Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
Moderator: Doctor MJ
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,041
- And1: 1,202
- Joined: Mar 08, 2010
- Contact:
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
I can't think of a basketball statistic that is perfect, in a vacuum, and doesn't need interpretation. (Off the top of my head, I'd argue free throw shooting is pretty darn close. After that? Gets really tricky.) So the notion of "throwing out a stat," which I see a lot from people based on outliers or something not adhering to their current picture of the elite, seems bizarre to me.
In another thread, I listed the eFG% -- a measure of shooting accuracy -- for the Lakers. Kobe Bryant was 9th. Does that mean we should throw out eFG% because Bryant is clearly a better shooter than Derrick Caracter?
--
As for Kobe, it's quite easy to understand, in theory, why his APM is so low. Doc MJ alluded to it: APM models will "look" at stuff like Gasol+no Kobe and Kobe+no Gasol to decide teammate quality when they play together. If Gasol+no Kobe comes out way ahead, APM "thinks" Gasol is the superstar and Kobe is benefitting from playing with him.
Then the same logic extends to the quality of the opponent. It wouldn't take much for Kobe to do well against "weaker" opponent lineups and the Lakers to play well when he's on the bench against comparable (or better) lineups. As you can see from lineup data, there are a bunch of small-sampled variables (thus the big error).
Then again, it's *likely* that Bryant isn't one of the best players in the league this year or else he wouldn't be generating *such* a low APM. Which is to say the more obvious basketball observation: lineup data suggests that the LA Lakers are really good without Kobe Bryant, even against good competition.
Couple that with what we saw last year when he was injured, the play of Bynum and Odom, his reduction in minutes, and that his 6-year APM from Ilardi was 18th in the league anyway (+5.6) and it's not a very radical stance to say Kobe isn't as valuable (a) as in year's past and (b) relative to the top MVP candidates.
In another thread, I listed the eFG% -- a measure of shooting accuracy -- for the Lakers. Kobe Bryant was 9th. Does that mean we should throw out eFG% because Bryant is clearly a better shooter than Derrick Caracter?
--
As for Kobe, it's quite easy to understand, in theory, why his APM is so low. Doc MJ alluded to it: APM models will "look" at stuff like Gasol+no Kobe and Kobe+no Gasol to decide teammate quality when they play together. If Gasol+no Kobe comes out way ahead, APM "thinks" Gasol is the superstar and Kobe is benefitting from playing with him.
Then the same logic extends to the quality of the opponent. It wouldn't take much for Kobe to do well against "weaker" opponent lineups and the Lakers to play well when he's on the bench against comparable (or better) lineups. As you can see from lineup data, there are a bunch of small-sampled variables (thus the big error).
Then again, it's *likely* that Bryant isn't one of the best players in the league this year or else he wouldn't be generating *such* a low APM. Which is to say the more obvious basketball observation: lineup data suggests that the LA Lakers are really good without Kobe Bryant, even against good competition.
Couple that with what we saw last year when he was injured, the play of Bynum and Odom, his reduction in minutes, and that his 6-year APM from Ilardi was 18th in the league anyway (+5.6) and it's not a very radical stance to say Kobe isn't as valuable (a) as in year's past and (b) relative to the top MVP candidates.
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 8,205
- And1: 713
- Joined: May 28, 2007
- Contact:
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
DSMok1 wrote:Adding Ridge Regression can cut out some of the tremendous collinearity, but at the expense of losing some of the validity of the stat.
I agree with you, which is also the reason I prefer those values: http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/4-year-ranking
3.x year ranking From 07/08 to now. No coaches included. Lambda: 3000. 3.x year analysis is better at predicting 10/11-out-of-sample-data than any other combination of years.
Checking the results of the lineups gives us the most accurate rating here. We can now add boxscore metrics either in a similar fashion as Rosenbaum did it, or we can use some kind of a formula to do that afterwards.
1yr data with PER and WS/48 incorparated after:
Code: Select all
Nowitzki Dirk 7.6
James LeBron 7.6
Howard Dwight 7.2
Paul Chris 7.2
Gasol Pau 6.3
Ginobili Manu 6.1
Wade Dwyane 6.0
Hilario Nene 5.5
Garnett Kevin 5.4
Pierce Paul 5.4
Rose Derrick 5.3
Durant Kevin 5.1
Chandler Tyson 5.0
Bosh Chris 4.9
Bynum Andrew 4.9
Nash Steve 4.7
Bryant Kobe 4.6
Aldridge LaMarcus 4.6
Love Kevin 4.4
Duncan Tim 4.3
Anderson Ryan 4.3
Odom Lamar 4.1
Horford Al 3.9
Randolph Zach 3.9
Millsap Paul 3.6
Martin Kevin 3.3
Westbrook Russell 3.2
Noah Joakim 3.1
Griffin Blake 3.1
O'Neal Shaquille 3.0
Parker Tony 3.0
West David 2.9
Johnson Amir 2.9
Okafor Emeka 2.8
Miller Andre 2.7
Lowry Kyle 2.7
Young Thaddeus 2.7
Boozer Carlos 2.7
Deng Luol 2.6
Evans Jeremy 2.6
Allen Ray 2.5
Stoudemire Amare 2.5
Gordon Eric 2.5
Williams Deron 2.4
Ibaka Serge 2.4
Andersen Chris 2.4
Anthony Carmelo 2.3
Bass Brandon 2.3
Brand Elton 2.2
Curry Stephen 2.1
Iguodala Andre 2.1
Wallace Gerald 2.1
Smith Josh 2.0
Gortat Marcin 2.0
Billups Chauncey 2.0
Conley Mike 1.9
Lawson Ty 1.9
Mahinmi Ian 1.9
Allen Tony 1.9
Scola Luis 1.9
Rondo Rajon 1.8
Foster Jeff 1.8
Hill George 1.8
Smith J.R. 1.8
Harden James 1.8
Hayes Chuck 1.8
Terry Jason 1.7
Williams Louis 1.6
Gay Rudy 1.6
Asik Omer 1.5
McRoberts Josh 1.5
Bogut Andrew 1.5
Dunleavy Mike 1.4
Korver Kyle 1.4
Bonner Matt 1.4
Nelson Jameer 1.3
Stojakovic Peja 1.3
Granger Danny 1.2
Richardson Jason 1.2
Thomas Tyrus 1.2
Brewer Ronnie 1.2
Blair DeJuan 1.2
Wilcox Chris 1.2
Miller Brad 1.2
Gallinari Danilo 1.1
Jefferson Al 1.1
Gasol Marc 1.1
Collison Nick 1.1
Turkoglu Hedo 1.1
Meeks Jodie 1.0
McGee JaVale 1.0
Humphries Kris 1.0
Boykins Earl 1.0
Kirilenko Andrei 1.0
Chandler Wilson 0.9
Jones James 0.9
Powe Leon 0.9
Barnes Matt 0.9
Holiday Jrue 0.9
Gibson Taj 0.9
Patterson Patrick 0.9
Lopez Brook 0.9
Arthur Darrell 0.9
White D.J. 0.8
Johnson Joe 0.8
Monroe Greg 0.8
Speights Marreese 0.8
Fields Landry 0.8
Stuckey Rodney 0.8
Smith Craig 0.7
Hansbrough Tyler 0.7
Tolliver Anthony 0.6
Carter Vince 0.6
Fernandez Rudy 0.6
Davis Baron 0.6
Felton Raymond 0.6
Martin Kenyon 0.6
Ilyasova Ersan 0.6
Jordan DeAndre 0.5
Afflalo Arron 0.5
Thornton Marcus 0.5
Harris Devin 0.5
Booker Trevor 0.5
Gray Aaron 0.4
Miles C.J. 0.4
Ilgauskas Zydrunas 0.4
Budinger Chase 0.4
Radmanovic Vladimir 0.4
McDyess Antonio 0.3
Dudley Jared 0.3
Williams Reggie 0.3
Matthews Wes 0.3
Wright Dorell 0.3
Brockman Jon 0.3
Kidd Jason 0.2
Lee David 0.2
Haslem Udonis 0.2
Turiaf Ronny 0.2
Battier Shane 0.2
Roy Brandon 0.1
Camby Marcus 0.1
Splitter Tiago 0.1
Dooling Keyon 0.1
Williams Marvin 0.1
Mohammed Nazr 0.0
Warrick Hakim 0.0
Butler Caron 0.0
Ridnour Luke 0.0
Calderon Jose 0.0
Garcia Francisco 0.0
Batum Nicolas 0.0
Udrih Beno -0.1
Hibbert Roy -0.1
Redick J.J. -0.1
Mbah a Moute Luc -0.1
Watson C.J. -0.1
Brown Shannon -0.1
Jefferson Richard -0.1
Varejao Anderson -0.2
Artest Ron -0.2
Douglas Toney -0.2
Krstic Nenad -0.2
Frye Channing -0.2
Jones Dahntay -0.3
Hill Grant -0.3
Cook Daequan -0.3
Dorsey Joey -0.3
Augustin D.J. -0.4
Marion Shawn -0.4
Uzoh Ben -0.4
George Paul -0.4
Martin Cartier -0.4
McGrady Tracy -0.4
Barea Jose -0.4
Ellis Monta -0.4
Maggette Corey -0.5
Davis Glen -0.5
Gooden Drew -0.5
Prince Tayshaun -0.5
Teague Jeff -0.5
Neal Gary -0.5
Bibby Mike -0.5
Wright Julian -0.5
Dalembert Samuel -0.5
Landry Carl -0.5
Crawford Jamal -0.6
Morrow Anthony -0.6
Villanueva Charlie -0.6
Thomas Kurt -0.6
Delfino Carlos -0.7
Fisher Derek -0.7
Maynor Eric -0.7
Livingston Shaun -0.7
Diogu Ike -0.7
Beaubois Rodrigue -0.7
Daniels Marquis -0.7
Chalmers Mario -0.8
Jamison Antawn -0.8
Lee Courtney -0.8
House Eddie -0.8
Thompson Jason -0.8
Collison Darren -0.9
Ajinca Alexis -0.9
Lewis Rashard -0.9
Douglas-Roberts Chris -0.9
Sefolosha Thabo -0.9
Harrington Al -0.9
Jennings Brandon -0.9
Williams Shawne -1.0
Brown Derrick -1.0
Green Jeff -1.0
Wafer Von -1.0
Evans Reggie -1.0
Favors Derrick -1.0
Davis Ed -1.0
Wright Brandan -1.0
Young Sam -1.0
Diaw Boris -1.1
Walker Bill -1.1
Bynum Will -1.1
Bogans Keith -1.1
Lopez Robin -1.1
Kaman Chris -1.1
Belinelli Marco -1.1
Sessions Ramon -1.1
Childress Josh -1.1
Erden Semih -1.2
Barbosa Leandro -1.2
Salmons John -1.2
Casspi Omri -1.2
Mayo O.J. -1.2
Dampier Erick -1.2
Wilkins Damien -1.2
Gibson Daniel -1.2
Ely Melvin -1.3
Perkins Kendrick -1.3
Johnson James -1.3
Young Nick -1.3
Hawes Spencer -1.4
Bargnani Andrea -1.4
Henderson Gerald -1.4
Udoh Ekpe -1.4
Pachulia Zaza -1.4
Blatche Andray -1.5
Thornton Al -1.5
Cardinal Brian -1.5
Gordon Ben -1.5
Smith Jason -1.6
Daye Austin -1.6
Evans Tyreke -1.7
Head Luther -1.7
Anderson James -1.7
Watson Earl -1.8
Stevenson DeShawn -1.8
Brown Kwame -1.8
Pittman Dexter -1.8
Farmar Jordan -1.8
Andersen David -1.9
Haywood Brendan -1.9
Carroll Matt -1.9
Anthony Joel -1.9
Hamilton Richard -2.0
Derozan DeMar -2.0
Williams Shelden -2.0
Battie Tony -2.0
O'Neal Jermaine -2.0
Wallace Ben -2.1
Moon Jamario -2.1
Jackson Darnell -2.2
Gomes Ryan -2.2
Jackson Stephen -2.2
Arroyo Carlos -2.2
Pietrus Mickael -2.2
Johnson Wesley -2.2
Robinson Nate -2.2
Biedrins Andris -2.3
Greene Donte -2.3
Green Willie -2.3
Forbes Gary -2.3
Randolph Anthony -2.3
Hill Jordan -2.3
Cook Brian -2.3
Ariza Trevor -2.3
Collins Jason -2.4
Jeter Eugene -2.4
Vujacic Sasha -2.4
West Delonte -2.4
Miller Mike -2.4
Richardson Quentin -2.5
Jack Jarrett -2.5
Parker Anthony -2.5
Foye Randy -2.5
Williams Jason -2.6
Ager Maurice -2.6
Caracter Derrick -2.6
Blake Steve -2.6
Taylor Jermaine -2.7
Okur Mehmet -2.7
Brooks Aaron -2.7
Pondexter Quincy -2.7
Armstrong Hilton -2.7
Hinrich Kirk -2.7
Ford T.J. -2.7
Clark Earl -2.7
Dowdell Zabian -2.7
Arenas Gilbert -2.7
Posey James -2.7
James Damion -2.7
Turner Evan -2.7
McGuire Dominic -2.7
Howard Juwan -2.8
Jeffries Jared -2.8
Mozgov Timofey -2.8
Brewer Corey -2.8
Jones Solomon -2.8
Cunningham Dante -2.8
Cousins DeMarcus -2.9
Rush Brandon -3.0
Hollins Ryan -3.0
Webster Martell -3.0
Wall John -3.0
Nocioni Andres -3.0
Telfair Sebastian -3.0
Price A.J. -3.1
Gaines Sundiata -3.1
Elson Francisco -3.1
Williams Mo -3.1
Samuels Samardo -3.1
Carney Rodney -3.1
Amundson Louis -3.1
Harangody Luke -3.1
Bayless Jerryd -3.1
Najera Eduardo -3.2
Maxiell Jason -3.2
Mills Patrick -3.3
Koufos Kosta -3.3
Graham Joey -3.3
Kleiza Linas -3.3
Milicic Darko -3.3
Hickson J.J. -3.3
Petro Johan -3.4
Sanders Larry -3.4
Vasquez Greivis -3.4
Hayward Lazar -3.4
Harris Manny -3.4
Mason Roger -3.5
Ross Quinton -3.5
Pekovic Nikola -3.5
Aminu Al-Farouq -3.6
Quinn Chris -3.8
Ellington Wayne -3.8
Walton Luke -3.9
Przybilla Joel -3.9
Johnson Armon -3.9
Jianlian Yi -4.0
Outlaw Travis -4.0
Gadzuric Dan -4.0
Gee Alonzo -4.0
Law Acie -4.1
Howard Josh -4.2
Murphy Troy -4.2
Henry Xavier -4.2
Bledsoe Eric -4.2
Pavlovic Sasha -4.3
Bell Raja -4.3
Hayward Gordon -4.3
Duhon Chris -4.3
Fesenko Kyrylo -4.4
Dragic Goran -4.4
Carter Anthony -4.5
Eyenga Christian -4.6
Seraphin Kevin -4.7
Barron Earl -4.8
Smith Ishmael -4.9
Powell Josh -5.0
Price Ronnie -5.0
Thabeet Hasheem -5.0
Marks Sean -5.0
Weems Sonny -5.0
Crawford Jordan -5.3
Butler Rasual -5.3
Flynn Jonny -5.6
Williams Jawad -6.3
Williams Terrence -6.3
Graham Stephen -6.5
Harris Mike 8.9
Greene Orien 8.3
Novak Steve 2.8
Haddadi Hamed 1.7
Ming Yao 1.7
Ebanks Devin 1.3
Green Danny 0.7
Owens Larry 0.4
Thomas Etan 0.2
Carroll DeMarre 0.2
Magloire Jamaal -0.6
Johnson Chris -0.8
Adrien Jeff -1.1
Balkman Renaldo -1.1
Warren Willie -1.2
Lin Jeremy -1.8
Siler Garret -2.4
Aldrich Cole -2.7
Scalabrine Brian -2.8
Evans Maurice -2.9
Jones Dominique -3.2
N'Diaye Hamady -3.2
Ivey Royal -3.2
Janning Matt -3.3
Banks Marcus -3.6
Cousin Marcus -3.8
Stackhouse Jerry -4.2
Ratliff Theo -4.2
Udoka Ime -4.3
Peterson Morris -4.8
Johnson Trey -5.0
Bell Charlie -5.0
Diop DeSagana -5.1
Allen Malik -5.1
Jeffers Othyus -5.1
Skinner Brian -5.3
Mensah-Bonsu Pops -5.4
Collins Jarron -5.4
Shakur Mustafa -5.7
Oberto Fabricio -5.8
Temple Garrett -5.9
Songaila Darius -6.0
Hudson Lester -6.0
Stephenson Lance -6.0
Kapono Jason -6.4
Summers DaJuan -6.5
Beasley Michael -6.8
Collins Sherron -7.2
