Page 9 of 12

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:21 pm
by Jay81
Nivek wrote:Latest stats update, including a look at Beal's January and Wall's start to the season.


what the heck is AJ price doing on that over 100 list? Did Ernie actually make a good move?

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:23 pm
by Nivek
Price has played well recently. We'll see where he ends up, but at present put Price in the "Ernie found one" column.

Need to go back and re-run the numbers on Price with some of the tweaks I've made to PPA this season.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:09 am
by hands11
Nivek wrote:Price has played well recently. We'll see where he ends up, but at present put Price in the "Ernie found one" column.

Need to go back and re-run the numbers on Price with some of the tweaks I've made to PPA this season.


Along with Webster.

Webster is at TS% .581

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:43 pm
by Nivek
Latest stat update looking at the full season, and at the last 10 games. For those past 10 games, Okafor playing like a top 10 player in the league, Webster like a top 15 player, Price like a top 50. Beal, Wall and Nene are the other players producing at an average or better rate, according to PPA over the past 10.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:18 pm
by Zonkerbl
I see you've changed "replacement level" from 70 to 45...

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:30 pm
by MJG
Zonkerbl wrote:I see you've changed "replacement level" from 70 to 45...

It used to be 10th man, and was changed to 11th man. And I think that it was 60, rather than 70.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:30 pm
by LyricalRico
Nice to Vesely's rating improve.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:57 am
by hands11
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_ ... eka-okafor

After that game, Okafor is now averaging a double double for January.

10.7 rebounds 10.1 pts

His last two games have been awesome.

15 rbs and 23 pts
16 rbs and 15 pts

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:41 am
by mohammed10
hands11 wrote:http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/2399/emeka-okafor

After that game, Okafor is not averaging a double double for January.

10.7 rebounds 10.1 pts

His last two games have been awesome.

15 rbs and 23 pts
16 rbs and 15 pts


Woah...those are Cousins' type numbers

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:55 am
by B-easy
Wall shooting 45% from the field now, pretty good.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:41 pm
by Nivek
MJG wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:I see you've changed "replacement level" from 70 to 45...

It used to be 10th man, and was changed to 11th man. And I think that it was 60, rather than 70.


Yep. Replacement level was the hypothetical 10th man, now it's the hypothetical 11th man. So, from 60 to 45. The idea being the approximate level of production a team can expect from basically a D-League call-up.

Haven't run the numbers from last night, but over that 7-3 stretch, Okafor was averaging a pace-adjusted 15.9 rebounds per 40 minutes. I would think that last night's game would boost that average.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:03 pm
by dobrojim
B-easy wrote:Wall shooting 45% from the field now, pretty good.



I may be looking through beer goggles but his J seems more reliable to me
than last year.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Tue Feb 5, 2013 5:47 pm
by Nivek
Weekly stat update is on the blog.

I ask the question: Is Wall A Franchise Level Player?

The answer will be unsurprising to readers of the Wall thread -- Nope. At least not yet.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Tue Feb 5, 2013 5:53 pm
by Ruzious
Nivek wrote:Weekly stat update is on the blog.

I ask the question: Is Wall A Franchise Level Player?

The answer will be unsurprising to readers of the Wall thread -- Nope. At least not yet.

The more relevant question in my mind is whether or not this organization is capable of developing a player to franchise level or even to a good all-around player, and the answer is No. It's an organizational problem much more than an individual player problem.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Tue Feb 5, 2013 9:16 pm
by Nivek
Playoff update...

Projected record for the 8th seed: 42-40.

Wizards would need to go 30-5 in their remaining games to reach that record. Based on what they've been doing since Wall returned, it's looking like they'll finish the season with 30-33 wins total.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Tue Feb 5, 2013 9:31 pm
by Zonkerbl
Huh, so my prediction for 30 wins still has a chance.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:56 pm
by Nivek
Two pieces up at the blog (so far) today. One is basically this:

Image

Red = team defensive rating (points allowed per 100 possessions)
Green = team offensive rating (points scored per 100 possessions)
Blue = pace (possessions per 48 minutes)

The light blue line shows league average. The yellow/orange line shows Wall's return game.

The other piece is my weekly stat update, in which I open up by hammering Randy Wittman's lineup ill-logic.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:26 pm
by Nivek
Last thing going up on the blog today: an update on my semi-regular comparison of Beal to other teen rookie guards.

Summary: He's about average for the group, but he has improved steadily as the year has progressed.

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:28 pm
by Nivek
double post

Re: Looking at the numbers . . .

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:25 pm
by hands11
dobrojim wrote:
B-easy wrote:Wall shooting 45% from the field now, pretty good.



I may be looking through beer goggles but his J seems more reliable to me
than last year.


I think that was Takillya you were drinking.

Take my advice. Not only should you not be judging basketball talent on that stuff but don't bring any women home after it either. The morning after could be a nasty surprise.