best counter

Your Ad Here
Just The Sports: 2006-08-20

Just The Sports

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Shame On You, Tim

I have written before about teams underperforming and outperforming their expected winning percentages, but a couple paragrahs in a recent Tim Kurkjian article has prompted me to update the data I have on the Cleveland Indians and the Oakland A's to again demonstrate the pitfalls associated with depending upon run differential alone to tell you how you expect a team will do. The Pythagorean winning percentage formula is informative, but its main problem is that it does not take into account how much a team's winning and losing margins; it treats all runs equally. Therefore, a team that wins in a blowout may receive 1.5 Pythagorean wins when they can only ever receive 1 actual win. The same principle applies in reverse to those teams who lose in blowouts so teams that win big and lose small will underperform and teams that win small and loss big will outperform their run differential.

The Indians and the A's are two teams at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue. Cleveland has vastly underperformed their expected winning percentage by .079 because they have an average victory margin of 4.8 runs and an average defeat margin of 3.3 runs. That is why the Indians give off the impression of being a good team when they really are not. They are also wildly inconsistent.

The A's have been outperforming their expected winning percentage so far this season by .046. This is not as drastic as the Indians nor is there as much difference between their average victory margin of 3.1 and average defeat margin of 3.6, but there is enough of a difference for the Pythagorean formula to be too pessimistic in gauging their talent. Their consistency helps them in the same way Cleveland's inconsistency hurts.

If I had better mathematical prowess, I would fix the formula to correct for average victory and defeat margins, but for right now I can only say do not trust expected winning percentages entirely.

"When the season is over,'' Beane said, "we should do a study for the Indians and for us, and see why this happened. There is data from both sides, and they don't make any sense.''


Done and done.

Friday, August 25, 2006

FIBA World Championship Round-Up (Consistency)

In an effort to further explain the inner workings behind the World Championship teams' records and also why some teams have better records than others while putting up worse numbers, I have decided to list the teams in order of consistently both in offensive and defensive ratings based on their variances. An important note to remember is that consistency is not the synonym of good. A poor team can be just as consistent as a great team; they are just consistently bad.

Offensive Consistency
1. Argentina
2. Turkey
3. Angola
4. United States
5. Lebanon
6. Germany
7. Spain
8. Greece
9. Puerto Rico
10. Slovenia
11. Italy
12. Brazil
13. Venezuela
14. Lithuania
15. Japan
16. New Zealand
17. China
18. France
19. Panama
20. Qatar
21. Senegal
22. Australia
23. Nigeria
24. Serbia & Montenegro

Defensive Consistency
1. Greece
2. Turkey
3. Qatar
4. Panama
5. Brazil
6. Senegal
7. China
8. Slovenia
9. Nigeria
10. Puerto Rico
11. Argentina
12. Germany
13. Venezuela
14. Australia
15. France
16. New Zealand
17. Serbia & Montenegro
18. Angola
19. Lithuania
20. United States
21. Italy
22. Spain
23. Japan
24. Lebanon

FIBA World Championship Round-Up (Group D)

Since the round-ups I had planned to do after every day were going to become repetitive and boring both for the reader and the writer, I decided just to wait until the end of the preliminary round of the FIBA World Championship and present the compiled defensive and offensive statistics of each team and also each group so you could see how they stack up against each other. The statistics I am using are as follows: efficiency ratings (points per 100 possessions), floor percentage, effective field goal percentage, free throw percentage, offensive rebounding percentage, defensive rebounding percentage, and turnovers per possession. As for the ordering of the teams within the group, they are done by record and points accumulated. Remember, the top four teams out of each group will be the ones advancing to the next round.

Overall FIBA Tournament Field

Efficiency Rating: 104.1
Floor Percentage: .47
eFG Percentage: .505
Free Throw Percentage: .684
OReb Percentage: .310
DReb Percentage: .690
TO per Poss.: .205

Group D

Efficiency Rating: 111.7
Floor Percentage: .51
eFG Percentage: .525
Free Throw Percentage: .723
OReb Percentage: .321
DReb Percentage: .679
TO per Poss.: .184

USA (5-0, 10 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 130.4
Floor Percentage: .61
eFG Percentage: .587
Free Throw Percentage: .696
OReb Percentage: .369
DReb Percentage: .631
TO per Poss.: .130

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 105.7
Floor Percentage: .47
eFG Percentage: .519
Free Throw Percentage: .804
OReb Percentage: .312
DReb Percentage: .688
TO per Poss.: .222

Italy (4-1, 9 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 111.7
Floor Percentage: .50
eFG Percentage: .492
Free Throw Percentage: .728
OReb Percentage: .342
DReb Percentage: .658
TO per Poss.: .159

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 101.4
Floor Percentage: .48
eFG Percentage: .505
Free Throw Percentage: .689
OReb Percentage: .258
DReb Percentage: .742
TO per Poss.: .207

Slovenia (2-3, 7 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 109.7
Floor Percentage: .49
eFG Percentage: .541
Free Throw Percentage: .705
OReb Percentage: .331
DReb Percentage: .669
TO per Poss.: .210

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 112.0
Floor Percentage: .51
eFG Percentage: .555
Free Throw Percentage: .672
OReb Percentage: .275
DReb Percentage: .725
TO per Poss.: .179

China (2-3, 7 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 111.3
Floor Percentage: .49
eFG Percentage: .519
Free Throw Percentage: .815
OReb Percentage: .321
DReb Percentage: .689
TO per Poss.: .207

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 122.1
Floor Percentage: .56
eFG Percentage: .517
Free Throw Percentage: .742
OReb Percentage: .384
DReb Percentage: .616
TO per Poss.: .137

Puerto Rico (2-3, 7 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 110.8
Floor Percentage: .50
eFG Percentage: .555
Free Throw Percentage: .703
OReb Percentage: .232
DReb Percentage: .768
TO per Poss.: .185

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 111.6
Floor Percentage: .50
eFG Percentage: .509
Free Throw Percentage: .734
OReb Percentage: .339
DReb Percentage: .661
TO per Poss.: .183

Senegal (0-5, 5 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 94.2
Floor Percentage: .44
eFG Percentage: .447
Free Throw Percentage: .695
OReb Percentage: .318
DReb Percentage: .682
TO per Poss.: .215

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 117.5
Floor Percentage: .52
eFG Percentage: .542
Free Throw Percentage: .712
OReb Percentage: .339
DReb Percentage: .661
TO per Poss.: .175

FIBA World Championship Round-Up (Group C)

Since the round-ups I had planned to do after every day were going to become repetitive and boring both for the reader and the writer, I decided just to wait until the end of the preliminary round of the FIBA World Championship and present the compiled defensive and offensive statistics of each team and also each group so you could see how they stack up against each other. The statistics I am using are as follows: efficiency ratings (points per 100 possessions), floor percentage, effective field goal percentage, free throw percentage, offensive rebounding percentage, defensive rebounding percentage, and turnovers per possession. As for the ordering of the teams within the group, they are done by record and points accumulated. Remember, the top four teams out of each group will be the ones advancing to the next round.

Overall FIBA Tournament Field

Efficiency Rating: 104.1
Floor Percentage: .47
eFG Percentage: .505
Free Throw Percentage: .684
OReb Percentage: .310
DReb Percentage: .690
TO per Poss.: .205

Group C

Efficiency Rating: 98.6
Floor Percentage: .45
eFG Percentage: .513
Free Throw Percentage: .653
OReb Percentage: .301
DReb Percentage: .699
TO per Poss.: .245

Greece (5-0, 10 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 109.2
Floor Percentage: .51
eFG Percentage: .540
Free Throw Percentage: .735
OReb Percentage: .325
DReb Percentage: .675
TO per Poss.: .232

