Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 281

Thread: ESPN 5-on-5: Rudy Gay most Overrated Small Forward.

  1. #141
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,169
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Craiger wrote: View Post
    defensive win share needs to be adjusted for minutes.

    If you had 2 perfectly identical players and player A played 1000 minutes and player B played 2000 minutes, player B would have 2x the defensive winshare of player A.
    It also heavily depends on the team. Defensive win shares are based on your own defensive numbers (blocks, steals, etc) + your opponent's offensive numbers while you are on the floor. Basically, it's an elaborate +/- stat, and like all +/- stats, however complicated, it depends on teammates.

  2. #142
    Raptors Republic Superstar Rapstor4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,063
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote BobLoblaw wrote: View Post
    Are you sure you are talking about Paul George btw? Like, everything in bold is wrong, unless you mean somebody else.
    Nope Paul George and I was wrong on his field goal percentage its 41% still not good at any means the average for wing players is 42-44%

    http://www.nba.com/playerfile/paul_george/index.html

  3. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,022
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote BobLoblaw wrote: View Post
    It also heavily depends on the team. Defensive win shares are based on your own defensive numbers (blocks, steals, etc) + your opponent's offensive numbers while you are on the floor. Basically, it's an elaborate +/- stat, and like all +/- stats, however complicated, it depends on teammates.
    My issue with comparing stats of Player A, on Team A, with stats of Player B, on Team B, is that virtually every stat is affected by teammates, team style/coaching, amongst a list of many other factors as long as my leg.

    A few recent examples to highlight just a little of the point:
    - Carlos Boozer: he moves from Utah to Chicago and his stats drop across the board, including a big drop in FG% from 56% to 51%,,,,,, except for DRtg. Does that mean that he's suddenly a worse player, except for D, or are his stats greatly affected by the team, style of play, and his teammates?
    - Ryan Anderson: moves from Magic to NOLA and shooting percentages drop to lowest in 4 years, rebounding drops, ORtg plunges and DRtg shoots up. He's falling, or he's affected by team/teammates?
    Gortat: Nash & Hill leave, stats drop across the board, including the worst rebounding/36 in his career. He's worse, or affected by team play?
    Paul Pierce: In his
    3rd year his FG% 45, 3P% 38
    4th year his FG% 44, 3P% 40
    5th year his FG% 41, 3P% 30
    6th year his FG% 40, 3P% 30
    Was he getting worse over 2 years, or something else? It would seem something else, because his percentages shot up again in his 7th year.

  4. #144
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote BobLoblaw wrote: View Post
    It also heavily depends on the team. Defensive win shares are based on your own defensive numbers (blocks, steals, etc) + your opponent's offensive numbers while you are on the floor. Basically, it's an elaborate +/- stat, and like all +/- stats, however complicated, it depends on teammates.
    How much is 'heavily'? WS does adjust for drtg, but does that mean its 1) a bad thing compared to not adjusting and 2) enough to make the statistic wrong/not worthwhile using/not relative enough?


    Interestingly enough Boozer has had a DRTG higher than his each of his teams, and every single year, since entering the league (note this is an enourmous sample size - 11 seasons, 714 games and over 23,000 minutes with numerous different teammates both good and bad) This would indicate that he has had a positive effect on his team's defense (atleast compared to an average teammate), and has therefore been a 'good' defender.

    Perhaps the problem isn't with defensive win share, so much as it is a perception of the player himself.

    PS. I will point out, that once DWS is adjusted for minutes played, his ranking will drop dramatically although his impact will stay the same.
    Last edited by Craiger; Thu Aug 8th, 2013 at 06:26 PM.

  5. #145
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,169
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Craiger wrote: View Post
    How much is 'heavily'? WS does adjust for drtg, but does that mean its 1) a bad thing compared to not adjusting and 2) enough to make the statistic wrong/not worthwhile using/not relative enough?


    Interestingly enough Boozer has had a DRTG higher than his each of his teams, and every single year, since entering the league (note this is an enourmous sample size - 11 seasons, 714 games and over 23,000 minutes with numerous different teammates both good and bad) This would indicate indicate that he has had a positive effect on his team's defense, and has therefore been a 'good' defender.

    Perhaps the problem isn't with defensive win share, so much as it is a perception of the player himself.
    Defensive rating and defensive win shares are basically the same stat, btw. Defensive win shares are nothing but defensive rating adjusted for player's total minutes / possessions.

    The impact of teammates is huge. It is heavy enough to cause many bad defensive players have strong defensive win shares, as long as they are on good defensive teams. DJ Augustin has stronger WS/48 numbers than Jrue Holiday or Rubio for example. All you really have to do is look at the list of all players by win shares / WS48 / pr defensive rating, and you'll find a ton of these examples.

    That said, WS / defensive rating aren't completely useless stats. At the very least, they show that a player was featured in strong defensive lineups, which is valuable info. If someone tells you that DJ Augustin = bad team defense, you can point to these numbers and say, no, maybe he doesn't help, but it's possible to hide him to a degree.

    Also, in general, there's a correlation between good defenders and good defensive rating / defensive win shares. 7 or 8 times of 10, those numbers will reflect solid individual defense.
    Last edited by BobLoblaw; Thu Aug 8th, 2013 at 06:55 PM.

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    744
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote BobLoblaw wrote: View Post
    Defensive rating and defensive win shares are basically the same stat, btw. Defensive win shares are nothing but defensive rating adjusted for player's total minutes / possessions.

    The impact of teammates is huge. It is heavy enough to cause many bad defensive players have strong defensive win shares, as long as they are on good defensive teams. DJ Augustin has stronger WS/48 numbers than Jrue Holiday or Rubio for example. All you really have to do is look at the list of all players by win shares / WS48 / pr defensive rating, and you'll find a ton of these examples.

    That said, WS / defensive rating aren't completely useless stats. At the very least, they show that a player was featured in strong defensive lineups, which is valuable info. If someone tells you that DJ Augustin = bad team defense, you can point to these numbers and say, no, maybe he doesn't help, but it's possible to hide him to a degree.

    Also, in general, there's a correlation between good defenders and good defensive rating / defensive win shares. 7 or 8 times of 10, those numbers will reflect solid individual defense.
    I think it's fair to compare DWS for two players who play for similarly capable defensive teams.

    In Deng's 1st season the Bulls had the best defense with a DRTG of 99.6
    Deng's DWS: 5.6

    Last year's Pacers had the best defense with a DRTG of 99.8
    George's DWS: 6.3

    So it's safe to say based ONLY on that (obviously other things like the eye-test are important), that George is a slightly better defender than LD was in his 3rd season.

    So I'll ask again, what makes George significantly better than 3rd year Deng? I'd actually argue that Deng was better due to his FAR SUPERIOR offensive volume and efficiency. Both teams (06-07 Bulls and 12-13 Pacers) won 49 games as well, so you can't say it's because either player was on a better or worse team either.

  7. #147
    Raptors Republic Superstar Chr1s1anL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    3,866
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Rapstor4Life wrote: View Post
    Nope Paul George and I was wrong on his field goal percentage its 41% still not good at any means the average for wing players is 42-44%

    http://www.nba.com/playerfile/paul_george/index.html
    Wait that can't be right? No way DD shot above average for a wing!

  8. #148
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,080
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Chr1s1anL wrote: View Post
    Wait that can't be right? No way DD shot above average for a wing!
    Its not.

    He didn't.

    http://www.thenbageek.com/players/co..._ids[]=318
    "Championships are what we live for, now lets go win them."
    Tim Leiweke

    Basketball has clear winners every night --
    except at the draft, which is all homework, politics and chance.

  9. #149
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,169
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    I think it's fair to compare DWS for two players who play for similarly capable defensive teams.

