Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Raptors analytics... and an internal rift? [post #67]

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

  • #31
    One thing that was interesting, but a bit puzzling for me (although I haven't put THAT much thought into it) was the way the analysis of what the 'ghost players' should be doing on defense seemed to belie what it recommends players do on offence.

    Specifically, they were criticizing the Raps for not rotating hard to close out on a long 2-pointer from West in that Indiana possession, but what's the point in scrambling off of the 3 point line and off of Hibbert in the post (what it claims, on offence, to be the most valued shots) in order to contest a shot that, ideally, you want the other team to be taking.

    In other words, why does it call for over-helping on D when it on O it emphasizes the pivotal importance of 3 pointers (which is exactly what you give up when you over-rotate).

    Need some more time to digest this, and I really love the analytical approach, but I'm scratching my head a bit right now.

    Comment


    • #32
      themasao wrote: View Post
      One thing that was interesting, but a bit puzzling for me (although I haven't put THAT much thought into it) was the way the analysis of what the 'ghost players' should be doing on defense seemed to belie what it recommends players do on offence.

      Specifically, they were criticizing the Raps for not rotating hard to close out on a long 2-pointer from West in that Indiana possession, but what's the point in scrambling off of the 3 point line and off of Hibbert in the post (what it claims, on offence, to be the most valued shots) in order to contest a shot that, ideally, you want the other team to be taking.

      In other words, why does it call for over-helping on D when it on O it emphasizes the pivotal importance of 3 pointers (which is exactly what you give up when you over-rotate).

      Need some more time to digest this, and I really love the analytical approach, but I'm scratching my head a bit right now.
      The ghosts represent how the coaching staff wants the team to play. Apparently, they want a close-out on that shot.
      "Stop eating your sushi."
      "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
      "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
      - Jack Armstrong

      Comment


      • #33
        JimiCliff wrote: View Post
        The ghosts represent how the coaching staff wants the team to play. Apparently, they want a close-out on that shot.
        Are you sure? I could have sworn the article was suggesting that the ghost players are doing what would yield the most effective decision from a analytical PPP perspective, and that the coaches aren't totally on board with replicating the 'ghost movements'.

        Specifically, Jonas over-rotates, and Casey benches him as a result, but the ghost projection suggests that this is actually the better thing to be doing on the whole.

        Comment


        • #34
          Employee wrote: View Post
          Yeah that three point shot part was really crazy. So Demar is better off shooting threes than long two's. Doesn't mean I won't cringe every time he shoots a three.
          Especially Demar. How many of his shots are just 18" inside the line? He might as well step back the half p[ace for the 50% boost in scoring if he hits it.

          Comment


          • #35
            Nilanka wrote: View Post
            +1

            Jonas doesn't exactly seem like the type to be like, "Screw you coach. I only care about minutes".

            I'm sure he's absorbing everything Casey's telling him, regardless of how many minutes he plays.
            And there is a big problem with this if Casey is telling him "Don't leave your man to Help" when the analytics shows that leaving your man to help is the correct play 95% of the time.

            Comment


            • #36
              themasao wrote: View Post
              Are you sure? I could have sworn the article was suggesting that the ghost players are doing what would yield the most effective decision from a analytical PPP perspective....
              This is correct. The ghost players are reacting in a manner that is in accord with giving the opponents the lowest percentage shots, based on analysis. The article specifically said that what many would call "over helping" is the better move most often.

              Comment


              • #37
                .

                This analytical approach throws a few curves to the typical coaching approach, that spices its' thinking with traditional stats - some simple; some more complicated.
                .

                Our results suggest that the integration of spatial approaches and player tracking data promise to improve the status quo of defensive analytics but also reveal some important challenges associated with evaluating defense. [Kirk Goldsberry and Eric Weiss - Harvard University]
                I posted in a previous thread State of the Nation - The Long Division Version, where I mentioned this Harvard study based on data gleamed from the SportVu camera systems, currently used by 15 teams.

