Fun with Stats!!!

[HornetJail]

The percentages don't matter in this equation (unless they were extremely in Marvin's favor). What matters is that we acquired one three point shooter and lost three.

Per example, CDR and Tolliver on the court at the same time help our court spacing much more than Marvin + a non-shooter (let's say Hendo) would. Marv isn't good enough to push the needle by himself.

82games.com tells me that CDR and Tolliver virtually never played together, so not sure about the relevance of that.

Virtually never played together? They accumulated 328 minutes in 32 games. That's damn much considering that Tolly was scrapped from the rotation towards the end of the season and that CDR only joined us in December. Tolliver is the sixth most used player alongside CDR.

Either way, that's besides the point. Williams isn't a great enough of a shooter to justify losing three other three-point threats.

That's 10 minutes a game for half the season. Considering, neither played starter minutes, CDR wasn't even in the rotation in the first half of the season, and Tolliver racked up DNPs in March when CDR was at his best, I'd say that's quite a bit.

We dropped the ball by not bringing Tolliver back and then signing Williams for more than double. I can almost understand not bringing back CDR because of our crazy 2-guard depth, but CDR is probably better than any of Henderson, PJ, Taylor, or Neal, and certainly a better fit for significantly cheaper.

[yosemiteben]

I'm confused - I must be reading something incorrectly. When I go here, I don't see Tolliver on the floor with CDR in our top 20 five man units by minutes. I thought your point was that Marvin + someone else on the floor doesn't compare with having CDR and Tolliver on the floor at the same time, to which I countered that it seems like they rarely were. Maybe I'm reading the numbers or lineups wrong.

Given the fact that Tolliver and CDR rarely played together, they essentially operate as a single backup unit - whoever was hot got the minutes. Maybe that's what your point is. In March Tolliver's outside shooting dropped off a cliff (he shot just 27.1% from three), and in March CDR's minutes doubled from January and February.

So with the acquisition of Lance we are essentially removing the single playing unit of CDR/Tolliver and replacing it with Hendo/Neal/Hairston.

Also I feel compelled to note that Neal was 37.8% from three to CDR's 38.6% last season, so it's not like we don't have any shooters. Roberts is also a career 37.2% three point shooter, so we added another respectable outside shooter to replace Ridnour (who shot 30% from three last season ). I love CDR and hope he comes back, but in losing both of them we are really only losing like 1 made three point basket per game, maybe 2 at most.

If we see an uptick from Kemba, respectable outside shooting from Roberts, and improved outside shooting from Lance over Hendo, that's more than enough to make up for the marginal loss in outside shooting we'll see by letting CDR and Tolliver go.

[Benjamin Linus]

I think our guard rotation has improved from outside the arc. Most notably the starting SG and backup PG spots. Lance made more than double the 3's Hendo made and at a higher percentage. Also last year Sessions and Ridnour made a combined 27 threes on 25% while Brian Roberts made 64 threes on 36%

But yeah, I thought we should have kept Tolliver (our best three point shooter - made 102 threes on 41%) or made a bigger push to bring in shooting, which was a super obvious need going into this offseason.

I know at least 90% of the board will disagree with this, but I think we should have signed Frye instead of Marvin. Dude made 160 threes last season on 37%. For perspective, no one on our team made more than 109 threes last season. And it's no fluke, he's put up even bigger numbers over the last three seasons. The contract is rough, but it's similar to Marvin's, just two years longer.

[LamarMatic7]

I'm confused - I must be reading something incorrectly. When I go here, I don't see Tolliver on the floor with CDR in our top 20 five man units by minutes. I thought your point was that Marvin + someone else on the floor doesn't compare with having CDR and Tolliver on the floor at the same time, to which I countered that it seems like they rarely were. Maybe I'm reading the numbers or lineups wrong.

Well, how the hell does that help you? There might be twenty five-man units with CDR and Tolliver that don't make the top20.

Given the fact that Tolliver and CDR rarely played together, they essentially operate as a single backup unit - whoever was hot got the minutes.

Once again, I repeat - they did play a whole lot together. 328 minutes to be exact.

[yosemiteben]

Once again, I repeat - they did play a whole lot together. 328 minutes to be exact.

Where are you getting that information from? Not trying to be feisty, I just really don't understand.

[LamarMatic7]

Once again, I repeat - they did play a whole lot together. 328 minutes to be exact.

Where are you getting that information from? Not trying to be feisty, I just really don't understand.

http://stats.nba.com/teamLineups.html?T ... Quantity=2

I like how the Tolly and CDR duo posted a 102.7 - 95.3 net rating when they played together.

[SWedd523]

Well, how the hell does that help you? There might be twenty five-man units with CDR and Tolliver that don't make the top20.

I might argue that if they didn't play together in any of the top 20 lineups, then their impact on games (together) was extremely limited. I don't see how one could say we're going to miss their combined efforts when a lineup of Walker-Sessions-Taylor-Zeller-Biyombo saw more minutes together than a Tolliver/CDR duo.

Individually, we'll have some interesting times ahead as Tolliver played 32% and CDR played 25% of our total minutes last year. They may not have been stars, but they played a pretty big role for us.

[LamarMatic7]

Well, how the hell does that help you? There might be twenty five-man units with CDR and Tolliver that don't make the top20.

I might argue that if they didn't play together in any of the top 20 lineups, then their impact on games (together) was extremely limited. I don't see how one could say we're going to miss their combined efforts when a lineup of Walker-Sessions-Taylor-Zeller-Biyombo saw more minutes together than a Tolliver/CDR duo.

Individually, we'll have some interesting times ahead as Tolliver played 32% and CDR played 25% of our total minutes last year. They may not have been stars, but they played a pretty big role for us.

As I said before to yosemiteben - I used this merely as an example. It's not to be taken as if the specific duo of Tolliver and CDR is to be missed.

My point is simply that I don't care whether Williams shot 2% better than player X who left and that he took 25 more threes than player Y. I'm saying that with the limited number of three point shooters we had, more shooters leaving us than joining us is a problem. Marvin's shooting prowess (however good it might be) doesn't cover up for the fact that we now have less players to roll out there to provide spacing. He's not Ray Allen.

[yosemiteben]

Once again, I repeat - they did play a whole lot together. 328 minutes to be exact.

Where are you getting that information from? Not trying to be feisty, I just really don't understand.

http://stats.nba.com/teamLineups.html?T ... Quantity=2

I like how the Tolly and CDR duo posted a 102.7 - 95.3 net rating when they played together.

Ah, helpful, had no idea that information was available on the NBA site. If they could get a better GUI that site would be amazing.

That sample size is just way too small. It only existed for 10 mpg in less than half the games we played. I think the fact that the Gordon - Walker combo is about as effective as the Tolliver - CDR combo, and the fact that the Biz - Neal combo puts them both to shame demonstrates how important sample size in all of this. Admittedly Tolliver and CDR played together twice as much as Biz and Neal, but both are too small to be reliable indicators.

[yosemiteben]

My point is simply that I don't care whether Williams shot 2% better than player X who left and that he took 25 more threes than player Y. I'm saying that with the limited number of three point shooters we had, more shooters leaving us than joining us is a problem. Marvin's shooting prowess (however good it might be) doesn't cover up for the fact that we now have less players to roll out there to provide spacing. He's not Ray Allen.

That's a fair take, but you are saying we lost two players when really only one of the two of them was used in the average game for any appreciable amount of time. We added three players that are 35%+ three point shooters, two of which shot that in fairly large volumes (Lance and Marvin). Saying we lost three shooters and just added one is not telling the whole story.

Of our top five 3 point shooters by percentage last season, we lost three, but we also added three players that all also would have been in the top five had they been on the team last season.

[LamarMatic7]

Where are you getting that information from? Not trying to be feisty, I just really don't understand.

http://stats.nba.com/teamLineups.html?T ... Quantity=2

I like how the Tolly and CDR duo posted a 102.7 - 95.3 net rating when they played together.

Ah, helpful, had no idea that information was available on the NBA site. If they could get a better GUI that site would be amazing.

That sample size is just way too small. It only existed for 10 mpg in less than half the games we played. I think the fact that the Gordon - Walker combo is about as effective as the Tolliver - CDR combo, and the fact that the Biz - Neal combo puts them both to shame demonstrates how important sample size in all of this. Admittedly Tolliver and CDR played together twice as much as Biz and Neal, but both are too small to be reliable indicators.

First off, it was used for way more than half the games we played since CDR joined us in December.

Second off, I once again have to repeat not to effin take this literally.

[LamarMatic7]

My point is simply that I don't care whether Williams shot 2% better than player X who left and that he took 25 more threes than player Y. I'm saying that with the limited number of three point shooters we had, more shooters leaving us than joining us is a problem. Marvin's shooting prowess (however good it might be) doesn't cover up for the fact that we now have less players to roll out there to provide spacing. He's not Ray Allen.

That's a fair take, but you are saying we lost two players when really only one of the two of them was used in the average game for any appreciable amount of time. We added three players that are 35%+ three point shooters, two of which shot that in fairly large volumes (Lance and Marvin). Saying we lost three shooters and just added one is not telling the whole story.

Lance isn't near being a volume shooter from three. He's hesitant himself about taking them and defenses know it.

[yosemiteben]

My point is simply that I don't care whether Williams shot 2% better than player X who left and that he took 25 more threes than player Y. I'm saying that with the limited number of three point shooters we had, more shooters leaving us than joining us is a problem. Marvin's shooting prowess (however good it might be) doesn't cover up for the fact that we now have less players to roll out there to provide spacing. He's not Ray Allen.

That's a fair take, but you are saying we lost two players when really only one of the two of them was used in the average game for any appreciable amount of time. We added three players that are 35%+ three point shooters, two of which shot that in fairly large volumes (Lance and Marvin). Saying we lost three shooters and just added one is not telling the whole story.

Lance isn't near being a volume shooter from three. He's hesitant himself about taking them and defenses know it.

I guess I meant relative to Hendo, who you have to pull teeth to get to shoot. Shooting 3.2 per game is a decent sample size, but fair to argue that he's not primarily an outside shooter. I don't really see that as a negative if he has the ability to and does at that clip, however.

My basic point, and the only reason I'm continuing to be a stickler about this, I added to my last post after you quoted it: "Of our top five 3 point shooters by percentage last season, we lost three, but we also added three players that all also would have been in the top five had they been on the team last season." Saying we lost our top 3 shooters and only added 1 shooter seems to not take into account the reality of the situation, that two of the three we lost function essentially as a single unit and that we added two additional shooters.

[LamarMatic7]

That's a fair take, but you are saying we lost two players when really only one of the two of them was used in the average game for any appreciable amount of time. We added three players that are 35%+ three point shooters, two of which shot that in fairly large volumes (Lance and Marvin). Saying we lost three shooters and just added one is not telling the whole story.

Lance isn't near being a volume shooter from three. He's hesitant himself about taking them and defenses know it.

I guess I meant relative to Hendo, who you have to pull teeth to get to shoot. Shooting 3.2 per game is a decent sample size, but fair to argue that he's not primarily an outside shooter. I don't really see that as a negative if he has the ability to and does at that clip, however.

My basic point, and the only reason I'm continuing to be a stickler about this, I added to my last post after you quoted it: "Of our top five 3 point shooters by percentage last season, we lost three, but we also added three players that all also would have been in the top five had they been on the team last season." Saying we lost our top 3 shooters and only added 1 shooter seems to not take into account the reality of the situation, that two of the three we lost function essentially as a single unit and that we added two additional shooters.

I'm not looking at percentages. I'm acknowledging the fact that the two perimeter players we lost in Tolliver and CDR were major threats with very quick releases while the perimeter players we did acquire aren't such.

Perception matters more than percentages when defenders figure out how far they can play off a guy.

[SWedd523]

I'm not looking at percentages. I'm acknowledging the fact that the two perimeter players we lost in Tolliver and CDR were major threats with very quick releases while the perimeter players we did acquire aren't such.

Perception matters more than percentages when defenders figure out how far they can play off a guy.

I still think you're being hyperbolic with statements like the above, but I suppose there's no need to continue this aspect of the argument.

[yosemiteben]

I'm not looking at percentages. I'm acknowledging the fact that the two perimeter players we lost in Tolliver and CDR were major threats with very quick releases while the perimeter players we did acquire aren't such.

Perception matters more than percentages when defenders figure out how far they can play off a guy.

I still think you're being hyperbolic with statements like the above, but I suppose there's no need to continue this aspect of the argument.

Agree.

However, I'm willing to concede that Lamar may have a point! A good one even.

[LamarMatic7]

Two very interesting upcoming stat-projects from SportsVU that Zach Lowe mentioned in his latest piece on Kyle Korver (which you should read either way, it's some of his best work)

The fear is real. The gurus at Stats LLC, the company behind the SportVU cameras, have developed two previously unreleased metrics designed to measure the amount of attention an offensive player gets from defenders when he doesn’t have the ball.

The first, dubbed “gravity score,” measures how often defenders are really guarding a particular player away from the ball. Korver had the fourth-highest score, behind only Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony, and Paul George. The second — “distraction score” — is a related attempt to measure how often a player’s defender strays away from him to patrol the on-ball action. Korver had the lowest such score in the league.

http://grantland.com/features/kyle-korv ... nta-hawks/

[EwingSweatsALot]

Two very interesting upcoming stat-projects from SportsVU that Zach Lowe mentioned in his latest piece on Kyle Korver (which you should read either way, it's some of his best work)

The fear is real. The gurus at Stats LLC, the company behind the SportVU cameras, have developed two previously unreleased metrics designed to measure the amount of attention an offensive player gets from defenders when he doesn’t have the ball.

