Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Power Ratings II
New-fangled ultra sophista-ma-cated coolio Power Rankings.
As I wrote before, the previous PR took your winning % and adjusted it by comparing it to the number of times your teammates were favorites or dogs, thus comparing your win% to the average win% of someone who played with your exact schedule of games. So guys who played on better than avg teams win% was adjusted down, and visa versa.
Now, I have gone further and not just looked at if you were favs or dogs, but by how much you were favs or dogs. If your team was average, playing a team with four 55% winners would be a lot easier than one with four 65% winners and you would be expected to win that a little more often. So I compared every game - who your teammates and opponents were, and how much the avg player would be expected to win or lose in that situation and compared it to your wins.
Then, I had to go a little further... Since you influence the outcomes of the games you are in (for the better or the worse), I had to look at your opponents and teammates stats in the games where you weren't a participant. Because some of the reason that it looks like Anthony had an easy schedule is because the guys who play against him lose a lot and that is a subset of their total stats. So I had to see how they did in games he wasn't in to compare.
Anyway, no one really cares about the math, so here are the new Power Rankings...
AdjSOS = Adjusted Strength of Schedule. The measure of how good or bad your average teammates and opponents have been. Positive numbers mean that your schedule has been easier than average, negative numbers mean it has been more difficult than average. Keep in mind, this is already factored into the Power Ranking, I just put it here for reference. So if it seems that you are always on crappy teams, now you know for sure. Tony & Keith have had the worst luck, Mike & Anthony the best. Again, this stat does NOT include your own numbers, so Ant & Mike don't have a favorable schedule because of their own individual win% - it's strictly based on who their teammates and opponents were, but you can probably guess that they have played together (and with Marc) quite a few times.
As I wrote before, the previous PR took your winning % and adjusted it by comparing it to the number of times your teammates were favorites or dogs, thus comparing your win% to the average win% of someone who played with your exact schedule of games. So guys who played on better than avg teams win% was adjusted down, and visa versa.
Now, I have gone further and not just looked at if you were favs or dogs, but by how much you were favs or dogs. If your team was average, playing a team with four 55% winners would be a lot easier than one with four 65% winners and you would be expected to win that a little more often. So I compared every game - who your teammates and opponents were, and how much the avg player would be expected to win or lose in that situation and compared it to your wins.
Then, I had to go a little further... Since you influence the outcomes of the games you are in (for the better or the worse), I had to look at your opponents and teammates stats in the games where you weren't a participant. Because some of the reason that it looks like Anthony had an easy schedule is because the guys who play against him lose a lot and that is a subset of their total stats. So I had to see how they did in games he wasn't in to compare.
Anyway, no one really cares about the math, so here are the new Power Rankings...
AdjSOS = Adjusted Strength of Schedule. The measure of how good or bad your average teammates and opponents have been. Positive numbers mean that your schedule has been easier than average, negative numbers mean it has been more difficult than average. Keep in mind, this is already factored into the Power Ranking, I just put it here for reference. So if it seems that you are always on crappy teams, now you know for sure. Tony & Keith have had the worst luck, Mike & Anthony the best. Again, this stat does NOT include your own numbers, so Ant & Mike don't have a favorable schedule because of their own individual win% - it's strictly based on who their teammates and opponents were, but you can probably guess that they have played together (and with Marc) quite a few times.
Props for the NHL
In a rare non-hoop-related post, gotta give tremendous props to the NHL for their All-Star Game team selection. If you don't already know, for the game, instead of splitting the teams by Conference or USA vs The World, they selected two captains and then HAD A DRAFT! That's right, the two captains chose up sides for the All-Star Game. Pity poor Phil Kessel who was picked last. Yeah, he's still one of the Top 40 hockey players in the world because he's an NHL All-Star, but last is last.By the way, does anyone cool say "props" anymore?
Friday, January 28, 2011
Saving their Energy for Friday Night
22 guys today. Another day of sluggish games. Lots of walking the ball up and buddy vs buddy one-on-one. But that's hoops at ICC. Here are today's stats. Ant & Evan went undefeated. Not saying Evan didn't play well, but he sure was blessed with some great teammates all day, 66% on average is huge. Hard to lose no matter who you are if you have 3 teammates who all individually win 2/3 of the time.
Here are the cumulative stats if you have played at least 15 games... Congrats to Erik on hitting the century mark on games played. I now have over 200 games recorded.
More later.
Here are the cumulative stats if you have played at least 15 games... Congrats to Erik on hitting the century mark on games played. I now have over 200 games recorded.
More later.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Improved Power Ratings Coming
Now, I've made them MUCH smarter. Now I take into account BY HOW MUCH your mates vs opponents were favs or underdogs, because losing as an 80% underdog is much more understandable and tolerable than losing as 5% underdog, and so on. Essentially, I've now created a Strength of Schedule stat to augment your winning % and produce the new Power Ranking.
Just to illustrate the point, if I won half of my games with teammates that all sucked while playing great opponents, that would mean I'm much better and different than if I won half my games playing with great teammates against crappy opponents. So, the new Rankings will function like the old ones except that instead of just adjusting your win% by the number of times your teammates were favs/underdogs, it will be adjusted by HOW MUCH they were favs/underdogs by.
