SB Nation User Blog: olympicmike

"Playmaker Rating": your thoughts?

olympicmike — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:14:29 -0000

So here is something I've been think about lately. I threw together some numbers in a conversation about Jackson's ability to overcome his turnovers and poor shooting with his assists and three point shooting. That got me thinking about what can happen when a guy gets the ball in his hands. He can do a number of things and they will all have a positive outcome, a negative outcome or a neutral outcome. His skill, athleticism and decision making combine to give you a guy's ability to make a play on offense. What I'm going to try to do here is put together a metric that measures a player's ability to create a positive outcome on offense against negative outcomes.

So when you take a look at the possibilities for a positive outcome you basically have a made 2pt FG, a made 3pt FG, an assist, and a made free throw (or preferably two). Obviously a made three should be worth more than a made 2pt FG and a free throw worth less.

As far as negative outcomes go, you have a missed FG, a turnover and a missed FT. A missed FT is probably about half as bad as a missed FG and a turnover is probably worse (no chance for an offensive rebound and a higher chance for easy transition points for the opposition) but I'm not sure how much worse so for the time being I will weight it equally.

Neutral outcomes don't really make a difference here and aren't generally tracked so we will ignore them. In case you were wondering I'm basically talking about dribbling the ball or passing without creating an advantage or losing possession of the ball. These can be important working within a system and running an offense but I'm not going to give a guy a whole bunch of credit for being a minor part of a play without screwing it up.

So putting these things together I came up with a really simple formula to measure these outcomes against one another with the intention of providing a single figure that can show how someone performs on offense with the ball in their hands. I want to be clear that I don't intend this to be one of those catch-all stats that will tell you that Player A is better than Player B. This only takes one very important part of the game into play. It doesn't deal at all with defense or rebounding which of course are critical when evaluating a player.

I'm calling this metric "Playmaker Rating" for the time being. It goes something like this.

Positive outcomes per 36 minutes (you could use any number of minutes, but I do want to control for variation in minutes played so I chose the readily available per 36 stats):

2pt FG made +

Assists +

Free throws made/2 (because they are worth half as much as a FG) +

3pt FG made x1.5 (I think you get it) =

Positive outcomes per 36

Negative outcomes per 36 minutes:

FG missed +

Turnovers +

FT missed /2 =

Negative outcomes per 36

Positive outcomes - Negative outcome = Playmaker Rating

Here are some examples

Chris Paul: PO/36 20.7 - NO/36 11 = Playmaker Rating +9.7 (Playmaker Ratio 1.88:1)

Jose Calderon: PO 15.8 - NO 7.1 = PMR +8.7 (PMRatio 2.23:1)

Deron Williams: PO 19.9 - NO 11.8 = PMR +8.1 (PMRatio 1.69:1)

LeBron James: PO 20.5 - NO 14.8 = PMR +5.7 (PMRatio 1.39:1)

Tony Parker: PO 18.3 - NO 12.7 = PMR +5.6 (PMRatio 1.44:1)

Kobe Bryant: PO 18.9 - NO 14.3 = PMR +4.6 (PMRatio 1.32:1)

Allen Iverson: PO 13.6 - NO 11.5 = PMR +2.1 (PMRatio 1.18:1)

Dwight Howard: PO 11.7 - NO 10.6 = PMR +1.1 (PMRatio 1.10:1)

Here are some Warriors:

Stephen Jackson: PO 15.2 - NO 12.9 = PMR +2.3 (PMRatio 1.18:1)

Jamal Crawford: PO 13.1 - NO 11.2 = PMR +1.9 (PMRatio 1.17:1)

Marco Belinelli: PO 11.4 - NO 10.1 = PMR +1.3 (PMRatio 1.13:1)

CJ Watson: PO 10.3 - NO 7.6 = PMR +2.7 (PMRatio 1.36:1) Surprised? I was.

Here are some other ones I found interesting:

Baron Davis '07-'08: PO 17.1 - NO 13.1 = PMR +4.2 (PMRatio 1.31:1)

Allen Iverson '00-'01 (MVP): PO 17.3 - NO 16.4 = PMR +0.9 (PMRatio 1.05:1)

Allen Iverson '01-'02 (Practice?): PO 17.5 - NO 17.9 = PMR -0.4 (PMRatio 0.98:1) Seriously??

So here is where you come in. I'd love to get some feedback on this idea. Is there a place for this in the sea of existing metrics? Did I overlook something important?

Also I just wanted to single out JAE specifically because I know this kind of stuff is in your wheelhouse. Please let me know what you think. Also, if you find this the least bit interesting I'd love to see what your NBA stat machine doohickey could do with this on a larger scale. (It takes me forever to do the numbers myself, I'm not much of a math guy)

Thanks for taking the time to read what has to be my longest FanPost yet.

Poll

Is "Playmaker Rating" a useful metric? (Be honest I can take it... i hope)

Yes, keep it coming.

31 votes

No thanks, you just wasted your evening.

31 votes

62 votes | Poll has closed

Anthony Randolph and Tyson Chandler: Playing to your strengths

olympicmike — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:03:15 -0000

There has been a lot of discussion about what kind of player Randolph will be in this league. Some imagine him becoming a long SF with a wicked crossover and a smooth outside shot, and he himself seems to be one of them. Personally I think that mentality is exactly what's wrong with his game.

Despite his recent improvement he is still shooting 43.9% from the field which is really bad for a guy who spends most of his time at PF and a good amount at center.

He is also turning it over 3.4 times per 36 minutes, second only to Jackson.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that the guy doesn't have any skill dribbling the ball. He appears to have a smooth handle when dribbling in the open court, but I believe it's more a question of mentality. He doesn't know when to pick it up and get it to a guard. He has a bit too much confidence in his handle (and his outside shot for that matter).

Now that I've drilled the guy for his weaknesses, how about I give him some credit for what he does well.

He has been a very good rebounder so far. He's pulling 11.6 per 36 which is more than respectable. He's also blocking 2.6 shots per 36 second only to Turiaf (man that guy gets a ton of blocks).

So lets see... he's got big man size (yes he's thin but it doesn't seem to hurt him much), his strengths are suited to playing PF but for some reason he sees himself as a SF. It seems to me a shift in mentality alone could greatly improve his performance.

As JAE has pointed out to me in the past making the mental jump of improving your shot selection and not forcing the issue by dribbling the ball into trouble is not an easy task. Many players never put it together mentally and learn how to play to their strengths.

So I've been thinking about players that came into the league young, lean and raw trying to play outside with a similar frame and similar game to Randolph. The guy that jumped out at me was Tyson Chandler.

Now Chandler is bigger than Randolph (7-1 to 6-10) but has shown the kind of maturation process that I would love to see from Randolph.

His early years in the league on the "Baby Bulls" he spent a lot of time on the wing, handling the ball and shooting outside. On defense he was talented but reckless blocking over 2 shots per 36 but racking up a ton of fouls (sound familiar).

After his first few years on the Bulls I questioned whether or not he would be an effective player in the league. His rookie year he averaged only 8.9reb per 36. His FG% cracked 50% only once in his first four seasons including 03-04 when he shot a miserable 42.5% in limited time due to injury (he still showed better shot selection overall than Randolph through his early career). He also turned the ball over a lot for a big.

Then something happened. A shift in mentality. Slowly over time I think he began to be seen as more of a natural big man, likely because he began to see himself that way.

His rebounds increased steadily over his career along with his FG%. Now he has a career FG% better than 55% including his first two seasons on the Hornets where he hit better than 62% of his FGs (thank you Chris Paul). He now has a career average of 11.6reb per 36. His turnovers and fouls declined too as time went on.

What caused the shift in his play? I don't know, but the difference was evident even to myself who only watched him casually.

The big question here is can Randolph make a similar mentality shift and start playing to his strengths. I don't think Randolph will ever be a center or play in the mold of Chandler but I would like to see a similar maturation occur.

In my mind I like to imagine Randolph as a lean but strong rebounding PF who is athletic and skilled enough to get around bigger fours but gets a lot of his point off of put-backs and open court dunks (as a trailer, or on the wing, not leading the break himself). I'd love for him to learn his limitations and allow the guards to handle the ball under pressure and stop taking the outside shot.

If we are going to be successful with him we need him inside. He is our strongest rebounder not named Andris. He could be a very effective big man in this league if someone could convince him that he's not Magic Johnson.

Now to be fair he has shown more restraint as of late. Of course he has been effectively playing center with Andris being out and Turiaf running into foul trouble. Is it a coincidence that as he's played more inside he has been a better player. I don't think so. If he could continue to progress this way he could really be a quality player.

Somebody get this guy some game tape of Tyson Chandler bricking shots and turning the ball over his rookie season, and then show him some game tape of Chandler rebounding, blocking shots and throwing down Chris Paul lobs in a Hornets uniform. Somebody tell this guy he is not a point guard, shooting guard or small forward. There is nothing small about his game. This guy is a power forward, and personally I hope he can learn to play that way.

Poll

What position do you think Anthony Randolph will be most successful at?

Small Forward

185 votes

Power Forward

271 votes

456 votes | Poll has closed

GSoM Polling: To tank or not to tank...

olympicmike — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:20:59 -0000

Hey guys (and Shells) I just wanted to take the pulse of the community right now on our current situation. Last night we saw an example of a franchise who is truly commited to tanking. That Clippers roster is a classic example of the type of team you put on the floor when you are more concerned with lottery balls than wins. To be fair they have had tons of injuries but without knowing all the details I'm sure they are all being encouraged to "take their time" in coming back.

We've seen a bit of this here. Monta was "held back" a bit. I don't know if it's a coincidence that we've had one of Crawford/Jack/Maggs out with hamstring injuries all year. I'm not saying these guys are faking but they may have also been encouraged to get 100% healthy more than they would have if we were in playoff contention.

Now, with Monta's return and the prospect of a full roster days or weeks ahead (Crawford, Marco, Wright) we stand at a crossroads. This team can either start a real effort to tank or we can try to get some chemistry going for next year and in the process ruin our lottery chances. Let's take a closer look:

Tanking

Pros: Can you say Blake Griffin? Yes, a shot (and not a great one, at best 25%) at a legit PF. Perhaps the kind of player we've been yearning for around here for years. Also some playing time for the young guys probably wouldn't hurt.

Cons: Ugly, ugly basketball. Loss of interest in the team. A good chance that we still won't get a player that makes a difference for us. Reinforcing a losing culture. Possibly alienating some of the vets.

Not Tanking

Pros: Build chemistry and momentum. These guys haven't had a chance to play together yet. Letting them learn each others tendencies this year could help us hit the ground running next season.

Build up trade value in our vets. A late season run with some stat-padding could help drive up interest in some of our players, which could open up options in the off-season.

Cons: We could (and probably will) win just enough to ruin our draft position and still miss the playoffs by a wide margin. Chance of injuries and "wear and tear" on the vets. Could hinder the development of our young players.

So the question for GSoM is:

Poll

To tank, or not to tank...

Tank

192 votes

not to tank

325 votes

517 votes | Poll has closed

Are we tanking?

olympicmike — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:47:43 -0000

I've been a little confused lately. At this point it's pretty clear that Don Nelson is not putting the team in the best position to win. You get a pretty good idea of this just by perusing the 10-15 "Fire Don Nelson" FanPost floating around here. We all know that small-ball has not been effective this year. The defense has been horrible. They are not forcing turnovers at the rate they did in previous seasons, so we aren't getting out on the break as much. Lots of problems.

Now add to that the fact that Jackson is having an MRI on his injured left hand today and may choose to sit out for an extended period of time, despite the fact that he has managed to play through the pain for a few games now.

Also add to the pile some of the rumors going around that Maggs is on the block. It seems from what I've read, that despite probably having to include Wright they aren't looking for much back outside of a prospect and cap relief.

So is the joke on us? Are we already in tank mode? Did Monta's injury combined with the slow start and front office turmoil seal the deal for us this year. I don't think many reasonable people expected to sniff the playoffs this year, but I know that I didn't think we'd look this bad.

Hey, even JAE is posting conspiracy theories. Something must be going on. What do you guys think?

Poll

What's going on with the Warriors?

We are in full on tank mode

34 votes

Nelson just doesn't care anymore

65 votes

We just suck that bad

105 votes

No problems here, just a bump in the road

34 votes

238 votes | Poll has closed

Pete Newell Dies at age 93

olympicmike — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:41:07 -0000

Pete Newell Dies at age 93

A real legend of the game.

Biedrins, an All-Star? An early look at the #'s.

olympicmike — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:21:19 -0000

I for one have been blown away by AB's play early on so I thought it would be fun to take a look at the competition at the center spot for this years All-Star game. Yeah, I know it's really early to be talking about this but consider this the first installment in an ongoing series.

Taking a look at the ballot I think it's pretty safe to say you can cross a couple of guys off the list. I'll eliminate Okur and Collison from the discussion (I should probably get rid of a couple more but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt). Also I'll keep this comparison limited to the stats that matter most for a center just to keep this simple, Pts Reb Blk FG%. Now remember to give Brad Miller some bonus points for his 6ast per game.

Biedrins 16.8 Pts 14.8 Reb 1.7 Blk 52.7 FG%

Bynum 9.9 Pts 8.9 Reb 3.0 Blk 45.5 FG%

Camby 7.0 Pts 9.4 Reb 2.8 Blk 45.2 FG%

Chandler 7.7 Pts 9.5 Reb 2.0 Blk 54.5 FG%

Jefferson 22.1 Pts 10.7 Reb 1.9 Blk 48.5 FG%

Kaman 12.5 Pts 9.9 Reb 2.0 Blk 51.3 FG%

Miller 13.6 Pts 10.0 Reb 1.2 Blk 43.6 FG%

Oden 4.7 Pts 6.0 Reb 2.3 Blk 40.0 FG%

Shaq 16.1 Pts 9.2 Reb 1.2 Blk 65.1 FG%

Yao 16.2 Pts 9.7 Reb 1.6 Blk 47.0 FG%

Ok so at first glance his biggest competition is Jefferson. He has the magic 20-10 averages that seem to make you an elite big man in most people's mind. IMO I'd rather have the guy averaging 17-15 with a higher %, but hey that's just me.

Another thing to consider is that the guy voted in is rarely the best player. Is it still a foregone conclusion that Yao will get the most votes? Probably, right? So that leaves one spot for center with the possibility that they use one of the non specified spots on a center (not usually the case right?)

Yet another factor is winning. This one always seems to be taken into account with the coaches selections. I doubt we will be doing that great in the W-L column but if we can hang around despite the injury to Monta that may earn us some respect around the league.

So, what do you guys think? Will this be the year? Are his early numbers a fluke? Will he be robbed by someone less deserving?

Also, a quick reminder that the All-Star ballots are up at NBA.com so vote early and vote often. If we can send Obama to the White House we can send Andris to Phoenix.

Poll

What's your prediction for AB's All-Star chances?

He will be voted in as a starter

35 votes

He will be selected by the coaches

191 votes

He will miss out despite deserving a spot

210 votes

He will have a solid year but not deserve a spot

14 votes

AB an All-Star? Seriously?

2 votes

452 votes | Poll has closed

Jackson: A Worst Case Scenario

olympicmike — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:31:32 -0000

First of all, let me say that I am hopeful that Jack and his contract situation don't become a major issue during the season. I don't expect him to get any sort of extension before the season starts and I would think that once the season starts Jack will be just as loyal to his new teammates as he has been to all of his other ones and man up and play hard despite his perception that he is underpaid.

BUT, what if he does take it personally and can't get over it? I'll warn you that if you are not in the mood for hypotheticals stop reading now. This is all going to be pure speculation based on the idea that Jack will become a problem in the locker room and need to be moved. Let's be honest, I'm a little bored and there really hasn't been anything to talk about for a while.

So, here are a few ideas if things get ugly, like real ugly. It's important to keep in mind that these trades would be made under some duress (or perhaps before things completely deteriorate) so they won't be ideal. Some are more optimistic than others, so take it for what it's worth.

S. Jackson, M. Bellinelli

for

J. Terry, 1st Rnd pick

For GSW

Pros: Well, Jet would work pretty well in a backcourt with Monta. He could help handle the ball and facilitate the offense when need be. He would also space the floor and help open lanes for Monta and Maggs. He could play either guard position which Nellie would like. A mid-to-late first Rnd pick would always be nice (if we could get one out of them).

Cons: His contract is longer than Jack's so this would essentially kill any flexibility that we would have in 2010. Defense would definitely be an issue. Monta and Jet would likely be very soft and undersized on the defensive end.

For Dallas

Pros: They are definitely in win now mode this year and they don't really have a SG who is ideal for their system. Jackson would definitely make them a stronger defensive team and he plays well in an "iso" type system where he can space the floor, attack the basket 1 on 1, or post up. Plus it frees up some salary in 2010 at which point this team would probably be in rebuilding mode.

