« Happy Thanksgiving | Main | Malajube »

Hollinger Versus Berri

23 Nov 2006 10:38 am

It's an NBA stats throwdown, as David Berri critiques John Hollinger's PER formula, backed up by Malcolm Gladwell. Hollinger fires back saying Berri's misunderstood how PER is calculated. On the issue at hand -- the "break even point" for shooting efficiency -- the two formulas are actually very close, Hollinger is only slightly more forgiving of missed shots. This long post by Dan Rosembaum on Wins Produced gets into some interesting business; Rosenbaum's point seven, dealing with defense, seems especially persuasive.

Obviously, as problematic as trying to quantify individual contributions to team offense based on box score numbers may be, quantifying individual contributions to defense is way more problematic. One point Berri makes time and again on his blog is that payroll size and wins correlate only very weakly in the NBA even though individual players' statistical production is fairly consistent from year to year. That, he points out, is good evidence that conventional thinking about player evaluation is often mistaken. So far as it goes, that seems correct, but my guess what be that an awful lot of the mis-evaluating just has to do with the extreme difficulty of assessing people's contributions to team defense. Beyond defensive rebounding, the numbers available strike me as next-to-worthless; giving people credit for steals, for example, doesn't make much sense unless we understand something about steal rates and the costs of failed steal attempts.

Share This

Comments (27)

One point Berri makes time and again on his blog is that payroll size and wins correlate only very weakly in the NBA even though individual players' statistical production is fairly consistent from year to year.

Consistent player production might mean that there are standard models of both basketball and player at work. When you see a totally different understanding of basketball deployed--like that of the Suns--you see player production numbers go up. It's not clear that the important thing to decide isn't playing style.

Berri also rides that point into the ground in his book, and it drives me nuts. Who, after all, holds the view that wins correllate with salary? I seem to recall reading a few days ago, possibly on this very blog, a persuasive argument to the effect that the existence of the salary cap (and especially the maximum salary) means that salary can't predict performance since transcendant players are paid the same wage as merely very good players. Berri is fighting a strawman.

"Obviously, as problematic as trying to quantify individual contributions to team offense based on box score numbers may be, quantifying individual contributions to defense is way more problematic."

Yuperoo.

Defense is utterly resistant to metrics. Offense is only halfway resistant.

In baseball, defensive stats, which are actually fairly reliable, correlate at 0 with salary. So I'd have to imagine it's even lower in basketball.

Matt: Why do you dislike the Lakers? The greatest team of all time is any of the Lakers teams from say 1983 to 1987. I really don't care if the Celtics were good in '86 or the 76ers one once. The Lakers were always the team to team and only lost due to injuries or when they beat themselves. But once they overcame their choke against the Celtics in '84, it was lights out. Also, Jordan never won a championship until after Kareem retired. Even at 42 in game four of a blowout series against Detroit in '88, Kareem had over 20 with Magic and Scott out for the series. A healthy mid-80s Lakers team would beat all comers.

And, as an aside, who would you take in a draft 22 yr. old Kareem or 21 yr. old Jordan? The answer is Kareem. Because the oldest adage in basketball is as true today as ever: you can't teach height. A skilled Kareem is more valuable than a skilled Jordan. Magic is better than Pippen. Worthy is better than Rodman. Kareem is better than the three headed monster. Scott is better than Paxson. Thompson is better than anyone off of the Bulls bench.

I've said this before, here and in other places, basketball is too dynamic to model well. There are too many powerful imputs, too many ambguous imputs, to many imputs period. One player can control the outcome of a game singlehandedly. A good point guard can control the outcome of a game but what he does can be really hard to see in the stats with maybe the exception of assists. Or someone like Ben Wallace. His stats often don't show much, but just having him back there changes all kinds of things. And then how do you capture coaching statistically? We all know coaches can have a huge effect--look at Phil Jackson-- but how do you statistically model what he does in any meaningful way.

And then I wonder what's the point of all these metrics? If it's to evaluate players, then they don't seem to come up with anything more than the obvious. On wages of wins for instance, they calculate that Carlos Boozer and Deron Williams are playing really well right now. That seems pretty obvious to me. Then they say if they play less well in the future the Jazz will probably win fewer games. And if these metrics are to predict winners, well, lots of people have betting systems...

cw

I'm certainly not an expert, but I'm wondering if the raw steals per game figure doesn't correlate reasonably well with quickness, and that quickness is the raw material of overall defensive skill?

There are actually plenty of theorems on the general meat/hides problem which show that joint production processes can't be disaggregated, but that doesn't stop cargo cult economists (and real economists who should know better but don't) from trying to reinvent old mistakes in other areas. This is a generalised example of forgetting that the simple linear models we use *are* in fact unrealistic.

"The Lakers were always the team to team and only lost due to injuries or when they beat themselves."

Or when there was a player who literally nobody on their team had a single prayer of guarding. The gateway to much of their 80's success was Moses Malone's eye socket injury and quick decline.

Have we forgotten the '82 Lakers / Rockets series where the Lakers flailed hopelessly against the Malone - led (but otherwise forgettable) Rockets because nobody (esp Kareem) could do anything at all with Malone? Or Riley's decision the following year to not even let Kareem attempt to cover Malone, but to throw every power forward (and their fouls) from Rambis on down at him (with little success)? Or what happened in game 4 when Riley finally switched Kareem to Malone, and how quickly Kareem was toast and the game and series were over?

If you're arguing for an 'era', the 76ers have no shot. If you're arguing for a team, the 80's Lakers case is grossly undermined by those 2 playoffs.

One important note: Win Score can, fairly easily, be computed after a game. In fact for the youth travel team I coach, I can find it out. However, both Wins Produced and PER are nearly impossible to compute quickly. This makes their utility, in my mind, somewhat sub optimal. Berri et al correct for this with Win Score, however Hollinger never really address this idea.

"I'm certainly not an expert, but I'm wondering if the raw steals per game figure doesn't correlate reasonably well with quickness, and that quickness is the raw material of overall defensive skill?"

Hollinger uses steals as an informal measure of quickness (but doesn't include steal in his PER). I tend to agree in that any quick player will get some steals. But there are big men who get quite a few steals--Hakeen, Ben Wallace, Karl Malone. In their case it's not a matter of overall quickness but good hands when playing post defense. And then there are players who just play passing lanes more, take more defensive risks, have better timing. The all time steals greats like Stockton and Jordan probably had a little of all these. A steal is the causing of a turnover so it seems like a good stat. But there are failed steal attempts which hurt your team, as well as other good defensive plays which help but are not recorded.

Dsquared: I did a couple of Google searches based on your comment, but I didn't turn up anything that was clearly relevant. I gather the meat/hides problem is something about how a single production process can have multiple outputs, but that's about it.

Hi. Yes, interesting surrender all are described. I recently read
about this article in on the other resource. There plenty of are
written about[URL=http://needpharmacyrx.byethost7.com/tramadol-online.html] tramadol online [/URL].
LOW PRICE!!! Free Piils package for all reorders!!!

Free prescriptions. Overnight FedEx delivery. FDA approved drugs.
We also offer FREE medical consultation. Visit [URL=http://buytramadolrx.vdforum.ru] order tramadol
[/URL]

Free prescriptions. Overnight FedEx delivery. FDA approved drugs.
We also offer FREE medical consultation. Visit [URL=http://cheaptramadolrx.vdforum.ru] buy cheap tramadol [/URL]

All Paiment Methods Accepted! Shop now!Low prices for HIGHEST QUALITY
medications. Buy in bulk and save your money! [URL=http://buycheaptramadolrx.vdforum.ru] order tramadol [/URL]

Order Now and Get 5 BONUS Pills to your Order! We do not require
prescription and offer express delivery. Free Shipping!!! [URL=http://buytramadolrx.vdforum.ru] tramadol online [/URL]

Hi. Live Customer Service Agents ready to assist you. Free Consultation!
Visit our site [URL=http://camedrx.vdforum.ru] buy tramadol online [/URL]

Hi. No prior prescription. Overnight, Saturday Delivery available!
Visit our site [URL=http://camedrx.vdforum.ru] buy cheap tramadol [/URL]

Hi. Your medications are now available to you online, 24x7!
Visit our site [URL=http://camedrx.vdforum.ru] buy tramadol online [/URL]

Hi. Cheap Generic Medication, Free Shipping. Largest selection online of cheap generic medication!!! Buy in bulk and save your money!!!
Visit our site [URL=http://camedrx.vdforum.ru] buy cheap tramadol [/URL]

ywzo ftrbz vdtm oksjdpfvu vikpmst vesdut zvsnxjpg

ndfxrwtpo buda fhgxbimrn yxfekamo yipuhvcw ralsdgq cnjukp http://www.utacli.cqwd.com

Hi. Cheap Generic Medication, Free Shipping. Largest selection online of cheap generic medication!!! Buy in bulk and save your money!!!
Visit our site [URL=http://camedrx.vdforum.ru] buy tramadol [/URL]


Comments closed December 07, 2006.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.