Berri 12/28 on Bogut/Bucks

[Chuck Diesel]

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.

Three words-Jose Juan Barea. I'm sure you've become familiar with the Puerto Rican speedster since Stotts has been in Dallas. I must have missed all the statistics that said the barely 5-10 point guard would be a productive NBA guard, but I certainly remember watching him with the Fort Worth Flyers of the D-league two years ago and writing a scouting report (albeit unprofessional) suggesting that Barea would be a productive NBA player in time.

Call it self aggrandizement, but I'd welcome you to go back over any of my personal analysis/scouting reports on players like Barea over the last three or four years and see how they compare to the statistical analysis of the player at the time.

[Epicurus]

Ok, actually more 5'9", but certainly coming into his own this year. But would not Barea's D league or college stats have projected at least an average nba point guard?

Now for my own self-aggrandizement, from watching many OSU games of Redd, I told an assistant coach for the Bucks that in time their second round choice would be not only a starter, but a major producer. Point: yea, we all get some correct. I also said that Gordon from IU would not be much this year and here is a starter. Point: yea, we all get some wrong.

The self-aggrandizement remark of mine was not aimed at you, but at the professional scouts you mention.

The future by definition is unknown, but knowing the past and being able to understand what created it remains a damn good way to predict, however fallibly, the future. And for that statistics grounded on past performance and their weighted contributions to point differntials seems a good place to start, even better than eyeballing. Indeed when I have time, I prefer to gather the winscores and supporting variable of a game and then watch the taped game to see how the what was accomplished.

[power4wardjinx]

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.

Ty's already modified the Berri formula and improved it. The beauty of basketball, however, is that you can throw the stats out at any time because the game is so matchup oriented and tied to other intangibles. The sport was never meant to be so dissected, imo, and stats will never get a fan to some sort of purity of objective analysis. The game defies this.

Berri's nice because the formula is so contextual r.e. the overall game. For example, when Ty ran the defensive winscores after last year's playoffs, he realized that the Celtics should have been favored all along and that the main fight for the championship went down in the East semis vs. Cleveland. The course of this season has proved those observations out, even though the Cavs roster is garbage

But to say ignoring stats is "hubris" (which epicurus said earlier in this thread) will probably get you in trouble with the basketball gods, epicurus.

[paulpressey25]

The course of this season has proved those observations out, even though the Cavs roster is garbage

I do agree with your point that the Cav's players are under-rated. No question. But I'd like to know the effect a true superstar has on things.

I remember those Bull's teams where Paxson, Luc Longley, Randy Brown, Kerr, Wennington, etc, etc, etc would look amazingly effective playing with Jordan (and Pippen). And how some of the Celtic's guys looked night and day different playing with KG/Ray Allen last year versus the year prior when they played with Al Jefferson and Gerald Green.

I'd be curious to know if player's winscores or PER improve significantly during their times playing with a massive superstar ala LeBron and possibly regress once they move on to a different team or the superstar retires.

[aboveAverage]

I think that is one huge example in the flaw of statistics. Players are not machines, they do not perform according to certain formulas. They are driven by the human experience. That's why I believe that scouting reports and visual observations paint a better picture than statistics. Statistics, IMO, can be used to back up certain observations, but sometimes it gets carried away. Most scouts and GM's, and even regular fans, can tell you if a player/team is good or bad by watching a couple of games.

[power4wardjinx]

The course of this season has proved those observations out, even though the Cavs roster is garbage

I do agree with your point that the Cav's players are under-rated. No question. But I'd like to know the effect a true superstar has on things.

I remember those Bull's teams where Paxson, Luc Longley, Randy Brown, Kerr, Wennington, etc, etc, etc would look amazingly effective playing with Jordan (and Pippen). And how some of the Celtic's guys looked night and day different playing with KG/Ray Allen last year versus the year prior when they played with Al Jefferson and Gerald Green.

I'd be curious to know if player's winscores or PER improve significantly during their times playing with a massive superstar ala LeBron and possibly regress once they move on to a different team or the superstar retires.

Closer to home: Compare Luke Ridnour in Seattle w/ Ray Allen to Luke Ridnour post-Ray Allen. Two very different Lukes, even though he's the point guard and in control of some of what goes on. Now he's on his way to a rebirth under Skiles, so you're seeing a third Luke.
I would not want to see this happen, but it would be interesting to see what would happen to all sorts of Bucks stats if R.J. missed ten games. He's a guy who Hollinger says is declining and doesn't place well in Berri's winscores, but whose intangible influence would be extremely difficult to replace.

In the end, the basketball hubris is not the ignorance of stats but the pointlessness of relying on them.

.... image of Red Auerback puffing on his cigar as Hollinger explains to Red his PER formula. "That's nice, kid, now gimme that calculator." Hollinger hands Red his calculator, then watches stunned as Red chucks it into the river Charles. "Why'd you do that, Red?" Red shrugs. "Cuz what I wanted to know was how in da hell to defend that dam Sky Hook."

[Epicurus]

Of course no one is saying that players perform according to certain formulas. what is being said is that certain formula can offer valid descriptions and comparisons of player performances. How valid and useful is dependent upon the premises of the formulas. They are also objective in the sense in that wishful thinking and other subjective factors are not included in the descriptions and comparisons, as compared to visual observations, particularly by fans, but even by other stakeholders (of player performance, such as owners, gms, coaches, scouts, agents, sports writers, etc.). Also the statistical measures can blanket the whole field of players and respective performances, a feat impossible for the human eye and singular brain.

[Epicurus]

Hubris is when with certainty announcing discoveries of "intangable influences." Red Aurebach, " What is Conley doing that seems to be helping the team win, son?" Basketball fan mystic, " Red, Conley has those intangable influences." Red, " Thanks, son," says Red, throwing the Mystic in the Charles River.

Now don't say you disagree with me, until you ennumerate my intangable influences.

[bayrdbandit]

I think that is one huge example in the flaw of statistics. Players are not machines, they do not perform according to certain formulas. They are driven by the human experience. That's why I believe that scouting reports and visual observations paint a better picture than statistics. Statistics, IMO, can be used to back up certain observations, but sometimes it gets carried away. Most scouts and GM's, and even regular fans, can tell you if a player/team is good or bad by watching a couple of games.

and that's why players like lrmam will always go under-appreciated because passion and hustle aren't directly measured. rebounding over taller players, taking a charge, forcing your player to make a pass instead of taking a shot, forcing the attacking team to use more of the shot-clock resulting in a bad shot, pressuring your player out of bounds... this stuff doesn't show up on stat sheets and it's this stuff that makes the game of basketball exciting because it isn't measured the way other things are. the day everything becomes numbers is the day i'll stop enjoying the game.

having said that however, ty has finally got his analysis on the right track with his stat observations. he's a worthy read. when you watch a bucks game and bear no consideration to the stats, chances are your gut will tell you who were our most effective players and ty's formulas are usually on the money.

[GrandAdmiralDan]

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?

Not as much as I think he should. The teams, of course, get huge quantities of numbers, much of which are not available to the public. I assume that every coach is quite aware of numerical tendencies of opponents, players and teams as whole, and use such for planning and game management. As far as a summary statistic, like WinsProduced, etc, I think Terry doesn't accept the concept, believing that basketball lacks the discrete events (i.e., much more flow and interrelationships) of baseball and thus summary stats are not as valid and useful in basketball compared to baseball.

Interesting.
The reasoning he gives is very similar to my own when it comes to summary statistics.
I also think that numerical tendencies of opponents are among the most useful baskteball related stats and are important when preparing for a game.

[power4wardjinx]

Now don't say you disagree with me, until you ennumerate my intangable influences.

You have no intangible influences to ennumerate, although the misappropriation of the concept of hubris was somewhat of an influence on this thread. So that's one.

[Epicurus]

Interesting that you believe that professional basketball personnel don't often display excessive pride and presumption regarding their abilities that lead to poor decisions. Maybe you should meet some. If you have met some, maybe you just thought it was their intangibles.

[rrravenred]

Statistical tendencies are handy, but only if they can actually be quantified into usable coaching tactics, like the Jordan rules, or to be able to communicate to your players on the court what player X will do in a given situation. Players heads can explode. I've seen it.

Of course, those sort of rules are often dependent on what players T-Z will do in combination, and multivarite analysis on that micro scale is a real prick of a thing to do, especially when you have to do it for 29 teams as well as your own, whose rosters change due to trade, injury and coaching. Epi, I can appreciate how Terry might have found this sort of thing as being too abstract and absurdly counter-intuitive. Coaching isn't something that I see as being an academic discipline.

I like Berri, and appreciate his ability to cut across perceptions based on what thrills us as spectators (scoring) and dive into the other statistical indicators of influence on a game. But it would be a courageous (i.e. career suicidal) coach or GM who used it as the only basis for decision making.

[power4wardjinx]

Interesting that you believe that professional basketball personnel don't often display excessive pride and presumption regarding their abilities that lead to poor decisions. Maybe you should meet some. If you have met some, maybe you just thought it was their intangibles.

Excessive pride and presumption may be one thing, but hubris is when you're right about those abilities or whatever the issue is but it doesn't matter: there's a larger point that is being missed. A prideful scout probably isn't challenging the real politick of any situation to his or demise -- wouldn't they be playing off of the powers that be to keep their jobs?

Whether or not certain scouts are missing the point, or forgetting about all the various interpersonal relationships and who played for who (Skiles and Malik Allen for example) and whatever else goes into making personnel decisions, I wouldn't know. But it's the guy with the "perfect basketball analyzing machine" who is more in danger of forgetting the very human elements of the game other posters have mentioned on this thread, and in danger of ultimately missing the point.

Arachnia wasn't wrong about her weaving - she just missed the point.

EDIT: Hollinger may be right about R.J. and can prove it to Scott Skiles statistically -- but he's missing the point. R.J. is the model for how Skiles wants his Bucks to play, and on this team R.J. is more valuable than he ever was in New Jersey.

[austuf]

I am a firm believer in stats for predictable trends. I believe that we are only 10-15 years away from algorithm's predicting a players actions to within a few milliseconds of the actual event.

These programs will still frequently get it wrong (much like NBA Ref's), but more often than not they will get it right.

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

I think there is very little doubt that Bogut is our most valuable player. He's our best interior defender, far and away our best rebounder, and he scores more efficiently than anyone on the roster. In addition, he plays the hardest position to fill on the basketball court. That is why I am puzzled when people say the contract we gave him was poor. It wasn't.

So Berri has us at 41-41 right now, Hollinger has us at 43-39. That is interesting.

I agreed with evertything you said and was going to overlook this and just move on until you stated, "he plays the hardest postion to play on the basketball court"

NO HE DOES NOT! THE HARDEST POSiTION TO PLAY IS POINT GUARD...and they still have a backup playing at point guard (Ridnour) and will go nowhere until they upgrade that postion and PF!

Bogut has been adequate not great like everyone is hyping him to be. Certain players in this demographic have low expectations from some of you fans. he has done ok...

But he still has a long way to go to be consistent and take over games. If he was as great as you say, he would have help this team win Saturday night!

[icat2000]

Pretty hard to help your team win if your riding the pine.

[lawrybeard]

I'm surprised Bogut ranks so high. Not because he isn't our best performing player this year, but because I always viewed him as someone who contributes far beyond what is reflected in a box score.

I think fantasy leagues have altered peoples perception of what is a good player and for that reason have dismissed most stats such a Berri. While I'll still rely on my own eyes, maybe I'll start paying more attention.

[Joana]

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!

Chill out. I just made a very simple question. You guys don't need to be so defensive. I don't disagree with the ranking of the players by a lot. I find his methodology to rank players laughable.

They are also objective in the sense in that wishful thinking and other subjective factors are not included in the descriptions and comparisons, as compared to visual observations, particularly by fans, but even by other stakeholders (of player performance, such as owners, gms, coaches, scouts, agents, sports writers, etc.).

I'm sorry to break this for you, but you're absolutely wrong. Lots of subjective factors are included. A formula like Berri's WP is a product of his own subjective perception of the game and it incorporates his own wishful thinking. That's why Dennis Rodman scores better than Michael Jordan. Low usage, good rebounding players do great; volume scorers don't. Gaining possessions is highly valued, the use those same possessions is penalized. Different formulas value things differently. But every each of them have weights who incorporate the bias of its author. There's no kind of a chemical neutrality and purity here. The "all of this is entirely objective" motto is crap.

[Joana]

Not as much as I think he should. The teams, of course, get huge quantities of numbers, much of which are not available to the public. I assume that every coach is quite aware of numerical tendencies of opponents, players and teams as whole, and use such for planning and game management.

Yeah. From my own experience, things like screen/roll defense, rotations, how to guard this or that player, force him left or right, if the opponent team is left handed or right handed, play more or less wing denial, etc, are heavily based on stats.

[/quote]
As far as a summary statistic, like WinsProduced, etc, I think Terry doesn't accept the concept, believing that basketball lacks the discrete events (i.e., much more flow and interrelationships) of baseball and thus summary stats are not as valid and useful in basketball compared to baseball.[/quote]

He's right. Besides, what can a compilation stat tell him he can't know by checking the classic box-score stats?