    In Deng's 1st season the Bulls had the best defense with a DRTG of 99.6
    Deng's DWS: 5.6

    Last year's Pacers had the best defense with a DRTG of 99.8
    George's DWS: 6.3

    So it's safe to say based ONLY on that (obviously other things like the eye-test are important), that George is a slightly better defender than LD was in his 3rd season.
    No.

    Here's a 2012 example, using that logic. Chicago and Boston were similar defensive teams in 2012. Boozer and KG had near identical defensive rating and DWS. Therefore, it's safe to say that Boozer and KG were similar defenders.
    5 minutes of tape is better than that.

    George is so ahead of the curve defensively, that it's ridiculous. He is far better than a young Deng or for that matter Iggy (on the defensive end). George's defensive footwork and help defense might be the best among all wings in the league, right now.

    I just don't know if he can still improve on the defensive end, he's so good already. He needs to add some strength, but won't he lose some of the quickness? If he can still improve as a defender, we might be looking at a generational wing defender, a la Moncrief, Cooper, Payton, Artest. It will be interesting where he goes from here, to say the least.

    As for Deng, early in his career, Deng wasn't all that great. He was solid defensively because of his length and effort, but far from elite.
    Last edited by BobLoblaw; Thu Aug 8th, 2013 at 11:26 PM. Reason: forgetting "that" really does change the meaning of a sentence sometimes..

  10. Like Letter N liked this post
  11. #150
    Raptors Republic Superstar Rapstor4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,063
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Chr1s1anL wrote: View Post
    Wait that can't be right? No way DD shot above average for a wing!
    according to his site and nba ya he did...

    http://www.nba.com/playerfile/demar_derozan/

  12. #151
    Super Moderator Joey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Rapstor4Life wrote: View Post
    according to his site and nba ya he did...

    http://www.nba.com/playerfile/demar_derozan/
    Unfortunately, Field Goal % isn't the metric for measuring efficiency anymore. If it were, then you'd be correct.

    But looking at True Shooting % and Effective Field Goal %, Demar is below average using both.

    (I don't really care though. Demar is better than Lebron.)
    In Masai we Trust.

  13. #152
    Raptors Republic Starter Sam17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Brampton, ON
    Posts
    375
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    Unfortunately, Field Goal % isn't the metric for measuring efficiency anymore. If it were, then you'd be correct.

    But looking at True Shooting % and Effective Field Goal %, Demar is below average using both.

    (I don't really care though. Demar is better than Lebron.)
    What exactly is the difference between the two bold metrics?

  14. #153
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    338
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Sam17 wrote: View Post
    What exactly is the difference between the two bold metrics?
    EFG% considers 2pt and 3pt shots (shooting 2/6 from 3 will give you the same EFG% as shooting 3/6 from 2).

    TS% considers free throws as well.

  15. Like Sam17 liked this post
  16. #154
    Raptors Republic Superstar Rapstor4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,063
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Sam17 wrote: View Post
    What exactly is the difference between the two bold metrics?
    Well Im guessing it combines all field goal percentages 2 pointers and 3 pointers I could be wrong though but dam DeMAr isnt a 3 point shooter anyway... lol so its not really a fair measurement.

  17. #155
    Raptors Republic All-Star Letter N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,367
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    (I don't really care though. Demar is better than Lebron.)
    DeMar DeRozan - Age 23 - .831 FT%
    LeBron James - Age 23 - .712 FT%

    BOOM! I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear you haters over the sound of my LOGIC!!!

  18. Like Rapstor4Life, Joey, Xixak, NoPropsneeded liked this post
  19. #156
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    744
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It's really unfair to use effective field-goal percentage to evaluate a player that gets to the line as much as DeRozan.

    TS% is a lot more fair to use for him, and yes even according to that he's slightly below average.

