# Thread: The Most Improved after 41 Games (Bosh 3rd) - WoW

1. ## The Most Improved after 41 Games (Bosh 3rd) - WoW

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2010/02/...fter-41-games/
The Most Improved after 41 Games
February 2, 2010 · 18 Comments

One of the interesting aspects (at least, interesting to me) of basketball performance is the consistency we see across time. Relative to what we see in baseball and football, year-to-year performance in basketball is simply more stable.

Although consistency is the general trend, exceptions do happen. Players can decline because of age (when they are old) and injury. They can also get better because of age (when they are young) and when they recover from injury. And changes can occur for other reasons as well (although the “other” reasons seem less systematic).

The players who get “better” are generally thought of as candidates for “Most Improved”. But how do we define “better?” Not surprising, the focus here will be on Wins Produced. Specifically, we are going to look at each player who played 1,000 minutes in 2008-09 and 500 minutes across the first 41 games of 2009-10. And then we are going compare how many wins the player produced in 2009-10 to how many wins we could have expected given the player’s per-minute performance in 2008-09.

Given this approach, the fifteen most improved players are as follows (number of additional wins after 41 games reported):

Corey Maggette: 4.8
Josh Smith: 4.4
Chris Bosh: 3.8
Marc Gasol: 3.2
Baron Davis: 3.1
Gerald Wallace: 3.0
...

2. Good on Bosh. But I have no clue how Dave Berri calculates his metrics. It appears to only be written concretely in his book. Or do you know of another place it is available?

3. Ripp wrote:
Good on Bosh. But I have no clue how Dave Berri calculates his metrics. It appears to only be written concretely in his book. Or do you know of another place it is available?
http://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/05/...r-performance/
Gives you a "glimpse" into the factors. The "real" forumula is very complex. But the simple method he shows gives a good idea.
Certainly there are several Berri critics out there. To me, the model "seems" to overweight rebounds. The YoY improvement changes are still interesting.

4. gawd, i hate hearing how rebounds are 'overweighted.'

being a top-notch rebounding team (more in terms of differential & reb. % than total rebounds), while it doesn't guarantee success, does provide a greater opportunity for success. over the last decade, only one champ has finished outside the top-10 in rebounding differential (SAS, in 02/03, finished 11th, both in reb/game & reb diff.). so, while there certainly have been good rebounding teams who have not won a chip, there are very (VERY) few poor rebounding teams who have.

year over year, the teams with a good positive rebounding differential tend to comprise the elite of the league. there are always anomalies (i.e. there are good teams with surprisingly low - even negative - differentials this year, like dallas, denver, atlanta & boston). but taking a look at two of this year's 'surprise' teams (memphis & OKC), they are both in the top- 10 (1st & 6th, respectively). last year: 7th (OKC) & 21st (memphis). it might be a coincidence...or not. of course, considering the raps' last season in the +'s was 01/02...i'm leaning towards 'not.'

5. yertu damkule wrote:
gawd, i hate hearing how rebounds are 'overweighted.'

being a top-notch rebounding team (more in terms of differential & reb. % than total rebounds), while it doesn't guarantee success, does provide a greater opportunity for success. '
Sorry - I should be clear - believe me I 100% agree with you. I meant on an individual basis.
Rebounding scores well as it changes the possession. But it appears to be a "heavier" weight (yes it should be a very important weight) than it should be.
(Trust me - that's why I think Amir's min are important)