contributions early in the game with those late in the game if you take into account the whole range of possible outcomes, but not if you limit it to a certain set of outcomes.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> The effort rationale is only part of it. I am also trying to come up with a metric that measures which players most help their teams win. Since lots of close games in the second and third quarters end up being blowouts, per minute played performance in clutch time has more of an effect on winning than does performance in close games in the second and third quarter.


I think we have a different perspective on how events occur in a basketball game to affect the final score. Whether the game is close in late situations, or earlier situations, every occured event still leads to a product, whether it's a field goal or a free throw or a turnover. Yes, it's true that performance in clutch situations tend to have the most chronological important effect on the final score, but isn't it true that the actions in the second or third quarter that kept the team close to lead to those clutch situations equally as important? 



> In addition, I disagree that players are playing at the maximum when games are close in the second and third quarters. At least according to my observations, intensity noticeably picks up at the end of close ballgames.


I agree that intensity is generally elevated in close/late situations, but that doesn't always mean that play is more taut. I've always been an advocate that clutchness, or the ability to rise above your normal performance in high pressure situations, doesn't exist. Only the ability to retain your normal performance, or to drop. Most players fit into that latter category, where their play actually suffers in those situations. After all, the pressure is miles high, and it's only natural as humans to let that get to us. Thus, mental mistakes and general sloppiness arise that don't neccessarily make the quality of play any different from non-clutch situations. 



> Yes, this is true. But this is a funny sample - tightly contested games throughout. Again, some tightly contested games early end in blowouts, some end in close games. My weighting scheme roughly equates contributions early in the game with those late in the game if you take into account the whole range of possible outcomes, but not if you limit it to a certain set of outcomes.


I don't think it's such a curiousity as a sample. In my personal observations, when the end result is close, it often is the case that both teams battled closely throughout, with both teams unable to take leads over five.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

I can see how statstically Brand and JO can be comparable. One is more defensive (JO), the other is offensively more efficient (Brand).

But how is it that Brand can have Corey Maggette, while JO can have Artest and yet there is a HUGE difference in how good their respective teams are?

The Pacers are a top 5 team in the league, while the Clipps are bottom 5. Is Brand's support really that much worse talent wise than Jermaine's? 

Of course the stats might support that retrospectively, but can you honestly say that Artest and co. are 30-35 games better than Maggette and co. in terms of support to their respective team leaders (assuming JO and Brand are even considered that)?

Even though the Clippers are out west, they still shouldn't be that bad when comparing them to the Pacers (talent vs talent).

Something must be working for Indiana, and JO has a to be a big part of that no? 

It seems to me that there are so many random variables that determine how teams and certain players do certain seasons. Team defense, chemistry, health etc. 

Who could have predicted the Jazz to be so good? How is it the Sonics were solid without Ray Allen, but when he came back eventually just got a little better, if at all? How is it Memphis can be so good with their talent? Shouldn't the Jazz next season technically be elite with Boozer and Okur as additions? How is it the Warriors were able to win despite their lack of talent, and who could have predicted Dampier to do so well based on 0203 stats? Same with Arroyo? Who could predict Andre Miller's collapse as a Clipper in 0203? So many weird things happen and not all of them can be explained easily or understood. 

I guess my main question is: how can Brand and JO both be considered equal in your opinion *Dan Rosenbaum*? Shouldn't JO at least by given the slight nod for his team actually winning 60, as opposed to Brand not even sniffing the playoffs with better talent than most teams that finish above him (that do not make the playoffs)?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Nikos</b>!
> I can see how statstically Brand and JO can be comparable. One is more defensive (JO), the other is offensively more efficient (Brand).
> 
> But how is it that Brand can have Corey Maggette, while JO can have Artest and yet there is a HUGE difference in how good their respective teams are?
> ...


On the Clippers/Pacers differences, I think you are slighting the huge differences between Artest and Maggette, Foster and Kaman, Tinsley and whoever the Clippers were playing at point, and even Reggie Miller and Quentin Richardson. And then there are the huge differences between bench players. All of these differences add up. My system is based upon how teams play when certain players are on the floor, taking into account the quality of the other players on the floor. It is driven by the data to identify which players are responsible for helping a team win. This is not a box score statistics based statistical rating.

I have stated over and over and over again that no method of assessment, statistical or otherwise, can predict everything, so why present such an unsatisfiable standard for a statistical assessment? Are there non-statistical assessments that predicted all of these things that you mention above? That said, statistics can be helpful in explaining several of the anomalies that you point out above. For me, being helpful is the only standard I see as being reasonable. Being perfect is a silly standard to hold any type of assessment to.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

I am a little confused by your tables on your website.

I notice guys like Marion are very high, but when I check Rolands ratings on 82games.com, he is not very productive in comparison to his 2002-03 season.

I also notice guys like Hedo Turkoglu low on your list even though he has the second highest Roland rating for the Spurs in 0304?

What is the difference between Roland Rating and your +/'s? Which is your table that best represents non-garbage time and accurate value of a player to a team?

Also how do you factor in minutes played for a player in terms of how much he is helping his team? For instance if someone like Marquis Daniels was Top 50 on your list, but only played 1000 minutes, does that mean he would be better than Mike Finley who plays more minutes but has a smaller OVR rating or +/- rating -- but played HUGE minutes? (Just a fake example).
Where do you draw the line in determining who a better player is?

Is Doug Christie or Brent Barry really better Michael Redd? Does one person being effective for one team mean that the very same player is better than another player for another team? Are there examples where you have one player who changed teams from 0203 to 0304 and had completely different RATINGS? 

Thanks


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

> That said, statistics can be helpful in explaining several of the anomalies that you point out above.


Generally I agree with this statement. I try to look at a bunch of things such as PER, PER difference, Team/Player Context, Offensive Ratings, Team Defensive Ratings, +/- ratings, and even now I am looking at your ratings to see how good players really are in general and for their teams success.

However, when I look at the Pacers I wonder how a team like this could be so good? After winning 61 games you figure that most of their core players would be very high on your rankings, because the team has been winning. So in essense they have to be valuable by most statistical measures of +-/ or as difference makers.

I guess I'm taking this a little too literal and trying to almost assume that your rankings are more of a "who is the better player", if those two players are in similiar situations/similiar amount of used possesions etc....

For example I probably wouldn't say Kirelenko is better than Duncan, even though your stats say that Kirelenko was a little more important to his team. Fact is I think if you switched the two the Jazz would be better off and the Spurs would be worse off. But I try to take that with a grain of salt and just say to myself Kirelenko is more valuable to his team than Duncan was, so maybe Duncan had the better support than he was given credit for (although he still is the reason they are contenders).

I am curious as to how you gauge who the better players are in your mind? Do you not even waste time thinking about that?

If difference makers is what you are trying to measure, I would also be interested to see your 2002-03 and 2003-04 List seperately to see if certain players who changed teams and roles have DIFFERENT ratings and rankings in your system.

Any chance you can post these two lists exclusively?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I apologize for not responding to this earlier. With the semester starting, I got caught up in a bunch of things and never got back to this. I am sorry.

First, on your other post, my adjusted plus/minus ratings are not the same as Roland's raw plus/minus ratings. We use the same data so that is not the reason for the difference. The difference is that players differ dramatically in the quality of the players they with and against and my ratings account for this and Roland's raw plus/minus stats don't. So there are going to be differences.

Second, these ratings are not going to be that accurate for players whose roles change a lot. That, however, probably is true for any rating system and even for subjective ratings. That said, I think Redd was given far too much credit for the Bucks' success last season and Barry and Christie were given too little.

Third, in general, the big problem with low minutes guys is that usual statistics do not account for the fact that a lot of their minutes are in garbage time and against inferior players. My stuff accounts for that, so it is not as big of a problem for me. Also, I compute standard errors, which tell me how confident I should be about the estimates for low minutes guys relative to high minutes. Also, minutes per game is one of the variables in my statistical model, so I AM accounting for the fact that guys who play a lot of minutes tend to better. That said, I am not measuring which players were most productive in a given season. To do so, I probably would take my ratings, subtract of the ratings for a "replacement player," and then multiply by minutes played that season.

Fourth, I am not sure what you are saying about the Pacers. Almost all of their core players have high ratings. They seem to be truly great "team."

Fifth, Kirilenko and Duncan are sol close to the same with my ratings that I don't think it is worthwhile to argue over which one is better.

And finally, I most likely will not be making new lists available publicly. Sorry.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

> The difference is that players differ dramatically in the quality of the players they with and against and my ratings account for this and Roland's raw plus/minus stats don't. So there are going to be differences.


Ah I see, so thats why Turkoglu was brought back down to earth relative to the Roland Rating -- cause the fact is Ginobili was playing most of the CLUTCH minutes, while Hedo was more of a guy who STARTED, but didn't finish most big games.



> Second, these ratings are not going to be that accurate for players whose roles change a lot. That, however, probably is true for any rating system and even for subjective ratings.


Are you suggesting its not that important to cross-examine these types of players? Perhaps a Hedo Turkoglu, Stephen Jackson, Shareef Abdur Rahim, Rasheed Wallace, Theo Ratliff, Gary Payton, Sam Cassell, Bonzi Wells. Guys who change teams who have similiar positive effects on other teams as they did in the past could say something about the quality of a player even amongst changing systems and environments.

Are you just concerned with a player helping his own team during a specific year? How does that say about a players ability to be a difference maker in general if you do not consider cross-examining players who change teams?



> Third, in general, the big problem with low minutes guys is that usual statistics do not account for the fact that a lot of their minutes are in garbage time and against inferior players. My stuff accounts for that, so it is not as big of a problem for me. Also, I compute standard errors, which tell me how confident I should be about the estimates for low minutes guys relative to high minutes. Also, minutes per game is one of the variables in my statistical model, so I AM accounting for the fact that guys who play a lot of minutes tend to better.


What do you consider low-minutes? Camby and Ginobili types who get 30mpg? Are you saying they are valued mostly by their per minute production? Why not standardize the minutes, or simply give more credit to those are given the chance to play more minutes? Or does it not even matter, because you are assuming that most players do produce similiar numbers with more minutes, as opposed to the opposite?




> Fourth, I am not sure what you are saying about the Pacers. Almost all of their core players have high ratings. They seem to be truly great "team


What I am saying is I am suprised they are such a great TEAM considering Jermaine O Neal being considered on par with an Elton Brand and having similar supporting talents. Obviously your stats suggest they aren't similair talents, but I have a hard time beleiving the Pacers are really THAT GOOD in an objective sense (something that is not as solid as statistical support obviously).

I think they were a little lucky this season, and the Clippers were a little unlucky. But I guess I am just taking this too objectively and not considering what you are saying with your analysis enough. That it isn't neccesarily one player or string of role players being better than another in general, but only in the context of the team.

I just feel that the Pacers support really isn't that much better than the Clippers support when healthy and surrounded by similiar leading talents. Sure the stats prove otherwise, obviously a 61 team is not just going to have 2-3 guys with high "difference maker ratings" and the rest at the bottom. So how can it be concluded that the Pacers without Jermaine are 40 games better than the Clippers without Elton? I just find it hard to beleive, even though this is an objective statement on my part.

Personally I do feel Jermaine has an edge over Elton overall. For now I just think he was worth more wins than Elton and he helped his team defense become one of the better ones in the NBA. Same with Artest over Maggette. However I do not feel that they are both miles ahead of either of their counterparts. I just think they have an edge. Also I think talent wise, and if both teams were healthy, that the Pacers support aside from their BIG 2 is not THAT much better than the Clippers (by that much I mean 30+ games).


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Response to PM:

As I mention in the piece, I like the overall ratings best. I have never listed any unadjusted plus/minus ratings. I do look at difference for players across seasons, but I think you are overstimating tremendously what you can learn from that analysis.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

> I do look at difference for players across seasons, but I think you are overstimating tremendously what you can learn from that analysis.


With that being said, why did you combine players in 2002-03 and 2003-04 into one list? 

Is the purpose of your study just to see who the difference makers are for their respective teams within a season? Sort of like a snapshot to see who was really more valuable than maybe another player on the same team, or which players actually helped their teams more than another specific player?

For example, take Tracy McGrady this past season -- does it really matter than he was a difference maker for a 15 win team? What does that really say about McGrady as a difference maker in general, other than that he was a great player, on a horrible team, and had a horrible season by his standards? Or does your analysis just reaffirm how bad his teamattes really were, and that without him probably wouldn't have won more than a handful of games?

The reason I ask some of these questions is cause I noticed in the Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry threads you mention their DanVal ranks in comparison with other players to show who was more valuable. 

Its almost like you beleive those rankings can be used to compare similiar players from other teams to decipher who is a better player. 

I just got the sense that you do tend to value one player who helped his team more than say another player who helped another team less but might have had better individual stats. As if that player was almost 'better' (assuming your comparing players who get similiar possesions and have a similiar role on their respective teams). 

I guess I am the type who likes to see where certain stat guys like to draw the line and actually combine their analysis and others with their personal opinions to see how they rank players overall. And essentially how they distinguish between if Player X is probably better than Player Y. But I guess seeing that mental calculus would be impossible, since most stat guys probably do not really think about it in those terms of who is 'better'.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Nikos</b>!
> With that being said, why did you combine players in 2002-03 and 2003-04 into one list?
> 
> Is the purpose of your study just to see who the difference makers are for their respective teams within a season? Sort of like a snapshot to see who was really more valuable than maybe another player on the same team, or which players actually helped their teams more than another specific player?
> ...


For the adjusted plus/minus ratings, I combine the results because the results are pretty noisy and this helps reduce the noise.

I am not saying that you can't use these ratings to compare players. I am just saying you should be careful in some circumstances. But that is true for any type of rating, statistical or non-statistical.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

I was just taking a look at some of the lists on your website. But have you done further adjusting since then and thats what will be held private?

I wanted to see what Brent Barry's difference maker rating was for last season, but I guess he did not play enough minutes? I also wanted to see Robert Horry's for the Spurs, considering as a Laker and as a Spur combined he was so high on the rankings. Any chance you tell me if they did well this season as role players?

Another interesting I found was how low Rip Hamilton was on the list and same with Tony Parker. Many consider them Top 10 players at their positions, but the stats show they are each not much more valuable then their backcourt mates Billups and Ginobili. Personally I considered Billups more valuable to the Pistons anyway, and Ginobili I thought was around the same in value to the Spurs as Parker (even though Parker was the more consistent scorer, and Manu the more consistent all around player). Any ideas why Rip and Parker were so low in the Reg.Season? If you ran your +/- rankings in the playoffs, wouldn't those two be ranked very high?

Lastly I am confused as to why you have 2500 minutes as your cutoff point, and does Ovrate actually mean the amount of wins a player is worth? What if they have a high Overall rating, but played less than 2500 minutes, does it mean their stats are being projected or scaled up to higher minutes to make more sense of how valuable a player could be? (Of course I am reffering to your lists where players of all types of minute frequencies are being displayed, aka richie frahms etc...)

Thanks


----------

