LakersGround.net :: View topic - OFFICIAL LONZO BALL THREAD

OFFICIAL LONZO BALL THREAD
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 849, 850, 851 ... 1686, 1687, 1688 Next

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

durden-tyler
Star Player

Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 1266

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:33 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

Here are the Luck-Adjusted Net Ratings for the Lakers, per Nylon Calculus. If you want to know what the hell "luck-adjusted" means, click here.

Lonzo Ball........................+8.1
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope...+4.6
Brook Lopez.....................+3.4
Julius Randle....................+2.4
Kyle Kuzma......................+1.1
Josh Hart.........................+0.4
Larry Nance, Jr..................-0.8
Jordan Clarkson.................-2.8
Brandon Ingram................-3.7
Tyler Ennis........................-6.3
Corey Brewer.....................-8.4
Alex Caruso.....................-16.0

Thanks for the info. I'm no data expert, but he's saying that "individuals have next to no control of their opponent’s 3-point percent", I'm starting to read more about that, what do you (GT and others) think about that ? That really surprises me...

BigGameHames
Star Player

Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:41 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

That terrifies me. The 3 other guys who consistently start are top 3 while BI is only ahead of bench warmers.

epak
Retired Number

Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 34147

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:42 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

+8.1 is about 34th out of players with 1000+ possessions.
Not too shabby.

So they consider FTs and 3PT% the aspects to consider as "luck." Interesting.

GoldenThroat
Moderator

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:51 am Post subject:

durden-tyler wrote:

I'm not a math guy, so I can't explain it from that angle, but this isn't the first time I've heard that. It makes sense to me that a player wouldn't have a BIG impact on an opponents 3PT% simply as a function of opportunity, but I'd figure that they'd have a bigger impact than what the studies seem to suggest.

BigGameHames
Star Player

Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:57 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

durden-tyler wrote:

It’s hard to believe that length, properly closing out etc don’t have an affect on your opponents 3 pt %. I don’t think I buy that no matter what the studies say.

GoldenThroat
Moderator

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:00 am Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

durden-tyler wrote:

It’s hard to believe that length, properly closing out etc don’t have an affect on your opponents 3 pt %. I don’t think I buy that no matter what the studies say.

Across a team, I would agree with you. But they're saying that one individual has little to no impact on an opposing team's 3PT%, which I think is defensible.

BigGameHames
Star Player

Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:06 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

BigGameHames wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

durden-tyler wrote:

It’s hard to believe that length, properly closing out etc don’t have an affect on your opponents 3 pt %. I don’t think I buy that no matter what the studies say.

Across a team, I would agree with you. But they're saying that one individual has little to no impact on an opposing team's 3PT%, which I think is defensible.

But if your team has length and closes out properly that means you have numerous individuals with length who close out properly. How can you have one and not the other?

GoldenThroat
Moderator

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:11 am Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:

But if your team has length and closes out properly that means you have numerous individuals with length who close out properly. How can you have one and not the other?

Across a team, sure. But how much of that is one guy responsible for?

Sacramento gives up the highest 3PT% to opponents (38.5%), and Washington gives up the lowest (33.6%). So the bandwidth that you're talking about is just 4.9%.

Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number

Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:17 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

I'd be concerned that Brewer being so bad doesn't make Ingram look better than that, but I also wonder what Ingram's LANRtg(?) looks like during his recent uptick.

levon
Franchise Player

Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 10602

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:30 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

I like what this stat is trying to do but disagree a lot with its derivation.

Inspector Gadget
Retired Number

Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 46641

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:40 am Post subject:

Question for the old timers... Is Ball a better defensive player at age 20 then Magic was coming out of Michigan?

GoldenThroat
Moderator

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:43 am Post subject:

levon wrote:

[I like what this stat is trying to do but disagree a lot with its derivation.

Can you expound on that?

levon
Franchise Player

Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 10602

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:55 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

levon wrote:

[I like what this stat is trying to do but disagree a lot with its derivation.

Can you expound on that?

The way I understand it, it punishes 3 point shot creators by regressing it to the average. I'm not entirely sure why the assumption is to take the mean of a player's on/off in terms of 3pt% without providing some kind of prior (like maybe the player's just good at creating 3 pt opportunities), but I suppose that's a lot of the issue with on/off metrics.

The obvious one is it also doesn't seem to account for lineups.

The way you're using it is perfectly informative though, which is within one team and with supplementary knowledge of roles on the Lakers.

tox
Franchise Player

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:18 pm Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

That terrifies me. The 3 other guys who consistently start are top 3 while BI is only ahead of bench warmers.

The weirdest thing about this stat is that you can argue part of why Lonzo is so high is because his backups are awful. When your backups at Ennis, Caruso, or JC (who has regressed in both senses of the word to sucking at point guard), then yeah your net rating will look better than if your backup were, say, Steph Curry.

But the same exact thing is true of BI. Corey Brewer is awful. Sure, sometimes Hart or KCP take the 3 spot but you'd think BI would just get a massive boost from the Brewer effect. (Note: I don't think this is a concern because BI was legitimately bad for two months or so. This is just another way of confirming that. I bet his recent numbers would look a lot better.)

tox
Franchise Player

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:20 pm Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

durden-tyler wrote:

It’s hard to believe that length, properly closing out etc don’t have an affect on your opponents 3 pt %. I don’t think I buy that no matter what the studies say.

Because if you have length and close out better, offensive teams take fewer 3s (because you're running them off the line). When they do shoot 3s, they're still taking the same caliber of looks and so 3FG% isn't much different for a good defense vs. a bad one.

It might sound counterintuitive, but it's been shown in several academic basketball papers. Science is often counterintuitive.

BigGameHames
Star Player

Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:24 pm Post subject:

tox wrote:

BigGameHames wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

durden-tyler wrote:

It’s hard to believe that length, properly closing out etc don’t have an affect on your opponents 3 pt %. I don’t think I buy that no matter what the studies say.

Now that actually makes a lot of sense. They take less 3s because they have fewer good opportunities. How trustworthy do you consider the stat as a whole?

yinoma2001
Retired Number

Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:25 pm Post subject:

Lonzo has already missed 7 games this year (out of 43). Of course you can't extrapolate that out, but that's about a 13 missed games pace for this year. It's been what, the shoulder and knees so far? Has to get that durability built up. IIRC he missed a good number of games in the SPL/preseason too with injuries? _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals

GoldenThroat
Moderator

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:27 pm Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:

Lonzo has already missed 7 games this year (out of 43). Of course you can't extrapolate that out, but that's about a 13 missed games pace for this year. It's been what, the shoulder and knees so far? Has to get that durability built up. IIRC he missed a good number of games in the SPL/preseason too with injuries?

His durability is by far my biggest concern about him.

danzag
Franchise Player

Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 22313
Location: Brazil

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:28 pm Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:

I thinks the Lakers are just being extra careful. No need to risk his career for this season

yinoma2001
Retired Number

Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:32 pm Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

yinoma2001 wrote:

His durability is by far my biggest concern about him.

Yeah. Part of the problem with him fighting for rebounds. You run into those big tree trunks down low and he's a scrawny twig too, not like Slenderingram.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals

tox
Franchise Player

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:32 pm Post subject:

levon wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

levon wrote:

[I like what this stat is trying to do but disagree a lot with its derivation.

Can you expound on that?

Lineups are definitely the real issue with this stat. If you play next to Brewer, Ingram, Nance, and Randle, the only thing unlucky about having a bad teammate 3FG% is your coach's lineup choices. It wouldn't be hard to find how many 3FGA each teammate had next to you vs. without you (the data is available on NBAwowy so clearly you can pull it from NBA.com programmatically).

I think you are overstating the effects of shot creators though. As mentioned above, the issue tends to be more that shot creators create a higher volume of 3s, not necessarily more open ones. This is most obvious when you take a look at a guy like Ingram. He basically only takes open 3s. So playing next to LeBron or Harden wouldn't raise his 3FG% much (because you don't really get better looks than wide open 3s) but he'd get more of the 3s he's comfortable taking.

levon
Franchise Player

Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 10602

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:32 pm Post subject:

tox wrote:

BigGameHames wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

durden-tyler wrote:

It’s hard to believe that length, properly closing out etc don’t have an affect on your opponents 3 pt %. I don’t think I buy that no matter what the studies say.

Think it might be worth factoring in defender distance on 3's taken in that case. I still think that teams that defend the perimeter well will force more contested 3's than ones that don't. Opponent shot selection and closeout attacking skills might have a big effect.

levon
Franchise Player

Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 10602

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:35 pm Post subject:

tox wrote:

levon wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

levon wrote:

[I like what this stat is trying to do but disagree a lot with its derivation.

Can you expound on that?

Your second point is nested in your first point though. Shot selection is dependent on players played with. What if instead of Ingram you have a sufficiently trigger happy high volume 3 pt shooter, and having Lonzo on the floor gets that shooter more open looks than off?

I didn't consider that angle though, and based on the amount of 3's taken that might all just be noise and taking a mean might be fine. I guess my two points of contention are related then.

tox
Franchise Player

Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:37 pm Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:

Now that actually makes a lot of sense. They take less 3s because they have fewer good opportunities. How trustworthy do you consider the stat as a whole?

It's an interesting stat without doubt, but I do have my grievances. I mentioned my above qualms with how it calculates teammate 3FG%/FT% effects. I suspect this stat mixes up "luck" with "teammate caliber." Defensively there's a similar thing -- maybe starters are generally "unlucky" on defense because opposing teams play their best shooters to start the game (so naturally the opposing team will have a better 3FG%). It wouldn't be hard to adjust offensively based on on/off data, but adjusting defensively would be a pain, which is why I suspect they didn't do it.

Of course, you can easily argue this isn't a bad thing, adjusting for both teammate caliber as well as actual bad "luck." But I prefer when my stats do a single thing that they are said to do.

venturalakersfan
Retired Number

Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144462
Location: The Gold Coast

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:45 pm Post subject:

durden-tyler wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

A defensive player only has control of 3 pointers his guy shoots. He has no control over his teammates 3 point defense. In round numbers he has 20% control over 3 pointers and FTs. At least that is my thoughts.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.

Display posts from previous:

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion

All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 849, 850, 851 ... 1686, 1687, 1688 Next

Page 850 of 1688

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.

We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.