Surprisingly, to add insult to injury, Anthony has had the 2nd easiest schedule of anyone who has played a bunch (and, yes, that DOES NOT include his own win%, just his teammates and opponents). To some extent it's possible that it's at least somewhat affected by the fact that all of Ant, Mike, Marc and Kenny tend to arrive very early which increases the propensity of them being on the same team. So, Strength of Schedule counts against his PR somewhat (good thing he wins so many damn games to compensate).
The Streak is Over
Anthony finally lost today after 35 straight wins.
Everyone seemed sort of tired and half-hearted today, the games ended at 1:35 despite there being 16 in attendance. Today, half were geezers, maybe we all had to leave for the early bird special dinner at 4pm at Country Buffet and that's why it ended early.
Here are today's stats, first time since Dec 8th that no one went undefeated...
Everyone seemed sort of tired and half-hearted today, the games ended at 1:35 despite there being 16 in attendance. Today, half were geezers, maybe we all had to leave for the early bird special dinner at 4pm at Country Buffet and that's why it ended early.
Here are today's stats, first time since Dec 8th that no one went undefeated...
Here is the Mega-Chart, chock full o' fun. Cumulative W/L, %, avg teammates & opponents, Streaks and GWS... sorted by alpha ... only for players with at least 10 games played. Remember, you can click on any chart to zoom...
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
2005 Noon Hoops All-Star Game
In case you missed Jack's link - courtesy of Leeper Enterprises...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUH-DSoB0e0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUH-DSoB0e0
1977 NBA All-Star Game
1. They all had crazy skinny little chicken arms.
2. All the guards dribbled almost exclusively with their right (dominant) hand. You so much take it for granted that guards today use either hand - when did that happen?
I could have scored 12 pts in that game with those qualifications.
Charity Begins on the Court
Rob, Erik and I were obviously feeling very charitable today as we gave everyone else a bunch of wins and went 0-7 as teammates all day.
Speaking of winning, Blake did a bunch of it today making 3s and snatching rebounds from the stratosphere with his height, reach & leaping ability. It's like he had web-slingers on his wrists and could snatch the ball from anywhere.
We were relatively geezer-free today (over 40 years old). With only 3 of us. Just last Friday there were 10 geezers - maybe we thought it was Bingo Night. Geezers usually account for 28% of the players. There are many budding geezers in the wings though, as several regular players are 38 or 39.
Here are Monday's numbers...
It's interesting to note that though Rob, Erik and I played on the same teams all day, Rob's avg teammates (avg 41.8 win%) were worse than my avg teammates (avg 45.7). That's because my stats include Rob as a teammate (but not myself) and Rob unfortunately had me as a teammate (but not himself). So, in other words, my avg teammates were better because I had Rob as a teammate and his were worse because he had me. Same theory goes for Erik & me and Rob & Erik. The stat is for how strong your avg teammates were not including yourself.
Here are the cumulative numbers - with everyone who has played at all (that's 75 folks).
Speaking of winning, Blake did a bunch of it today making 3s and snatching rebounds from the stratosphere with his height, reach & leaping ability. It's like he had web-slingers on his wrists and could snatch the ball from anywhere.
We were relatively geezer-free today (over 40 years old). With only 3 of us. Just last Friday there were 10 geezers - maybe we thought it was Bingo Night. Geezers usually account for 28% of the players. There are many budding geezers in the wings though, as several regular players are 38 or 39.
Here are Monday's numbers...
It's interesting to note that though Rob, Erik and I played on the same teams all day, Rob's avg teammates (avg 41.8 win%) were worse than my avg teammates (avg 45.7). That's because my stats include Rob as a teammate (but not myself) and Rob unfortunately had me as a teammate (but not himself). So, in other words, my avg teammates were better because I had Rob as a teammate and his were worse because he had me. Same theory goes for Erik & me and Rob & Erik. The stat is for how strong your avg teammates were not including yourself.
Here are the cumulative numbers - with everyone who has played at all (that's 75 folks).
Monday, January 24, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Power Ratings I
If you just want to see the ratings, jump to the bottom of this post...
So the premise of the winning % is that you can compare them in the long run if it's random and everyone plays with and against everyone else an equal number of times.
They don't.
Buddies like to play together, guys don't play on bad teams, good teams defer their turn to stick together... And most importantly, I don't have NEARLY enough data yet for there to be true randomness and fairness in the games. Even if everyone played randomly, there are just too many players for things to work out well statistically until hundreds of games have been played for everyone.
But, like the BCS and RPI ratings, I can try to figure out how well you are performing based on how good the guys you get to play with AND against have been.
For example, if I always played with Ant, Marc & Mike, I'd probably win 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean that independently my winning % should be 100. On the other hand if I always played with the worst three players AGAINST Ant, Marc & Mike, I'd never win. That doesn't mean much about me either. But, if I factor in who I've played with & against, I should be able to predict better how often I SHOULD have won and then compare that to how often I ACTUALLY won.
