Comments on: The One Big Piece http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/ A Lakers Blog. Thoughts, reflections, and the odd rant on the Los Angeles Lakers and the NBA (even the Clippers). Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:41:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Kurt http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/comment-page-2/#comment-495425 Kurt Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:20:23 +0000 http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/#comment-495425 J.D., I remember somebody writing (at APBR, I think) about trying to put together sort of a "standard deviation" type number for each time off of their O/D rating. That kind of thing would be interesting, Not sure if it has been done. But I think your point about, basically, taking care of the ball is a very good one. J.D., I remember somebody writing (at APBR, I think) about trying to put together sort of a “standard deviation” type number for each time off of their O/D rating. That kind of thing would be interesting, Not sure if it has been done.

But I think your point about, basically, taking care of the ball is a very good one.

]]> By: Kurt http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/comment-page-2/#comment-495411 Kurt Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:14:10 +0000 http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/#comment-495411 Clippers preview finally up. Sorry it's late and short. Day job kicking my ass. Clippers preview finally up. Sorry it’s late and short. Day job kicking my ass.

]]> By: J.D. Hastings http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/comment-page-2/#comment-495399 J.D. Hastings Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:08:24 +0000 http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/#comment-495399 Denver is maybe the best current example, but I was thinking in general that by removing possessions from the equation, the efficency stats miss an important dimension. If your Offensive and Defensive ratings are both 100, but you use 99 possessions and give 101 possessions, you're going to average a -2 point differential overall. I'm just interested to see these numbers spelled out. Ultimately the efficiency ratings are more important (since most of the leaders in those categories are the best teams), but possession differential is also important as a way to help quantify whether a team is regularly losing because of how often they turn the ball over (versus forcing turnovers) or give up offensive rebounds (versus getting their own ORebs). Anyways, ultimately the specifics you bring up are probably more important, but this would be just one more thing to spend time analyzing during slow days at the office... Denver is maybe the best current example, but I was thinking in general that by removing possessions from the equation, the efficency stats miss an important dimension. If your Offensive and Defensive ratings are both 100, but you use 99 possessions and give 101 possessions, you’re going to average a -2 point differential overall. I’m just interested to see these numbers spelled out.

Ultimately the efficiency ratings are more important (since most of the leaders in those categories are the best teams), but possession differential is also important as a way to help quantify whether a team is regularly losing because of how often they turn the ball over (versus forcing turnovers) or give up offensive rebounds (versus getting their own ORebs).

Anyways, ultimately the specifics you bring up are probably more important, but this would be just one more thing to spend time analyzing during slow days at the office…

]]> By: Craig W. http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/comment-page-2/#comment-495373 Craig W. Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:47:15 +0000 http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/#comment-495373 The thing about Russell and Wilt is that they were so far out front of their era in defense (Russell) and offense & rebounding (Wilt) that when you measure them within their era they were far more outstanding than any of the modern players. Perhaps only Magic comes close to these two in rising above the crowd. We can argue about the quality of the crowd till the cows come home, but these are the real standouts. The thing about Russell and Wilt is that they were so far out front of their era in defense (Russell) and offense & rebounding (Wilt) that when you measure them within their era they were far more outstanding than any of the modern players. Perhaps only Magic comes close to these two in rising above the crowd. We can argue about the quality of the crowd till the cows come home, but these are the real standouts.

]]> By: Kurt http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/comment-page-2/#comment-495371 Kurt Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:44:57 +0000 http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/#comment-495371 82. That was a tough call. And man, I like Brook Lopez even more after that game. 82. That was a tough call.

And man, I like Brook Lopez even more after that game.

]]> By: carter blanchard http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/comment-page-2/#comment-495363 carter blanchard Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:39:05 +0000 http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/#comment-495363 Just wanted to come by these parts to gripe a little about Lawrence Hill's incredibly clean block last night. I know your philosophy Kurt that games aren't won or lost on the final shot alone, but that doesn't make me any less bitter about the fact that Stanford was seconds away from a huge road win, a share of the Pac10 title, and clinching a 2-seed, only to see it all fall apart (in large part) thanks to a phantom call. It was a great game all around, and UCLA was certainly terrific in the second half (especially Collison), but this one hurts more than normal, particularly after Stanford did such a good job responding to each of UCLA's many second half runs and coming up with big stops when needed (including on what should have been the final play) Just wanted to come by these parts to gripe a little about Lawrence Hill’s incredibly clean block last night. I know your philosophy Kurt that games aren’t won or lost on the final shot alone, but that doesn’t make me any less bitter about the fact that Stanford was seconds away from a huge road win, a share of the Pac10 title, and clinching a 2-seed, only to see it all fall apart (in large part) thanks to a phantom call. It was a great game all around, and UCLA was certainly terrific in the second half (especially Collison), but this one hurts more than normal, particularly after Stanford did such a good job responding to each of UCLA’s many second half runs and coming up with big stops when needed (including on what should have been the final play)

]]> By: Kurt http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/comment-page-2/#comment-495355 Kurt Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:32:33 +0000 http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/#comment-495355 79. Denver's defensive stats are a little odd because they can play good team defense, but only do it in spots. Much like the offense on this team, lots of individual but very little team. The up and down defense ends up looking better in the stats than reality. 79. Denver’s defensive stats are a little odd because they can play good team defense, but only do it in spots. Much like the offense on this team, lots of individual but very little team. The up and down defense ends up looking better in the stats than reality.

]]> By: kwame a. http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/comment-page-2/#comment-495352 kwame a. Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:30:01 +0000 http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/#comment-495352 Craig-I agree, I don't want to sound like I'm marginalizing what Wilt and Russell achieved, all I'm saying is that the talent pool today is deeper, so like you said, it's hard to compare players from different eras/ Craig-I agree, I don’t want to sound like I’m marginalizing what Wilt and Russell achieved, all I’m saying is that the talent pool today is deeper, so like you said, it’s hard to compare players from different eras/

]]> By: J.D. Hastings http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/comment-page-2/#comment-495342 J.D. Hastings Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:21:19 +0000 http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/#comment-495342 This is a complete nonsequiter (I think 65% of my posts in here are), but looking at Defensive efficiency, it occurs to me that you have to consider that number right along side defensive rebound rate and turnover rate in order for it to be meaningful. I was thinking about this because I keep hearing Denver is terrible defensively, though people like Kelly Dwyer have been pointing out they have a very good defensive efficiency rating. They argue that Denver's pace hides their defensive prowess. That's wrong though. "Pace Factor is the number of possessions a team uses per game." The number of possessions Denver uses isn't the issue. The issue is how many possessions their opponents use. Because possessions are equalized at 100 in defensive efficiency, having a possession differential could make all the difference. If Denver gives their opponents a lot more possessions, their defense would give up more points. How a team rebounds and how it takes care of the ball determines possessions. Sure enough, while denver is average in giving up turnovers and offesnive rebounding, they are 25th in defensive rebounding. Therefore they give up more points than their defensive efficiency would suggest. I think Hollinger should create a defensive pace rate to include alongside his normal offensive Pace rate. That will avoid confusion of this sort. This is a complete nonsequiter (I think 65% of my posts in here are), but looking at Defensive efficiency, it occurs to me that you have to consider that number right along side defensive rebound rate and turnover rate in order for it to be meaningful.

I was thinking about this because I keep hearing Denver is terrible defensively, though people like Kelly Dwyer have been pointing out they have a very good defensive efficiency rating. They argue that Denver’s pace hides their defensive prowess. That’s wrong though.

“Pace Factor is the number of possessions a team uses per game.” The number of possessions Denver uses isn’t the issue. The issue is how many possessions their opponents use. Because possessions are equalized at 100 in defensive efficiency, having a possession differential could make all the difference. If Denver gives their opponents a lot more possessions, their defense would give up more points.

How a team rebounds and how it takes care of the ball determines possessions. Sure enough, while denver is average in giving up turnovers and offesnive rebounding, they are 25th in defensive rebounding. Therefore they give up more points than their defensive efficiency would suggest. I think Hollinger should create a defensive pace rate to include alongside his normal offensive Pace rate. That will avoid confusion of this sort.

]]> By: Craig W. http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/comment-page-2/#comment-495251 Craig W. Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:46:04 +0000 http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2008/03/05/the-one-big-piece/#comment-495251 P.S. Wilt Chamberlain was never really measured, but is estimated to be around 7'4", not the 7'2 and 1/2" noted in the record books. As he said, nobody roots for Golaith, so why try to be taller. P.S. Wilt Chamberlain was never really measured, but is estimated to be around 7’4″, not the 7’2 and 1/2″ noted in the record books. As he said, nobody roots for Golaith, so why try to be taller.

]]>