Felton played pretty well considering it was his first playoff game.

He is frustrating to watch sometimes, but he was our 2nd best player this year so its crazy to overreact to one sick shooting half from Nelson.

If we'd let him walk and let DJ play we would have missed the playoffs by 10 games so it's dumb to get down on him now.

4/18/2010 8:25:46 PM

Felton was better than Jackson this year?

4/18/2010 8:27:08 PM

Felton was probably the 2nd best PG in the East this year.

Obviously, Rondo crushed everyone... and Rose was strong the 2nd half of the season (after his terrible first half of the year) but Felton was sick this year.

Jackson was a solid player but no he didnt produce as many wins as Felton did obviously.

4/18/2010 8:31:27 PM

LOL

4/18/2010 8:32:36 PM

I've learned about some interesting stats and ways to rank players over the years on TWW, but theres a nonquantitative and nonformulaic aspect to players' and teams' talent and ability to win that some of you just don't ever seem to understand...its the eye test...maybe some people will just never get it so they think some mathematical analysis that weighs various stats in certain ways are be all end all, but I can tell you Jackson won us more games than Felton this year without question

4/18/2010 8:33:27 PM

well you can do whatever you want to be wrong or you can just submit that you're outmatched.

http://www.wagesofwins.com/Bobcats690910.html


Ball don't lie.

4/18/2010 8:35:03 PM

Felton is supposedly responsible for 2.5 more wins than Jackson...we had three wins before ever getting Jackson...I'll assume Felton is responsible for all 3 of those...because I trust what I see from my own two eyes in Time Warner Arena more than a spreadsheet based on a formula...I see how the team has changed and grown since its inception...I can tell that adding Jackson had a bigger positive net than drafting Felton and seeing him progress...thats what doesn't lie

4/18/2010 8:37:12 PM

Quote :

"I trust what I see from my own two eyes in Time Warner Arena more than a spreadsheet based on a formula"

4/18/2010 8:47:48 PM

athletes are a bunch of robots and emotions and team chemistry are non existant! everything can be quantified!

Quote :

"maybe some people will just never get it"

4/18/2010 8:54:06 PM

Your eye test thought Dallas would beat the Spurs in 5 games.

The eye isn't that valuable in basketball. Rebounding is more important than scoring but a great rebound in traffic is never as impressive as a made basket to the eye.

4/18/2010 9:06:00 PM

My eye test still thinks Dallas will win in 5, but thats just a prediction. Its what I think will happen. Its not my evaluation of what has already happened.

How do your stats factor in things like Jackson's veteran leadership and playoff experience as the team tried to make the playoffs? How do your stats factor in things I've seen at games, like Jackson barking at his teammates in the huddle at timeouts, and telling them to shake things off after they make mistakes? They don't take any of that stuff into consideration, because they can't. Yet those things all factor in to winning ball games.

Somebody might average 10 offensive rebounds per game. But if I watch them play in 40 games and they go 2/13 every game and get their own layup brick rebounds, my eye test is going to tell me that their great offensive rebounding numbers don't tell the whole story.

4/18/2010 9:10:43 PM

Quote :