So, in analyzing this, the most important number to know is that the Favorite team wins 80% of the time. That's the average of ALL Favs vs ALL Underdogs for all the games I've kept record of (a couple of years ago and now). So if somehow, you were ALWAYS on the favorite team (your teammates winning % was greater than your opponents winning %) you should win 80% of your games if you are an average player.
Here's the first chart... It shows players with more than 20 games.
Here's how to read it. Alvin is 24-1 when his teammates win % are better than his opponents win % (favorite). And he is 9-20 when his teammates are worse than his opponents. And he's 33-21 Overall. So, he wins 96% when he's the favorite (average is 80%) and 31% as an underdog (average is 20%) - so you can see if much better than average. For the purpose of this chart, whether your team is a Fav or Underdog only includes your teammates and opponents %, NOT your own - because I'm analyzing how you fare compared to the average.
Some big things stick out here that you'll see on the power rating chart further down. Tony has had the misfortune of only playing on teams that were the favorite (not including him) 24.4% of the time. So, in 3/4 of the games Tony has played, his opponents were stronger players than his teammates. That's part of the reason why he is only 15-26. Same for Keith. Keith is only 9-24, BUT he has only had teammates stronger than opponents 27.3% of the time.
On the other end of the scale is Mike Dahm. Incredibly, in ALL 21 games he has played, his teammates were stronger than his opponents (and remember, I don't include his own rating in that, just the avg of his teammates win% VS. his opponents win%). That's right, every single game Mike has played, his teammates were stronger players than his opponents. So, if he were exactly average, he should have won 80% of the time. Of course, he's better than average and has actually won 95% of the time.
Here's the chart of just games played when your teammates were stronger than your opponents (favorites)... Players with at least 15 total games played.
So Marc and Kenny have never lost with teammates that were favored. Think about it, if you have 3 guys better on average than the other teams guys and then throw Marc on the pile, their gonna probably always win.
Here's the same chart for just the games when your teammates were underdogs to the other team... Players with at least 15 total games played.
As you can see, Ant is the only player who has a winning record with teammates weaker than the opponent. Marc is the only other player who has managed 50%. The average is 20%. A few guys have not yet won at all as underdogs.
Finally, here are the POWER RATINGS!
The columns after your name are: Games played, % of games your teammates were the favorites, number of games you should have won (80% of the times your were favored, 20% of the times you were underdogs), games you ACTUALLY won, ACTUAL Win % and Power Rating - your actual wins divided by the number you should have won... Let the arguing begin... Player with 20 games or more played.
Again, I'd like to reiterate this is all VERY EARLY (like the BCS after 3 games). And all in fun. But you can see that the better players are at the top, and you can see how much it affects everyone who they have played with and against.
So the premise of the winning % is that you can compare them in the long run if it's random and everyone plays with and against everyone else an equal number of times.
They don't.
Buddies like to play together, guys don't play on bad teams, good teams defer their turn to stick together... And most importantly, I don't have NEARLY enough data yet for there to be true randomness and fairness in the games. Even if everyone played randomly, there are just too many players for things to work out well statistically until hundreds of games have been played for everyone.
But, like the BCS and RPI ratings, I can try to figure out how well you are performing based on how good the guys you get to play with AND against have been.
For example, if I always played with Ant, Marc & Mike, I'd probably win 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean that independently my winning % should be 100. On the other hand if I always played with the worst three players AGAINST Ant, Marc & Mike, I'd never win. That doesn't mean much about me either. But, if I factor in who I've played with & against, I should be able to predict better how often I SHOULD have won and then compare that to how often I ACTUALLY won.
So, in analyzing this, the most important number to know is that the Favorite team wins 80% of the time. That's the average of ALL Favs vs ALL Underdogs for all the games I've kept record of (a couple of years ago and now). So if somehow, you were ALWAYS on the favorite team (your teammates winning % was greater than your opponents winning %) you should win 80% of your games if you are an average player.
Here's the first chart... It shows players with more than 20 games.
Here's how to read it. Alvin is 24-1 when his teammates win % are better than his opponents win % (favorite). And he is 9-20 when his teammates are worse than his opponents. And he's 33-21 Overall. So, he wins 96% when he's the favorite (average is 80%) and 31% as an underdog (average is 20%) - so you can see if much better than average. For the purpose of this chart, whether your team is a Fav or Underdog only includes your teammates and opponents %, NOT your own - because I'm analyzing how you fare compared to the average.
Some big things stick out here that you'll see on the power rating chart further down. Tony has had the misfortune of only playing on teams that were the favorite (not including him) 24.4% of the time. So, in 3/4 of the games Tony has played, his opponents were stronger players than his teammates. That's part of the reason why he is only 15-26. Same for Keith. Keith is only 9-24, BUT he has only had teammates stronger than opponents 27.3% of the time.
On the other end of the scale is Mike Dahm. Incredibly, in ALL 21 games he has played, his teammates were stronger than his opponents (and remember, I don't include his own rating in that, just the avg of his teammates win% VS. his opponents win%). That's right, every single game Mike has played, his teammates were stronger players than his opponents. So, if he were exactly average, he should have won 80% of the time. Of course, he's better than average and has actually won 95% of the time.
Here's the chart of just games played when your teammates were stronger than your opponents (favorites)... Players with at least 15 total games played.
So Marc and Kenny have never lost with teammates that were favored. Think about it, if you have 3 guys better on average than the other teams guys and then throw Marc on the pile, their gonna probably always win.
Here's the same chart for just the games when your teammates were underdogs to the other team... Players with at least 15 total games played.
As you can see, Ant is the only player who has a winning record with teammates weaker than the opponent. Marc is the only other player who has managed 50%. The average is 20%. A few guys have not yet won at all as underdogs.
Finally, here are the POWER RATINGS!
The columns after your name are: Games played, % of games your teammates were the favorites, number of games you should have won (80% of the times your were favored, 20% of the times you were underdogs), games you ACTUALLY won, ACTUAL Win % and Power Rating - your actual wins divided by the number you should have won... Let the arguing begin... Player with 20 games or more played.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Not a nice "Welcome Back" for Rob
Rob came back to hoops today with his mended broken hand. Unfortunately, his keys disappeared, so if you find a set, please let him or me know (I can forward an email to him). Keys aside, it was nice to see him back playing.
Now to today's games... Here's a picture of the ocean....
You won't find my ball in there, because I couldn't throw the ball in the ocean (from the beach) to save my life today. At least I have my striking good looks.
Here are today's wins & losses...
Here are the cumulative stats for guys with at least 15 games played...
Now to today's games... Here's a picture of the ocean....
You won't find my ball in there, because I couldn't throw the ball in the ocean (from the beach) to save my life today. At least I have my striking good looks.
Here are today's wins & losses...
Not surprisingly, the players who won a lot had very high teammate winning % and the guys who didn't had the opposite. As a matter of fact, if you look at the average opponent team's win %, it pretty much lines up exactly with who won and who lost. Remember, a team of 200% is exactly average because it has 4 guys who have historically won 50% of their games.
Saw several more incidents of guys not wanting to play with bad teams and players on great teams deferring their turn to play together more today. Obviously that fucks the data some, so shortly I'm gonna have to start doing Power Ratings like I used. This is like the BCS/RPI ratings where I check your teammates & opponents historically, and calculate what % of games you SHOULD win. Then, I compare that to your actual winning % and come up with a power ranking. If you care about the math, I'll explain it when I post it.
A quick "for instance"... poor Trent today went 1-6. Bad, yes. BUT, his average teammate was only 46.8%. So, IF he were an exactly average player, his team would be 46.8*3+50 for a total of 190.4%. Worse for him, the average team he faced today was 234%. Zoiks. That means ON AVERAGE today, his teams were -44% underdogs. I know historically that teams that are -44% dogs lose 84% of the time. So, while he was 1-6 (14%), in reality, it would only be expected if he were average to win only 16% of his games today. Thus, the 1-6 was not a bad performance at all. Totally what would be expected for those teammates and opponents.
Here are the cumulative stats for guys with at least 15 games played...
Thursday, January 20, 2011
M & M
Mike & Mark played together all day and won all eight of their games. In total, there were 17 players and 12 games. Alvin finally notched his first GWS. Kenny went down with an ankle, hope he heals quickly. Here are today's Ws & Ls...
Colin's average teammate today (Marc, Mike, Alvin) had a historic winning % of almost 80%. That's unheard of. There was no way they were going to lose. In fact three teammates of 80% and an average player of 50% would total to 290%. That would be 90% greater than a perfectly average team of 200% (4 x 50%). Teams whose winning % total more than 60% greater than their opponents have never lost - they are 45-0.
Kenny was on the other end today with teammates that average 40%. An average player playing with three 40% winning teammates would total 30% less than a perfectly average team (50+40+40+40 = 170), (170 is 30 less than 200). Teams that are -30 underdogs lose more than 80% of the time. No surprise he went 0-3 before his Anklestorm.
Here are the cumulative stats for players with at least 20 games....
Colin's average teammate today (Marc, Mike, Alvin) had a historic winning % of almost 80%. That's unheard of. There was no way they were going to lose. In fact three teammates of 80% and an average player of 50% would total to 290%. That would be 90% greater than a perfectly average team of 200% (4 x 50%). Teams whose winning % total more than 60% greater than their opponents have never lost - they are 45-0.
Kenny was on the other end today with teammates that average 40%. An average player playing with three 40% winning teammates would total 30% less than a perfectly average team (50+40+40+40 = 170), (170 is 30 less than 200). Teams that are -30 underdogs lose more than 80% of the time. No surprise he went 0-3 before his Anklestorm.
Here are the cumulative stats for players with at least 20 games....
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
And then there was one...
Erik missed today, leaving me as the only guy who has played every time since I started keeping track again. Apparently I'm trying to make up in quantity what I lack in quality.
