OT: The Kevin Pelton system, Stockton compares to Rondo

[campybatman]

BasketballProspectus writer Kevin Pelton, armed with a database of player information, can help us answer that question. "My SCHOENE projection system," he explains, "uses 13 different categories, standardized to the league as a whole, to determine the similarity between two players. Though production is important, the focus is at least as much on how the player plays, which is why height and weight are two of the categories as well as stylistic markers like how often a player attempts three-pointers and free throws." (SCHOENE, by the way, is a really involved acronym, which, in the tradition of such stat systems, is shoehorned to fit the name of a former minor professional. Pelton explains the name and the system.)

His system does not compare entire careers, but we can approximate as much by taking a standout season from a particular player, and then finding the most similar player in this current season.

Then Pelton gives everyone a "similarity score" as determined by his 13 categories. "In practice," he says, "a score of 98 is virtually identical, 95 is very similar and anything below 90 is getting sketchy -- least dissimilar instead of most similar."

What I like most about this system is that it uses the statistics sheet to expand the conversation. Of course we have all heard a thousand times that Steve Nash is like the John Stockton today (again with the white-to-white comparisons!) but Pelton's numbers don't see skin color, and tell us that thanks to their steal rates, Stockton is much more like Rajon Rondo than Steve Nash. And the conversation expands.

John Stockton
In the 1989-90 season John Stockton had the highest PER of his career -- about 24 -- but made just about half a 3-pointer per 36 minutes he played. His shooting percentages were high from everywhere, and he managed a shocking 14 assists and 2.6 steals per game. Who plays anything like that today? The normal first guess is that Stockton is like Steve Nash, but Pelton's numbers say Rajon Rondo and Chris Paul are more like it."The biggest reason Nash doesn't show up," explains Pelton, "is that while Stockton was one of the league's best thieves, Nash collects steals at a rate way below league average."

Rajon Rondo 92.0
Chris Paul 91.0
Deron Williams 86.5
Jose Calderon 84.8
Devin Harris 84.7

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-3 ... Today.html

[mr_sunshine]

Rondo is just a scrub who benefits from playing with great teammates. There's no conceivable way he could be better than two time MVP Steve Nash. No f'in way!

[chakdaddy]

Except...a big part of the similarity is the high shooting percentages, which in Rondo's case is due to relying on drives and layups with occasional judicious use of an average-at-best jumper; in Stockton's case it is due to judicious use of an excellent jump shot.

Statistics fall apart when a similar number is arrived at by vastly different routes..."Mark West is the best shooter in NBA history!"

[Kefa461]

I hope once Rondo feels good about his backup be ramps the pace up to pedal to the medal all the time....he can't be stopped.......easy baskets....run the other team into the floor.....

[MyInsatiableOne]

...except Stockton could shoot and make free throws...

[AlCelticFan]

Which............

Makes this stat garbage. Geez, they couldn't compare jumpshot percentage?

[cloverleaf]

Rondo is just a scrub who benefits from playing with great teammates. There's no conceivable way he could be better than two time MVP Steve Nash. No f'in way!

The system doesn't claim in any way that Rondo is better than Nash--it purely says that in statistical profile he is more similar to Stockton than Nash is.

[mr_sunshine]

Rondo is just a scrub who benefits from playing with great teammates. There's no conceivable way he could be better than two time MVP Steve Nash. No f'in way!

The system doesn't claim in any way that Rondo is better than Nash--it purely says that in statistical profile he is more similar to Stockton than Nash is.

Green font.

[MyInsatiableOne]

Which............

Makes this stat garbage. Geez, they couldn't compare jumpshot percentage?

Exactly.

[GreenDreamer]

I find it interesting that the bashers, as per usual, can't seem to wrap their minds around what this stat is describing. What a shock.

Rondo is a low volume, high efficiency scorer who concentrates on running his team and has a statistical impact on the game apart from the "offensive" stats. Just like Stockton was. So when somebody points to Steve Nash and says "that guy's the closest thing to Stockton that there is today", they are conveniently forgetting who John was as a player, and how he went about his business, especially during the season that is being compared.

Stockton made 5 All-Defensive second teams. Has Steve Nash ever been considered for that award? Nope. In fact, he's probably been one of the worst defensive point guards in the league for the duration of his career. The comparison is based mainly on their OFFENSIVE games, but John was a much more well rounded player than that.... and that is where a guy like Rondo has a big edge on Nash. Factor in that Nash uses the three pointer as a big weapon, while Stockton (who was a BAD three point shooter early in his career) never really leaned on it that much, even when he got better at it, and Steve diverges even more.

Was Stockton a better shooter than Rondo from the word go? Surely, but it is the results that matter in a comparison like this. This isn't a judgement of how GOOD a player is, but what KIND of player he is. How do they go about their business, on the whole. If Rondo accomplishes with drives what John did with midrange jumpers, then what is the end result? Pretty much the same thing, according to this.

That is what that article was talking about, but of course those who feel that stats are beneath them had that fly over their heads as usual.

