No because the Spurs are a bad rebounding team for instance so that doesn't mean , it should be easier to make an impact rebounding wise on a bad rebounding team.
Thanks the formula was more complicated than I thought.Team defensive rating is very straight-forward. It's just the number of points allowed per 100 possessions. Individual defensive rating is actually really complicated, and it makes a ton of assumptions. That means you have to take it with a grain of salt. Look at the formulae yourself.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html
"Notes:
In a later chapter of Basketball on Paper, Oliver emphasized that Offensive Ratings shouldn't be viewed in a vacuum. Introducing a concept he called "Skill Curves", he acknowledged that a player's ORtg needed to be judged in conjunction with his Usage Rate, a measure of how big a role the player fills in his team's offense. The bigger the role, the more difficult it is to maintain a high ORtg; the smaller the role, the easier it is to be highly efficient. Because of this, Oliver stressed that a player's ORtg should primarily be compared to those of other players in a similar role."
So that means the mighty offensive rating of Splitter was way easier to get for him but you didn't have a problem with that obviously. So you're nitpicking accepted indicators only when it fits your argument when it basically all evens out, I don't think this is a very interesting discussion...
"Out of necessity (owing to a lack of defensive data in the basic boxscore), individual Defensive Ratings are heavily influenced by the team's defensive efficiency. They assume that all teammates are equally good (per minute) at forcing non-steal turnovers and non-block misses, as well as assuming that all teammates face the same number of total possessions per minute.
Perhaps as a byproduct, big men tend to have the best Defensive Ratings (although Oliver notes that history's best defensive teams were generally anchored by dominant defensive big men, suggesting that those types of players are the most important to a team's defensive success). A corollary to this is that excellent perimeter defenders who don't steal the ball a lot — for instance, Joe Dumars or Doug Christie — are underrated defensively by DRtg, and are prone to look only as good as their team's overall defense performs.
As always, if you have any comments or questions, please send us feedback."
Then again even if the formula is more obscure than I thought I don't think this changes things a lot. Splitter benefit from the great team defense while Sanders benefits from ending more possessions (if anything steals are the worst thing about defensive rating because great shot blockers have an intimidation factor that makes them more valuable when steals don't have that kind of redeeming factor)...
btw. Sanders never ever was top 3 in the DPOY votes. not even close. neither was he elected to the all NBA defensive team.
not only is your praise of a pretty average player more and more ridiculous, you even use fake "arguments" to back up this claim.
It should. Firstly, the Spurs aren't a bad rebounding team -- they are a bad offensive rebounding team. They were third in the league in defensive rebounds. The Bucks were third-to-last. So Splitter was competing with better defensive rebounders like Duncan and Leonard, when Sanders didn't have anyone comparable. Then on offense, since the Spurs don't go for those boards, Splitter's rebounding rate is at a significant disadvantage. Not that this means Sanders isn't a better rebounder (he is), but it does explain some of the difference.
Regardless, that's why I said it was just an example. The other percentages are a big factor here in addition the other ratios brought forth by the formula.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html
As far as offensive rating goes, part that you quoted said that you have to look at ORtg in relation to USG%. Splitter's USG% was 18.2 last year. Sander's was 16.9. That means that the difference between their offensive impacts is actually slightly greater than the ORtgs suggest. Splitter was more productive in a bigger role. I didn't nitpick. Splitter is a significantly better offensive player than Sanders is, and all advanced stats will bear that out.So that means the mighty offensive rating of Splitter was way easier to get for him but you didn't have a problem with that obviously. So you're nitpicking accepted indicators only when it fits your argument when it basically all evens out, I don't think this is a very interesting discussion...
If you look at the formula for DRtg, you'd see exactly how skewed the numbers in favor of shot-blocking bigs. As the quote you posted said, DRtg is pretty much agnostic to strong positional defense and ball denial, so defenders who do their work early and prevent shots instead of challenging them don't get the benefit of the math. So Splitter's best defensive attributes (agility and intelligence) don't lead to him blocking a lot of shots or even forcing a lot of misses, as he can often force a pass before the shot. While a lot of Sanders' blocks come from protecting the rim, a lot of them come from him not being a solid in post defense as Splitter is (letting players get into his body and relying on his length to deflect shots). He reaches down when he blocks instead of staying up, which explains his high foul rate (which is downplayed by the formula, as I've said earlier).
at ST (im)posters arguing based on loser franchises signings.
Somehow you think he was a top 3 in either DVOP or MIP Athletic bigs takes years to develop and often develop as one sided threats in their late 20's. Odds are he will do the same.Somehow it's suddenly about Sanders vs Duncan now.
Duncan was a better defender, as was Gasol, Noah also anchored a top 8 defense with Belineli, Heinrick, Boozer and Robinson all playing big roles for the team (an impressive feat)
Sanders was th anchor of a mediocre defense that also has a alot of baring in DVOP.
Lol ok I didn't even check since I assumed it was the other way around, so basically it means that Sanders' PER is more meaningful since PER is biased towards usage rate, basically it's a never ending argument, you're indeed ajusting your standards the way that favors your opinion.
It's ok to say that you disagree but don't try to make it a fact with that kind of tactic...
You assume a lot there, pretty much talking out of your ass, Tony Allen who is the best at denying the ball is 4th in defensive rating without a really high number of steals because defensive rating is not agnostic at all to team defenseIf you look at the formula for DRtg, you'd see exactly how skewed the numbers in favor of shot-blocking bigs. As the quote you posted said, DRtg is pretty much agnostic to strong positional defense and ball denial, so defenders who do their work early and prevent shots instead of challenging them don't get the benefit of the math. So Splitter's best defensive attributes (agility and intelligence) don't lead to him blocking a lot of shots or even forcing a lot of misses, as he can often force a pass before the shot. While a lot of Sanders' blocks come from protecting the rim, a lot of them come from him not being a solid in post defense as Splitter is (letting players get into his body and relying on his length to deflect shots). He reaches down when he blocks instead of staying up, which explains his high foul rate (which is downplayed by the formula, as I've said earlier).
PER does not address usage rate, only percentages of the stats. In many ways those two things are similar, as players with high usage rates will typically score a higher percentage of points and to a small extent assists. But it has nothing to do with blocks, rebounds, turnovers, steals, fouls and everything else that goes into PER. The fact that Splitter is a bigger part of the offense when he's in the game does not account for the fact that other players are taking stats from him. Pretty much, Splitter has to be uber-efficient to have his PER, since despite his USG%, the Spurs are a much more efficient team than the Bucks are. For every two points he scores, someone is picking up an assist. For every good defensive possession he has, someone is getting the rebound. Sanders can inflate his PER by being the only competent true big on his team (due to the blocks and rebounds). On the Spurs, Sanders would not put up nearly as good of numbers, as he would be fighting Duncan and Leonard for boards and Duncan for blocks.
Also, PER factors in other teammate's efficiency (implicitly). So simply having a lower usage rate doesn't make Sanders more efficient. It just means he was as efficient in relation to his teammates as Splitter was in relation to his. That calibration is why the average PER can remain at 15.
Team defense is not the same thing as positional defense ... it's pretty much the opposite. If you read the link I sent you about defensive rating, you'd see that wing defenders can have good DRtgs if their teams have good team DRtgs. But it's hard for them to put up a good DRtg if their team doesn't have one. Also Allen was sixth in the league in steal percentage, so I don't know how you get the idea that he didn't steal the ball a lot.You assume a lot there, pretty much talking out of your ass, Tony Allen who is the best at denying the ball is 4th in defensive rating without a really high number of steals because defensive rating is not agnostic at all to team defense
Last edited by Chinook; 08-18-2013 at 12:32 PM.
Are we still talking about this?
If you don't think PER rewards higher usage rate then you don't understand PER. On the Spurs Sanders would have an higher usage rate and better looks among other advantages...
OT: Meanwhile and at the 50th day of the offseason, Spurs still don't have that long SF/Combo forward/mobile PF that they badly need. That's just so weird.
It's quite scary to hear the logic of RC when speaking about the off season. It literally makes no sense nor does the actual moves they made in context of what potential there could have been.
Last edited by DPG21920; 08-18-2013 at 05:04 PM.
is bertans rehabbing in sa?
Yes, he is. The latest on him is that he will be back in February/March.
Link (in Latvian):
http://sportsvalmiera.lv/06082013-da...ukuma_varetu_a
In the ACL surgeries category, it seems that Livio Jean-Charles got his surgery last week in Lyon. There was a Spurs doctor with him.
Link (in French): http://www.tonicradio.fr/index.php/b...semaine-a-lyon
I honestly think the FO is torn what to do...we always have at least one or two roster spots open at the beginning of the season, but now we have 14 guaranteed spots and a huge glaring weakness at the backup SF position. Do we sign someone like Antawn Jamsion, or do we leave that spot open to see who becomes available after the start of the season.
It's player EFFICIENCY rating. To have anything to do with USG% would undercut the standardization. I showed you the formula. USG% is not part of the equation at all. It's not implied by any of the components, either. It's a lot harder to maintain a high PER in a bigger role, which is why per-minute monsters have high PERs early in their careers, but lower PERs once their roles increase.
You're really not doing a good job parsing advanced stats. That's cool. It's also cool for you to believe Sanders' is better than Splitter. But don't go around arguing about numbers if you refuse to understand how they are calculated.
Lets see who gets a training camp invite.
The FO is foreign to American born players.
If it's between Jamison and leaving it open, I'd vote for the latter 99% of the time.
The Spurs don't even have someone we can all talk trash about, say like a Donte Greene, on the hook.OT: Meanwhile and at the 50th day of the offseason, Spurs still don't have that long SF/Combo forward/mobile PF that they badly need. That's just so weird.
what do we expect around this time of the year? the market is more or less in a coma. we will see some movements in September, when training camp moves closer. and right now it's all about guaranteed money. players won't start to sign unguaranteed contracts till few days before camp. and teams don't hand out guaranteed money right now.
see the mentioned Donte Green.
didn't play for a season and was far from a reliable player before the injury.
he is still young, so some teams will be interested (maybe Spurs as well). but no team will risk a full guaranteed contract, otherwise he would already be signed. so why should he sign an unguaranteed contract right now? he knows he can get one comes camp time. but then some teams will start to offer guarateed parts, if they have a glaring need.
the other such candidate is James Johnson. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the two ends up with the Spurs. but this likely won't happen before mid September.
Man, it's really unfortunate that Bertans tore his ACL. Was really looking forward to seeing him play.
Your avatar has always thrown me off. Why would someone wearing a Ginobili shirt pantomime shooting right-handed?
Nothing, I'm just whining because Spurs have screwed their off-season. But, yeah, Spurs summer has been basically over for more than a month. Some players will be signed for the training camp but it would take a lot of luck that one of them turn out as a player able to contribute.
Marc Stein @ESPNSteinLine
Houston Rockets, I'm told, are wrapping up a deal with free agent Ronnie Brewer
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote