- 02:29 AM
- 12/22/24
'Fast Eddie' has had a shady reputation for a long time. I immediately figured he was the one in this story; as would anyone who distinguishes between the 2 Eddies.
posted by mike goodman at 05:26 AM on August 12, 2006
Regarding the Sixers playing without their two supposed fan attractions: How many fans are miffed when they go out to see Garnett, or Lebron, and find they won't be playing. Either the team is 'tanking', hoping for a better lottery draw; or they're 'coasting' into the playoffs and resting their stars. In Philly, the man at the top gets mad because the players were late -- not even late, just not 'early enough'. He's so mad he's inarticulate. The coach dutifully gets inarticulate and mad. The fans are supposed to continue the domino effect. Does any fan, in fact, care about the time of players' arrival? Is someone just venting publicly, frustrated that they've missed the playoffs?
posted by mike goodman at 04:21 AM on April 22, 2006
DJE, I estimate 'expected TO' by applying these factors to other stats, and adding them up. Ast * .16 Blk * .10 Pts * .08 Reb * .07 Stl * .05 Min * -.005 Minutes is per-game, and the others can be per-40 or whatever. Note the minus sign. Without any justification for these numbers, other than they give a 'best fit' with players' actual TO rate (since 1978, when TO began to be recorded). As I said, most players in 2006 will have fewer TO than this formula predicts. In 1978, almost everyone got more TO. Somewhere I have a better 'modern' formula, but I can't seem to find it.
posted by mike goodman at 06:36 AM on April 15, 2006
Regarding whether a player is 'turnover prone', there are factors other than Minutes and Assists to consider. Scoring attempts also put a player at risk of a TO. Even rebounds give you the chance of losing the ball. I happen to have this little formula for estimating 'expected TO' from other stats. It's based on historic trends, and the modern NBA has much fewer TO than in previous decades. Among the league's best 30-or-so players, only Dwight Howard and Kirilenko cough it up more than they 'should', by historic standards, considering all the other things they do. Close to the 'par' mark are Pierce, Arenas, Parker, Carmelo, and Nash. But Wade, Kobe, Lebron are not 'TO-prone'; they just do an awful lot with the ball, and they get (somewhat less than) their share of TO. Dirk, Brand, Garnett, Marion, and Billups get far fewer TO than 'expected'.
posted by mike goodman at 06:32 AM on April 14, 2006
Lebron has definitely come on strong in the last few weeks. Statistically, he's emerged as the clear frontrunner. Coincidentally, his team has surged as well. I've read they don't give MVP to a player who's only 21. True, these last couple of decades it's gone almost entirely to mid- and late-career veterans. But lots of guys won it at age 23; Wes Unseld at 22. Nowitzki is the dark horse, in that he's the only 'big' that people are putting in their top 5. Wade and James are interchangeable; Kobe and Billups have their attractors. They'll all be fighting for the non-'big' vote.
posted by mike goodman at 06:08 AM on April 12, 2006
I'm only interested in the NBA. One thing I've noticed in the last several decades: some guys who go unfulfilled in the NCAA tournament go 10-15 NBA seasons On a Mission: McAdoo, Bird, Olajuwon, Shaq, ...
posted by mike goodman at 12:52 PM on March 25, 2006
Oh, yeah: "Iverson is 7th in the league in assts this year. Jordan never averaged that many,.." Jordan averaged 8.0 assists in 1988-89; Iverson's at 7.4 now, topped at 7.9 last year.
posted by mike goodman at 08:30 AM on February 02, 2006
"7 of the top 30 all time leading scorers are currently playing in the NBA. 2 are currently in the top 6 all time." Leaders in 'points per game' are not the same as 'alltime scoring' leaders. But that's a minor point. Everyone's career PPG is higher while they're playing near their peak, than after some declining years. Every year Shaq hangs on at well below his career average, his PPG will decline about a point. Iverson's # is still rising, but it too will drop. If you just look at averages thru age 30, the list looks like this: 37.6 Wilt 32.3 Jordan 30.2 Baylor 30.0 Oscar 28.8 Barry 27.6 Shaq 27.5 West 27.4 Iverson ... Vince is now #23, Pierce #33, no other current players in the top 40.
posted by mike goodman at 08:01 AM on February 02, 2006
Of all players listed as 'center' and with at least 300 minutes played, Mark Blount is easily the weakest rebounder. He also has the worst turnover rate in the bunch. He's become a 'shooter' this year. He fouls 3X as often as he blocks a shot.
posted by mike goodman at 05:23 AM on January 27, 2006
Someone wrote that Jordan never averaged as high as 35.9, but of course he did (37.1). I erred in the score of Wilt's game, but I was really comparing his points to his opponents'. And I should have said 'Kobe's scoring was greater', rather than 'Kobe's game...' My bad. Still: If Kobe doesn't get 3 points for a 24-footer, does he still shoot 13 of them? I kinda doubt it. Since he hit .636 from inside the arc (21 of 33), he could be expected to make 8 of 13 additional 2's, for 16 pts. If he gets fouled a few times more, he scores even more. I don't see how it makes any knowable difference in his Pts/Attempts. Of course they counted assists in 1962 (since 1949, at least). Says here Wilt averaged 2.4 in '62 (along with 39.5 FGA): http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.htm Now I'm curious whether Kobe can carry his newly 'like Mike' game to the playoffs.
posted by mike goodman at 07:47 AM on January 23, 2006
Wilt got 100 in a 165-147 game, and Kobe got 81 in a score of 122-104. Wilt's points were 68% of the opponent total; Kobe got 78% of Toronto's. Wilt needed 48 min., 63 FGA, and 32 FTA. Kobe got his from 42 min., 46 FGA, and 20 FTA. Kobe's game was greater than Wilt's best.
posted by mike goodman at 06:20 AM on January 23, 2006
Francis for Artest, straight up
posted by mike goodman at 10:06 AM on January 13, 2006
I think the problem is that Ron Artest was somebody's role model.
posted by mike goodman at 03:44 PM on December 20, 2005
Study #2 comarps Rodman and Iguodala.?
posted by mike goodman at 10:47 AM on December 16, 2005
.."we can draw the conclussion"... Is someone beating his head on the wall?
posted by mike goodman at 09:35 AM on December 16, 2005
They're both 6-6? Honestly, I don't know how much the 'stats' of age, height, and weight are considered in these studies. But when you add more variables, you get weaker correlations with all variables. I prefer 'similarity' lists that are generated only by production statistics. But maybe that's just me. The 2 studies linked above both compare last year's players to alltime greats. The first one references the alltimers' Peak Year, while the 2nd compares to Career rates.
posted by mike goodman at 07:46 AM on December 16, 2005
By astonishing coincidence, I'd just come up with an early installment of MIP. Here are the leaders: Parker,Smush West,David Diaw,Boris Brand,Elton Camby,Marcus Wade,Dwyane Davis,Ricky Bosh,Chris Howard,Dwight Pierce,Paul Stevenson,Deshawn Redd,Michael The proper way to select MIP is to start at the top and reject players for one reason or another. Eventually you arrive at your boy.
posted by mike goodman at 02:49 PM on December 15, 2005
In general, the greatest players tend to be the most unique. And they are the same guys who don't seem to be 'pure' point guards (Magic), SG (Jordan), etc. Bird had SF skills, but rebounded better than PF-C McHale. Karl Malone (PF) passed better than any other F on his teams. The best forwards aren't strictly PF or SF, but just F; the best guards can be SG or PG. When Jordan played point, he WAS the best PG. He was also the best SF. Some of the best centers are assigned as PF (especially these days). In olden times, your best big man was your center. The closest resembler I found to Kevin Garnett's MVP season was Wilt Chamberlain in 1968. Of course, his numbers have to be scaled down from a milieu of 115-point games with 65 rebounds per team.
posted by mike goodman at 08:20 AM on December 15, 2005
Baylor retired early in the '72 season and was not playing in the Lakers title that year. Erving won 3 rings, 2 in the ABA. Cunningham also copped. One thing that was said about Larry Bird was that as much as he loved to win, he hated to lose. Think about it: everyone loves to win, more-or-less equally. Others really don't accept losing as an acceptable option. Jordan was like that, just as strongly. This is what rubs off on teammates, more than skills or work ethic. It's hard to imagine anyone better than Jordan, at both ends of the floor, who elevates his game in the playoffs Every Single Year. A couple of questions about this forum: -- What is it that is 'filtered' here? Apparently not people who mostly want to dig at others who post. -- I'm just realizing I'm the only one who uses a 'real' name. Have I made a big mistake in so doing?
posted by mike goodman at 08:07 AM on December 15, 2005
Closest comparables to Larry Bird, based on career numbers (lower number = closer stats): .00 Larry Bird 23 10 6 .37 Grant Hill 22 8 6 .55 Elgin Baylor 23 10 4 .55 Chris Webber 21 10 4 .58 Kevin Garnett 21 12 5 .61 Charles Barkley 23 12 4 .66 Tracy McGrady 24 7 5 .68 Clyde Drexler 20 7 6 .71 Antoine Walker 18 9 4 .71 Karl Malone 27 11 4 .72 Julius Erving 23 8 4 .73 Scottie Pippen 18 7 6 .73 Paul Pierce 25 7 4 .74 Marques Johnson 20 8 4 .75 Brad Daugherty 20 10 4 .76 Billy Cunningham 20 9 4 .77 Shareef AbdurRahim 21 9 3 Grant Hill's the only particularly good match; and his game currently doesn't resemble his own career rates. Dirk (1.03) is #40, right between 'Nique and Jordan.
posted by mike goodman at 04:47 AM on December 15, 2005
I can't figure out what you guys are arguing about. It comes across like this: " I agreed, and you disagreed about whether I agreed to disagree before you disagreed to agree..."... Like this matters? Does it make sense to just say what you think and move on? FWIW, some years ago I heard Wilt Chamberlain say if he was building a team by drafting anyone in the current NBA (circa 1992?), he'd take Stockton first. Something about how he could bring out the best in anyone, complement any player. Magic was an incomparable talent, but for virtually his whole career he had an allstar on his right, an allstar on his left, and an all-NBA trailing, on most of his fast breaks. That's crudely a paraphrase of Oscar Robertson. In Magic's last few 'real' NBA games, he was quite unable to carry a mediocre (by Laker standards) squad to a respectable showing against the juggernaut Bulls. In what was billed as 'MJ vs MJ', he wasn't even the 2nd-best player; Pippen was. And Magic was still at the height of his powers. The torch had passed, retire or no.
posted by mike goodman at 09:50 AM on December 08, 2005
You might call these guys point guards, from my statistically-generated list of greatest pro careers: Magic Johnson Jerry West Oscar Robertson John Stockton Bob Cousy Isiah Thomas Gary Payton Jason Kidd Walt Frazier Kevin Johnson Gus Williams Dennis Johnson Mark Jackson Tim Hardaway Terry Porter Rod Strickland Maurice Cheeks Lenny Wilkens Sam Cassell Lafayette Lever There's extra credit given for playoff excellence, and for playoff success. A bigger list can be viewed here: http://hoopsanalyst.com/goodman30.htm
posted by mike goodman at 11:57 AM on December 04, 2005
Dirk is anything but a playoff choker. Other than '03, he's actually stepped up his game in the playoffs. His career playoff shooting is as good as his regular season %, and he's scored more. Rebounding is up every year. Not counting this year, that is; but it ain't over yet.
posted by mike goodman at 03:08 PM on May 09, 2005
Has Bosh even improved over last season? Other than playing more minutes, I mean.
posted by mike goodman at 09:16 AM on February 23, 2005
The list I linked is one version of the only such list known to me that is actually 100% based on stats. Not on awards, popularity, or media exposure. I set as arbitrary "standards" team averages of 100 pts and 44 rebounds per game. It doesn't matter what these figures are for comparison purposes. If Wilt scored 50 PPG, playing 48 MPG for a team that gave up 120 PPG, that might be equivalent to a scorer getting (say) 32 pts in 36 min, on a 100 PPG-allowed team. (That's Jordan territory) Shooting % are also factored in to what I summarize as a "scoring rate". This gives relative rankings of "Scorers". They might be high-efficiency/low-volume; or low-eff/hi-vol. They aren't equal, but I can call them Equivalent. Scoring, rebounding, passing, and etc. are summed in the total rate. This is tantamount to quantifying a player's "productivity". Call it talent, skills, or game. Production per-minute. I get numbers I call "equivalent totals" by reconstituting per-minute equivalencies over minutes played. So Wilt's 4000+ points in 1962 might be equivalent to 3200 points in 100-pt games. Over a career, players' yearly "equivalents" are added. To compress the importance of career (equivalent) totals, I take the square root of it. Then I multiply that by the T-Rate. This skews the total ranking in favor of talent, over longevity. I do this for regular seasons and for playoffs, separately, then add them. A playoff overachiever like Reggie Miller ranks higher than a similarly accomplished regular-season guy like Buck Williams. A typical player might play 10% of his career minutes in postseason. That's a 9:1 ratio of regular-season to playoff. But by taking the square root of the totals, the ratio of importance is typically about 3:1.
posted by mike goodman at 08:08 PM on January 17, 2005
Yo, I've created lists of the best NBA/ABA careers since 1952. You may view one here: http://hoopsanalyst.com/goodman30.htm Credit is given for totals, per-game and per-minute rates; playoff performance is heavily weighted, and titles are credited. Totals are adjusted to the milieu of players' teams' pace.
posted by mike goodman at 09:44 AM on January 17, 2005
Artest isn't long for the Pacers. Someone will take a chance on him. But Middle America he isn't. I wonder how long til this brawl is just seen as a big joke. I mean, no one got seriously hurt, did they? PJ Brown throwing Charlie Ward is now a joke. Alonzo mopping the floor with van Gundy. Funny stuff.
posted by mike goodman at 05:25 PM on December 23, 2004
Sorry, I may have been in a bad mood. I try to analyze things and be objective. I see Nash as one of the 10-15 "most improved" players, from last year to this one. And that's bouncing back from an off year. But there are other major players who improved AND changed teams: take Drew Gooden in Cleveland. Well, the Cavs aren't quite tearing up the league; but they're a lot better than last year, leading their division, #2 team in the East. This despite losing one of their 2 best players (without compensation). However, they got a marginal replacement who has somehow managed to precisely fill Boozer's role on the team. I'm cetainly Not advocating for Gooden as MVP. Just pointing out that the act of changing teams doesn't in and of itself give a player more value (except to the team he joins). And then, Gooden plays the same position as Garnett, Duncan, Nowitzki, etc. But he isn't as good as they are. Here's another one: "..My opinion is that it should go to the most valuable player on a team. By your criteria, sure - just hand the award to Garnett..." The Suns (or any team, or their fans) might wish to award a Team MVP. In any case -- Garnett is slacking, and Duncan is surging.
posted by mike goodman at 05:39 AM on December 22, 2004
cali, you state the case well enough. The article's author was rallying support for a cause, whatever it is. However, overstating the case just to draw attention also has the effect of drawing out people who are sold on the arguments, and who buy the whole premise. Previous comments in this thread just don't sound sober or logical: "If Steve Nash is the MVP, basketball is fun again." This sort of "if/then" logic is merely a statement of the writer's preference. You may feel the same way, but not everyone does. "..Nash undoubtedly gets screwed out of the MVP much like Kidd did in '02.." Iverson, Kidd, and now Nash. The average basketball fan is not 7' tall. It's easier to relate to the shorter player. Therefore we merely tend to "like" them more -- all other things being equal. " ..the issue isn't which player is "better", but more valuable to their team".. This fan also was commenting on his/her personal preference. And in so doing, defining "Team MVP". There would be about 30 Team MVP's, if teams made such selections (as college teams often do.) Personally, I think Good = Valuable; unless your team is wasting your abilities somehow. But the best players in the world are usually franchise players, and teams accomodate them. I'd say Nash is in the range of #25-30 in the NBA, in Value or Goodness. Two others on his team are up there, as well. They seem, by all accounts, to complement one another well.
posted by mike goodman at 07:51 AM on December 21, 2004
Actually, Alonzo Mourning looks to me like one of the 10 best centers in the league. On the Nets, he was easily their best rebounder and shotblocker. One of their 4 best scorers. If he could play 30 minutes a night, he'd be an allstar candidate.
posted by mike goodman at 07:53 AM on December 20, 2004
Hey, I never seen a WTF link before. Last year was Nash's worst in the last 4, by quite a bit. He ranked high in my own list of Losers (losing production from previous season). Unless he has a serious dropoff, he's back on track; in fact, on pace to have his best year ever. "Doing just fine" is, of course, relative. If you're an allstar one year, and not even close the next, your team suffers. As I said earlier, he's a huge upgrade from nothing at PG. Here's an analogy: If you're cruising down the highway at 70 MPH, and you get a flat; you might limp along at 7 mph to a safe place, spend $60 on a new tire and be on your way. Does this mean the new tire is the Most Valuable part of your car? No. If it had been your engine that had blown, you'd be in a world of hurt. When Kidd went to NJ, and the team doubled its win total, he "shoulda been" MVP. But the next year, he was much better, the team was better, and the hype had blown over. They didn't improve by yet another 25 games. A guy who is an MVP candidate may miss a few games, and his team suddenly loses bigtime. Fans say "look how valuable he is". But when the best player in the world manages to play every single game, there's no with/without comparison to be made. Would he be "more valuable" if he were injured? btw, my stats show Duncan's lead over Garnett to be the biggest lead either guy has had over the other, in 2-3 years. These guys are the engines for their teams. Without them, lottery.
posted by mike goodman at 10:50 AM on December 19, 2004
One difference between the Nash "spark" of the Suns, and Kidd's effect on the Nets is that while Kidd replaced Marbury at PG, Nash has stepped into a void. He's a sizable upgrade from No One. A team that's missing a serious component will gain the most by filling that void. If the team has no rebounding, they need a rebounder. Now, if the Suns were to lose Marion or Stoud, they'd be hurt as much or more as they would by losing Nash. Just a theory; but the point is, they need Those 3 to be effective right now. Stoudemire is at an age where rapid improvement could be anticipated -- with or without a complementary PG. Marion seemed to stall out for a couple of years. The importance of chemistry can hardly be overemphasized. But why not place equal importance on the Suns' revitalization of Nash's career, rather than claim it's Nash doing all the sparking?
posted by mike goodman at 06:13 AM on December 19, 2004
Nash is just the latest "little guy" favorite to get this MVP hype attached to him. Since Iverson stole it, Kidd was also hyped to death as allegedly the primary reason the Nets turned around. Last year, I actually heard Stojakovich promoted. Why not Reggie Miller while you're at it? Peja and Nash are white, so that probably gives them some favoritism among many fans. I do like the idea that a 6' white player could even reach the level of consideration. But Stockton was better. Yet he couldn't be a candidate, since he was never even the best player on his Team. Is Nash actually The Reason for the Suns' rise? It seems to me Stoudemire is their superstar, if anyone. And if one Suns' starter gets hurt , there is no one on the bench close to his effectiveness. Duncan's having his career year. Garnett's as good as he was last year. Just as you won't see the Spurs begging the Suns to trade Nash for Tim, you won't get any general groundswell in a "Nash for MVP" campaign. There's still only 2 credible candidates. (Lebron is a year away.) Get used to it.
posted by mike goodman at 08:58 AM on December 17, 2004
Heat awarded do-over against Hawks
In the late '70s, there was a replay of the end of a game between Phl and NJ (I think). By the time of the replay, there had been a trade between the teams. A couple of players ended up scoring points for both teams in the 'same game'. But I wonder why the Heat coaching staff didn't make a stink at the time. Didn't anyone count Shaq's fouls? Couldn't they have checked the game log and found the error within a few minutes? Riley must be slipping.