                The Dwight Effect: A New Ensemble of Interior Defense Analytics for the NBA

                The argument in my thread related to Bargnani, and his posting the 2nd best number. The study summarized fg% of opponents when each Defender was within 5 feet. Of course this analysis only applied to 15 teams in the study, so possibly there are 225 players (give or take a few) + the current #1 who are better then Andrea.

                When I hear of stats like these, and the study by Harvard, I reason that fans are tainted more by AB's display of indifference (and shaky rebounding), then by the myth that his defense is the biggest contibutor to this team's lack of success.

                Never-the-less, we could debate till the cows come home, without realizing that there may have been a reason for Casey's obsession with putting Bargnani out there (in place of another Big), and at the 3 point line. The former seems to be for defensive purposes, while the latter is because even at .311 - his worse 3 pt shooting average - Andrea still nabs more points there (per possesion), then Rudy, or Demar, or Kyle do, when inside the perimeter.

                In his role of 2nd banana (to Bosh), Bargnani averaged .375 from the 3 point line over a 4 year period. That translates into an equivalent .563 - the current average this year for our top shooter .... Amir Johnson.

                .

                Judging these numbers - like Bargnani's - against certain members of the team, should not deflect from the reality that Rudy's numbers don't make for a good comparison. Or measure of success. But it's important to realize the relevance for which certain roles evolved. This analysis should put some pressure on Demar, as his 3 point shooting needs a boost in skill level.

                .

                Comment


                • #38
                  themasao wrote: View Post
                  Are you sure? I could have sworn the article was suggesting that the ghost players are doing what would yield the most effective decision from a analytical PPP perspective, and that the coaches aren't totally on board with replicating the 'ghost movements'.

                  Specifically, Jonas over-rotates, and Casey benches him as a result, but the ghost projection suggests that this is actually the better thing to be doing on the whole.
                  With respect to defence, it's actually unclear. The article says:

                  "Those are ghost players, and they are doing what Toronto's coaching staff and analytics team believe the players should have done on this play — and on every other Toronto play the cameras have recorded."

                  But I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the analytics team have been listening to the coaches more than the other way around, which would mean the defender ghosts are more reflective of the ideas of the coaching staff.

                  With respect to offence, the article makes it clear that there are some philosophical divides between coaching and analytics. But that had nothing to do with the ghosts really.
                  Last edited by JimiCliff; Tue Mar 19, 2013, 10:09 PM.
                  "Stop eating your sushi."
                  "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                  "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                  - Jack Armstrong

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    RapthoseLeafs wrote: View Post
                    .

                    This analytical approach throws a few curves to the typical coaching approach, that spices its' thinking with traditional stats - some simple; some more complicated.
                    .



                    I posted in a previous thread State of the Nation - The Long Division Version, where I mentioned this Harvard study based on data gleamed from the SportVu camera systems, currently used by 15 teams.

                    The Dwight Effect: A New Ensemble of Interior Defense Analytics for the NBA

                    The argument in my thread related to Bargnani, and his posting the 2nd best number. The study summarized fg% of opponents when each Defender was within 5 feet. Of course this analysis only applied to 15 teams in the study, so possibly there are 225 players (give or take a few) + the current #1 who are better then Andrea.

                    When I hear of stats like these, and the study by Harvard, I reason that fans are tainted more by AB's display of indifference (and shaky rebounding), then by the myth that his defense is the biggest contibutor to this team's lack of success.

                    Never-the-less, we could debate till the cows come home, without realizing that there may have been a reason for Casey's obsession with putting Bargnani out there (in place of another Big), and at the 3 point line. The former seems to be for defensive purposes, while the latter is because even at .311 - his worse 3 pt shooting average - Andrea still nabs more points there (per possesion), then Rudy, or Demar, or Kyle do, when inside the perimeter.

                    In his role of 2nd banana (to Bosh), Bargnani averaged .375 from the 3 point line over a 4 year period. That translates into an equivalent .563 - the current average this year for our top shooter .... Amir Johnson.

                    .

                    Judging these numbers - like Bargnani's - against certain members of the team, should not deflect from the reality that Rudy's numbers don't make for a good comparison. Or measure of success. But it's important to realize the relevance for which certain roles evolved. This analysis should put some pressure on Demar, as his 3 point shooting needs a boost in skill level.

                    .
                    You should perhaps do a little more research on that study. Andrea's #s are so 'good' because he rarely gets within 5 ft which skewed the #s (explained and detailed at sloan and by the author). When that is accounted for Bargnani is actually one of the worst in the leage. That basically supports that Bargnani lack of defense is not a myth, rather very well statistically quantified.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      JimiCliff wrote: View Post
                      With respect to defence, it's actually unclear. The article says:

                      "Those are ghost players, and they are doing what Toronto's coaching staff and analytics team believe the players should have done on this play — and on every other Toronto play the cameras have recorded."

                      But I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the analytics team have been listening to the coaches more than the other way around, which would mean the defender ghosts are more reflective of the ideas of the coaching staff.

                      With respect to offence, the article makes it clear that there are some philosophical divides between coaching and analytics. But that had nothing to do with the ghosts really.
                      in the pick and roll video the players pretty much did the same play what the ghost players did. the ghost players were just rotated into slightly different spots. the amir johnson one didnt show anything different either.

                      again saying it doesnt really add anything over a regular video replay, aside from being able to crunch the data from a vast amount of games.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Craiger wrote: View Post
                        You should perhaps do a little more research on that study. Andrea's #s are so 'good' because he rarely gets within 5 ft which skewed the #s (explained and detailed at sloan and by the author). When that is accounted for Bargnani is actually one of the worst in the leage. That basically supports that Bargnani lack of defense is not a myth, rather very well statistically quantified.
                        You're right ... I did have to do a little more research. What I clarified was how this Harvard Study determined a few things in their study of the NBA. Amongst them are:

                        The Dwight Effect
                        Howard's defense deters opponents from getting within 5 feet of him. He's 83rd on the list with 23.6 %. Andrea comes in at 90th, with 21.9 %.

                        This is what we call the “Dwight Effect” – the most effective way to defend close range shots is to prevent them from even happening. Although Howard does not lead the league in blocks, he does lead the league in “invisible blocks,” which may prove to be markedly more significant.

                        When Howard is protecting the basket, opponents shoot many fewer close range shots than average, and settle for many more mid-range shots, which are the least productive shots in the NBA.
                        Proximal FG%
                        Howard's 15th place surprises me, and yet doesn't. I think his bark is greater then his bite. Last Page - Appendix 2

                        Larry Sanders comes in first @ limiting Opponents to a .349 shooting percentage. Andrea is 2nd with a .352 Opponent average. Dwight Howard limits opponents to .435 - good for 15th spot. This study concludes with the Authors being certain about the top guy, a player who seems to be flying under the radar:

                        Lastly, due to his outstanding performance in both case studies, we conclude by suggesting Larry Sanders is the best interior defender in the NBA.
                        So to your comment:

                        Andrea's #s are so 'good' because he rarely gets within 5 ft which skewed the #s
                        When Opponents are within 5 feet, Andrea defends well. And the reason most stay further out, doesn't really matter, although I'd guess the Howard Effect. Never-the-less, what matters is that AB guards better then his "Defensive sieve" reputation makes him out to be. In his case, these Authors become like Myth Busters - demonstrating outside the box thinking versus tradional Basketball analysis.


                        .

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Probably the most interesting article I've read in a long time. I also love how it passive aggressively shits all over our players and coaching.

                          If the team is so pro analytics, why do we have so many inefficient players? This seriously boggles my mind.
                          @sweatpantsjer

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            phez wrote: View Post
                            in the pick and roll video the players pretty much did the same play what the ghost players did. the ghost players were just rotated into slightly different spots. the amir johnson one didnt show anything different either.

                            again saying it doesnt really add anything over a regular video replay, aside from being able to crunch the data from a vast amount of games.
                            ceez wrote: View Post
                            Probably the most interesting article I've read in a long time. I also love how it passive aggressively shits all over our players and coaching.

                            If the team is so pro analytics, why do we have so many inefficient players? This seriously boggles my mind.