Dupree Ronald -7.2
Lawal Gani -7.8
Lucas John -7.9
Mullens Byron -8.3
Smith Joe -8.6
Babbitt Luke -8.7
Brackins Craig -8.7
Alabi Solomon -8.8
Simmons Bobby -9.5
Whiteside Hassan -9.6
Wright Antoine -10.4
Bradley Avery -10.6
Rautins Andy -12.2
In both cases (the 3x yr data and the mix with the boxscore metrics) will eliminate the "Bryant-problem" of this season. Obviously there is a problem with collinearity due to the large amount of minutes Bryant plays with Gasol together on the court. The APM algorithm by Barzilai is giving all the credit to Gasol while Bryant ends up with a negative value. When we look at the raw +/- numbers, we can see it maybe more clearly. Bryant and Gasol played 2159.5 minutes together so far with +410, Gasol has 567 minutes without Bryant and +85, while Bryant has 317 minutes without Gasol and +13.
Despite the fact that Bryant isn't playing that well on the defensive end in this season (he is rather badly in terms of help and team defense, still better as 1on1 defender), he gets heavily underrated in Barzilai's algorithm due to collinearity. But he is still worse than his usual average value for the last couple of seasons.
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 50,756
- And1: 19,458
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
mysticbb wrote:DSMok1 wrote:Adding Ridge Regression can cut out some of the tremendous collinearity, but at the expense of losing some of the validity of the stat.
I agree with you, which is also the reason I prefer those values: http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/4-year-ranking
I'd actually appreciate an explanation of ridge regression and RAPM. It looks promising, but I don't have my around it.
The appspot site, while I look at it, could really use more information such as the standard error.
(I also wish they'd drop the coach APM, or at least keep it totally separate from the players. It makes zero sense to use APM on coaches and take the results seriously.)
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,044
- And1: 1,996
- Joined: Mar 22, 2011
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
Here is the most likely explanation for why Kobe's numbers are so strange this year. Adjusted +/- has gotten his number wildly wrong. I would say a mistake this severe means that adj +/- is useless(at least on basketballvalue), but it seems that most of you disagree.
-------------min------% with Kobe-----ppg with---ppg w/o
Gasol-------2727-------79--------------9.1-------7.2
Fisher------2017-------97-------------10.2-------5.4
Artest------2123-------89-------------10.4-------(-7.0)
Odom--------2360-------69--------------7.7-------6.3
Bynum-------1245-------76--------------9.9-------2.1
Brown-------1408-------26--------------4.5-------2.9
Blake-------1451-------34--------------3.0-------2.5
So the only strange result is with Gasol and Odom. The other players are helped by playing with Kobe. But this result has a logical explanation.
---------------------------pts--min----ppg
Bryant/Odom/Gasol--- 238--- 1330--- 8.6
Bryant/Bynum/Gasol-- 153--- 696 --- 10.6
Bryant/Bynum/Odom---- 44--- 245--- 8.6
Gasol is not carrying Kobe at all. There is virtually no difference when Odom/Bynum are in.
Almost the entire gap in performance between Gasol and Kobe is explained by the Laker team dynamics. When Kobe is out, Gasol plays with Blake, Barnes or Brown. While they are worse than the starters they are still reasonably decent. When Gasol is out though, Kobe does not have close to the same situation. In those minutes without Bynum/Odom he is forced to play with Caracter, Ratliff or a weird experimental lineup. Those two have been truly horrible this year.
We already have an unusually low number of comparable minutes due to Jackson's strict rotations. It seems that the APM models don't calculate the values for low minute players, instead assigning them an average value. Doing this for Caracter and Ratliff is making a massive mistake.
When you combine these two problems the error is really large. The difference in rating between Kobe and Gasol/Odom/Bynum can be explained almost entirely by this error, rather than any actual performance difference. Kobe's true performance is probably reasonably close to his unadjusted 7.9 Net, which would place him near the top of the league.
Even this might understate Kobe's value though. +/- assumes that Kobe/Fisher/Artest are basically the same player since they nearly always play together. Based on production, Kobe is massively better than those 2. It's quite possible that Kobe is doing the majority of the work among the 3 to help the Lakers, but only getting 33% of the credit in a +/- system.
-------------min------% with Kobe-----ppg with---ppg w/o
Gasol-------2727-------79--------------9.1-------7.2
Fisher------2017-------97-------------10.2-------5.4
Artest------2123-------89-------------10.4-------(-7.0)
Odom--------2360-------69--------------7.7-------6.3
Bynum-------1245-------76--------------9.9-------2.1
Brown-------1408-------26--------------4.5-------2.9
Blake-------1451-------34--------------3.0-------2.5
So the only strange result is with Gasol and Odom. The other players are helped by playing with Kobe. But this result has a logical explanation.
---------------------------pts--min----ppg
Bryant/Odom/Gasol--- 238--- 1330--- 8.6
Bryant/Bynum/Gasol-- 153--- 696 --- 10.6
Bryant/Bynum/Odom---- 44--- 245--- 8.6
Gasol is not carrying Kobe at all. There is virtually no difference when Odom/Bynum are in.
Almost the entire gap in performance between Gasol and Kobe is explained by the Laker team dynamics. When Kobe is out, Gasol plays with Blake, Barnes or Brown. While they are worse than the starters they are still reasonably decent. When Gasol is out though, Kobe does not have close to the same situation. In those minutes without Bynum/Odom he is forced to play with Caracter, Ratliff or a weird experimental lineup. Those two have been truly horrible this year.
We already have an unusually low number of comparable minutes due to Jackson's strict rotations. It seems that the APM models don't calculate the values for low minute players, instead assigning them an average value. Doing this for Caracter and Ratliff is making a massive mistake.
When you combine these two problems the error is really large. The difference in rating between Kobe and Gasol/Odom/Bynum can be explained almost entirely by this error, rather than any actual performance difference. Kobe's true performance is probably reasonably close to his unadjusted 7.9 Net, which would place him near the top of the league.
Even this might understate Kobe's value though. +/- assumes that Kobe/Fisher/Artest are basically the same player since they nearly always play together. Based on production, Kobe is massively better than those 2. It's quite possible that Kobe is doing the majority of the work among the 3 to help the Lakers, but only getting 33% of the credit in a +/- system.
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 50,756
- And1: 19,458
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
laika wrote:In those minutes without Bynum/Odom he is forced to play with Caracter, Ratliff or a weird experimental lineup
Okay laika you're frustrating me now. I'm frustrated with myself to be honest because I have a tendency to want to argue and to teach, and this is causing me to waste my time. I've interacted quite a bit with you and exposed some huge misconceptions you have without any acknowledgement from you that you're absorbing any of it.
So now you write this post, and I do research. I'm just going to respond to the part above because it illustrates the issue succinctly.
You're saying Kobe's numbers are hopeless crippled because of the time he's spending with Caracter and Ratliff, okay. Let's make a time measurement called "Kobe minutes". It's the amount of time the rest of Kobe's teammates get to play with him. There are 5 Lakers on the floor, so the number of Kobe minutes is 4 times the amount of minutes Kobe played.
How many "Kobe minutes" did the Lakers have during this regular season? 11,116.
How many of those minutes were allocated to either Caracter or Ratliff? 76
And you're writing a post here effectively stating with confidence that these 76 minutes render Kobe's adjusted +/- useless? Gah! (For the record, taking these minutes out of the equation does close the gap in terms of raw +/-, but Gasol's raw +/- still easily surpasses Kobe's)
Seriously dude, it's seems that every bit of statistical analysis you do is working backwards. You're never using the stats to inform your opinion, you using them to support your opinions, and when they don't, the research you do seemingly is only for the purpose of trying to show why your opinion is still right, and what's worst for me is that you never do your research all the way you simply go far enough to develop a theory that helps your case, and then you assert it as truth.
I'm sorry I'm being so harsh but man, I'm getting nothing out of this interaction with you but a headache.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 8,205
- And1: 713
- Joined: May 28, 2007
- Contact:
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
Very well said Doc. It is not like we already pointed out that normal APM has collinearity issues, we know that and we have to keep that in mind. Writing a post only to support a specific player and make it look like we have to throw the stats completely out of the window due to that specific player being "hated" by that stats is not only giving you a headache. Especially when the guy mixing up technical terms like APM, NET and so on as if there wouldn't be a difference.
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
- floppymoose
- Senior Mod - Warriors
- Posts: 57,398
- And1: 15,796
- Joined: Jun 22, 2003
- Location: Trust your election workers
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
<begin hand waving>
I've found APM to be unreliable and worse than raw +-. I don't have any way to prove this, other than to seay that I've found the outliers worse when engaging the sniff test. This is from several years of looking at APM. I don't believe the mathematics works. And I say this as a former math person. I've got nothing against the idea of APM. I just don't believe the state of the art there is good enough yet.