The first, dubbed “gravity score,” measures how often defenders are really guarding a particular player away from the ball. Korver had the fourth-highest score, behind only Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony, and Paul George. The second — “distraction score” — is a related attempt to measure how often a player’s defender strays away from him to patrol the on-ball action. Korver had the lowest such score in the league.

http://grantland.com/features/kyle-korv ... nta-hawks/

A couple questions I have on this, that probably won't be able to be determined until those stats are released.

For the gravity score, I wonder how much that has to do with how much a player moves on the court. Will guys like Korver, Allen, and other guys be higher on the court because there defender is having to chase them around. I wonder if they consider that defending. If so guys that come off screens and run baseline a good bit could tend to be higher on that list. Not to say Korver shouldn't be guarded that way, he is one of the most deadly weapons in the NBA, just a thought when I saw him over LeBron and other guys.

For the distraction score, and how it relates to the gravity score, I wonder what they consider the difference. There is a strong negative correlation between the two, I am sure, but Korver having the fourth highest on one and the lowest on the other leaves a gap of something else. I wonder how that is determined. Gravity is you being guarded, and distraction is the defender leaving you, I wonder what they determine is the intermediate that doesn't register. Does it mean how far the defender is off a player that determines if he is guarding you or not, or is it say the intent of guarding him. It will be interesting to see what the parameters are for both. Can't wait to see them in action if they do release them to the public through NBA.com.

[LamarMatic7]

For the gravity score, I wonder how much that has to do with how much a player moves on the court. Will guys like Korver, Allen, and other guys be higher on the court because there defender is having to chase them around. I wonder if they consider that defending. If so guys that come off screens and run baseline a good bit could tend to be higher on that list. Not to say Korver shouldn't be guarded that way, he is one of the most deadly weapons in the NBA, just a thought when I saw him over LeBron and other guys.

You do have a point. This will become one of those stats where you need to consider the context around the particular numbers to fully understand their meaning. Like, you won't be able to compare the pick-n-pop power forward like Brandon Bass with a catch-and-shoot guy off-screens, e.g. Klay Thompson.

For the distraction score, and how it relates to the gravity score, I wonder what they consider the difference. There is a strong negative correlation between the two, I am sure, but Korver having the fourth highest on one and the lowest on the other leaves a gap of something else. I wonder how that is determined. Gravity is you being guarded, and distraction is the defender leaving you, I wonder what they determine is the intermediate that doesn't register. Does it mean how far the defender is off a player that determines if he is guarding you or not, or is it say the intent of guarding him. It will be interesting to see what the parameters are for both. Can't wait to see them in action if they do release them to the public through NBA.com.

The footnote on this said that "the methodology is complex, incorporating specific location data from every recorded NBA possession and factoring in baseline player tendencies."

I think the bold phrase is the key phrase. If Player X usually plays Y feet off his assignment when the ball is on the other side of the court, he might play only (Y - 0.5) feet off Kyle Korver in the same scenario.

[EwingSweatsALot]

For the gravity score, I wonder how much that has to do with how much a player moves on the court. Will guys like Korver, Allen, and other guys be higher on the court because there defender is having to chase them around. I wonder if they consider that defending. If so guys that come off screens and run baseline a good bit could tend to be higher on that list. Not to say Korver shouldn't be guarded that way, he is one of the most deadly weapons in the NBA, just a thought when I saw him over LeBron and other guys.

You do have a point. This will become one of those stats where you need to consider the context around the particular numbers to fully understand their meaning. Like, you won't be able to compare the pick-n-pop power forward like Brandon Bass with a catch-and-shoot guy off-screens, e.g. Klay Thompson.

For the distraction score, and how it relates to the gravity score, I wonder what they consider the difference. There is a strong negative correlation between the two, I am sure, but Korver having the fourth highest on one and the lowest on the other leaves a gap of something else. I wonder how that is determined. Gravity is you being guarded, and distraction is the defender leaving you, I wonder what they determine is the intermediate that doesn't register. Does it mean how far the defender is off a player that determines if he is guarding you or not, or is it say the intent of guarding him. It will be interesting to see what the parameters are for both. Can't wait to see them in action if they do release them to the public through NBA.com.

The footnote on this said that "the methodology is complex, incorporating specific location data from every recorded NBA possession and factoring in baseline player tendencies."

I think the bold phrase is the key phrase. If Player X usually plays Y feet off his assignment when the ball is on the other side of the court, he might play only (Y - 0.5) feet off Kyle Korver in the same scenario.

I LOVE the baseline tendencies being involved in that. I wish these were used in more stats, and people used these when judging stats. For a small, easier example, why would people compare how Kemba finishes at the rim with a percentage that includes 7 footers that shoot 70% there. Compare them to what they are relative too. Stats are a wonderful thing, but using relativity with them is even better.

So by using these baseline tendencies for each player they are able to get more accurate readings, instead of just using a standard baseline for every player. That is very intriguing.