http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2001/0604/1209442.html 1. Shawn Marion Suns 2. Ben Wallace Pistons 3. Dikembe Mutombo 76ers 4. Shaquille O'Neal Lakers 5. Tracy McGrady Magic 6. Marcus Camby Knicks 7. Steve Francis Rockets 8. Tim Duncan Spurs 9. Donyell Marshall Jazz 10. Ray Allen Bucks ------------------ "Break off the block like Maurice Green" --- Steve Francis President of the Moochie Norris fan club.
"There are three kinds of lies : lies, damned lies and statistics" An overused quote, but appropriate. Ben Wallace and Lurch finishing in the top 3 should have been enough to tell you the list was skewed - those guys only play half the game. ------------------ This space currently being renovated. We apologize for the inconvenience. [This message has been edited by Puedlfor (edited June 04, 2001).] [This message has been edited by Puedlfor (edited June 04, 2001).]
The guy who wrote it isn't a basketball fan, he's a jerk. You shouldn't waste time reading such trash. ------------------ Do not harm little children!
So Francis is ranked in there. I give him respect. ------------------ "Break off the block like Maurice Green" --- Steve Francis President of the Moochie Norris fan club.
Ben Wallace? ------------------ "Light travels faster than sound, so some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak." -- Brian Williams (now Bison Dele) commenting on Isiah Thomas.
Obviously the "professor" didn't look at free throw percentage. Wallace shot an unfathomable 33.6% from the stripe. That is a number that would make Shaq embarrassed. ------------------ Bingbong was set up, led to an untimely death in the prime of his life for no other reason than pure malice. Things like that do not go unavenged. Sometimes it spills out onto the field of play.
It's just a weird formula he uses, kind of like the IBM thing that Dream / Robinson used to win alot. I think it's great Steve is on the list. ------------------ "norm, would you like to buy an indian scalp ? This deal isn't gonna make or break me Norm, so don't jerk me around." Harry Carey "Norm, if I had a mohawk scalp, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you."
I don't know if he is a jerk, but he does provide us enough evidence conclude he is an idiot. Guys like this reduce the credibility of us social scientists and quantitative methodologists. When your statistical findings are clearly and obviously not matching reality, 1) your statistical prodecures are erroneous, 2) your measures are flawed or 3) you are not selecting the right constructs (the ideal you are trying to measure if you will) in the first place. This guy's problem is the latter. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 05, 2001).]
I can see why people would react to Ben Wallace being so high on the list, but I think that a great case can be made for any of the other 9 players as having a great impact for their teams success. Why harp on the 1 outlier? Desert Scar raises some good points about statistical analyses, but there is an alternative explanation/question that one can offer: Why do people so vehemently deny that statistical analyses may be providing some important information/insight when it violates their preconceived notions about the way the world works? Social science research is put in a double bind: people disregard it when it seems to be confirming "common sense" and they disregard it when it seems to be contradicting "common sense" Its true that statistics can be used to obscure the truth, but its equally true that when used responsibly, they can shed light on phenomenon. Like anything else, they have to critically evaluated (which is not the same as rejected out of hand). ------------------
All I want to know is where is Cato? Hell he cost us so many games he should be number one on there. He "won" so many games for the other team. Someone please stuff his a$$ in a trash can and kick him off a cliff... I can dream can't I ? ------------------ Go Rockets!!! SS
I wouldn't mind adding any of those guys to the Rockets roster, including Ben Wallace. So the model is not that bad. But I think the model is too crude to really make an accurate assessment of player value. There are too many things in basketball that are important to winning but are not measured to be able to do an accurate statistical model. How about good straight-up defense? How do you measure that? It also has an underlying assumption that a team is no more than the sum of its parts. It completely discounts the value of good coaching and good chemistry. And it assumes that everyone on the team has the same job. Wallace is there because his job on the floor is to collect rebounds and only shoot when he knows he can make it. That he fills that role well is great for him and the Pistons, but having 12 Ben Wallaces won't make Detroit a champion. Really, all the formula does is put a high value on a certain type of role. Notice there are only 2 guards on the list and they're at the bottom. ------------------ RealGM Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
Good points Outseam. You are correct that just because a finding violates common sense doesn't mean it is incorrect or invalid. Sometimes the most important findings from social scientists are counter-intuitive, though IMO this isn't the case for this guy's model. If I were to be more thorough, I would investigate the degree the scores from his model agree with other measures of player performance (correlates with, and more importantly, does it offer better prediction of success indicators than alternative models/scores). Thus to trully evaluate his model you would compare its scores to other more objective (for instance, ESPN's old total player index, Shick ratings or the like) and subjective (MVP balloting) indicators of player performance. I am failry confident this guy's model would not hold up well to these other indicators, in addition to not holding up to our sense of reality (just two glaring examples, having Ben Wallace where he is, having Marshall ahead of Malone from the same team). Without investigating further, my hunch is that he selected the wrong measures or uses biased weighting schemes in deriving his scores, but I admit I haven't take the time to support this contention with data. I also agree that carefully selected variables and appropriate statistics are the best ways we humans have to address such questions as who were the highest performing players last year, I just think this guy did not consider important criteria (variables) and/or weighted the variables inappropriately. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 05, 2001).]
