|
Advanced Statistics Sites
Forgive me if this has been adressed in another thread, I looked but didn't come up with anything.
Since I stumbled upon the wonderful world of SE a couple months ago I feel like I have learned a lot of new ideas/ways of looking at things than I did before. A big influence on that has been learning/seeing newer less "mainstream" statistics for Baseball/Football/Basketball. I felt a little lost at first but I think I'm picking it up pretty well, and learn enjoying the new ways of looking at things etc. So I was wondering if you guys could list your best sites/resources for statistics/analysis and all that. I know I would be happy to find new sites to waste my day on, and I'm sure some others would to. Blogs are cool to if you think they fit (ie MT2R's CFB blog) Thanks in advance. |
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
www.footballoutsiders.com - Football analysis
www.baseballprospectus.com - Baseball statistics off the top of my head |
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
www.basketballprospectus.com
combo of kenpom.com and big10wonk have moved on to work together under the guidance of the geniuses at www.baseballprospectus.com |
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
this seems like the right place to ask, what's the website that has all the trajectories and whatnot of mlb home runs?
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
Anyone know a good NHL one?
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone know a good NHL one? [/ QUOTE ] http://www.hockeyanalytics.com http://www.hockeyanalysis.com - this one's simply okay, but the above one is doing excellent work - alas not for this season. |
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Anyone know a good NHL one? [/ QUOTE ] www.fiveminutemajor.com [/ QUOTE ] Bob Probert would've kicked this wimp's ass... |
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
JoA,
I have heard lots of bad things about Wages of Wins, someone posted a really good critique of it at 82games, I assume you think it has gotten, better. Isn't his method pretty flawed since it looks at VOAP instead of VORP? |
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
[ QUOTE ]
JoA, I have heard lots of bad things about Wages of Wins, someone posted a really good critique of it at 82games, I assume you think it has gotten, better. Isn't his method pretty flawed since it looks at VOAP instead of VORP? [/ QUOTE ] I'm just putting it out there. I don't think looking at average instead of replacement player is too bad, I mean, tons of stats do that. I'd like to see the critique though. |
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
The best resource for baseball analysis is The Book Blog.
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
JoA, Pudge,
I too have read some critiques of Wages of Wins. In fact, a couple months back one of the big stat dudes from APBR metrics (or associated with it or whatever) was presenting a paper somewhere in Boston slamming it. Basically saying it isn't sound science. I know one of the critiques is there are no position adjustments. I've also read about a "fudge" factor, but I forget what it is exactly. All that being said, I still read his stuff and a lot of it is pretty interesting. It's also interesting that he's been pretty accurate with his win-loss predictions in the NBA. Plus he loves Pierce so he's obviously not all bad. |
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
Several major problems with WoW (my critiques, though APBR probably has more. There was a huge knockdown dragout between Berri, Hollinger and the dude who works for the Sonics about 18 months ago):
1) The "fudge" factor by which stuff is scaled towards a teams actual results. Inherent is the assumption that everything that goes into winning is captured by the numbers input into the formula. Though this assumption makes some sense in Baseball were ABs can fairly be described as independent random events, there is too much context in a basketball game for anyone who knows anything about basketball as played rather than on paper to feel comfortable making that assumption about anything but FTs (and even then, ignoring fatigue and game situation factors is a leap which to this point is unsupported) 2) MASSIVE overvaluation of rebounding from an individual standpoint. Berri notes that rebounding is important to team success. The problem comes from reducing the team metrics to individual player values - the player who actually gets the defensive rebound gets sole credit for gaining possession when presumably the man defending the shooter and the other players boxing out probably had something to do with it. This leads to absurd results such as bangers who never shoot anything but dunks being overvalued pretty significantly. 3) Since the individual stats are tied to team performance (and team performance is subject to many factors not especially well measured by convention stats) WoW has virtually no predictive power (a point which Berri at times agrees, yet at other times chooses to conveniently ignore.) And the overriding criticism is that Berri demonstrates no understanding of how a basketball game occurs in real life rather than on paper. Again, the difference between baseball (which translate exceptionally well to statistics, with the possible exception of defense, and those metrics are getting better all the time) and basketball is fairly striking. But DB has no cognizance of this, or at least has not demonstrated this. |
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
basketballprospectus.com looks promising and also obviously has good pedigree.
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
[ QUOTE ]
Several major problems with WoW (my critiques, though APBR probably has more. There was a huge knockdown dragout between Berri, Hollinger and the dude who works for the Sonics about 18 months ago): [/ QUOTE ] Google being my friend, I give you Dan Rosenbaum (aforementioned Sonics guy) [ QUOTE ] But all of this still begs bigger questions. (i) Does an analysis of how team statistics predict wins (which in essence is what Wins Produced does) tell us much about how to use statistics to apportion credit among players on a team? One of the implications of this approach is that there is no room for credit to be given for shot creation. The authors do not arrive at this assumption empirically; it is simply something they assume given their approach. In my opinion, understanding the value of creating shots is perhaps the most important aspect of analyzing basketball statistics. If, like in baseball, players each got a turn to take their shot, then this would not be an issue. But that is not the case, so I have a hard time making sense of an approach that assumes away what I consider to be a critical aspect of the game of basketball. (ii) Remember that without the team adjustments (which have practically no effect on the relative ratings of players), Wins Produced likely does a terrible job predicting team wins. So what this says is that two versions of Wins Produced that are practically identical, one does a great job predicting team wins and the other does a pretty lousy job. What does this say about using the prediction of team wins as a barometer? (iii) This is not really a criticism of Berri and his co-authors, but I have always felt that our box score statistics tell us more than we give them credit for. For the most part, this book follows the typical approach in logically relating the values of a point scored, field goal missed, rebound, turnover, etc. But I have always felt that these stats also tell us something about players in addition to the impact on the game at the time they occurred. Could guys who turn the ball over or a lot not be as good help defenders? Might the guy who gets steals do a better job keeping the floor spaced? Might the great rebounder do a better job catching tough pasess or picking up loose balls? This is the logic I have used in relating my adjusted plus/minus ratings to points, rebounds, assists, steals, etc. And I have tended to find that the weights for these stats differ a lot from the logic-based approaches of Dean Oliver, John Hollinger, and Berri and his co-authors. [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
And since I'm using this thread to bash WoW this is good too
|
Re: Advanced Statistics Sites
Lol, WoW has JEFF FOSTER as the 8th best player in the NBA in 05-06. I'm not sure there's any way to computer how absurd a result that is.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.