Comments on: What would it be like if OKC had Tyson Chandler? Well let me tell you

By: Crow

Crow — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:37:48 +0000

There are reasons Danny Ferry built the Cavs around James the way he did with 2 way strong players (outside) and vet or vet-like (inside). Pritchard went younger in Portland now trying to adjust with Miller, didn’t successfully get as much defense yet and has to get it from Oden, not a sure or necessarily soon thing.

By: Crow

Crow — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:32:49 +0000

core “of” cores.

Durant isn’t core of core to the Spurs design. In that scheme he is sort of a super-Finley. He is core of core of the Thunder design. What really makes sense around that? Got to have more defense but more offense too. More 2 way strong players in the top of the rotation. And vets who really know how to fill a role, rather than tons of young’uns trying to learn the game and rack up individual stats.

By: Crow

Crow — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:27:09 +0000

It could be more actually. I haven’t done the calculation for this hypothetical. But it is clearly large to date, a major major departure from the San Antonio model. One of many. Unless Green becomes a defensive anchor I don’t think you can really say the Thunder design is a close version of the Spurs design because that is the core or cores of that design.

By: Crow

Crow — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:06:05 +0000

Adjust for help defense impact the way I describe and the swap of Jeff Green for Tim Duncan would be up around 10 games.

By: Crow

Crow — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:04:33 +0000

Using the method as is, Swap Jeff Green for Tim Duncan and Duncan guards his man but contributes nothing in terms of help defense to the rest of team defense efficiency as the calculation uses the help defense environment of the Thunder before he gets to OKC. Thus a large part of Duncan’s impact is missed. As is. Hence my recommended improvement.

By: Royce

Royce — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:43:14 +0000

@Brett Brett, it's seriously awesome though. You're a wizard my man. You're Brett the White.

By: Brett

Brett — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:42:15 +0000

Thanks everyone for checking it out and the feedback. I do think I have the kinks worked out so that it should work for everyone (it did seem to be an issue with how IE was handling javascript). If you are still having issues, please email me at qchoops(at)gmail(dot)com, because I do want to get those resolved.

As for the shifting outcomes – I have made a few tweaks, and one was the mentioned tweak for low usage players, which did hit Tyson. I’ll continue to update it and hopefully make it more useful (and thorough). Thanks again.

By: Royce

Royce — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:39:40 +0000

@Jax Raging Bile Duct Well dang. Now I look silly.

By: Jax Raging Bile Duct

Jax Raging Bile Duct — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:35:15 +0000

Hainline did tweak it. He said there was an error in the assignment of extra possessions for low usage players. The way it works now is to spread the extra possessions among the other teammates, rather than assume the low usage player will take the possession himself.

That’s the only tweak I know of, but he’s probably made others as the users continue to test it.

By: DSMok1

DSMok1 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:14:20 +0000

Yeah, it’s new and could have had some kinks. There is no way statistically for 1 player to increase a team by 14 wins–unless they are a top 5 player in efficiency differential.

The concept is good, but rather shallow. I would like to see adjusted +/- instead of “efficiencies”–they measure the same thing, but more APM is more accurate.