OT: Stats indicate Sergio actually good

[Rastapopoulos]

...says Wayne Winston:

The Kings play 4 points worse than average for the season. The sad thing is they traded Rodriguez, who had played great. When Sergio was in the Kings were an amazing 9 points better than average(after adjusting for strength of opponents). When Sergio was out Kings played 7 points worse than average.

Whaddya know?

 

[Ed O]

...says Wayne Winston:

Is there anything that indicates Wayne Winston is right about anything?

Ed O.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Is there anything that indicates Wayne Winston is right about anything?

The people who don't like what he says?

 

[drexlersdad]

People spend about two weeks of their lives at traffic lights

 

[rocketeer]

if the majority of sergio's minutes came during a time that was meaningless to the outcome of the game, how the team performed in those minutes is basically meaningless.

 

[LameR]

I feel like there already may be a thread about this.

On the plus side, drexlersdad just made this experience much better.

 

[Ed O]

The people who don't like what he says?

Everyone other than you?

Ed O.

 

[MARIS61]

Is there anything that indicates Wayne Winston is right about anything?

Ed O.

Can't you read?

The Kings play 4 points worse than average for the season. The sad thing is they traded Rodriguez, who had played great. When Sergio was in the Kings were an amazing 9 points better than average(after adjusting for strength of opponents). When Sergio was out Kings played 7 points worse than average.

 

[Minstrel]

Can't you read?

The Kings play 4 points worse than average for the season. The sad thing is they traded Rodriguez, who had played great. When Sergio was in the Kings were an amazing 9 points better than average(after adjusting for strength of opponents). When Sergio was out Kings played 7 points worse than average.

Pretty small sample to be using +/- meaningfully. Especially since, as rocketeer pointed out, the majority of his minutes were played in garbage time.

What you bolded are facts. What is not fact is the predictive value of those facts and whether the indicate Rodriguez's "true talent" level.

 

[Ed O]

Pretty small sample to be using +/- meaningfully. Especially since, as rocketeer pointed out, the majority of his minutes were played in garbage time.

What you bolded are facts. What is not fact is the predictive value of those facts and whether the indicate Rodriguez's "true talent" level.

I find that the guy is a one-trick pony.

Hollinger writes extensively using PER, but he uses other stats, too. This guy makes crazy statements about which players have been better based on what appear to me to be quite small sample sizes.

I just don't buy it.

Ed O.

 

[ehizzy3]

Can the mods please make an official Sergio thread and just merge every thread about him with that thread...I don't care about him enough to keep seeing threads about him, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I find that the guy is a one-trick pony.

If his stat is the best, he should be a one-trick pony. Anything else would be just using inferior data.

Hollinger writes extensively using PER, but he uses other stats, too.

Why would you use other stats unless PER doesn't really measure what's important? (Which, of course, it doesn't.)

This guy makes crazy statements about which players have been better based on what appear to me to be quite small sample sizes.

If you said are better, then I would agree with you. But have been better? Where is it that they've supposedly been better? In that small sample, right? Are you saying that if Sergio were to spontaneously explode, it would be impossible to say how well he played in that small sample of games? That we can only know how he played in those games after he's played in other games?

Now, presumably you have in mind that with a stat like this he might be getting the credit for other players that he routinely plays with. But that's not a small sample size problem (because if he played in a million games with exactly the same people, you'd have the same problem) that's a non-varied sample problem. But, unless you have a bunch of players all with identical scores, there has already been variety.

And on what basis do you think that they are "crazy"? Presumably because you disagree with them. But that could just be a sign of you overlooking important features. James Jones, for example, seemed to help the Blazers win a lot more than he should have, given his limited skills. There are two possible responses: "he can't be helping, so the stat is wrong!" or "maybe there are subtle ways that a player can help that I'm not seeing". Unless you're Tex Winter or something, I think the latter is quite likely. And in Jones' case, it probably had a lot to do with being calm, being more of a veteran than his teammates, and in talking a lot on D - all of which his teammates said was true of him. Does that make him a great player? No. Does that mean he'll be useful to all teams in the same way? Of course not. Does that mean he was good for the Blazers? Absolutely, and in a way that PER can't measure.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

if the majority of sergio's minutes came during a time that was meaningless to the outcome of the game, how the team performed in those minutes is basically meaningless.

True. But how do you know that it did? The weird thing about Sergio in Sacramento is that he seemed either to be starting (particularly when they had injuries) or not playing at all. (Which might be why at least three Kings players, including the sainted Tyreke Evans, have been publicly bitching about Westphal's rotations lately.) Prove to me that the bulk of Rodriguez's minutes were "meaningless".

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If his stat is the best, he should be a one-trick pony. Anything else would be just using inferior data.

Why would you use other stats unless PER doesn't really measure what's important? (Which, of course, it doesn't.)

Different stats provide different information, and using only one--regardless of how good it is--provides an incomplete picture. Just because one stat is "the best" doesn't mean it should be "the only"; the other data--rather than being viewed as "inferior"--should be viewed as a supplement to provide a more holistic assessment.

Most personal trainers have a "favorite" exercise, but they would never suggest that it be the only one someone use. Bananas may be the "world's most perfect food", but nobody advocates eating them exclusively. Vancomycin may be the most powerful antibiotic, but it's obviously not the only one doctors prescribe. Visual descriptives may be the most effective way for an author to set a scene, but they'll include sounds, smells and textures as well.

There are myriad instances in which just one methodology is insufficient; statistical analysis is no different.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Different stats provide different information, and using only one--regardless of how good it is--provides an incomplete picture. Just because one stat is "the best" doesn't mean it should be "the only"; the other data--rather than being viewed as "inferior"--should be viewed as a supplement to provide a more holistic assessment.

Most personal trainers have a "favorite" exercise, but they would never suggest that it be the only one someone use. Bananas may be the "world's most perfect food", but nobody advocates eating them exclusively. Vancomycin may be the most powerful antibiotic, but it's obviously not the only one doctors prescribe. Visual descriptives may be the most effective way for an author to set a scene, but they'll include sounds, smells and textures as well.

There are myriad instances in which just one methodology is insufficient; statistical analysis is no different.

Are you giving up on the holy grail of unified field theory?

I see Winston's job as to make his statistic as fine-tuned as possible. Taken to extremes, your view would advocate against any "combined" stat - all we need is the raw data and a commentator to talk about all of it. But essentially that's what a stat-hound tries to do: combine the data in revealing ways. (That's why it's adjusted +/-.)

To push your analogy, think of Winston as a banana-supplier. You don't want him messing around with apples, you want him producing the perfect banana. You don't have to eat it, but you want it to exist. That's when it's good to be a "one-trick pony".

 

[hasoos]

The problem is, he assumes more points is necessarily better. But he doesn't look at the whole picture on stats. How many were being scored against them? What was their win-loss record during that period? Until you look at the big picture instead of just stats, you have an imperfect model to base your opinion off of.

 

[andalusian]

The problem is, he assumes more points is necessarily better. But he doesn't look at the whole picture on stats. How many were being scored against them? What was their win-loss record during that period? Until you look at the big picture instead of just stats, you have an imperfect model to base your opinion off of.

Actually the numbers do indicate that Sergio was good for the Kings from all these aspects - the scored more when he was on the court than when he was not, they gave up less points when he was on the court and they won 55% of the time he was on the court (which is very nice for a team with a 31% win rate).

It is true, however, that the numbers are for only 39 games and Sergio averaged less minutes per game in Sacramento than he did in Portland - so, I would not be quick to point them as "definitive" - but it is hard to argue with the conclusion that he was good for Sacramento when they did play him.

Is it because Sacramento was smart enough to only play him when he would not be a liability, or is it because he was really good there - I have no idea, I did not watch him enough there to tell you for sure - but, Sergio definitely had his best stretch of NBA basketball in the small amount of time he played for Sacramento.

At the end of the day - he did not fit in Portland at all, his style did not mesh with Roy at all to the point that Miller fits with Roy much better than he did - and hopefully he gets all the rope in the world in NYK to swim or sink - I got nothing against Sergio - and wish him all the best. He seems like a very nice guy. Not the world beater we were told he is, but in the right system, I think he can succeed. Luckily for him - he gets a chance to prove it in the best possible scenario for him.

 

[LittleAlex]

Wayne Winston is a man who believes statistical models are truth. He is more certain about the numbers his system produces then I am about anything.

I am extremely leery of folks who believe their own hype that much. Especially statisticians who believe their own models represent facts instead of just being really good guesses.

 

[maybeso]

It might be helpful to think of statistics as summaries. They help you see "a" big picture, but they leave out details. The average human would be a weird mixture of males and females. Such a creature rarely exists. That would be one extreme misuse of a summary statistic like average. On the other hand, if someone produces 20 points a game nearly every game, it is quite fair to expect them to perform similarly in the future.

As many have said in many threads here, if the sample size is large enough, the exceptions lose importance and the summary is more predictive.

And most of you knew this already, but it seems like we argue about statistics and sample sizes a lot in here.

 

[rocketeer]

True. But how do you know that it did? The weird thing about Sergio in Sacramento is that he seemed either to be starting (particularly when they had injuries) or not playing at all. (Which might be why at least three Kings players, including the sainted Tyreke Evans, have been publicly bitching about Westphal's rotations lately.) Prove to me that the bulk of Rodriguez's minutes were "meaningless".

sergio didn't start a single game for the kings, so i'm not sure exactly where you got the idea that he either started or didn't play at all.

and sergio only played 8% of the kings' minutes that game during the 4th quarter or overtime with 5 minutes or less remaining while the game was within 5 points. that doesn't prove that the majority of sergio's minutes game during garbage time, but it does prove that the kings didn't want him on the court during the minutes that mattered most.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

sergio didn't start a single game for the kings, so i'm not sure exactly where you got the idea that he either started or didn't play at all.

and sergio only played 8% of the kings' minutes that game during the 4th quarter or overtime with 5 minutes or less remaining while the game was within 5 points. that doesn't prove that the majority of sergio's minutes game during garbage time, but it does prove that the kings didn't want him on the court during the minutes that mattered most.

As though any minutes in Kings' games "matter".

Outside of that, I completely agree.

 

[Cake]

Is there anything that indicates Wayne Winston is right about anything?

Ed O.

Well, he did suggest that Andre Miller should be an all-star, but Brandon Roy shouldn't. Wait...that's fairly stupid.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Who knows, maybe Sergio really has improved from last year to this one, but the fact remains that he was never going to be much of an option playing next to Brandon Roy due to his inability to play off the ball effectively. Miller is no dead-eye shooter either, but he at least understands cutting through the lane to recieve a pass and finish with a layup, and can be counted on to score off the dribble or at least draw a shooting foul.

If there had been no Brandon Roy and Sergio was surrounded by defensive minded players when he came to Portland I think you can hide him a little bit on defense and they probably would have enjoyed some succes (although Nate probably would have never signed off on it), so long as you have wings who are at their best cutting off of screens and catching and shooting.

My expectation is that he'll probably do pretty well in D'Antoni's system, but where will he fit when Joe Johnson ('cause I don't think it's going to be Lebron or Wade) is running the offense much like he did in Atlanta, or say T-Mac stays on in New York and regains some of his old form?

 

[Ed O]

And on what basis do you think that they are "crazy"? Presumably because you disagree with them. But that could just be a sign of you overlooking important features. James Jones, for example, seemed to help the Blazers win a lot more than he should have, given his limited skills. There are two possible responses: "he can't be helping, so the stat is wrong!" or "maybe there are subtle ways that a player can help that I'm not seeing". Unless you're Tex Winter or something, I think the latter is quite likely. And in Jones' case, it probably had a lot to do with being calm, being more of a veteran than his teammates, and in talking a lot on D - all of which his teammates said was true of him. Does that make him a great player? No. Does that mean he'll be useful to all teams in the same way? Of course not. Does that mean he was good for the Blazers? Absolutely, and in a way that PER can't measure.

I reject that James Jones helped the Blazers very much.

While it's possible that, of all the time he's been in the NBA, he just HAPPENED to help his team in invisible/intangible/untrackable ways for a couple of weeks... it's far simpler to point to other players that were the reason the team won those games, and Jones was simply along for the ride. It's what I thought at the time and I haven't seen or heard anything that would change my mind.

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

James had the 2nd highest win% for the team that year that year, only 2 percent points lower than Roy. Other players with high win% that year included Blake (3rd on the team) and Aldridge. He played 58 games that year and we won 33 of them. That's .580 win rate. The team without him won at a .333 clip.

You can reject the idea that James helped this team win all you wish - but the numbers seem to indicate that he was more important than you are willing to give him credit.

The fact of the matter is that some players really really succeed playing in Nate's system with a guy like Roy handling the ball - these are often very good outside shooters that are "underrated" and thus not covered as they should by the opposing team and are willing to play hard defense so the coach is willing to play them long minutes. We have seen it with Blake, we have seen it James and for a little bit of time when he made defense his calling card - we have seen it with Webster.

I am willing to bet that if you see Rudy playing as aggressively as he has in the last game - you will see him benefiting from that as well.

This, btw - is why I thought that Hinrich would have revived his career here.

 

[Ed O]

James had the 2nd highest win% for the team that year that year, only 2 percent points lower than Roy. Other players with high win% that year included Blake (3rd on the team) and Aldridge. He played 58 games that year and we won 33 of them. That's .580 win rate. The team without him won at a .333 clip.

You can reject the idea that James helped this team win all you wish - but the numbers seem to indicate that he was more important than you are willing to give him credit.

I don't think win rate is a meaningful statistic. You can throw meaningless stats at me all day and they're not going to indicate diddly squat.

Ed O.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I don't think win rate is a meaningful statistic. You can throw meaningless stats at me all day and they're not going to indicate diddly squat.

Ed O.

What statistics do you view as meaningful? Just individual production figures?

 

[andalusian]

I don't think win rate is a meaningful statistic. You can throw meaningless stats at me all day and they're not going to indicate diddly squat.

Translation: My eyes do not agree with the statistics, I therefore declare them meaningless...

The team won at a might higher clip when Jones was on the floor than when he was not. Clearly he was not important to their success

 

[ehizzy3]

Can the mods please make an official Sergio thread and just merge every thread about him with that thread...I don't care about him enough to keep seeing threads about him, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

smh

 

[Ed O]

What statistics do you view as meaningful? Just individual production figures?

Primarily, yes. With large enough sample sizes I think +/- (adjusted) can have value.

I don't think that 30 games' worth of team-level data is nearly enough for extracting individual value from the whole.

Ed O.