PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on the WINVAL stats?



Roferr
01-12-2007, 01:09 PM
How about some of your thoughts on the new WINVAL stats that have come out. There's an article in the Star this morning.

No stat is perfect but his method takes into account many more variables than any other form of stat, especially the +/-.

After reading what actually is fed into the computer for the bottom line, it seems to me the best thing going as far as an overall stat. As it takes into consideration, many other variables that aren't figured in by the +/- system. The biggest difference is that the defensive side is computed in as half of the equation.

http://www.uncg.edu/eco/rosenbaum/NBA/winval2.htm

Alpolloloco
01-12-2007, 01:20 PM
I especially like the fact that when Sarunas is on the floor we give away less points, so maybe his one on one defense isn't very good but the team defense is better with him in te game.

NuffSaid
01-12-2007, 01:36 PM
I was actually surprised at the ratings on both Granger and Sarunas. I never would have guessed Granger's ratings on both sides of the ball would have been so lopsided nor that Sarunas would be rated so much higher on the defensive end or overall.

I won't claim to understand the WINVAL any more than I understand the +/-, but the way it's formulated it certainly makes one look at a player in a completely different light.

ajbry
01-12-2007, 01:37 PM
Statistics, such as these, don't matter. However, trends in statistics certainly matter, such as:

The Pacers are 6-1 when Jamaal Tinsley has at least nine assists and 5-0 when Stephen Jackson scores at least 20 points.

Jackson has averaged 18.0 points, 3.3 rebounds and 3.0 assists in the last three and the Pacers have outscored their opponents by 30 points in his 98 minutes on the floor.

Jermaine O'Neal has averaged 21.2 points, 11.8 rebounds and 3.67 blocked shots in the last six.

Al Harrington has shot 7-of-26 (.269) in the last two.

indyman37
01-12-2007, 01:42 PM
The Indiannapolis Star had two articles about the WINVAL...one was about how the Mavs use it and the other was about the Pacers and their techniques of compliling data like this on the computer.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SPORTS04

MagicRat
01-12-2007, 01:52 PM
I say don't pollute art with science......

able
01-12-2007, 02:04 PM
without knowing........... what input, time frames/intervals, compensation values for minutes and opponents (who are they playing at that moment) what plays are ran and for who, and so on and so on neither of the articles are worth a penny except some nice advertising.

bulldog
01-12-2007, 02:17 PM
Statistics, such as these, don't matter. However, trends in statistics certainly matter, such as:


I don't get what you're trying to say.

Also, while I understand a message board is a venue for expressing your own personal opinions, I don't get how anyone can flippantly and totally disregard these systems when pretty much every team in the NBA employs systems like these, and one of the best uses the particular one in discussion.

Basically, my point is these systems are used by people who know a lot about basketball, so anyone who's gonna go out and say they're entirely worthless should at least take the time to formulate some sort of dicussion.

hoopsforlife
01-12-2007, 02:20 PM
Statistics, such as these, don't matter. However, trends in statistics certainly matter, such as:

The Pacers are 6-1 when Jamaal Tinsley has at least nine assists and 5-0 when Stephen Jackson scores at least 20 points.


We should just let Tinsley bring it up the floor and pass to Jackson for the shot until he hits his 20. Then just put another W in the win column.

Oh wait, we're kind of doing that already. Whatever works I guess. After Jax get his 20 and the game is decided Tins can take all the rest of the shots. :)

ABADays
01-12-2007, 02:44 PM
I don't get what you're trying to say.

Also, while I understand a message board is a venue for expressing your own personal opinions, I don't get how anyone can flippantly and totally disregard these systems when pretty much every team in the NBA employs systems like these, and one of the best uses the particular one in discussion.

Basically, my point is these systems are used by people who know a lot about basketball, so anyone who's gonna go out and say they're entirely worthless should at least take the time to formulate some sort of dicussion.

This is not a whole different than the Major League Scouting Bureau. When I was working in professional baseball not a whole lot of credence was given to the scouting reports. What teams would do is use the bureau reports as an aside to their own scouting reports. The teams basically had their minds made up about things.

Roferr
01-12-2007, 03:14 PM
Statistics, such as these, don't matter. However, trends in statistics certainly matter, such as:

The Pacers are 6-1 when Jamaal Tinsley has at least nine assists and 5-0 when Stephen Jackson scores at least 20 points.