Cons: We all know what makes Jack less than ideal. After Howard's trouble they might not want to take on another guy with "character issues".

Jack, Marco

for

Q. Richardson, D. Lee

Note: Lee is kind of a wildcard here. D'Antoni is reportedly not very high on Lee but he has received a lot of hype during his time in the league. This is kind of contingent on the NYK deciding that Lee doesn't fit in with their future plans. With the new management in NY I really have no idea what these guys are looking to do.

For GSW

Pros: We get a shooter to space the floor who has in the past excelled in an up-tempo system in Q-Rich and an extremely talented (if offensively limited) rebounder in Lee. We would maintain our financial flexibility if we don't decide to extend Lee at the end of the year. Of course if he turns out to be as good as a lot of people think he could be we would be happy to extend him.

Cons: Defense. Q-Rich is a big step down from Jack. He hasn't played well in quite a while. Lee could create a bit of a logjam in the front court (might not be a bad thing). Also, Lee doesn't make a whole lot of sense next to Andris offensively, so he might not make much sense long-term.

For NYK

Pros: Jack is definitely an upgrade over Q-Rich. Assuming that D'Antoni won't make much use of Lee, this trade would make them a better team. Plus, honestlly, Jack was born to be a Knick, right?

Cons: Are they really ready to give up on Lee? Is Jackson in NY a recipe for disaster? Are you really still reading this?

S. Jackson, A. Harrington

for

A. Daniels, N. Young, A. Blatche, E. Thomas, 1st Rnd pick (maybe)

For GSW

Pros: Can you say youth movement? Al has reportedly quietly asked for a trade already so it would make sense to move them together if possible. Daniels would play well alongside Monta with his ability to run the offense and guard the opposing SG and be a positive veteran presence on the team. Young is an exciting young player who would fit in well in Nellie-ball and score in bunches. Blatche is a long athletic forward oozing with potential and is locked up for a few years at a very reasonable price. Thomas writes poetry and is politically active... yeah that's about it.

Cons: Well this would seal the deal. No playoffs. Definitely a step back with some hope for the future. Nick Young might not make a whole lot of sense next to Monta long-term in that they are both undersized SG's at this point in their career. We are giving up the two best players in the trade, and under normal circumstances you never want to do that.

For the Wiz

Pros: Hey, a line-up of Arenas, Jackson, Butler, Jamison, Anyone, with Harrington as a 6th man sounds pretty potent to me. They could win a lot of games with those guys. They get rid of Thomas' contract.

Cons: Are there enough shots to go around? Are they willing to part with their youth to commit to this line-up?

Conclusion

Well, after taking a look at some possibilities that might still be on the table if Jackson becomes a problem, I'm hoping even more that this is a non-issue. We are already on shaky ground and being forced into a trade this season could spell disaster. Let me make it clear that Jackson doesn't really have any leverage here beyond becoming a malcontent, but the fact that he might not be a part of Mullin's long-term plans might also compel him to trade him now while he is coming off of a career year (mostly thanks to high MPG and a ton of FGA's). Also, I can't believe that I wrote this much about such a vague hypothetical topic. Dang, I'm ready for training camp.

Questions:

What do you guys think we could get back for Jackson if Mullin decides to make a move this year?

Does this situation scare you?

Did I really just spend that much time writing about something that will probably never happen? Should I go to bed now?

Here is a little clip to help those of us who haven't seen much of this guy.

olympicmike — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:35:10 -0000

Here is a little clip to help those of us who haven't seen much of this guy.

I know this is kind of old but, does it strike anyone else that KG might be a little...

olympicmike — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:21:19 -0000

I know this is kind of old but, does it strike anyone else that KG might be a little crazy?

Emotion and passion are one thing but this guy strikes me as a little unbalanced (or possibly under the influence?). I love his intensity on the court but every time I see an interview with him I get the same feeling as when a slightly incoherent homeless person decides to strike up a conversation with you on the street. You know, just a little uneasy, like he might snap at any moment. =P

Is it wrong that as a Warriors fan I am more comfortable in the lottery than in the playoffs? It's...

olympicmike — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 05:36:14 -0000

Is it wrong that as a Warriors fan I am more comfortable in the lottery than in the playoffs? It's a sickness... or maybe just a way of coping.