# Jamal Crawford Comparables



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

In order to get a sense of what Jamal Crawford's market might be like, I thought about coming up with "comparable" players using two offensive statistics that are analagous to those used by  Dean Oliver, a statistical consultant for the Sonics.

The first offensive statistic is the percentage of possessions used by a player when he is on the floor (POSSPCT). The formula is quite involved, but it accounts for field goals, free throws, assists, turnovers, and offensive rebounds. The average for this statistic is 20 percent, but a handful of players use more than 30 percent of their team's possessions. Jamal Crawford uses 26.4 percent of the Bulls' possession while he is on the floor.

The second statistic measures how efficient a player is with the possessions and gives the points generated per 100 possessions (EFF). The average for this statistic is around 100. Crawford's efficiency is 97.1 points per 100 possessions.

Thus, over the last two seasons I found the 13 player-seasons most comparable to Crawford's season in 2003-04 on these two dimensions. Here is what I get, including player's name and year, salary in following season, POSSPCT, and EFF. I have ranked these thirteen players by salary. 

0. Jamal Crawford/2003-04 $??.?M 26.4% 97.1

1. Jalen Rose/2002-03 $13.3M 26.6% 98.8
2. Steve Francis/2003-04 $12.3M 25.9% 94.7
3. Glenn Robinson/2003-4 $12.1M 25.2% 98.4
4. Baron Davis/2002-03 $11.0M 25.0% 98.8
5. Glenn Robinson/2002-03 $10.7M 27.4 97.5
6. Gilbert Arenas/2003-4 $9.4M 27.7% 96.1
7. Lamar Odom/2003-04 $9.1M 25.4% 97.6
8. Bonzi Wells/2002-03 $7.0M 25.4% 95.5
9. Ron Artest/2003-04 $6.2M 25.1% 98.8
10. Ricky Davis/2002-03 $5.4M 26.4% 96.6
11. Juwan Howard/2002-03 $4.9M 25.6% 98.5
12. Dwyane Wade/2003-04 $2.8M 25.9% 98.7
13. Flip Murray/2003-04 $0.7M 26.2% 96.5

As you can tell, this is pretty expensive company that Jamal Crawford is comparable to. This is not to say that he will get a contract offer starting at $9.1 million, but it suggests that it would not be crazy to think that in the more player-favorable market we see this summer, someone might look at a list like this and say that Crawford is worth a $7 or $8 million starting salary.

It is interesting to note that Crawford basically has become the Jalen Rose of last season and at least offensively is better than Steve Francis. (Remember with Yao on the floor, Francis should be getting fewer but higher quality possessions.)


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

What was Sam Vincent and Reggie Theus' salaries.

Thats who he's kinda comparable to.

Mercer also.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Hey Dan this is off topic but is the Dean Oliver you are referring to the same guy who used to be PG at Iowa? Eh nevermind probably not.

Dan Rosenbaum: No, he isn't.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> In order to get a sense of what Jamal Crawford's market might be like, I thought about coming up with "comparable" players using two offensive statistics that are analagous to those used by  Dean Oliver, a statistical consultant for the Sonics.
> 
> The first offensive statistic is the percentage of possessions used by a player when he is on the floor (POSSPCT). The formula is quite involved, but it accounts for field goals, free throws, assists, turnovers, and offensive rebounds. The average for this statistic is 20 percent, but a handful of players use more than 30 percent of their team's possessions. Jamal Crawford uses 26.4 percent of the Bulls' possession while he is on the floor.
> ...


By the way, Glenn Robinson is both #3 and #5. Impressive of him.

First, defense isn't a factor in either stat. Teams pay for good defenders. Also, a general criticism of the POSSPCT stat is that time of possession is very relative to what team you are on, as well as the coaching and strategies being employed. Teams that have good passing schemes, like Sacramento, or good offensive balance, like Dallas, have not a single player on this list, because guys like Francis, Crawford, Arenas, and Davis are integral points in their offense. They do a lot of the handling, and a lot of the direct scoring or assisting. This doesn't really seem to be a stat that measures much.

Now. To analyze the list a bit:

*Guys overpaid, or well into their salary scales*

Jalen and Glenn are overpaid and in the advanced years of their contracts. Robinson, particularly, has always been overpaid. It would make more sense to note that Crawford's third or fourth year into his contract would pay closer to 9 million if he started around 7 mil in his first year.

*Guys that bring skills not reflected in these stats.*

Francis brings much more to the table than offensive possessions, because he's a tenacious defender. This goes for Baron Davis as well. 

Lamar Odom has size, defensive rebounding, and other factors that aren't included in either stat formula. He was also considered to be overpaid, but honestly, I'd much rather have Odom on our team than Crawford, today.

*Guys that are underpaid*
Flip Murray is severely underpaid, but I don't expect him to be making more than the MLE his first year. Ricky Davis is the best deal in the NBA, and at the time of his signing, wouldn't have been anywhere near as comparable to Jamal Crawford as he is now. Dwyane Wade is on a rookie contract.

*Juwan Howard*
Juwan Howard is an example of being on a pretty bad team, being the #2 option on offense all the time. He's an efficient scorer, and gets the ball often, but the way his team is designed promotes that. He is the guy that McGrady dumps off to when he can't make something happen

Howard is also aged, and that is taken into account when the contract deal is constructed.



I don't know, Dan. These stats are a pretty far correlation from salary.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

So the proposed GRob trade at deadline would have given us roughly the same offensive player as one we traded away. Hmm...

Nice list Dan. Half of them I like, the other I do not.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Showtime, just to be clear this list of 13 player-seasons are just the player-seasons most comparable to Crawford in 2003-04 for both POSSPCT and EFF.

Both Dallas and Sacramento have players that use 25 percent or more the their team's possessions, but they did not make the list because their percentages were much higher than those on this list or their efficiency was much higher (or lower).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> In order to get a sense of what Jamal Crawford's market might be like, I thought about coming up with "comparable" players using two offensive statistics that are analagous to those used by  Dean Oliver, a statistical consultant for the Sonics.
> 
> The first offensive statistic is the percentage of possessions used by a player when he is on the floor (POSSPCT). The formula is quite involved, but it accounts for field goals, free throws, assists, turnovers, and offensive rebounds. The average for this statistic is 20 percent, but a handful of players use more than 30 percent of their team's possessions. Jamal Crawford uses 26.4 percent of the Bulls' possession while he is on the floor.
> ...


And to think I took some heat for suggesting he get a max deal.

Please, next time you tell me about luxury tax, explain to me why luxury tax is worse to pay than, say, $10M for Pippen (call that a PR tax ;-)


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> As you can tell, this is pretty expensive company that Jamal Crawford is comparable to. This is not to say that he will get a contract offer starting at $9.1 million, but it suggests that it would not be crazy to think that in the more player-favorable market we see this summer, someone might look at a list like this and say that Crawford is worth a $7 or $8 million starting salary.


If theres anything we've learned, it's that its pretty easy for even an average SG (Mercer) to put up big numbers when playing on a very bad team...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Well, to get us back to my original topic, here are 16 comparables to Kirk Hinrich in 2003-04. He generates 96.7 points per 100 possessions on the 20.2 percent of possessions that he uses. (These 16 comparables are actually closer substitutes to Hinrich than the similar list for Crawford.)

Here is the list: Lorenzen Wright (02-03), Al Harrington (02-03), Quentin Richardson (02-03), Howard Eisley (03-04), Charlie Ward (03-04), Chucky Atkins (02-03), Travis Best (02-03), Marco Jaric (02-03), Cliff Robinson (02-03), Marc Jackson (02-03), Eric Snow (03-04), Nene Hilario (02-03), Jim Jackson (02-03), DeShawn Stevenson (03-04), Earl Watson (02-03), Derek Fisher (03-04)

Interestingly, half of those on the list are point guards, and I think only one is a starting point guard. Clearly, Hinrich brings better defense and other intangibles than most of these players, but his statistical offensive production is clearly nothing to write home about.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Well, to get us back to my original topic, here are 16 comparables to Kirk Hinrich in 2003-04. He generates 96.7 points per 100 possessions on the 20.2 percent of possessions that he uses. (These 16 comparables are actually closer substitutes to Hinrich than the similar list for Crawford.)
> 
> Here is the list: Lorenzen Wright (02-03), Al Harrington (02-03), Quentin Richardson (02-03), Howard Eisley (03-04), Charlie Ward (03-04), Chucky Atkins (02-03), Travis Best (02-03), Marco Jaric (02-03), Cliff Robinson (02-03), Marc Jackson (02-03), Eric Snow (03-04), Nene Hilario (02-03), Jim Jackson (02-03), DeShawn Stevenson (03-04), Earl Watson (02-03), Derek Fisher (03-04)
> ...


If you let people here tell it KH=Jason Kidd...

Kirk has had a great season, there's no changing that, but I'm not going to put the superstar label on him yet...

There are role players, starters, stars, and superstars, right now Kirk is a starter, and if he continues to get better and he'll continue to move up the ladder.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> KH=Jason Kidd...


I knew he'd come around...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> If theres anything we've learned, it's that its pretty easy for even an average SG (Mercer) to put up big numbers when playing on a very bad team...


On the contrary, a rating system like this should expose differences between a guy like Jamal and a guy like Mercer.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Dan or Dean, but even with the pretty rudimentary system I use, there's a significant difference between a guy like Jamal this year and a guy like Mercer when he was here.

Mercer fell into the "overplayed" category (in the extreme). That is, he produced numbers that were equivalent to what a pretty good player might produce, but he required more than what the average pretty good player would require in terms of minutes to produce them.

In short, Mercer was a quintessential example of a guy who had bigger numbers because he played more, not because he was productive.

Crawford, on the other hand, is right on the average in terms of minutes played within his level of production. His shooting has been bad, but he's made up for it by being a good rebounder, thief, and assist man.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 0. Jamal Crawford/2003-04 $??.?M 26.4% 97.1
> 
> ...


A few thoughts....

You have to wonder how much dough guys like Rose and Big Dog would get if they were on the FA market this year. Would they get more than MLE?

If you buy into the list, it still looks likeCraw is only going to get paid BIG if another team considers him a PG.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> If you buy into the list, it still looks likeCraw is only going to get paid BIG if another team considers him a PG.


Hasn't that been the conventional wisdom for some time? That a 6'5" point guard is a rarity, but an off guard of that size is fairly common?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> You have to wonder how much dough guys like Rose and Big Dog would get if they were on the FA market this year. Would they get more than MLE?


Rose's game really has fallen apart this season. He generates 91.3 points per 100 possessions on the 23.7 percent of possessions that he uses. Among players playing 30 minutes per game or more and using more than 20 percent of their teams' possessions, only one player (Jamal Tinsley) has a lower efficiency than Jalen Rose.

Coming off last season, I think Rose may have gotten the MLE or more, but not coming off of this seasaon.

Also, at the time Artest, Wells, and Davis signed their contracts, all three were considered head cases. We may think Crawford is a head case, but he is nothing compared to these three at the time they signed their contracts/extensions. I think the closest comparable to Crawford is Jalen Rose a few years back. And he was not really a point guard, but he got paid pretty well.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

These results are interesting... if not similar to what I've believed for a while now. 

What skews our perception of Jamal is the way the team has performed over the past four years, his inability to hold down the starting PG spot and the fact that he's the SG now while a rookie is the starting PG.

Arguably, he has had a very little effect on the first, the organization determined the second, and the third he did for the good of the team. 

This guy would have been a max player if he put up similar numbers on a playoff team at the PG.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I think the point at issue again is that:

1. Salary today is not salary at the time of Big Dog's contract signing. A lot of the guys on the list had a different salary cap landscape.

2. The intangibles count when GM's make salary decisions. I think that when you look at the two stats and you try to find a correlation with salary, you realize this salient point: the cash being paid to players today is very inconsistent with the talent that they have or the statistics they produce. Rookie contracts, to begin with, are one huge skew on the cheap side. This is the value of a draft pick; you don't pay any money to get it, and you lock up a potentially excellent player for up to four years and quite possibly beyond. 

On the other hand, "max" players that perform well during the playoffs in a contract year can often be skewed the wrong way as well, i.e. Jalen Rose. Rose is a skilled player that can do a lot but isn't great at anything.

3. These stats, obviously, focus only on offense and not defense.

4. Their salaries are not from the beginning of the contracts, but in the inflated later years.

This is why I think Jamal Crawford is going to be a good value buy. I think a deal that starts around 6.5 mil and scales up to about 11 mil over six years is a great deal, something that only teams under the cap can think about doing (6.5 is probably about a mil more than the MLE this year), but a good deal that gets us a player with the offensive statistics of Steve Francis (definitely not the defensive ones, though).

Dan, is there something in Dean's book that measures defense?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

How many teams do you think are actually going to pursue him as a shooting guard this offseason? I would think it's in Jamal's best interest to sell himself as a point guard to prospective suitors. And I think anyone that signs him will try and sell him as a point guard to their fan base.

This of course will make for a very counterproductive/confusing offseason, as Jamal will on the one hand be needing to prepare as a Bull shooting guard, while selling himself as a point guard somewhere else.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Also, at the time Artest, Wells, and Davis signed their contracts, all three were considered head cases. We may think Crawford is a head case, but he is nothing compared to these three at the time they signed their contracts/extensions. I think the closest comparable to Crawford is Jalen Rose a few years back. And he was not really a point guard, but he got paid pretty well.


Rose got paid after a season of shooting .471 overall and .393 from three. And was a playoff star. And actually played some D.

Artest, Wells, and Ricky Davis all got close to the MLE. Which someone will probably gamble on JC. 

I still don't see him getting a better deal unless it's a Jason Terry-type for more bucks per year but shorter duration.

p.s. Dan, great post... Thanks for bringing this to the board.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Rose got paid after a season of shooting .471 overall and .393 from three. And was a playoff star. And actually played some D.
> ...


Agreed. Great post by Dan.

That being said, I still think he's overestimating, and here are three reasons why.

1) Who can offer the money? Right now I think the Clippers are probably the only team that would and could potentially make a max offer.

2) My impression, although I haven't done any number crunching to test it, is that salary is pretty highly correlated to winning. Players from really bad teams (not just losing teams, but teams that don't even get to 30 games), I think, seldom get the max. Even if you look at guys like Brand and Arenas, their teams were in the mid-30s and showing improvement. Jamal's been in the league 40 years and his team hasn't shown much improvement. You can say that's due to other factors, but I think the bottom line is that teams play it a bit close to the vest when handing out that kind of money. I think it's rare to see a guy get that kind of money without either getting their team in the playoffs or at least having them appear to be "up and coming". That doesn't exactly describe the Bulls these days.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Agreed. Great post by Dan.
> ...


OH MY GOD!!!!!!

40 FRICKIN YEARS!!!


(Sorry Mike, you know your one of my fav posters!  )


Seriously though, I think this list (Thanks Dan!) goes to show how much we underestimate Jamal. He's really turning into a soild player. Yes, he's still inconsistant, and his contract is coming up at a time when that inconsistancy is still quite annyoing. 

BUT... the excuses (and there are many) are quite right in this point. This is the 2nd year he's actually played, and he IS learning a new position. This, coupled with recieving the first actual COACHING of his life... has resulted in a dramatic improvement from just the beginning of this year. If your not impressed with Crawfords development, then i'm not sure what games your watching....


I would be shocked if he wasn't offered at LEAST $6-7 mil a year from a number of teams this offseason, maybe even as much as $8mil...

I just hope Paxon has enough brains to make a similar offer before it gets to that point OR match the offer the moment it gets faxed into his office.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> OH MY GOD!!!!!!
> ...


All that and you forgot to mention his best point... durability :laugh:


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Agreed. Great post by Dan.
> 
> That being said, I still think he's overestimating, and here are three reasons why.
> ...


Besides the Clippers, I think the Jazz, Hawks, Bobcats, and Suns might be interested in Crawford after their other options dry up. Not at the maximum salary, but at more than the MLE. Moreover, the expansion draft and some of the results from the expansion draft may result in other teams having salary cap room, which may increase the suitors for Crawford.

And yes, teams don't pay as much for players who put up numbers for bad teams. But what about the Clippers last season? They had 27 wins, 12 less than the previous season. We may not make 27 wins, but also won't show a 12 win decrease. And the Clippers had four guys (Brand, Maggette, Odom, and Miller) sign long-term contracts starting at more than the MLE. And another guy (Kandi) got the MLE.

Our best player from last season (Rose) had his game fall apart and then he and our second best player from last season (Marshall) were traded for two veteran role players in Davis and Williams. Curry and Chandler failed to show the expected improvement and we lost Jay Williams in a motorcycle accident. Yet with all of that bleeding, we still are likely to manage to be with 5 or so wins of last season (not a 12 win dropoff). 

Crawford stepping up and playing as well as Rose last season, along with the solid play of Hinrich, have been our only bright spots in a dismal season. If a 27-win team can generate four greater than MLE contracts, why can't a 23 or 25 win team generate one?

Being the leading scorer on a bad team can really be a curse. Because that player is not good enough to deliver wins, it becomes easy to think that player is a complete bum. It happened to Brent Barry. It happened to Elton Brand. To Ron Mercer. To Jalen Rose. And now it is Jamal Crawford's turn. He is not an All-Star player, but he is not a bum like many here like to make him out to be. The world is not black and while. Let a little bit of that grey in.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> The world is not black and while. Let a little bit of that grey in.


Is that directed at me? I don't think that's at all what I'm saying (and in fact, I think we're saying substantially the same thing).


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> "up and coming". That doesn't exactly describe the Bulls these days.


It would have last year...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Is that directed at me? I don't think that's at all what I'm saying (and in fact, I think we're saying substantially the same thing).


No, that was directed at those who have given up on Crawford and those who see a future perennial All-Star in him.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Stats can be made to support any argument one wants them to support.


----------



## jberg23 (Mar 3, 2004)

65% of stats are untrue.
73% of stats are misleading.
stats say that 90% of the time crawford plays at 65% speed on defense.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Stats can be made to support any argument one wants them to support.


Sure, but that's true of most any piece of evidence in the hands of people who don't value honesty or objectivity. Take away those factors and otherwise meaningful statements become meaningless platitudes.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Stats can be made to support any argument one wants them to support.


Yes, the tired complaint used billions of times by folks who are too lazy to spend more than 15 seconds making an argument. BTW, when was the last time one of your posts contained anything other than a snide comment that did nothing to move the conversation along? It seems to me that your real beef is not with statistical evidence, but evidence of any sort.

So if you don't mind, could you go out on a limb and make an argument (with evidence) for the type of evidence that is less assailable than statistical evidence?

In the meantime, you might want to pick up a copy of Moneyball. This best-selling book tells the story about how the use of statistics is transforming baseball. The Oakland As have been the first mover in baseball, using statistical analysis almost exclusively in their decision-making and game-day strategy for the past few years, a period over which they have arguably been the best team in baseball, despite having one of the lowest payrolls in MLB and losing their best players every free agent season. 

The As' 30 year-old assistant GM Paul DePodesta has now become the third-youngest GM is MLB history when he took the LA Dodgers job earlier this year. DePodesta has an undergraduate economics degree from Harvard and did not play baseball in college or in the pros. In addition to becoming a GM by age 30, DePodesta now regularly gets invited to business conferences to talk about how businesses can transform themselves through asking tough questions and using statistical evidence to support various decisions. 

In the meantime, statistical evidence serves as the backbone for many decisions on Wall Street, it for the most part is what determines who gets loans or who gets a credit card or who gets life insurance, and public policy discussion is increasingly becoming a discussion of who can present the more convincing statistical evidence. Alan Greenspan is one of the leading proponents of using statistical evidence and has a staff of hundreds of economists producing a wide variety of statistical evidence. A student of mine was recently offered three jobs at the Federal Reserve Board because of his proficiency with statistics. In fact, despite a recession that has hit the Greensboro area harder than the rest of the country, all of our recent graduating MA students have been placed in good jobs or Ph.D. programs. There is a big and growing market for people who can create and evaluate statistical evidence.

So what say you, GB? Another one line, sarcastic post that adds nothing to the discussion or might you try to make an argument?

And back to Crawford, I have always tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I had come to the conclusion (based largely on the sentiment provided on this board) that he was not very good. I was producing these statistics for another reason, and I found it interesting what players were "comparable" to Crawford. I presented those results carefully and completely so that folks would have some perspective to put them in.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

If anything, my statistical analysis of Crawford has made me more confident in him rather than less, because it seems to show exactly why a guy like him is a bit more valuable than a guy like Mercer.

As an OT note, I can only second Dan's comments. When I went out in the labor force (granted the economy was running on dot.com induced silliness at the time), it wasn't my legal or philosophical education that got me a job... it was the fact that I could perform and understand the kind of basic statistical analysis that you learn from a good economics program. In the last five years, I've done statistical work on all kinds of stuff; legal cases, health and welfare studies, employment, military spending, nuclear reactor job training... you name it. And while it's hard to get to the truth behind most any complex issue, it's even harder to do it when you don't know anything about the numbers involved.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> In the meantime, you might want to pick up a copy of Moneyball. This best-selling book tells the story about how the use of statistics is transforming baseball. The Oakland As have been the first mover in baseball, using statistical analysis almost exclusively in their decision-making and game-day strategy for the past few years, a period over which they have arguably been the best team in baseball, despite having one of the lowest payrolls in MLB and losing their best players every free agent season.


A little OT but.... sorry the Moneyball sabermetrics argument is highly highly overrated in my book. People view it as gospel in baseball and it shouldn't be. The business of people, character, and desire cannot be written into any statistical formula or schema.

You can take Billy Beane and DePodesta. I'll have Jim Hendry. Awesome understanding of the baseball game having coached on the HS level, college (national coach of the year at Creighton), minor leagues, assistant GM, scouting, drafting, and now GM for the Cubs. He's tamed Scott Borass twice (Brownlie signing and Maddux as well), which is two times more than any other GM in the league. Acquired Baker, and most importantly changed the culture of the losingest franchise in MLB.

I didn't mean to turn this into a Hendry ra-ra session. Statistics are of value up to a point... but only a point. As long human beings as playing the game, there will be plenty of other factors involved in the discussion. 

As for the comparison between MLB and the NBA, it doesn't hold much water. A major league roster is 25 players, 11 that start, 100+ minor leaguers with contractual ties to the MLB club, etc, etc. Pro basketball is a game where 5 players start, backed up by 7+ players on the bench. Therefore, money/cost value analysis is <b>much more</b> important in asssessing a MLB franchise versus an NBA one. JMO.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, the tired complaint used billions of times by folks who are too lazy to spend more than 15 seconds making an argument. BTW, when was the last time one of your posts contained anything other than a snide comment that did nothing to move the conversation along? It seems to me that your real beef is not with statistical evidence, but evidence of any sort.
> ...


First of all, Dan, thank you for bringing this to the board. Your posts are always enlightening, IMO. I learn something new everyday!

That said, I believe that stats, while they tell a large part of the story, can only tell part. I am often reminded of the Hinrich quote from college: "Stats are like a bikini, they show some things but not everything". And that is true for *everyone* on the team, not just Jamal - or Kirk. I am one of those gray area people when it comes to JC - I think Jamal has undeniable talent that has not been fully realized, but while I don't think, IMO, he will be All-Star material, I don't think he is the enormous dissapointment that some here do. But, I cheer for the Bulls. _SIGH_ Yes, I cheer for Hinrich (mostly cause I am a fan of his game and never thought he'd do this well). And for Jamal (mostly cause I think, man this guy could just break out at any moment and just go CONSISTENTLY crazy with the scoring). Hey, remember the Celtics game right before the All-Star break where they BOTH had it really going ON? That was probably the most pleasant and satisfying Bulls effort to watch all year cause they were feeding off of each other and really playing like a team. Oh, and we won too!! Good times. 

But back to the topic. Stats. And now let me introduce another concept. Intangibles. I watch the Bulls on League Pass. And as such, when it isn't the Chicago feed, I am subject to the other teams announcers. This used to drive me crazy, but it can be enlightening as well. Oh sure, they can be total homers for their teams, much like Red and Dore are for the Bulls (and often the other teams announcers actually CALL the game, which is refreshing)...And there are distinct impressions on the minds of these "other" announcers about all the Bulls players. Mostly they talk about the HS kids Eddy and Tyson and how they haven't really matured into NBA players and yet have been thrust into the starting line-ups without earning it. _They talk about Jamal and how he has real talent and is a potentially dangerous scorer, but how you never really know which Jamal will show up on any given night. In a word: streaky._ About Hinrich, well, it's all pretty positive granted, but they'll rightly point out rookie mistakes that he does still make. But mostly they are surprised he has done this well so soon into his NBA career. 

So, I think that teams this summer, when looking at the player that is Jamal Crawford will take ALL of this into account. The stats and the intangibles. Would you agree? And when it is all said and done I have a feeling that Jamal will no longer be a Bull - though I am on record as saying I hope we can sign him and keep him. (Personally, I think Tyson is the one who should be shown the door)...

Superdave is right on the money, as it were, the business of people, character and desire cannot be written into a stat.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> A little OT but.... sorry the Moneyball sabermetrics argument is highly highly overrated in my book. People view it as gospel in baseball and it shouldn't be. The business of people, character, and desire cannot be written into any statistical formula or schema.
> 
> You can take Billy Beane and DePodesta. I'll have Jim Hendry. Awesome understanding of the baseball game having coached on the HS level, college (national coach of the year at Creighton), minor leagues, assistant GM, scouting, drafting, and now GM for the Cubs. He's tamed Scott Borass twice (Brownlie signing and Maddux as well), which is two times more than any other GM in the league. Acquired Baker, and most importantly changed the culture of the losingest franchise in MLB.
> ...


Cut Jim Hendry's payroll in half and see what he can do. No Dustry Baker because is too expensive. No Greg Maddux. No Kerry Wood extension and Mark Prior likely bolting in a couple years. Replace Sammy Sosa and Moises Alou with young prospects or cheap, overlooked veterans. And then be arguably the best team in baseball for five years running - not just one.

And I agree that the statistics are more valuable in baseball than in basketball for the reasons that you cite and more. But when you say that "the business of people, character, and desire cannot be written into any statistical formula or schema," that seems to me that is a red herring. No one is saying that statistics is everything. And if anything, Moneyball argued that statistical evidence allowed the As to find those guys who had the character and desire to perform despite not having all of the "tools." I think statistical analysis has a way of finding those guys with character and desire who can perform, but are missed by those who look subjectively for certain skills.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> Cut Jim Hendry's payroll in half and see what he can do. No Dustry Baker because is too expensive. No Greg Maddux. No Kerry Wood extension and Mark Prior likely bolting in a couple years. Replace Sammy Sosa and Moises Alou with young prospects or cheap, overlooked veterans. And then be arguably the best team in baseball for five years running - not just one.
> ...


Cut Hendry's payroll in half and he'd have a team like the Bulls? So, let's double the Bulls' payroll for once ;-)

For those of us who have watched Dusty Baker and the Giants win a lot of ballgames without a lot of talent, cutting the payroll may not produce as poor a result as one might think.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Cut Jim Hendry's payroll in half and see what he can do. No Dustry Baker because is too expensive. No Greg Maddux. No Kerry Wood extension and Mark Prior likely bolting in a couple years. Replace Sammy Sosa and Moises Alou with young prospects or cheap, overlooked veterans. And then be arguably the best team in baseball for five years running - not just one.
> 
> And I agree that the statistics are more valuable in baseball than in basketball for the reasons that you cite and more. But when you say that "the business of people, character, and desire cannot be written into any statistical formula or schema," that seems to me that is a red herring. No one is saying that statistics is everything. And if anything, Moneyball argued that statistical evidence allowed the As to find those guys who had the character and desire to perform despite not having all of the "tools." I think statistical analysis has a way of finding those guys with character and desire who can perform, but are missed by those who look subjectively for certain skills.


Solid posts as always Dan.

The Oaklands and Minnesotas of the world operate in such a way because of their limited revenues. The Cubbies, God bless 'em, operate in the third largest metropol and regularly average 3M in attendence all while being backed by Fitzsimmons billions in the Tribune conglomerate.

I believe in my heart of hearts (this is JMO of course) that the Cubs could win w/o Sosa, Wood, Alou or Maddux. After all, its Hendry would built this farm system from the ground up. But obviously this will never happen considering the players Hendry inherited and the hiring of Dusty Baker, who isn't exactly a developer of young talent 

So yes I believe Hendry is <i>that</i> good, and yes I believe he could field a winning team with much less payroll. But we're in Chicago baby, we're victory starved and now's the time. We have a nice 2-3 year window where we should be the Beast of the NL. Kudos to Hendry for putting us in the position to win.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

mizenkay, I actually have a statistic for intangibles, as well. I have computed plus/minus statistics adjusting for the players on the floor at the same time as the given player. Hinrich and Crawford are about identical with this statistic. But this statistic picks up contributions measured in traditional statistics and those that are not. Crawford is slightly better than Hinrich in the measured part, and Hinrich is slightly better in the unmeasured part, i.e. the intangibles. But all in all, the real message here is that these two players play different roles, but production-wise, there isn't a lot separating them.

And I also enjoy the perspective these opposing announcers provide for the Bulls. But it is interesting what you say here and how expectations flavor what we think about a player. It would be interesting what we would think of Crawford if instead of being a 4th-year first round draft pick, he had played in the NBDL last season.

I suspect that he could be doing exactly what he is doing now, and we would think entirely differently about him.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, the tired complaint used billions of times by folks who are too lazy to spend more than 15 seconds making an argument. BTW, when was the last time one of your posts contained anything other than a snide comment that did nothing to move the conversation along? It seems to me that your real beef is not with statistical evidence, but evidence of any sort.
> ...



Anyone with half a knowledge of numbers can whip up a formula that proves or disproves something a position they 've already taken.

As SuperDave mentioned, there are many, many unquantafiable factors that you simply cannot implement into a formula.

Thats all I said---nothing more, nothing less. Get up on the wrong side of the bed?


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> There is a big and growing market for people who can create and evaluate statistical evidence.


As long as Chinese (or Indian workers) will not take it over…anyway, GB was somehow right. You can play with the numbers either way…


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> mizenkay, I actually have a statistic for intangibles, as well. I have computed plus/minus statistics adjusting for the players on the floor at the same time as the given player. Hinrich and Crawford are about identical with this statistic. But this statistic picks up contributions measured in traditional statistics and those that are not. Crawford is slightly better than Hinrich in the measured part, and Hinrich is slightly better in the unmeasured part, i.e. the intangibles. But all in all, the real message here is that these two players play different roles, but production-wise, there isn't a lot separating them.
> 
> And I also enjoy the perspective these opposing announcers provide for the Bulls. But it is interesting what you say here and how expectations flavor what we think about a player. It would be interesting what we would think of Crawford if instead of being a 4th-year first round draft pick, he had played in the NBDL last season.
> ...


OK. now i am going to RE-Reply to this, since it was temporarily hijacked to the other now defunct thread, by saying again...thank you for responding to my post. and I agree with you, there isn't alot separating them...was it really necessary to deem this response "crap"?

Dan Rosenbaum: I felt bad about moving your post, but I was getting frustrated by the folks who were hijacking this thread and distracting us from what has turned out to be a very interesting discussion. Thank you for your contribution to what has turned out to be a nice thread.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

apology accepted.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I want to thank all of you for contributions to a very interesting discussion in this thread. The topic of using statistical arguments comes up from time to time and we get arguments such as "Anyone with half a knowledge of numbers can whip up a formula that proves or disproves something a position they 've already taken" or "Stats can be made to support any argument one wants them to support."

Now both of these happen to be GB quotes, but lots of folks believe these arguments. So the point here is not to pick on GB, what I would really like to hear is a defense of this argument against statistics.

To put this perspective, I see practically every evaluation as being "statistical" at some level. We create concepts and measure people according to those concepts. The problem with evaluations that most people would claim are not "statistics" is that the data are collected in a non-systematic fashion, making it nearly impossible for any outside observer to evaluate the evaluation.

I like statistics because they are much more transparent than these non-systematic evaluations that we hear all of the time. This may seem strange since for many the math in statistics make them much less transparent, but with non-systematic evaluations, it is hard to get clear notion of what the underlying concepts are and so it makes it difficult to figure out what is being measured, let alone whether it is being measured accurately or whether it is something worth measuring.

These non-systematic evaluations are very difficult to discuss, because they typically boil down to "well, so-and-so just _seems_ to be a better player/defender/passer/hustler," and for me those kind of discussions just never seem to progress very far without some statistical evidence to support them.

So this is my first shot across the bow. What say the other side?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Here ya go, Dan!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/jack_mccallum/11/12/nba_insider/

The author's reputation as a numbers cruncher notwithstanding (he is the stat geek for ABC and ESPN and, before that, compiled NBC's pro hoops stats for 15 years), his choices turn out to be, in their own way, <B>as subjective as anyone else's. </B>


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Here ya go, Dan!
> 
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/jack_mccallum/11/12/nba_insider/
> ...


And that is one of the myths of statistics, i.e. that they are "objective," whatever that might mean. That is not the value in statistics, the value is that they are transparent. It is easier to detect the assumptions that go into statistics versus those in non-systematic evaluations.

What disappointed me most about this article and every other article that I could find about this book is that it does not describe in any detail the methodology used by the author. Good discussions of statistics are discussions of methodology. Thus, methodological conventions hammered out in one set of arguments then become the default for another set. Over time, best practices are developed through this process that help identify folks who are creating an idiosyncratic methodology to favor their point of view.

So I guess the "objectivity" comes through this process of establishing best pratices. Then when these best practices are applied to a completely new problem, there is far less credence in the argument that the methodology was developed to further a particular point of view.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

I believe stats are the best way to examine things without personal bias creeping in.

I'm studying Econometrics now, and am currently trying to prove the tighter the salaries are on your team, the higher your winning percentage for football, a la the New England Patriot effect.

That it is the team, and not the stars that power winning franchises. If anyone is interested in my results, I should be done by Saturday (using data from 2000-2002) and can put the info up somewhere.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> And that is one of the myths of statistics, i.e. that they are "objective," whatever that might mean. That is not the value in statistics, the value is that they are transparent. It is easier to detect the assumptions that go into statistics versus those in non-systematic evaluations.


I disagree.

You could simply take a vote on who's the best player in NBA history, and you'd probably have the right answer. The only assumption is that the vote is done fairly.

Why?

It averages out all the individual biases, and takes into account every measure all the voters considered.

The entire sample of voters may ignore the statistics!

What do statistics tell you about Clifford Ray?

The guy was one of the ultimate winners - his teams didn't finish worse than 2nd until late in his career, they contended for championships (and won one), and he had to guard guys like Wilt, Kareem, Walton, and so on.

Peace!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> I believe stats are the best way to examine things without personal bias creeping in.
> 
> I'm studying Econometrics now, and am currently trying to prove the tighter the salaries are on your team, the higher your winning percentage for football, a la the New England Patriot effect.
> ...


I would be interested. Put up an OT post in here or in the football forum and PM me to let me know about the thread. Thanks!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I disagree.
> 
> You could simply take a vote on who's the best player in NBA history, and you'd probably have the right answer. The only assumption is that the vote is done fairly.
> ...


If we were trying to determine who most people thought was the best player, then voting probably would be the most straightforward way of doing so. Otherwise, it probably wouldn't be. Some biases are systematic across people and so these biases would not "average out," leading to a conclusion that could be worse than a given expert's subjective opinion or the outcome of some statistical analysis.

But your example is nice. Voting produces numbers and the numbers seem transparent. But they are probably less transparent than anything else you could have done, because now we need to know what people were voting for, how they understood the question, what concepts they used in their evaluations, etc. - all the same problems we have in non-systematic evaluations and then some.

If the statistics were available, we could go back and see how Wilt, Kareem, Walton did when playing versus Clifford Ray to see what the statistics say. It may not be easy, but how else might we settle a disagreement between you and another guy who saw Clifford Ray play dozens of times and thought he was worthless?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> If we were trying to determine who most people thought was the best player, then voting probably would be the most straightforward way of doing. Otherwise, it probably wouldn't be. Some biases are systematic across people and so these biases would not "average out," leading to a conclusion that could be worse than a given expert's subjective opinion or the outcome of some statistical analysis.
> ...


That's the funny thing about Ray. He sure looked worthless. He didn't produce much statistically. And I've never seen a big man miss as many dunks as Ray did. Clang off the iron with nobody contesting the dunk. But he won and helped his team win in ways stats can't prove (other than his number of playoff appearances).

You haven't convinced me that statistical formulae are any better a solution than a vote. In fact, I'm more convinced that a vote is better, especially if the number of voters is large.

In fact, when it came to choose the 50 greatest NBA players, they didn't use a statistical formula, they held a vote:

http://www.nba.com/history/50greatest.html

<FONT COLOR=0000ff>So boasts the collective resume of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History, selected by a blue-ribbon panel of media, former players and coaches, current and former general managers and team executives. </FONT>

Hmmm... no mention of statiticians...


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Can stats be used to prove ANYTHING?

I think if you leave it to human sensibility, we can understand which stats are misleading and which stats have meaning. My view on the POSSPCT and points scored stats were that they were extremely skewed to place the onus on offense, and that a correlation between offense and salary is visibly inconsistent, even just starting with the sample here.

I don't think that stats lack credence in finding some sort of correlation. I think that if you could find a coefficient that represents the market value (maybe the MLE, representing the average NBA player's salary? maybe the average of the first-year salaries of players signed that year?), a factor that might somehow measure technical fouls and fines assessed against a player because of unsportsmanlike behavior, and a Sagarin-like factor that explains why guys like Michael Curry have had such a long and un-illustrious career (by the way, the next Michael Curry = Trenton Hassell), a stat can be produced with a really high correlation to salary.

I think it's simple-minded for people to give up and say, "It's too complicated." This is what guys like Dan do with their entire lives: understand the complications in the stats. It's easy to point out one example or another, isolate it ceteris parabis, and try to draw a conclusion about that. After all, that's the best way to understand how a statistical factor has influence: make everything else a control stat and see if there is a scientific correlation by messing around with just one thing at a time.

I agree with the stat-haters in the sense that this league is real life, not a model, and there's no real way to put all the intangibles under control factors. Contract signing is NEVER that way; by nature, it lacks regularity and thus regularities should be expected to be rarely found.

But to dismiss stats and not search for any sort of pattern in trying to find an educated perspective on things... that's folly. As Dan pointed out, the A's and many other groups have begun to acknowledge the validity of using statistics wisely.

And seriously, no GM or anyone is going to play the stats and forget about the human sensibility. You'll always have Mark Cubans and other random guys that throw everything off. But the stats have something to do with it all, and the more we engage in that study, the more clearly we'll be able to construct a picture with which we can gauge future numbers.

An analogy: A-Rod, arguably the best hitter in baseball, can do a zillion little things to adjust his swing, to understand the balance in the bats he uses, to scout his opposing pitchers and watch tape after tape. In the end, though, a big factor is simply if he's "feeling it" or not. There will be days when A-Rod will go against the worst pitchers in baseball and go 0 for 4 swinging. 

Does that make his analysis and training of the dynamics in pitches and swings irrelevant? No, because when A-Rod is "feeling it", all those things will separate him from the rest. But does that human factor, unquantifiably elusive, still exist? Sure. 

Contrary to popular belief, the Matrix is just a movie.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Here's the thing.

Stats are only a measure of past performance. They are not an indication of future performance. If they were, Jalen Rose would be scoring 22PPG for Toronto right now.

So if you are going to correlate performance with pay, do you pay for past performance, or do you start paying now for performance now - and in the future as you're still paying on that contract?


Peace!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Here's the thing.
> 
> Stats are only a measure of past performance. They are not an indication of future performance. If they were, Jalen Rose would be scoring 22PPG for Toronto right now.
> ...


Past performance is all we have to project future performance and that is true whether we use statistics or anything else. Thus, I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

We can use statistics to see how young guys tend to get better or old guys decline and structure our payments accordingly. So again, I don't see the relevance.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Here's the thing.
> 
> Stats are only a measure of past performance. They are not an indication of future performance. If they were, Jalen Rose would be scoring 22PPG for Toronto right now.
> ...


if you wanted to spend a lot of time, you could create stastical models that take into account the arc of player production as they age. With even more tedious research, you might even be able to create a credible model that also takes into account injuries. I imagine it would be difficult to create, say, least-squares or other regressive models using these statistics due to problems with autocorrelation and other stastical biases.

but as for statistics not predicting future performance, there is an entire branch of statistics called forecasting that attempts to do exactly that. The professional econometricians are pretty good at it, too.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> Past performance is all we have to project future performance and that is true whether we use statistics or anything else. Thus, I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.
> ...


You didn't answer the question.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Can stats be used to prove ANYTHING?
> 
> I think if you leave it to human sensibility, we can understand which stats are misleading and which stats have meaning. My view on the POSSPCT and points scored stats were that they were extremely skewed to place the onus on offense, and that a correlation between offense and salary is visibly inconsistent, even just starting with the sample here.


Yes, these were only offensive statistics, but I mentioned that right up front. And since I limited the sample to only folks with really similar possessions used and efficiencies, it is predictable that there would be no correlation in that very selected and restricted sample. The point of the comparables was not to calculate correlations with them, but to show that offensively Crawford is in pretty good company.

But as you point out, offense is not the only consideration is offering a player a given salary. But other guys on that list were less than stellar in non-offense categories.



> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> I don't think that stats lack credence in finding some sort of correlation. I think that if you could find a coefficient that represents the market value (maybe the MLE, representing the average NBA player's salary? maybe the average of the first-year salaries of players signed that year?), a factor that might somehow measure technical fouls and fines assessed against a player because of unsportsmanlike behavior, and a Sagarin-like factor that explains why guys like Michael Curry have had such a long and un-illustrious career (by the way, the next Michael Curry = Trenton Hassell), a stat can be produced with a really high correlation to salary.


Actually, Michael Curry sucks in the Sagarin statistics too. And Hassell was horrible for us, but is mediocre for the Timberwolves. He is averaging a way below anybody else 10 percent of possessions used. There aren't many teams that could afford to play such a player for many minutes.

To the extent that other stuff shows up in the game, statistics conceivably could pick that up. One could also see how teams do when such players move from one team to the next. But at the end of the day, I suspect these things probably have to be factored in in a non-systematic fashion.



> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> I think it's simple-minded for people to give up and say, "It's too complicated." This is what guys like Dan do with their entire lives: understand the complications in the stats. It's easy to point out one example or another, isolate it ceteris parabis, and try to draw a conclusion about that. After all, that's the best way to understand how a statistical factor has influence: make everything else a control stat and see if there is a scientific correlation by messing around with just one thing at a time.
> 
> I agree with the stat-haters in the sense that this league is real life, not a model, and there's no real way to put all the intangibles under control factors. Contract signing is NEVER that way; by nature, it lacks regularity and thus regularities should be expected to be rarely found.


This is exactly like every other problem that economists and other social scientists examine. Are folks who use some kind of non-systematic evaluation method magically better off? Don't they face the same problems?



> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> But to dismiss stats and not search for any sort of pattern in trying to find an educated perspective on things... that's folly. As Dan pointed out, the A's and many other groups have begun to acknowledge the validity of using statistics wisely.


I know it is inevitable, but I hate the association between statistics and "an educated perspective." Yes, I have more training than most folks, but that doesn't make me any smarter, which I think this tends to suggest to a lot of people. This obscures the more important point that the real value in statistics is that it lays open to evaluation the reasons behind the assessments people make.



> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> And seriously, no GM or anyone is going to play the stats and forget about the human sensibility. You'll always have Mark Cubans and other random guys that throw everything off. But the stats have something to do with it all, and the more we engage in that study, the more clearly we'll be able to construct a picture with which we can gauge future numbers.


Why does the use of statistics imply that everything else is ignored? Does the fact that someone looks for players with good character all of a sudden mean they are going to ignore everything else, such as talent?

And also, Mark Cuban uses statistics to a far lesser extent that the As do. The real outlier is the As (and now the Dodgers and Red Sox) - not Mark Cuban.



> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> An analogy: A-Rod, arguably the best hitter in baseball, can do a zillion little things to adjust his swing, to understand the balance in the bats he uses, to scout his opposing pitchers and watch tape after tape. In the end, though, a big factor is simply if he's "feeling it" or not. There will be days when A-Rod will go against the worst pitchers in baseball and go 0 for 4 swinging.
> 
> Does that make his analysis and training of the dynamics in pitches and swings irrelevant? No, because when A-Rod is "feeling it", all those things will separate him from the rest. But does that human factor, unquantifiably elusive, still exist? Sure.
> ...


This "feeling it" sensation has been studied to death and there is very little evidence that it is anything more than sampling variation in action. Just because you are a .250 hitter doesn't mean you will get a hit one time out of every four at bats; it just means that on average you will.

Thank you for a very thoughtful set of arguments.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

what answer is there to that question?

if you knew what a player was going to do in the future, you'd pay accordingly. Statistics can help to predict the most probable scenarios based on recent data, but they don't look into the future. You can only predict it based on all available information.

Every situation is different, to answer your question. Ewing didn't get paid 2mil by Orlando that last year based on PAST performance, because obviously he wasn't going to be hauling in 20/10 anymore. ERob got 6mil a year because he flashed such dazzling athleticism and _some_ skill, even though he proved next to nothing statistically. Croshere too. No one could have known that Vin Baker would get fat and become an alcoholic when he got that monster deal. etc. etc. etc. You pay based on what you already know the guy can do, plus what you can reasonably expect him to do over the life of the contract. All the statistics in the world won't make it an exact science. Too many unmeasurable (human) variables - injuries, personal trauma, future trades/drafts, the list goes on.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> In order to get a sense of what Jamal Crawford's market might be like, I thought about coming up with "comparable" players using two offensive statistics that are analagous to those used by  Dean Oliver, a statistical consultant for the Sonics.
> 
> The first offensive statistic is the percentage of possessions used by a player when he is on the floor (POSSPCT). The formula is quite involved, but it accounts for field goals, free throws, assists, turnovers, and offensive rebounds. The average for this statistic is 20 percent, but a handful of players use more than 30 percent of their team's possessions. Jamal Crawford uses 26.4 percent of the Bulls' possession while he is on the floor.
> ...


Just to refresh our memories, this is the post that started all this.

If there's no attempt to correlate statistical performance with salaries, why so many $$$ signs?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> what answer is there to that question?
> 
> if you knew what a player was going to do in the future, you'd pay accordingly. Statistics can help to predict the most probable scenarios based on recent data, but they don't look into the future. You can only predict it based on all available information.
> ...


More on target!

An obvious guy you didn't mention is Pippen. What was it we expected from him when we signed him for $10M ($1.5M/season more than Jamal makes now)?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> You didn't answer the question.


The CBA greatly limits how contracts can be structured, so I think contracts can't be structured in the manner you are suggesting. For that reason it is a moot point.

Moreover, you have to consider that players might prefer some part of their contract to not be incentive-based, perhaps as protection for if their skills decline. Guaranteed contracts are a form of insurance for such skill decline, and in a competitive marketplace (and with the limitations of the CBA) I would be prepared to offer such guaranteed contracts.

Statistics can be used to project a player's value. How a contract is structured is whole different issue.

And as I mentioned earlier, I would use past performance to predict future performance, projecting that performance will improve for young guys and decline for older guys. The rates of improvement and decline could be estimated from players like the player in question.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Just to refresh our memories, this is the post that started all this.
> 
> If there's no attempt to correlate statistical performance with salaries, why so many $$$ signs?


The statistics that I brought up only measured offensive production. We would need other statistics or some other evaluation method to add in the other things, such as defense, clutch-time performance, citizenship, etc.

However, looking at that list I think that Crawford is pretty typical of those on that list in those other dimensions. A conclusion you could draw from that is that Crawford is worth as much as his close comparables.

The point I made to Showtime is that within that sample one cannot correlate possessions used (or efficiency) and dollars earned. A more representative sample is needed to estimate such a correlation.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> what answer is there to that question?
> 
> if you knew what a player was going to do in the future, you'd pay accordingly. Statistics can help to predict the most probable scenarios based on recent data, but they don't look into the future. You can only predict it based on all available information.
> ...


Again, what VF is pointing out here is that practically all methods of predicting future performance have their warts. Is using statistics any worse than these other methods?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> The CBA greatly limits how contracts can be structured, so I think contracts can't be structured in the manner you are suggesting. For that reason it is a moot point.
> ...


An obvious truth: if Hassell and Kobe are free agents at the end of this season, one of the two is going to get a really BIG contract, and the other is going to get a really <font size=-2>small</font> one. Talking about how contracts are structured does not answer the question.

Here's another way to look at it. Let's consider two players: Ron Harper, and Antoine Walker.

Harper is a career ~20PPG scorer - a real scorer, best player on every team he played on, etc. He signs with the Bulls and plays a purely defensive role, his measurable stats decline from 20.1 PPG to 6.9PPG (and never get any better), yet he is a key part of a winning team. Do you pay him like a 20.1 PPG player who is sacrificing stats/personal glory for team victories? Or do you pay him like a 6.9PPG scorer?

Walker was one of the Celtics' best young players in their history. At the time of his trade, he had put up numbers similar to Webber. After his trade, he's been his team's third best player, statistically - not because he's their third best player, but because the other players there had tenure, were fan favorites, had a system/team built around them already, etc. So do you complain Walker isn't putting up numbers as good as last season and that he's overpaid? Or do you think, "pretty amazing how he can accept a lesser role and fit in, even though he is still a much better player than the stats show?"

Peace!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> That's the funny thing about Ray. He sure looked worthless. He didn't produce much statistically. And I've never seen a big man miss as many dunks as Ray did. Clang off the iron with nobody contesting the dunk. But he won and helped his team win in ways stats can't prove (other than his number of playoff appearances).


But why wouldn't statistics on opposing centers when they played against Ray show his value? And if they didn't, why do you conclude that he was so good? Did his teams have no other good players?



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> You haven't convinced me that statistical formulae are any better a solution than a vote. In fact, I'm more convinced that a vote is better, especially if the number of voters is large.
> 
> In fact, when it came to choose the 50 greatest NBA players, they didn't use a statistical formula, they held a vote:
> ...


Heck, if I was coming up with a method of selecting the 50 greatest players, I would want something that mimicked conventional wisdom. What would be better than a vote to mimic conventional wisdom? (In particular, a vote where statisticans were not allowed to vote.)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> But why wouldn't statistics on opposing centers when they played against Ray show his value? And if they didn't, why do you conclude that he was so good? Did his teams have no other good players?
> ...


I'm enjoying this.

Ray absolutely played on teams with pretty good players:

Walker, Love, Van Lier, Sloan, et al.

And

Rick Barry, Jamaal Wilkes, Butch Beard, Jeff Mullins, and Phil Smith.

The first team came real close to a championship (and was favored to do so). That 2nd team won the 74-75 championship, then won 59 games the next season, only to fall short in the playoffs.

Let's put it this way: Tom Boerwinkle grabs about 14 boards a game, the bulls get Ray, and Ray takes half the minutes at center as a rookie.

Part deux.

Why argue for conventional wisdom now (my POV) when the NBA could have ranked the players by PPI, Efficiency, or the cubed root of career rebounds to decide?


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> So if you are going to correlate performance with pay, do you pay for past performance, or do you start paying now for performance now - and in the future as you're still paying on that contract?
> 
> 
> Peace!


