|Well, I was all set to do the full Differential Production stats for this game, but then the final play happened and I lost my enthusiasm for it (kind of like Brian). If there's one saving grace (for those who want to see the team do well this year, that is), it's that many of these same players were around in 08-09, when they proved to be resilient in the face of several stomach-punch games (besides the Ray Allen buzzer-beater and the Devin Harris buzzer-beater, there were also buzzer-beaters by Nowitzki and Tony Parker, for example). Anyhow, I did watch the game again and compiled the reverse boxscore and PER numbers for the Sixers.|
Latest comment: from BISHOPVALERIAVarious people in the world take the home loans in various banks, because it is easy. ...
|I've been somewhat out of commission posting-wise because of the holidays and work, but I've been thinking of a simpler version of my "Differential Production" (DP) statistic. I'm sure the idea isn't new: calculate a reverse boxscore for a game. Next to a player's name will be the statistics of all the players he was guarding. The totals of the reverse boxscore should equal the team totals of the opposing team.|
|It's always more fun to break down a win instead of a loss, so let's see how the 76ers' 106-96 win over the Knicks was obtained from a Differential Production point of view. (for the uninitiated, click here to see the full explanation of Differential Production).|
Latest comment: from speekegood point...
|The Sixers' 101-75 win over the Pacers on Wednesday night was much needed for both team and fan morale. I know I felt better about the team, and I was motivated to find out who contributed most to the good offensive and excellent defensive performance (101 points in 94 possessions on offense, 75 points allowed in 95 possessions on defense), using the Differential Production metric that I've developed.|
|Way back in June, Statman developed a new advanced stat which would look at individual player contributions to the team's wins and losses. It's a fresh way to look at who did what and what it meant to the overall performance of the team. Today, he's putting his system to the test. Check it out after the jump.|
|It's a statement made by many NBA fans and heard often on this blog: "You can't win in the NBA without superstars." The follow-up statement is often attached: "I'm only going to be happy/excited about my team if they have a chance to win." For many 76ers fans, several woeful statements then follow logically: (1) the 76ers don't currently have any superstars; (2) it is unlikely they will ever attract a superstar through free agency or trade; (3) the only reasonable course of action is to be a terrible team year after year and hope to land that superstar through the lottery. This line of reasoning is even more depressing with the realization that your team can win the lottery and still not land a superstar, as many are starting to fear with the Sixers and Evan Turner in 2010. But is the whole mindset of "superstar or bust" a reasonable one? Because there's a thorny problem to think about: while having a superstar is a necessary condition for winning in the NBA ("a team can't win unless it has a superstar") it is not a sufficient condition ("If a team has a superstar, it will win"). Details after the jump.|
|Phil Jasner wrote an interesting article today about the Sixers' drafting in recent years. While the concept of the article was good and the back story that he provided for each pick was illuminating, I thought there were problems with his evaluation methodology. To evaluate how good an NBA draft pick is, one has to take into account who was available when the team drafted, how happy the team is (in hindsight) with the pick, and where the player would be picked today if the draft were done over. After the jump, I'll give my thoughts.|
|In many of the discussions we have here at Depressed Fan and other "hardcore" NBA blogs, people quote and then debate the meaning of different statistics. Defensive statistics, in particular, are often thought to be misleading, and with good reason. For example, if Lou's man blows by him and Brand goes over to help but Sammy doesn't rotate to Brand's man, does the resulting dunk by Brand's man count against Brand? Or on offense, if Jrue beats his man, draws a defender, and dishes to Jason Smith who fumbles it out of bounds, is the turnover solely Jrue's responsibility? Somehow, there has to be a better way of assigning credit and blame. I thought about this for a while and came up with a system that I'll describe after the break ...|
|I've been thinking about this question for a while, but it's a good time to write something about it given Brian's post from earlier today. We hear this stated authoritatively all the time by Sixer fans of varying degrees of understanding: "Andre Iguodala is not a shooting guard." Even Doug Collins stated yesterday that Iguodala's natural position is small forward. But practically speaking, what is the difference between a shooting guard and and a small forward? And do all great shooting guards have to be great shooters? My thoughts after the jump.|