RealGM

I think comparing players at the same position is a worthwhile activity, but in my rating system, I compare all players to league average -- not to players at their position. I do this in part because "position" is ill-defined and highly flexible for many players. I also do it because the value of a particular stat doesn't change because guys play different positions.

I've mentioned this before, but I think the position adjustment is a significant flaw in Berri's Wins Produced formulation. Berri's position adjustment asserts that each position has equal value. While there's a certain logic to that assertion -- a team needs 5 guys on the floor -- I haven't seen the empirical justification for his adjustment. To the contrary, his own regressions would seem to suggest that centers and PFs are significantly more productive than wings and point guards. I think that's actually useful information. And, it connects well with the not so earth-shaking notion that a good big is more valuable than a good little. (I have raised this issue with Berri privately, but haven't persuaded him to change it. C'est la vie.)

That said, I have other issues with Wins Produced, which I believe I properly address in my rating system. Specifically, I think WP still over-values rebounds, and sets too high a bar on shooting efficiency. PER is more widely accepted, and that has its issues too. The biggest being that it massively undervalues shooting efficiency.

Nivek wrote:I think comparing players at the same position is a worthwhile activity, but in my rating system, I compare all players to league average -- not to players at their position. I do this in part because "position" is ill-defined and highly flexible for many players. I also do it because the value of a particular stat doesn't change because guys play different positions.

I've mentioned this before, but I think the position adjustment is a significant flaw in Berri's Wins Produced formulation. Berri's position adjustment asserts that each position has equal value. While there's a certain logic to that assertion -- a team needs 5 guys on the floor -- I haven't seen the empirical justification for his adjustment. To the contrary, his own regressions would seem to suggest that centers and PFs are significantly more productive than wings and point guards. I think that's actually useful information. And, it connects well with the not so earth-shaking notion that a good big is more valuable than a good little. (I have raised this issue with Berri privately, but haven't persuaded him to change it. C'est la vie.)

That said, I have other issues with Wins Produced, which I believe I properly address in my rating system. Specifically, I think WP still over-values rebounds, and sets too high a bar on shooting efficiency. PER is more widely accepted, and that has its issues too. The biggest being that it massively undervalues shooting efficiency.

Out of curiosity, how do you assess Trevor Booker and Landry Fields in your system?

Where 100 = average and higher is better, last season Fields scored an 87. Booker: 110.

For the previous season (each guy's rookie year), Fields: 112; Booker: 110.

REDardWIZskin wrote:

payitforward wrote:

REDardWIZskin wrote:I'm looking forward to seeing Booker in his match up against Bosh next week. Many speculate that the reason we may end up parting ways with Book is because of his height or lack there of, which possibly limits his upside. Bosh could be a good test. If he plays serviceable D it will be a good sign IMO.

Of course it would be good if Booker -- with all his other qualities -- were an inch taller. Duh. Even better 2 inches taller. Hey, how about if he were 7'2".

Other than the above, there is nothing whatever to issue of his height. If you list the 4s in the league from tallest to shortest, your list will have no statistically meaningful correlation with another list of 4s, this time from best to worst.

I'm confused as to what stance your taking, I still think Booker could be effective defensively in spite of his perceived lower ceiling because of his height.
I think you and Closg00 both misinterpreted the point of my post

I think Booker is one of the best players on the team -- right behind Nene, in fact. I'd like to see him starting at the 4, and I'd like to see him get 2500+ minutes this year. I don't think his height is an issue at all.

My preferred starting 5 would have Nene at C and Book at the 4.

fishercob wrote:I'm not questioning the efficacy of comparative analysis. I'm asking why we compare by "position" as opposed to comparing all players, or by height, etc. Such comparisons might lead us to the same results; I dont know.

I just ask because, for instance, Landry Fields is a guy that you are higher on than most here -- including a few who use lots of statistics to evaluate players. It seems that a lot of what you like about Fields is what he does well for his position. Are there thinsg he does not do well for his position? Are the things he does well for his position also things he excels at versus other positions? What about the areas he's less proficient?

I am asking, not challenging. Your way may make more sense and be more illuminating that others'. It all feeds into the main question -- which type of analysis leads you to players who actually help you win?

I compare by position because I want to know, e.g. how good a point guard John Wall is. I can't get a fix on that by comparing him to power forwards; I have to compare him to other point guards.

Of course there are times when you need to compare players across positions -- in a trade situation for example. WoW is designed to let you compare across positions. Using Kevin's system (if you had access to it), which makes no adjustments for position, would get you different results (typically more and more different from WoW as you went from Center down the positions to the guards).

In Fields' case, he had an outstanding rookie year -- I don't care what metric you use, he was terrific. He fell off his second year. Kevin, who measures him against all players (including 4s and 5s) with no position adjustment, drops him lower than WoW does. If you look at his year 2 numbers measured against 2 guards, his drop off still left him among the better 2 guards in the league. His year two TS% was below average, but his rebounding, steals and low # of fouls more than made up for that. I think he's a terrific young player.

Go Wizards medical staff. Trevor Booker "out 2-3 weeks" with knee injury.

Trade-him if we can, we are already on the hook for Nene and we need to strengthen our front-court because Nene is a PT player.

His game is sadly mostly predicated on his athleticism, if he continues to be injured I'm not so sure he's going to last very long in the league, which is disheartening cause he really tries out there. Even with role players, this team can't catch a break.

Anyone have an update on Book?

He tweeted he's coming back this saturday. Sadly I give him a week before he goes down again with another soft tissue injury.

Upper Decker wrote:He tweeted he's coming back this saturday. Sadly I give him a week before he goes down again with another soft tissue injury.

http://www.nba.com/wizards/video/bradle ... den-state#

I'm thinking he may last longer this time.

We will see but it looks like they are handling injuries better. Booker has been out a long time. Hopefully they got him right finally. He says he wasn't the type to get injured before coming to the NBA.

And, the more players they have, the less everyone has to play any given night. That allows you to rest players when needed. Not like he is a starter. And even someone like Nene that is a starter can get more rest while he is trying to get him legs and feet right if you have lots of other options.

Hey, they beat OKC without Nene. At least for one night, it is possible. Even when going against the best.

Another player saying he was ready to return but its not his decision. Starting to really think they are handing injuries much better.
http://www.nba.com/wizards/video/2013/0 ... mv-2348096

When Book returns, does Vesely go to the D-League? There is not enough minutes to go around. Ves needs D-League time more than Booko.

HE should go to the d league because he need 35 minutes a night to learn how to play.

Ves just played his best game of the yr. Booker didnt show me anything this yr....he has to wrk his way back into the rotation. I would play him only to show he's healthy to teams that might be interested I him.

jivelikenice wrote:Ves just played his best game of the yr. Booker didnt show me anything this yr....he has to wrk his way back into the rotation. I would play him only to show he's healthy to teams that might be interested I him.

I think he was playing hurt this year. I seriously doubt his game has regressed from last year. Booker has always been a very hard worker and a professional. I see no reason to believe that Booker won't be at least as good as he was last year, and probably better. The Booker of last year is our third best big man behind Nene and Okafor and definitely deserves minutes over Vesely. It might take him a couple of weeks to get his rhythm back, but Booker should work his way up to 20 minutes a game.

I saw a Devin? Booker playing last night for Clemson, I assume he is related.

I think he was playing hurt this year. I seriously doubt his game has regressed from last year. Booker has always been a very hard worker and a professional. I see no reason to believe that Booker won't be at least as good as he was last year, and probably better. The Booker of last year is our third best big man behind Nene and Okafor and definitely deserves minutes over Vesely. It might take him a couple of weeks to get his rhythm back, but Booker should work his way up to 20 minutes a game.

HIs game may well have improved and I've liked his approach since we got him.
That said, I've definitely soured on his long term potential. The guy just can't
seem to stay healthy. He strikes me as an uber-athlete who's work ethic (good) had
a lot to do with getting him to where he is, but he is constantly on the fine
edge btw top condition and over-trained injured (not good). In 3 years, he's missed significant
time every year. Ease him in, especially assuming Jan reverts to the dreadful level
of play he's produced so far this year. On the slight chance than Jan starts consistently
playing the way he did vs OKC...Book becomes trade fill-in material.

Reminds me a lot of Caron, maybe a poor man's Caron since Book hasn't reached
AllStar level of performance as Caron briefly did. I'm rooting for him, but I won't
be shocked if his career continues to be derailed by injuries.

I don't disagree. I think Booker is going to have a fairly short NBA career as injuries and age sap his athleticism. I'm just saying that the notion that Booker "hasn't shown anything" and is therefore not worth playing ahead of Vesely is misguided. Booker is, without any doubt whatsoever, a better basketball player than Vesely. Frankly, I'm fairly confident in saying that Booker is currently a better basketball player than Vesely EVER will be.

You may well turn out to be absolutely correct. I just wish I could
be more optimistic about Book staying healthy.

Agree about Booker and health, he is a future Nene early. I would def trade him if I could.