armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

NBA Players: Peaks and Valleys

11
Vote

by Tmx117

A shorter article today. Find this full post with pictures and more at The Daily Sports Tome.

Like in every other sport, NBA players tend to come into the league, develop their game to a certain peak point, then slowly decline until the point that they decide to retire. That long career arc can be seen many times and is not a subject which needs a great deal of debate currently about its general validity. From year to year, however, how well do player's games hold up? When they reach a peak versus the rest of the league's ability do they decline or continue to improve the next year? That's our question for the day. To limit our scope so this may be covered in a single article (there is alot stuff inherent to this discussion that could be expanded, but I feel there are better issues to talk about in the coming days), we will look at how well over the last 10 years players who finished in the league top 10 in PER (Player Efficiency Rating) fared their next season. So without further ado, let's begin.

Over the course of the last 10 years many great players of the 90's faded away into retirement and others rose to the top of the heap and have now begun their downfall. The average NBA Top 10 PER over this time has lost approximately .62 points from their PER in the following season, meaning they have gotten slightly worse; however, this number is can be very misleading. When player's are posting extremely high PERs (25+ in general) it becomes extrememly hard to continue to improve your performance while there is limitless free fall potential for getting worse. Numerous players had a drop of over 5 PER points from one year to the next for various reasons (Shawn Kemp won the contest with a drop 0f 6.4 points from 99 to 00). Meanwhile very few players were able to post substantial increases in their PER after posting a Top 10 PER the season before (Tracy McGrady went up 5.2 points from one season to the next while in Orlando). This leads to what I feel is an unfair downward skewing which I don't feel represents how they players truly react from one year to the next. There is a way to cure this though.

If we simply add up the total number of people who improved or lowered their PER from one year to the next the result is extremely interesting. 47 players over the last 10 years got worse, 49 got better, 1 stayed the same, and 3 retired or spent much of the year injured (Amare Stoudamire, Grant Hill, and Michael Jordan). What this tells the statistician is that on average about half the players will get better and half will get worse, so trying to predict how well they will play next year is a toss-up on this information alone. It is necessary to look at the more unique circumstances of each player then to truly decide how likely it is they will improve or lose some of their individual ability. The gathered PER numbers can tell us some interesting things besides simply saying whether a player will get better of worse though.

-Michael Jordan was the only player to post a top 10 PER and then retire the next season. When he returned to play for the Wizards his PER dropped over 8 points from his last Bull's season. -Shaquille O'Neal in a true showing of his dominance was the top PER player for five straight seasons (97-97 to 01-02) before falling behind Tracy McGrady by 1 point in 02-03. -The Top PER player has only won 3 championships during the last 10 years, all of those championships went to Shaquille O'Neal who posted 30 plus PERs in all of those season, an amazing feat. -The Top PER player for a given year has only won one MVP, Kevin Garnett in (03-04). The fact that Shaquille O'Neal has never won an MVP award should be a blight upon every writer who votes for the award. -The Detroit Pistons are the only team in the last 10 years to win an NBA title without a Top 5 PER player in their championship season. Star players do matter. -One of the most amazing PER feats, something to which no parallel can be drawn, is Lebron James' 28.1 PER in his third season at age 21 (2nd in the league). No player in the last 10 years has come close to posting a PER that good, that young. Tracy McGrady at age 24 posted a 30.1 during his sixth year in the league.

There are a limitless number of observations of the data that can be made, but the one thing that is clear that we set out to determine was that from year to year more variables must be taken into account when determining if a player will improve than if they were really, really good the year before. Age, motivation, team situation, nagging injuries, and athletic potential all likely play a role (I would like to test this data with some of these factors taken into account, but alas I have not been able to do so yet) in whether a top tier player will continue to improve from year to year. What is clear though is that there is no simple, easy way of making the determination based only on singular past results with any accuracy. It's always nice when things turn out simple, but that usually means that what they tell is not very valuable. If anyone would like to further analyze all these situations just hit up Basketball Reference and drop me a line at tmx117@gmail.com to tell me what you found. Until then, I'm back at the drawing board applying what we learned about the NBA the past few weeks to the NFL for tomorrow.


Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
Baller48321Waterboy
864 days ago
Score 0+-
interesting
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
864 days ago
Score 2+-
Image:Average NBA Career Path.jpg
Permalink | Reply
Tmx117Soccer Kid
864 days ago
Score 0+-
Interesting graph. That's the exact kind of thing I was hoping someone would have.
Permalink
StumptownJV Squad
864 days ago
Score 0+-
Interesting article and very impressive that you had that graph at your fingertips. Good work all around.
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
864 days ago
Score 0+-
I actually made that about three years ago, long before I became 100% disillusioned with PER... Hey, by the way -- and I don't know if either of you guys are aware of this -- but there is a forum that's at the epicenter of the statistical basketball analysis movement (aka APBRmetrics), and we'd love for you to join up and add your perspective.
Permalink
Tmx117Soccer Kid
864 days ago
Score 1+-
It looked like a really good forum so I went ahead and signed up, but I have to wait for the admin to activate my account. I guess I can use the time to read up on all the stuff I don't know about yet. Whats the reason for your disillusionment with PER?
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
864 days ago
Score 0+-
It's a linear formula that attempts to quantify value in a non-linear sport. It's arbitrary; it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't measure defense. It tells you nothing about how to build a team or maximize efficiency differential -- you could put 5 guys on the floor with 15+ PER and still be a losing team. It fails to resolve the single biggest issue facing APBRmetrics, which is how a player's efficiency changes with a change in role/usage. I respect Hollinger as a person and I enjoy his writing, but PER is a fatally flawed stat. What do I use instead of PER? I much, much, much prefer the stats Dean Oliver introduces in Basketball on Paper: Individual Offensive/Defensive Ratings relate directly to team offensive/defensive rating, which can theoretically allow you to predict efficiency differential for teams. Also, what DeanO calls "skill curves" deal with the usage vs. efficiency problem in a mathematically rigorous way, instead of simply assuming a relationship like Tendex/PER/Win Score does. Anyway, Dean's book is a must-read for APBRmetricians, as is a paper entitled A Starting Point for Analyzing Basketball Statistics, which should get you up to speed on the newest methods in the field. PER may have a lot of exposure thanks to ESPN, but I'd like to think the field as a whole has moved past that stat in terms of evaluatory methods.
Permalink
ChristofMVP
864 days ago
Score 0+-
What is the sample size for this?
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
864 days ago
Score 0+-
Every NBA player since 1978, when turnovers began being tracked. I also ran the results through a regression to get that nice, smooth graph you see above. In fact, I really wish I still had the spreadsheet I used to do it, but it must have gotten lost over the past three years. I guess I'm lucky I still have the screenshot I took of the graph...
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
864 days ago
Score 0+-
You could say the same thing about Sabermetrics, right?
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
864 days ago
Score 0+-
How do you mean?
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
864 days ago
Score 0+-
Oh, the linear/non-linear thing... Well, for the most part, baseball is linear -- for runs to be scored, you must go in a linear path, from first to second to third and then home. That's why linear regressions work the majority of the time. Where it breaks down is at the extremes, but that's what non-linear stats like Base Runs fix. In other words, non-linearity isn't nearly as big a problem in baseball (where the efficiency levels of players on a team are essentially independent of each other) as it is in basketball, where teamwork defines the entire sport. While studies have shown that the impact of lineup protection on teammates' production is overrated in baseball, there is a very real benefit to playing with, say, Steve Nash as your PG, or with Shaq making the D collapse and buying you an open 3-pointer. This is why APBRmetrics is nowhere near as advanced as sabermetrics -- it's just easier in baseball, at every turn. But Oliver's work (and the adjusted +/- work of someone like Dan Rosenbaum) gives us the tools to begin solving these problems, whereas PER doesn't.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
864 days ago
Score 0+-
This guy thinks he can prove sabermetrically there is no measurable proof about the benefits of a player batting ahead/behind a star in the lineup. And not to touch on a sore subject with you, and despite all claims by Bill James and Rob Neyer, clutch does exist. So this is sabermetrics to basketball, its arbitrary, thus is meaningless. Nice website by the way.
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
864 days ago
Score 0+-
It's not a sore subject for me at all -- although I do tire of always being right. :)

The point of any statistical analysis is to not be arbitrary. It's to see what new things you can learn through the numbers... If anything, the anti-stats crowd are the ones being arbitrary; they simply regurgitate the same old axioms they've always heard, without ever stopping to ask whether or not it's true.

Anyway, you're welcome to prove that lineup protection or clutch is as big a factor as conventional wisdom says, but please don't dismiss statistical analysis out of hand simply because you don't agree with what it says.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
864 days ago
Score 0+-
Its the other way around, actually. Baseball has existed for 140 years and there are infinite sources of stats that say these things do exist, then some guy goes to Walmart and buys a $15 calculator and comes up with alternate ways of doing things (which is good, by the way), and all of a sudden a million people who couldn't tell a curve ball from a slider thinks they're experts at baseball. That's what pisses me off.

Put Bill James in a room full of General Managers and scouting directors and he would likely be a contributor to the conversation, put him in a room full of players and coaches and managers and he'd get laughed out of the room.

And I love disecting basketball, the game today is so diluted its a joke, yet every broadcaster, every writer thinks today's game is so much better its actually kind of funny. There's an old saying which says the greatest players in any era would be great players in any other era, I don't think that's the case with the NBA. Today's game is full of average, one dimensional players who struggle big time in a controlled, defense enviornment, as reflected by the US showings recently in the Olympics and World Championships. We get pounded at our own game, and its sad, really.
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
864 days ago
Score 0+-
I actually bought my calculator for $5 at Staples. So there. :)
Permalink
Tmx117Soccer Kid
864 days ago
Score 1+-
I don't know about the whole players today being so bad thing. I think one of the things that continues to haunt the NBA is there is such an emphasis on what happened in it 10 or 20 years ago.

In baseball people look upon the past with reverance, but they also realize and talk about how good the players are today. Its much more acceptable to compare players from the past to players to the present. In many NBA circles if you try to compare anyone to Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, or Michael Jordan people will simply go crazy.

We have typically lost internationally recently not from a lack of talent, but because we throw together rag-tag teams (even this new method were using is resulting in massive roster turnover) a few weeks before the tournament and expect to win just by doing that. It worked fine in the past, but the rest of the world has matured in basketball ability and many of a country's players spend years and years playing together as they grow up giving them better chemistry. While I'm not going to try to dispute that other countries have a more team oriented approach (I'm not getting into the whole, down with AAU debate), but simply stating that today's players are inferior to those in the past or "one dimensional players who struggle big time in a controlled, defense enviornment" I just don't feel it correct.

Time to get back to reading something I thought I would never find, a academic paper on basketball. It's a beautiful thing.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
864 days ago
Score 2+-
Geez, if you didn't want to talk anymore you could have just said so. Was that because of your student discount?
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
864 days ago
Score 1+-
Awh Kelsdad, give Davis a break. He is busy reading the instruction manual for that brand new calculator.
Permalink
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free


Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/NBA_Players:_Peaks_and_Valleys"

This page was last modified 19:40, 17 July 2007. Content is available under the GFDL.

Contribute

ArmchairGM's pages can be edited.
Is this page incomplete? Is there anything wrong?
Change it!

Edit this page Discuss this page Page history

Recent contributors to this page

The following people recently contributed to this article.

Embed this on your site

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise