Monthly Archives: December 2011

Weekend Podcast: 2012 NBA Preview for the Northwest Division

Posted on by
2

Bloggers from the Wages of Wins Network previewed the NBA’s least appreciated division for the Weekend Podcast.

Podcast Details

Podcasters:

Recorded: December 22, 2011 at 12:05 PM ET
Duration: 28:13
How to Listen: Click the player above, Download the MP3 or subscribe to the Heatcast via iTunes or the Wages of Wins Podcast via iTunes.
Or if you’re really old school you can also follow our RSS directly.

Continue reading →

How to judge predictions

Posted on by
22

Here is something we occasionally hear from time to time:
“If your model is so good then predict the next season to prove it!”

In the past, members of the WoW network have tried to do just this. But as I will note in the moment, this exercise is mostly for fun (not part of any kind of rigorous inquiry).

That being said… recently wiLQ over at Weak Side Awareness put up a post looking at how well a series of models and analysts did evaluating the 2010-2011 season. I thought this was a very enjoyable post. However, there are two issues I have with what people may takeaway from this wilQ’s rankings.

The absolutely most incorrect way to judge a decision is solely by the outcome.

I’m pretty much stealing this straight from Dan Ariely. So if you want a quality author’s take on the subject I suggest you hit up his blog and come back.

Alright I know this sounds crazy. When we evaluate a decision we should look at a few things beyond the outcome of the decision.  For example…

  • What did you know when you made the decision.
  • What did you think would happen?
  • What actually happened?
  • Why did what happened differ from what you thought?

I’ll give a basketball example. The Memphis Grizzlies took on Zach Randolph’s terrible contract in 2009. The end result is Zach Randolph has been one of the premier power forwards in the league the last two seasons, and furthermore, the Grizzlies were a power in the playoffs. However, here’s what we could have said in 2009 with all of the data we had on Randolph:

  • Zach Randolph was 28, meaning he was unlikely to improve past what we’d seen.
  • Zach Randolph’s performance had been marginal at best in the past.
  • Zach Randolph was an expensive player
  • Zach Randolph had issues on and off the court.

So when we judge the Zach Randolph decision should we rate it highly because things turned out ok? NO! It was a terrible decision. Rewarding it is rewarding luck. Unlike good management, there is no guarantee luck will continue in an organization.

When we evaluate a analyst’s predictions we have to evaluate why they said what the said. Was their information good? For instance, Arturo thought Portland would be very good. Unlike other analysts he didn’t know Roy’s knees were so bad they could not be insured. Additionally, Arturo thought  Przybilla, Camby and Oden could stay at least healthy enough between the three of them to be a force. Oden and Pryzbilla were lost for the season and Camby had injuries. Anyway to sum up:

If we judge based on results — without looking at context — we are not doing good work and we may just be rewarding luck!

Make sure your test of a model actually tests the model.

Alright recap time. The Wins Produced model begins with the individuals box score stats, and uses this information to statistically measure a player’s production of wins. This model is very good at explaining wins (unlike Player Efficiency Rating and NBA Efficiency) and is fairly consistent year to year at a player level (unlike plus-minus and adjusted plus-minus).

Okay, let’s have a pop quiz!

What should we use to evaluate this model? If you said an individual player’s contribution you are correct! I’ll actually show an example of Wins Produced being used for predictions in a way that I think is fair.

Last season our analysts tried to determine which players would win specific awards (using the Wins Produced metric as a barometer) and guess what? The analysts actually did a good job guessing which individual players would be good in specific categories. In fact as a consensus our analysts were top three for every major award using Wins Produced.

So using a metric that judges individual’s performances to predict an individual’s performances seems to work.

The analysts for fun also tried to predict team records (with much less success).

Now pop quiz number 2! Tell me all of the things that are involved with how well a team plays. Here’s just a few I could think of.

  • Individual performances
  • Trades
  • Injuries
  • Breakout seasons for young players
  • Breakdown seasons for older players
  • Minute allocation by coaches.

Of this list, Wins Produced (as well as metrics like Win Shares, WARP, etc…) attempts to handle only one of these factors.

Pop quiz number 3 (final one I promise) does the Wins Produced — or any other metric designed to measure player performance — address any other factor on the list. If you answered no, you’re right! Estimating an individual player isn’t too difficult. Estimating 400-500 of them and a bunch of other things is. So when you try and judge how well a metric designed to measure one thing does when applied to many other values, you are really not testing the model. For example Win Shares is listed. The “prediction” was made based on a bunch of simulations run on the league as it stood at the end of the 2010 season. Comparing it to a different league with many changes is not a good test of if Win Shares is a good metric.

I want to make it clear that I greatly enjoyed wiLQ’s post. I think it is a lot of fun (or painful when I’m reminded of my guesses) to look back at predictions analysts make. What I want to avoid is the notion of anyone reading that this is somehow a good test of one metric versus another.

Summing up

The Wins Produced metric is very good if you want to:

  • Look at which players to reward for good performance on your team (e.g. sign players to new salaries)
  • Determine which players from last year will likely be good this year (e.g. free agents)
  • Determine which players may or may not be overrated/underrated (e.g. trades)

In short, the Wins Produced metric is an excellent tool if you’re a GM or fan and you want to explain or evaluate parts of basketball. Now we love this metric around here. It was a life changer for those of us watching Melo and A.I. put up 25+ points per game and still not contend. We’ve also sold it as an easy to use single number. That said I want to make one thing clear in case we haven’t already:

Just because you use the Wins Produced metric does not mean you should ignore other information!

We’re against things like Adjusted Plus Minus and PER because they’re bad information (i.e. they are inconsistent across time or they do not explain what the purport to explain).  That said, we’re fully behind good useful information. Should you have a crack set of medical trainers that can evaluate players and help them if they get injured? Absolutely! Should you have a psychiatric team (Arturo’s idea btw.) to make sure players on your team are sound and to help them if they have issues (e.g. Beasley) You betcha! Should you analyze your coaches to see if they play the right players! Yes! All of this information should be considered.

As long as you evaluate information properly and use it correctly it’s useful. When you don’t do this… well, then what you are doing isn’t quite as useful.

-Dre

Are the Lakers still contenders?

Posted on by
6

The Lakers were blocked on a trade to send them the best player in the league. A backlash from this move was that they lost their second best player for nothing. Now it seems Kobe’s marriage is falling apart and he is also dealing with injuries. The Lakers appear to be in a free fall while another team in Los Angeles looks poised to take the division.

Ty over at Courtside Analyst already did some work on the Odomless Lakers. The good news is Ty projected the Lakers could win 40 games — the equivalent of 50 games in an 82 game season –(Editor’s note: Thanks Mettaworldpeace for the catch!). Ty had a few restrictions on what the Lakers would need to be a 50 win team. Here are the ones that stood out to me.

  1. Health: The Lakers have some great talent. Injuries could hurt it. The Lakers will need Bynum, Kobe, Barnes, McRoberts and Murphy healthy.
  2. Age: Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Matt Barnes, Metta World Peace and Troy Murphy are all over 30. The Lakers will need all of them to avoid the age like milk virus that snaps up so many old players.

Ty projected the Lakers as a 50 win team. None of the last 10 teams that took the finals won fewer than 52 games (and we may argue the 2006 Miami Heat had a little help from the refs). How is it that we think the Lakers can still compete? The answer is the underrated former Pacers and a bit of luck. Here is how the Lakers depth chart using the players best season from the last two years looks. (ordered by skill of player, not neccesarily who will play the most minutes currently looks)

Lakers Depth Charts by Skill (Using last two seasons)

Lakers Point Guard Options
Best Season Name Team(s) MP WP48 Wins
2010 Steve Blake LA Clippers-Portland 2159 0.125 5.6
2010 Derek Fisher LA Lakers 2227 0.053 2.5
Lakers Shooting Guard Options
Best Season Name Team(s) MP WP48 Wins
2011 Kobe Bryant LA Lakers 2779 0.128 7.4
2011 Jason Kapono Philadelphia 111 -0.115 -0.3
Lakers Small Forward Options
Best Season Name Team(s) MP WP48 Wins
2010 Matt Barnes Orlando 2097 0.185 8.1
2010 Metta World Peace LA Lakers 2605 0.117 6.4
2011 Devin Ebanks LA Lakers 118 0.114 0.3
2010 Luke Walton LA Lakers 272 0.047 0.3
Lakers Power Forward Options
Best Season Name Team(s) MP WP48 Wins
2011 Pau Gasol LA Lakers 3037 0.234 14.8
2011 Josh McRoberts Indiana 1597 0.191 6.3
2011 Derrick Caracter LA Lakers 215 -0.057 -0.3
Lakers Center Options
Best Season Name Team(s) MP WP48 Wins
 2011 Andrew Bynum LA. Lakers 1500 0.281 8.8
 2010 Troy Murphy Indiana 2344 0.212 10.4

Luck is needed at the point

At point guard the best the Lakers could hope for is an average performance from Steve Blake and he has declined since 2010. Derek Fisher is done. The Lakers have picked up two rookie point guards. The Lakers are hoping that their old average/below average point guards don’t fall off a cliff or that a rookie steps up. I would not be optimistic about either.

Kobe is really important

It feels weird to say that. Kobe’s production has declined with age. He is still a good player but he is not a great player. However behind him is a terrible Jason Kapono. The Lakers are already spotting teams one position with such a weak selection of point guard. No Kobe means virtually no backcourt.

The Lakers need health, age and no Walton at the small forward

Matt Barnes is quite a good player but had some injury problems last season. World Peace has been average but is declining. The Lakers need Barnes to be healthy or Peace to hold on. Of course if Barnes isn’t healthy and the Lakers rely on Peace it will mean they are average/below average at three positions and that’s if Kobe is healthy and Blake or a rookie plays decently.

Can some combination of Bynum, McRoberts and Murphy replace Odom?

Bynum has never hit 2000 minutes but has played great. Murphy was a top talent a mere two seasons ago. McRoberts played well last season. If some combination of these three players can stay healthy and be productive the Lakers can not only replace Odom’s 10 wins from last season, they may even improve!

Pau Gasol is really important

Pau Gasol has been the best player on the current Lakers that made it to three consecutive title games. He’s really good. He needs to stay healthy, avoid old age and definitely avoid an Odom like situation is the Lakers have any hope of contending.

Summing up

What is boils down to is the Lakers are crossing their fingers that the stars align on every one of their positions. They have a potentially killer front court, a decent set of wings and are still empty at the point guard. That said, it’s entirely possible the Lakers could be contenders this season but it will take a lot of luck.

-Dre

A closer look at Kobe’s clutch

Posted on by
11

The Lakers questionable moves and Kobe’s possible injury woes this season had some of us looking into the Lakers fate. While I was in the midst of doing research for that I decided to take a closer look at a common theme for Kobe fans: Kobe is clutch and wins when it matters. Henry Abbott has written about how this is not true several times. A while back I even wrote why this doesn’t matter.

However, I decided to use Youtube to actually apply the eye test to some of Kobe’s greatness and look over every “clutch” (final 24 seconds of the game) game winning/game tying shot in Kobe’s playoff career. For perspective Kobe has taken 26 “clutch” shots in his playoff career and connected on a grand total of 7 of them. It gets worse.

The Youtube test for Kobe’s playoff clutchness

2000 Game winner in game 2 against Phoenix - Takes a terrible game winning shot in a series that’s decided in 5 games.

Verdict: Kobe clutch! (or lucky, take your pick)

2002 Game winner in game 4 against San Antonio - Loses the ball. Derek Fisher recovers it and drives and Kobe’s game winner is a put back.

Verdict: I give this one to Derek Fisher. Also, ironically Kobe’s “clutch” comes via rebounding not shooting.

2004 Game advancing shot in game 5 against San Antonio  - Kobe makes a good shot off a screen from Karl Malone. The thing is Tim Duncan makes a “clutch” shot to put the Spurs up. Right after that with 0.4 seconds left Fisher makes the game winner.

Verdict: Kobe’s clutch is upstaged by both Tim Duncan and Derek Fisher. I say we only get one clutch player per game and Fisher wins it and Kobe comes in third.

2004 Game tying shot in game 2 against Detroit – Kobe makes a deep three to send the game to overtime. It may have come off a questionable no-call on a drive by Chauncey Billups.

Verdict: Kobe clutch! (with an assist from the refs)

2004 Game tying shot in game 4 against Phoenix – Kobe makes a game tying shot to take the game to overtime. However this comes off a Smush Parker steal and then a perfect feed from Devean George. So he was clutch but it came on the back of some other arguably more clutch play.

Verdict: I’ve got to give the clutch to Smush Parker here. That said. . . 

2004 Game winning shot in game 4 against Phoenix – Kobe akes a pull up jumper for the game winner.

Verdict: Kobe clutch!

2008 Game winning shot in game 5 against San Antonio – Kobe makes a nice pull up jumper for the game winner.

Verdict: Kobe clutch!

Kobe clutch in 2006 vs. Phoenix?

Of Kobe’s seven clutch makes in the playoffs two of them came in one game and I have to credit Smush Parker with more of the clutchness in that. In that same series it should also be noted that Kobe was on one of only eight teams to lose a 3-1 lead in a series and he missed a clutch shot in game 6. So while he did have one clutch game the whole series was very anti-clutch.

Kobe fails the eye test

On the whole Kobe really only earns three of his seven clutch honors fully. It’s hard to really consider that winning when it matters. If the Lakers decline this season people may attribute it to the lack of Kobe’s winning attitude. While losing Kobe will certainly hurt it should be noted his “win while it matters” atttitude may be overrated. In fact I’d wager losing Odom hurts a lot more.

-Dre

Dopes about doping #3

Posted on by
4

The NBA lockout gave me a chance to write about non-NBA topics that I feel strongly about. The other day I wrote the overview and second post in my series about doping; today’s post is the third in the series and covers some arguments against a ban on PEDs. 

WADA WADA WADA

Like the War on Drugs, the entire anti-doping industry is an infinite financial sinkhole. Anti-doping efforts will never be successful, and anti-doping enforcers will always be a step behind dopers. For this perpetual failure, the IOC and governments around the world will pay millions of dollars. Currently, the yearly funding for the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is divided as follows:

  • World governments pay $13 210 049
    • Europe pays 47.5%
    • Americas pay 29%
    • Asia pays 20.46%
    • Oceania pays 2.54%
    • Africa pays 0.5%
  • The IOC matches governments by paying $13 210 049

But anti-doping funding is not limited to the WADA — most countries have their own national anti-doping organisations. For example, in addition to the $1.9 million the US gives to WADA each year, it also sends about $13.5 million to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). In addition to the $957 729 that Canada sends to the WADA each year, it also sends about $5 million to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES). Federal governments around the world are (surprise!) spending a decent amount of money — somewhere around $90 million per year — on a futile endeavour. And let’s not forget all the money that goes towards policing PEDs and developing testing facilities.

Instead of spending money on a Sisyphean task, why not make money instead? Legalizing and regulating PEDs would turn them from a money waster into a money maker. In the midst of poor economic conditions, such a prospect should be a no-brainer. Countries and organizations around the world are beginning to realize that the War on Drugs is futile. Will the story be the same for PEDs?

Fast, High, and Strong Enough

What are the goals of elite athletics anyways? As far as I can tell, the goals are as follows:

  • to push the limits of human performance
  • to entertain the masses
  • to demonstrate the superiority of various political systems
  • to stoke the fires of tribalism
  • to advertise products

While you can chalk up the last three goals to my cynical nature (or the corruptable nature of humanity — whichever helps you sleep at night), the first two seem pretty reasonable as far as the stated goals of elite athletics. Given those two goals, shouldn’t athletes use all the tools at their disposal? If properly administered, PEDs would allow athletes to safely push the limits of human performance, just as they make use of equipment, training methods, modern medicine, and performance techniques to improve their performances today. And that would lead to more spectator interest, as more performances would be record-breaking performances. After all, everyone loves a new world record. If you want to best performances, it makes sense to pursue all the options on the table. So why not allow PEDs?

Over the next several years, medicine will advance by leaps and bounds. The line between “cheating” and accepted practice will become increasingly blurred. As it stands, cyborgs have already been determined to be eligible to run in Olympic sprints. Gene therapy is on the horizon. It should only be a matter of time before PEDs are legalized as well.

Further readings

I have only been able to scratch the surface when it comes to this issue; much more can be said and in much greater detail. Thankfully, there are plenty of in-depth writings on the matter. Here are some of my favourites:

If you know of any other interesting articles on the subject, let us know in the comments.
- Devin