<end hand waving>
I've found APM to be unreliable and worse than raw +-. I don't have any way to prove this, other than to seay that I've found the outliers worse when engaging the sniff test. This is from several years of looking at APM. I don't believe the mathematics works. And I say this as a former math person. I've got nothing against the idea of APM. I just don't believe the state of the art there is good enough yet.
<end hand waving>
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,044
- And1: 1,996
- Joined: Mar 22, 2011
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
Doctor MJ wrote:1. I've interacted quite a bit with you and exposed some huge misconceptions you have without any acknowledgement from you that you're absorbing any of it.
2.How many "Kobe minutes" did the Lakers have during this regular season? 11,116.
How many of those minutes were allocated to either Caracter or Ratliff? 76
And you're writing a post here effectively stating with confidence that these 76 minutes render Kobe's adjusted +/- useless? Gah! (For the record, taking these minutes out of the equation does close the gap in terms of raw +/-, but Gasol's raw +/- still easily surpasses Kobe's)
3. you never do your research all the way you simply go far enough to develop a theory that helps your case, and then you assert it as truth.
1.What you call "exposing misconceptions" I would call disagreements. I could just as easily say that you have some huge misconceptions from my perspective. List the specific facts I have gotten wrong and not corrected if you think I have.
2.Your example is wrong and you should know it. APM is calculated using the independent minutes. The original numbers were from a while ago that I hadn't bothered to post- I'll recalculate with updated numbers so there is no doubt about where they are coming from.
Gasol--- 534 pts- in -3037 minutes
Bryant--- 423- in- 2779
Bryant/Gasol------ 418 -in- 2411 --- 8.3 ppg
Bryant w/o Gasol-- 5 -in - 368---- .7 ppg
Gasol w/o Bryant-- 116 -in- 626--- 8.9 ppg
Bryant/Odom/Gasol-- 258- in -1438 --- 8.6 ppg
Bryant/Bynum/Gasol- 146 - in -829 --- 8.5 ppg
Bryant/Odom/Bynum-- 45 - in - 292 --- 7.4 ppg
Bryant/scrubs------ (-40)- in - 76 --- (-25.3 ppg)
There are not 11000 minutes. Bryant played only 368 independent minutes from Gasol this year. Those 76 excluded minutes were more than enough to wildly distort his numbers. Playing with reasonable backups Gasol w/o Bryant won by 8.9 ppg while Bryant w/o Gasol won by 7.4 ppg. Once you adjust for the fact that Gasol was 4pts better than Bynum/Odom that difference is what you would expect if Gasol and Bryant were equal players this year.
If you account for all the other matchups then maybe it's possible that Gasol was a point or two better at best. Although keep in mind that Gasol played against worse competition than Kobe since he played more minutes and coaches avoid playing their backups with Kobe in.
But basketballvalue claims that Gasol was more than 20 points better than Kobe. This number is so absurd I'm amazed I even have to bother to prove it was wrong.
3.I don't know how far you think I have to go. I think I've gone far enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the basketballvalue adj +/- numbers are wrong.
If collinearity were the only problem then you might be able to say that APM gave correct values subject to very high standard deviations. But as I've shown the exclusion of data is also a big problem and actually invalidates the APM model they are using. You really do have to throw the basketballvalue APM stats completely out the window- they are that far wrong.
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Sophomore
- Posts: 118
- And1: 112
- Joined: Jul 26, 2010
- Location: Maine
- Contact:
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
You guys might want to read my feature on Adjusted Plus/Minus:
http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/n ... ilization/
laika's right in that APM is really unstable. I, like him, would not use BBV's 2 year APM for much of anything. On the other hand, APM is the only unbiased statistic that actually completely captures a player's value that we have. And there are ways to manipulate it (Such as Jeremias Engelmann's RAPM at http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ ) so as to reduce the collinearity/instability problem.
And here's what his RAPM looks like over the past few years:
http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/n ... ilization/
laika's right in that APM is really unstable. I, like him, would not use BBV's 2 year APM for much of anything. On the other hand, APM is the only unbiased statistic that actually completely captures a player's value that we have. And there are ways to manipulate it (Such as Jeremias Engelmann's RAPM at http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ ) so as to reduce the collinearity/instability problem.
And here's what his RAPM looks like over the past few years:
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
- Nivek
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,406
- And1: 959
- Joined: Sep 29, 2010
- Contact:
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
So, the RAPM numbers suggest that Kobe this season helped the Lakers on offense (though not as much as in previous seasons) and hurt them defensively. Overall, he helped some, but his "helping" dropped significantly from previous seasons. Am I reading the graph correctly, DSMok?
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell
Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
-- Malcolm Gladwell
Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 8,205
- And1: 713
- Joined: May 28, 2007
- Contact:
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
Nivek, that is correct. That is also in agreement with Synergy Stats data.
DSMok1, we discussed the problems already and pointed out that RAPM is the way to go. I read your post about the review before and just want to give you props for that. It is a great read and overview.
The problem with a guy like laika isn't that he points out flaws, he is doing it for a specific reason. if Bryant would do great in that stat, he would use it to justify Bryant's greatness. That a biased discussion which is hardly constructive at all.
DSMok1, we discussed the problems already and pointed out that RAPM is the way to go. I read your post about the review before and just want to give you props for that. It is a great read and overview.
The problem with a guy like laika isn't that he points out flaws, he is doing it for a specific reason. if Bryant would do great in that stat, he would use it to justify Bryant's greatness. That a biased discussion which is hardly constructive at all.
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 50,756
- And1: 19,458
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
laika wrote:1.What you call "exposing misconceptions" I would call disagreements. I could just as easily say that you have some huge misconceptions from my perspective. List the specific facts I have gotten wrong and not corrected if you think I have.
laika, you came on here shouting about how people were doing adjusted +/- "wrong" using buzzwords like collinearity as part of your statements. After a few exchanges with you I responded to this statement of yours:
laika wrote:I also have a question about whether they use oncourt or net +/- numbers in their calculations. I think the oncourt number is much better than the offcourt number. At least with the on number the player is being directly measured along with his teammates. The offcourt number primarily measures the substitute quality and seems to have little to do with how good a player is. I personally would prefer an adjusted +/- that is calculated using oncourt rather than net.
By saying:
Doctor MJ wrote:Hmm, see I don't think you have your head around this. Here's roughly what a data input looks like:
Brown,Bryant,Fisher,Turiaf,Walton,Alston,James,McGrady,Yao,Wells,2
I'm simplifying here to make it more intuitive. Literally, the program takes as input what happened when each 10 player combo was on the floor. Thousands upon thousands of these lines, and treats each player as a variable. The goal is to assign values to the players so that adding their values together you get the scoreboard result at the end.
See what I'm saying? Technically, it is using on court +/-, but not in the way I think you mean. Adjusted +/- doesn't take a player's season-long +/- and apply adjustments to it, it literally breaks everything down to granules of data and solves for thousands of linear equations.
Basically, it made clear that after several back & forths with you expressing such confidence that you knew best how to calculate adjusted +/-, you hadn't the foggiest idea of how adjusted +/- even works.
That is not a disagreement. That is you having misconceptions.
And how did you respond to me taking so much of my sweet time to expose misconceptions? You never responded to what I wrote at all. Your next post in the thread was:
After two rounds of the playoffs Anthony's net +/- is 36.5. Lebron's is negative 10.0. I guess it's a thankless job carrying Lebron but you can hardly expect anyone in the stats community to point this out.
Can't afford to blemish the first great pillar of truth, "Lebron is awesome and Kobe sucks" that their religion is built upon.
As if that entire exchange we had meant nothing...and yet still, when you've posted more, I've responded. Clearly I'm insane to try so hard to teach someone who doesn't want to learn.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 50,756
- And1: 19,458
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
floppymoose wrote:<begin hand waving>
I've found APM to be unreliable and worse than raw +-. I don't have any way to prove this, other than to seay that I've found the outliers worse when engaging the sniff test. This is from several years of looking at APM. I don't believe the mathematics works. And I say this as a former math person. I've got nothing against the idea of APM. I just don't believe the state of the art there is good enough yet.
<end hand waving>
floppy,
I don't know that we have any disagreement, although a statement like "I don't believe the mathematics works" makes it hard to know. If you want to understand where I'm coming from with laika read this thread and the Joel Anthony thread.
I don't have any illusions about APM being a perfect stat. What I am steadfast about is that every analyst should be using +/- data in some form along with box score data when evaluating players over long period of time.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 50,756
- And1: 19,458
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
DSMok1 wrote:You guys might want to read my feature on Adjusted Plus/Minus:
http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/n ... ilization/
laika's right in that APM is really unstable. I, like him, would not use BBV's 2 year APM for much of anything. On the other hand, APM is the only unbiased statistic that actually completely captures a player's value that we have. And there are ways to manipulate it (Such as Jeremias Engelmann's RAPM at http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ ) so as to reduce the collinearity/instability problem.
Sweet, will read it today.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,044
- And1: 1,996
- Joined: Mar 22, 2011
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
Doctor MJ wrote:
1.laika, you came on here shouting about how people were doing adjusted +/- "wrong" using buzzwords like collinearity as part of your statements. After a few exchanges with you I responded to this statement of yours:laika wrote:I also have a question
By saying:Doctor MJ wrote:See what I'm saying? Technically, it is using on court +/-, but not in the way I think you mean. Adjusted +/- doesn't take a player's season-long +/- and apply adjustments to it, it literally breaks everything down to granules of data and solves for thousands of linear equations.
Basically, it made clear that after several back & forths with you expressing such confidence that you knew best how to calculate adjusted +/-, you hadn't the foggiest idea of how adjusted +/- even works.
That is not a disagreement. That is you having misconceptions.
And how did you respond to me taking so much of my sweet time to expose misconceptions? You never responded to what I wrote at all. Your next post in the thread was:After two rounds of the playoffs Anthony's net +/- is 36.5. Lebron's is negative 10.0. I guess it's a thankless job carrying Lebron but you can hardly expect anyone in the stats community to point this out.
Can't afford to blemish the first great pillar of truth, "Lebron is awesome and Kobe sucks" that their religion is built upon.
As if that entire exchange we had meant nothing...and yet still, when you've posted more, I've responded. Clearly I'm insane to try so hard to teach someone who doesn't want to learn
I don't remember shouting, but most people seem to agree with me that basketballvalue is calculating adj +/- incorrectly.
How is asking a question showing "huge misconceptions"?
I asked a question and you answered it. I didn't feel the need to keep responding, especially after mystic attacked me with a bunch of lame insults. Also, it didn't help that we were starting to talk in circles.
I didn't respond again until you made basically a troll thread about Kobe using extremely poor analysis.
Usually I respond to posts that I disagree with. I guess in the future I could make a note of posts that I agree with.
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 50,756
- And1: 19,458
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
laika wrote:I don't remember shouting, but most people seem to agree with me that basketballvalue is calculating adj +/- incorrectly.
How is asking a question showing "huge misconceptions"?
I don't think you'll find anyone here who would agree to the statement "basketballvalue is calculating APM incorrectly."
On the other hand, every single one of us would agree that APM is an imperfect stat.
Previously, you chafed about the distinction between these two statements saying they essentially mean the same thing, but then you made clear that you literally thought that basketballvalue was taking a player's raw season-wide +/- and doing a series of adjustments to it to come up with their adjusted +/-, and you were sure that those adjustments were wrong. Thus it was made clear that the language difference between how described things and how we described things was actually at the very root behind you misconception, which I tried to explain to you once I understood where you went off track.
You now ask "How is asking a question showing a huge misconception?".
When someone asks a question where literally answering the question won't yield any useful information, it typically means that the person asking the question has a misconception. You asked:
I also have a question about whether they use oncourt or net +/- numbers in their calculations.
I recognized that someone would ask this question if they didn't understand how adjusted +/- was calculated, and thus I spend time explaining to you how they calculated the stat form the ground up.
laika wrote:I asked a question and you answered it. I didn't feel the need to keep responding, especially after mystic attacked me with a bunch of lame insults. Also, it didn't help that we were starting to talk in circles.
I didn't respond again until you made basically a troll thread about Kobe using extremely poor analysis.
Usually I respond to posts that I disagree with. I guess in the future I could make a note of posts that I agree with.
Well there's a couple social things here:
-You being sick of "lame insults" is a perfectly reasonable reason for you to stop participating.
-However if you're going to end up continuing the same conversation with the same people on a board where there weren't a large amount of topics in between, then you come off looking pretty bad when don't acknowledge your own mistakes while you continue on your attack.
Obviously you don't see the situation as others do, but from my perspective I'm doing you a favor by helping you to better understand something you're interested in. If you don't see value to my insights, and insist on pushing forward with you mind unchanged, then there's no point in me conversing with you.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Sophomore
- Posts: 118
- And1: 112
- Joined: Jul 26, 2010
- Location: Maine
- Contact:
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
Nivek wrote:So, the RAPM numbers suggest that Kobe this season helped the Lakers on offense (though not as much as in previous seasons) and hurt them defensively. Overall, he helped some, but his "helping" dropped significantly from previous seasons. Am I reading the graph correctly, DSMok?
Yes, you are. The scale is points per 100 possessions played, with positive good for everything.
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
- floppymoose
- Senior Mod - Warriors
- Posts: 57,398
- And1: 15,796
- Joined: Jun 22, 2003
- Location: Trust your election workers
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
DSMok1 wrote:You guys might want to read my feature on Adjusted Plus/Minus:
http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/n ... ilization/
Nice article. My instincts, worth what you paid for them, are that the SPM approach is total garbage, and Rosenbaum didn't accomplish anything when he tried to use that to "fix" his APM results.
I like basketballvalues approach of simply lumping all the low minute players together in one bucket to reduce the noise. Their APM values are the best I've seen so far.
I don't have a good feel for regularized APM yet, but I agree with the criticism that assuming the low minute players are average is pretty crippling. That is going to depress the value of guys who get rested against the scrubs, and inflate the value of guys who have a mix of playing with the starters but also stay in against scrub opponents. The results at stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com are.... interesting.
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 50,756
- And1: 19,458
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
floppymoose wrote:Nice article. My instincts, worth what you paid for them, are that the SPM approach is total garbage, and Rosenbaum didn't accomplish anything when he tried to use that to "fix" his APM results.
Worse than accomplishing nothing, it lowered the credibility. I've got a lot of respect for Rosenbaum, and I'm forever grateful to Roland Beech for his work with 82games, but when people come up with metrics that arbitrarily assigning weights combining completely different metrics I always shake my head. It just convolutes matters.
That he combined things really is evidence that he didn't think much of the work he was doing. It was just a lark for him. But for me it's never been an issue that +/- stats are flawed because all stats are flawed. I'm not trying to find the end all be all, just stuff I can use.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
- floppymoose
- Senior Mod - Warriors
- Posts: 57,398
- And1: 15,796
- Joined: Jun 22, 2003
- Location: Trust your election workers
Re: Letting the Lamppost Illuminate
Doctor MJ wrote:But for me it's never been an issue that +/- stats are flawed because all stats are flawed. I'm not trying to find the end all be all, just stuff I can use.
I think we are coming at this from similar vantage points, but my angle is: I want to use the best +- stat I can, and I feel that there is progress still to be made on how to generate decent APM numbers.
Return to Statistical Analysis