PDA

View Full Version : Pacers "Market Watch"



Mr. Sobchak
06-10-2007, 10:40 PM
I found this pretty interesting:

http://draftexpress.com/blogs.php?blogid=12

Shade
06-10-2007, 10:44 PM
I found this pretty interesting:

http://draftexpress.com/blogs.php?blogid=12

Yes, non-loading pages are very interesting. ;)

http://draftexpress.com/blogs.php?blogid=12

So, according to this, we're already $8.5 mil over the cap next season with only 11 players under contract? Ick.

avoidingtheclowns
06-10-2007, 10:58 PM
this was posted yesterday but they're still talking about stan van gundy as a coaching option but yet they also mention morme recent news about the laker deal 'falling apart' it seems fairly weird.

its also weird to look at that chart and see Jeff and Troy on the 'good offense/good defense' side

Smashed_Potato
06-10-2007, 11:07 PM
That article looks so out of date.

Denver Post reported today that the deal is looking stronger and stronger. Draft Express has no credibility.

Kegboy
06-10-2007, 11:07 PM
Yes, I've seen some weird Gartner charts in my day, but this is just whack:

http://draftexpress.com/gallery/General/1181437310.jpg

:huh:

I guess you could argue that the offensive rating is inverted. However, even with my infamous questioning of Danny Granger at the forum party, no way he should be in the Bad Defense quad.

Shade
06-10-2007, 11:12 PM
Yes, I've seen some weird Gartner charts in my day, but this is just whack:

http://draftexpress.com/gallery/General/1181437310.jpg

:huh:

I guess you could argue that the offensive rating is inverted. However, even with my infamous questioning of Danny Granger at the forum party, no way he should be in the Bad Defense quad.

There are so many problems with that chart I don't even know where to begin. I think Dun may be the only one even close to being properly categorized in that mess.

Anthem
06-10-2007, 11:13 PM
What a strange page.

Can anyone explain this to me?

EDIT: Whoops, too late. Same diagram everybody else posted.

Kegboy
06-10-2007, 11:16 PM
There are so many problems with that chart I don't even know where to begin. I think Dun may be the only one even close to being properly categorized in that mess.

What, you have a problem with Foster being our best player and Quis being our worst? Or, if they did invert the offense, JO being our best player and Danny being our worst?

It'd take some serious acid for that thing to make sense.

Naptown_Seth
06-10-2007, 11:22 PM
There are so many problems with that chart I don't even know where to begin. I think Dun may be the only one even close to being properly categorized in that mess.
I thought it was flipped too, but I think it's simply what the team averaged if that player played 48 minutes or something along those lines (both ends of course). Thus the 106 average being an expected points scored or allowed over a set number of minutes if they play. Thus a high offensive number is good and a low defensive number is good. I've seen other people use numbers like this, including I think Basketball Database or 82 Games.

Circumstances can help affect how those numbers look.

However, while I do agree that Foster as "good offense" is wrong in terms of scoring ability, he is a huge offensive rebounding beast and ultimately that's part of the offense.

Also, forget Kegboy, I'M the guy that rips on Granger's defense and I think they are right. He was not a good defender last year which is a big reason why his +/- sucked. He was easily baited with fakes, often out of position and in general looked more overwhelmed last year than his rookie year.

JO as "bad offense" is questionable, but then he also wasn't very efficient as a scorer. Tinsley too.

Tinsley's defensive rating probably stays out of poor due to his steals. He is a strong ball thief, especially off the ball.

To me the one player way out of place is Quis. He isn't truly poor at either end, but I think he is a circumstances guy in this case. His numbers I'm sure were hurt by how little he got to play in situations that benefitted him.

He didn't really get it going till after the trade, and shortly after that he was done for the year.

Naptown_Seth
06-10-2007, 11:24 PM
Also the JO trade was stalling way back when SVG was the front runner. It hasn't actually been that long ago. So someone wrote this up a few weeks ago, no big deal.

Robertmto
06-10-2007, 11:25 PM
LMFAO @ Jeff Foster having Good Offense.

Thats like me making a chart and putting Etan Thomas and Bendan Haywood in the best friends quad.

Smashed_Potato
06-10-2007, 11:28 PM
Someone e-mail the writer and tell him to stop drinking the kool-aid lol.

Mr. Sobchak
06-10-2007, 11:39 PM
yeah that chart is kind of weird. I did like the chart where it showed what percentage of possesions ran through each player.

Trader Joe
06-10-2007, 11:48 PM
See UB always told us that Foster was our best all around player.

Naptown_Seth
06-11-2007, 12:05 AM
One thing about a possible flip on the offensive portion, note that the USAGE chart right below it almost matches the distribution above. Now usage might not translate to "good offense" in their scheme, but I'm still suspicious. I assume usage is shown because to goes in hand with the previous chart, so I would expect them to kind of agree rather than being exactly opposite as they are. So I'm in the "flipped by accident" camp.

BTW, the two people who compiled the chart do analysis for a living with
http://www.rexeranalytics.com/index.html

Gearan actually did an analysis that has been referred to around here, one of a few that analyzed the chances of getting a good player at various points in the first round of the draft.

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1362)

maragin
06-11-2007, 04:35 AM
Well, if they weighing heavily on on FG%, Foster was our best this year outside of Baston and Harrison. Might explain O'Neal's spot as well (11th). Didn't investigate where they got their numbers from.

Haggard
06-11-2007, 07:50 AM
even better is Dalembert having a better offence rating than Iggy in the 76ers chart

Unclebuck
06-11-2007, 08:20 AM
The page should be closed down. Just goes to show you how wrong a bunch of stats can be

Shade
06-11-2007, 01:52 PM
The page should be closed down. Just goes to show you how wrong a bunch of stats can be

That's what happens when you base your opinions off of box scores rather than watching the actual games.

Naptown_Seth
06-11-2007, 02:06 PM
That's what happens when you base your opinions off of box scores rather than watching the actual games.
I strongly disagree. I've seen plenty of people observe one thing but then check the actual results and find out they were WAY off. Observational analysis is critical, but it absolutely must be tempered by the reality of compiled results.

Sure secondary (or worse) stats can be misleading, meaning formulas using basic stats to come up with a new stat, I will never suggest otherwise. But too many people will say things like "Foster must have missed about 6 shots tonight" only to see he only TOOK 3 in total and hit one of those.

Honestly the anti-stat view is a bit too "truthiness" for me. Or have you guys not had a girlfriend/wife that thought the 80 degree house temp was too cold, or the 65 degree temp was too hot? ;)


The problem with a formula is not "stats" or the twisting of numbers, though some people do intentionally abuse stats, the problem is with the LOGIC of what those mean. But I like a formula a lot better than someone's opinion for a very specific and important reason - formulas SPELL OUT THE LOGIC, that way you can actually understand what you disagree with about them.

If I say "Dalembert is a better offensive player than Iggy" you can disagree but you can't disprove my view. That debate grinds to an instant halt. You only get somewhere when you can make a tangible case of instances, and like it or not stats are just a count of those instances (basic stats at least).

You need numbers AND you need context. A formula attempts to put the two together. Then the formula is debated, refined, and a better attempt to put a tangible measure to your observations is made. In the end you find your way to a pretty good measurement.

No measure is perfect, but god help you if you rely soley on your gut and the truthiness, that's a fool's errand.


In application to this situation I would like to see the formula myself, how these players got their scores. Then we'd know what the catch is and could adjust their measurement to apply more realistically. And it could be that these numbers are pointing out some HIDDEN truths, stuff that clearly isn't obvious with observations. Or maybe something was flipped by accident.


I say this all the time - stats and probability are why the internet, your cell phone, MPG video and a bunch of other things actually work.

FlavaDave
06-11-2007, 02:36 PM
I've heard some people say that Dun/Murphy's contracts aren't that bad.

But does anyone truly realize that Murleavy will take up 39% of our cap room in 2010-2011?

Hicks
06-11-2007, 03:24 PM
I just wish people would stop combining them into one ultra-whipping boy named Murphleavy.

FlavaDave
06-11-2007, 03:33 PM
I just wish people would stop combining them into one ultra-whipping boy named Murphleavy.



You are going to need a genie if you want that wish granted.

NorCal_Pacerfan
06-11-2007, 04:00 PM
That chart = worthless.

Murphy's contract = pathetic.

The fact that we acquired him after dealing with crazy contracts in the past (Croshere) = will tptb ever learn.

Naptown_Seth
06-11-2007, 05:31 PM
I just wish people would stop combining them into one ultra-whipping boy named Murphleavy.
I wish they were only 1 player, then we'd only be soft at one position at a time.
;) :p

Naptown_Seth
06-12-2007, 03:45 AM
I took the time to contact Mr. Gearan regarding the offensive and defensive ratings and he sent me a pleasant and detailed response, with permission to post as much as needed here at PD. He makes a strong case for the numbers, and points out as I suspected that the USAGE numbers are there to balance against the ratings since they are a bit heavy on the efficiency side.

And give him credit, he's a Celtics fan taking this much time to respond to some no-name Pacers fan with a question.

Also, from the reference basketball-reference.com site, the glossery for offensive rating is as follows:

Offensive rating (available since the 1977-78 season in NBA); for players it is points produced per 100 posessions, while for teams it is points scored per 100 possessions. This rating was developed by Dean Oliver, author of Basketball on Paper (http://www.basketballonpaper.com/). I will point you to Dean's book for complete details.And now the response to my email, I'll bold some highlights. It's long, but not repetitive. This is a nice detailed analysis of JO and Foster which is the kind of thing this thread started about in the first place. :)


All excellent questions/comments, and they address out some of the statistical issues that many people in the field are grappling with. The offensive and defensive ratings stem from the work of Dean Oliver, (his book "Basketball on Paper" is considered the closest thing in basketball to Bill James: good read, you should pick it up if you do not already have it: http://www.basketballonpaper.com (http://www.basketballonpaper.com/) ),
and they are reported at this site which publishes numerous basic and advanced basketball stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/
You can click on the Player or Teams tab and get the info you want. Here's this year's Pacers page: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2007.html
Look under the Advanced stats section and you will see ORtg (off ensive rating), DRtg (defensive), and Usage.

Oliver's book has the actual formulae for these first 2 stats (they are pretty involve), and if you click on the Glossary over Advanced Stats you’ll get the Usage formula. But I think I can cover some of the main factors which influence the ratings of O’Neal and Foster in these surprising ways.

Although a misprint or reversed scale would be an easy solution to your questions, it's not the reason for the data as shown. The Offensive Rating is heavily (perhaps too heavily) weighted toward efficiency and Usage is an indicator of how involved that player is in the offense. Jermaine O'Neal is obviously a better offensive player than Jeff Foster, no one would argue that. However, efficiency is hurt substantially by poor shooting, and if you look at FG% of the 58 forwards who played enough games/minutes to qualify according to NBA.com, Jermaine O'Neal was 54<sup>th</sup> (.439), ahead of only Rudy Gay, Hedo Turkoglu, Rasual Butler, and Adam Morrison.

And if you throw him in just among the centers/power forwards, of those power forwards/centers in the league playing 25mpg or more over 70+ games, I believe O'Neal is dead last in shooting percentage. Turnovers also hurt efficiency/offensive rating, and this is another area that is a weakness for O’Neal being among the worst 10-15 forwards. O’Neal had a particularly bad year, but he has never gotten very high ORtgs.
<o></o>
Jeff Foster is helped out iIn ORtg because for the minutes he plays he’s one of the best offensive rebounders in the NBA. Foster’s offensive rating is actually the lowest that it has been in 4 years (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/f/fosteje01.html) because his shooting was way down. Foster is one of the NBA’s anomalies along with players such as Tyson Chandler (if you scroll down in the DraftExpress page to the Hornets profile you’ll see <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>Chandler</st1></st1:city> in a similar position on the graph) and David Lee. They have low Usage (because they are not the kind of offensive talents who can be go-to guy like O’Neal), and really their offense relies on high percentage shots, not being focused on by the defense and offensive rebounding.

Look at this comparison this past season: 22% of O’Neal’s total rebounds are offensive compare with 33% for David Lee, 35% for Tyson Chandler, and a whopping 43% for your man Foster. And as <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Indiana</st1> </st1:state>was the worst shooting team in the NBA this year, there were a lot of potential offensive rebounds. We do feel the generation of the ORtg does artificially elevate these low usage/high efficiency big men like Lee, <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>Chandler</st1></st1:city>, and Foster and that is one of the reasons we decided to show the Usage states as well.
<o></o>
Basically O’Neal and Foster are near inverse images offensively. O’Neal, a star player who is an offensive focal point because of his considerable ability but shoots a low percentage, turns the ball over a fair amount, and is an average offensive rebounder for a power forward/center. Foster is a seldom used player, who shoots a better (the 3 years prior to this year, he shot a very good percentage) percentage in his few attempts, does not turn the ball over (of course he does not touch it much), and is a tremendous offensive rebounder. Of course, if tomorrow the Pacers decided they would use Foster like O’Neal, Foster's shooting percentage would plummet, his turnovers skyrocket, and he’d likely be too tired to offensive rebound like he does. Again, Jeff Foster is no Jermaine O’Neal, but he does do his limited offensive job efficiently.
<o></o>
O’Neal and Foster are both good defensive players, and you see that in the graphic. O’Neal’s shot blocking and defensive rebounding puts him in a very elite class. In this regard, he is unquestionably a highly desirable player.
<o></o>
As far as the Usage stat, guards and wings tend to have higher usage because of how much they handle the ball and are involved in the offense compared with big men so O’Neal’s usage is notably high. Mostly better offensive players have the high usage stats, but this is not a one-to-one relationship by any means. Certainly the archetypal case of the “gunner,” “ball hog,” or more euphemistically “high volume shooter” argues that there can be guys who dominate the ball who should not as much.

<o></o>
<o></o>Efficiency is certainly not the only mark of a player. Great players are often forced to be inefficient because the team needs them to take all the tough shots. Allen Iverson is one of the least efficient star players this league has ever seen (his offensive rating was mediocre most years, sometimes very bad), many players on his own teams in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>Philadelphia</st1></st1:city> rated out better.

But no one could deny that he was the best offensive option that team had (Well, if pick up the book "Wages of Wins" by Berri et al. and you will find some who debate this). But your Pacers struggle with the same question the Sixers were always plagued with: is it good to build around an inefficient offensive player, no matter how great he is? Maybe the player is not to be faulted, maybe it’s the system or supporting cast, but whatever it is it leads to an offensively inefficient star player.
<o></o>
Most stats in basketball fail to sum up the whole truth, but improvements are being made by controlling for game pace and efficiency among other factors, but there is still much work to be done. The scores we presented provide a snap shot, not the complete picture, but I do think suggest that the Pacers are faced with a conundrum with O’Neal.
<o></o>
I think the view of Jermaine around the league may differ from how the members of your board feel (I’m a Celtics fan and an active blogger, so I know about over-valuing my own guys!). I think many people would think his $64M over the next 3 years is not a great value and would lay that mostly on his issue of offensive inefficiency. I have seen a huge range of opinion on him.
<o></o>
Feel free to post as much or as little of this long-winded explanation as you wish. If you want to pull me directly into the debate, let me know and I’ll join the fray!



Again, thanks to Paul for this outstanding response.