Jackson has averaged 18.0 points, 3.3 rebounds and 3.0 assists in the last three and the Pacers have outscored their opponents by 30 points in his 98 minutes on the floor.

Jermaine O'Neal has averaged 21.2 points, 11.8 rebounds and 3.67 blocked shots in the last six.

Al Harrington has shot 7-of-26 (.269) in the last two.

I think that stats such as these are far too general to be of much use.

Roferr
01-12-2007, 03:21 PM
without knowing........... what input, time frames/intervals, compensation values for minutes and opponents (who are they playing at that moment) what plays are ran and for who, and so on and so on neither of the articles are worth a penny except some nice advertising.

You can say this after reading the link that I listed in the opening post? I thought it was very thorough in explaining how they derived at their conclusions.

http://www.uncg.edu/eco/rosenbaum/NBA/winval2.htm

The Dallas Mavs think that they're worth more than a penny, actually in the 6 digit range. Seems to be working pretty well for them.

Naptown_Seth
01-12-2007, 03:31 PM
We should just let Tinsley bring it up the floor and pass to Jackson for the shot until he hits his 20. Then just put another W in the win column.

Oh wait, we're kind of doing that already. Whatever works I guess. After Jax get his 20 and the game is decided Tins can take all the rest of the shots. :)
What you are noting is that ajbry has made the mistake of viewing the symptoms as the cause. Trend stats suggest a correlation of course, but that can easily be do to both outcomes being created by the same cause. In other words when the team runs a bunch of PnRs with Tinsley he gets a lot of assists and the team gets a lot of easy scores which leads to the win.

It's not "Tinsley getting 9 assists" that makes the team win, it's a style of play that gets the win AND gets him 9 assists.


I love Rosenbaums work. He makes a sincere and detailed effort to find meaning within the data. And while sports fans love to dismiss data work as meaningless it's used in all facets of life, including making cell phones work or airplanes fly.

Don't confuse bad data analysis with proof that data analysis isn't valuable. They are still looking to improve even this system but at least it's a better effort than just "PPG RPG APG", or Hollinger's highly flawed summation efficiency that benefits stat stuffers.

I guess 82games is using his system rather than WinVal or just basic +/-, at least as of the last week or so. They still don't have the numbers up for this year using this method as far as I see. What you see in INDIVIDUAL TEAM PAGES is NOT this advanced version of adjusted WinVal, it's raw +/-. All they have up is the Rosenbaum method applied to LAST YEAR'S stats.

So we aren't talking about the same thing in most of these cases as what is described in that link to Dan R's methods.

I improve on past efforts by combining estimates of player value using both pure adjusted plus/minus ratings and a statistical index derived from these pure adjusted plus/minus ratings. This hybrid approach leads to player ratings that unlike press accounts of WINVAL ratings, pass the “laugh test” (p. 181). In addition, the results from this approach are even less noisy than ratings based on traditional statistical indices alone.
It's the inclusion of the other 9 players own +/- into a players own adjusted +/- that take it a step further, along with the fact that he also weights out +/- based on how close a game is (blowout time means very little) or if it's late in a close game (clutch).




And from the Washington Times article on Winston-Sagarin's system
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20040413-121657-1462r.htm

Last summer, Winston and Sagarin met with Walsh, whose Pacers were upset by Boston in the first round of the playoffs. In splitting the first two games of that series, Indiana fielded a particular lineup that had a plus rating of nearly 50.
Over the next three games, however, that lineup barely played.
"When we showed that to Donnie, his eyebrows nearly flew off his forehead," Sagarin says.
Though Walsh was intrigued, then-coach Isiah Thomas expressed little interest in the system.
Wow, what a shocker.:rolleyes: Nice job Zeke.

Trader Joe
01-12-2007, 03:32 PM
Sorry I never buy into these stats that require some special math problem to figure out.

Roferr
01-12-2007, 03:41 PM
What you are noting is that ajbry has made the mistake of viewing the symptoms as the cause. Trend stats suggest a correlation of course, but that can easily be do to both outcomes being created by the same cause. In other words when the team runs a bunch of PnRs with Tinsley he gets a lot of assists and the team gets a lot of easy scores which leads to the win.

It's not "Tinsley getting 9 assists" that makes the team win, it's a style of play that gets the win AND gets him 9 assists.


I love Rosenbaums work. He makes a sincere and detailed effort to find meaning within the data. And while sports fans love to dismiss data work as meaningless it's used in all facets of life, including making cell phones work or airplanes fly.

