Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Scores vs. Shot Clock

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    Attached is a spreadsheet showing how teams did against the shot clock. I looked only at 1 game -- Minnesota at Cleveland, 2/1/01. (Random game) 1 game does
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 13, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Attached is a spreadsheet showing how teams did against the shot clock.
      I looked only at 1 game -- Minnesota at Cleveland, 2/1/01. (Random game)
      1 game does have a lot of possessions to look at, though. (I also scored
      the HS game I saw tonight, but it wasn't a particularly good game, so it's
      not that interesting.)

      I have plotted Offensive Ratings (points per 100 possessions) as a
      function of time remaining on the clock. These are shown below.

      Scores PossExt EndPoss Pts Rtg
      0-3 12 5 12 25 104.2
      4-6 9 2 13 18 81.8
      7-9 11 6 18 20 69.0
      10-12 18 4 21 34 87.2
      13-15 12 5 12 22 91.7
      16-18 3 3 10 6 46.2
      19-21 15 2 10 32 128.0
      22-24 7 5 6 14 107.7

      The highest ratings came with a lot of time on the clock, probably because
      of fast break baskets. Over the rest of the the time, things were even.
      (Statistically, all periods are prety even, in fact.) With 0 seconds on
      the clock, there was only 1 score out of 7 possessions. But with 1
      second on the clock, teams did really well.

      How did I do this? More relevantly, how can you help me add to this
      study? I downloaded the play-by-play from Sportsline and entered things
      into the spreadsheet. I think we need at least 5-10 more games to get
      statistical significance. I am going to work on an easier entry method
      than this, but if you fill things in before then, that would save me.

      My general thoughts, though, are that NBA teams can score comfortably with
      3 seconds to set up. Scoring with 1 second on the clock isn't unusual.
      NBA teams could conceivable have a 15 second clock and not really see a
      big drop in offensive efficiency. These numbers could help justify these
      thoughts if indeed offensive ratings don't really change with time left on
      the clock.

      I'm tired. Must sleep.

      Dean Oliver
      Journal of Basketball Studies
      www.tsoft.com/~deano/index.html
      deano@...
    • NYFan@aol.com
      A reason why teams may score fairly effeciently with so little time left may be human nature. Often you will see that when instincts are in control, people
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 13, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        A reason why teams may score fairly effeciently with so little time left may
        be human nature. Often you will see that when instincts are in control,
        people play/work better. This rule may come to rear its head here. If players
        are forced to concentrate, and thus "lose themselves" to their instincts when
        the clock is winding down, the chances of hitting the shot would rise, even
        if the difficulty increases. Just a theory.

        ~Ray


        My general thoughts, though, are that NBA teams can score comfortably with
        3 seconds to set up.  Scoring with 1 second on the clock isn't unusual.
        NBA teams could conceivable have a 15 second clock and not really see a
        big drop in offensive efficiency.  These numbers could help justify these
        thoughts if indeed offensive ratings don't really change with time left on
        the clock.


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.