You'd take a large sample of NBA players from the past 4-5 years, use the stats along with their ages to predict how a player produces as he ages. By using this, if you insert a player's average points, rebounds, steals, assists, blocks, turnovers etc, perhaps games missed to injury in the past three years, number of minutes played on average and number of major surgical operations...

I'm sure you could fairly accurately project averages for the player for about 2-3 years in the future. You pay based on that indication of future performance based on past performance in a statistical model.

The only thing that you probably can't account for is Jay Williams. But then again, neither could any other sort of way of evaluating players, so it's a moot point.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Just to refresh our memories, this is the post that started all this.
> ...



It's not a statistical model, it's just a list of what players with similar offensive statistics earn. You could take that and try and form correlation, but it'd be pretty useless... you've isolated instances with extremely similar independent variables which won't be effective in explaining very different dependent variables.

If Dan Rosenbaum used those stats to predict Jamal's salary for next season, we'd likely find out that he will get a deal between $2.5 and 12.5 million.

You'd have to take a lot more samples, and not just one kind of sample.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I like statistics because they are much more transparent than these non-systematic evaluations that we hear all of the time. This may seem strange since for many the math in statistics make them much less transparent, but with non-systematic evaluations, it is hard to get clear notion of what the underlying concepts are and so it makes it difficult to figure out what is being measured, let alone whether it is being measured accurately or whether it is something worth measuring.
> 
> These non-systematic evaluations are very difficult to discuss, because they typically boil down to "well, so-and-so just _seems_ to be a better player/defender/passer/hustler," and for me those kind of discussions just never seem to progress very far without some statistical evidence to support them.
> ...


Well, as usual I'm going to play both sides of the fence here  I obviously like stats, but I do have one pretty fundamental concern.

People don't always think and perceive things linearly. further, we are (unconsciously) masters at aggregating and perceiving data. Even though we can't always pull out a good statistical basis for saying "Player X just 'seems' better", we are often right (but of course not always).

The problem comes because statistics are deceptively difficult to obtain, even for a sport where things are rigorously timed and tracked in a closed environment (with what should be a limited number of variables). Because of this fact, there's a tendency to only study what you can easily capture statistically, leaving out important variables in the process.

It's not that statistics are worse per se, but sometimes we intuit things that would be difficult to collect and model.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, as usual I'm going to play both sides of the fence here  I obviously like stats, but I do have one pretty fundamental concern.
> ...


I don't think anyone is suggesting that statistics capture all relevant factors. DaBullz just seems to be arguing that statistics are a fairly useless method for determining a player's worth. But maybe he's just egging us on for fun. A player's stats DEFINITELY correlate strongly to his salary. I did a short project on this very topic last year for econometrics. The correlation is incredibly strong, with really high r-squared and test statistic values. Of course, other factors become involved. A player's age/youth, athleticism, maybe IQ, injury history, etc etc etc. But to disregard statistics, in all their forms and models, in terms of measuring worth, productivity, and as at least one basis for contract negotiations, seems just as silly as ignoring the less-measurable factors, if not more so.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> However, looking at that list I think that Crawford is pretty typical of those on that list in those other dimensions. A conclusion you could draw from that is that Crawford is worth as much as his close comparables.


Hey! No cheating, you're analyzing too much on too limited a sample!



> A more representative sample is needed to estimate such a correlation.


Ok much better.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> An obvious truth: if Hassell and Kobe are free agents at the end of this season, one of the two is going to get a really BIG contract, and the other is going to get a really <font size=-2>small</font> one. Talking about how contracts are structured does not answer the question.
> 
> Here's another way to look at it. Let's consider two players: Ron Harper, and Antoine Walker.
> ...


You pay a guy based upon what you project him to do for your team. It is not simply a measure of what he has done in the past. Harper was a low-efficiency guy for the Clippers and that never was going to work on a better team. He was going to need to become more efficient by using less possessions. I suspect the Bulls were not expecting such a huge dropoff in possession use, but they might have gotten more on the defensive end than they were expecting.

On Antoine Walker, John Hollinger is very typical of stats guys in what they think of Walker. He calls him the most overrated player in the league. He uses lots of possessions, but he is horribly inefficient. Even Allen Iverson is A LOT more efficient than Walker. Since moving to Dallas, his efficiency has inched up a bit, but he is still horribly inefficient and still uses way too many possessions. For a team like Dallas with lots of more efficient options than Walker, the best thing he could do for the team would be to sacrifice his game a lot more. His possessions really kill the Mavericks. On a good defensive team like Boston who was starving for guys to use possessions, he probably was pretty valuable. But on a team like Dallas, he just does not help them. Cuban thought that Walker could become more efficient if he used fewer possessions. An interesting gamble and one that made some sense, but the early returns are that it is failing. 

Jamison, on the other hand, has become a more efficient player. (And with what has happened to LaFrentz and Van Exel, Cuban probably still is better off because of the trades.)


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'm enjoying this.
> 
> Ray absolutely played on teams with pretty good players:
> ...


I am a just a baby, so there is not much I can add to your discussion of Ray, but it appears to me that it is possible that Ray's teams won despte him rather than because of him. But that is just idle speculation.

The 50 greatest players was a marketing tool. Given that, mimicking conventional wisdeom probably was the right approach. It didn't really matter if the guys were really the 50 best - just that it was about what most people thought was right. For something like that, a vote is quite appropriate.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> It's not a statistical model, it's just a list of what players with similar offensive statistics earn. You could take that and try and form correlation, but it'd be pretty useless... you've isolated instances with extremely similar independent variables which won't be effective in explaining very different dependent variables.
> 
> If Dan Rosenbaum used those stats to predict Jamal's salary for next season, we'd likely find out that he will get a deal between $2.5 and 12.5 million.
> ...


Great explanation. Who is teaching you econometrics?

The only point that I might take exception with is that excluding the two guys young players who salaries were determined in a non-competitive market, the mean salary for the other 11 players was about $9 million with a standard error for that mean of around $0.8 million. That would imply a 95% confidence interval for the value of Crawford of between $7.4 and $10.6 million, if (1) Crawford was typical in terms of his other qualities not measured by these statistics and (2) the market had not changed significantly. Both of these factors may not be true, but that is something to discuss.

Again, what you can't do with these data is calcuate a correlation between these offensive statistics and salary, since as you mentioned there is no correlation in these offensive statistics to estimate that relationship.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Well, as usual I'm going to play both sides of the fence here  I obviously like stats, but I do have one pretty fundamental concern.
> 
> People don't always think and perceive things linearly. further, we are (unconsciously) masters at aggregating and perceiving data. Even though we can't always pull out a good statistical basis for saying "Player X just 'seems' better", we are often right (but of course not always).
> ...


Just as in anything else, there are good statistical methodologies and bad ones. The good ones make explicit their limitations and open the door to other methodologies to evaluate those other important qualities. Again, the value in statistics is that it makes a lot of this more explicit.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> That would imply a 95% confidence interval for the value of Crawford of between $7.4 and $10.6 million, if (1) Crawford was typical in terms of his other qualities not measured by these statistics and (2) the market had not changed significantly. Both of these factors may not be true, but that is something to discuss.


I PM'd you my professor's info.

I would have tossed out Jalen and Glenn too, because they were signed outside of the current CBA when rookie contracts were completely negotiable. Even though Jalen was signed post this CBA, his rookie contract or the basis for his next contract was much different from the ones you see today.

Glenn's still on his rookie contract, actually, if I remember correctly. 

I didn't actually do a confidence interval on paper, I just kinda went through one in my head. I figured drop the highest and lowest and slap him in somewhere there, because estimating was more fun and easier


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

As a followup, I think statistics should have a LOT more impact on basketball based decisions. 

I've never read Moneyball, though I probably will at some point. The statistical approach was counter to the prominent tools approach--- how many of the following did a prospect embody?

1)Hitting for average
2)Hitting for power
3)Arm strength
4)Speed
5)Fielding ability

A five tool prospect is someone who a scout says can do all of the above. Scouts were enamored with five tool prospects and most still are--- the five tool prospects in the league are some of the best players (Alex Rodriguez, Vladmir Guerrero.)

But sometimes in evaluating someone's upside you lose site of reality, you could almost say. A guy doesn't look that fluid in the field so you already knock him down to a four tool prospect. He doesn't perform well in the 60 yard dash (baseball uses 60 yards) and you say he's a three tool player.

You know who was a three tool player? Mark McGwire. 

The A's have had a lot of success by taking those supposed three and four tool players that other teams lose interest in and by examining more of what they've done and what their future performance would look like statistically...

Too often I think basketball teams look for five tool players. Then a player like Gilbert Arenas slips through. Michael Redd. Carlos Boozer. On the other hand, we have Dermarr Johnson. Joel Prybzilla. Darius Miles.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jamal Crawford Comparables*



> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> I PM'd you my professor's info.
> 
> I would have tossed out Jalen and Glenn too, because they were signed outside of the current CBA when rookie contracts were completely negotiable. Even though Jalen was signed post this CBA, his rookie contract or the basis for his next contract was much different from the ones you see today.
> ...


Interesting information on your professor. Ask him if he knows some of my work on the EITC. Also, my University of Dayton beat your college for the Division III national championship in football my freshman year. I didn't play much that year, only appearing on special teams.

And I was little quick on my 95% confidence interval calculations. It was a little wider than my rough guess - between $6.9M and $11.6M. Throwing out Rose and Robinson, it is $5.5M to $10.9M. That covers about the whole range from MLE to the max, so it is not particularly useful.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is suggesting that statistics capture all relevant factors. DaBullz just seems to be arguing that statistics are a fairly useless method for determining a player's worth. But maybe he's just egging us on for fun. A player's stats DEFINITELY correlate strongly to his salary. I did a short project on this very topic last year for econometrics. The correlation is incredibly strong, with really high r-squared and test statistic values. Of course, other factors become involved. A player's age/youth, athleticism, maybe IQ, injury history, etc etc etc. But to disregard statistics, in all their forms and models, in terms of measuring worth, productivity, and as at least one basis for contract negotiations, seems just as silly as ignoring the less-measurable factors, if not more so.


No no no, I wasn't arguing to that extreme. If you remember, I'm 2 years into an economics Ph.D. program myself... I'm about the last person to say it's useless 

I was merely putting a limit on their utility. The challenge, as I thought Dan laid down, was not to say that statistics should be ignored entirely or are entirely useless (because only a fool would argue something like that), but to give a couple examples of how more intuitive processes might come to more efficient outcomes. Like you say, it would be silly to disregard those factors too.

The problem comes because folks often, willingly or unwillingly, become prisoners of their data, or of their expectations.

Most drastically, in the real world, you really have to be on guard against overstating your data. Last year, for instance, I was working on a work project that produced very similar results to that found for NBA salaries we're discussing here. In short, I produced a statistically accurate but highly variant range of costs to improve a building that could be associated with a given building inspection score (and of course some other factors).

OK, so what? That's just what we're already talking about, right? Well yeah, but what hasn't been mentioned is the pressure that comes down from people who don't or don't want to understand this fact. There is often a burden involved in not overstating your data and making its weaknesses clear to people who won't understand them (especially if they want to see a particular result). In my case, it took a whole lot of convincing, explaining, and cajoling to prevent my stuff from being used as a "validation" of a process that shouldn't have been validated (even though it's in everyone's interest to).

To someone like Dan who does statistical work for a living, statistics do make things more transparent. And he's exactly right, I think, that the belief that statistics "obscures" is based on failures to properly explain or understand the assumptions and weaknesses involved. I'm just offering a caution that these difficulties shouldn't be underestimated and that in my opinion, statisticians of all sorts have a tendency to overstate their case and sometimes ignore or misunderstand their own weaknesses 

That's not at all to say I think it's useless or less useful than intuitive factors on the whole, just that I'm probably a bit more skeptical than Dan about statistics' "transparency" because I think it relies on a trained eye and an open mind.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Now I have a headache....thanks guys.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I wasn't arguing against the use of statistics for any reason or purpose.

I think I effectively argued the same thing that Mikedc has written.

My point is that you shouldn't and can't entirely measure a player's worth or value or even contributions to a team by his stats. That even when one of the top basketball statisticians wrote a book to rank players, he used a subjective measure, not an objective one.

For example, in my humble opinion, it may be well worth paying Jamal Crawford top dollar to retain him simply because he is the bulls' best player, because he is flashy, and because we're not likely to have a better player on this team for a long time to come. Only one of those reasons ("best player") can be argued with stats -- and those who argue he's our best player often argue his age and potential more than his stats (objective) and those who argue he's not our best player often argue his inability to fight through screens or poor decision making or shot selection (again objective measures).

Another point I raise is that statistics can't measure what a player might sacrifice to be part of a better team (i.e. Harper). Or that statistics can't or don't measure the contributions that some guys make (i.e. Ray).

Stats do not explain why Melo or LeBron joined losing teams that are now winning teams.

Stats do not explain why Jordan filled the seats in every arena he played in while Dominique Wilkins or George Gervin didn't. Or why Jordan's show contract is worth more than his paycheck and why Rick Brunson likely doesn't have a shoe contract at all ;-)

Stats do not explain why Karl Malone or Gary Payton signed cheap contracts with the Lakers.

Baseball has been brought up as an example where use of stats has made some sort of difference in a team's performance. Ironically, Baseball has some interesting issues that haven't been raised:

* Baseball has an arbitration system, and in arbitration systems (like any legal system), precident is as strong a methodology as Reason. And precident in baseball arbitration IS the use of stats to argue a player's contractual worth.

* Baseball has a much longer history and a much more mature scouting system. Scouting is an art, not a science, though they might measure the speed of a pitcher's fastball, there is a LOT of subjective analysis involved.

* Baseball has a minor league system. Out of financial necessity, a team like the A's that can't retain its superstars has to develop a better system of training younger players to be better major leaguers, if they want to compete.

* Weather is a factor in baseball, since it is played outdoors. Teams in warmer cities with low payrolls sure seem to do well, even though teams that spend the most on payroll seem to have advantages, too.

* Baseball apparently has a steroid abuse problem - the athletes' performance is chemically enhanced.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is suggesting that statistics capture all relevant factors. DaBullz just seems to be arguing that statistics are a fairly useless method for determining a player's worth. But maybe he's just egging us on for fun. A player's stats DEFINITELY correlate strongly to his salary. I did a short project on this very topic last year for econometrics. The correlation is incredibly strong, with really high r-squared and test statistic values. Of course, other factors become involved. A player's age/youth, athleticism, maybe IQ, injury history, etc etc etc. But to disregard statistics, in all their forms and models, in terms of measuring worth, productivity, and as at least one basis for contract negotiations, seems just as silly as ignoring the less-measurable factors, if not more so.


In economic terms, the market for a player's services is not a free market. It is absurdly regulated by the CBA. The correlation you see is by design.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Heh heh*

In another thread, C Blizzy posted this:



> <B>Skiles: "Stop Focusing on Numbers..." (post #1) </B>
> 
> 
> "I wish, frankly, that everyone would stop focusing so much on Eddy's scoring, because that makes my job very difficult," Skiles said. "I'm trying to convince him to play defense and block shots, and that's how we'll win."
> ...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

can i compare JC to someone since I believe that is the original intent of this thread? 

World B Free

The guy never met a shot he didnt like and JC is the same way. And I am serious about that. A smaller Purvis Short maybe.

But in all seriousness, I fully expect that Jamal will emerge as a force for someone down the line. maybe in a Bobby jackson like role. But it just isnt going to happen for him here in chicago.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Another great thread in this forum. Maybe I should pay more visits here despite not being a fan of the team. It's certainly composed of many knowledgable fans. Dan Rosenbaum especially brings a fantastic perspective on basketball that many people fail to recognize. Baseball had been the same way for eighty or so years until people came only with statistics that said, "Hey, alot of you are evaluating players entirely wrong.". Bill James was the most prominent of the now called sabermetricians. The thing was baseball was still stubborn, and it took nearly twenty years before someone actually decided to fully implement it, and it's hard to argue with his success. He has worked with one of the lowest payrolls in baseball and has a produced four consecutive playoff appearances. A similar "revolution" has not taken place in basketball, though I would agree that the task is also far more difficult than in baseball. Defense is far more important in basketball than baseball, and it is impossible to quantize on the current stats available and for now, is only based on subjective opinion. But it's certainly possible to create stats for defense. Individual defensive FG% against, offensive charges drawn, redirected shots, etc. These are all stats that could be easily recorded. The difficulty now is finding someone to do so. Also, unlike baseball, whose team's success is mostly a conglomeration of individual accomplishments, basketball is far more of a team game. Your teammates can have a drastic effect on your individual performance. The measure of the effect though is difficult. However, there are guys who have taken tremendous strides in the field. One particular guy that sticks out in my mind is John Hollinger, who is the author of the annual Pro Basketball Prospectus. He has a tremendous knack for looking at basketball in new ways as well as presenting in an elegant manner. I highly recommend his site alleyoop.com for an introduction to the research that he has done.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> What was Sam Vincent and Reggie Theus' salaries.
> 
> Thats who he's kinda comparable to.
> ...


reggie theus had a pretty good career and for all the remarks about his chucking nature was at one point top 20 all time in assist


----------

