Blazers Management & Sports Analytics

[illmatic99]

Read this excellent article from BlazersEdge about how KP & Co. are at the head of the pack in terms of quantitative evaluation. Some great insight into KP's moves and workings. It's long, but it's most definitely worth it (just read it while eating lunch).

 

[andalusian]

Really should not be a surprise that KP is into this. Remember that in his brief "between NBA jobs" era he was an investment specialist dealing with assessing risk/reward.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Is this what determined that trading ZBO for Imginary Cap Space is a good thing?

 

[andalusian]

Is this what determined that trading ZBO for Imginary Cap Space is a good thing?

It was a good thing. That team went up with that trade - because, wait for it, Lamarcus Aldridge who actually plays both sides of the floor is a better player than Zach.

There is a good reason Zach has not reached the playoffs since he was backing up Rasheed Wallace - and is going to miss again this year.

 

[maxiep]

Really should not be a surprise that KP is into this. Remember that in his brief "between NBA jobs" era he was an investment specialist dealing with assessing risk/reward.

No offense, but give me a break. KP knows math and statistics like I know basketball, which is to say "not much". He was hired as a stockbroker because it's a lucrative field for ex-jocks. The job is calling wealthy people who would know who he was, take them out to lunch to talk hoops and then to introduce those people to the folks who do the real investing.

What separates KP is that he knows is what he doesn't know. He decides what the important metrics are and lets the stat boys run the numbers.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

It was a good thing. That team went up with that trade - because, wait for it, Lamarcus Aldridge who actually plays both sides of the floor is a better player than Zach.

There is a good reason Zach has not reached the playoffs since he was backing up Rasheed Wallace - and is going to miss again this year.

ZBO = All Star. He's played like one this year and we could use a player like him right now. We got zilch for him and Aldridge has not improved THAT much. ZBO is more valuable because he can rebound and has much better low post game.

And the Reason ZBO has not reached the playoffs is he's been on bad teams, he is not the cause of the bad teams.

 

[illmatic99]

ZBO = All Star. He's played like one this year and we could use a player like him right now. We got zilch for him and Aldridge has not improved THAT much. ZBO is more valuable because he can rebound.

Definitely. He's having a far better season than LA this year. If we were playing this way back in 06, we wouldn't have traded him for that $30 mil void.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Definitely. He's having a far better season than LA this year. If we were playing this way back in 06, we wouldn't have traded him for that $30 mil void.

I think KP's analystics suggested that ZBO will never ever ever errrver improve!

 

[LittleAlex]

ZBO = All Star. He's played like one this year and we could use a player like him right now. We got zilch for him and Aldridge has not improved THAT much. ZBO is more valuable because he can rebound and has much better low post game.

And the Reason ZBO has not reached the playoffs is he's been on bad teams, he is not the cause of the bad teams.

Offense was never the problem for Zach. It was his defense, which is still subpar at best.

I for one do not wish for one second that Zach was back with the team. That move was addition by subtraction.

 

[mook]

Interesting article. I feel like the Zach Randolph dump was made for squishy reasons that'll never be quantifiable (or justifiable) in any statistic, so it's not terribly relevant in the current discussion. (I hated the trade then and now, fwiw.)

If I could sit down and have a beer with KP, though, the thing I'd ask him about is, "What the fuck were you thinking with Hedo Turkoglu?" He was overpriced, his stats didn't merit the salary we offered, and there sure as fuck weren't any defensive intangibles that made up for it. And he had (at the time) Batum looking ready to really take over the SF spot. KP looks like a genius right now because he failed to do the thing he wanted to do, which happened to be really fucking stupid. I'd love to see the metrics that justify the blunder of that contract offer.

 

[andalusian]

No offense, but give me a break. KP knows math and statistics like I know basketball, which is to say "not much".

I think you are underestimating him. He was selected to the all-big-8 academic team 3 times.

He was hired as a stockbroker because it's a lucrative field for ex-jocks. The job is calling wealthy people who would know who he was, take them out to lunch to talk hoops and then to introduce those people to the folks who do the real investing.

I remember hearing him talking about his past as someone doing risk analysis and saying he left because he missed the human element that he got in basketball. Seems contrary to this statement.

I have no personal knowledge of him - but the fact that he seems to be a frequent visitor to this conference and these other nuggets of information suggest to me that he knows a bit more about it that you expect.

 

[Luther]

No offense, but give me a break. KP knows math and statistics like I know basketball, which is to say "not much". He was hired as a stockbroker because it's a lucrative field for ex-jocks. The job is calling wealthy people who would know who he was, take them out to lunch to talk hoops and then to introduce those people to the folks who do the real investing.