Stats coming later, but here's a preview: Mike, Marc, Mike, Marc, Marc, Mike, Mike, Marc, etc...
Two of a Kind
Here are the wins and losses for all two-player teammate combos - only those tandems that have played at least 5 games together...
The combos of Ant/Zach and Ant/Joey are both 18-0. The Keith/Steve combo has the unfortunate distinction of having played the most together without a win (8 games). Steve & I have played the most games together (22) and have won a whopping 4 of them. Since Erik and are the only ones that have played every day, it's amazing that we haven't played the most games together.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Geezers Rule! - But Not Really
In total, the 40+ crowd is 163-207 for a 44% winning percentage.
It's interesting to note back in 2003-4 I started playing on Tues & Thur (geezer hoops). While I was there, over the course of 500+ games, I won 59% of my games. My historical winning % at Open Gym on M/W/F is only 45%. You can tell how different the two crowds are. People like BK & Nate have historical winning % of around 60%, so that's about how my skills translated to Geezer hoops. Zoiks, that doesn't say a lot for the old guys.
While I'm on the subject, a couple of weeks ago, I posted who came to hoops back in 2008. To go back even further, here's who came to hoops in 2006...
Can you tell I like numbers?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Game Winning Shots
Just want to state the obvious here, but you can't have made the GWS if your team didn't win... Keep in mind that this doesn't represent all your games, just the ones in which I was able to record who made the GWS.
We all know that Alvin loves to defer. He thinks pass first (and second and third and fourth). You can see that in the fact that though he wins a lot and thus is a very effective teammate to have, he has played the most games (37) and WON the most games (20) without hitting a single GWS.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Anthony ties the '71-'72 Lakers - 33 Wins in a row
Put him up there with West, Goodrich and Chamberlin. Anthony has won an absurd 33 games in a row. Here are the streaks, the longest winning & losing streaks you've had and the current streak you are on...
So it got me thinking, who has been lucky enough to be on his team and unlucky enough to oppose him. Here is a chart of everyone who has played with or against Ant. These are only the games where Ant was on the court. The first column is if he was your opponent, the next was the number of times he was your teammate. The last is the percent of time he was on the court that he was your opponent. So, Keith has had the most misfortune in that he has faced Ant 9 times and never had him as a teammate. On the other side of the spectrum. Joey has benefited a lot in that he has had him as a teammate 75% of the time that he was on the court with Ant. I've benefited a lot also. Erik has been on the court 23 times with Ant and had to face him in 16 of those games. Here's the chart...
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Friday's Stats - Barely Had Two Courts
Only had two courts for a little while on Friday as there were exactly 16 guys. It's hilarious how the guy who leaves when there are 16 is the most hated guy in Issaquah for the next 20 minutes. What pressure.
Anyway, here are the day's stats...
Bob was 4-0 and had the good fortune of playing all his games with teammates that AVERAGE winning 69% of the time. That's all 3 teammates averaging that - essentially, if you read my post on favorites and underdogs, making his team virtually unbeatable. In fact, the team had combined historical winning % of 273% which was more than 100% greater than some of the teams they played. One of the biggest differences in the time I've been keeping stats.
On the other end of the spectrum, Tony had the misfortune of playing with teammates that average 43% winning. An average player with 3 teammates who win only 43% of the time would form a team with a summed win % of 179% (43+43+43+50). A team with a 179% winning % loses almost 70% of the time. Tony managed to win 1 out of his 4 games.
Here are everyone's cumulative stats... I did it alphabetically today so everyone could find themselves more easily as the list is getting pretty long.
GWS and streak info next...
Anyway, here are the day's stats...
Bob was 4-0 and had the good fortune of playing all his games with teammates that AVERAGE winning 69% of the time. That's all 3 teammates averaging that - essentially, if you read my post on favorites and underdogs, making his team virtually unbeatable. In fact, the team had combined historical winning % of 273% which was more than 100% greater than some of the teams they played. One of the biggest differences in the time I've been keeping stats.
On the other end of the spectrum, Tony had the misfortune of playing with teammates that average 43% winning. An average player with 3 teammates who win only 43% of the time would form a team with a summed win % of 179% (43+43+43+50). A team with a 179% winning % loses almost 70% of the time. Tony managed to win 1 out of his 4 games.
Here are everyone's cumulative stats... I did it alphabetically today so everyone could find themselves more easily as the list is getting pretty long.
GWS and streak info next...
Friday, January 14, 2011
Gorilla Glue Vs The Glove
Anyway, the reason I had to wear them was because my hands become so dried and cracked that the skin splits apart and bleeds in dozens of places (no matter what I try to do to help them). So every time I played ball, they re-opened and bled all over. The gloves helped and eventually they heeled, but every winter they threaten to get bad all over again.
Yesterday, my wife (the glorious Wendy) read in the USA Today about using Super Glue to seal paper cuts and other little splits on your hands. I had thought about this before, but hey, with the USA Today's endorsement, I'm going for it. So this morning, I used Gorilla Brand Super Glue on my split/cut finger. Lo and behold, it worked like a charm. It formed a hard protective shell and my skin didn't split any more. Made the ball a little harder to hold on to (slippery), but no big deal.
