Ok, folks. I teased you a few days ago with some preliminary data that suggested Dorell Wright shoots spot-up jumpers more efficiently when receiving a pass from Monta Ellis, as opposed to David Lee or Stephen Curry. There are over 300 comments on that short post last I checked, so I shudder to think how many this one will generate. In this post, I'm going to give the complete story of "potential assists" on spot-up plays last season, or at least, a more complete story.
| GameID | ShotID | Q | Shooter | Make | Type | Passer |
| LALGSW040611 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 8 |
| LALGSW040611 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 1 |
| LALGSW040611 | 3 | 1 | 30 | 0 | 3 | 20 |
| LALGSW040611 | 4 | 1 | 30 | 0 | 3 | 8 |
| LALGSW040611 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 10 |
| LALGSW040611 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 10 |
| LALGSW040611 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 30 |
| LALGSW040611 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 23 |
| LALGSW040611 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 8 |
| LALGSW040611 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 10 |
| LALGSW040611 | 11 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| LALGSW040611 | 12 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 30 |
| LALGSW040611 | 13 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 30 |
In total, I was able to track 1,093 shots. One-thousand and ninety-three shots. Yes, that's quite a number. Now we get to the stats. First up, I want to show you the shooting efficiency of each of the six tracked players on potentially assisted spot-up plays:
| SHOOTER | SHOTS | POINTS | PPS |
| Curry | 169 | 234 | 1.38 |
| Williams | 163 | 215 | 1.32 |
| Ellis | 152 | 175 | 1.15 |
| Wright | 393 | 450 | 1.15 |
| Radmanovic | 98 | 112 | 1.14 |
| Lee | 118 | 98 | 0.83 |
Here, the number of shots includes 2-pt and 3-pt shots that were potentially assisted. PPS is simply the number of points scored divided by the number of shots. (I decided to use PPS as opposed to TS% or eFG%, because it allows easier comparison to Synergy stats, and makes some of the upcoming derived stats easier to calculate.) Not surprisingly, Curry and Williams were the most efficient (by quite a lot). Lee, because he takes so many two point shots and virtually no 3-pt shots, was the least efficient spot-up shooter. So far, so good. Now, let's look at something that you haven't seen before, which we'll call "passing efficiency":
| PASSER | SHOTS | POINTS | PPS |
| Wright | 127 | 174 | 1.37 |
| Ellis | 271 | 352 | 1.30 |
| Lee | 185 | 234 | 1.26 |
| Udoh | 26 | 30 | 1.15 |
| Biedrins | 35 | 39 | 1.11 |
| Law | 38 | 42 | 1.11 |
| Williams | 71 | 76 | 1.07 |
| Lin | 28 | 29 | 1.04 |
| Curry | 226 | 222 | 0.98 |
| Radmanovic | 43 | 39 | 0.91 |
I know this is where the shin is going to hit the fat. Dorell Wright was the most efficient passer, as the PPS off his passes was 1.37. Ellis was just behind at 1.30, followed by Lee (1.26). The big, perhaps shocking, surprise here is that Curry comes in close to the bottom with a PPS of only 0.98. So, what's the deal? Is Curry really such a bad passer? Remember, folks. I'm a so-called Curry fanboy, so it's not like this is the outcome I was looking for or expecting. Time for a little more parsing. Here's a table that gives the efficiency of each passer-shooter tandem:
| SHOOTER | |||||||||||||
| PASSER | Curry | RANK | Ellis | RANK | Lee | RANK | Radmanovic | RANK | Williams | RANK | Wright | RANK | RATIO |
| Wright | 1.69 | 1 | 1.00 | 8 | 0.57 | 6 | 1.10 | 7 | 1.89 | 2 | NA | 1.12 | |
| Ellis | 1.42 | 4 | NA | 0.77 | 4 | 1.23 | 5 | 1.46 | 3 | 1.26 | 3 | 1.09 | |
| Lee | 1.69 | 2 | 1.15 | 6 | NA | 2.14 | 1 | 1.06 | 6 | 1.12 | 5 | 1.05 | |
| Udoh | 1.50 | 3 | 2.25 | 1 | 0.00 | 7 | 1.20 | 6 | 2.00 | 1 | 0.86 | 8 | 1.03 |
| Biedrins | 0.60 | 6 | 1.80 | 2 | 0.00 | 8 | 1.50 | 2 | 1.00 | 7 | 1.40 | 2 | 0.97 |
| Law | 0.00 | 8 | 1.50 | 5 | 0.80 | 3 | 0.90 | 8 | 0.86 | 8 | 1.56 | 1 | 0.97 |
| Williams | 0.73 | 5 | 1.08 | 7 | 0.75 | 5 | 1.25 | 4 | NA | 1.22 | 4 | 0.93 | |
| Curry | NA | 0.87 | 9 | 1.21 | 2 | 0.78 | 9 | 1.15 | 5 | 0.92 | 7 | 0.89 | |
| Lin | NA | 1.50 | 4 | 2.00 | 1 | 1.29 | 3 | 0.67 | 9 | 1.00 | 6 | 0.87 | |
| Radmanovic | 0.38 | 7 | 1.80 | 3 | 0.00 | 9 | NA | 1.31 | 4 | 0.60 | 9 | 0.74 | |
Just to be clear how to read the data, for example, Curry's PPS when potentially assisted by Wright was 1.69 (the upper left corner of the table). Curry was most efficient when receiving passes from Wright, thus, ranking Wright first (the column RANK to the right of each shooter). Here you can also see that Wright was more efficient when potentially assisted by Ellis (1.26 PPS) compared to Lee (1.12) or Curry (0.92). The careful reader may have noticed the "RATIO" column at the right side of the table. To explain this new term, I need to show you the pass (or shot) distribution:
| SHOOTER | ||||||||||
| PASSER | Curry | Ellis | Lee | Radmanovic | Williams | Wright | SHOTS | XPPS | PPS | RATIO |
| Wright | 42 | 34 | 14 | 10 | 27 | 0 | 127 | 1.23 | 1.37 | 1.12 |
| Ellis | 59 | 0 | 26 | 22 | 41 | 123 | 271 | 1.19 | 1.30 | 1.09 |
| Lee | 35 | 34 | 0 | 7 | 16 | 93 | 185 | 1.21 | 1.26 | 1.05 |
| Udoh | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 26 | 1.12 | 1.15 | 1.03 |
| Biedrins | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 15 | 35 | 1.15 | 1.11 | 0.97 |
| Law | 1 | 6 | 5 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 38 | 1.14 | 1.11 | 0.97 |
| Williams | 11 | 13 | 8 | 12 | 0 | 27 | 71 | 1.15 | 1.07 | 0.93 |
| Curry | 0 | 38 | 48 | 18 | 34 | 88 | 226 | 1.11 | 0.98 | 0.89 |
| Lin | 0 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 28 | 1.19 | 1.04 | 0.87 |
| Radmanovic | 8 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 16 | 10 | 43 | 1.23 | 0.91 | 0.74 |
Curry was potentially assisted by Wright 42 times, Ellis by Wright 34 times, and so on. If we take the PPS from the first table, we can then calculate an "expected PPS", which I call XPPS. Here's an example calculation using Wright: 1.23 = 42*1.38 (Curry) + 34*1.15 (Ellis) + 14*0.83 (Lee) + 10*1.14 (Radmanovic) + 27*1.32 (Williams) The actual PPS on shots potentially assisted by Wright was 1.37. The ratio of (actual) PPS to XPPS therefore represents a measure of "normalized" passing efficiency, that takes into account the particular distribution of passes by each player. In theory, this is a more fair way to compare players. For example, Wright obviously benefits from being able to pass to Curry (who is very efficient), but Curry can't pass it to himself (oh, one wishes). You can see this by looking at the XPPS. Even given that Curry has a low XPPS, his RATIO shows that, for whatever reason, the actual PPS off of Curry passes was lower than might be expected. Here's where we get a little more sophisticated. We want to know if any of these data are statistically significant. In other words, are these numbers real or could they result from chance alone? First, I ran a linear regression with Points as the dependent variable and Shooter as a single predictor (in other words, ignoring the passer):
Call: lm(formula = Points ~ as.factor(Shooter), data = subset(GSW2011)) Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.385 -1.145 -1.143 1.681 1.857 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Curry) 1.3846 0.1091 12.692 < 2e-16 *** as.factor(Shooter)Ellis -0.2333 0.1585 -1.472 0.14142 as.factor(Shooter)Lee -0.5541 0.1701 -3.257 0.00116 ** as.factor(Shooter)Radmanovic -0.2418 0.1801 -1.343 0.17968 as.factor(Shooter)Williams -0.0656 0.1557 -0.421 0.67360 as.factor(Shooter)Wright -0.2396 0.1305 -1.836 0.06656 . --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Residual standard error: 1.418 on 1087 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.01146, Adjusted R-squared: 0.006915 F-statistic: 2.521 on 5 and 1087 DF, p-value: 0.028
Here, Curry is treated as the baseline (1.3846 PPS) with the other players being the comparisons (or contrasts). It turns out that only Lee was found to be statistically different from Curry (p<0.01). The negative coefficient means that Lee's PPS was found to be 0.83 = 1.3846 - 0.5541 (Curry - Lee). Note that 0.83 is the PPS value given in the first table. Wright's PPS was just above the level usually considered statistically significant, although some people would call it a "trend". As Warriors fans, we probably can all agree that Curry is a better spot-up shooter than Ellis, but technically speaking, these data don't "prove" that is the case. Maybe 1.5 or 2 years of data would provide a big enough sample size to make stronger claims. Let's look at passing now. I'm doing the same regression, except this time using Passer as the predictor:
Call: lm(formula = Points ~ as.factor(Passer), data = subset(GSW2011)) Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.3721 -1.2649 -0.9956 1.7232 2.0930 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Curry) 0.99558 0.09447 10.538 <2e-16 *** as.factor(Passer)Ellis 0.28118 0.12794 2.198 0.0282 * as.factor(Passer)Lee 0.26929 0.14081 1.912 0.0561 . as.factor(Passer)Other 0.11752 0.14468 0.812 0.4168 as.factor(Passer)Radmanovic -0.08860 0.23629 -0.375 0.7078 as.factor(Passer)Williams 0.07485 0.19322 0.387 0.6986 as.factor(Passer)Wright 0.37652 0.15672 2.402 0.0165 * --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Residual standard error: 1.42 on 1086 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.009539, Adjusted R-squared: 0.004066 F-statistic: 1.743 on 6 and 1086 DF, p-value: 0.1078