Don't confuse bad data analysis with proof that data analysis isn't valuable. They are still looking to improve even this system but at least it's a better effort than just "PPG RPG APG", or Hollinger's highly flawed summation efficiency that benefits stat stuffers.




And from the Washington Times article on Winston-Sagarin's system
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20040413-121657-1462r.htm

Wow, what a shocker.:rolleyes: Nice job Zeke.

Damn, Seth, I think that's twice now that we've agreed on something. What's happening? :confused:

rimock31
01-12-2007, 03:49 PM
You really have to be nuts to not realize that the team plays better overall basketball when Sarunas/DA are on the floor. I have to admit though that I am surprised about Granger being rated so low. It seems these ratings put the emphasis on team defense more than individual defensive skills and come to think of it, I don't find it so absurd to say that Sarunas plays better team defense than Granger if you really watch the games

ChicagoPacer
01-12-2007, 03:58 PM
WINVAL originally started with Sagarin at Dallas, but Cuban is a progressive owner and he's more open to these things. In a sense, Dallas is the first, but not necessarily best at using complex stats for games. San Antonio uses these types of analyses a lot too. Rosenbaum took Sagarin's basic model, and refined it quite a bit.

There are a 2 or 3 guys out there who have been testing and doing this for years with fancy degrees, backgrounds in advanced CS, econ, etc. Most of these guys are consultants for teams. Most teams, in all honesty, have no idea what they're doing with this stuff.

Dean Oliver helped the Supersonics achieve "overachiever" status, and Dan Rosenbaum is working with a team on statistical/personnel issues.

Rosenbaum actually talks about the strength and weaknesses of WINVAL here http://danrosenbaum.blogspot.com/ He doesn't post here anymore since taking a position with the league.

The post is titled: Using statistics in basketball: the bar is higher from Monday, August 29, 2005. The article speaks directly to the use of +/- stats vs. traditional scouting, and the weaknesses and strengths of each.

FlavaDave
01-12-2007, 04:07 PM
Moneybasketball?

If Donnie Walsh retires, we should make a run at Billy Beane.

Naptown_Seth
01-12-2007, 04:09 PM
Damn, Seth, I think that's twice now that we've agreed on something. What's happening?

The problem is that you think this proves that Saras or Foster are good, or that Jackson is bad. At least I think that's what you view. I recall last year you being very big on the RAW per 48 +/- of Saras, for example. That's where we tend to disagree I think, not in the method of analyzing the team. In that regard we typically line up pretty well I think.


Please note that Dan R's system noticed BOTH of these following things (for 03-04)

Three players (Nenê, Jeff Foster, and Eric Williams) seem to have genuinely quite good ratings that cannot be explained away by sampling variation. Foster replaced an All-Star in Brad Miller and his team did not miss a beat, ending up with the best record in the League.
Go Jeff.

But...

It appears that rebounds are less valuable than typically assumed


Also a further note that I think 82games only did the standard adjusted +/- of Dan's formula, not the one that combines the "pure adjusted" with the one created by weighting stats into a formula in order to remove more of the noise (that crazy 5 minute player that is apparently 6th best in the NBA in raw stats).


But you know me, I do believe in data as long as the applications of analysis are done with caution and understanding, something Dan is really good about. He will always qualify his work and note it's flaws and limitations.

Even after all of this he suggests that there will likely still be a 15% error rate even with unlimited data points to enter (games played).

I prefer to go to multiple data sources when looking at a player.


I will say this, Dan's numbers totally supported my point about AI vs Andre Miller according to 82games David Lewin
David runs the Dan R formula for 05-06 (http://www.82games.com/lewin2.htm)

The Allen Iverson Trade
The biggest story in basketball lately is Allen Iverson’s move to Denver. There has been a lot of speculation as to whether the Nuggets are now a title contender, or if this trade even makes them better. Iverson is clearly a great scorer, but he tends to use a huge number of possessions inefficiently, and doesn’t play much defense. I was very surprised to see John Hollinger gloss over these facts in his recent review of the trade, but clearly he buys into the conventional wisdom that although Iverson is flawed his scoring ability is enough to make his teams better.

Reality tells a bit of a different story. In 2005-2006 Iverson made his team 7.38 points per 100 possessions better with him on the court (as opposed to replacing him with an average player). This is good, 42nd in the league, but not as good as Iverson’s reputation would lead you to expect. Andre Miller closely followed Iverson, ranking 52nd with a value of 6.62. In 2004-2005 (full report on that data coming next week) Iverson actually had an impact of -4.41 compared to an average player. Miller was more consistent year to year, with a value of 5.62. This suggests that if both players play as they have in the past then the Nuggets will be at best as good as they were before the trade.

ChicagoPacer
01-12-2007, 04:18 PM
You really have to be nuts to not realize that the team plays better overall basketball when Sarunas/DA are on the floor. I have to admit though that I am surprised about Granger being rated so low. It seems these ratings put the emphasis on team defense more than individual defensive skills and come to think of it, I don't find it so absurd to say that Sarunas plays better team defense than Granger if you really watch the games

Another thing to consider is who both of these players match up against. A lot of Granger's minutes come against lineups with 5 starters, or 4 starters/1 bench player. Most of Sarunas' minutes are against lineups with no more than 3 starting players. If you put Granger on a second unit, he would be matching up against less talented offensive players and his defense would "look better". If you consistently put Sarunas out there as a starter, the defense will be exposed.

Roferr
01-12-2007, 04:27 PM
[QUOTE=Naptown_Seth;527028]The problem is that you think this proves that Saras or Foster are good, or that Jackson is bad. At least I think that's what you view. I recall last year you being very big on the RAW per 48 +/- of Saras, for example. That's where we tend to disagree I think, not in the method of analyzing the team. In that regard we typically line up pretty well I think.
_________________________________________________

There you go again, Seth....telling me what I think. I purposely, withheld any comment about any of the ratings of the particular players, so that you couldn't accuse me of what you just did.

I posted the thread because, with all the variables that are factored in, the Winval stats are a better indicator than the +/-.

I haven't made a derogatory remark about Jax for what seems like months. He's been playing his best ball, for the most part, since he became a Pacer. Even you have to admit, that his play has been much better than at any time last season. The big differences I think are shot selection and taking the ball to the rack with authority. When he does these two things, he's a different ballplayer which I've noted now several times.

Why do you always think my posts are bashing Jax? You're not getting paranoid, are you.

ALF68
01-12-2007, 04:54 PM
without knowing........... what input, time frames/intervals, compensation values for minutes and opponents (who are they playing at that moment) what plays are ran and for who, and so on and so on neither of the articles are worth a penny except some nice advertising.

Using your logic, all stats are worthless. I think that I will listen to the experts on this, they seem to know what they are talking about.:)

Roferr
01-12-2007, 05:12 PM
WINVAL originally started with Sagarin at Dallas, but Cuban is a progressive owner and he's more open to these things. In a sense, Dallas is the first, but not necessarily best at using complex stats for games. San Antonio uses these types of analyses a lot too. Rosenbaum took Sagarin's basic model, and refined it quite a bit.

There are a 2 or 3 guys out there who have been testing and doing this for years with fancy degrees, backgrounds in advanced CS, econ, etc. Most of these guys are consultants for teams. Most teams, in all honesty, have no idea what they're doing with this stuff.

Dean Oliver helped the Supersonics achieve "overachiever" status, and Dan Rosenbaum is working with a team on statistical/personnel issues.

Rosenbaum actually talks about the strength and weaknesses of WINVAL here http://danrosenbaum.blogspot.com/ He doesn't post here anymore since taking a position with the league.

The post is titled: Using statistics in basketball: the bar is higher from Monday, August 29, 2005. The article speaks directly to the use of +/- stats vs. traditional scouting, and the weaknesses and strengths of each.

No doubt, the team to which he was referring was the Mavs.

ajbry
01-12-2007, 05:26 PM
I don't get what you're trying to say.

Also, while I understand a message board is a venue for expressing your own personal opinions, I don't get how anyone can flippantly and totally disregard these systems when pretty much every team in the NBA employs systems like these, and one of the best uses the particular one in discussion.

Basically, my point is these systems are used by people who know a lot about basketball, so anyone who's gonna go out and say they're entirely worthless should at least take the time to formulate some sort of dicussion.

Sorry, I just do not see the amazingly significant information presented by the WINVAL statistics, to be that important in the scope of the team. In certain cases, WINVAL and +/- can prove to be useful, however, if you legitimately need them to determine your lineups (and judge individual performers), then there's something missing. You play your best players, hope it works out, and if it doesn't, you work on different lineups in practice and make adjustments that way. Otherwise, relying too heavily on some formulation created by someone who doesn't even watch your team on a regular basis just seems a bit flawed.

ALF68
01-12-2007, 06:07 PM
Sorry, I just do not see the amazingly significant information presented by the WINVAL statistics, to be that important in the scope of the team. In certain cases, WINVAL and +/- can prove to be useful, however, if you legitimately need them to determine your lineups (and judge individual performers), then there's something missing. You play your best players, hope it works out, and if it doesn't, you work on different lineups in practice and make adjustments that way. Otherwise, relying too heavily on some formulation created by someone who doesn't even watch your team on a regular basis just seems a bit flawed.


I have the feeling that if these WINVAL stats showed that Jack had one of the better numbers, you would be singing a different tune.

Eindar
01-12-2007, 06:37 PM
I'm always game for using statistics to try to get a handle on the elusive "winner" trait. I hate "trends" for exactly the same reason. They have no bearing on how you are as a complete player. If a College freshman had 6 amazing games (all of which were wins), but the 14 prior he played like crap and his team lost every game, does that mean he's the best player ever? No, it means his team is 6-14 and you can't count on him.

At the professional level, I'll take any edge I can get. I think the system is far, far more valuable for when you're scouting college or foreign guys that you may not have neccessarily seen play live. You probably can't get game tape of every game every player has played in, but you can sure as hell get every player's stats for every game that year, plug it into the formula, and see who comes out on top.

It shouldn't be used as the be-all and end-all, but it certainly can't hurt in terms of giving a bench guy more minutes or as a tie-breaker for two players you like in the draft.

ChicagoJ
01-12-2007, 06:45 PM
Sorry, I just do not see the amazingly significant information presented by the WINVAL statistics, to be that important in the scope of the team. In certain cases, WINVAL and +/- can prove to be useful, however, if you legitimately need them to determine your lineups (and judge individual performers), then there's something missing. You play your best players, hope it works out, and if it doesn't, you work on different lineups in practice and make adjustments that way. Otherwise, relying too heavily on some formulation created by someone who doesn't even watch your team on a regular basis just seems a bit flawed.

I think there is some validity to this point.

Statistics and regressions are often useful at explaining the real world, but are incomplete.

The point is, certain teams have hired firms to help them with statistical analysis as a supplement or complement to traditional scouting and traditional stats.

Without the "per 48" stat, how did a coach ever know when a young player was ready for more playing time? They watched him. Now, with stats, they have additional data that helps them expand a player's role at the right time, instead of "whenever the coach notices."

These stats are interesting, and have some use/ value (perhaps even a significant amount of use/ value), but are certainly never going to be sufficient on a stand-alone basis, and are never going to be the primary inputs into key coaching decisions like playing time and rotations, but they can be relied on for explanatory assistance.

I used to be much more interested in stats, and was always amazed that when my Dad was coaching that he had no idea what any of his player's individual stats or averages were but that he "knew" which lineups to put together. Lets think about football - there are no stats for an offensive line - so there's clearly an "art" to coaching decisions that stats will never replace. There is probably more "science" in personnel decisions than coaching decisions though.

ChicagoPacer
01-12-2007, 07:34 PM
You're right. These things should be used as supplements to traditional coaching observations. But Rosenbaum has a pretty good point using a baseball analogy: it's really hard to tell the difference between a .260 hitter and a .280 hitter by watching. It comes down to an extra hit every 10 to 12 games.

In basketball, there is a formula that predicts wins based upon your opponent's scoring average and your scoring average:

Pts^13/(Pts^13 + Opp Pts^13)

How good is this formula at calculating wins? So good that the standard error is +/- 1.2 wins in an 82 game season. It didn't work out that way for the Pacers last year, because they lost more than their share of close games, but in general, it has worked for everyone, Pacers included.

An absolutely average team last year scored 97 ppg, gave up 97 ppg, and won 41 games. They also played at an average pace measured in possessions, where a possession can simply be thought of as a trip down the floor. Average possessions were 93 last year.

What would happen to a team if they could just score 1 more basket that otherwise would have led to a turnover/missed shot rebounded by the defense, etc out of 93 chances? They would go from being a 41 win team to a 46-47 win team.

What would happen if they could also improve their defense in only one posession out of 93? They would be a 52-53 win team.

There is such a thin line that separates a .500 ballclub (us or Chicago) from a 52 win type of club (Miami). That's what these types of stats address. Just one decision change on offense and defense a game can mean a lot.

ajbry
01-12-2007, 07:37 PM
I have the feeling that if these WINVAL stats showed that Jack had one of the better numbers, you would be singing a different tune.

Jack has the 4th highest +/- on this team, and yet I have never brought that up in any case (well, except for now obviously).

If you wish to shadow me merely to find avenues in which to diss Jack at every turn, then you need to rethink why you're here posting at PD.

Roferr
01-12-2007, 08:07 PM
Jack has the 4th highest +/- on this team, and yet I have never brought that up in any case (well, except for now obviously).

If you wish to shadow me merely to find avenues in which to diss Jack at every turn, then you need to rethink why you're here posting at PD.

Now that you bring it up....Jax ranks 6th in the WINVAL stats. Not bad, conidering he ranks 4th, offensively. Just about where I would put him...right in the middle of the team.

able
01-12-2007, 08:46 PM
To Roferr and ALF:

Rof, thanks for the link, that gives more insight and I will read it thoroughly later
this weekend.

To both: Gentlemen, reading comprehension 101 :


without knowing........... what input, time frames/intervals, compensation values for minutes and opponents (who are they playing at that moment) what plays are ran and for who, and so on and so on neither of the articles are worth a penny except some nice advertising.

I never said the program was worthless, only that from the articles I could not judge anything because of the lack of information on the actually used premises and input and therefore the articles were in my opinon worthless.

ALF68
01-12-2007, 09:03 PM
Jack has the 4th highest +/- on this team, and yet I have never brought that up in any case (well, except for now obviously).

If you wish to shadow me merely to find avenues in which to diss Jack at every turn, then you need to rethink why you're here posting at PD.

Post something besides Jack is great and you won't hear from me. Maybe you are the one that needs to rethink why you are posting here at PD.

ajbry
01-12-2007, 10:14 PM
Post something besides Jack is great and you won't hear from me. Maybe you are the one that needs to rethink why you are posting here at PD.

:laugh:

You obviously need to do some research on my posting habits.

ChicagoJ
01-13-2007, 01:38 AM
Maybe so, but your reputation is also pretty solid.

I'm quite sure there is more to your posting than just SJax, but that's what you're known for, presently.

Regardless, I don't see a benefit for questioning each other's intent here.

Roaming Gnome
01-13-2007, 02:15 AM
I'd hate to say it, but while reading the article in the Star about Danny Granger's Winval #'s, My conspiracy theory hat came out. Sometimes....Nah, make that most of the time, I feel The Star is used as the Pacers PR arm a little more then Pacers.com.

Anyway, I got to thinking that maybe this Winval article is to soften the blow to a situation where Danny Granger is moved in a deal to move one of our long term contracts, or receive something decent for one of our "troubled" core players.

Winval has been around for a long time and other then Dallas being in town tonight... What is the purpose of highlighting Danny Granger's deficiencies? He is one of the more well liked players on this team, but in the same equation...Danny Granger has the most trade value on the team...a team without a first round draft pick.

Kstat
01-13-2007, 06:25 AM
Am I the only one left on earth that doesn't see the need for new stats?

Really, is the tried and true forumla of points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals, plus all the secondary stats just not enough anymore? We now have to invent new and exciting acronyms to determine just how good a player is, because god forbid, the method of actually watching him play in person is simply too boring?

Heck, I don't even think steals should be kept as a stat. It's the most misleading accomplishment in basketball, because it isn't taken into account how many attempts were made for each legit steal.

I'm old-school. Just tell me which guy won the game and then we can go from there.

Roferr
01-13-2007, 08:44 AM
I'd hate to say it, but while reading the article in the Star about Danny Granger's Winval #'s, My conspiracy theory hat came out. Sometimes....Nah, make that most of the time, I feel The Star is used as the Pacers PR arm a little more then Pacers.com.

Anyway, I got to thinking that maybe this Winval article is to soften the blow to a situation where Danny Granger is moved in a deal to move one of our long term contracts, or receive something decent for one of our "troubled" core players.

Winval has been around for a long time and other then Dallas being in town tonight... What is the purpose of highlighting Danny Granger's deficiencies? He is one of the more well liked players on this team, but in the same equation...Danny Granger has the most trade value on the team...a team without a first round draft pick.


Currently, Dallas is the only team that pays a six-figure fee to use the stats. That may play a part in them coming out. You have to admit that they the Mavs are doing great.

Hicks
01-13-2007, 11:38 AM
I think the stats kept in the box score today are OK, but I want them to add tips and deflections. Tips as in the ball hits the rim, O'Neal tips the ball and it lands in Foster's hands, and he gets the rebound added to his total, but JO gets a tip.

That one (especially reading it now) is still really vague, but the one I really believe in the most is deflections. Ron Artest is great at this. Usually it's the guy who deflects or pokes the ball away who causes the turnover; moreso than the one who just grabs the ball as it sails behind an opponent (giving him the steal).

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2007, 08:15 PM
Gnome, I consider the Granger bit just to be timing with the fact that as you start to reflect on the season some things start to jump out at you. No different than me noticing that Jeff's normal iffy bunnies were really out of control for December. Something you sort of notice and decide to look into further and end up saying "man, worse than I thought even".

I've been taking the stand that Granger isn't playing all that well OFF THE BALL at either end pretty much all season, which is why the Foster swap ended the streak of slow starts in my opinion.

Granger is perfect candidate for this because of that aspect, that his inexperience still hurts the team on the court but not in any eye catching way. I've noticed many times where he's just badly lost, but that's because I rewind and watch plays to see how guys got open.

And if I'm going to put up a link to Saras doing it then fairness says that it has to be noted when DG (or any other Pacer) makes the same kind of mistake. Some guys like Tins or Jack are more likely to get beat by pure speed, but will generally be in the right place. DG leaves his man at the wrong time, plays a zone wrong, or matches up incorrectly on transition which ends up leaving someone wide open.

So if I as a die-hard, watch every game fan am noticing it and starting to think that maybe it needs to be commented on, then it doesn't surprise me that beat-level writers who follow the team closely are taking interest in the same sort of stuff.



Now that doesn't mean I think he needs to be traded, yet I'm commenting on it. I do think Shawne makes him more tradable than he was, but my opinion of Danny's game is actually through the roof almost, in spite of his youthful flaws.

To me he is still very much on the Pippen development pace. He bites on fakes and forgets where he is supposed to be on plays. So what, he's not even 2 seasons in yet. By year 4 he'll have the talent he is already showing paired with solid knowledge of the game and he's going to be kicking some butt (IMO of course).

In the meantime the +/- or WinVal simply says "yes he looks great at times, but he's still not a truly positive factor yet so let's not name him captain and star before he's due". Just keeping the view on him level I think.



I'd fully expect an article on Armstrong's slumping play at some point. I can't take too much more of his defensive gambling and lost shot, even if I do love his energy and attitude.

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2007, 08:20 PM
Now that you bring it up....Jax ranks 6th in the WINVAL stats. Not bad, conidering he ranks 4th, offensively. Just about where I would put him...right in the middle of the team.
Me too. He's paid about middle of the road, his sum total typically runs there too. Last year he was pretty poor in WinVal, so we aren't just imagining that he has improved his overall effort this year.

The guy that used to really kick butt in +/- is Tinsley. First couple of years he led the way or was right near the top.

ChicagoJ
01-15-2007, 01:42 AM
I think the stats kept in the box score today are OK, but I want them to add tips and deflections. Tips as in the ball hits the rim, O'Neal tips the ball and it lands in Foster's hands, and he gets the rebound added to his total, but JO gets a tip.

That one (especially reading it now) is still really vague, but the one I really believe in the most is deflections. Ron Artest is great at this. Usually it's the guy who deflects or pokes the ball away who causes the turnover; moreso than the one who just grabs the ball as it sails behind an opponent (giving him the steal).

Except that there's the strange phenomenon that defensive stats actually encourage players to attempt low-percentage defensive plays.

When Micheal Williams played for the Pacers, he led the league in steals. But to get his two steals per game, he'd gamble and miss another four to five times per game. (EDIT - forgot to finish this thought last night - Those gambles would often put Smits, or Tank Thompson, or someone else in foul trouble trying to prevent all the easy layups he was giving up.)

For many players, "deflections" put them out of good defensive position for the rest of the play.

Steals and blocks aren't good measures of defense in the first place, let alone deflections.

bulldog
01-15-2007, 11:40 AM
Also, defensive stats measure individual defense and are not a good measure of a player's contribution to overrall team defense.

The fact that Runi is a good help-side defender is an extremely big deal, just as important as the fact that he is a poor man-to-man defender, and it shows in the WINWAL stats.