What separates KP is that he knows is what he doesn't know. He decides what the important metrics are and lets the stat boys run the numbers.

Link??

 

[maxiep]

I think you are underestimating him. He was selected to the all-big-8 academic team 3 times.

That's like finishing first in the Special Olympics.

I remember hearing him talking about his past as someone doing risk analysis and saying he left because he missed the human element that he got in basketball. Seems contrary to this statement.

It's doubtful he even knows how to calculate n1 in Black-Scholes, much less any intermediate quantitative analysis. Ask him about "The Greeks" and he's likely to talk about fraternaties at KU.

I have no personal knowledge of him - but the fact that he seems to be a frequent visitor to this conference and these other nuggets of information suggest to me that he knows a bit more about it that you expect.

Nothing I've ever heard him say tells me he understands much about statistics. But I don't need him to be Daryl Morey or Theo Epstein; he knows which metrics matter and does a good job of utilizing the sausage without worrying about how the sausage is made.

 

[andalusian]

ZBO = All Star. He's played like one this year and we could use a player like him right now. We got zilch for him and Aldridge has not improved THAT much. ZBO is more valuable because he can rebound and has much better low post game.

All-star is much more of an individual achievement measure - ZBo's great year this year (very similar in output as his '06-'07 season, he actually had a higher PER in Portland that year) again bring you exactly the same team success as we had in '06-'07 - lottery.

And the Reason ZBO has not reached the playoffs is he's been on bad teams, he is not the cause of the bad teams.

Give me a freaking break. Anytime you run a guy that is as big of a black-hole as this guy is and plays miserable defense - you are going to be in trouble.

Portland, as a team, wins at a .569 rate, with Aldridge on the court, Portland wins at a .583 rate - the team wins more when he plays. Memphis, as a team, wins at a .516 rate, but with Zach on the court they only win at a .475 rate - it's the same old, same old. His All-star achievement this year is nothing more than a "good to see you stay out of trouble off-court" award for Zach - he is the same player he was before, one that is really nice to have as a backup player, but you lose more than you win if he is a starter/big usage player.

 

[andalusian]

That's like finishing first in the Special Olympics.

I do not think so. This requires a GPA of 3.0+ - which means that he was, at worst, a B student for 3 years.

But, this is really a worthless argument - since there is no data we are privileged to.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

All-star is much more of an individual achievement measure - ZBo's great year this year (very similar in output as his '06-'07 season, he actually had a higher PER in Portland that year) again bring you exactly the same team success as we had in '06-'07 - lottery.
Give me a freaking break. Anytime you run a guy that is as big of a black-hole as this guy is and plays miserable defense - you are going to be in trouble.

Portland, as a team, wins at a .569 rate, with Aldridge on the court, Portland wins at a .583 rate - the team wins more when he plays. Memphis, as a team, wins at a .516 rate, but with Zach on the court they only win at a .475 rate - it's the same old, same old. His All-star achievement this year is nothing more than a "good to see you stay out of trouble off-court" award for Zach - he is the same player he was before, one that is really nice to have as a backup player, but you lose more than you win if he is a starter/big usage player.

So you think LMA is playing better than ZBo this season? Try to answer without some kind of obscure stat. Just watch the game.

I guess I'm just anti-stat-geek. More times than not, someone like Charles Barkely who just shoots from the mouth is probably better than some stat-nerd calculating PER win share or whatever.

 

[andalusian]

So you think LMA is playing better than ZBo this season? Try to answer without some kind of obscure stat. Just watch the game.

Yeah. I think that ZBo is still awful on defense - and LMA is far from it. He is no KG in his prime - but he is one of our best defensive players - especially with the Blazer's rather pathetic perimeter defense before Batum came back. I would take LMA and his 2-way game over ZBo any time.

Again, why is win% an obscure stat? Why is overall wins an obscure stat? I say that points and rebounds that do not lead to wins are an obscure stat. If you play fantasy basketball - they are great, if you play real basketball team wins and team losses are the most important stat. Anything else is secondary.

I guess I'm just anti-stat-geek.

I am sorry, you just told me we need someone that scores and rebounds like ZBo. These are stats. You are a stat-geek, you just choose the individual stats over the team stats.

More times than not, someone like Charles Barkely who just shoots from the mouth is probably better than some stat-nerd calculating PER win share or whatever.

For entertainment purposes, sure. Kevin McHale is a fantastic TV personality as well. Did not do very well building winning teams, however.

I enjoy watching Charles Barkley and his antics on TV as well - but a good person to analyze basketball players or teams he is not. "He will never score 20 in an NBA game" about Yao is about as classic as they get.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

People know what Rebounds and Points are. Win Share per 36 minutes...wtf is that.

A non-stat geek will say something like: They shoot too many jumpshots, they need to attack the rim more as a casual observation.

A stat geek will go off on a long tangential about non-related numbers pulled out of their ass that just confuses.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I would say that Blazers rebounding and points in the paint is a lot worse than having a slight advantage defensively at the PF position. I mean how many times have players still just attack the rim at will, even with Aldridge in there, the "defensive stopper" he is.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Portland, as a team, wins at a .569 rate, with Aldridge on the court, Portland wins at a .583 rate - the team wins more when he plays. Memphis, as a team, wins at a .516 rate, but with Zach on the court they only win at a .475 rate - it's the same old, same old.

Don't "they" usually say that point differential is a better indicator of team performance than just straight win%? If that's the case, then let's look at LA and Zach's on/off court numbers.

When LA is on the court, the team is 3.6 points better than opponents (per 100 possessions). When he's off the court, the team is 3.7 points better. Overall, his presence has virtually no impact on team point differential.

When Zach is on the court, his team is 0.4 points better than their opponents. When he's off the court, his team is 3.8 points worse. Without him, the Grizz are not good; with him, they're at least mediocre.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

see, you can basically fudge the stats until you get an argument one can support. one of the fallacies of stat-geek-dom.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

People know what Rebounds and Points are. Win Share per 36 minutes...wtf is that.

So a stat's predictive value is determined by the general public's familiarity therewith? Hmm...I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one...

A non-stat geek will say something like: They shoot too many jumpshots, they need to attack the rim more as a casual observation.

A stat geek will go off on a long tangential about non-related numbers pulled out of their ass that just confuses.

If you don't understand the stat, how do you know if they're related or not?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

So a stat's predictive value is determined by the general public's familiarity therewith? Hmm...I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one...



If you don't understand the stat, how do you know if they're related or not?

No, the value of "irrelevant stats" (its the new imaginary capspace btw, don't know how to do the "tm" font here) is that they are used for specific instances. I think that many of the irrelevant stats can be disproven by other irrlevant stats based on the author's way of phrasing things.

 

[maxiep]

I do not think so. This requires a GPA of 3.0+ - which means that he was, at worst, a B student for 3 years.

But, this is really a worthless argument - since there is no data we are privileged to.

And my point is a trained monkey could get a 3.0 at KU.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

see, you can basically fudge the stats until you get an argument one can support. one of the fallacies of stat-geek-dom.

No, the fallacy is the notion you evidenced with your statement. You look at stats as a mechanism to support a conclusion you've already reached. Stats should be used as data points to help arrive at a conclusion not yet determined, or as a tool by which theories and hypotheses can be tested, refined, confirmed, or rejected.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

No, the fallacy is the notion you evidenced with your statement. You look at stats as a mechanism to support a conclusion you've already reached. Stats should be used as data points to help arrive at a conclusion not yet determined, or as a tool by which theories and hypotheses can be tested, refined, confirmed, or rejected.

But there are an infinitesimal number of irrelevant stats that one can use. Therefore, the data is worthless.

 

[maxiep]

Stats can be used for anything--to support an argument, to negate one, etc. Statistics are best used to provide insight not obtained by simple observation. The good thing is that numbers don't come with biases. Equations do, but numbers don't. If you build the right equation, you can find an advantage that no one else possesses. It's especially important in a league with a cap or with a team with financial restrictions. There's a tradeoff between production and what you pay for it.

 

[maxiep]

But there are an infinitesimal number of irrelevant stats that one can use. Therefore, the data is worthless.

The data are not worthless. The conclusion may be worthless, but the data have value.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

But there are an infinitesimal number of irrelevant stats that one can use. Therefore, the data is worthless.

So, because there's more data, it's no good. If there were less data, it would have value.

Have you determined at which quantity of data points the data has maximum value? That data would be very valuable to me.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

The data are not worthless. The conclusion may be worthless, but the data have value.

Disagree. Lots of these stats, when translated to real time NBA instances and trades..don't really apply. You can't quantify team chemistry with a statistic really or how well players play together. There are probably some weird +/- stats, but when you try to apply them in the real world...they just won't really work out like you expected. Too many variables from game to game.