Again, Curry is the baseline comparison. Notice the PPS is much lower this time (0.996). I should note here that I've lumped all other players not listed into a group called "Other". Ellis and Wright are the two players here who were found to be statistically different from Curry, each with a positive coefficient (which should be added to Curry's). Lee comes very close to significance, so we'll call that a trend. Ok, one more regression. Now, we're going to include both Shooter and Passer as factors in the analysis:
Call: lm(formula = Points ~ as.factor(Passer) + as.factor(Shooter), data = subset(GSW2011)) Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.487 -1.221 -1.027 1.688 2.168 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Curry) 1.203563 0.156291 7.701 3.04e-14 *** as.factor(Passer)Ellis 0.210800 0.132681 1.589 0.1124 as.factor(Passer)Lee 0.187243 0.145679 1.285 0.1990 as.factor(Passer)Other 0.069063 0.146181 0.472 0.6367 as.factor(Passer)Radmanovic -0.194948 0.239388 -0.814 0.4156 as.factor(Passer)Williams 0.046394 0.195319 0.238 0.8123 as.factor(Passer)Wright 0.278321 0.164856 1.688 0.0916 . as.factor(Shooter)Ellis -0.169417 0.163773 -1.034 0.3012 as.factor(Shooter)Lee -0.459595 0.177621 -2.588 0.0098 ** as.factor(Shooter)Radmanovic -0.175921 0.185026 -0.951 0.3419 as.factor(Shooter)Williams 0.004799 0.159190 0.030 0.9760 as.factor(Shooter)Wright -0.176175 0.136564 -1.290 0.1973 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Residual standard error: 1.418 on 1081 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.01773, Adjusted R-squared: 0.007735 F-statistic: 1.774 on 11 and 1081 DF, p-value: 0.05399
The only statistically significant result here is that Lee has a negative effect as a shooter. Wright's positive effect as a passer appears to be a trend. With a p-value of 0.11, Ellis comes relatively close to being labeled a trend. In both these cases, a larger sample size might yield statistically significant results.
When we take into account the recipient of potential assists, the (marginal) effects of the passer do not appear to be statistically significant. Now, that doesn't mean all passers are equivalent, or even that all Warriors players are equivalent. After watching a lot of video over the past week, I got the distinct impression that Ellis creates a lot of open shots with his ability to drive, draw defenders, and kick out. Conversely, while I believe Curry does have that ability, he doesn't use it quite as often. Also, it seems to me that Curry's passing can be improved, in terms of tightening up the accuracy. In particular, I think this is an issue between Curry and Wright. Wright appears to be most efficient when receiving the ball directly in front of his body, as opposed to his left or right. I think the connection from Curry to Wright would be more efficient, if Curry could more consistently center his passes on Dorell. This is also an issue when Dorell shoots after the ball is swung to him on the perimeter, and he has to turn his body to catch it and then turn back towards the basket to shoot. Dorell is not nearly as quick in getting his shot off as Reggie or Curry, so I believe his efficiency is more sensitive to the pass quality. Originally, I was going to post some scouting videos showing these things, but I don't want to be accused of cherry picking. Also, I didn't quantify any of this, so I could be wrong. Maybe in the future I'll undertake a more careful and quantitative analysis in this regard. I would suggest, however, that next season (whenever it plays out), you look for yourself.
Of course, there's an even bigger issue here to discuss. The fact of the matter is that our PG is our best shooter, yet most of us want the ball in his hands more so that he can setup his teammates. Should these data make us reconsider whether the Curry/Ellis backcourt should actually be Ellis/Curry? Think about it. These data suggest that the main reasons for Curry's low passing efficiency is simply due to the fact that he's passing to teammates who are worse shooters than he is. Especially Lee. I think that's something that has to be looked at. To be sure, Lee has to be part of the offense. It would be nice if he could develop a three-point shot, but if it hasn't happened by now, that's probably just wishful thinking on my part. Of course, there are other types of plays that are potentially assisted. Maybe Curry is much more efficient at setting up those plays? That's certainly something I'd like to investigate further. Part of me thinks it might really be worth experimenting with Monta at PG full time, with Mark Jackson as a mentor. Of course, another solution is simply to surround Curry with better shooters (Reggie, maybe Klay). At any rate, I'm glad I undertook this little project. It brought up some interesting issues and raises some questions for further research.
18 recs | 227 comments
dude... lacob isnt going to pay us now... ) :
PIRATEWARRIOR - July 28, 2011
hahaa
sure he will – this makes Ellis look better
Duby Dub Dubs - August 1, 2011
Thanks for the increadible,hard work Evanz. Rec'd
Only In Fairfax - August 7, 2011
wow
just wow. fantastic work, Evanz. I really can’t applaud you enough for this. I want to make a second account so I can rec it twice.
As for your idea of Monta at the PG…I love the idea if we use him the right way. If he’s PG, we need Steph running around screens like no other, being our #1 option, and still looking to pass from time to time. Have him in a Ray Allen role, and Monta in a micro-DRose role. I like it.
anyway, when I’m more awake/coherent and there are people arguing, I’ll make a stronger point. But for now, just want to thank you for an incredible post.
bradyk2 - July 28, 2011
ditto, this is a great post
You are going to get Don Nelson all excited because he is probably the only coach who could put this data together and come up with a system that allows the most effective passers to play point regardless of all other factors. Maybe he’ll be coaching in Minnesota soon and give you a call.
I would love to see you run this data for other teams with strong PG talent such as Phoenix, Dallas, and/or New Orleans. It is hard to tell if this really means anything just looking at the Warriors because they have been so disfunctional during Curry’s short tenure
Curry is a new PG – so is it too soon to trust these numbers as a criticism of him as a PG?
Wright played out of his mind last year – will that happen again? will he evolve again after becoming comfortable as a primary contributor?
Monta has never been a true PG – do we have a real reason to think he could play PG effectively while trying to ignore his desire to score all the time?
Lee has no 3pt shot – why does he need one on this team? If he shoots a higher percentage next season playing injury free he will make everyone on that chart look better
warriorsvictim - July 28, 2011
mind. blown.
bigkino217 - July 28, 2011
I stopped reading at:
Either way, it looks very well organized. Rec’d.
LGW - July 29, 2011
all these stats....
they hurt the inside of my face.
Jiriest Welsch - July 29, 2011
Thanks for the hard work on all of this Evanz!
About Lee, I think that he has a very efficient midrange game. His overall efficiency is brought down by not having a 3-point shot, but what of it? Obviously an ideal offense should only take wide-open 3-point shots or layups and dunks, but realistically you can’t cut out the option of having a player who reliably hits the 16-23 foot jumper.
My question on efficiency theory is this: suppose a player hits 45-50% on long 2’s and has no 3-point game (sounds somewhat like Lee). The opposition has Dwight Howard and Ben Wallace types in the middle so you can’t really drive to make the shot. Even though metrics like eFG%, TS% and PPS don’t like this player because of his lack of range beyond the arc, does that mean that he shouldn’t be part of the offense?
jebinitay - July 29, 2011
this only holds true if all long 2’s had the same chance of going in. as most of us should know, open shots are going to go in more often than contested shots. logically you could conclude that a player makes a high enough percentage of open jumpers to warrant them still being part of the offense. they shouldn’t be taking contested jumpers though (though that holds true for pretty much any case, not just the one with good bigs defending the rim).
bigkino217 - July 29, 2011
Nah. It probably means he shouldn’t have a huge role, but not every possession is going to result in a high quality shots, and sometimes a midrange shot by a guy like Lee is the best shot you’re going to get on that possession. In those cases, he should definitely be taking those shots. The optimal results for an offense are to maximize the points per possession of each individual possession – sometimes that means open layups, sometimes it means 3 pointers, and sometimes it means midrange 2’s.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
Another question about Lee and the midrange jumper:
Most times that I’ve seen Lee take the midrange jumper, he’s been very open as a result of ball movement. I don’t think I’ve seen him take a contested midrange jumper, or at least not enough to remember it. There might have been opportunities through continued ball movement to get an open 3-pointer or lay-up, but in my opinion, if I have Lee with a chance at an open jumper, I want him to take it.
So here’s the question: Lee has the ball with an open look at a 20-footer. He has a chance to pass it to the corner for an open Wright 3, but the defense is starting to recover, and it’s 50-50 that when the ball gets to Wright the look will be contested. What would you want Lee’s decision to be here?
jebinitay - July 29, 2011
I’d rather he get it to Wright. Lee shot 43% from 16-23 feet this past season. Dorell only needs to shoot 29% from 3 for the 3 to be more efficient than a 43% 2 pointer.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
Good observation
The team is not as hurt by a low shooting percentage from the 3pt line as it is from inside the line. That fact makes this a statistical nightmare to breakdown into usable strategic intelligence.
For a team that has consistently shot the 3 ball so well, I agree we probably want to take the open 3 as often as not when both shots are uncontested.
That being said, I think this displays the value of Lee. He has to be respected from midrange because he shoots a high percentage and can drive if the D over commits. He can also make the pass to the open 3pt shot. He is a vital part of this Warriors puzzle right now.
warriorsvictim - July 29, 2011
This is another thing – in real life, situations aren’t necessarily so easy as “what’s the best decision on this one play”. Game theory stuff starts coming into play because the defense will shift it’s strategy as you shift yours. If Lee passes to the open 3 every time, teams will start expecting that and close out harder on shooters and help off him more. So in reality, there’s going to have to be a mixture to cause the defense to respect both possibilities. Sometimes he’ll have to shoot it, sometimes pass, to keep the defense off balance. Hooray for game theory.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
In a vaccuum, yes. But the numbers show DWright shooting poorly when Lee passes to him.
Uwe Blog - July 29, 2011 via mobile
Of course, it might not be significant, and even if it is, it might not be a trend that continues in the future.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
is this really a surprise ?
you expressed it directly in your last paragraph — Curry is passing to shooters who are less proficient at it than he is, or putting it another way, his so-called passing efficiency doesn’t get the boost of passing to Curry. The other efficient (points per shot attempt) shooter, Williams, didn’t have many minutes with just Curry on the court w/o Ellis. And the shooters will be limited in how far they can develop chemistry/rhythm with Curry under last season’s conditions. How much are these numbers a result of Smart’s fickle rotations and indecisiveness about his offense, and his using Ellis dominating the ball in heavy minutes as a crutch ?
I.I.r.c., Lee’s overall efficiency in pts per f.g. attempt was actually higher than Wright and Ellis, and this set of data indicates his passing ranks high as well. We can only hope he gets utilized more effectively by the next set of coaches.
the.monk - July 29, 2011
Radmanovic, Williams and Wright (so all the 3 point shooters) all did worse on passes from Curry than from Monta. It might not be significant, but I don’t think we can necessarily conclude that the entire effect is just Curry not being able to pass to Curry.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
of course the entire effect isn't due
to Curry not having a shooter like himself to pass to. However, if we look at his minutes on the floor, Ellis was on the court with him for the largest portion — there’s only one combination with Curry, no Ellis, that even saw the court more than 20 min. over the entire season, and that combo was still < 60 min, and all the other configurations with Curry but w/o Ellis total fewer than 80 min.
the.monk - July 29, 2011
I don’t understand why that’s significant?
bradyk2 - July 29, 2011
I don't think I quite understand
I have read this piece three times to check for clarity and I an confused. I must not understand potential assist as you define it. Maybe you can clarify for me your actual definition, that would be helpful.
If you want to study assists, you should only look at assists. In my opinion, you’ve mixed points with assists and confused the issue. Also, you’ve eliminated so many assists around the basket that it skews the data to a point that I would seriously question it’s validity. Jump shots aren’t assists. Passing to a guy 2 feet from the basket is smarter passing even if that guy gets fouled, than passing to a guy 12 feet from the basket. Your analysis doesn’t give credit for intelligence or good passing, just certain types of scoring that favors 3 point shooters. That’s a very distorted view of an assist. I would offer that caution.
I think you’ve proven that in terms of jump shooting assists, passing to a better shooter gives you a better chance to get an assist. I would suggest that’s comforting confirmation of common knowledge.
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
I’m not understanding some of your issues. I don’t think he’s confused points and assists at all – what he’s doing is looking at passes that lead to shot, and if said shot went in, would get recorded as an assist. He is then looking at how often those shots went in to calculate a shooting efficiency off passes. The point of the analysis is to see if different passers have an effect on the shooters scoring efficiency.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
I think you're completely right.
But if you disagree with his research, I’d like to see you invest the countless hours and brainpower necessary to come up with an article half as good as this.
The least you could have done is complement him on his work and suggested further investigation, but you just bashed everything Evanz put into this piece.
steffun4tw - July 29, 2011
I certainly haven't bashed everything the guy did
I just pointed out that I think it’s not an accurate description of his work and it’s misleading. I also asked for clarification. I think that was all within bounds. I wasn’t rude in any way about it. Once you present something publicly, you should be ready for public commentary and debate, and to defend your work. Otherwise, don’t put it out there.
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
So is your data suggesting Monta plays more PG?
OaklandsFinest30 - July 29, 2011
That would be what he wrote in the part called, “Conclusions”.
cybermaldonado - August 8, 2011
Numbers don't lie...
… but what doesn’t show up on the stat sheet are all of the hesitation/deferring plays by Steph when Monta’s on the court. The more they played together, the more cohesive they looked last season but I definitely see a difference in Curry when Monta’s on the court and when he’s on the bench. Curry’s energy seems to get a little boost when he’s running things. I’m not for getting rid of Monta (I think), together they’re one of the best backcourts in the league. Hopefully the more they play together, the more comfortable Curry gets. The issue still remains… still desperately need frontcourt help.
JonDoe - July 29, 2011
Thanks for this huge contribution Evanz!
Im really looking forward to the debate that will most likely follow from your work. Im not sure how to interpret this data, it does seem to tell us a lot, but it also seems to favor a certain type of assist along the perimeter (I understand going for the lowest hanging fruit – spot up jumpers- with such a big effort to collect data),.
I know the old debate about stats vs. trusting your eyes, but I just cant see Monta being a successful PG.
WestCoastWarrior - July 29, 2011
Be careful
I think it tells us that our best chance to score points off jump shots is to pass it to the best three point shooter. That’s…not very earth shaking.
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
did you actually read the post? Because summarizing it as such is similar to a Harry Potter book review that simply reads “wizards cast spells.”
bradyk2 - July 29, 2011
I've read it 4 times now
I don’t see where it proves much of anything. The OP basically says the same thing in his conclusion. All the effects talked about could be illusions because they aren’t statistically significant. In other words, “We can’t tell.”
The number of stars in the Milky Way divided by the number of grains of sand in North America is a statistic. Statistics can be generated by anything. Numbers can do wild things. Numbers are not real things. They do not really exist. They substitute for ideas. So when someone presents some numbers to you, they may or may not have any bearing on reality. They may or may not have any real meaning. It’s the evaluation of the numbers and their meaning that tell us if we have anything significant here or absolutely nothing or something in between.
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
Yes
Thanks for the great post, Evanz. I think I am less swayed by your statistical analysis than your impressions from watching video, which agree with my thoughts. So much discussion on the forum has to do with Monta taking too many shots and Curry not enough. And so much talk about Curry’s TS% and no talk of the poor T/A ratio. The top PG’s today create so much off the drive and its obvious watching the games that Curry rarely does this and won’t be able to do it until he gets some more weight/muscle. Most times he makes his initial pass without creating a scoring threat sufficient to draw a doubleteam, which means the floor spacing will favor the defense. He also does not lead as many breaks as one would expect from the PG position, which is often well placed on defense for this (though he does get a better share of rebounds). I really do believe that he could contribute more as a 2 than a 1 on this team (or any team for that matter).
Of course, that leaves the question of whether Monta can function as a PG. I don’t know how many will agree with me on this, but I saw some improvement in Monta’s game this year in a couple of non-shooting categories: passing accuracy and passing out of pressure — especially on drives. I also think he is still able/willing to learn and grow. So, as a trueGSfan, I can’t help but to think/fantasize that Jackson might be the perfect coach to help him find a better balance between scoring and assisting needed in a great PG. It certainly would be a worthwhile experiment.
TrueGSfan - July 29, 2011
If nothing else, I must have convinced you that I actually did watch the games with my eyes!
Evanz - July 29, 2011
I don’t necessarily agree that adding weight/muscle is going to help Curry – it’ll make him stronger, but also make him slower. I also think he’s a more capable driver than we saw this past year, and our coaching held him back some.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
Adding weight/muscle doesn’t slow a player down, if done properly. Virtually all NBA players add bulk in their first few years because its necessary to play the modern NBA game. It’s also necessary to improve stamina, an area where Curry is lacking (at least as a 35+ min player). If he doesn’t get stronger than he is, his long-term prospects as a starter in the NBA are not bright.
Having said that, I have doubts that Curry will ever have an effective inside game. Watching him this year, my impression is that he doesn’t absorb contact well and his skillset doesn’t include the quickness/moves to avoid contact AND finish. Coaching has nothing to do with it.
Does that mean he can’t be a great PG? Not necessarily, as the many comparisons made to Nash attest. But he’s got a LONG way to go in the passing dept and, oh yeah, a killer fallaway jumper better be coming.
TrueGSfan - July 30, 2011
Most people add weight from their early to mid twenties.
jae - July 30, 2011
I wish it stopped in my twenties
Evanz - July 30, 2011
Impressive undertaking. I’d be very interested to see what sort of trends appear across the league. Are passes from point guards generally have a lower overall PPS than from other players who pass less often? As pure speculation I do wonder if it’s as much a factor of defined roles as it is clear differences in players.
jae - July 29, 2011
One of benefit/silver lining of the lockout is more time for stuff like this. Although this would represent a huge undertaking. It would be nice if I could get a network of like-minded bloggers from around the SBNation to participate in this kind of advanced charting.
Evanz - July 29, 2011
Or if an NBA team wanted to hire you so you could work on it full time. ;)
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
yeah, that too
Evanz - July 29, 2011
thinking some more about David Lee
You know, looking at the table again, the efficiency for Curry → Lee is quite high at 1.21. Overall, Lee’s shooting efficiency is low, but that was due to poor efficiency on shots from pretty much every other teammate, except for Curry. So, really, the main reason for Curry’s low overall pass efficiency resides in his connections with Ellis and Wright. I guess the question is how much will those efficiencies improve next season.
Evanz - July 29, 2011
I would suggest that teams could use tables like these not only to make strategy decisions
but also to “troubleshoot” and correct discrepancies (unexpected poor efficiencies) and exploit potentially beneficial tandems that have been under-utilized previously.
Hopefully, Lacob and co. are on the case.
Evanz - July 29, 2011
That would be a huge mistake.
Your analysis is flawed, and to use this false data to decide anything would hurt the team. Or maybe help the team. Pure random chance. The “potential for an assist” is found by taking the total number of passes a player made divided by the number of assists the player got, and that players “potential” for an assist will be about that amount on any pass. In other words, if Joe Blow passed the ball 1000 times last season and got 300 assists, then Joe’s potential to get an assist off any pass is about .300. Going into the NEXT game you could pencil in about 1 assist for Joe for every 3 passes he makes.
But as far as taking certain passes to certain people under certain conditions, adding in a difference between three and two point shots, and ignoring scoring off other types of plays…it’s too distorted to tell you anything of value.
My advice to a coach without a background in mathematics would be to ignore this data. It will confuse and mislead you. The study is structurally flawed.
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
We don’t care how many assists Joe Blow racks up. Assists don’t win games. Points do. What we care about is how many points we scored because of those passes.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
I think you are failing to realize that this is not based on just any pass
it is a pass that than leads to a shot attempt (in this case a spot up shot attempt) not just any pass. Yes it is true that is joe blow passes the ball 1000 times and get three hundred assists that data is worthless. but this is looking at for every-time joe blow passes and a shot is then immediately taken, what is the average PPS for that shot. hope this helps though its not the best explanation.
AHR - August 14, 2011
I was expecting more statistical significance. Oh well! Still very interesting.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
Very good work here.
I would still not like to have Monta at PG. The same issues still appear with him, lack of a handle and not a great bbiq. I look at him as a playmaking 2. I still think Curry is the better PG candidate, he’s more willing to pass the ball around and Monta is better at scoring the ball. While it is different that we have our best shooter at PG, I don’t see how this is a bad thing. Nash could be called the Suns best shooter too.
kenntoe - July 29, 2011
While it is different that we have our best shooter at PG, I don’t see how this is a bad thing. Nash could be called the Suns best shooter too.
Yes…but Nash was also the team’s best penetrator. Nash has a great ability to penetrate as well as shoot from outside, and his penetration leads to alot of open looks to the outside and around the basket.
This data that Evans posted pretty much confirms some of the speculated beliefs that had been shared around this board, that Curry wasn’t as big of a playmaker as he was made out to believe, and it likely has something to do (not all) with his lack of ability to break down defenses
kyzah - July 29, 2011
It really depends on who you talk to. A lot of people GSOM have made some strong aruments that Monta isn’t even the second best at “scoring the ball” on this team.
WestCoastWarrior - August 1, 2011
So how did you like watching basketball for the first time?
I kid, nice analysis.
SDtotheBay - July 29, 2011
well, I had to figure out what that orange ball was for
but once I googled it, everything else went pretty smoothly :P
Evanz - July 29, 2011
Thank you Evanz. Your dilligence makes the lockout a little more bearable.
Uwe Blog - July 29, 2011 via mobile
So why the difference between a 2 point shot and a 3 point shot?
By mixing in points, you ruin the analysis. Well, you change the analysis. It’s fundamentally flawed. What it really proves, after further thought, is that in terms of ONLY jump shots, and not plays where the shooter dribbled or drove, and no other kind of shot, then passing to a good three point shooter gives your team the best chance to score.
That’s all that it proves. It proves nothing else. The study is based upon points scored off of jump shots. Not assists. A 3 point shot gets the same assist as a 2 point shot. That’s the flaw of the study in terms of having anything to do with assists. It then becosmes a mishmash of something about points.
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
Fundamentally flawed? I’m not following your arguments. The point isn’t necessarily to “prove” anything, it’s just to look at the difference in results between passers on spot up shot attempts.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
Then you're studying points not assists.
Decide what you’re studying and eliminate other variables. Pretty basic mathematics.
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
Right, we’re looking at scoring off of passes, because the game is decided by who has the most points.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
Exactly
SO you’ve proven that passing to the best three point shooter gives the team the best chance to score points. But then again, we knew that.
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
He looked a little more in depth to it than that. He also looked at the effects the player passing the ball had on a given shooter’s efficiency, as well as gave us cross tabs on passers and shooters.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
Yes, but
Where those statistics valid and meaningful? I believe the tests he ran concluded the statistics were not significant. In other words, it couldn’t be sure if these numbers were a trend or an anomaly. So lots of numbers may or may not show you anything. So you may think it’s better in some situations for player A top pass to player B, but the statistics don’t pass the test to prove they really tell the accurate picture, so you can only conclude that it’s unknown.
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
Yeah, sometimes you do research and find that your data doesn’t lead to conclusions because things just aren’t statistically significant. That doesn’t mean the research is flawed, or that it wasn’t worth doing, or that it isn’t well thought out. I’m just not understanding what you’re taking issue with. If you want to say something along the lines of “well, it was an interesting idea, but the data doesn’t appear to really tell us much because of the lack of statistical significance so we should be cautious taking away any meaning from it”….that’s understandable. I just don’t get why you seem to be taking issue with it and deciding it’s flawed?
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
That's pretty much what I did
So I don’t see an issue. I’ve done statistical analysis for football, trying to invent different stats and I keep coming up with stats that tell me things like, “If you can’t stop the run you will lose the game” and other obvious things. So, my first task was to try to understand the logic of the statistics presented. I tried to read through the explanation and see if the logic backed up what was being said. It appeared to me to divert from the narration when points were introduced. I have been clear about that point, I can tell (laughs). But I mean this all as a guy that DOES this kind of thing as a hobby and KNOWS how hard it is to come up with something because I’ve failed many times in the past 3 months trying. I’m working with an astrophysicist on my project and I have degrees in math and engineering. What I’m saying is that I know I admire the work, but perhaps didn’t share that and created the wrong impression. I take it as a given that anyone that can understand the stats is working hard to create something and gather knowledge. Heck, I’m stretching my brain trying to make sure I understand another person’s work. I still may not completely understand this stat. That’s my individual challenge.
I can assure you as a person trying to come up with new stats, it’s a hard game to get into. My personal criteria is that I created a stat that helps a coach win a game. So far, I’ve come up with stats that show that gaining a lot of yards helps win football games. No coach will pay me for that idea. I live the pain of creating stats daily! I feel a strong kinship with Evanz and hope that by sharing this maybe you can see that I’m just trying to understand as a way of helping myself in other similar endevours. I’ve certainly never creted anything worth sharing, so he’s way ahead of me on a personal level.
Gainon10 - August 1, 2011
Well, let’s see how the new CBA shakes out. I hear this “who has the most points” issue is quite contentious.
Evanz - July 29, 2011
rec’d. Hell, I feel like making a few sock puppets to rec it some more.
jae - July 29, 2011
my sock puppets and I rec’d you both.
bradyk2 - July 29, 2011
+1 LOL
steffun4tw - July 29, 2011
In other words...
A 3 point shot that goes in gets a “1” for assists, and a two point shot gets a “1” for assists if they go in. All that should be counted are shots that go in, not points. That gets you a bit closer to actually being about assists.
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
that makes no sense
the team with the most assists doesn’t win games.
the team with the most points wins games.
bradyk2 - July 29, 2011
May not be popular around these parts...
But I actually agree with Gainon10 and don’t understand why people are so defensive.
If you want to analyse ‘good passing’ I think that using total points is biasing the results toward players that are on the court with good 3pt shooters which may not be getting at what you are trying to measure. The biggest factor may be the use of spot up jumpers as a basis for the stat. Now the big question is, “Is there an good way to measure assist potential more generally?” It is probably hard to do, or else I imagine it would be part of the box score. :-)
I think that the critique of this analysis may be a good way to refine it. That’s how good analysis is done. You throw out an idea, others critique it, refine it, and hopefully if we are all heading in the right direction a better analysis is made. Evanz does great work but I still dont’ understand why there isn’t room for critique. Cheers.
AYEq - July 31, 2011
I think there should always be room for critique. I guess I’m just not understanding where you guys are coming from with the, “I think that using total points is biasing the results toward players that are on the court with good 3pt shooters which may not be getting at what you are trying to measure”, because that’s not an issue. Evanz accounted for it, both in showing you the cross tabs of shooter/passer combos and in doing regression analysis.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
+1
No one’s bashing Gainon10 for critiquing Evanz. There’s always room for that, and it should always be welcome. It just seems as though umbrage is being taken where it shouldn’t oughta be.
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
I haven't felt bashed
We’re cool. I was trying to follow the thought of a pass leading to an assist. If that was the study then it should be the field goal percentage because both a 2 point and 3 point shot get 1 assist. You should not add the points in ever. Ever.
However, if you want to know the potential for scoring a point off a pass, then you can use this method. But it doesn’t tell you anything about assist potential. It’s blurred that line with 2 and 3 point shots getting different credits, when in fact in terms of assists they should just get the same credit. So, you’ve blurred the lines on assists with the point totals.
If yo only looked at 2 point jumpers then it’s a non issue. Or really the same if you only looked at 3’s. On other words each player is judged on the same basis, a made shot.
It’s a little subtle. There is a mixing of apples and oranges when you mix 2 point shots with 3 point shots and base a percentage on total points scored.
So, you end up with a stat that tells you your potential to score off a pass. Not shockingly, the best shooters give you the best chance to score (as we should expect). The statistical significance tests show that it didn’t really matter WHO passed the ball, the best shooters scored the most often. So, the final conclusion must be that the teams best chance to score is for ANYONE to pass it to the best shooter on the team. That’s what was actually proven. That doesn’t say anything about assists, but it does say to pass it to a good shooter.
Gainon10 - August 1, 2011
I understand what you’re referring to. I started off talking about potential assists, but really what I’m interested in is what I’m calling “passing efficiency”. That is why I’m distinguishing between 2/3 pt shots. If you want to calculate potential assists, though, the data are there, since I give the number of potentially assisted shots.
Evanz - August 1, 2011
use the reply button
Your difficult to follow argument is made even more difficult by your formatting.
Reverend_Randy - July 29, 2011
While I love what you've done here..
I can’t help but think that it’s incomplete with the current data.
Monta as full-time PG? While it’s clear that his passing has improved significantly over last year, Curry’s has also regressed. Including the numbers from the previous season might’ve shed more light on this situation rather than just a frankly cursory conclusion with the present information.
Curry can shoot? Well, yeah. We knew that already. Yes, too bad he can’t pass to himself. How about did Reggie’s increased playing time help Curry’s passing out in 09-10?
On one hand, I really think this is great work and I applaud your efforts. I want to make that clear. However, on the other hand, I don’t think it’s told us much that we didn’t know before. It would take a lot more work to enter in more data, but it would also make the picture I think, a little more clearer.
Jaguarundi - July 29, 2011 via mobile
This is the flaw.
“PPS is simply the number of points scored divided by the number of shots. (I decided to use PPS as opposed to TS% or eFG%, because it allows easier comparison to Synergy stats, and makes some of the upcoming derived stats easier to calculate.) "
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
you can’t quote someone and then say “this is the flaw” without describing why it’s a flaw. that logic is……flawed.
bradyk2 - July 29, 2011
When you introduce the number of points scored
You take the focus off assists. You are now talking about points. This proves that passing to the best shooter get the team the most points. It’s a perfectly valid point to make. It just has nothing to do with assists or the potential for anyone to get an assist. But it clearly proves that passing to the best 3 point shooter gives the team the best chance to score points on a jump shot that isn’t blocked or turned over and no dribbles happen. Is proving that passing the ball to the best three point shooter a good way to score worth very much? I don’t know. I’m going to think most coaches already know that part of basketball.
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
I don’t think that was really the focus of this exercise. You seem to be quite fixated on that part. The interesting part to me is how each passer may or may not affect how well a given shooter shoots.
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
Yes, but
Wasn’t there found to be no statistical significance to the data? In other words, it didn’t prove anything of that nature?
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
This is from the conclusion
“These data suggest that the main reasons for Curry’s low passing efficiency is simply due to the fact that he’s passing to teammates who are worse shooters than he is. Especially Lee. I think that’s something that has to be looked at. To be sure, Lee has to be part of the offense. "
It’s because Lee scores close in and on foul shots, he’s not a jump shooter per se. This data makes it look like passing to Lee is a mistake in terms of scoring. That’s the danger of bad stats. They make you think you see things that aren’t there.
I would think it would be cleaner to look at all passes that led to points of any kind in any way, and then you’d see who the passers were that tended to find players in a position to score more often. You’d truly see the guy that can thread the pass close in to the basket, which this study penalizes you for attempting as a player.
This study says the best chance to score to to give it to Curry and if he has the ball, to just shoot it. That…is not a way to win a basketball game.
Gainon10 - July 29, 2011
I agree with the point about isolating jumpers compared to all scoring. If player A is great at collapsing defenses and kicking the ball out to shooters, but player B threads the defenders to find cutters and slashers, well, I’d take the layups over the jumpers any day.
But the subject of the post is jump shooters.
Uwe Blog - July 29, 2011 via mobile
I’d agree, though I’d reword it. I don’t think it’s fair to call them bad stats. The issue is the interpretation of the stats – if someone doesn’t understand what the statistics mean and what they don’t mean, even if the statistics are sound they can come to bad conclusions. It’s always important to understand what the statistics are and are not telling you.
I also think it would be worthwhile to look at all passes, though I still think this data is interesting, because it may have shed light about differences in the quality of shots a player creates for others. It didn’t in this case, but more data might help along those lines. Of course, as you imply, creating jumpers isn’t the only important thing – being able to create other kinds of shots matters, too.
I don’t think it does tell us that. I think that’s reading too much into it.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
Dude, enough.
You made your point. Even if people don’t understand, you don’t need as many comments as you’ve made about the same thing. If you want to clarify just go reply.
Brownie13 - July 30, 2011
By the way, couldn’t you do an ANOVA to test for significance between the different groups so that instead of comparing them all in a regression to Curry, for instance, and getting a significance test on whether they’re different from Curry, we have a neutral mean as the Ho? It’s been a long time since I’ve thought about ANOVA’s, if I remember right, that’s one of the things we can do with it though, right?
By the way, what software are you using?
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
that is what I'm doing
R just picks one of the factors as the “mean”, and it happens to be Curry because they choose it alphabetically (I can’t figure out how to change that option)
Evanz - July 29, 2011
I think I got it
For some reason, now I’m getting more significance, too.
Evanz - July 29, 2011
Hmmm…I’m confused. Why are all the passers positive? Shouldn’t some be positive and some be negative?
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
I think the way to read it is that Curry is the baseline shooter. The coefficients for each of the shooters are relative to Curry. The coefficients for the passers are absolute.
Some examples:
Ellis → Wright = 1.41-0.176
Lee → Curry = 1.39
Wright → Williams = 1.48+0.005
So basically if you want a shooter other than Curry, just add that coefficient to the coefficient for the passer that you want. For Curry pairs, just take the passer coefficient.
Evanz - July 29, 2011
Ohhhh does the + 0 in the equation mean there’s no intercept?
Missing Barry - July 29, 2011
yes (I think)
Evanz - July 29, 2011
Great post Evanz. I didn't understand half of it, but it was brilliant nevertheless.
To all the people finding flaws in this argument: Go do something about it. You could invest an entire year of your time trying to figure nothing more but who is the best passer and your research would still not be prefect.
Commend Evanz on his work. Take what he’s done and expand on it if you like, but don’t be so angry that the post didn’t cover every single detail you could have dreamed of.
We need people like this to continue writing incredible, informative articles such as this. Let’s not scare them away.
steffun4tw - July 29, 2011
Evanz should be hired by an NBA team.
GovernorStephCurry - July 29, 2011
preferably the Warriors
bradyk2 - July 29, 2011
I know it's self-serving, but...
rec’d!
Evanz - July 30, 2011
haha it's deserved though
steffun4tw - July 30, 2011
First I want to say that I think what Evanz has done is amazing, and great for the community, people like him, J, MB, and many others make this a quality fanboard.
But finding flaws in a statistical systems or study IS doing something. I think they call it peer review, and it is a way to strenghten a study and/or argument. Evanz even mentions some flaws, and he deserves a lot of praise, but we also have to acknowledge limitations of the data collected to date (it’s a lot of effort, and will take more effort to get even more meaningful results.)
I agree 100%, but I dont think discussing the details and disagreeing will scare anyone away. I think there has to be room to praise Evanz for his work, while also looking for ways to improve, even if it’s just pointing out concerns.
WestCoastWarrior - August 1, 2011
this
is the kind of comment we need more of. Couldn’t agree more.
Things that are helpful: Lauding Evanz; discussing his work; discussing the meaning; discussing ways to make it better.
Things that aren’t helpful: Bashing Evanz; saying the work is useless.
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
I agree. Doing a study like Evanz did takes a lot of time and effort on his part. I greatly appreciate what he’s done, but many of us may be too unmotivated/busy/lazy to do similar work (because we’re obviously not as awesome as Evanz). We can still add to the discussion without doing a similar level of work, though. I can still have a fairly high level discussion about the methodology that takes much, much less effort than actually doing all the backend work Evanz just did, and it still furthers the discussion.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
MB, would you suggest taking a statistics class in college?
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
I would suggest AP stats in high school, and then at least one more stat class in college. Lots of majors actually require a stat class or two – business majors, psych majors, science majors, etc. It’s important to have an idea of the basic concepts (variance, sample size/sample error, correlation, etc.) at the very least. It’s a whole new way of thinking that had never even occurred to me before I took a stat class….
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
I don't think i'll be able to take AP stats in high school.
But i’m definitely taking some sort of statistics class in college. But are some stat classes better than others? I’m looking for one that could help me develop metrics similar to what Evanz is describing.
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
Most likely you’d want to take a prob/stats course, assuming you don’t want to take probability and then statistics as two separate courses.
You need some introduction to probability, though.
Evanz - August 1, 2011
Ok, i'll look at some of the colleges i'm looking at to see if they offer that.
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
Gov
which schools are you looking at, if you don’t mind my asking?
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
McDaniel College
Whitman College
Knox College
Clark University
Cornell College
University of Mass-Amherst
UCSB
St. Olaf College
Guilford College
UC Davis
Boston College…
might be missing a few but these are the one’s i’m looking at.
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
all good choices!
though as my post below states, i’m particularly fond of the second one ;)
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
The top 2 are my top 2 choices!
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
PDG, if you ask me!
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
if you're referring to Cornell Univ
with the gorges, waterfalls, alma mater to Ed Marinaro, and Clark Univ in Worcester, Mass, as a survivor of both institutions, let me just say they are quite different [an obvious and significant contrast in size and range of choices for your studies], and you should be sure the small town culture suits you. best of luck
the.monk - August 2, 2011
Yes.
What do you mean? How did you do at each of them?
GovernorStephCurry - August 2, 2011
New England can be harsh
if you’re completely devoted to your studies, the weather and environment aren’t that critical. Worcester was an archetypal new england mill and factory town for most of its history, economically developed enough to support several small, quality colleges and universities. It’s undoubtedly seen lots of redevelopment since my days there in the very early 70s, but those old factory towns usually retain a somewhat gloomy character, reinforced by a winter that essentially goes on for six months. When I went to Clark the entire student body was about 2000 and class sizes were luxuriously small, but after the nationwide student strike against the war my academic journey was interrupted for a few years. You can get a great education there if you pick your major carefully — during my time there, the entire music dept. had two professors, and the English dept. maybe three or four.
Cornell is one of he great universities of the world, and its community is equivalent to a small international town. It has thousands of international students and faculty from all over the world. Students have access to incredible resources of all kinds — most of the film and music events when I attended were free or very low in cost. Many of its departments over a huge range of disciplines are among the best in the country, and NY state residents pay public school tuition if they attend one of the state schools within the university’s umbrella. As a result, it’s an Ivy League school that is not dominated by the kids of the elite and affluent. You’re really not in the real world and live in the ‘ivory tower’ of ideals and dreams. Its physical setting is far more beautiful than Worcester’s, and for my taste, living a five hour bus ride away from NYC in that situation is far better than a one hour trip from Boston where Worcester is.
the.monk - August 2, 2011
Oh, my bad.
I meant Cornell college in Iowa. But thanks for the insight on Clark.
GovernorStephCurry - August 2, 2011
if you go here:
I hope you don’t develop, Fitz jesuit elitism :)
tafkasam - August 2, 2011
That schools not high on my list honestly.
I’d never become a Fitz, even if we did go to the same High School.
GovernorStephCurry - August 2, 2011
No wait
I think tafka has it right. If you go to the same highschool and college as someone, you become him.
Reverend_Randy - August 2, 2011
UCSB
just finished my freshman year there, its awesome
scraider - August 2, 2011
Yes, all business classes of anything are worse than all others. Business school is where the stupid kids go to not learn anything. Sigh, unfortunately, I realized that too late.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
If you really want to learn stats, take it from the math department.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
What do you mean?
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
I got a business degree. Wish I hadn’t. Bschool doesn’t teach you anything.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
I’ve heard this from a lot of friends. Not a problem if you come to Whitman, Gov, since we don’t have a business school!
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
I'm thinking of economics however.
What do you think about that?
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
HA! Well, depends. My school actually had 3 different economics programs, 2 through the business school, one through arts and sciences. I was a business econ major, and the only bschool classes I did learn stuff in was my econ classes. However, economics is…..weird and interesting. It’s really hard to describe, but anyone that’s ever worked in it would know exactly what I’m talking about when I say that. It’s almost like a politics/cult kinda thing in some fashions. You could easily turn an econ degree into one you don’t learn anything in – taking classes like economic history classes and economic theory classes, you learn BS in those classes. On the other hand, some branches of econ actually do worthwhile stuff and would teach you a lot. Econometrics, game theory, and some other quantitative branches of econ have some good stuff. How the program is set up (bschool programs and A&S program had different core requirements) and what actual econ classes you take will determine how much you get out of it. It can be a worthwhile degree. I wouldn’t really recommend working in economics afterwards. I’m trying to move on to something new currently.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
I always thought an econ-math major would be cool. I knew some kids who did it at my school. Off the top of my head I don’t remember if it’s a single specific major or a double major, probably varies by institution.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
So even if you don't like Math in hs, you should look into doing that in college?
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
Yes, I think so. I remember being really against doing math or science as a major back then. What can I say, I was a stubborn teenager. With some hindsight, I definitely would have liked to be a math major, a stat major, or a physics major, over what I did.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
We have an Econ-Environmental Studies combined major (as well as an Econ-Math combo). One of my best friends is majoring in it and it sounds fascinating.
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
getting my masters in statistics from CSU East Bay right now, Evanz did a great job analyzing this data, and like said previously, there are some rooms for improvement in the actual data collection to strengthen the regression analysis here…
the study itself is very interesting, I’d love to see coaches actually draw up plays based on this kind of data and study…Evanz, new career?
Essential - August 2, 2011
how do you like that program?
are you coming from a different field or did you go there straight after college?
Evanz - August 2, 2011
The program is decent so far, i’m only 5 classes in, they try to stress the biostatistics route more than anything, but I am using it to try to work as a social media data analyst…thing I like best about the program so far is that it works w/ my work schedule (all night classes)
Got my undergraduate degree in EE in Austin, TX…how about you?
Essential - August 2, 2011
I have a PhD in biomedical engineering, but I’m currently an assistant professor in ME. Tenure is looking pretty dicey (funding is increasingly harder to find), so I may be looking to change careers in the next year or two.
It seems like there is a huge need for statisticians and data “scientists” these days. Is that right?
Evanz - August 2, 2011
Yessir
You’re right, there is a huge need for data/statistician analysts. To be a statistician, PHD’s are preferred and normally are the only ones that are employed. As for data “scientists”, as social media and internet marketing/sales and research become more and more important and useful, almost all companies will have departments dedicated to understanding data and turning it into useful project work…it’s an interesting field to me…especially on the marketing/sales side of data analysis. Right now I’m a 6-Sigma process engineer…so I find problems, turn them into mathematical issues, solve the mathematical issues, and then turn those solutions into real life solutions..trust me, sounds a lot more interesting than it is…….
Essential - August 2, 2011
How does the marketing stat work pay? Wondering if it’s worth doing that compared to biostats or finance or something….
Missing Barry - August 2, 2011
honestly, it depends on your passion and how good you are at what you do, especially after a masters degree, marketing positions with no previous marketing experience pay garbage hahahah but with a good eye, good recommendations, and a good resume, you can get paid some big bucks…
biostatistics and finance positions pay really well too, particularly biostatistics positions at companies like genentech, kaiser, etc…only problem is you need a PHD in statistics for those types of positions….
bottom line for the bay area in my eyes:
Marketing Analyst position: ~$75,000
Bio-statistician position: ~$80,000
Essential - August 2, 2011
Ugh, I don’t want to go to school long enough for a PHD.
Missing Barry - August 2, 2011
whats cool about being a math major is the amount of different shit you can get into…trust me, when you graduate, the world will be a very different place….again
Essential - August 2, 2011
Nice, I’m looking to start applying to stat programs this fall. UT is on my list – did you consider it at all?
Missing Barry - August 2, 2011
UT
That’s where I graduated from in 07, really great school for almost all disciplines…the party’s are crazy too! The Math program at UT is really good…try living in Texas for a year and gain residency so you can get away from those out-of-state fees…it adds up to a lot of dough…or get an academic scholarship of over $2500 and they will waive your out-of-state tuition fees…living in Austin is really nice, closest thing you’ll find to California in Texas weather-wise, good people, and good rent/food/drink prices
Essential - August 2, 2011
I visited Austin fairly recently. Loved it. So that’s basically why I’m looking at their program.
Missing Barry - August 2, 2011
word
good choice…
Essential - August 2, 2011
I lived in Austin for a few years
love the music scene, love the frisbee golf
the weather is not nearly as nice as CA (it’s usually either too hot or too cold)
but agree with all this
Duby Dub Dubs - August 2, 2011
You think AP stat over calc?
I took both calculus in high school, and some stat in college. My thoughts are calculus is definitely more useful initially. Or atleast foundation of moth higher mathematics. If I remember correctly, you take Stats as an alternative to calculus in high school, which I don’t think is best course of action.
tafkasam - August 2, 2011
I took them both. I know a bunch of other people who did, too.
Missing Barry - August 2, 2011
Well I should say
My high school didn’t offer AP stat. But other schools in my district did, I knew a couple people who took it as an alternative to calc, which is how i assumed it worked.
Eitherway if it’s a 1 or other, i’d say calc is more of an initial priority.
tafkasam - August 2, 2011
How did you do that?
GovernorStephCurry - August 2, 2011
Well, I actually took AP Calc as a junior and AP Stat as a senior, but I know a bunch of people who did both senior year.
Missing Barry - August 2, 2011
You're pretty far ahead of where i was.
I’m not great at Math.
GovernorStephCurry - August 2, 2011
Calculus sucks.
Worst class I took in HS by far.
Brownie13 - August 4, 2011
Good subject to know, though.
Missing Barry - August 5, 2011
Have never found a use for it.
Not once.
Brownie13 - August 5, 2011
Any sort of field that uses a lot of math skills…?
Missing Barry - August 8, 2011
seriously i use it all the time
i’m an engineer though
bigkino217 - August 8, 2011
I was thinking this was the main profession it was used in.
Brownie13 - August 8, 2011
I guess I don't have any interest in those fields lol
Brownie13 - August 8, 2011
Ha, fair enough. I was thinking along the lines of engineering, computer science, finance, statistics, economics, biotech work, etc. If it’s not your cup of tea….well, one less person competing with me for a job, I guess! ;)
Missing Barry - August 9, 2011
You know, calculus is really just a formal definition of a natural process: summation.
Even if you don’t knowingly use calculus, you can bet your body uses it to sum neural impulses, action potentials that stimulate your muscles, concentration gradients in your kidneys and pancreas, and all kinds of other complex functions.
Anyway, that’s one way to look at it.
Evanz - August 9, 2011
I would recommend being a math major!
Evanz - August 1, 2011
I'm not that great at Math.
And don’t have a true love of it compared to my other interests (law, economics, sports management).
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
you can take game theory
but I would recommend some basic level of math, at least, up to Calc II, linear algebra, and intro. to probability
Evanz - August 1, 2011
Definitely.
I’ll take some Calc II, but i want to focus on my other interests honestly. I’m looking into a program at Whitman college which would include 3 years of pre law, and 3 years of law school at Columbia university. Then i’d be done. Tough, but i think that might be what i want to do.
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
Gov!!
I go to Whitman!!!!
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
What? No way!
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
How do you like it?
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
I adore it
When I visited I fell in love with it so much that I put all my effort into it and only applied there (early admission). I’m going to be a senior this year. It’s everything you could want in a school – amazingly friendly people, exceptionally intelligent and happy students, brilliant and accessible professors, small, pretty, INCREDIBLE intramurals and library. really active students, always something to do, whether it’s watching/plaing IM Fball or going to a concert or whatnot. it’s just a fabulosu school in my opinion.
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
Having an active student body really is awesome. I went to a small school, but with an extremely active and in shape campus. Despite having 3,000 students, our intramurals had great participation and even better, a high competition level. I know people who went to schools of 15,000 whose intramural programs couldn’t compete with ours, so being an athlete, that was great. It was one of my favorite things about college.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
amen
we’re that way at whitman. our student body is about 1500, but I think 70% of students play IMs, and nearly everyone takes them seriously. Our Ultimate Frisbee and Cycling teams started off as IMs, turned to clubs, and are now very competitive D1 teams. great fun. I play and referee the IM Fball games…it’s more intense than HS bball was for me.
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
I just talked with PJ Petrone yesterday.
He’s the associate director of admissions. I was really psyched about it when i saw it, then he told me about studying abroad, and their 3 and 3 program with Columbia. I put it at 1 or 2 behind McDaniels at this point. If you don’t mind, could i have your email? I have a lot of questions.
GovernorStephCurry - August 1, 2011
of course!
I was about to post it for you so you can email me if you have any questions. It’s klopfebb@whitman.edu
their programs with other schools are fantastic…I have a few friends doing them who have nothing but great things to say. And our study-abroad office is very helpful (I spent last semester in the Caribbean). I would definitely recommend visiting campus, if it’s economically feasible and you have the time. there’s definitely a vibe that is omnipresent…kind of like the buzz at Oracle!
But please feel free to email me any and all questions!
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
Studying abroad was one of the most fun things I did in college, by the way. If you want a cultural experience, you’d have to stay with a family, but regardless of where people go or what their living situation is like, everyone I’ve ever talked to that did it loved it.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
amen to that
I chose one of the academically-poorest study abroad programs that whitman offered, and it was still the time of my life (plus I went to Cuba for spring break, so….can’t complain about that!)
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
I wouldn't recommend math at any UC
For me, it upset me so much I changed majors. All classes taught by research professors, who didn’t show up. So in actuality, they were taught by TAs (who spoke little to no english) and were again more interested in research than actually teaching. I had to learn everything on my own, and it was really discouraging.
Or I should say, you should expect that kind of treatment at most any UC. A lot of learning on your own.
tafkasam - August 2, 2011
The advantage of going to a smaller, private school. Professors are there to teach undergrads.
Missing Barry - August 2, 2011
Exactly
A big regret on part. I wanted to go to a smaller school, but reality of financial situation made me make the ‘easier choice’. Regret it, probably would have been worth getting additional financial aid.
tafkasam - August 2, 2011
That's why i'm looking into those schools.
If you don’t mind me asking… how was your experience at Richmond? What were the pros and cons of going there?
GovernorStephCurry - August 2, 2011
Pros: weather, attractive girls, intramurals, great education, gorgeous campus
Cons: full of northeasterners, definitely a rich kid school, suburban campus, richmond isn’t a huge city (I liked it but it’s kind of like Oakland size without anything else around it)
Missing Barry - August 2, 2011
I would recommend it, as well. I was sick of math after high school (though I have always been extremely good on it, 800 math SATS and all), so I avoided it in college. Big mistake. Wish I had been at least a math minor, maybe even a math major with an econ/finance minor or something. It definitely would have given me more/better grad school options.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
MB, where'd you go to school?
my brother got 800 on the math SAT, too. I settled for a “pedestrian” 730, but I was a more fuzzy than techy guy…
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
University of Richmond
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
nice
great school.
bradyk2 - August 1, 2011
I wish I thought clearer when I was 19
That was a major my first year of college. And then I changed basically because I was lazy and probably too immature to think about the longterm. Hindsight…
tafkasam - August 2, 2011
No shooting treys for Lee
Don’t even think about it!!! Before moving out to the 3pt line,Troy Murphy was a decent PF/C with a great 17ft jumper. Sometimes he could fake the shot & roll to the basket for a jam….gee wiz, that sounds a lot like David Lee so far. Putting Murph outside the arc took away the option of going to the hole and left him so far from the basket that he became much less of a rebounder. Do we really want to do that to David Lee too?
Joe Barely Cares - July 29, 2011
troy murphy’s career high rebounding year came in the same year as his career high 3pt shooting year (both volume and percentage)
bigkino217 - July 29, 2011
and david lee is not troy murphy
bigkino217 - July 29, 2011
Yep, I definitely want Curry as shooting guard. It’s be much easier to create opportunities by having him run off screens and then having him make a decision. With his passingshooting ability, every curl off a screen would be dangerous. The only problem with this is that the Warriors still do not have a guard that can play defense. Yes, Reggie is an okay defender, but nobody on this roster can defend the opposing shooting guard to save his life. Monta for Tony Allen – you heard it here first.
doubleteapot - July 29, 2011
So we move Steph to SG...
Then trade Monta for Tony Allen…
Who is our point guard in that situation?
Allen? lol
Brownie13 - July 30, 2011
I wasn’t being too serious (note the “you heard it here first”). But, yeah, the Warriors definitely need to get a guard who can defend.
doubleteapot - July 30, 2011
I think calling Reggie an okay defender is being generous…
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
I miss this face when Reggie/(Insert any warrior) messed up a defensive assignment
tafkasam - August 2, 2011
When did Nellie care about that?
GovernorStephCurry - August 2, 2011
I miss this face when anyone did anything or nothing
Reverend_Randy - August 2, 2011
ha
tafkasam - August 2, 2011
You got a valid point for making Ellis a full time PG, for his team got a lot of opportunity for a open shot. But Curry is more efficient of being a PG without Ellis I dont have a synergy number like you, to back this theory. But whenever Ellis got injured and Curry got a opportunity to run the show without deferring to Ellis. Curry is more effective on the court.
The last time it happen when Curry run the show when Ellis did not play against the Nuggets. But then Curry got injured on the last quarter which cost us the game.
And I don’t want to bring up the last two season when Curry is a runner up for ROY. But his most efficient number is when Ellis got injured too and Curry became the leader. Don Nelson even call Curry team as Curry boys. Watson, Tolliver, Morrow and Williams. even throw in Hunter in the mix
mykelala01 - July 30, 2011
So I dont want to bring Ellis/Curry argument who is better and who should stay. Dont get me wrong Ellis is the most fun and exciting player to watch. But Curry is more effective when he became the leader of a team. The guy is natural born leader, he does not need to bully himself to be on top. He is like Steve Nash he does not need to be tough his ball handling and basketball IQ makes him a good leader.
mykelala01 - July 30, 2011
I hate to ruin Evanz post but is anyone else having MAJOR formatting errors with this post?
Half the lines are cutting off (brady2k’s post at the top reads "evanz i want to
As for your idea monta as PG"
(I assume he meant applaud,but really it’s clear from scrolling all the comments there’s a formatting error).
The error actually starts with his last table which really only shows Dorell and no one else.
Mod’s help me! I want to read it all, it’s compelling stuff.
tafkasam - July 30, 2011
I’ve been having the same formatting error all day. this thread only, though.
bradyk2 - July 30, 2011
Happening on my computer too, only on this blog
salary_cap - July 31, 2011
fixed!
Evanz - July 31, 2011
I wonder how much of this was a function of the system?
There’s no denying Keith Smart ran a monta centric system, and while steph may be a better player, he’s not a complete one, thus certain systems will benefit him more.
tafkasam - July 30, 2011
not as much as you might think
Steph had roughly the same year he had under Nellie as Smart, and Smart was far more critical of Steph’s mistakes then Nellie. Monta also had roughly as much control under Nellie as he did under Smart, and he played around the same number of minutes, living in the top 5 for mpg.
It’s easy to blame performance on the coaches, but at the end of the day players themselves have the most impact on their play. Curry deferred to Monta more than he probably should have on offense, theres no question of that. But the bad turnovers, the sloppy passing, the dumb fouls leaving him in foul trouble early on (can’t possibly stress that enough, that was a killer for him this year), all of these are problems that Curry needs to look into the mirror to solve. Smart gets far far far too much criticism for Curry’s play.
kyzah - July 31, 2011
I meant more along lines of PnR's and transition game
Curry is not a complete player, we know this. In many ways, Monta is more ‘complete’ (note: this isn’t a substitute for effective, different things). But Curry does do a few things exceptionally well, and others (like the pick and roll) he’s shown good production with high potential to become great at.
We didn’t really utilize the PnR. Since Curry is not as athletic as monta, he simply won’t be able to draw the defense and kick the same way Monta, Rose, and other super athletic penetrators can. I mean we can look at Nash or even Paul for examples. Nash uses picks mostly to set up his teammates. Maybe thats a way Curry can get Dorell better looks for ex.
tafkasam - July 31, 2011
Curry's problem with PnR (in my opinion)
Is his mindset. Curry either is confident in his shot, and he is afraid of contact. I’ve seen him with opportunities last season where he lost his defender either with the crossover dribble or a screen, and rather then driving in to draw in defenses or looking for the screener to slip to the basket, Curry would settle for the step back jumper. Now, while that was a highly efficient shot for Curry, there were two problems I began to notice as the season progressed.
1. He never got comfortable in the PnR with other players. As the season ended, I saw Monta, Dorell, and Lee specifically all begin to develop chemistry in the PnR with one another, but Curry was mostly using screens to set up his jumper, rather than as a tool for either threading the defense or finding open plays for others.
2. Curry was leading the league in free throw percentage. But he almost never got to line because he rarely ever tried to draw fouls or get contact. That is a big big problem. When you shoot the ball as well as Curry does, you need to find a way to get to the line more. Period. PnR is an excellent way to get into the lane, but as I noted above, Curry looked far more comfortable using screens as setups for his jumper rather than driving or looking for the open man.
I dunno, I guess the more and more I think about Curry, the more I’m beginning to believe that he would make an excellent, if under-sized, shooting guard, but that as a point guard he will always be average (relative to other point guards)..
kyzah - July 31, 2011
+1
TrueGSfan - August 9, 2011
One interesting part of the equation is the development Curry showed throughout his rookie season. It is true that Curry outperformed his rookie self this past season. However, if you look at Curry’s rookie year, he started off slow and improved steadily and was playing some very effective basketball by the end. Compared to what he was doing at the end of his rookie year, this past season was probably a step back. The interesting question to me is….how much of that is just regression towards the mean/sample size issues? How much of it was being held back by Smart? Not sure there’s an easy answer….
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
Serious NBA statistical analysis in July!
I love it! Thanks for all the energy and time you put into this. EVERYONE SHOULD TWEET THIS TO LACOB AND COACH MARK!!!!!
WarriorsDoItFor3 - July 31, 2011
Do you think Jackson looks at stats?
GovernorStephCurry - July 31, 2011
Data
Is the data available online for free? I am a pure math guy who is trying to reacquaint myself with statistical analysis for professional reasons. These sorts of analysis seems like a fun way to do it. Good work with the articles Evanz! (though I agree that by using the points maybe biasing it toward the shooter. :-)
AYEq - July 31, 2011
www.basketball-reference.com is what I use…not sure if there is another one/better one
Essential - August 2, 2011
Good job. Finally, people see that Monta Ellis can pass and has a passing game.
I thought about potential passes, too, but didn’t know how to use it. I think your quantifying it gives it credence. Also, it is refreshing to see admission that Monta Ellis does have a passing game that people do not always give him credit for; It’s a different style of passing game. That said, I don’t think he’s a point guard, but more of a scorer/combo guard. So is Curry. Curry is better from outside while Ellis is inside. The difference between the two is Ellis scores more than Curry, so he dominates more with his game. If Curry scored more, then Ellis would defer more to him.
I think style of play makes a difference, too, such as pick and roll versus spot up shooting or focusing the offense around a single dominant scorer like Kobe or Brandon Roy (when healthy). I agree that if a team has more better shooters or scorers, then the Curry or Ellis will get more potential passes and assists. The addition of Klay Thompson will be huge. What do you think about the Warriors style of play? Keep it or does it have to evolve?
When I played basketball, a team with a great shooter, e.g. guy who led the league in scoring, put more pressure on the defense. Same with a guy who could drive baseline and get to the hoop. Anyway, those two type of players gave me the most problems and made me think it put pressure on our defense.
callahan - July 31, 2011
sigh…
bigkino217 - July 31, 2011
For me the more salient difference between the two since Curry has entered the league is that Curry has had a mostly positive impact on the team whereas Ellis has had a mostly negative one. How does one explain this?
Sleepy Freud - August 1, 2011
I think the entire potential assists is funny because it’s perfectly normal for people to count one thing, but not another, such as potential passes. I guess the team leaders just decide what they deem counts, and what really doesn’t?
davidpark - July 31, 2011
I wouldn’t be surprised if NBA have been counting potential assists through film study for a while. They do a whole lot of film work/tracking that never makes official boxscores. It really does make a lot of sense – if you create a good shot and the player misses it, it’s not you fault, you know? The thing with official boxscores is they generally are historical relics, some random guy made a decision (usually completely arbitrary) years and years and years ago to do it one way, and it stuck, and the only reason people still do it that way is because they’ve always done it that way. Batting average was the official box score rate stat in baseball for so long (and on base percentage was not) because back in 1915 or something some guy decided that walks were something the pitcher gives up and has nothing to do with the hitter. Took almost a century before people started including on base percentage. Turns out that guy in 1915 was entirely wrong, walks are very much a function of the hitter and on base percentage matters wayyyyy more than batting average, but that’s how things work. He made the decision a long time ago, and it stuck much longer than it should have.
Missing Barry - August 1, 2011
Saw this quote by John Barrow (The Artful Universe) in a book I’m reading, and thought it was appropriate to share here.
Evanz - August 2, 2011
maybe it is time for the Dubs to re-think our labels?
what do you all think about just forgetting about the whole SG/PG debate, and just call these two guys our backcourt?
Seems to me that regardless of the rationale, Ellis’ USG% will need to go down, and Curry’s should go up.
I know this isn’t exactly rocket science, but if this backcourt is going to work, I think Monta and Steph will need to be extremely willing to have a fluid definition of their roles in the offense…(we are just screwed on D, but what’s new)
If the new staff can incorporate some Monta drive and kick, as well as Steph screen and rolls, I think we are set. Heck, would be a good idea to look for more of a P-n-R (or pick-n-pop) game between these two guys
Duby Dub Dubs - August 2, 2011
Monta's really not a willing passer.
He’d honestly be a disaster at PG imo.
GovernorStephCurry - August 2, 2011
not surprising that you aren't cool with this idea
but if Monta is as effective a passer as he seems to be based on Evanz results, maybe he doesn’t really need to pass all that much more…just get the ball a little less
Duby Dub Dubs - August 3, 2011
If you think about it in the framework of game theory perspective, Monta being an effective passer really means he should be passing more often.
I do support the idea of a more fluid definition of roles – I’ve always been an advocate of that, I don’t like the idea that a certain player has to fulfill a given role. All that matters is the team as a whole fills all the roles you expect (rebounding, defense, shooting, ballhandling, finishing, etc.). Doesn’t particularly matter which individual/position is filling each role.
Missing Barry - August 3, 2011
This
GovernorStephCurry - August 3, 2011
right
(same block quote)
so putting Monta in the role of distributor could work, especially if he only has to focus on increased passing for short chunks of time.
The evidence (and there is mountains of it, at this point) seems to indicate Monta should pass more – or at the very least, dominate the ball less. Now Evanz comes along, and shows us that Monta’s passes (when they actually come) were at least a contributing factor to getting guys good looks
Instead of turning him into
We would work to bring him around on a few sets throughout the game.
Not so much, “Monta, you run the point”
as it would be “Monta, don’t do you on this one…drive and look for the kick to DWright or Steph”
It is a pretty slight distinction I’m trying to make, but I think my core question is if a few plays designed for Monta every now and then to drive and kick could work to ease Monta into this – or at least force him to do it slightly more often.
Maybe the Gov is right, and Monta is a hopeless ball-hogging douche . But I don’t want to believe that (and lord knows, I’m sick of seeing stupid Monta isolation plays)…I know Monta has not demonstrated success yet as the PG, but it looks like he could contribute more in this area. And we kinda need him to, if he is going to actually help this team win
Duby Dub Dubs - August 3, 2011
If Monta improved his ballhandling I'd 100% support idea of him as a full time PG
We should hire Jason Otter
tafkasam - August 3, 2011
YES
love this guy. If Monta had sound effects, he really would be better than LeBron.
Reverend_Randy - August 3, 2011
Who would have thought, somewhere in the US, someone out there is analyzing in-depth statistics of the Golden State Warriors. Hey, good for you, anyone can root for the Lakers and Celtics. Takes a real man to hang on with the Warriors.
http://www.FromThisSeat.com
jwmann2 - August 3, 2011
Warriors fans are grown man fans
Evanz - August 4, 2011
mama, there goes that fan
with a grown fan move – statistics
bradyk2 - August 4, 2011
WTH is there some sort of Lockout here in warrior blog???
i understand it’s offseason but can we even get one post about something??
Nelow - August 16, 2011
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Golden State Of Mind to post a comment.