Berri 12/28 on Bogut/Bucks

[paulpressey25]

I'm not sure where Berri is all that wrong here. Before the season, he said Redd and RJ were on the decline and wouldn't do much of anything for us. And they aren't.

The only areas where he's been wrong are:

a) Bogut outperforming slightly where Berri had him
b) Ridnour outperforming where he had him.

No way Berri could have predicted that somehow Sessions and LRMAM would elevate their games to be major contributors. His formulas aren't necessarily set up to do that. (i.e. starting from an almost zero baseline to then say that a second round pick will launch on the scene with a plus 4 to 8 wins produced.)

[Joana]

Many people knock the statistical analysis people, one because it goes against their eye test and what they want to believe, two because they don't understand it. It's annoying but also a fact of life.

Some people honestly think that what they just casually watch, without tracking anything, in a less game sample is a better barometer than people who take every minute of every game into account, and look at the trends statistically.

That's a very lame and annoying straw man argument. That dichotomy is way too simplistic and not proper of a cultivated mind. Personally, I believe I've read more about basketball stats, and used them more, than anyone else in this board.

The problem is that most people are basketball illiterate and don't understand what they're watching. So, they tend to trust stats, even metrics that are pretty meaningless or flawed. I've pointed a few of the problems of Berri's most famous formulas and my points weren't contradicted.

I understand why you're suspicious of what you watch. I've noticed reading the game threads that you see the exact same play - not the same, but extremely similar plays - differently, depending on the players involved on the execution. That's a case where your passions/hates for particular players cloud your judgment to the point that your eyes start playing tricks with you. I wouldn't trust my judgment as well if I was like that.

What I knock is not the statistical analysis people - I even know some of them. Well, with a few exceptions, some guys do a really bad work. For example, if you're going to label everybody who knocks Berri (and not only his work) as "stats haters", you're going to be very surprised with the kind of people that falls into that category. What I knock - and mock - are the "know-nothings" who think that any criticism of stats is rooted on lack of understanding.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

So, how are Berri's pre-season predictions doing?

Why do you keep criticizing stat guys, and yet keep refusing to name the non-stat guy who gets it right all the time? Tell me right now the name of the pundit who will get next year's predictions correct.

Huh? Who is that non-stat guy that claims some kind of predictive power?

Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith, Steven A Smith, Bill Walton, Ric Bucher, and literally dozens of others who have been given a national platform at ESPN, NBA.com, Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, SLAM Magazine, and plenty of other places.

If Berri is just another guy giving prediction, why do we open topics with his stuff?

A: Because his track record seems better than most of the guys listed above
B: Because it's interesting and insightful
C: We do open topics about other writers when they cover the Bucks, but they don't anger you in the same way, so you forget about them

[Joana]

It just bothers me when people take lil shots at the man himself as opposed to giving any type of objection to the article in question.

I have already written why are Berri metrics flawed somewhere on this board, haven't I? I can't keep repeating myself every time this issue pops. There's a very good peer-reviewed paper, from Kubatko, Oliver, et all, that makes an excellent work defining the value of possessions. I strongly advise it (I can e-mail it).

I don't have any type of objection to the conclusions of the article. I believe Bogut has been the MVP of the season. I think Luc and Jefferson are under-appreciated because defense isn't measured. I think Sessions is over-appreciated for the same reason. And I think that things are closer that what the article implies.

[Epicurus]

I don't often knock stat people, but I'll take own observations, notes and analysis of a basketball game over someone else's statistical formula any day. Many people who scout basketball for a living would say the same thing.

I am sure you are correct about the scouts, but therein lies the problem--self-aggrandizement and hubris.

[paulpressey25]

A: Because his track record seems better than most of the guys listed above

For me that is a big thing. I've followed the Hollinger PER analysis for five years now and I'm not convinced it necessarily tells you which players are more valuable than others. For example, Redd has in the past had a very high PER but we've always been debating how much a factor he really is on the court. By the same token, Charlie V usually has a much higher PER than I think his actual play on the court has really shown.

In contrast, Redd has never been a super-high guy as it relates to wins produced. Sure he's been good, but not in my opinion on a relative basis when compared to how high the PER values him. (maybe Berri or Hollinger disagree with this). From my vantage point, I tend to view Redd as a player more along the lines of how Berri statistical model views him, hence I see some merit in Berri.