[chakdaddy]

Was Stockton a better shooter than Rondo from the word go? Surely, but it is the results that matter in a comparison like this. This isn't a judgement of how GOOD a player is, but what KIND of player he is. How do they go about their business, on the whole. If Rondo accomplishes with drives what John did with midrange jumpers, then what is the end result? Pretty much the same thing, according to this.

Hold on. In this case, the stat is describing that they are both efficient scorers as evidenced by their shooting percentage. To me, that's closer to judging how GOOD a player is rather than what KIND of player he is. Whether they accomplish that efficiency by drives or with midrange jumpers means quite a bit in terms of what KIND of player they are, IMO - and this highlights a flaw in the stat. Stockton is probably more "similar" to a player who is also an efficent distributor and defender, and who had a good jump shot - but whoever that player is, his similarity score is less because his FG pct isn't inflated to match Stockton's by drives.

So, yes, Rondo is similar in a lot of ways, being efficient scorers and distributors, but I think the criticism of the stat is very valid since the manner in which they score efficiently is a big part of what KIND of player they are - exactly what the SCHOENE was intended to measure.

[floyd]

Other than their style of play being completely different, they are very similar.

[TheSheriff]

Which............

Makes this stat garbage. Geez, they couldn't compare jumpshot percentage?

Because a field goal is a field goal and it doesn't matter how it is scored...

[FakeScreenName123]

This is why stats are dumb.

Anyone who saw stockton play clearly can see the difference between the two players. The only comparison is that theyre both good passers and stealers. You could compare so many players just by two stats like that.

[elrod enchilada]

The comparison with Stockton is not that far-fetched. Rondo is a similarly brilliant playmaker -- as good as any in basketball today -- and a similar defender. Stockton was a better shooter, but Rondo may well catch him in that area in two or three years. (Stockton was no Nash as a shooter.) Recall that this article was comparing Rondo to Stockton in Stockton's fifth or sixth season, when he was in his late 20s. Rondo just turned 23. At that age Stockton was a back-up.

Rondo remains underrated on this board, and in general. He is a top 6 point guard in the NBA right now. Paul Pierce recently said what is increasingly obvious: when Rondo is on his game, the Cs are extremely difficult to beat. When he is off his game, the Cs are vuknerable, even if the rest of the Big Three are firing on all cylinders. The road to 18 goes through Rondo more than any other player, including KG.

Over the next two or three years I expect Rondo to pick up his offense, say to 17-20 ppg, and get to around 10-12 apg. With a ft % over 75%, Rondo will become one of the three best point guards and ten best players in the league. He will be close to Stockton's equal.

If the Cs ever become a serious running team, with sprinters on the wings, Rondo will be an MVP candidate.

Put another way, one year from now there will be a strong argument that Rondo is the best and most valuable player on the Celtics. He is that good, and probably the most charismatic player the Cs have had since Larry.

Thank you, Danny.

[campybatman]

Like they say, the most important positions in your starting lineup are the point guard and center. That's so true for Boston. When Perkins is playing center, the defense is that much better. And when Rondo is at point guard. The offensive is that much better.

[GuyClinch]

^ If they were the most important positions we wouldnt' have won a championship. That might indicate that our backups are sub-par.. Like say the downgrade defensively from Perkins to BBD is gigantic...

[MyInsatiableOne]

^ If they were the most important positions we wouldnt' have won a championship. That might indicate that our backups are sub-par.. Like say the downgrade defensively from Perkins to BBD is gigantic...

And from Rondo to Pruitt (Eddie is NOT a PG, he's an SG)....

[chakdaddy]

I missed the detail of the comparison being age/exp matched rather than whole career totals.

I always felt that Stockton was a pretty deadly shooter late in his career, just kind of judicious. I liked to pretend that he had telekinetic powers to make a shot go in whenever he wanted; he just didn't shoot that much to make things more fair.

I wouldn't say that Rondo is in Stockton's class as a playmaker, but I don't think anyone was who isn't named Earvin. I'm a huge Stockton fan, in my book he goes right behind Magic and the Big O and is the best small PG ever.

The continued improvement of Rondo's jumpshot is a great sign, it's kind of average-to-adequate now, and there's no reason it shouldn't improve, I definitely think he's on his way to stardom and is All-Star quality now.

[GuyClinch]

Meh. I have read Pelton basketball perspectus before and you have some rather strange conclusions with those similiarity scores. So I wouldn't get too bent out of shape. You can't judge validity by looking at just ONE stat player comparison. I think if you pick up the volume and look at some of the guy you know you will see its not really a valid statistic.

As with Rondo you get players that are quite different (Rondo is a dribble drive guy - Stockton was a pick and roll guy) that have similiar scores with that system. Rondo can barely run the pick and roll for chrissake. It's a limitation of the stats as they don't compare what KIND of shots a guy takes or even what KIND of steals a guy makes (passing lanes vs. pickpocketing for example).

We have all WATCHED both of these guys play. Stockton with his good outside shooting and great passing was in fact more similiar to Nash. Rondo is a drive and dish guy. They are not that similiar.