"The NBA tracks a variety of statistics to measure a player’s performance on the court. NBA fans are familiar with points scored, rebounds, steals, assists, turnovers, blocked shots, etc… The difficulty with these statistics is that some players excel at some aspects of the game, but not at others. And what we want to know when confronted with players with different skills is how each player impacts the final outcome we observe on the court. The approach we took in The Wages of Wins is simply to utilize regression analysis – a common technique in economics – to determine the relative impact of each statistics on team wins. We had three objectives in constructing our model. Ultimately we wanted a measure that was simple, complete, and accurate. In the end, we think each of these objectives was met. The Wins Produced model is not hard to understand, it incorporates each of the statistics tracked for individual players, and it connects accurately to team wins. With the Wins Produced model one can begin with a player’s statistics – his points, shot attempts, rebounds, steals, turnovers, etc.. – and translate these into how many wins those statistics creates. And with this measure we can tell three basic stories about talent evaluation in the NBA. ¦Players who do many things well – like Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Shaquille O’Neal, Tim Duncan, and Kevin Garnett – are very productive players, just like most people believe. ¦Players who only score, though, or have deficiencies in their game (i.e. low shooting efficiency, high turnover rates) – like Allen Iverson, Antoine Walker, and Carmelo Anthony – are not as productive as people believe. ¦Players who are prolific rebounders – like Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace, and Marcus Camby – are more productive than people tend to believe. Now it is important to understand what Wins Produced says, and what it doesn’t say. Specifically, Wins Produced tells us how productive a player has been. It does not, though, tell us why that player is productive. This is a point we made in the following excerpt from The Wages of Wins. p. 125 in The Wages of Wins One cannot end the analysis when one has measured the value of player performance. Knowing the value of each player is only the starting point of analysis. The next step is determining why the player is productive or unproductive. In our view, this is where coaching should begin. We think we can offer a reasonable measure of a player’s productivity. Although we have offered some insights into why players are productive, ultimately this question can only be answered by additional scrutiny into the construction of a team and the roles a player plays on the floor. The Wins Produced measure does not replace the insights of coaching and NBA analysts. What it does is correct flaws in the evaluation of talent in The Association. Players who do not shoot efficiently, or turn the ball over frequently, do not help a team win many games. Players who can accumulate large numbers of rebounds can indeed have a large impact on final outcomes. Of course, why a player shoots inefficiently, commits turnovers, or rebounds well, is not a question Wins Produced will answer. In The Wages of Wins we do explore some factors that cause players to perform better or worse. For example, we spend some time discussing how a player with more productive teammates will tend to be less productive. Or low levels of roster turnover – specifically, keeping a team together – will cause a player’s performance to improve. And we did consider other issues with respect to player performance – and if you wish to see these please read the book. Or just wait. At the rate we’re going, we might eventually get the entire book on-line, one excerpt at a time."

4/18/2010 9:13:55 PM

Quote :

"Players who are prolific rebounders – like Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace, and Marcus Camby – are more productive than people tend to believe."

Ask the Bulls' management if they have any 2nd thoughts about giving somebody who can't score that big of a contract

Quote :

"The Wins Produced measure does not replace the insights of coaching and NBA analysts"

4/18/2010 9:17:07 PM

they are talking about in the prime of his career when he was leading the pistons to the conference finals every year.

Even as a what ~35 year old, he was more productive then Ben Gordon and Villanueva combined this season who the Pistons wasted $100+ million on.

[Edited on April 18, 2010 at 9:27 PM. Reason : add]

4/18/2010 9:25:28 PM

I always thought Billups was leading them to the Finals, since obviously Turkoglu had no part in leading Orlando to the Finals last year

Thanks for the lesson

Look I realize players like Camby and Wallace are vital parts of championship teams...but they're role players...scoring is more important than rebounding...you don't get wins for outrebounding opponents

4/18/2010 9:32:40 PM

scoring is certainly not more important than rebounding. No one believes that except the general NBA fans. That was proven wrong years ago.

The thing is, there are literally hundreds of people who can score inefficiently, but only a select few people on the planet can rebound efficiently. Which inherently makes them valuable humans while the Larry Hughes, Jamal Crawfords, and Flip Murrays of the world are disposable parts.

And for the same reasons guys like Howard, Garnett, and Duncan carry teams while the Kobe's of the world struggle to get their team there.

[Edited on April 18, 2010 at 9:49 PM. Reason : a]

4/18/2010 9:46:55 PM

And it gets disproven every single time a basketball game is played, except to the stats nerds that think everything can be quantified because athletes are mindless drones who follow computer programs that dictate their stats

Quote :

"And for the same reasons guys like Howard, Garnett, and Duncan carry teams while the Kobe's of the world struggle to get their team there."