  20. #157
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,080
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    It's really unfair to use effective field-goal percentage to evaluate a player that gets to the line as much as DeRozan.

    TS% is a lot more fair to use for him, and yes even according to that he's slightly below average.
    There are a lot of things that aren't fair. LIfe is one of them.

    So I assume only analysis that supports one's view should be used by everyone?

    DeRozan only does one thing. Whether it is below average (eFG%) or a smidge below average (TS%), when you only do one thing, you don't want to be average at it.
    "Championships are what we live for, now lets go win them."
    Tim Leiweke

    Basketball has clear winners every night --
    except at the draft, which is all homework, politics and chance.

  21. Like jimmie liked this post
  22. #158
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    744
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    There are a lot of things that aren't fair. LIfe is one of them.

    So I assume only analysis that supports one's view should be used by everyone?

    DeRozan only does one thing. Whether it is below average (eFG%) or a smidge below average (TS%), when you only do one thing, you don't want to be average at it.
    No what I'm saying is effective field-goal percentage isn't really a good metric for a player that goes to the line a lot, because it doesn't take free throw shooting into account at all. (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA.

    Getting to the free throw line a lot should factor into scoring efficiency, which is why I think True Shooting Percentage is the better metric because it incorporates the fact that 3s are worth more than 2s, and also incorporates free throw shooting into the calculation. Points / (2 * FGA + FTA * 0.44)

    I'm not trying to suggest that DeRozan is an efficient scorer or used biased statistics. It's pretty universally accepted that TS% is a better measure of efficiency than eFG% for the reasons I stated.

  23. Like mcHAPPY, TRX liked this post
  24. #159
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, ON
    Posts
    1,088
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Xixak wrote: View Post
    No what I'm saying is effective field-goal percentage isn't really a good metric for a player that goes to the line a lot, because it doesn't take free throw shooting into account at all. (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA.

    Getting to the free throw line a lot should factor into scoring efficiency, which is why I think True Shooting Percentage is the better metric because it incorporates the fact that 3s are worth more than 2s, and also incorporates free throw shooting into the calculation. Points / (2 * FGA + FTA * 0.44)

    I'm not trying to suggest that DeRozan is an efficient scorer or used biased statistics. It's pretty universally accepted that TS% is a better measure of efficiency than eFG% for the reasons I stated.
    Yeah, they measure different things. TS% is a measure of offensive efficiency. eFG% is a measure of shooting ability (or performance at least).

  25. #160
    Super Moderator Joey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    This seems to have gotten off topic from Rudy Gay, but either way...
    I found this article a while back, and have spent all morning looking for it.. found it.
    The Blog (I think its a blog?) is Escobar on NBA, and I highly recommend you give this a read in its entirety.

    In it, they not only break down the Problems with eFG%,
    Quote Escobar on NBA wrote:
    On January 22, 2013, J.J. Redick shot the lights out against the Pistons. Redick was nearly perfect, shooting 9-10 from the floor, including an impressive 5-6 from the 3-point line. Redick was also 3-4 from the Free Throw line, but since eFG% doesn’t factor in Free Throws–at all–we leave that number aside. So, when we plug in Redick’s numbers to the eFG% formula, Redick’s eFG% is (9 + .5 * 5) / 10. You multiply the result by 100, and you get . . . . 115%. Unless Derrick Rose is the accidental architect of a revolution in mathematics, something is off here. What is this number (eFG%) possibly supposed to tell us? Redick was undeniably great that night, but he absolutely was not perfect. He missed one shot. And in any case, he certainly wasn’t better than perfect. Right?
    and True Shooting %,
    Quote Escobar on NBA wrote:
    True shooting percentage, on the other hand, attempts to measure free throws.
    But the metric is . . . odd, to say the least. First, TS% does not distinguish, as eFG% at least attempts to do, between a made 2-point shot and a made 3-point shot. Rather, a player’s total points are lumped together. Second, free throw attempts are weighted at .44. This is the most puzzling choice in the formula. The supposed rationale for this number is that free throws are not a full possession. But . . . are we measuring possessions? If so, then presumably we should distinguish between 3-point shots and 2-point shots for TS%. For example, it takes 6 possessions to get 12 points if you make only 2-point shots, but it takes only 4 possessions if you make all 3-pointers. And, anyway, is a FTA 44% of a field goal attempt, or is it more accurately understood as 33% of a 3-point attempt?

    Did I mention that the “Derrick Rose Effect” is still in play with TS%? Don’t worry if you didn’t catch it, but JJ Redick’s great night against against Detroit comes out as once again better than perfect under the TS% rubric. Redick had 26 pts. The denominator, working inside-out, is ((.44 x 4) + 10 ) x 2, which equals 23.52. So . . . JJ Redick’s TS% is 26 / 23.52, or 111%. The use of the word “true” in “true” shooting percentage officially strains the imagination.
    they also offer their own solution to this problem by creating the Weighted Field Goal %,
    Quote Escobar on NBA wrote:
    Here is what I propose: a rubric that takes into account every shot a player makes but weighs those shots according to their value. We start with the notion that a made 3-pointer gives you 3 out of a possible 3 shots. Since a 2-point shot gives you 2 out of 3, we weight it accordingly. Ditto for free throws, only they yield 1 out of 3. What does this mean? Think of it this way: if you added every shot a guy took on a given night and made no distinction between free throws, 2-pointers, and 3-pointers, you’d have an accurate shooting percentage. But . . . what would this number really tell you? A better number would provide some distinctions between 1′s, 2′s, and 3′s. Our new metric does this, by weighing 1′s, 2′s, and 3′s. Here’s the formula:

    (FT x (3/9)) + ((FG – 3ptFG) x (6/9)) + (3pt FG)

    ——————————————————————————— x 100 = Weighted Field Goal %

    (FTA x (3/9)) + ((FGA – 3pt FGA) x (6/9) + (3pt FGA)

    Congratulations if you’re still with us. It’s been brutal, but we’re almost done. In human terms, all we’re doing there is adding up the number of shots made and dividing that number the number of shots taken, but we’re assigning those shots a weight (1/3, 2/3, or 3/3) based on whether the shot is a free throw, a 2-point field goal, or a 3 point field goal. And notice we are weighing shot attempts as well. This is important, as we will see, because it means our percentage can never exceed 100%. A small victory for common sense. So what does this number tell us? What has this all been for? Let’s plug in J.J. Redick’s numbers to see what we get. On top of shooting 90% from the field and going 5-6 from the 3-point line (83%), Redick also shot 3-4 from the stripe (75%). But these 3 shots from the line are not factored in anywhere in conventional Field Goal Percentage. Conventional Field Goal percentage does not give extra weight to Redick’s 5 made 3-pointers, either. So what we’re after is a number that factors in both 3-point shooting and free-throw shooting.

    When we run Redick’s numbers through the WFG% equation, Redick comes out shooting 87% overall. What does this number mean? A couple of things. First of all, when we say Redick shot 90% from the field on 9-10 shooting, we are speaking in terms of conventional field goal percentage. We aren’t, in other words, factoring in free throws. Nor are we weighing three’s more heavily than other shots. And Redick missed a free throw. Our WFG% counts that miss. And our WFG% values 3-point shots (both in makes and attempts) more than other shots. Redick was a perfect 4-4 on 2-point shots. But we don’t weigh those shots as heavily as we weigh his 5 made threes. Redick’s one miss from the field was a 3-point shot, so that miss necessarily counts against him more than a two-point miss would have. There’s probably a lesson in here about how you can’t have it both ways (extra credit for made three’s but no extra penalty for missed three’s), but we leave that for another day.
    They follow it up the next day with some comments and criticisms, but for the most part, I think its pretty solid.
    In Masai we Trust.

  26. Like Xixak liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •