Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

    For your database, do you mostly pull your raw data from BBR, or do you use other sources as well?

    Amazing... Brandon is given the opportunity to play and O'Brien is forced to incorporate him into the offense due to injuries to other key players during our ill-fated and unsuccessful push toward the playoffs. Brandon shows what a tremendous potential he actually has during the remainder of the season and now O'Brien basically says the starting sg spot is his to lose. Pretty much a no brainer for O'Brien, and it appears he is going to actually properly convert the opportunity.

    So, the trend lines are mostly up during the times Brandon is given a chance to play. Good, but easily expected even by casual observation. Attempting to make a fair comparison of him to the other players using statistics is dubious at best due to the variables involved with all of the players and their respective circumstances that contributed to their productivity and playing time, just like Brandon.

    Brandon will do exceptionally well if he keeps his head on straight and has durability. The tools are all there for everyone to see on both ends of the court. I just hope he can live up to his vast potential.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

      Nice info. Thanks for it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

        Jesus Count, so disappointing to see you make such a major F-up like this.

        Figure 7 - you don't have Haislip's bar in the old B&G colors.




        Hey, another good measure after looking at graph 5 is more from the world of probability. I'd total up his outputs (the size of each game bar) and find the mean point of the season, just to show how much it's weighted toward the 2nd half (improved). Fizzlers would obviously weight toward the early part of the season instead.

        That's the date(game) where he has as much total output prior to that date as post.

        Also I might just do stuff like this myself, but a probability of game production X curve as the season goes along, meaning pick an output (say 12) and based on results per game he's have odds that he's best that mark on a giving date.

        So 2 games in he hasn't done it yet, that 0/2 for 0% chance going into game 3. Game 3 he has a 15, so for game 4 the number is 33%. Similar to trend line, but the curve would be more dependent on the make-break value and would again show weighting based weighting based on "big games". However in this case you gain no benefit for going way above a mark or just barely.


        Sorry, geeked out there. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          You don't. It was never my intention to be perfect, and I don't believe that their is a good way to quantify defense, and I don't believe there is a good way to quantify team results.

          As I've mentioned, this is strictly production. This came up in the initial post of the full draft analysis, when Scottie Pippen failed to make Group 1. There will be outliers, but I think it is directionally correct.
          And as Bill Simmons points out a lot lately (stats are his current cause), defensive stat keeping just sucks in the NBA. It's badly in need of a serious revamp. Blocks and steals tell you only a modest amount about defense. We accept them (esp blocks) because they tend to follow good defenders by subjective view.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

            I wanted to answer a few questions and make a few comments.

            First:

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            3. Does Figure 7 have Brandon in there? Am I missing him?
            Exhibit A - #13 Picks Career Adj PR


            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
            For your database, do you mostly pull your raw data from BBR, or do you use other sources as well?
            BBR is my main source for data, and I read 82 games, but BBR is much more user friendly for people who want to understand their analysis and do some on their own.

            82games does some really interesting analysis, but it lacks transparency and utility. By "utility", I mean it's difficult (or impossible) to replicate their analysis, and it's difficult (or impossible) to take their analyses and spin it into different looks. BBR is really helps you with their calcs, and the data is very digestible.

            Amazing... Brandon is given the opportunity to play and O'Brien is forced to incorporate him into the offense due to injuries to other key players during our ill-fated and unsuccessful push toward the playoffs. Brandon shows what a tremendous potential he actually has during the remainder of the season and now O'Brien basically says the starting sg spot is his to lose. Pretty much a no brainer for O'Brien, and it appears he is going to actually properly convert the opportunity.

            So, the trend lines are mostly up during the times Brandon is given a chance to play. Good, but easily expected even by casual observation. Attempting to make a fair comparison of him to the other players using statistics is dubious at best due to the variables involved with all of the players and their respective circumstances that contributed to their productivity and playing time, just like Brandon.

            Brandon will do exceptionally well if he keeps his head on straight and has durability. The tools are all there for everyone to see on both ends of the court. I just hope he can live up to his vast potential.
            Now, I'm not sure whether this is what you meant, but what I'm inferring from your comments is that the only reason that Brandon didn't break out sooner is because he wasn't given the chance. I disagree. As I've argued all year long, Brandon was being given plenty of opportunities but was struggling to make the most of them.

            The below chart shows that he had one bite at the apple, in December, and really, really struggled.

            Exhibit B - YTD Minute per Game vs. PR per 36 minutes



            The red circle shows the first time Brandon was given the keys, and he just didn't come through. Now, this was in December of his rookie year, so that misstep is far from a mortal sin.

            It is true that Jim O'Brien has trust issues, particularly with rookies. He will be more willing to let veterans like Jack or Foster play through mistakes than Brandon or Roy. It's primarily because they have done it before.

            It's also true that a healthy Dunleavy would have significantly reduced Brandon's opportunities this year.

            However, I believed from about December on, that Jim O'Brien had pretty high expectations for Brandon, and desperately wanted him to succeed. I believe that given the choice between the Brandon Rush that played that last month or so of the season, and the 2007-2008 Mike Dunleavy, Obie would choose Brandon. (I also believe that he would choose both over Marquis Daniels, but that's another conversation.)

            In any case, there seems to be plenty of evidence Brandon has the skills to be a starter in the league. I expect him to have that job going into next season. It is up to him to sustain his March and April performance over the rest of his career. If he can do that, we will have done very well with the #13 pick.

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            Jesus Count, so disappointing to see you make such a major F-up like this.

            Figure 7 - you don't have Haislip's bar in the old B&G colors.

            Haislip was quite possibly the worst player I've ever seen, and I refuse to acknowledge his presence.


            Hey, another good measure after looking at graph 5 is more from the world of probability. I'd total up his outputs (the size of each game bar) and find the mean point of the season, just to show how much it's weighted toward the 2nd half (improved). Fizzlers would obviously weight toward the early part of the season instead.

            That's the date(game) where he has as much total output prior to that date as post.

            Also I might just do stuff like this myself, but a probability of game production X curve as the season goes along, meaning pick an output (say 12) and based on results per game he's have odds that he's best that mark on a giving date.

            So 2 games in he hasn't done it yet, that 0/2 for 0% chance going into game 3. Game 3 he has a 15, so for game 4 the number is 33%. Similar to trend line, but the curve would be more dependent on the make-break value and would again show weighting based weighting based on "big games". However in this case you gain no benefit for going way above a mark or just barely.


            Sorry, geeked out there. I'm sure you can appreciate that.
            I didn't do the other stuff, but here's a quick and dirty of the "median":

            Exhibit C - Cumulative PR with Median line



            Originally posted by rexnom View Post
            My concern with your scheme is more philosophical. How do we incorporate the fact that Brandon and Dale played better defense in their rookie years than Derek Anderson and Jalen Rose ever did?
            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            And as Bill Simmons points out a lot lately (stats are his current cause), defensive stat keeping just sucks in the NBA. It's badly in need of a serious revamp. Blocks and steals tell you only a modest amount about defense. We accept them (esp blocks) because they tend to follow good defenders by subjective view.
            I wanted to come back to this again, tangentially.

            For defensive statistics, you' would have to chart every possession, including denials, shots defended, turnovers forces, ya da, ya da, ya da. You would reach a point where you'd almost be judging them, like gymnasts, which is problematic to me because of bias, self-fulfilling prophesy, and inconsistency among stat keepers.

            But, back to a subtext in rex's post: Dale was better than Jalen. (That's what I'm inferring from the post, so I apologize if this is not the case.)

            In any case, it is my opinion that Jalen was, in fact, a better basketball player than Dale Davis. This may be oversimplification, but I believe we tend to judge players on the intersection of three things:

            1. What a player can do. (Skills)
            2. What a player can't do. (Limitations)
            3. What we want from the player. (Expectations)

            Dale lived in that most blessed (and rarest) of bubbles where all three aspects were in tune. We never asked Dale to be anything other than what he was: a solid, physical defender, decent rebounder, good physical presence.

            Jalen, like many players, became upside down versus expectations. He evolved into an outstanding player, but was not capable of being the leader/main guy of a team. He, unlike Dale, was moved out of his comfort zone. When that happens, we invariably focus more on #2 (Limitations).

            This might actually be worth a thread of it's own. I've got to go to a cook out, but maybe I'll get back to this with a longer piece.

            Have a good race day, guys.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              But, back to a subtext in rex's post: Dale was better than Jalen. (That's what I'm inferring from the post, so I apologize if this is not the case.)

              In any case, it is my opinion that Jalen was, in fact, a better basketball player than Dale Davis. This may be oversimplification, but I believe we tend to judge players on the intersection of three things:

              1. What a player can do. (Skills)
              2. What a player can't do. (Limitations)
              3. What we want from the player. (Expectations)

              Dale lived in that most blessed (and rarest) of bubbles where all three aspects were in tune. We never asked Dale to be anything other than what he was: a solid, physical defender, decent rebounder, good physical presence.

              Jalen, like many players, became upside down versus expectations. He evolved into an outstanding player, but was not capable of being the leader/main guy of a team. He, unlike Dale, was moved out of his comfort zone. When that happens, we invariably focus more on #2 (Limitations).

              This might actually be worth a thread of it's own. I've got to go to a cook out, but maybe I'll get back to this with a longer piece.

              Have a good race day, guys.



              You have no idea how happy I see this part of the post. I feel like this is sorely missed in a lot of player discussions.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                Maybe I'm a little thick but I'm interested in knowing how Rush's comparison ranking was affected by his minutes? How do the players compare in the last half or third of the season? How do they compare based on per minute production? Do the stats show any of this?

                Definitely appears that by his production last season alone, Brandon should be putting up 15 PPG on a regular basis. (At least in JOB's system.)

                And since he's going to get Dun's minutes at the start of next season, he should put up Dun's PPG (15.1), right?
                Last edited by MyFavMartin; 05-24-2009, 09:31 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                  Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                  Maybe I'm a little thick but I'm interested in knowing how Rush's comparison ranking was affected by his minutes? How do the players compare in the last half or third of the season? How do they compare based on per minute production? Do the stats show any of this?

                  Definitely appears that by his production last season alone, Brandon should be putting up 15 PPG on a regular basis. (At least in JOB's system.)

                  And since he's going to get Dun's minutes at the start of next season, he should put up Dun's PPG (15.1), right?
                  Well, I need to see if there's a quick way to do the last half/last third analysis...and a sensible way to present it, but here are the per 36 minute numbers:

                  Exhibit A - #13 Rookie Year per 36 minutes



                  Exhibit B - #13 Career per 36 minutes



                  It's late, and I need to think about what this means, but...I always give my strongest disclaimer when it comes to per 36 minute numbers, and it goes like this:

                  Ike Diogu

                  I think there is utility in per 36 numbers, but you have to be careful about the law of diminishing returns.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    I wanted to answer a few questions and make a few comments.

                    First:



                    Exhibit A - #13 Picks Career Adj PR




                    BBR is my main source for data, and I read 82 games, but BBR is much more user friendly for people who want to understand their analysis and do some on their own.

                    82games does some really interesting analysis, but it lacks transparency and utility. By "utility", I mean it's difficult (or impossible) to replicate their analysis, and it's difficult (or impossible) to take their analyses and spin it into different looks. BBR is really helps you with their calcs, and the data is very digestible.



                    Now, I'm not sure whether this is what you meant, but what I'm inferring from your comments is that the only reason that Brandon didn't break out sooner is because he wasn't given the chance. I disagree. As I've argued all year long, Brandon was being given plenty of opportunities but was struggling to make the most of them.

                    The below chart shows that he had one bite at the apple, in December, and really, really struggled.

                    Exhibit B - YTD Minute per Game vs. PR per 36 minutes



                    The red circle shows the first time Brandon was given the keys, and he just didn't come through. Now, this was in December of his rookie year, so that misstep is far from a mortal sin.

                    It is true that Jim O'Brien has trust issues, particularly with rookies. He will be more willing to let veterans like Jack or Foster play through mistakes than Brandon or Roy. It's primarily because they have done it before.

                    It's also true that a healthy Dunleavy would have significantly reduced Brandon's opportunities this year.

                    However, I believed from about December on, that Jim O'Brien had pretty high expectations for Brandon, and desperately wanted him to succeed. I believe that given the choice between the Brandon Rush that played that last month or so of the season, and the 2007-2008 Mike Dunleavy, Obie would choose Brandon. (I also believe that he would choose both over Marquis Daniels, but that's another conversation.)
                    What is PRper36, in layman's terms? If the y axis on the right side of the chart is the PRper36, why is a rating of 12 or 13 in 23 to 25 minutes per game that different than a rating of between 12 and nearly 14 in between 20 and 23 minutes per game?

                    Also, please note that Brandon's confidence increased when both Marquis and Dunleavy were unable to compete with him for minutes. I believe that Brandon tried to overthink everything from a defensive standpoint and felt pressure on the offensive end to make every shot he took (and obviously failed to make most) due to knowing that O'Brien would certainly bench him at the slightest misstep, which he consistently did. How could anyone succeed when they have not been given a consistent chance to perform without the threat of being benched, especially knowing that O'Brien doesn't trust his young players, and has been known in his past to play very short rotations to begin with?

                    Thankfully for Brandon, it is likely that Marquis is gone, and Dunleavy won't return until midseason at best, and even then won't be expected to perform at a high level for some time after that. That should allow Brandon the freedom to learn from playing, not watching others play.

                    That said, the best thing for Brandon will be to actually learn how to initiate the offense properly from Dunleavy, who I feel is our best player from that standpoint regardless of position due to his court vision and understanding of the flow of basketball offense whether in the half court or uptempo style of play. Playing on the floor with Dunleavy would also tend to boost Brandon's overall pace of development from an offensive standpoint due to Dunleavy's knack for finding others in scoring position, especially when that position is better than his own.

                    Few would agree with me here, but I would like to sometimes see Danny, Brandon, and Dunleavy on the floor at the same time. The matchup problems that would create on offense would be pretty awesome, in my opinion, and could even give us a unique ability to run a triangle style set with three actual potent threats instead of two. With Danny focusing on developing a defensive game, Brandon becoming even more proficient in team defense, and Dunleavy with a healthy knee for the first time in his professional career hopefully leading him to have quicker lateral movement on defense, we could suddenly become extremely successful defensively. Add a quick and defensively skilled point guard and a big who is an unselfish rebounder and interior defender and we could be exceptional on both ends of the floor.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                      Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                      What is PRper36, in layman's terms? If the y axis on the right side of the chart is the PRper36, why is a rating of 12 or 13 in 23 to 25 minutes per game that different than a rating of between 12 and nearly 14 in between 20 and 23 minutes per game?
                      It's per 36 minutes...it's a normalization, effectively a representation of per minute production. I used the 36 minute numbers, basically, for aestethics. A number like 12 or 13 is easier for consumption than 0.33.

                      The previous chart was showed a running YTD trend, which allows for bigger swings earlier in the year, but smooths the results later in the year. That is to say that it's easier to create a spike early in the year than later.

                      The following exhibit, which breaks it down by month, shows more clearly the difference in production between the first go-round and the second go-round.

                      Exhibit A: MPG vs. PRper36 by Month

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        It's per 36 minutes...it's a normalization, effectively a representation of per minute production. I used the 36 minute numbers, basically, for aestethics. A number like 12 or 13 is easier for consumption than 0.33.

                        The previous chart was showed a running YTD trend, which allows for bigger swings earlier in the year, but smooths the results later in the year. That is to say that it's easier to create a spike early in the year than later.

                        The following exhibit, which breaks it down by month, shows more clearly the difference in production between the first go-round and the second go-round.

                        Exhibit A: MPG vs. PRper36 by Month

                        Is the production you are referring to just points, or is it a combination of all positive offensive statistics (points, offensive rebounds, and assists), or is it somehow an efficiency rating based on not only positive offensive stats, but negative ones as well like turnovers, blocks against, and field goal attempt misses?

                        An statistical measure of a players' overall offensive and defensive production that I like to look at after each game basically combines most of the stat line as shown on nba.com. My formula ends up (pts + reb + ast + steals + blocked shots - total missed fg attempts - personal fouls - turnovers - blocks against) = overall production for that game. It was my overall feeling that attempting to rate players who didn't get many minutes by normalizing them per 48, or however many, minutes did not seem to do much during the season to actually show the reality of the players comparative performance to other players that night due mainly to the fact that the players not getting minutes tended to play against the second string of the opposition during less meaningful portions of the game.

                        Do you ever do this type of analysis, or is it available through the websites you mentioned?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                          Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                          Is the production you are referring to just points, or is it a combination of all positive offensive statistics (points, offensive rebounds, and assists), or is it somehow an efficiency rating based on not only positive offensive stats, but negative ones as well like turnovers, blocks against, and field goal attempt misses?

                          An statistical measure of a players' overall offensive and defensive production that I like to look at after each game basically combines most of the stat line as shown on nba.com. My formula ends up (pts + reb + ast + steals + blocked shots - total missed fg attempts - personal fouls - turnovers - blocks against) = overall production for that game. It was my overall feeling that attempting to rate players who didn't get many minutes by normalizing them per 48, or however many, minutes did not seem to do much during the season to actually show the reality of the players comparative performance to other players that night due mainly to the fact that the players not getting minutes tended to play against the second string of the opposition during less meaningful portions of the game.

                          Do you ever do this type of analysis, or is it available through the websites you mentioned?
                          Well, I had outlined the methodology in the first of the series, and I provide a link whenever I get a major update, but here it is in a nutshell:

                          Originally posted by count55
                          For the second set of metrics, I wanted something that would reflect production. In this context, this will be almost pure production by the player. This will ignore team accomplishments entirely. I lacked the easy access to the data, and a strong sense of how to properly factor them into the equation. I also didn't have complete data to use some of the more advanced analyses used by 82games or Hollinger. (Plus, as noted earlier, they imply a level of perfection and precision that I consider misleading.) The metric I chose was an old program created in the '80's by Martin Manley called "Player Rater".

                          PR = (Pts + Reb + Ast + Stls + Blk - TO's - Missed 2pt FGs - Missed FT's)/Games Played
                          This, like most "combined" numbers has some flaws to it. However, after looking at the data, I believe this is directionally correct. In other words, while you could take issue with how it may rate one specific player, a higher level look passes the "smell test".

                          The only adaptation I made to this analysis was to try to apply a reliability factor. Put simply, for most players, this is the number of games played divided by the number of games their teams played. This has the effect of making each game missed a 0 value game. I did the analysis both ways. Of the 1,241 player group, it changed the "ranking" of 253 players. Of these, 109 players improved (including players like Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Reggie Miller, Dwight Howard), and 144 went down (including players like Chris Webber, Ralph Sampson, Penny Hardaway, and Jamaal Tinsley).

                          This was difficult to properly judge. I am open to ideas on the best way to reward reliability without over-rewarding.
                          On the face of it, the difference between the analysis I use (Martin Manley's Player Rater) and the one you do are as follows:

                          - It doesn't penalize for missed three pointers (yours does).
                          - It doesn't penalize for personal fouls. Not all fouls are bad, or are the fault of the player. Excessive fouling penalizes the player by reducing the minutes he can play.
                          - It doesn't penalize for blocks against. I'm not sure why a player should be penalized twice for this: once for the miss, once for being blocked. I don't think it's always a bad thing to have your shot blocked, and sometimes, it's more representative of a great defensive play than a bad offensive play.
                          - I do penalize for missed FT's.

                          I'm not sure what you are saying with the 48 minute discussion. I tend to use per 36 minutes because that's what BBR uses, and it's more likely for somebody to play 36 minutes rather than 48.

                          However, it's risky to use those types of pro-rations. I like to use them to see how much impact increased playing time actually had. For that reason, I think they're very useful for things like the Most Improved debate, or for normalizing.

                          I do not like to use them as a way to project the contribution that a little used player would make if given more time. Ike Diogu is probably the most vivid example of a guy who could burn you on this. Often, you run into the law of diminishing returns as you add minutes before you get the "projected" production.

                          I used the per 36 here because I was trying to remove the impact of the increased minutes that Brandon had gotten. I wanted to see if there was an actual increase in quality, instead of just quantity.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                            Thanks for digging that up.

                            Yes, I feel like missed three pointers should be penalized due to the longer rebounds they often create which I believe, but have no proof for, leads to more fast break opportunities and easier scores for the opposition than missed twos.

                            I have, in the past, included blocks against mainly due to our guards penchant to drive inside, get hung up, and then either lose the ball, make stupid passes that ended up being intercepted frequently, or simply have their shots blocked, and I didn't want the blocks against to go unnoticed. However, this also penalizes our bigs who were often the recipients of stupid passes when they are in no position to get off a shot of any kind, so I guess that really isn't very fair, either.

                            I had not included missed free throws, I guess, due to our overall ability to make free throws. I was looking at the free throws more from the "made" standpoint and because they are already included as points I simply ignored the misses. I now realize that those misses need to be included because of the negative consequences of missing opportunities to score with the clock stopped, especially with our current system leading to so many close games. Also, there needs to be a recognition of the liability that a poor free throw shooter can be during the course of many games where fouling that player can be just slightly worse than getting an outright steal (like the hack-a-shaq, despite his tendency to seemingly respond with better results from the line when that is happening).

                            On the pro-rating, I feel like the players who get very few minutes often are either playing against other players who generally get very few minutes as well, and often in less meaningful garbage time. Because of this, I feel like those players who perform well would have an excessively magnified result after pro-ration. Then, there are players who simply don't get into the flow of the game in extremely limited filler minutes whose results would actually prove frequently to be worse after pro-ration than would ordinarily be expected. For these reasons, I don't feel like pro-ration is very useful, and despite the temptation to use it in support of players that I feel like should be getting more minutes, I try not to.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                              Few would agree with me here, but I would like to sometimes see Danny, Brandon, and Dunleavy on the floor at the same time. The matchup problems that would create on offense would be pretty awesome, in my opinion, and could even give us a unique ability to run a triangle style set with three actual potent threats instead of two.

                              Hmm... I think a certain team in the ECF is having pretty good sucess with a similar lineup.

                              Courtney Lee = Brandon Rush
                              Turkoglu = Dunleavy
                              R. Lewis = Granger


                              Turkoglu isn't a great individual defender by any stretch but he's adequate within the team's defensive scheme. If the Pacers can devise a better team defensive scheme, Dunleavy can provide adequate defense as well.

                              Now I'll admit that having a Center like Howard is what makes it work so well but those three Magic players more than hold there own even when Dwight is on the bench. Take game 3 against the Cavs for instance.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2 - Brandon, #13's, and the Rookie Year)

                                Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                                Hmm... I think a certain team in the ECF is having pretty good sucess with a similar lineup.

                                Courtney Lee = Brandon Rush
                                Turkoglu = Dunleavy
                                R. Lewis = Granger

                                Now I'll admit that having a Center like Howard is what makes it work so well but those three Magic players more than hold there own even when Dwight is on the bench. Take game 3 against the Cavs for instance.
                                Those 3 players can only be on the floor for extended periods of time because Howard is out there with them. If we trotted out Rush, Dunleavy, and Granger out there with Hibbert, Murphy, or Foster (our best bigs) we'd get slaughtered by most teams. We wouldn't have the physicality, interior defense, or rebounding to compete.
                                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                                - Salman Rushdie

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X