Howard = 0 titles
Garnett = 1 title
Duncan = 4 titles
Kobe = 4 titles

you're biased hatred for Kobe seriously clouds your entire perception of pro basketball...its not good to build your whole house on a shitty foundation

How valuable were Gerald Wallace's 18 or however many rebounds, compared to Nelson's however many points? Not valuable enough, but you'd have to actually look at a basketball game as 5 men playing against 5 other men, and not as a fucking math problem

[Edited on April 18, 2010 at 9:54 PM. Reason : .]

4/18/2010 9:48:05 PM

I think TreeTwista10 is on to something here, and is right

4/19/2010 2:16:30 AM

i think rallydurham is from another planet. its just wierd the way he talks. nobody would say "the kobes of the world struggle to get their teams there" thats just too obvious.

Also the "felton is the 2nd best pg in the east". Way too obvious.

Whats up, dude?

4/19/2010 10:23:03 AM

Quote :

"athletes are a bunch of robots and emotions and team chemistry are non existant! everything can be quantified!"

Not my point. The best analysis is equal parts statistical and observational. You can't just dismiss some numbers (you did) because you're too lazy to read the shit.

4/19/2010 10:26:23 AM

There is still no good statistical measure for defensive value in Basketball

That is more of an eye test than anything



[Edited on April 19, 2010 at 10:30 AM. Reason : x]

4/19/2010 10:30:14 AM

Yep

4/19/2010 10:38:58 AM

Quote :

"There is still no good statistical measure for defensive value in Basketball"

Same with baseball for the most part, but there are certainly better statistics than the numbskulls who call Jeter a great defensive shortstop because he only made eight errors in 2009 -- never mind the six dozen balls a competent shortstop would have gotten too that he watched slide on by.

Basketball is essentially the same way. A combination of the metrics that Rally is pointing to as well as common sense (which can be subjective -- which is dangerous) is good...

4/19/2010 10:40:10 AM

I would say UZR and Range Factors in baseball do a much better job than Hollinger's PER or anything similar in basketball

People who base their assessment on errors committed aren't even worth trying to convert at this point




I'm just glad we have NyM and Ernie posting in the Bobcats thread

I never thought I'd see the day

4/19/2010 10:44:53 AM

Found this at realgm

Quote :

"Just tossed the data set (Magic 3PM) in excel: Median: 10 Mode: 9 Mean: 10.2 Standard Dev: 3.00 Magic 3PTA Median: 27 Mode: 31 Mean: 27.3 Std Dev: 5.43 Finally Magic 3PT%: Average: % 37.5 Median: %37.3 Mode (not like this actually matters here): %28.5 Std. Dev: %9.7 Basically, last night the Magic shot near the upper levels of their standard deviation in all three categories (takes, makes, percentage). Not to say that is atypical of them, but I can see a Cats win coming on a night where the Magic shoot near the bottom of their standard deviation (a 7-23 night or so). However, it's basketball, and maybe the Magic shoot this well all series, but the people clamoring for Median and standard deviation...there you go."

4/19/2010 10:58:08 AM

Triple post

Here's the shirts they gave out

Hopefully we can do better if we do in fact dispense shirts on Saturday

4/19/2010 11:45:53 AM

The problem is you guys actually believe your "eye" test is better than the data slapping you in the face repeatedly.

I understand it, it's boring to a lot of people to look at an NBA season as a distribution plot...

To me its interesting to try to quantify and use regression to explain the future. It also helps that it can be quite profitable.

But if everyone were privvy to the data and chose to use it, then it would no longer be profitable.

So keep living in your fairytale.

Quote :

"We find that Wins Produced explains about 95% of a team’s wins, or in other words, sums quite closely to the actual number of wins a team achieves. This is not surprising since Wins Produced is derived from a team’s offensive and defensive efficiency, two metrics that – not surprisingly — also explain about 95% of team wins."

Get back to me when your eye test can explain 95% of a teams wins.

