Browse Groups

• I agree with the general sentiment -- if 0.4 vs. 0.44 would only change the result between two players are teams with microscopic differences. Also, in the
Jun 22, 2003 1 of 8
View Source
I agree with the general sentiment -- if 0.4 vs. 0.44 would only
change the result between two players are teams with microscopic
differences.

Also, in the specific example that brought up this thread, there's a
couple things missing -- times fouled on 3-pointers, flagrant fouls
and breakaway fouls -- that would further adjust the coefficient.

--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
> <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > The following is a comparison of the two FTA coefficients (.4
> vs .457), as
> > shown by the differences between offensive possessions and
defensive
> > possessions,by season. The smaller coefficient outperforms the
> larger
> > exactly half the time, although with a larger standard error. The
> difference
> > is small enough (to me) as to not warrant using the extra decimal
> places.
> > What is needed is some empirical data, counting actual
possessions
> in a
> > game, and seeing how close we are.
>
> I've got some of these. I'll try to pass them on after I'm done
> traveling (again).
>
> My general comment to Ben when he first passed on his note to me
was
> that he may be right that 0.45 works better to account for FT
> possessions. However, there are minor errors in the rest of the
> possession formula associated with team ORs and other little things
> that get lumped into that multiplier on FTA. Or you can get more
> complex with your possession formula, something BobC has done.
>
> I share the sentiment that it doesn't matter too much. Soon, we
will
> be able to just count possessions for each team and do the simple
> division to get pts/poss. Still, the formula estimate will remain
> useful (in historical work, in individual possession calcs), but
the
> difference between 0.4 and 0.45 won't make a huge difference in
> estimates. Plus, the multiplier changes with rules and enforcement
> of such. It was lower in the 3-to-make-2 era, for example, and is
> higher in the 1-and-1 world of college hoops.
>
> DeanO
• ... affect), ... The problem is that your last 3 terms aren t available in most stat books so we end up estimating them. I just end up rolling them into the
Jun 23, 2003 1 of 8
View Source
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
> the proper formula is:
>
> FGA + FTA/2 + TO - oreb - techFTA - (AOSF FGM) - flagrants
>
> (denominator 2 larger prior to 81-82 when 3 to make 2 bonus was in
affect),
> but i add 0.33 to account for the techs and flagrants...
>

The problem is that your last 3 terms aren't available in most stat
books so we end up estimating them. I just end up rolling them into
the multiplier on FTA, but there are other ways.

DeanO
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.