Where the Berri formula is best applied is by Ty over at BucksDiary. As you guys know, Ty now does game by game boxscores where he calculates how well your counterpart does using Berri's formula. So you get an offensive and defensive rating. And in doing so you see how many times Redd or Mo's 24-point game in reality get's destroyed by the fact they just gave up 30 points to "Stephen Jackson" or "Beno Udrih"

[paul]

Interesting that so many people like this are giving Bogut major credit yet his coach seems incapable of doing so, quite the opposite in fact.

Again, I think it is tough love. He feels Bogut can be more than he is and I agree with him. A 15-18 wins produced type player versus the 11 games he is currently at. He's damn close if he can play more consistently and figure out how to get his scoring average back at 16ppg like it was for those last 50-games of last year.

I agree that that is what Skiles is doing PP, but I disagree with his method. I have no problem with tough love and agree Bogut has needed some, but there is a point where tough love just becomes a double standard or bias. Last nights game is one of several examples thus far this season - Bogut was clearly our best player yet was sat with those not performing then lumped in with the 'no energy, didn't bring it' crowd in Skiles comments after the game.
I also think he's misreading Bogut, he's not some rookie desperately seeking coach's approval and if he keeps getting criticized despite playing well we can't blame him if he loses it with Skiles, but I digress.

Back to Berri, unless I'm reading the table wrong he's got Bogut listed at 12.6 wins for this season not the 11 you mentioned. I'd love for that number to be 18 and among the leagues elite but he's producing at a level of 5 full wins better than Ramon who is our next best - that surely deserves at least some praise.

[aboveAverage]

I agree with his analysis of Luke Ridnour. He has been playing extremely well recently. He's been hitting jumpers consistently, playing good defense, finding open teamates, running the fastbreak better than any point guard we've had in a long time, and he's not getting much love from our fans here. I am completely impressed with his play right now. If he continues this level of play, the Mo Williams trade will not have been so bad. Props to Luke Ridnour.

[Epicurus]

I'm not sure where Berri is all that wrong here. Before the season, he said Redd and RJ were on the decline and wouldn't do much of anything for us. And they aren't.

The only areas where he's been wrong are:

a) Bogut outperforming slightly where Berri had him
b) Ridnour outperforming where he had him.

No way Berri could have predicted that somehow Sessions and LRMAM would elevate their games to be major contributors. His formulas aren't necessarily set up to do that. (i.e. starting from an almost zero baseline to then say that a second round pick will launch on the scene with a plus 4 to 8 wins produced.)

True and what he is offering regarding the future is an " all things being/remaining equal' statements. That is rather usual for an economist. Since things are rarely always equal, divergence from the "prediction" should be expected. Yet eventhough all things are rarely equal, Berri's predictions have a decent track record and from his empirical theory he can offer reasonable grounds for any divergence.

I also wonder how much production we will see from the rookies (including Sessions) in the second half when they may run into the fabled Rookie Wall.

[coolhandluke121]

At the beginning of the season there was a thread about who were the most important players on the Bucks. I chose Ridnour and Bogut as the top 2 (blows on fingernails and wipes them off on chest).

[aboveAverage]

I'm not sure where Berri is all that wrong here. Before the season, he said Redd and RJ were on the decline and wouldn't do much of anything for us. And they aren't.

The only areas where he's been wrong are:

a) Bogut outperforming slightly where Berri had him
b) Ridnour outperforming where he had him.

No way Berri could have predicted that somehow Sessions and LRMAM would elevate their games to be major contributors. His formulas aren't necessarily set up to do that. (i.e. starting from an almost zero baseline to then say that a second round pick will launch on the scene with a plus 4 to 8 wins produced.)

True and what he is offering regarding the future is an " all things being/remaining equal' statements. That is rather usual for an economist. Since things are rarely always equal, divergence from the "prediction" should be expected. Yet eventhough all things are rarely equal, Berri's predictions have a decent track record and from his empirical theory he can offer reasonable grounds for any divergence.

I also wonder how much production we will see from the rookies (including Sessions) in the second half when they may run into the fabled Rookie Wall.

I would say Sessions hit that wall about 3 weeks ago. Let's see if he can catch a second wind like Mbah a Moute did earlier in the year.

[LUKE23]

I will give props to Ridnour as well. I've been bagging on him all season, but he's been playing great lately and making me eat my words. I need to see this continue before I can really say we're a better team for the season with him over Mo, but if he plays like he has the last 8 or so games for the remainder of the season, he can really be an asset for us.

[REDDzone]

I have already written why are Berri metrics flawed somewhere on this board, haven't I? I can't keep repeating myself every time this issue pops. There's a very good peer-reviewed paper, from Kubatko, Oliver, et all, that makes an excellent work defining the value of possessions. I strongly advise it (I can e-mail it).

You have. I honestly didn't specifically mean your post, and I should have clarified. Its just obvious to me that a large number of people on this board find value in the work, and every thread we have to deal with shots at the work that lead to the very same arguments about the validity of stats in general as opposed to actually discussing what the measure itself is telling us. Gets kind of tiring.

With that said, you are probably the only person on this site who has ever offered more in way of criticism of Berri than "ZOMG I TRUSTZ MY OWN EYEZ!!!". I appreciate that and what you have had to say about the work in the past. You actually opened my eyes to the flaws of the work for the first time.

[emunney]

This is the paper to which she's referring. It's publicly available. Oliver/Rosenbaum v. Berri is more than familiar to anybody who follows any of the three.

http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol3/iss3/1/

The last I saw, the most major difference between them was how Berri's "team adjustment" rankled the other guys. They really are not very different from each other, relative to Hollinger or moreso a qualitative method.

[Joana]

From my vantage point, I tend to view Redd as a player more along the lines of how Berri statistical model views him, hence I see some merit in Berri.

There's a technical designation for that: confirmation bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith, Steven A Smith, Bill Walton, Ric Bucher, and literally dozens of others who have been given a national platform at ESPN, NBA.com, Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, SLAM Magazine, and plenty of other places.

Are you serious? I don't care about the opinion of those guys - I tend to think that most sportswriters and pundits don't even watch a decent number games and don't know the rules - but since when they claim some kind of predictive and explanatory power Berri does?

A: Because his track record seems better than most of the guys listed above

Really? Where's the evidence?

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

I have already written why are Berri metrics flawed somewhere on this board, haven't I?

That's an understatement. For whatever reason you have decided that nobody on this board is allowed to create a thread with the guy's name in it unless they are prepared to argue with you about the value of his work. Even when you don't disagree with the content of the article in question!

Where the Berri formula is best applied is by Ty over at BucksDiary. As you guys know, Ty now does game by game boxscores where he calculates how well your counterpart does using Berri's formula. So you get an offensive and defensive rating. And in doing so you see how many times Redd or Mo's 24-point game in reality get's destroyed by the fact they just gave up 30 points to "Stephen Jackson" or "Beno Udrih"

I like his blog as well, but the main thing I like about Berri's body of work is just the general attention drawn towards the negative value of turnovers and missed shots. Whether or not his formula will remain unchanged for the next thousand years, he is giving us a framework to compare different types of players with one another, and encouraging us to look at the total package.

[lawrybeard]

I will give props to Ridnour as well. I've been bagging on him all season, but he's been playing great lately and making me eat my words. I need to see this continue before I can really say we're a better team for the season with him over Mo, but if he plays like he has the last 8 or so games for the remainder of the season, he can really be an asset for us.

Props to you Luke.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

From my vantage point, I tend to view Redd as a player more along the lines of how Berri statistical model views him, hence I see some merit in Berri.

There's a technical designation for that: confirmation bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith, Steven A Smith, Bill Walton, Ric Bucher, and literally dozens of others who have been given a national platform at ESPN, NBA.com, Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, SLAM Magazine, and plenty of other places.

Are you serious? I don't care about the opinion of those guys - I tend to think that most sportswriters and pundits don't even watch a decent number games and don't know the rules - but since when they claim some kind of predictive and explanatory power Berri does?

A: Because his track record seems better than most of the guys listed above

Really? Where's the evidence?

Joana, just name the person who is always right, or shut up about it.

[Joana]

So, there's no evidence?

[Nowak008]

Hey Epi it seems that you are a "stats" guy, how much does Terry look at stats? If he looks at a lot of stats, what metrics does he look at?