[Edited on April 19, 2010 at 6:29 PM. Reason : a]

4/19/2010 6:28:01 PM

If your stats say Raymond Felton is the 2nd best PG in the East, and Kobe isn't a top 10 player

Your stats are garbage

Theres not a single NBA analyst who would agree with you that Kobe isn't a top 10 player in the NBA

But I guess some stats nerds know more than 100% of NBA analysts, right?

Who is the one living in the fairytale: the one who ignores common sense and only looks at numbers, or the people who watch basketball and realize Kobe is easily a top 10 player?

If Felton is the 2nd best PG in the East, where does that put Jameer Nelson, who completely raped Felton last night?

You probably think the Big East was the 3rd best bball conference this season, because thats what Sagarin says, regardless of the eye test

4/19/2010 6:45:20 PM

There was an article in the observer last week from an NBA scout that said that Felton, while he had improved, was probably the biggest weakness on the team (along with Diaw and our poor shooting). The scout said teams consistently take advantage of Felton's dumb decision making and poor defense.

He also said Stephen Jackson was one of the biggest strengths on the team. I think an NBA scout knows what he is talking about.

4/19/2010 6:48:45 PM

^^ and ^

That's exactly the point. These guys relying on their eye tests are wrong and have been for decades.

Felton was the 2nd best PG in the East this year if I'm not mistaken.

A quick glance around the league I can't think of anyone who was better. Rose may have been better in the 2nd half but he was so far behind Felton at the all-star break I really doubt he came close to catching him.

I mean for one, your eye test is a bit off attributing all of Jameer's points to Feltons defense when right there in the game summary it says

Quote :

" The point guard battle was also a key factor. In the first half, Jameer Nelson torched the Bobcats, successfully operating against Boris Diaw after Charlotte switched the pick-and-roll. Nelson had 24 at halftime, carrying the Magic offense, but some of those same outside looks didn't fall in the second half and he was unable to get to the rim, finishing with 32 points. "

Quote :

"[Studies]emphasize how scoring totals drive a number of other player evaluations (allocation of minutes, the NBA draft, voting for awards). So we can understand why players choose to fire up ill-advised shots. What Hughes is arguing, though, is that decision-makers in the NBA – the very decision-makers in the NBA who reward inefficient scoring – know the impact the over-valuation of scoring has on player behavior. So why can’t these very same decision-makers just stop themselves from over-valuing inefficient scoring? Clearly the players don’t think the decision-makers can stop themselves. Going forward it will be interesting to see when (or if) the valuation of NBA players changes"

[Edited on April 19, 2010 at 6:59 PM. Reason : you can't beat the data, period.]

4/19/2010 6:54:04 PM

Quote :

"These guys relying on their eye tests are wrong and have been for decades."

i'm sure most of the coaches and GMs in the NBA, including the ones who have won NBA titles, would say the stats nerds are the ones who are wrong...you claiming that people who have been watching and working in basketball for decades are wrong, based on sucking David Berri's dick, doesnt prove anything

claiming Kobe isn't a top 10 player makes you look like a complete retard

Quote :

"you can't beat the data, period"

How come they say assists and blocks don't directly impact Wins Produced? Howard's 9 blocks didn't influence Orlando winning last night? Who cares what common sense said, Howard's 9 blocks last night had no direct impact on Orlando winning the game, you just can't beat the data, right?

Your stats have too many flaws in them...while they might give a good job of painting a general picture, putting 100% of your faith in them is being willfully ignorant to the game of basketball...its like you think you can look at a box score, and know more about who played well than someone who went to the game and watched the ebb and flow, the hot streaks and slumps, etc

Quote :

", Jameer Nelson torched the Bobcats, successfully operating against Boris Diaw after Charlotte switched the pick-and-roll"

did you watch the game? Nelson was draining three's on Felton, driving past Felton to the basket, as well as doing it on Diaw on switches, as well as doing it on whoever else didn't want to play defense...my point about where does Nelson rank was to show how much more dominant he was offensively than Felton...aka, he's a better PG than Felton

4/19/2010 7:01:17 PM

Quote :

"claiming Kobe isn't a top 10 player makes you look like a complete retard"

No, it just makes it easy to identify the people who don't get it when they vehemently disagree. Kobe is a very good player but to pretend he's something else than he really is just because he's fun to watch is childish.

Quote :

"its like you think you can look at a box score, and know more about who played well than someone who went to the game and watched the ebb and flow, the hot streaks and slumps, etc"

Thats precisely what it is! Now you are getting somewhere. While statistical noise and variance can defy the box score and produce "random" wins on a game by game basis they can not produce more than a handful of "random" unexplained wins over the course of a season. If you study hard you may grasp basic statistics and economics one day.

Other follow-ups:

1) Blocked shots are accounted for in the formula I'm not sure where you got that notion. They are weighted based on their statistical significance. Less important than turnovers, rebounds, fgm, fga, etc but still quantified for sure.

2) Overall, Felton measures as a good defensive player just so you know

Quote :

"Honorable mention at PG (#5 PG defensively) Raymond Felton, Charlotte: In terms of defensive value from individual statistics, Felton was second to Rondo at the point guard position. His combination of decent size and quickness makes him a defensive asset. "

The NBA rules are set for opposing PG's to do well. Every team in the league gripes about their PG's defense. Rondo got his butthole cleaned by Rose last year in the playoffs and is universally considered the best defensive PG in the game. Felton is an easy target for criticism despite his terrific season.

4/19/2010 7:19:46 PM

http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=1232&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

your boy Berri gets pwnt left and right by other statisticians...what a shock...but keep drinking his koolaid

Quote :

"Get back to me when your eye test can explain 95% of a teams wins"

make sure to read through the link good, as the 95% lie gets completely shot to pieces

4/19/2010 7:31:33 PM

That is a link to a messageboard in 2007 well before he adjusted his formula online with the PAWS metric, team adjustments, etc

He admits he isnt computer saavy and had some trouble loading everything online originally.

The website is good to go and he's been taking names ever since.

He won the playoffs contest last year over every entrant in the contest.

Of course he's going to have detractors out there, everyone gets jealous of whoever is king of the mountain at the moment. Between his well respected blog, books, etc it's much easier to get attention by trying to discredit him than by publishing your own insightful research.


Look, everyone agrees that offensive efficiency - defensive efficiency is the best way to predict a team's success. That's inarguable and has been for at least the last 5 years.

However, no one previously has been able to derive a formula that so closely replicates a team's success and efficiency metrics by simply using individual player statistics.

Now that he's done it, of course there will be some haters. Like yourself.

4/19/2010 7:46:54 PM

and 100% of NBA analysts

but hey, slurp up his nuts and trust his formulas more than your own two eyes, i'm not gonna lose any sleep over it

if you want to believe Nene is a better player than Amare because of WP, be my guest

4/19/2010 7:49:01 PM

NBA analysts fear it because it replaces them.

All of their "valuable" insight is replaced by mathematics.

And the math is actually correct while the analysts consistently get it wrong.

If it's not legit why do so many good teams use it now? Houston, Orlando, Dallas, Cleveland, etc all employ statisticians.

It took 25 years for Bill James research to be given its due. Before that people used to judge baseball players by the "eye" and based on random stats like batting average.

Now you'd be laughed out of the room for mentioning a batting average as a measure of a player's value.

Trust me, with the internet around to spread things at an exponential rate it won't take 25 years for WoW to be the standard gauge of basketball players.

In fact, I'd say it's already laying claim as THE standard amongst people inside basketball. I've only been following it for about 2 years yet I can already see the difference. The other night at a party I mentioned statistical analysis/gambling on the NBA playoffs and the guy was like "well Im more of a baseball fan, but I know you're really supposed to focus on rebounding when trying to predict basketball right?"

I can't imagine hearing that at a party 5 years ago. Hell, I would have probably been the moron arguing "no, you just look and see what team Kobe is on" five years ago.

4/19/2010 8:00:31 PM

Quote :

"Dallas, Cleveland, etc all employ statisticians"

The guys Dallas and Cleveland hired have issues with WP and use other methods

Nobody is saying stats are bad, just that WP has flaws, and you should never blindly trust stats when your eyes tell you something completely different. You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with trusting that stat

4/19/2010 8:10:56 PM

Quote :

"The other night at a party I mentioned statistical analysis"

Sounds like an awesome fucking party!

[Edited on April 19, 2010 at 8:22 PM. Reason : x]

4/19/2010 8:22:03 PM

I'm sitting here trying to think of a team that won the championship in the past 26 years that wasn't known for being a great rebounding team.

Gasol/Bynum
Garnett
Duncan
Shaq
Duncan
Ben Wallace
Duncan
Shaq
Shaq
Shaq
Duncan
Rodman
Rodman
Rodman
Hakeem
Hakeem
Grant
Grant
Grant
Rodman
Rodman
Worthy/Jabbar
Worthy/Jabbar
Mchale/Parrish
Worthy/Jabbar
Mchale/Parrish


Okay, well thats just modern day basketball. What happens if we go back further?

Russell
Russell
Russell
Russell
Wilt (could he rebound?)
Russell
Russell
Russell
Russell
Russell
Russell


Okay I'm tired of this. Since we're done figuring out basketball and have the entire sport relegated to a simple formula it's time for people to focus on football.

[Edited on April 19, 2010 at 8:28 PM. Reason : and actually they have a pretty sick QB formula already...]

4/19/2010 8:24:23 PM

Quote :

"Sounds like an awesome fucking party!"

Think Bong rips, not beer chugging.

4/19/2010 8:26:46 PM

Awesome, I was preaching rebounding in those NCSU threads. Easiest way to score points and stops the other team from scoring easy points. Should have the highest expected value of all basketball skills.



Shooting next, maybe fast breaking.

[Edited on April 19, 2010 at 9:43 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2010 9:41:57 PM

when i get to parties like that i usually stick my dick in the mashed potatoes

4/19/2010 10:41:43 PM

thats fine dude but ive been slaying girls for ten years. I finally woke up and realized id rather be happy with the girl i wake up to every morning then the girl i dream of in the middle of the night.

Dont get me wrong i still get fucked up every night, but i dont get so fucked up that i fuck a girl i wouldnt wanna wake up to on a tuesday morning.

Thats called growing up, Peter Pan.

4/19/2010 10:47:18 PM

I've been cutting boxes for longer than 10 years, and I've been watching basketball for over 20...and Stephen Jackson has been a better player for the Bobcats this year than Raymond Felton, and Amare Stoudamire is a better player than Nene...and Kobe is a top 10 player...Peter Pan...maybe you should wake up to the real world of the NBA, which is men playing basketball, and not economists fucking around in Excel

4/19/2010 11:57:29 PM

Damn, its getting personal....and it's Sports Talk... I like it



III

4/20/2010 9:19:09 AM

If these players are so much better, why doesn't someone like Nene have a contract to reflect that? He has a large contract, but he doesn't get Stoudemire money. Kobe is paid like a top 5 player. If Felton was as good as you are saying, he would have been locked up long term way before last summer. Teams give their money to the best players, which they see with their eyes because they understand basketball. Statistics are important, but as in any situation, stats do not always reveal what is truly happening and you should be very careful to not rely completely on numbers.

4/20/2010 11:57:18 AM

wait are you telling me that you can spin statistics to support almost any claim?

4/20/2010 12:01:36 PM

Quote :

"Teams give their money to the best players,"

ahahaha

4/20/2010 12:03:37 PM

^in general. Not someone like Marbury, but no one is going to pay Nene on the same level as Stoudemire.

Maybe the Knicks...

[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2010 12:05:41 PM

Quote :

"Player 2009/10 Jermaine O'Neal $22,995,000"

Quote :

"Player 2009/10 Tracy McGrady $23,239,561"

Quote :

"Player 2009/10 Shaquille O'Neal $20,000,000"

4/20/2010 12:08:15 PM