September 18, 2009

Sebastian Telfair Redux

Filed under: Uncategorized — wwinston @ 7:41 pm

Thanks to all of you who posted comments on Sebastian Telfair. Several of you thought that Telfair’s +6 points rating (per 48 minutes) was probably due to the “bad backups.” This is not the case.  Telfair’s primary backups Foye and Ollie were not bad last season. Foye had a +3 rating and Ollie a +2 rating. My figures in previous post were adjusted +/- by the way.  I guess maybe the lesson is that Foye and Ollie played poorly at the point, but then surely they played great during the rest of their time on the court.

Again my book on math and sports, Mathletics ,is  available on Amazon. I will soon be posting some comments on team prospects for the 2009-2010 season, Watch for them! I will start by  telling you why I think the Bulls will not make the playoffs.

11 Comments »

  1. On Ben Gordon, only 1 of the last 5 seasons had him high on the Adjusted +/- versions published at 82 games and basketballvalue.com. And it was 2004-5. Followed by neutral, mildly positive (+2.6), bad, and mildly positive again. I assume he fairs better on your version? Which I assume includes extra weight for performance in the clutch (if you use the version that Mark Cuban cited on his blog)? Will you share those values here or at ESPN True Hoops next time? Might be useful to know why you rate his loss as hard to fathom for the Bulls. By the other versions of Adjusted I find his new salary hard to accept as worth matching. If you do provide this detail, thanks.

    Comment by Crow — September 30, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

  2. On your scale has he been pretty consistently strong?

    Comment by Crow — September 30, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

  3. in first post should be… if you are “sharing” the version of Adjusted +/- that Mark Cuban cited on his blog

    Comment by Crow — September 30, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

  4. My theory on the Telfair +6 score is that it has to do with Randy Foye. Foye is a bad point guard, but a great shooting guard. When Telfair is in the game, Foye is at the two. Does your data support this theory?

    Comment by Brian — October 2, 2009 @ 7:25 pm

  5. If he helps his crew make one more shot, make one less turnover and bump up the offensive boards just a bit compared to what they’d do without him that could completely explain his Offensive Adjusted+/-, assuming he is average in his own direct stat impact. Could. Would want to see Adjusted +/- by the Four Factors. Dr. Winston do you produce and use this as well?

    Comment by Crow — October 5, 2009 @ 6:43 pm

  6. Using Adjusted from basketballvalue 4 Wolves saw their Adjusted +/- swing wildly from 07-08 to 08-09: Telfair, McCants, Gomes and Jefferson. Telfair and Hefferson went way up, McCants and Gomes went way down. By 6-10 points. That doesn’t sound all natural and all about th eindividuals by themseleves. I think interactions must be causing pretty serious havoc. I wonder how much different WW’s numbers are after his collinearity adjustments.

    How much of all this reflects the impact of the change in the coaching layer instead of the player?

    Comment by Crow — October 5, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

  7. The swing in player Adjusted +/- year to year was accompanied by wild swings in raw player pair +/-. Telfair=Jefferson went from very poor and low compared to others in 07-08 to Jefferson’s best and tied for Telfair’s in 08-09. Telfair-McCants went the other way from Telfair’s best to his worst. Coaching has to be part of it I’d guess. Plays matter and whether they are followed or work.

    Kevin Love was newly arrived and got assigned a very negative Adjusted +/-. Will that stay that way or will Love without Telfair blossom on Adjusted +/-? As the world turns so do the numbers. At least these.

    Comment by Crow — October 5, 2009 @ 9:39 pm

  8. should be fourth line of above post… tied for Telfair’s “second best” in 08-09.

    Comment by Crow — October 5, 2009 @ 9:41 pm

  9. Minny had 5 lineups that were +10 or better on Adjusted +/- that were used over 30 minutes.

    Telfair and Jefferson were on 4, Foye, Gomes and Miller 3.

    What if you put all 5 together? You get their best lineup at +20 per 48 minutes.

    Small minute stuff. But seeing this pattern emerge I’d have run that minute total up way higher than 77 minutes. No guarantee it would work in big minutes but sure looks like a better bet than what they tried more. Substitute Love with the other 4 and they were neutral, better than any of the other 5- just 5- lineups used 100+ minutes.

    What if Telfair Jefferson Foye Gomes and Miller had been used big minutes and worked well? McHale might have kept his job and Foye and Miller might not have been traded. We’ll never know what might have been because it was used so lightly.

    Comment by Crow — October 8, 2009 @ 4:12 am

  10. Telfair’s individual 1 year Adjusted +/- didn’t save him and likely nothing would after Kahn took over and wanted to rebuild his own way but more time played by successful lineups on Adjusted might have made his positive individual Adjusted more believable to more people and might have increased the trade value of the guys that were moved some.

    Comment by Crow — October 8, 2009 @ 2:30 pm

  11. [...] still has Thornton, R. Davis, and the newly added Sebastian Telfair (and yes, I have a problem with the Telfair adjusted plus-minus story that I am saving for another day) holding the team back.  [...]

    Pingback by The Best Clipper Team Ever? « The Wages of Wins Journal — October 19, 2009 @ 12:37 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress