RE: [APBR_analysis] Re: Seattle Resurgence?
- -----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Pelton [mailto:kpelton08@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 4:13 PM
Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Seattle Resurgence?
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003" <schtevie@h...>
>> This definition provides a consistent basis for comparing offensesYeah, there's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. On the
>> 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).
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.
- --- 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.