RealGM

[Edit] Fixed typo on Ray Allen. Should have read $8.056M not $7.056M.
[Edit2] Fixed transposition on KG. Should have read $17.781M not $17.871M
[Edit3] See last post for updated info. I left this post intact for comparison's sake.

Allen, Ray - Scr: 23 Reb: 6 Bhd: -1 Dsrp: 2
TEN + : 114
FAIR $: $8.056M
OPPST%: .736

Allen, Tony - Scr: 16 Reb: 6 Bhd: -2 Dsrp: 8
TEN + : 103
FAIR $: $5.092M
OPPST%: .508

Davis, Glen - Scr: 6 Reb: 9 Bhd: -2 Dsrp: 1
TEN + : 55
FAIR $: $1.174M
OPPST%: .493

Garnett, Kevin - Scr: 20 Reb: 13 Bhd: 1 Dsrp: 7
TEN + : 160
FAIR $: $17.781M
OPPST%: .753

House, Eddie - Scr: 16 Reb: 4 Bhd: 1 Dsrp: 7
TEN + : 96
FAIR $: $4.258M
OPPST%: .429

Perkins, Kendrick - Scr: 12 Reb: 16 Bhd: -3 Dsrp: 6
TEN + : 110
FAIR $: $6.845M
OPPST%: .791

Pierce, Paul - Scr: 19 Reb: 8 Bhd: 0 Dsrp: 4
TEN + : 131
FAIR $: $14.006M
OPPST%: .737

Powe, Leon - Scr: 14 Reb: 13 Bhd: -3 Dsrp: 4
TEN + : 82
FAIR $: $3.661M
OPPST%: .491

Rondo, Rajon - Scr: 12 Reb: 7 Bhd: 9 Dsrp: 7
TEN + : 171
FAIR $: $19.582M
OPPST%: .764

Scalabrine, Brian - Scr: 11 Reb: 3 Bhd: 0 Dsrp: 2
TEN + : 69
FAIR $: $1.475M
OPPST%: .493

Advanced Statistical Scouting (A.S.S.) Stats
Scr: Scoring (Lg. Avg. = 15) - Gives neutral weight to the ability to score (ie. balances out volume shooters vs low-usage efficiency.)
Reb: Rebounding (Lg. Avg. = 9) - Additional weight is given to those who procure the offensive variety.
Bhd: Ballhandling (Lg. Avg. = 0) - A negative rating isn't a death sentence but it is a sign that someone else on the team needs to be handling the ball and playmaking.
Dsrp: Disruptive Defense (Lg. Avg. = 4) - Players with a rating </= 4 aren't necessarily bad defenders, they just need to compensate for their inability to make consistent defensive plays with very good team defense.

TEN+ - Rating system that is similar in concept to OPS+ or ERA+ in baseball. Attempts to incorporate defense by using regression of on-court/off-court data. TEN+, at the team level, has consistently outperformed pythag in determining expected winning percentage.
190+ : MVP Canidate
150+ : Superstar
130+ : All-Star
100+ : Starter
_75+ : Rotation
_60+ : Deep Bench
</=59: Spot minutes/Freely Available Talent*

*To put it in simpler terms, a 60 TEN+ performance is roughly replacement level. For those familiar with PER, a 9.00 PER is also considered replacement level.

FAIR $: Estimated monetary value of the player's performance that is arrived at via TEN+. Roughly 2/3rds of a player's performance value is derived from his offensive contributions. The other 1/3rd is arrived at via defensive impact and intangibles (with the help of regression analysis.) It an not an exact .667/.333 split (over the last three years it has averaged out to be approximately .685/.315) but it generally holds true.

OPPST%: Opponent Starters Faced, as a percentage. If a player starts every game, playing only one minute each game, against all five of each team's starters, he would have a opponent's starters faced of 5.00 and a percentage of 1.00%.

Very interesting. As a math nerd, I love these kinds of number things

I'm surprised that Glen Davis didn't do better on the ASS stats.

ParticleMan wrote:I'm surprised that Glen Davis didn't do better on the ASS stats.

QFT, based on physical talent alone that dude should have monster ASS stats.

ParticleMan wrote:I'm surprised that Glen Davis didn't do better on the ASS stats.

Holy crap, does Rondo look like a steal. Hopefully we don't have to give him a 20 million dollar contract.

What's the Max disruptive defense score? It would seem that it'd be around 8, just doing a normal distribution, which would put Straightjacket amongst the best in the league. He and House probably both would want to renegotiate after reading this.

I just added up those salaries and we would have 81 million tied up to 10 players annually if we paid those contracts.

First question, did you make this system up or are these numbers coming from somewhere? If they come from somewhere what are they based on?

I think that system is too subjective to start with, you are basically saying stuff like "Rondo is a 9 at ballhandling while the leauge average is a 0," but it seems pretty arbitrary. What I mean is, what consistutes a 9? Is it just where you rate him off the top of your head? Does if have to do with how often the ball is in his hands or his turnovers related to dribbling mistakes?

Its an interesting read, but unless I am mistaken its not really a statistical analysis at all.

It seems to be based on your (or someone else's) subjective opinions of everyone's skills as opposed to statistics that they obtain on the court. If so, whats the point? Why not just say "This is how I view the players on the C's and how much money I think they should make" ?

Also the salary projection way over value the role players (House, Allen, Scal, etc.) I found it interesting that Ray's 'fair salary' was the only one less than his real salary (I think).....

I think Ray has been killing it lately, so its strange to see him so undervalued (although I dont know how recent this analysis is).

Just my thoughts,

Dizzy

Scal is overpaid by this metric, just as you would expect. He makes 3 million, but is only worth half of that. Paul and KG both make 4 million more in reality.

Did you do the math right? It seems that Ray Allen has pretty good numbers but then his fair salary is only 7 million. Doesn't seem right. Also, Rajon is overrated a bit as is Tony Allen. Seems dead on with our bench.

An interesting thing about the TEN+ stat is that Scalabrine's rating of 69 hasn't fluctuated since he's entered the league

Thanks, Pogue. My sense is that this weights defense more than most other systems. Any idea where Rondo, Garnett and Pierce stand in the league wide trankings for TEN+?

Interesting. Rondo isn't THAT good though. <g>

Hi, Pogue -

How much of Big Baby's $1.17 million fair salary is based on his 17 minutes per game playing time?

Because I see Davis as a 3rd string center backing up Kendrick Perkins, who averages 27 mpg.

If the Celtics can land Mutombo or Joe Smith, then Davis would likely play only 5 mpg.

i would like to know the league average per position for the scr, reb, bhd, dsrp
i think that would be useful

GuyClinch wrote:Interesting. Rondo isn't THAT good though. <g>

You mean not like 16 pts, 50% FG, 12 rebs, 17 assts, 3 steals good?

With what we've seen lately from Rondo I'm not surprised at all by these statisics. He's been the best player and most impactful player on the team for the past 6-7 games. He's probably been our most vital and important piece since last year. The team's success seems to be firmly based on Rondo's ability to initiate and dominate at the point of attack on both ends of the court.

Obviously not to be underrated is the fine and important work of KG, Perk and Pierce in taking care of the painted area on both ends, with Ray helping to keep teams honest.

Great stuff man. I'd like to know who has the highest Ten+ and Fair$ in the league. Is there like a top 10 for these numbers league-wide or is your analysis restricted to the Celtics only?

Rocky5000 wrote:What's the Max disruptive defense score? It would seem that it'd be around 8, just doing a normal distribution, which would put Straightjacket amongst the best in the league. He and House probably both would want to renegotiate after reading this.

Currently, Rony Turiaf, in 278 MP, is at Dsrp: 12. Dwyane Wade, 700 MP, is the highest ranked starting player with a Dsrp: 9. From year to year, the best disruptors are usually around 7 or 8 for a full season.

RickyDizzle wrote:I just added up those salaries and we would have 81 million tied up to 10 players annually if we paid those contracts.

This isn't out of the ordinary. The year end performance value (Fair$) for last season was just a c-hair north of $92M. Contending teams are able to maintain payroll and roster flexibility by having rookie contracts, veteran minimums and just undervalued players, in general. Teams that try to keep everybody, even the better contributors, end up like the Mavericks of a few years ago.

The recent Detroit teams were able lock up their best players at below market levels for a good bit of time. Recognizing that, it is not very surprising with the run and success they had. Sure, avoiding major injuries played into that, too, but I would point first and foremost to the salary structure.

RickyDizzle wrote:First question, did you make this system up or are these numbers coming from somewhere? If they come from somewhere what are they based on?

Yes, I developed this system. The name "Tendinitis" is a hat-tip to Martin Manley and the other early stat guys (ie. Tendex.) The + designation is to signify the concept of 100 being the league average. Much the way ERA+ and OPS+ are used in baseball. All data, save the play-by-play data used for the regression analysis, is from Doug's Stats. All PbP data was culled, by me, using an automated process (Perl does wonders.)

RickyDizzle wrote:I think that system is too subjective to start with, you are basically saying stuff like "Rondo is a 9 at ballhandling while the leauge average is a 0," but it seems pretty arbitrary. What I mean is, what consistutes a 9? Is it just where you rate him off the top of your head? Does if have to do with how often the ball is in his hands or his turnovers related to dribbling mistakes?

Any system that attempts to quantify is going to be subjective. PER and Wages of Wins each have their own drawbacks, as well. While nothing can replace watching the actual games (which I do a lot of, btw), TEN+ is used as a jump off point for intellectual discussion. In the case of the A.S.S. stats, they are mainly used as a "Hey, you should be paying attention to me" type indication of a player's performance. More a quick synopsis than an actual rating system. I included them because 1. I love to talk about pulling things out of my A.S.S. and 2. See #1. Yeah and I do think they provide a bit of value in understanding a player's shortcomings/strength with just a cursory glance.

For instance, Rondo is ranked as a 9 ballhandling. That is an elite level ballhandler. It is not only his ability to create and move around the court, it is also an indication of his ability to generate his own shot, unassisted. I think Hollinger had something similar called "Pure Point Rating" or something along those lines.

All the numbers above were arrived at via the formulas I use (save opposition starter data, which is derived via play-by-play.)

RickyDizzle wrote:Its an interesting read, but unless I am mistaken its not really a statistical analysis at all.

It seems to be based on your (or someone else's) subjective opinions of everyone's skills as opposed to statistics that they obtain on the court. If so, whats the point? Why not just say "This is how I view the players on the C's and how much money I think they should make" ?

As I said above, all numbers are arrived at mathematically. You question the point and just for argument's sake, let's assume that they I pulled all these numbers out of my ass (and not my A.S.S.) How would that be a bad thing? There has to be a jump-off point for fruitful discussion. If not, it's just turns into a virtual circular jerk. Again, as I stated above, all these ratings are via mathematical forumulas.

RickyDizzle wrote:Also the salary projection way over value the role players (House, Allen, Scal, etc.)

Not stated in my first post is that I am assuming playing time and scoring opportunities hold constant. Now, we all know that a team's dynamics can change at any time. That being said, knowing what we know now, assuming it is a true representation of how everything will work out in the wash, these results are my formulas' best guess at measuring performance.

RickyDizzle wrote:I think Ray has been killing it lately, so its strange to see him so undervalued (although I dont know how recent this analysis is).

The data is current (ie. 20 games played.) Please define "killing it". What I think you mean is that he has been scoring a lot of points. While that is true, the rest of his game, on the whole, has been somewhat empty. Scoring is great and to do it efficiently is even better (which Ray has) but basketball is much more than that. Now, there is going to be some noise in the numbers because of small sample size (hence the SSS in the thread title.) Let's see where everyone on the team is at when we hit the All-Star break. Performance will have smoothed out quite a bit by then. The purpose of this thread was to generate intelligent discussion instead of a another "LA Lakers/Cleveland Cavs" thread.

RickyDizzle wrote:Just my thoughts

Thank you for sharing them.

sam_I_am wrote:Did you do the math right?

Yes, I did the math correctly but there were a couple misannotations in the making of the post. Both are fixed (Ray and KG, fwiw.) One was a hit of the "7" instead of the "8" and the other was a transposition.

It should read $8.056M for Ray Allen.

sam_I_am wrote:Also, Rajon is overrated a bit as is Tony Allen.