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 93.4
Floor Percentage: .42
eFG Percentage: .554
Free Throw Percentage: .586
OReb Percentage: .306
DReb Percentage: .694
TO per Poss.: .310

Turkey (4-1, 9 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 97.2
Floor Percentage: .44
eFG Percentage: .507
Free Throw Percentage: .634
OReb Percentage: .221
DReb Percentage: .779
TO per Poss.: .207

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 102.5
Floor Percentage: .48
eFG Percentage: .471
Free Throw Percentage: .647
OReb Percentage: .331
DReb Percentage: .669
TO per Poss.: .186

Lithuania (3-2, 8 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 100.9
Floor Percentage: .47
eFG Percentage: .517
Free Throw Percentage: .656
OReb Percentage: .330
DReb Percentage: .670
TO per Poss.: .244

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 90.6
Floor Percentage: .42
eFG Percentage: .459
Free Throw Percentage: .580
OReb Percentage: .290
DReb Percentage: .710
TO per Poss.: .236

Australia (2-3, 7 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 96.8
Floor Percentage: .42
eFG Percentage: .557
Free Throw Percentage: .634
OReb Percentage: .211
DReb Percentage: .789
TO per Poss.: .261

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 91.6
Floor Percentage: .42
eFG Percentage: .460
Free Throw Percentage: .663
OReb Percentage: .301
DReb Percentage: .699
TO per Poss.: .247

Brazil (1-4, 6 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 104.5
Floor Percentage: .49
eFG Percentage: .486
Free Throw Percentage: .619
OReb Percentage: .368
DReb Percentage: .632
TO per Poss.: .196

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 97.7
Floor Percentage: .43
eFG Percentage: .557
Free Throw Percentage: .721
OReb Percentage: .242
DReb Percentage: .758
TO per Poss.: .286

Qatar (0-5, 5 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 83.4
Floor Percentage: .36
eFG Percentage: .474
Free Throw Percentage: .582
OReb Percentage: .349
DReb Percentage: .651
TO per Poss.: .331

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 115.8
Floor Percentage: .53
eFG Percentage: .574
Free Throw Percentage: .728
OReb Percentage: .331
DReb Percentage: .669
TO per Poss.: .198

Thursday, August 24, 2006

FIBA World Championship Round-Up (Group B)

Since the round-ups I had planned to do after every day were going to become repetitive and boring both for the reader and the writer, I decided just to wait until the end of the preliminary round of the FIBA World Championship and present the compiled defensive and offensive statistics of each team and also each group so you could see how they stack up against each other. The statistics I am using are as follows: efficiency ratings (points per 100 possessions), floor percentage, effective field goal percentage, free throw percentage, offensive rebounding percentage, defensive rebounding percentage, and turnovers per possession. As for the ordering of the teams within the group, they are done by record and points accumulated. Remember, the top four teams out of each group will be the ones advancing to the next round.

Overall FIBA Tournament Field

Efficiency Rating: 104.1
Floor Percentage: .47
eFG Percentage: .505
Free Throw Percentage: .684
OReb Percentage: .310
DReb Percentage: .690
TO per Poss.: .205

Group B

Efficiency Rating: 104.5
Floor Percentage: .47
eFG Percentage: .508
Free Throw Percentage: .677
OReb Percentage: .285
DReb Percentage: .715
TO per Poss.: .192

Spain (5-0, 10 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 123.8
Floor Percentage: .56
eFG Percentage: .620
Free Throw Percentage: .688
OReb Percentage: .218
DReb Percentage: .782
TO per Poss.: .154

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 91.8
Floor Percentage: .41
eFG Percentage: .460
Free Throw Percentage: .710
OReb Percentage: .275
DReb Percentage: .725
TO per Poss.: .224

Germany (4-1, 9 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 109.9
Floor Percentage: .48
eFG Percentage: .528
Free Throw Percentage: .771
OReb Percentage: .286
DReb Percentage: .714
TO per Poss.: .193

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 106.1
Floor Percentage: .48
eFG Percentage: .505
Free Throw Percentage: .680
OReb Percentage: .216
DReb Percentage: .784
TO per Poss.: .152

Angola (3-2, 8 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 116.3
Floor Percentage: .51
eFG Percentage: .538
Free Throw Percentage: .748
OReb Percentage: .328
DReb Percentage: .672
TO per Poss.: .157

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 104.1
Floor Percentage: .48
eFG Percentage: .497
Free Throw Percentage: .675
OReb Percentage: .325
DReb Percentage: .675
TO per Poss.: .203

New Zealand (2-3, 7 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 96.1
Floor Percentage: .43
eFG Percentage: .477
Free Throw Percentage: .648
OReb Percentage: .273
DReb Percentage: .727
TO per Poss.: .217

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 107.8
Floor Percentage: .48
eFG Percentage: .526
Free Throw Percentage: .645
OReb Percentage: .323
DReb Percentage: .677
TO per Poss.: .200

Japan (1-4, 6 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 90.0
Floor Percentage: .40
eFG Percentage: .464
Free Throw Percentage: .671
OReb Percentage: .179
DReb Percentage: .821
TO per Poss.: .196

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 102.2
Floor Percentage: .48
eFG Percentage: .502
Free Throw Percentage: .656
OReb Percentage: .329
DReb Percentage: .671
TO per Poss.: .211

Panama (0-5, 5 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 88.1
Floor Percentage: .43
eFG Percentage: .414
Free Throw Percentage: .546
OReb Percentage: .391
DReb Percentage: .609
TO per Poss.: .240

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 113.6
Floor Percentage: .49
eFG Percentage: .559
Free Throw Percentage: .710
OReb Percentage: .214
DReb Percentage: .786
TO per Poss.: .162

FIBA World Championship Round-Up (Group A)

Since the round-ups I had planned to do after every day were going to become repetitive and boring both for the reader and the writer, I decided just to wait until the end of the preliminary round of the FIBA World Championship and present the compiled defensive and offensive statistics of each team and also each group so you could see how they stack up against each other. The statistics I am using are as follows: efficiency ratings (points per 100 possessions), floor percentage, effective field goal percentage, free throw percentage, offensive rebounding percentage, defensive rebounding percentage, and turnovers per possession. As for the ordering of the teams within the group, they are done by record and points accumulated. Remember, the top four teams out of each group will be the ones advancing to the next round.

Overall FIBA Tournament Field

Efficiency Rating: 104.1
Floor Percentage: .47
eFG Percentage: .505
Free Throw Percentage: .684
OReb Percentage: .310
DReb Percentage: .690
TO per Poss.: .205

Group A

Efficiency Rating: 101.4
Floor Percentage: .47
eFG Percentage: .476
Free Throw Percentage: .678
OReb Percentage: .331
DReb Percentage: .669
TO per Poss.: .198

Argentina (5-0, 10 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 120.1
Floor Percentage: .53
eFG Percentage: .584
Free Throw Percentage: .750
OReb Percentage: .285
DReb Percentage: .715
TO per Poss.: .166

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 92.5
Floor Percentage: .44
eFG Percentage: .408
Free Throw Percentage: .651
OReb Percentage: .368
DReb Percentage: .632
TO per Poss.: .205

France (3-2, 8 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 99.1
Floor Percentage: .47
eFG Percentage: .421
Free Throw Percentage: .667
OReb Percentage: .349
DReb Percentage: .651
TO per Poss.: .171

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 94.4
Floor Percentage: .44
eFG Percentage: .419
Free Throw Percentage: .698
OReb Percentage: .330
DReb Percentage: .670
TO per Poss.: .204

Nigeria (2-3, 7 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 99.5
Floor Percentage: .47
eFG Percentage: .439
Free Throw Percentage: .593
OReb Percentage: .386
DReb Percentage: .614
TO per Poss.: .180

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 103.8
Floor Percentage: .46
eFG Percentage: .536
Free Throw Percentage: .653
OReb Percentage: .288
DReb Percentage: .712
TO per Poss.: .222

Serbia & Montenegro (2-3, 7 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 110.4
Floor Percentage: .50
eFG Percentage: .550
Free Throw Percentage: .732
OReb Percentage: .257
DReb Percentage: .743
TO per Poss.: .184

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 96.3
Floor Percentage: .44
eFG Percentage: .426
Free Throw Percentage: .713
OReb Percentage: .333
DReb Percentage: .667
TO per Poss.: .194

Lebanon (2-3, 7 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 92.6
Floor Percentage: .42
eFG Percentage: .450
Free Throw Percentage: .739
OReb Percentage: .329
DReb Percentage: .671
TO per Poss.: .249

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 114.6
Floor Percentage: .53
eFG Percentage: .536
Free Throw Percentage: .637
OReb Percentage: .390
DReb Percentage: .610
TO per Poss.: .180

Venezuela (1-4, 6 pts.)

Offense
Efficiency Rating: 88.1
Floor Percentage: .41
eFG Percentage: .416
Free Throw Percentage: .602
OReb Percentage: .373
DReb Percentage: .627
TO per Poss.: .241

Defense
Efficiency Rating: 105.4
Floor Percentage: .49
eFG Percentage: .522
Free Throw Percentage: .710
OReb Percentage: .271
DReb Percentage: .729
TO per Poss.: .188

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Tiger Woods vs. Jack Nicklaus

Comparing athletes across eras is always a difficult task, but with golfers (for this post I consider golfers to be athletes) it is even more arduous. Not only do golfers of different generations not play against each other or against the same opponents, but unlike sports like basketball and football where the playing dimensions are uniform across the board and remain so for years, golf courses change on a yearly basis. Hell, the placement of the holes changes daily during tournaments. Even so, there is one commonly agreed upon basis for determining greatness and that is how well an athlete does in relation to his or her peers. With that in mind and with debate growing after Tiger's last major win, I wanted to see how his dominance in major wins by standard deviations compares to the dominance Jack Nicklaus exhibited in his golfing heydays. Majors are the most important tournaments in the PGA and a person who dominates those certainly deserves to be called the greatest golfer ever.

Originally, I wanted to compare Jack's first twelve major wins to Tiger's, but I was unable to do so because I could not find the 1966 results of the Open Championship so I replaced that major with his 1975 Majors victory. I do not think doing so skewed my results at all.

The first thing I wanted to look at is how bunched together their competitors were during these major tournaments. If the average standard deviation of the field's scoring for the respective players' twelve major wins was high, then I would know there was a lot of dilution and that the fields were not stiff competition. The standard deviation for scoring for Jack's major wins, at least the twelve I looked at, was 5.9 strokes and the standard deviation for Tiger's major wins was 5.7 strokes so if anything, Tiger has been facing a slightly more equal field in terms of talent. There was no real advantage or disadvantage there for either golfer.

Now for the meaty part, the part you've been waiting for. In order to gauge just how much better the golfers were than their opponents during these majors, I looked at how many standard deviations they were above the average and then I averaged those standard deviations together. What I found is that Tiger Woods has been an average of 2.8 standard deviations above the average score for his major wins and Jack Nicklaus was an average of 2.3 standard deviations above the average score for his respective major wins (at least 12 of them). Taking the average standard deviation during Jack's major wins of 5.9, this .5 standard deviation margin means that Tiger has been 2.95 strokes better in his wins than Jack was. Using Tiger's aforementioned 5.7 average standard deviation, Tiger has been 2.85 strokes better.

Keep in mind that neither of those numbers encompasses the two golfers' entire careers and Jack may have blown out the competition in his other major wins while Tiger will barely eke by in his other major victories. Of course, if Tiger breaks Jack's major record, he should be crowned as the game's best golfer ever, but as of right now, he has certainly been more dominant than Jack.

The most impressive performance of either golfer belongs to Tiger Woods when he won the 2000 US Open by fifteen strokes and was an astounding 4.1 standard deviations better than the average score. Jack's best major win (of the ones I looked at) came in the 1965 Masters when he won by nine strokes and was 3.5 standard deviations better than the average score.

General Managers

I will be the first to admit that there is a lot about sports that I do not know. This blog is as much a chance for me to answer some of the sports questions I have than it is a chance to share my thoughts with whoever stumbles across this site. Perhaps the one aspect of sports that never ceases to confuse and baffle me is the workings of general managers. They hand out foolish contracts to players who outperform their career statistics drastically in their walk year, sign proven veterans who have nothing left to provide to the team, give guaranteed money to players for no other reason than that the name is familiar to them, and also make ill-advised trades to at least pass the time. True, even the most rigorous statistical analysis cannot always predict what a player will do, but it is better than whatever methods general managers are applying now.

My confusion has manifested itself throughout this NBA offseason as I watched team after team drastically overhaul rosters without really improving the team, but for now I want to focus on Larry Bird's pursuit of Al Harrington, whom the Indiana Pacers finally acquired from the Atlanta Hawks for his second tour of duty in Indianapolis. For all of the trouble it took to complete this sign-and-trade deal, no one would fault the casual observer for thinking Al Harrington is a great player and the final piece to the Pacer championship puzzle. He is not and he will not be it.

Now, don't get me wrong, Al Harrington is a decent player and on the outside, there looks to be steady improvement in his game. His scoring average has gone up each year since 2003 when he was 22. Never trust scoring average alone, though, for it is the basketball equivalent of runs batted in because it does not tell you how many shots it took for the player to reach his point total. After all, anyone can score twenty points in an NBA game.

The real question is does the player score his points in an efficient manner, taking full advantage of his shots and not using more possessions than is good for the team. Harrington fails those criteria. Harrington's offensive rating has fluctuated every year of his career, going up and then down and then up and then down again. Every year of his NBA career. All the time he was improving and then declining, the one constant was he maintained his below-average offensive rating. There do not even seem to be an optimal number of possessions Harrington can be efficient with.

On a positive note, Harrington can play good defense if the coach stresses it, but looking at his defensive ratings over his career, he will not play defense for the sake of playing defense. The Pacers should hope he still remembers how to play defense after spending two years with the Atlanta Hawks.

In order to avoid being one of those sports followers who only criticize moves and present no real solution, I will present an avenue the Pacers should have at least investigated if they did not and that avenue's name is Troy Murphy, whom the Pacers also would have had to trade for, but a player who is better than Al Harrington while being the same age. Murphy has higher offensive rating numbers and he can play slightly better defense than the league average. Harrington is a better defender, but Murphy more than makes up for it with his scoring and his rebounding.

Monday, August 21, 2006

Monday Means Peter

More importantly, Monday also means Peter King will say at least ridiculous thing in his article on SI.com.

The other day, in Los Angeles with my breakfast java, Cleveland general manager Phil Savage said into my telephonic earpiece: "Hey, if you see any centers out there hanging around Starbucks, we're interested. Very interested.''


Only if they are Christian, though, right Phil? Hahahaha, just kidding. The center situation right now is much too dire to worry about players' religious philosophies.

1. I think I'm going to vote for Paul Tagliabue for the Hall of Fame this year, if I have the chance. Not only is he deserving -- and I'm not very big on voting non-players into the Hall -- because of the TV contracts and the labor peace and the forward thinking of his regime, but he also did one thing his two predecessors did not do. Bert Bell did not groom a replacement before he died in 1959. Pete Rozelle did not groom a replacement before he resigned in 1989. Tagliabue groomed Roger Goodell, who very nearly was bred to do this job, to be his heir. Time will tell if Goodell has the business and legal acumen of Tagliabue, but I think he's a very good match for the job.


If every NFL commissioner is going to end up in the Hall of Fame, maybe the honor isn't so special after all and part of your reasoning for voting for him is pretty stupid. Like you yourself said, Peter, time will tell how good of a commissioner Goodell turns out to be, but if he turns out to be a terrible one, you are not going to change your vote retroactively because of it. Either vote for Tagliabue for what he actually did for the NFL or don't vote for him at all. Roger Goodell should not even enter the equation.

2. I think these are my quick-hit thoughts of the preseason weekend:

a. Two games for sixth-round Texans running back Wali Lundy, who started Saturday against St. Louis: 16 carries, 99 yards.

b. Two games for rich free agent Edgerrin James: four carries, three yards.


Over the course of two games, Wali Lundy has also had four carries that only went for three yards so I am not quite sure what your point was there, Peter.

9. I think the Jets got a good back in Kevan Barlow, but I would worry that a building team like the 49ers was so eager to jettison him.


I think you are wrong what the Jets really got in Kevan Barlow is a running back in decline. Over the past three years, his rushing Defense-Adjusted Value Over Average has decreased (6.8% to -16.4% to -26.0%) along with his Defense-Adjusted Points Above Replacement (18.1 to -2.5 to -7.6), yards per rush (5.1 to 3.4 to 3.3), success rate (50% to 37% to 27%), and his catching abilities have suffered similar declines.

As for being worried, do not be. The emergence of Frank Gore last year was going to lead to Gore being the starting running back this year anyway so the 49ers have not lost anything, but have gained a draft pick.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

FIBA World Championship Round-Up (Day Two)

Like on day one of the FIBA World Championships, there were twelve games on the slate and I will be breaking down each of them. There will probably be some repetition because teams usually win in the same manner so just scroll down to the team or teams that most resonate with you.

Group A

Venezuela 84, Nigeria 77

Venezuela put up a much better offensive performance in today's game than they had in yesterday's match against Lebanon, increasing their offensive rating from a paltry 84.7 to a respectable 104.4. Their good defense remained about the same and helped them win the game.

Nigeria continued their cold shooting, hitting only 42.3% of their field goals and also shooting a poor percentage from the free throw line. Nigeria did, however, turn the ball over less and win the offensive rebounding battle, but allowing an opponent to have an effective field goal percentage of 64.2% will rarely translate into a victory.

Argentina 107, Lebanon 72

Getting away from the slow-paced Frenchmen helped the Argentines play more efficiently on offense, but it was their defense that really did the trick for them today holding Lebanon to an offensive rating of 87.6. Of course, Lebanon has not shown they can play good offense yet so maybe I am overstating the way Argentina played defense.

Still, Argentina did hold Lebanon to a worse shooting percentage than the team had on day one of the tournament. Lebanon only had a 43.8 eFG% and 52.9 FT%, but on the bright side, they had a high offensive rebounding percentage. It would have helped them more had they been able to throw the ball into an ocean.

France 65, Serbia & Montenegro 61

France found themselves in another close contest today, but this time they were the ones to come out the victor. It was not a pretty win, though. In fact, it was butt ugly. Not only did these two teams not score much, but the points they managed to score were done so in the most inefficient manner. France's 85.7 offensive rating would have lost them most games, but Serbia & Montenegro did them a huge favor with their own 83.1 offensive rating.

As expected both teams shot poorly from their field looking at their effective field goal percentages, but surprisingly, Serbia & Montenegro shot the ball better than France. France's saving graces were their lower turnovers, high offensive rebounding prowess, and the four extra free throws they made. Tony Parker needs to return soon if France wants to advance far in this tournament.

Group B

Angola 87, Japan 62

Angola continues to be one of the most dominating teams over the first two days. Against Japan, they increased their offensive efficiency (116.4) even revved up their already good defense, holding Japan to an 88.6 offensive rating. This margin was even greater than their actual victory margin.

The scariest part of Angola's offense is their skill behind the 3-point line. Hitting nineteen 3-pointers while taking care of the ball and rebounding your own misses at a high level is a good recipe for a win.

Germany 80, New Zealand 56

Let's just say New Zealand is not long for the FIBA World Championships. Germany helped to embarrass New Zealand by posting a 118.9 offensive rating. New Zealand managed only 91.7 offensive rating. The problem with New Zealand is the problem with most teams who are not efficient offensively; they shoot a low percentage from the field even when you give add in the extra weight of the 3-pointers they make. In each game so far, they have had a 42% floor percentage in both games, meaning they are struggling to score at least one point per possession.

Germany really only accumulated their high offensive rating by hitting sixteen 3-pointers. Since the likelihood of repeating such a feat is low, they will need to work on shooting better from the other parts of the court.

Spain 101, Panama 56

Had Panama not shown up for this game, no one would have faulted them. Had they not bothered to show up for the second half after only scoring twenty-seven points, I'm sure the viewers would have understood. Yet, Panama persevered and were rewarded with an offensive rating of 69.0. Remember, those are the total number of points Panama would have scored had they had 100 possessions. There are probably middle school teams that are more efficient offensively. Another shameful aspect of their performance is they only managed to score at least one point on 34% of their possessions.

Their opponent, Spain, had a bit of a better day with an offensive rating of 127.2, giving Spain the award for most impressive victory of the day. Their high offensive rating came not from superb shooting, but from rebounding their misses well and not killing possessions by committing turnovers.

Group C

Brazil 97, Qatar 66

If your team's offense is struggling, come play the Qatar national team. That's what Brazil did and look at how well it turned out for them. From game one to game two, Brazil increased their offensive rating from 96.6 to 122.7 and kept themselves in contention for moving out of the Group C pool.

There is not much good to say about Qatar and their 85.8 offensive rating. Oh yeah, there is one thing. They made ten 3-pointers.

Turkey 76, Australia 68

Turkey wins another close game and they did it in basically the same way as when they defeated Lithuania by two yesterday. Turkey and Australia has basically the same offensive rating (96.4 to 96.0), but Turkey had eight more offensive possessions in the game. Turkey then translated their extra eight possessions into eight extra points. Besides that, Australia shot much better from the field than did Turkey, but sometimes quantity can be better than quality. This was one of those instances.

Greece 81, Lithuania 76

Having to play a team not named Qatar put a bit of a damper on Greece's offensive rating, but their defense remained constant enough to keep the drop-off in production from leading to a loss. Greece held Qatar to 87.6 points per 100 possessions; Lithuania did not better, scoring only 87.7 points per 100 possessions. However, Greece kept their opponent down in different ways. In the game against Qatar, they forced a lot of turnovers. Against Lithuania, Greece kept them from shooting well from the field. Either way Greece turned in a dominating defensive performance in both games.

Group D

Puerto Rico 88, Senegal 79

Puerto Rico maintained a high offensive rating (113.1) and even decided they would try their hand on defense, although not of the perimeter sort. Part of their improvement on the defensive side has to do with the fact their opponent is Senegal, who will never be confused with an offensive juggernaut even if they wore the US's uniforms for a day.

One interesting note is Senegal shot worse across the board in this game than they did in the previous game, but came out of this loss with a slightly higher offensive rating. Methinks their eleven 3-pointers may be the answer to this riddle.

Italy 80, Slovenia 76

Italy regressed back to the mean as I thought they would and this regression was the result of more turnovers, less offensive rebounds, and not being able to play the Chinese national team again. The Italians were still able to win because Slovenia scored their points in an even less efficient manner and had a lower floor percentage.

USA 121, China 90

The US continue to lead the tournament field in offensive rating, helping themselves to a 138.9 offensive rating against China, who have been torched for the second game in a row. Even though the US increased their offensive rating and floor percentage, they actually shot considerably worse from the field in this game. So how did they do it? Well, the answer is they shot more free throws at a higher percentage and barely had any turnovers for the number of possessions they had during the game.

The US also played much better defense against China, holding them to an offensive rating of 106.8. With the way in which the US plays offense, that is certainly low enough for them to win every game they play.