Hi,
I''ve got a basic question.
I'm looking for a site where I could find some statistic information like:
what are the standing for nuggets when they played without Billups,
or who was the last under 7 footer that avarged more then 10 rebounds before gerlad wallece.
site where I colud compare some stats.
maybe you could help me.
(sorry for my english, it's not my basic language)
stats
Moderator: Doctor MJ
Re: stats
- rrravenred
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 6,067
- And1: 547
- Joined: Feb 24, 2006
- Location: Pulling at the loose threads of arguments since 2006
Re: stats
http://www.basketball-reference.com and http://www.hoopdata.com are good places to start.
Basketball-reference also has a really nice search function (look at "Play index" at the top left) which allows very specific searches for teams, players and even games.
http://www.82games.com has some more obscure stats and is best approached if you've got something more specific in mind.
John Hollinger, Dean Oliver and David Berri are some interesting statisticians you can look at for differing (and sometimes bitterly opposed) views.
Basketball-reference also has a really nice search function (look at "Play index" at the top left) which allows very specific searches for teams, players and even games.
http://www.82games.com has some more obscure stats and is best approached if you've got something more specific in mind.
John Hollinger, Dean Oliver and David Berri are some interesting statisticians you can look at for differing (and sometimes bitterly opposed) views.
ElGee wrote:You, my friend, have shoved those words into my mouth, which is OK because I'm hungry.
Got fallacy?
Re: stats
-
- Ballboy
- Posts: 2
- And1: 0
- Joined: Mar 02, 2010
Re: stats
thx a lot.
I'll check it out.
easy
I'll check it out.
easy
Re: stats
- AussieBuck
- RealGM
- Posts: 41,679
- And1: 19,722
- Joined: May 10, 2006
- Location: Bucks in 7?
Re: stats
So I don't have to start a new thread, does anyone know why there is a significant difference between Basketball Reference and Hoopdata's numbers for team efficiency and pace? I'd like to believe that the Bucks are the 4th best defensive team rather than 7th.
emunney wrote:
We need a man shaped like a chicken nugget with the shot selection of a 21st birthday party.
GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:
if you combined jabari parker, royal ivey, a shrimp and a ball sack youd have javon carter
Re: stats
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,224
- And1: 0
- Joined: Oct 10, 2007
Re: stats
AussieBuck wrote:So I don't have to start a new thread, does anyone know why there is a significant difference between Basketball Reference and Hoopdata's numbers for team efficiency and pace? I'd like to believe that the Bucks are the 4th best defensive team rather than 7th.
I don't really like Hoopdata, but from what I remember they have a different method for calculating possessions than basketball-reference uses. If that's the case, that could cause a decent discrepancy in efficiency stats.
Re: stats
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 8,205
- And1: 713
- Joined: May 28, 2007
- Contact:
Re: stats
AussieBuck wrote:So I don't have to start a new thread, does anyone know why there is a significant difference between Basketball Reference and Hoopdata's numbers for team efficiency and pace? I'd like to believe that the Bucks are the 4th best defensive team rather than 7th. :)
I would take the numbers from Hoopdate with a grain of salt. B-r.com is using the methods developed by Dean Oliver, the guy is doing the advanced stats stuff for the Nuggets (his book "Basketball on Paper" is probably the best about basketball statistics). So, take the numbers from b-r.com. Nice to see that Scott Skiles is always able to build a great defensive team.
Re: stats
- rrravenred
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 6,067
- And1: 547
- Joined: Feb 24, 2006
- Location: Pulling at the loose threads of arguments since 2006
Re: stats
I'd also add www.basketballvalue.com
It has adjusted +/- and more importantly, the play by play data for every game back to 2005. I haven't had a serious play with this data yet, but it looks like a very rich raw data source.
It has adjusted +/- and more importantly, the play by play data for every game back to 2005. I haven't had a serious play with this data yet, but it looks like a very rich raw data source.
ElGee wrote:You, my friend, have shoved those words into my mouth, which is OK because I'm hungry.
Got fallacy?
Return to Statistical Analysis