Marcus Camby first day news thread

[BGrantFan]

Here is a direct quote from Hollinger in one of his past chats:



This is from - http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/22977

Notice that Hollinger does a good job of using the word "mean" (as mathematical average) - specifically he tells that "in any given year there are far more players below the mean PER than above it." - if there are more player below the mean PER (15) than above it - again, it is all "per minute", not "per player".

"Mean" means average player, not average starter. Perhaps we're both incorrect in what we think the '15' means. I'd like to see the median.

 

[BGrantFan]

I'm fairly sure andalusion is right. 15.0 PER is the average per-minute production of the league. But since the better players, the starters, play far more minutes than the reserves, the vast majority of that 15.0 PER average comes from their play. Thus 15.0 is not precisely "average starter," but it's closer to that than to "average player" and therefore 15.0 is a fine proxy for average starter.

If you're putting up a 15.0 PER, you're meeting a standard set mostly by other starters in the league. Also by the reserves, but their contribution to that standard is much less.

PER takes minutes played into account, though. If not, it seems like a statistical measurement that is slanted to give starters a higher number. I still await Hollinger's explanation. I'll throw in that Batum, Bayless, and Cunningham are all near or above 15 in PER. I'd like to know how that is possible given their low amount of minutes.

 

[BGrantFan]

I found Camby's interview intersting when it came to Miller. Initially when discussing playing for the Blazers, he mentioned Roy and Aldrdige. He never mentioned Miller which I found odd since he is the vet starting PG for the Blazers and a player Camby personally has played with in Denver.

Camby was professional and when asked directly about Miller, he said some nice things about Miller. But in the end, when asked who he was looking forward to playing with (or something like that, I was listening in the car) he mentioned Roy and Aldrdige but not Miller.

I wonder if there is a history with those two because I was surprised how he never on his own mentioned Miller and only spoke positively about him when directly asked.

Probably not a big thing, but got a funny feeling (about Miller) when it came to his thoughts about this team.

I noticed the same thing. I'm not sure what it means.

 

[Minstrel]

PER takes minutes played into account, though. If not, it seems like a statistical measurement that is slanted to give starters a higher number.

That isn't what I'm saying, that individual PERs are affected by minutes played. I'm saying that the league-wide PER much more reflects the play of the starters because the starters play the majority of the minutes in the league. So the 15.0 average PER is created largely by the starters.

 

[BGrantFan]

That isn't what I'm saying, that individual PERs are affected by minutes played. I'm saying that the league-wide PER much more reflects the play of the starters because the starters play the majority of the minutes in the league. So the 15.0 average PER is created largely by the starters.

My question is much more narrow. Does PER reflect the "average starter", or is it an "average player" statistic. If not, what are the parameters. It seems to me that this question is up for debate, and I hope to get an answer for it. I'm not wondering what sets the value, but rather, what the value means in terms of player efficiancy.

 

[andalusian]

PER takes minutes played into account, though. If not, it seems like a statistical measurement that is slanted to give starters a higher number. I still await Hollinger's explanation. I'll throw in that Batum, Bayless, and Cunningham are all near or above 15 in PER. I'd like to know how that is possible given their low amount of minutes.

Efficiency is by definition "Per something", not total. That's why people with small minutes played can be over 15. Again, look at the math - you tart with "unadjusted PER" which is:

uPER = (1 / MP) *
[ 3P
+ (2/3) * AST
+ (2 - factor * (team_AST / team_FG)) * FG
+ (FT *0.5 * (1 + (1 - (team_AST / team_FG)) + (2/3) * (team_AST / team_FG)))
- VOP * TOV
- VOP * DRB% * (FGA - FG)
- VOP * 0.44 * (0.44 + (0.56 * DRB%)) * (FTA - FT)
+ VOP * (1 - DRB%) * (TRB - ORB)
+ VOP * DRB% * ORB
+ VOP * STL
+ VOP * DRB% * BLK
- PF * ((lg_FT / lg_PF) - 0.44 * (lg_FTA / lg_PF) * VOP) ]


And notice the first element - (1 / MP) * (which is another way of saying - take all the things we can measure that come below and divide them by the minutes played).

The next step is to adjust it to pace:

aPER = (pace adjustment) * uPER

and finally, normalize it a league average of 15

PER = aPER * (15 / lg_aPER)

Of course, lg_aPER is the same calculation as aPer only for all the players in the league based on the number of minutes they are playing.

So - basically, you calculate the individual efficiency, divide it by the composite league wide efficiency and multiple by 15 to normalize across seasons. The numbers are "per minute" as I said, because lg_aPER will also start the same calculation by dividing by minutes played - (1/MP)*

 

[Minstrel]

My question is much more narrow. Does PER reflect the "average starter", or is it an "average player" statistic.

My understanding is that it reflects the "average minute" since it's a per-minute stat. Who plays that average minute? All the players in the league are part of that, but mostly it is the starters since they are playing most of the minutes. So the average PER is closer to "average starter" than to "average player," but it's not precisely either.

It'll be interesting to see what Hollinger says in answer to your question, but that is what I've drawn from what he's written before and my own understanding of the stat.

 

[andalusian]

My question is much more narrow. Does PER reflect the "average starter", or is it an "average player" statistic. If not, what are the parameters. It seems to me that this question is up for debate, and I hope to get an answer for it. I'm not wondering what sets the value, but rather, what the value means in terms of player efficiancy.

I do not think you can say "average starter" really - and maybe I should not have used this word - because Hollinger's "Pretty Good Player" is much better - it does not use the dreaded "average" word which has a vague statistical meaning as well.

Anyway you look at it - I doubt very much that the average player in the NBA is "PGP" when you measure in a closed group because it makes the use of the word "good" to be superficial.

 

[BGrantFan]

I do not think you can say "average starter" really - and maybe I should not have used this word - because Hollinger's "Pretty Good Player" is much better - it does not use the dreaded "average" word which has a vague statistical meaning as well.

Anyway you look at it - I doubt very much that the average player in the NBA is "PGP" when you measure in a closed group because it makes the use of the word "good" to be superficial.

You used it though, and you beat me over the head with it. I just want to see what Hollinger's answer is to the question!

 

[BGrantFan]

My understanding is that it reflects the "average minute" since it's a per-minute stat. Who plays that average minute? All the players in the league are part of that, but mostly it is the starters since they are playing most of the minutes. So the average PER is closer to "average starter" than to "average player," but it's not precisely either.

It'll be interesting to see what Hollinger says in answer to your question, but that is what I've drawn from what he's written before and my own understanding of the stat.

Well, if 15 is the "average minute", couldn't that mean that Outlaw is an "average player"?

 

[Minstrel]

Well, if 15 is the "average minute", couldn't that mean that Outlaw is an "average player"?

No, it means he produces the same amount as players produce, on average, each minute. Since by far the most of those minutes are being played by starters, his production would be closer to average starter than average player.

 

[BGrantFan]

No, it means he produces the same amount as players produce, on average, each minute. Since by far the most of those minutes are being played by starters, his production would be closer to average starter than average player.

Then 15 isn't a real average, at least in terms of measuring a player's value. I wonder what the mean is, and I wonder what the median is for PER. That would be better to assess average, good, and bad.

 

[Minstrel]

Then 15 isn't a real average, at least in terms of measuring a player's value.

Sure it's a real average. It measures the average player-minute. It's just that most of those player-minutes are played by the better players (since they deserve the most minutes), so if you reach that standard (15.0 PER), you're a good player. Thus Hollinger's own designation of 15.0 PER as a "pretty good player."

Whether it's useful in judging player value is up to opinion.

 

[BGrantFan]

Sure it's a real average. It measures the average player-minute. It's just that most of those player-minutes are played by the better players (since they deserve the most minutes), so if you reach that standard (15.0 PER), you're a good player. Thus Hollinger's own designation of 15.0 PER as a "pretty good player."

Whether it's useful in judging player value is up to opinion.

I was just wondering if it meant "average starter". Fuck. You guys win, whatever that means.

 

[mgb]

I found Camby's interview intersting when it came to Miller. Initially when discussing playing for the Blazers, he mentioned Roy and Aldrdige. He never mentioned Miller which I found odd since he is the vet starting PG for the Blazers and a player Camby personally has played with in Denver.

Camby was professional and when asked directly about Miller, he said some nice things about Miller. But in the end, when asked who he was looking forward to playing with (or something like that, I was listening in the car) he mentioned Roy and Aldrdige but not Miller.

I wonder if there is a history with those two because I was surprised how he never on his own mentioned Miller and only spoke positively about him when directly asked.

Probably not a big thing, but got a funny feeling (about Miller) when it came to his thoughts about this team.

I don't think it was a slight to Miller. Most likely he was just thinking of players on the Blazers that he hasn't played with that he looks forward to playing with. That doesn't mean he's not happy to be playing with Miller again.

 

[Minstrel]

I was just wondering if it meant "average starter".

And my answer is/was: no, not exactly, but pretty close. (For reasons stated in previous posts.)

Fuck. You guys win, whatever that means.

Nobody wins when someone gets upset...!

I'm not sure why you're agitated. You seemed to want to discuss it, so I was discussing it with you. If you didn't want to discuss it, no one's forcing you.

 

[BGrantFan]

And my answer is/was: no, not exactly, but pretty close. (For reasons stated in previous posts.)



Nobody wins when someone gets upset...!

I'm not sure why you're agitated. You seemed to want to discuss it, so I was discussing it with you. If you didn't want to discuss it, no one's forcing you.

Why am I agitated? You're giving an unknown answer to combat my own unknown answer. Geez. You win. I'm fine with that.

 

[Minstrel]

Why am I agitated?

Yes, that's what I was wondering too.

You're giving an unknown answer to combat my own unknown answer.

I don't know what that means. But okay.

 

[BGrantFan]

Yes, that's what I was wondering too.



I don't know what that means. But okay.

So, we're done talking hoops? Or are you going to continue to psycho-analyze me? What the fuck.

 

[Nikolokolus]

PapaG? Is that you?

 

[Natebishop3]

PapaG? Is that you?

He didn't use the emote, so it can't possibly be PapaG.

 

[ehizzy3]

PapaG? Is that you?

looool

id put money on papag lurking as a guest tho

 

[bobf]

Having a PER of 15 would be
a) better than the mean or median PER of all players
b) worse than the mean or median PER of all starters (could be some argument against this, but I think it's true)
c) equal to the mean PER of players on the floor at any moment, sampled over many moments

 

[axs88]

PapaG? Is that you?

I had the exact same feeling!

 

[BBert]

I was just wondering if it meant "average starter". Fuck. You guys win, whatever that means.

Talk about a derailed thread.

 

[andalusian]

I am not sure why you are so upset, but the general idea that a PER of 15 is not an "average" player, where average is defined as "Meh" is still right. As we have shown - a PER of 15 means that for every minute you spend on the floor - you produce as much as the average of every minute of all the players playing do - since this average comes from the minutes that the LeBrons and Roys and Kobes and Dirks and all the other players averaged with all the many "Meh" players - it is pretty clear that it is better than your average "Meh" player production.

The funny thing is that in the NBA you do not get paid by minutes played, you are paid the same if you sit on the bench for 10 minutes or 30 every game. With the average salary in the NBA somewhere around the MLE ($6.5 mil) - getting a "PGP" production for much less - makes you a good ROI. That's all.

 

[BGrantFan]

I am not sure why you are so upset, but the general idea that a PER of 15 is not an "average" player, where average is defined as "Meh" is still right. As we have shown - a PER of 15 means that for every minute you spend on the floor - you produce as much as the average of every minute of all the players playing do - since this average comes from the minutes that the LeBrons and Roys and Kobes and Dirks and all the other players averaged with all the many "Meh" players - it is pretty clear that it is better than your average "Meh" player production.

The funny thing is that in the NBA you do not get paid by minutes played, you are paid the same if you sit on the bench for 10 minutes or 30 every game. With the average salary in the NBA somewhere around the MLE ($6.5 mil) - getting a "PGP" production for much less - makes you a good ROI. That's all.

I'm not upset. I had a question. My opinion is that Outlaw is a "meh" player. Not particularly good. Not particularly bad. Meh. You mentioned "average starter", and I've never heard or read Hollinger use that term. I still haven't received an answer from him. The bar was moved from "average starter" to "pretty good". I can live with that, because offensively, Outlaw is "pretty good". Defensively, however, he is "pretty clueless".

 

[BBert]

I posted this in another thread. In the interest of returning this thread to something resembling it's title, I'm pasting it here.



It has been my impression in the past that Camby does everything he can to pad his rebounding stats at the expense of good overall basketball. Same with blocks. Why? My guess is because like Dennis Rodman, that's his statistical schtick to get the big contract. Is it my imagination or was Camby known in Denver for getting pissed off at his teammates if they dared to corral one of 'his' rebounds? Did I imagine that? (Hey, I may have. Hallucinations are fun.) I read somewhere yesterday about how Dunleavy got Camby to focus less on blocks and more on good defense, and that was trotted out as showing what a great selfless team player he is.

I always thought Camby was kind of a selfish, injury-prone cancer. Well, he hasn't been injury prone the last few years (There is hope for G.O. I tell ya!).

Contrary to my previous impressions, I have read and heard repeatedly over the last 24 hours what a great teammate Camby is, what a great locker room guy he is, what a great "glue guy" he is, what a great mentor and teacher he is, and how he's the most unselfish team-first player in the history of basketball.

I hope I was wrong and all that P.R. is right. Probably it's somewhere in between.

Don't get me wrong, I think on balance it's a pretty good trade. We got a legit player for our refuse and maintained a shot at the playoffs. I expect he will work hard for his next contract and fit in perfectly while here, and there is even a chance that if the Blazers don't want to keep him (or he doesn't want to stay) we may be able to do a sign and trade this summer for some long-term value.

Keep the Faith!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

It has been my impression in the past that Camby does everything he can to pad his rebounding stats at the expense of good overall basketball. Same with blocks. Why? My guess is because like Dennis Rodman, that's his statistical schtick to get the big contract. Is it my imagination or was Camby known in Denver for getting pissed off at his teammates if they dared to corral one of 'his' rebounds? Did I imagine that? (Hey, I may have. Hallucinations are fun.) I read somewhere yesterday about how Dunleavy got Camby to focus less on blocks and more on good defense, and that was trotted out as showing what a great selfless team player he is.

I always thought Camby was kind of a selfish, injury-prone cancer. Well, he hasn't been injury prone the last few years (There is hope for G.O. I tell ya!).

Contrary to my previous impressions, I have read and heard repeatedly over the last 24 hours what a great teammate Camby is, what a great locker room guy he is, what a great "glue guy" he is, what a great mentor and teacher he is, and how he's the most unselfish team-first player in the history of basketball.

I hope I was wrong and all that P.R. is right. Probably it's somewhere in between.

All I know is that Camby has had fantastic defensive ratings over his entire career (career Drtg 98), a fact which is significant in regard to your post because Drtg is a measure of how well his team plays defense while he is on the floor. So, either he has simply coincidentally spent his entire career playing on fantastic defensive teams, or he has contributed to excellent defensive teams despite his "stat-padding." He did spend a few years as a member of Van Gundy's Knicks, so there may be a little merit to the first option, but I think the latter is a bit more likely to be the case.

 

[BGrantFan]

All I know is that Camby has had fantastic defensive ratings over his entire career (career Drtg 98), a fact which is significant in regard to your post because Drtg is a measure of how well his team plays defense while he is on the floor. So, either he has simply coincidentally spent his entire career playing on fantastic defensive teams, or he has contributed to excellent defensive teams despite his "stat-padding." He did spend a few years as a member of Van Gundy's Knicks, so there may be a little merit to the first option, but I think the latter is a bit more likely to be the case.

It's quite simple for me. Juwan Howard or Marcus Camby? Plus, Steve Blake actually called MacMillan after the trade to tell him what a fantastic teammate Camby was in Denver.