Buck Harvey: Hail Spurs, the champs of statistics
San Antonio Express-News
The Spurs won again. The Dallas Mavericks, only 8.5 games ahead in the standings, may never catch up.
Those unaware of the magic of numbers may not understand this. The Spurs impressed against Toronto by pumping up their point differential, and this is the kind of stuff that prompted an ESPN.com writer to declare Monday the Spurs are the NBA's best team.
San Antonio should be giddy about the news — if not for one problem. These same formulas projected Jackie Butler, not Francisco Elson, would be the starter this season. Better yet, these same formulas also had something to do with the Spurs signing Butler.
This is the work of ESPN.com's John Hollinger. He is one of several who have tried to do with basketball what Bill James did with baseball. Hollinger has searched for answers through numbers, and sometimes his data has impressed; Mark Cuban once announced Hollinger was his favorite writer.
Before this season, Hollinger ranked all NBA players based on a projection of their per-minute production. In what amounted to statistical guessing, Tim Duncan ranked seventh among power forwards, just four spots ahead of Houston's Chuck Hayes, and Bruce Bowen ranked 315th.
Hollinger wrote then that Bowen, because he doesn't block shots or get steals, is hard to evaluate. "Statistically, he really is near the very bottom of the league — he's just so good defensively that it offsets his lack of numbers."
But that's just it. If Bowen offsets his lack of numbers, then what good are the numbers?
That's also why some NBA scouts roll their eyes when it comes to this reliance on stats. Numbers may define baseball, and basic statistics can reveal obvious trends in any sport. But the essence of basketball is too fluid to base too much on numbers.
After all, how does anyone quantify a solid pick? A computer can't see how a teammate meshes with another. And Bowen, after Monday's game, came up with something else that no box score shows.
He held his hand in a reporter's face.
Hollinger isn't simplistic. He attempts to rate teams, for example, by weighing home-road records, as well as the always-vital point differential. That's how his data spit out this week that the Spurs currently are the league's best.
"At first glance," Hollinger wrote, "I understand how this seems totally illogical."
It's totally illogical at second glance, too. The Spurs are contenders, and they are playing their best right now. But put them ahead of Dallas? Only a computer would do that.
Hollinger's work has been in the public domain, but he's taken it further. To use his words Monday, he said he has pointed teams "in the right direction."
Among those he's helped are the Spurs. Asked if they paid him, Hollinger said, "I'd prefer not to disclose that."
It's the blurry dot.com world, where columnists sometimes act like fans, and everyone poses as journalists. And last summer, when the Spurs signed Butler with advice from Hollinger, the move was later hailed by, well, Hollinger.
"For the Spurs to get a young player of this quality this cheaply was highway robbery," Hollinger wrote in his preseason projection story. "All they were missing were the ski masks."
Larry Brown loved Butler, too, and who knows? Maybe Butler develops in time.
But Hollinger's per-minute analysis turned Butler into something he isn't.
On an awful team and in limited minutes, Butler put together enough stats for Hollinger to say, "I expect him to be a revelation this season as the Spurs' starting center."
Elson instead started again Monday, and afterward, Gregg Popovich made sure to commend him. "He did a great job," Popovich said.
Great? Elson had only six points, only five rebounds, only one block. But he slowed Chris Bosh, just as Bowen chased Anthony Parker. And these are the ways the Spurs can actually become the league's best team.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/c...s.17cf111.html
Where the is my money?Asked if they paid him, Hollinger said, "I'd prefer not to disclose that."
It's the blurry dot.com world, where columnists sometimes act like fans, and everyone poses as journalists. And last summer, when the Spurs signed Butler with advice from Hollinger
What on earth does Buck mean by that?
Spurs have the top 2 bigman on your list now.
Spurs probably should stop putting so much weight on Hollinger statistics. I'd take Eddie Curry and even Jerome James over Jackie Butler right now. Sure, he may look half-decent in a year or two, but that looks like a bad signing.
Bold statement.
I'd take LeBron James over Beno Udrih.
Ginobili is like a Hollinger God, so he can't be all bad...
Bowen's obviously gay. That's the only thing that can be deigned from that sentence.What on earth does Buck mean by that?
Is that over Beno Udrih by himself, or Beno Udrih with his metrosexual, GAP commercial entourage?
Looking back at Butler's stats there's no doubt he has potential and skill. But it looks like he isn't meshing well with Pop's season-long bench plan. Going to end up being another Beno if he isn't playing constantly.
Buck, Buck, Buck. Any excuse at all to take a shot at bloggers.
It's impossible to articulate just how idiotic Buck Harvey reads in this piece. Words fail me.
Point differential is a crucial statistic. Absolutely crucial. Of the 60 NBA champions, 48 of them finished in the top three in point differential. Of those 48, 33 were first in point differential. Now granted, Dallas is tied for second in point differential and they're on pace to win 70 games, so the smart money is on them.
In the Spurs three championship seasons, the Spurs were 1st in 1999, 3rd in 2003, and 1st in 2005 in the category of point differential. Coincidence?
I also like how Harvey quotes a prediction gone wrong to prove Hollinger is full of it. I'm sure Harvey has nailed everything he ever called - then again, who keeps Buck Harvey columns around to double-check these things? The only time I ever review an old Buck piece is when its time to clean out the bird cage.
Buck was probably the reporter in question.What on earth does Buck mean by that?
I like Hollinger for the most part. I think he comes across in his articles as someone who loves his own stat too much sometimes -- but I think he does consider it in context at times -- but he doesn't really get the chance to show that. He has to kind of prop up his stat to get it sort of 'mainstream' so to speak. There is absolutely nothing wrong with his PER statistic and emphasis on point differential. It is all about how the person interprets it. Neither is a holy grail or ultimate stat that proves everything. But they are nice tools to gauge how effective teams and players are given their own team context.
Bottom line is PER is just a deravative stat. It accounts for things like Pace, MPG, and a little of the team context. Its not perfect, but its surely a heck of a lot better than simply viewing PPG, FG% and team winning% and simply saying "well I watch the games I am not a stats geek" when even most of those people either conciously or unconciously have their stats and situations they sort out in their own heads to make judgements on players and teams.
Bottom line is PER is a very good stat, but it can be very bad if you don't take it into context. Its what the person does with the stat that makes it good or bad.
Hollinger provides a statistical balance to other writers' speculative, subjective analysis. It's ludicrous to take his analysis as scripture, just as it would be to take Marc Stein's or Peter Vecsey's. But it's a nice alternative point of view.
Verdict's still not out on Butler yet, and I hope the Spurs don't give up on him. No one seriously expected him to contend THIS year, did they? (OK, apparently Hollinger predicted he could start, but the numbers didn't tell him THAT, that was his inference)
Butler is a project. He needs a summer of working out and scrimmages to see if he lives up to his potential.
There were several people here who thought he would be starting after the All Star Break.
Yes, many expected him to be a rotation player and many speculated he could be starting the second half of the year. In this, he's been a massive disappointment.
nothing wrong w/ using statistics. but when you use really simple statistical concepts to make sweeping conclusions like Hollinger does, then you're an idiot.
To me this is the classic which came first the chicken or the egg? Did they win the championship because they had the highest point differential, or did they have the highest point differential because they were the best team? I would go with the latter and to me it is no coincidence that the best team had the highest point differential, that is why I do not put a lot of stock in this theory.
Good discussion. For those that are interested (if you're a stat geek), there is a discussion on APBRmetrics on this subject.
http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics...r=asc&start=15
YES!!! Bruce Bowen ranked 315th...
I could say the almost exact same thing about W-L record. Isolated statements about a single predictor variable without comparisons to others is meaningless.
Here's the absolute best predictor: the team that wins its last playoff game is the champion 100% of the time.
The fact remains that nobody has ever produced any rigorous statistical analysis determining what is the best predictor of winning a championship. You can determine associations, but until you produce measures comparing one variable to another it's all speculation.
Point differential alone is not the best predictor of team strength. However, point differential, taken with its standard deviation, allow one to calculate a statistically expected winning percentage that is better than the actual winning percentage.
A team whose expected point differential is 7 +/- 6 is better than a team whose point differential is 9 +/- 9.
I'm glad you mentioned this - I wasn't claiming that PD was a predictive metric. I was simply pointing out that there is definitely a stable relationship between performing well in the PD category and winning a championship. The Spurs were #1 in PD last season, but I certainly didn't think the Spurs were a shoo-in. I simply felt good about their chances. If the Spurs would have had ranked #15, I wouldn't have felt very confident at all. They certainly wouldn't have won 63 games with a #15 PD.
I could say the almost exact same thing about W-L record. Isolated statements about a single predictor variable without comparisons to others is meaningless.
Here's the absolute best predictor: the team that wins its last playoff game is the champion 100% of the time.
The fact remains that nobody has ever produced any rigorous statistical analysis determining what is the best predictor of winning a championship. You can determine associations, but until you produce measures comparing one variable to another it's all speculation.
Bill James, who is know to the world as a stat addict, cautiously relies on statistics, not blindly. He says, and I paraphrase: "All statistics are relevant to a degree, but they all incorporate illusions."
I just think it's more useful to examine the data rather than to just say things like, "They need to peak at the right time" or "There's no way to predict with 100% accuracy, so why bother".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