Rondo was at 148 TEN+ to end the year last season. TEN+ has given him ~15.54% increase so far this season. PER judges that he has improved 23.72% over last year's mark. Now you could say maybe Rondo's combination of skills are particularly tasty for my TEN+ monster. That well might be the case but, I would think that if it was indeed true, it would likely have been reflected in a higher increase from the prior season.

By PER, Tony Allen had a 46.73% increase from the previous season. Additionally, his 15.70 PER is above league average (15.00 PER) by 4.67%. By TEN+, Tony's 103 was an increase of 43.01% on his previous season's performance and 3.00% above the league average TEN+ of 100.

I don't want to sound like I am tooting my own horn because that isn't the purpose of this thread. I would like to point out that TEN+ has been quite accurate in guaging winning percentage when given enough of a sample size. For instance, check this link. The first post is from 5 Feb 08. The second post is from 19 Apr 08 (after the season was completed.) Is the system perfect, hell no, but, while some may well disagree, I do believe it passes the laugh test.

sam_I_am wrote:Seems dead on with our bench.

Personally, I think it underrates Scalabrine's defense but, then again, I seem to be one of Scal's only fans. I also think it overrates House a smidge, as well. While it is true that House's three pointing shooting proficiency is down from last season, that is not my contention. House is down in offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, assists, blocks and is up in fouls on a per minute basis. Yes, he getting to the line and stealing more but I still would have guessed that his overall number would have dropped further (he was at 98 to end last season.)

House is getting the minor drop-off, despite those things, because of the X factor (defense and intangible.) Anecdotally speaking, it appears that House is getting a ton more deflections this season. I think that is probably one of the things that the regression is picking up on. Intuitively, it would make sense, no? A deflection that goes out of bounds is neither classified as a change in possession or as a blocked shot and is credited to no individual player. What it does do, though, is disrupt the offense and allow the defense to reset, dig in and play to a short clock.

elrod enchilada wrote:My sense is that this weights defense more than most other systems.

Correct. Most systems only use defensive rebounds, blocks and steals when attempting to account for defense. I designed TEN+ to look at the bigger picture. Still, it's not a perfect system.

elrod enchilada wrote:Any idea where Rondo, Garnett and Pierce stand in the league wide trankings for TEN+?

I have some work to do but I will do a compare and contrast with PER later on when I have the time. I am procrastinating enough as it is so it will have to be in a bit.

Jammer wrote:How much of Big Baby's $1.17 million fair salary is based on his 17 minutes per game playing time?

On a per minute basis (what TEN+ measures), he has just been pretty poor. Any value he has provided, has solely been from playing minutes, imo.

Jammer wrote:Because I see Davis as a 3rd string center backing up Kendrick Perkins, who averages 27 mpg.

I think that is being charitable. Nothing in Davis' statistical profile, this season, points to him deserving of anything but spot minutes. From an observation standpoint, I have to agree with that conclusion. It's still early, perhaps he will improve a bit but I am not counting on it.

Big Behind Davis worth little, Bony Behind Rondo worth much: I think it's a per ounce, precious A.S.S. approximation--and Rondo delivers way more per ounce of A.S.S.

Pogue -

Thanks for the quick response.

I guess my prediction of Glen Davis being MVP of Maccabi Tel Aviv next year may
be a bit much. Davis may not only be out of the NBA, he may be lucky to be signed by an Israeli team. But seriously, he'll probably do better against smaller guys.

Than again, someone like New Orleans just may bring the hometown boy home this summer.

This is pretty brilliant.

With what we've seen lately from Rondo I'm not surprised at all by these statisics. He's been the best player and most impactful player on the team for the past 6-7 games. He's probably been our most vital and important piece since last year. The team's success seems to be firmly based on Rondo's ability to initiate and dominate at the point of attack on both ends of the court.

Well obviously he has played great lately. I do think this statistic overvalues him though. It rates him as a superstar. But on a team with poor offensive players (like that 24 win team) he isn't that useful. Rondo is a great fit for our team but on other teams he wouldn't be a superstar. Whereas guys like KG and PP would be great on any team, IMHO.

The big problem is he doesn't shoot very well at the PG position. A guy like that is never a true superstar as far as I am concerned. I think that a team like the Cavs wouldn't be as good with Rondo as with Mo Williams for example. Whereas if you swapped KG for big Z you know they would be better.