                            +1
                            mind=boggled


                            The article depresses me more than anything. You can't pin the resistance to analytics solely at Casey's feet, since Bryan hired him in the first place, but either way, I don't think the organisation, whether its the front office or the coaching staff are getting as many points/wins as they could from analytics.

                            Two conversations, that didn't happen

                            Bryan Coangelo: I want Lowry at point, Amir at the four, Bargnani on the bench, Valanciunas at center, and anyone but Anderson first off the bench.
                            Dwane Casey: You want Bargnani on the bench?
                            Bryan Coangelo: That's right. So you can play JV.
                            Dwane Casey: Bargnani is not only the best scoring big on the roster, he's the only scoring big on the roster.
                            Bryan Coangelo: Listen to me, the team scores more points per possession with JV on the floor. In fact, twenty percent more.
                            Dwane Casey: And his scoring?
                            Bryan Coangelo: His scoring does not matter.
                            Dwane Casey: I've heard enough of this.
                            Bryan Coangelo: Have you?
                            Dwane Casey: And I, uh... I disagree with you, plain and simple. And moreover, I'm playing my team in a way that I can explain in job interviews next summer.

                            Bryan Coangelo: Dwane, you got a minute?
                            Dwane Casey: Yeah. Take a seat.
                            Bryan Coangelo: You can't start Bargnani at center tonight. You'll have to start Valanciunas.
                            Dwane Casey: Yeah, I don't want to go fifteen rounds, Bryan. The starting lineup is mine, and that's all.
                            Bryan Coangelo: The lineup is definitely yours. I'm just saying you can't start Bargnani.
                            Dwane Casey: Well, I am starting him at center.
                            Bryan Coangelo: I don't think so. He doesn’t play for anyone now.
                            Dwane Casey: You amnestied Bargnani?
                            Bryan Coangelo: Yeah. And Gray, is being sent down.
                            Dwane Casey: You are outside your mind.
                            Bryan Coangelo: Yeah. Cuckoo.
                            Last edited by ezz_bee; Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:45 AM.
                            "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

                            "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

                            "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              RapthoseLeafs wrote: View Post
                              You're right ... I did have to do a little more research. What I clarified was how this Harvard Study determined a few things in their study of the NBA. Amongst them are:

                              The Dwight Effect
                              Howard's defense deters opponents from getting within 5 feet of him. He's 83rd on the list with 23.6 %. Andrea comes in at 90th, with 21.9 %.



                              Proximal FG%
                              Howard's 15th place surprises me, and yet doesn't. I think his bark is greater then his bite. Last Page - Appendix 2

                              Larry Sanders comes in first @ limiting Opponents to a .349 shooting percentage. Andrea is 2nd with a .352 Opponent average. Dwight Howard limits opponents to .435 - good for 15th spot. This study concludes with the Authors being certain about the top guy, a player who seems to be flying under the radar:



                              So to your comment:



                              When Opponents are within 5 feet, Andrea defends well. And the reason most stay further out, doesn't really matter, although I'd guess the Howard Effect. Never-the-less, what matters is that AB guards better then his "Defensive sieve" reputation makes him out to be. In his case, these Authors become like Myth Busters - demonstrating outside the box thinking versus tradional Basketball analysis.


                              .
                              Actually it does.

                              You are inferrring that their conclusion about Dwight Howard applies to Andrea, which it does not. Again, that was discussed and explained by the authors at sloan. Your thinking is players did not get within 5ft of Andrea under the bucket - they on the other hand concluded Andrea does gett to the bucket to get within 5 ft.

                              That is a SIGNFICANT difference.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                ceez wrote: View Post
                                Probably the most interesting article I've read in a long time. I also love how it passive aggressively shits all over our players and coaching.

                                If the team is so pro analytics, why do we have so many inefficient players? This seriously boggles my mind.
                                This is one huge problem I've had with all this recent discussion surrounding Raptors and analytics. Last offseason Rucker was tooting the Raptors analytical horn about Andrea, Fields, Lowry and the team in general.

                                So what went wrong? Did he make mistakes in analyzing the data, did the analytical message get lost along the way, did someone (Casey or Colangelo) ignore the analytical advice?

                                Combination of all 3?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X