So, now you know, if I come to hoops, and my fingers all are stuck together or look webbed, it's because I spilled the glue - because now I'm doing this all winter.
Stats coming later along with some other analysis and charts.
Later.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Show Up
Here's the attendance so far...
Only 10 different days and 67 different players. Crazy. Only 12 of the 67 have come at least half the time. Some things stick out, BK never comes on Wed, Cy hasn't come on Monday, etc. Tons of guys have only come once.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Favorites & Underdogs
So if you've read my posts, you know that my basic premise is that in the LONG RUN (I mean hundreds of games), everyone's rank in their winning % will be generally representative of where their skill/talent ranks.
You'd need hundreds of games for everyone to play with and against everyone else many times for it to be highly reliable. Even so, the data is also corrupted by certain guys who only want to play with their friends and defer games they could play when the team is bad. The theory is that to compare everyone, you'd have to be playing randomly all the time. But, that being said, there is a LOT of mixture and randomness and you can tell by looking at the results that IN GENERAL the guys you think are better tend to be at the top of the charts and visa versa. This is even more true on the stats I did two years ago that you can look up in the old posts because I had tons more data.
Now then, 50% winning percentage is (of course) average. But just how good is someone who wins 60% of the time in the long run or 70%?
Here's some proof. Since there are 4 guys on a team, if you add up there historic win %, then a perfectly average team would be 200% (4 X 50%). So, if you had three average guys and one guy who wins 60% of the time, your team would total 210%. If you have all 4 of your guys with 60% winning %, then your team would total 240%.
So, how often does a team that adds to 240% beat a team that adds to 200%? Here's the chart... this data is a compilation of last time I did the blog and the current stats...
So, in other words, if one team adds up to 40% more than the other team, they win 87% of the time.
Here's an example... BK wins 54% of the time. Four BKs would sum to 216%. I win 43% of the time. Four Zachs add to 172%. So four BKs are 44% greater than four Zachs. The chart says that a favorite of 44% wins 87% of the time. In other words, in this case, the Zachs are always likely to lose.
The record for the highest sum of win % ever (in other words, the best statistical team) just happened on Monday. Anthony, Kenny, Marc & Mike added up to 284%. Needless to say, they won their games.
The biggest upset of the last month (statistically speaking) was Angie, Erik, Josh & Marvena (190%) beating Anthony, Dave, Heath & Ray (242%) so the diff was 52%. If you look at the chart, 52% underdogs only win 13% of the time.
In total, using this method where I add the four winning % together, in all the games I recorded two years ago and now since I restarted, the favorites win 69% of the time.
You'd need hundreds of games for everyone to play with and against everyone else many times for it to be highly reliable. Even so, the data is also corrupted by certain guys who only want to play with their friends and defer games they could play when the team is bad. The theory is that to compare everyone, you'd have to be playing randomly all the time. But, that being said, there is a LOT of mixture and randomness and you can tell by looking at the results that IN GENERAL the guys you think are better tend to be at the top of the charts and visa versa. This is even more true on the stats I did two years ago that you can look up in the old posts because I had tons more data.
Now then, 50% winning percentage is (of course) average. But just how good is someone who wins 60% of the time in the long run or 70%?
Here's some proof. Since there are 4 guys on a team, if you add up there historic win %, then a perfectly average team would be 200% (4 X 50%). So, if you had three average guys and one guy who wins 60% of the time, your team would total 210%. If you have all 4 of your guys with 60% winning %, then your team would total 240%.
So, how often does a team that adds to 240% beat a team that adds to 200%? Here's the chart... this data is a compilation of last time I did the blog and the current stats...
Here's an example... BK wins 54% of the time. Four BKs would sum to 216%. I win 43% of the time. Four Zachs add to 172%. So four BKs are 44% greater than four Zachs. The chart says that a favorite of 44% wins 87% of the time. In other words, in this case, the Zachs are always likely to lose.
The record for the highest sum of win % ever (in other words, the best statistical team) just happened on Monday. Anthony, Kenny, Marc & Mike added up to 284%. Needless to say, they won their games.
The biggest upset of the last month (statistically speaking) was Angie, Erik, Josh & Marvena (190%) beating Anthony, Dave, Heath & Ray (242%) so the diff was 52%. If you look at the chart, 52% underdogs only win 13% of the time.
In total, using this method where I add the four winning % together, in all the games I recorded two years ago and now since I restarted, the favorites win 69% of the time.
Missing Games
Missed the stats on several games today while I was playing. Now that more guys read the blog, more are concerned that I got their results. Well, actually, HALF are concerned that I got their results - the half that won. The ones who lost are happy my attention was elsewhere.
Keep in mind that what I miss is totally random, so your winning % during those games will be roughly equal to the games I record in the long run. But, if you do want to help make sure I get the results, you simply need to write down the 4 guys on each team and let me know which team won. I generally have a notepad and a pen you can use around my bag...
Anywho, here are today's results that I got...
And here are the cumulative tots for those who have played at least 15 games...
Keep in mind that what I miss is totally random, so your winning % during those games will be roughly equal to the games I record in the long run. But, if you do want to help make sure I get the results, you simply need to write down the 4 guys on each team and let me know which team won. I generally have a notepad and a pen you can use around my bag...
Anywho, here are today's results that I got...
And here are the cumulative tots for those who have played at least 15 games...
Today's Box Score
I missed the first game today, so while I sat I kept the box score (shooting only).
Erik was clearly the MVP.
You'll see that Team 2 won not just because of Erik's shooting, but they also got WAY more shots off due to Brad's rebounding. I didn't keep rebounding stats, so you'll just have to trust me. He missed some put-backs, but did a great impression of Moses Malone and kept at it until he got the right result.
Here it is... (remember you can click on it to make it larger)
Will be posting today's Wins and Losses a little later.
Erik was clearly the MVP.
You'll see that Team 2 won not just because of Erik's shooting, but they also got WAY more shots off due to Brad's rebounding. I didn't keep rebounding stats, so you'll just have to trust me. He missed some put-backs, but did a great impression of Moses Malone and kept at it until he got the right result.
Here it is... (remember you can click on it to make it larger)
Will be posting today's Wins and Losses a little later.
The new NBA Slaughter Rule
For those of you who missed it, there was an emergency meeting of the NBA Board of Govrenors last night to install a new Slaughter Rule. The reason was the LAL beatdown of Cleveland. The score midway through the third quarter was 70-27. That's not a typo, 70-27 midway thru the 3rd. The end of the period saw the score balloon to 92-41. Final was 112-57. Cleveland scored exactly 1 more point than HALF of LAL and lost by 55 points.
The new Slaughter Rule reads (I'm quoting here): "When a game gets completely out of hand and one team is completely ripping the ass off of another, erupting in a volcanic beatdown, or using the other team's scrotums as fan give-a-ways, the game shall be stopped and the losing team contracted. This rule will also be invoked every time any team plays Cleveland, Sacramento or New Jersey"
The new Slaughter Rule reads (I'm quoting here): "When a game gets completely out of hand and one team is completely ripping the ass off of another, erupting in a volcanic beatdown, or using the other team's scrotums as fan give-a-ways, the game shall be stopped and the losing team contracted. This rule will also be invoked every time any team plays Cleveland, Sacramento or New Jersey"
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
A Statue of Trent
Needed some more pics on the blog, so started snapping some for future use. Below is a pic of a statue of Trent. I tried taking a picture of the actual Trent, but apparently he is too fast for a camera to capture him. Thus, I had to wait for a statue to be built and then I snapped this pic...
It's very lifelike.
It's very lifelike.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Monday - More New Faces
Extreme talent and a few new faces today.
I'll have more analysis later - teammate percentages, favorites vs underdogs, attendance, GWS, etc...
But for now, I wanted to get the Wins and Losses out, so here they are for today...
The average teammate column is the average cumulative winning % of all your teammates that you played with today. If you look at the bottom, the average of everyone for today was 56.7%. That's huge. In fact, I'll have to check back but that may be the highest average winning % of all the guys in attendance for any one day. Keep in mind that for guys with less than 20 games played, I simply count them as 50%. I'll write more about team winning percentages and how likely it is that four 60% winners would beat four 50% winners in a later post. If you look at the names on today's list, you'll see lots of guys who win a lot.
Here are the cumulative stats...
By the way, Kenny, Erik and I all have 33 wins to lead the stats. Of course, Kenny has only 15 losses to my 40, thus making him a total prickwad.
I'll have more analysis later - teammate percentages, favorites vs underdogs, attendance, GWS, etc...
But for now, I wanted to get the Wins and Losses out, so here they are for today...
Here are the cumulative stats...
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Friday is anomaly day
21 guys showed up to hoops on Friday, although there were only 8 at 12:05 - slow for a Friday. I've recorded stats for 8 sessions since I restarted the blog and we are already at 60 different players. Unfortunately today was the first time I didn't get one of the player's names. He came late and I didn't play in any of his games, thus the "unk" on the player list.
Here are today's stats...
The next chart is the cumulative stats, but ONLY for players with at least 15 games played since I began tracking things again in December...
Here are today's stats...
The next chart is the cumulative stats, but ONLY for players with at least 15 games played since I began tracking things again in December...
As a matter of fact, if you add up just the players who have played at least 20 games, they are 248-199. A stat that seems to intimate that maybe (as a group/on average) the guys who are more talented play more often - and maybe the less talented guys (on average) are only occasional players. There are clearly exceptions: for example I play all the time and am NOT one of the more talented guys and Brandon plays only spottily and is very talented.
Lastly, here is the Game Winning Shot chart. Talk about anomalies, before today, I had gone 7 sessions without a single GWS - today I hit 4.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Hoops FolkLore: Why Erik is spelled with a "k"
This week's craziest stat is not entirely scientific, just observed over a long time. For some strange reason, Erik has more kicks of the ball while playing defense than everyone else in the gym combined.
Maybe he is some sort of Hockey goalie savant, (notice I didn't say "Soccer" because we live in America) or maybe his brain is wired in such a way so that he uses his legs and feet when most human beings would be reaching with their arms and legs. Whatever the reason, if you pay attention for a few sessions, you'll find it to be true. I've discussed it with him and he is definitely aware.
So, it makes sense now that you know that "Erik" is really an acronym that stands for Every Reflex Is Kick.
Maybe he is some sort of Hockey goalie savant, (notice I didn't say "Soccer" because we live in America) or maybe his brain is wired in such a way so that he uses his legs and feet when most human beings would be reaching with their arms and legs. Whatever the reason, if you pay attention for a few sessions, you'll find it to be true. I've discussed it with him and he is definitely aware.
So, it makes sense now that you know that "Erik" is really an acronym that stands for Every Reflex Is Kick.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Wednesday's Stats
Back to recording wins and losses after a couple day hiatus. Missed a couple of games today on the other court while I was playing, but recorded the results on 11 games.
Here are the wins & losses...
Here's the cumulative stats with the addition of your own personal longest winning and losing streaks...
Obviously I don't post every chart every day, but I thought I'd mention that Anthony had 6 GWS today.
Here are the wins & losses...
Here's the cumulative stats with the addition of your own personal longest winning and losing streaks...
Obviously I don't post every chart every day, but I thought I'd mention that Anthony had 6 GWS today.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
NBA Rules - Anthony was right
There is no specific rule in the NBA rulebook at NBA.com dealing with a player who goes out-of-bounds, was the last guy to touch the ball, then comes back in bounds and is the next guy to touch it. Anthony argued with a few guys today insisting this was legal. While there is no rule pertaining to it exactly, there is a section on NBA.com called "Ask Bernie". Bernie Fryer is in charge of all the refs for the NBA and he interprets the rules. The following is a Q & A from the "Ask Bernie" section at NBA.com
Ans from Bernie -- This is a legal play, as long as he re-establishes himself inbounds with both feet legally touching the playing court before touching the ball. If he does not reestablish himself inbounds, then he may not legally be the first one to touch the ball.
As long as I'm on rules, here's the one I hate most at the community center... Guys who catch their own airballs. That's traveling in the NBA. And everywhere I've ever seen, but at the ICC, we play that if it was a legitimate shot, you can grab your own airball even if it doesn't touch anyone or anything else. I am NOT an expert on High School ball, apparently some guys say this is how it is in High School -- but who wouldn't want to play NBA rules? Besides, when I was in High School, we still had to get the ladder out and get the ball out of the peach basket when someone scored. Anyway, for those of you in doubt, here's another excerpt from "Ask Bernie"...
Ques -- If player A1 shot an airball and the same player A1 retrieves the ball without other players touching the ball first, is this considered a traveling violation? The argument is that even though the player shot an airball, it is still a shot attempt. -Bobby
Ans From Bernie --Yes, this scenario would be a traveling violation. The ball must hit the backboard and/or rim, or an opponent before the shooting player can be the first to touch the missed shot. If the shooting player is the first to touch an airball, then it is a traveling violation.
Here's the last one we always argue about, kicking ... right from the rulebook (notice the word "intentional" in the rule)... By the way, punching the ball is the same violation as kicking.
Section V-Strike the Ball
a. A player shall not kick the ball or strike it with the fist.
b. Kicking the ball or striking it with any part of the leg is a violation when it is an intentional act. The ball accidentally striking the foot, the leg or fist is not a violation.
a. A player shall not kick the ball or strike it with the fist.
b. Kicking the ball or striking it with any part of the leg is a violation when it is an intentional act. The ball accidentally striking the foot, the leg or fist is not a violation.
I'm sure we'll argue about it next time, but it was interesting to look it up.
And Baby Makes Nine - Urchin Alert!
Lots of stuff happening today. I was back to keeping stats which I'll post later tonight or tomorrow.
Josh's kid was there today and she wasn't very cooperative when her dad was playing. In fact, one of our games ended in a tie so that he could go dad-up. In the end there was some crying and some purple dinosaur videos and we were able to finish up the last game to 31.
I actually picked her up and carried her to Josh which made me realize that that was probably the first time in at least 10 years that I picked a kid up. The bummer was that when I brought her over half court, Alvin stole her from me and shot her from 35 feet.
Stats coming later...
Josh's kid was there today and she wasn't very cooperative when her dad was playing. In fact, one of our games ended in a tie so that he could go dad-up. In the end there was some crying and some purple dinosaur videos and we were able to finish up the last game to 31.
I actually picked her up and carried her to Josh which made me realize that that was probably the first time in at least 10 years that I picked a kid up. The bummer was that when I brought her over half court, Alvin stole her from me and shot her from 35 feet.
Stats coming later...
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
New Year's Resolution Dudes
And that was 26 players without the likes of BK, Big Rob, Alvin, Cy or Dave. Crazy.
Good players were everywhere you looked today as well as at least 3 guys named Jeff, 4 named Mike and 2 named Tony.
We played until 2:30.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)