• Have something to say? Register Now! and be posting in minutes!

The Nuraman Thread

MHSL82

Well-Known Member
16,720
881
113
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 500.92
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Any statistical anamoly, chart, graph, whatever should be added here, as these things are more apt for comparisons. It'd be cool to see a player's current play compared to comments made on previous play, etc.

Plus, we could see if we ever found the magical box score where everyone on one team shot 50% or above and everyone on the other shot 50% or below. We've gotten so close! (I am not a dork about everything, but this, yes.)
 

MHSL82

Well-Known Member
16,720
881
113
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 500.92
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
For so long in the NBA, controlling the paint meant controlling the game. Dominant centers ruled the roost. We know that's no longer the case. Not only has there been a shortage of good centers over the past decade or so, the game has changed as the three-point shot has become more and more popular. Not even centers, let alone entire teams, focus on getting only the easiest shots: everyone has stretched their game away from the rim.

That shows up in a quick study of how shot ranges correlated with shooting efficiency last season. The excellent Hoopdata.com has a stat called expected effective field goal percentage. As a whole the league shoots better on shots at the rim than anywhere, and by virtue of being worth three points, three-pointers result in higher effective field goal percentage than two-pointers. Expected eFG takes each team's shot profile -- the share of its shots the team takes at close range, mid-range, etc. -- and estimates the team's eFG had it shot league average at each range. This gives you a number for which to compare teams' shot selection based on range.

Here's an example: 41.7 percent of Denver's shots last season came at the rim, where the league shoots 62.6 percent on average. The Nuggets took 12.4 percent of their shots at the short range (3-10 feet), where the league shoots 37.6 percent. Denver took 6.2 percent of its shots in the mid-range (10-15 feet), where the league shoots 38.3 percent. The Nuggets took 15.3 percent of their shots in the long two-point range, where league average shooting is 38.1 percent. And finally, 24.3 percent of Denver's shots were three-pointers, where the league average eFG is 52.3 percent. (eFG is figured by multiplying three-pointers made by 0.5, adding that to field goals made and dividing the sum by field goal attempts.)

Expected eFG (XeFG) is then the weighted sum of that shot profile using Denver's actual shot profile and the league average conversion rates. (For the Nuggets, it comes out to 51.7 percent, tops in the league.) Using XeFG, we can compare and grade shot selection as it pertains to range: Denver, for instance, has a really smart shot profile. It takes most of its shots at the rim (the most efficient place on the court) and beyond the arc (the second most efficient place on the court), and minimizes the least efficient ranges (everything in between).

But as we'll see in the chart below, shot profiles aren't everything. Plenty of teams actually shot well with bad profiles, and a few teams even shot poorly with strong profiles.

ShotProfiles.png


This is a standard quadrant map. Our XeFG is on the x axis, with better figures to the right. Actual eFG is on the y axis, with better numbers toward the top. Teams landing in the top right quadrant had good shot profiles by range and good shooting performance. In the bottom right, these teams had good shot profiles but poor actual shooting. In the top left: bad range profiles, good shooting performance. Bottom left: below average XeFG and eFG. (Notice Charlotte. Man, the Bobcats were bad. News at 11.)

You may notice a positive linear relationship here, which is to say that XeFG and eFG do have a relationship: teams with better XeFGs are likely to have better eFGs. The correlation coefficient is actually 0.34, which is non-negligible. Assuming a linear relationship, it indicates that about 11 percent of a team's shooting performance is explained by at what range they take their shots.

But when you break it down further, it becomes apparent what really matters.

If you look at the correlation between shot rate at each of Hoopdata's specific ranges, we'll see that the two efficient zones are not created equal. The percentage of a team's field goals taken at the rim has a small positive (0.06) correlation with actual eFG. That's essentially negligible. But the percentage of a team's field goals taken from beyond the arc has a 0.48 correlation coefficient with eFG. Assuming a linear relationship, that indicates that about 23 percent of a team's actual shooting percentage is explained solely by how frequently the team takes three-pointers.

Three-pointers rule the land. It's also worth nothing the biggest problem with long-two pointers: that they are not three-pointers. The share of FGAs taken as long two-pointers has a -0.44 relationship with actual eFG. Shot shares at the two other inefficient ranges -- short and mid -- also have negative relationships with actual eFG, but with much, much smaller correlation coefficients. Why are long two-pointers such a problem? Check out the correlation between rate of long twos and rate of threes: -0.57. In other words, very few teams take lots of long twos and lots of three-pointers. So every long two is basically a three-pointer not taken. And three-pointers are important.

You'd need to run a regression analysis on free agent contracts to be sure, but I'd venture to say that if there's a current market inefficiency in the NBA, it'd be that shooters aren't valued highly enough. Where's Travis Diener when you need him?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nuraman00

Well-Known Member
14,603
443
83
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Wow, you were able to paste it. Let me try again.
 

nuraman00

Well-Known Member
14,603
443
83
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Sep 3, 2012 - For so long in the NBA, controlling the paint meant controlling the game. Dominant centers ruled the roost. We know that's no longer the case. Not only has there been a shortage of good centers over the past decade or so, the game has changed as the three-point shot has become more and more popular. Not even centers, let alone entire teams, focus on getting only the easiest shots: everyone has stretched their game away from the rim.

That shows up in a quick study of how shot ranges correlated with shooting efficiency last season. The excellent Hoopdata.com has a stat called expected effective field goal percentage. As a whole the league shoots better on shots at the rim than anywhere, and by virtue of being worth three points, three-pointers result in higher effective field goal percentage than two-pointers. Expected eFG takes each team's shot profile -- the share of its shots the team takes at close range, mid-range, etc. -- and estimates the team's eFG had it shot league average at each range. This gives you a number for which to compare teams' shot selection based on range.

Here's an example: 41.7 percent of Denver's shots last season came at the rim, where the league shoots 62.6 percent on average. The Nuggets took 12.4 percent of their shots at the short range (3-10 feet), where the league shoots 37.6 percent. Denver took 6.2 percent of its shots in the mid-range (10-15 feet), where the league shoots 38.3 percent. The Nuggets took 15.3 percent of their shots in the long two-point range, where league average shooting is 38.1 percent. And finally, 24.3 percent of Denver's shots were three-pointers, where the league average eFG is 52.3 percent. (eFG is figured by multiplying three-pointers made by 0.5, adding that to field goals made and dividing the sum by field goal attempts.)

Expected eFG (XeFG) is then the weighted sum of that shot profile using Denver's actual shot profile and the league average conversion rates. (For the Nuggets, it comes out to 51.7 percent, tops in the league.) Using XeFG, we can compare and grade shot selection as it pertains to range: Denver, for instance, has a really smart shot profile. It takes most of its shots at the rim (the most efficient place on the court) and beyond the arc (the second most efficient place on the court), and minimizes the least efficient ranges (everything in between).

But as we'll see in the chart below, shot profiles aren't everything. Plenty of teams actually shot well with bad profiles, and a few teams even shot poorly with strong profiles.

ShotProfiles.png


This is a standard quadrant map. Our XeFG is on the x axis, with better figures to the right. Actual eFG is on the y axis, with better numbers toward the top. Teams landing in the top right quadrant had good shot profiles by range and good shooting performance. In the bottom right, these teams had good shot profiles but poor actual shooting. In the top left: bad range profiles, good shooting performance. Bottom left: below average XeFG and eFG. (Notice Charlotte. Man, the Bobcats were bad. News at 11.)

You may notice a positive linear relationship here, which is to say that XeFG and eFG do have a relationship: teams with better XeFGs are likely to have better eFGs. The correlation coefficient is actually 0.34, which is non-negligible. Assuming a linear relationship, it indicates that about 11 percent of a team's shooting performance is explained by at what range they take their shots.

But when you break it down further, it becomes apparent what really matters.

If you look at the correlation between shot rate at each of Hoopdata's specific ranges, we'll see that the two efficient zones are not created equal. The percentage of a team's field goals taken at the rim has a small positive (0.06) correlation with actual eFG. That's essentially negligible. But the percentage of a team's field goals taken from beyond the arc has a 0.48 correlation coefficient with eFG. Assuming a linear relationship, that indicates that about 23 percent of a team's actual shooting percentage is explained solely by how frequently the team takes three-pointers.

Three-pointers rule the land. It's also worth nothing the biggest problem with long-two pointers: that they are not three-pointers. The share of FGAs taken as long two-pointers has a -0.44 relationship with actual eFG. Shot shares at the two other inefficient ranges -- short and mid -- also have negative relationships with actual eFG, but with much, much smaller correlation coefficients. Why are long two-pointers such a problem? Check out the correlation between rate of long twos and rate of threes: -0.57. In other words, very few teams take lots of long twos and lots of three-pointers. So every long two is basically a three-pointer not taken. And three-pointers are important.

You'd need to run a regression analysis on free agent contracts to be sure, but I'd venture to say that if there's a current market inefficiency in the NBA, it'd be that shooters aren't valued highly enough. Where's Travis Diener when you need him?

***
 

nuraman00

Well-Known Member
14,603
443
83
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Ok, I could paste it too, I just had to embed the image in a separate step. Thanks. :)
 

nuraman00

Well-Known Member
14,603
443
83
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I don't know how to paste this article, with the table. Help?
 

nuraman00

Well-Known Member
14,603
443
83
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Here's a statistical table involving Sundiata Gaines.

Steals Per 40 Minutes Leaders, 2011-12
Player (Team) Stl/40

Chris Paul (LAC) 2.79
Sundiata Gaines (Bkn) 2.77
Tony Allen (Mem) 2.73
Ronnie Price (Phx) 2.63
Ricky Rubio (Min) 2.59
Min. 500 minutes
 

MHSL82

Well-Known Member
16,720
881
113
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 500.92
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
It's going to take awhile before I am used to BKN being the New Jersey (Brooklyn) Nets.
 

nuraman00

Well-Known Member
14,603
443
83
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
It's going to take awhile before I am used to BKN being the New Jersey (Brooklyn) Nets.

One of the ESPN guys, either Hollinger or Wilbon, kept saying "New Jersey" this summer, either in a chat wrap or via Twitter.

Whoever it was then said he grew up in NJ, I think.
 

nuraman00

Well-Known Member
14,603
443
83
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Hmm, I don't have permission to view your profile. You must have TOP SECRET FBI information in there.
 

Sackataters

Well-Known Member
1,185
38
48
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
ESPN Player Rankings

Our highest ranking player is Al in the mid 40s. Paul is mid 50s. When is the last time you saw a title without 2 elite players? Maybe the Pistons against Karl Malones Lakers. Deron hasn't been mentioned yet, so assuming he is top 15. I'm willing to bet that had Deron stayed in UT, they would have under ranked him rather than vaulting him top 10. Regardless, the fact is we lost an elite player. We know what we have in Al and Paul. Time to see if Favors can pan out to make the whole trade worth while.
 

MHSL82

Well-Known Member
16,720
881
113
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 500.92
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Our highest ranking player is Al in the mid 40s. Paul is mid 50s. When is the last time you saw a title without 2 elite players? Maybe the Pistons against Karl Malones Lakers. Deron hasn't been mentioned yet, so assuming he is top 15. I'm willing to bet that had Deron stayed in UT, they would have under ranked him rather than vaulting him top 10. Regardless, the fact is we lost an elite player. We know what we have in Al and Paul. Time to see if Favors can pan out to make the whole trade worth while.

We lost Deron for last year, no doubt. But I don't think for a second that he would have re-upped here. I don't think Sloan was the only reason he would have made troubles for us. We'd have had him for our elite player, but no one else. We'd have some cap collateral damage. He would make who we do have better, so I do think we'd have someone in the 20-30's.

To what extent does Jefferson and Millsap do the same thing? Is our PG by committee holding us back that much(this goes to the DW question you had)? My answer is yes, anyone who grew up with John Stockton knows how a PG can make or break your team. Some other positions like SG can take up the slack, but do we have that?

Our team is highly complimentary. Our success is due to us working together well and having a good system. How players fit in that system matters, because I see the Jazz trying to force great players into the system, let them earn minutes. This has been great so far, because players buy into a great system, but say we put another elite in, what happens? Carmelo Anthony does what in the wrong situation? Shoots and scores a lot in losses.
 

MHSL82

Well-Known Member
16,720
881
113
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 500.92
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Slightly off-topic - I used to quote people if I were responding to them, even if I don't need to. But I realized, in a second post of a thread, it's obvious who I'm responding to, but in a 25 post thread, it's more necessary to quote

Thought I'd take this time, to explain, multi-quotes. If you want to include two people's posts, first press the "Multi-Q" of the first post and "Quote" of the second. Some, if not most, are already familiar with this or would figure it out anyway, but thought it's better to explain than leave be.
 

nuraman00

Well-Known Member
14,603
443
83
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Our highest ranking player is Al in the mid 40s. Paul is mid 50s. When is the last time you saw a title without 2 elite players? Maybe the Pistons against Karl Malones Lakers.

Ben Wallace was a superstar IMO. # 1 All-Star votegetter in 2004.

DPOY 4 of 5 years.

5 time All-NBA.

There was this funny exchange in 2004:

Reporter to Larry Brown, who coached Detroit this year: "Congrats on #3 being the leading vote getter".

Larry: Allen [Iverson]?

Reporter: No, Ben Wallace!



LOL, Brown had thought they were talking about his former player, Iverson.

I'm willing to bet that had Deron stayed in UT, they would have under ranked him rather than vaulting him top 10.

It partly depends on what Williams would have done in the playoffs. I can't think of that many great games. He has a lot of turnover filled games.

He's not getting triple doubles like Rondo or Westbrook. He's not that good of a defender.

His highest scoring playoffs games are also filled with turnovers:

Deron Williams Game Finder | Basketball-Reference.com

His career playoffs averages of 21.1 points, 9.6 assists, 3.5 turnovers on .458 shooting are good but not great.

Someone like Nash has had playoffs runs with better shooting, more assists, and less turnovers too (although Nash commits turnovers too).


Yes, it's a team game, but I barely remember really standout games in the playoffs from Deron, while other PGs have done so.

He also hasn't been a part of a big upset series.

While I can even remember someone like Jeff Teague having some good games against Chicago in the 2011 playoffs. And that Atlanta pulled off a medium upset by beating Orlando in the 1st round.

Deron is a talented offensive player, but I always seem to be wanting more from him. I also felt his teams (both Utah and New Jersey) get off to slow starts. Yes he plays well in the 4th, but I don't see him play like that earlier. I also feel the same way about others, not just him. But it doesn't help.
 

nuraman00

Well-Known Member
14,603
443
83
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
We lost Deron for last year, no doubt. But I don't think for a second that he would have re-upped here. I don't think Sloan was the only reason he would have made troubles for us. We'd have had him for our elite player, but no one else. We'd have some cap collateral damage. He would make who we do have better, so I do think we'd have someone in the 20-30's.

To what extent does Jefferson and Millsap do the same thing? Is our PG by committee holding us back that much(this goes to the DW question you had)? My answer is yes, anyone who grew up with John Stockton knows how a PG can make or break your team. Some other positions like SG can take up the slack, but do we have that?

Our team is highly complimentary. Our success is due to us working together well and having a good system. How players fit in that system matters, because I see the Jazz trying to force great players into the system, let them earn minutes. This has been great so far, because players buy into a great system, but say we put another elite in, what happens? Carmelo Anthony does what in the wrong situation? Shoots and scores a lot in losses.

It depends on what other moves management would have made to put desirable pieces.

Brooklyn resigning Gerald Wallace and trading for Joe Johnson was enough to convince Deron. Those are two All-Stars (even if Wallace doesn't get voted as one most of the time).

If the Jazz would have gotten a 3rd AS type player, then he probably would have resigned. If it would have just been Jefferson and/or Millsap, then probably not. He's already been a part of teams that had 2 good players instead of 3, from 2008-2009 until 2010-2011, on the Jazz.
 

MHSL82

Well-Known Member
16,720
881
113
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Hoopla Cash
$ 500.92
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I think Deron is Top Twenty, maybe top ten, but based on last year's production (which isn't everything), I would keep him out of the Top Ten. He's good enough not to fall out of the top 20, perhaps top 15. I am biased though because I liked Stockton's assists more than Williams points.

Going to a bad team will do this to you because you are forced to shoot, even when it's ill-advised, but he has to get better for them to have a chance. I bet he will. I guess the only significant decrease was in FG% and assists last year. He's never been that great in FG%.

He is shooting 39.8% from the field, averages 19.9 points (less than in Utah), 9.5 assists (8.7 last year), and the same in steals as he was here. I expect 45%, 21.0, and 9.5 for 2012-13. The better shooting percentage will increase the points on fewer shots so that he can get more assists. The team around him is better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sackataters

Well-Known Member
1,185
38
48
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I think Deron is Top Twenty, maybe top ten, but based on last year's production (which isn't everything), I would keep him out of the Top Ten. He's good enough not to fall out of the top 20, perhaps top 15.

I'm with you guys..I don't see him as a top 10 player, even in his best year with Utah. 15 to 20 is where I slot him.

Crazy how far Carlos has fallen outside the Jazz system as well. He went from número UNO to third string on the banjo.

So without any semblance of a star, what are the odds of us going deep into the playoffs? Can Favors or Burks become a top 20 difference maker? Hayward?
 
Top