LMA and Most Improved

by leeroyjenkins on Apr 1, 2008 1:39 PM PDT

Hollinger took a question in his chat today about Dunleavy being the front-runner for Most Improved.

I decided to look at the numbers:

Dunleavy:

Year/team PPG FG% RPG APG TO

06-07 IND 14.0 45% 5.7 2.6 1.8
07-08 IND 18.7 48% 5.2 3.4 2.2

Team record 06-07: 35-47
Team record 07-08: 31-43

LMA:

Year/team PPG FG% RPG APG TO

06-07 POR 9.0 50% 5.0 .4 .68
07-08 POR 17.8 49% 7.4 1.6 1.16

Team record 06-07: 32-50
Team record 07-08: 38-36

Please, someone tell me what I am missing here

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't think

sophomores should be considered for MIP award.
My vote would be for Hedo Turk**.

by Bruno on Apr 1, 2008 1:44 PM PDT 0 recs

The MIP can kinda be a backhanded compliment, like "oh we thought you would suck but you are decent, here's a prize". LMA is SUPPOSED to be a great player in the NBA, so it's expected that he'd do well in his second season after we trade away Z-Bo and open the position to him completely.

Obviously he is very improved, maybe even technically the MIP, but it isn't a surprise to anyone with how well he's played. If he had a crappy rookie year, that'd be one thing... but he showed many hints of what type of player he'll become from his very first game in the NBA. He's just steadily gotten better and better, as a future star should do.

I'm fine with LMA not winning MIP, and I don't think he should. Leave that award for those who aren't supposed to be good.

Dunleavy shouldn't get it either. He went from "Sucks" to "Alright with a chance at a 30+ game". He's just doing what he is SUPPOSED to be doing, similar to LMA (except LMA didn't take a decade to become good).

Hmm, Hedo is a good choice because he has really become a good all-round player and not just a shooter. He's definitely been better than Rashard, who was supposed to be what Hedo has been this season. I've said "supposed" a lot this post.

Ya know what, I ain't sure who would get my all important influential vote for MIP. It just won't be LMA.

Looking at the numbers, LMA's low, low, low, low turnover rate is AMAZING for a post player who gets the ball so much, let alone a second year post player. I got him on my fantasy team so I knew he didn't turn it over much, but just over 1 a game is awesome.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Apr 1, 2008 1:55 PM PDT 0 recs

...too good to be true

LMA turns the ball over 1.66 times per game rather than 1.16. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that 1.66 isn't ridiculously low.

Considering this is Hollinger, I'll assume he uses PER as a large part of his basis. Aldridge's PER has increased from 17.1 to 18.9 (roughly so far) between last and this year. He's a slightly less efficient scorer but a significantly more frequent scorer. He is not as good at offensive rebounding and blocks this season. He's better at assists and steals. Turnovers are also happening more frequently this season. Overall, the large increase in usage is the biggest difference from the two seasons, and Aldridge has handled it very well.

Dunleavy's PER increased from 14.1 to a career high 17.4 (roughly so far). His scoring efficiency has gotten significantly higher along with his usage. He got better in assista, blocks, and turnovers but worse in rebounding and steals. This has been the first year Dunleavy has actually been significantly above average.

Turkoglu's PER increased from 14.2 to a career high 17.5 (almost the same jump as Dunleavy's). This is his second best season in both scoring efficiency and usage (both up from last year), though the best overall scoring season. This is his best rebounding season in Orlando, though he rebounded at this level in Sacramento. This is his best assist season and worst turnover season of his career, which suggests he's handling the ball more. Oddly, this is arguably not even the best statistical season of Turkoglu's career.

I just got bored and looked players up in basketball-reference.com. The conclusion, I guess, is that all of these guys would be fine candidates. None of them stand out though.

by poster on Apr 1, 2008 3:03 PM PDT up 0 recs

Minutes played

Part of LMA's big increase in numbers is attributed to more minutes played. That makes it look like a bigger improvement than it is.

It's been a very good year, though.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Apr 1, 2008 2:08 PM PDT 0 recs

Jscot and Bruno are dead on

Hollinger is a big proponent of per minute stats (as am I) and statistically, much of LMA's increased numbers can be explained, as jscot noted, by his increased minutes. This is not to trivialize what he's done- he's become a #2 option and played long minutes against 1st unit players without losing efficiency, but his per minute numbers aren't a whole lot different from the 2nd half of last season.

I'm with Bruno- I'd go with the Turk.

by jksnake99 on Apr 1, 2008 2:32 PM PDT 0 recs

Ditto

There's really not much more you can say. That was a quick one.

I'm tominhawaii and I approved this message.

by tominhawaii on Apr 1, 2008 3:02 PM PDT up 0 recs

Sophomore of the Year

I think there should be a Sophomore of the Year award, and an all-sophomore team. (There is a soph squad at the ASG, after all).

Not sure if the award should be for overall goodness, regardness of rookie season, or for improvement on rookie season, or some combo of the two.

If SotY were for overall goodness--then the award goes to Brandon, not LMA. What other NBA soph was an All-Star? Nobody.

If it's for improvement, and we exclude B-Roy from the debate, then LMA, along with Rudy Gay, become the leading candidates for Soph of the Year.

In such a scheme, MIP is only for guys in their third year of experience.

by EngineerScotty on Apr 1, 2008 4:57 PM PDT 0 recs

Yeah

and like 5 MVP awards. That way, they all mean a little less.

"Life is a meaningless sequence of events in between Blazer championships"

by broggerboy19 on Apr 1, 2008 5:27 PM PDT up 0 recs

I will guarantee LMA gets it

And I'll bet as much money as you want on it.

He's filled in for Z-Bo and more, shown great character, just as good of an increase as Hedo, who hasn't really improved, he's just stopped sucking.

Plus----here's the kicker. Despite all the Coach of the Year talk Nate got earlier in the year (I heard many people call him a "lock" for it), it now appears that Jerry Sloan, or the Hornets coach (Byron Scott?) or Rick Adleman will get it. The NBA wants to show some love to Portland, because what they've done is like the classic model for rebuilding a franchise.

Bottom line: Portland gets some love just like they gave Brandon, LMA for the win.

"martell and blake make mormons angry"

by prezofdeath on Apr 1, 2008 5:51 PM PDT 0 recs

I'll bet as much money as you want on it

Easiest six cents I'll ever make. The wife wont even notice our life-savings missing.

Actually, I do hope Aldridge gets it. I just couldn't resist being a smark-aleck.

"It just showed once again that half the world doesn't know how the other three quarters live." -P.G. Wodehouse

by T Darkstar on Apr 2, 2008 4:49 PM PDT up 0 recs

Er.

The subject line was supposed to be in quotes. And just to be sure, I was kidding about the six cents. My wife would kill me if I bet our life-savings on anything.

"It just showed once again that half the world doesn't know how the other three quarters live." -P.G. Wodehouse

by T Darkstar on Apr 2, 2008 4:50 PM PDT up 0 recs

Ok, I could buy the sophomore thing, but

as far as leaps forward go, LMA's has been farther than anyone's that I can think of. Especially when you consider the second half he's had.

Good point about the PER, somehow I didn't even think of that. I think sometimes Hollinger is blinded by his PER. I'm sure PER is fantastic, but it helped lead Hollinger to believe that Denver was a great defensive team earlier this season and he's been all over Houston's nuts even though they've come way back down to earth and are probably a first-round exit vs. any of the top seeds. So even Hollinger and his famous PER miss sometimes.

I get what some of you are saying, but minutes played are earned. I mean, Nate wasn't going to stick LMA out there for major minutes if he was a stiff. So I can't give in on that one. LMA has increased his points per game by 8 from last season, he's nearly doubled his scoring output, in only 12 more minutes per game!

Last year nobody knew who LMA was outside of Portland. People in Chicago were still comparing him to Tyrus Thomas for crying out loud. Now is there any doubt in anyone's mind - other than Bill Simmons - that he's going to be at least a 2nd-level star in the NBA?

So if there's some sort of flawed logic that keeps a sophomore from winning it, then ok. Otherwise it belongs to LaMarcus. On that note, what happens if some guy comes along and is non-existant his rookie season and then scores 25 ppg, 10 rpg, and 5 apg his second - is he not eligible for Most Improved? If not, I mock the award itself and deem it totally irrelevant.

For what it's worth, I'd vote for Monta Ellis or even Chris Paul over Dunleavy. Probably even some other guys. Maybe my outrage stems more from Dunleavy being mentioned as the front-runner more than anything else. A guy who's having a statistically minor season on a totally irrelevant team, in the EAST, who's been missing their superstar? C'mon now...

by leeroyjenkins on Apr 2, 2008 10:53 AM PDT 0 recs

Misconceptions on PER...

PER is a player rating system created by Hollinger. It is theoretically supposed to be a tool to help see which player is better than another with a single glance. However, it is merely a weighted average and is controversial. First, a weighted average doesn't say a lot of things someone may be interested in (like a 2.0 GPA could be a bunch of C's or a split of a lot of A's and F's). Second, stat geeks argue about the weights Hollinger gives to the stats, making it uncertain whether one player really is better than another. Third, PER like any other stat says very little about man-to-man defense, the largest intangible (impossible to include in a weighted average since none of the stats weighted are labled "man-to-man defense").

So basically, a player with very low PER like Bruce Bowen could easily be better than a player with very high PER like Zach Randolph...arguably. PER is an accepted tool simply because people know what the major flaws are and know that it isn't meant to be accepted as the final word.

Offensive and Defensive Efficiency, however, are not related to PER or even Hollinger. They are simply points per possession. A team that scores 100 points on 80 possessions is more efficient than a team that scores 100 points on 110 possessions. The speed of the game affects how many possessions there are, making points per possession a better indicator of efficiency than points per game. This is absolutely accepted by the stat geeks since there is absolutely nothing that arguable. Denver is a good defensive team, Seattle is the worst offensive team in the league.

If one team takes 110 possessions to put up 101 points, it isn't likely to beat a team that only takes 90 possessions to put up 100 points since each team has the same number of possessions when they play each other. If one person has a PER of 15 and another person has a PER of 16, who knows which player is actually better without more information.

by poster on Apr 2, 2008 1:59 PM PDT 0 recs

thank you

You saved me the trouble of making this post. I yearn for the day when these two things happen:

All the people of the world come to realize how useful the offensive and defensive efficiency (pace adjusted) stats are, and accept that Denver played awesome defense the first half of the season... their D has definitely slipped of late but when you have Camby it makes up for a lot of shortcomings from other players.
Someone comes up with a better individual stat than PER. It's not terrible and it generally rates good players high, but its very imperfect and its not hard to find examples where it misses.

by jksnake99 on Apr 2, 2008 11:45 PM PDT up 0 recs

PER very valuable here, though

Its greatest flaw is that different player strengths aren't necessarily reflected appropriately, as you stated. Your Bowen/Randolph comparison is excellent.

But PER is a very useful tool in measuring how much someone has improved.

The fact that LMA's PER is higher than Dunleavy's is not particularly helpful to the discussion. But I think we can assume that >improvement< will show up pretty clearly in PER, and that PER gives one measure of how much someone has improved.

Leeroy legitimately pointed out that minutes per game is also a measure of improvement, because minutes are earned. But that only goes so far. We all hope Joel's minutes next year decrease, but if they do it will be because of Greg becoming a force.

LMA has more minutes this year in part because of a trade.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Apr 3, 2008 1:35 AM PDT up 0 recs