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

RE: [APBR_analysis] Re: Seattle Resurgence?

Expand Messages
  • Michael Tamada
    ... From: Kevin Pelton [mailto:kpelton08@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 4:13 PM To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re:
    Message 1 of 34 , Apr 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Kevin Pelton [mailto:kpelton08@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 4:13 PM
      To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Seattle Resurgence?


      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003" <schtevie@h...>
      wrote:
      >> This definition provides a consistent basis for comparing offenses
      >> and defenses. (The particular formula used is defined in a posting
      >> in the aforementioned string.)
      >
      >And I don't like it because it doesn't indicate that part of that
      >improvement is in terms of keeping opponents from making as many
      >shots (a lower true shooting %, or whatever you want to call it,
      >shown by my numbers) and part of it from decreasing opponent
      >offensive rebounds by 1.6 per game while keeping defensive rebounds
      >intact (that is, an improvement on the defensive boards).

      Yeah, there's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. On the
      whole I side with Kevin, because with this sort of analysis we don't
      want just a bottom line of scoring made and scores given up, we want to
      to try to find out WHY -- including looking at off and def rebounding
      stats. And TO% and FG% too -- is a team scoring more because its FG% is
      up, or because its TO% is down? Or maybe it's FG% is unchanged, but
      it's drawing more fouls (more FTA/minute or FTA/possession). Or shooting
      and making more 3pt FGAs. These are all of interest, and get obscured
      behind the overall bottom line measure of pts per big/common possession.


      I also thing the "small possession" measure is better for measuring
      game pace than the "big possession"/"common possession" measure is.
      Because, suppose the Sonics averaged exactly two CPs per minute, both
      before and after the trade. But perhaps before the trade, each CP
      often consisted of this: FGMiss-OffRebd-FGA (which they might make or
      miss, and in either case yield the ball to the other team). Whereas
      after the trade, each CP consisted of this: FGA (which they might make
      or miss, and yield the ball to the other team).

      If we look only at big/common possesions, the Sonics' game pace has
      stayed the same: 2 CPs per minute. But the Sonics had a faster
      true game pace prior to the trade; there were more shots taken, more
      rebounds available, more things happening (things that show up
      statistically that is).

      So for game pace measurements, I think small possessions are better
      to look at than big/common possessions. CPs aggregate too much
      action into a single possession, and thus fail to measure some of the
      things going on on the court.


      --MKT
    • aaronkoo
      ... This is actually misleading. I won t say wrong, but misleading. Pace is very important. Many of the individual stats are offensive and without adjustment
      Message 34 of 34 , Apr 11, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
        > What matters is that x points and y rebounds occurred in z minutes.

        This is actually misleading. I won't say wrong, but misleading.
        Pace is very important. Many of the individual stats are offensive
        and without adjustment for pace overweight players who just put up a
        lot of offensive stats _per minute_. And pace is mostly (not
        entirely) a function of a decision about pace, not ability (though
        ability has a small impact). How fast or slow teams play reflects
        primarily on their style not their substance. How many points and
        rebounds per minute reflects both style and substance. Removing pace
        more isolates the substance.

        The way common possessions do it is by isolating another variable in
        addition to minutes that is common between both teams on the floor.
        Both teams have 48 minutes to win. Both teams have 100 possessions
        to win in a fast game or 85 in a slow game or whatever. But both
        opponents have the same number (not true with small possessions
        = "plays"). So, yes, what matters is what happens per minute, but it
        is equivalent to say that what matters is what happens per
        possession. And what happens per possession isolates quality better
        than what happens per minute.

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