- ... the ... want to ... rebounding ... FG% is ... shooting ... obscured ... possession. ... Just to mention what I do -- I rarely see much advantage to smallMessage 1 of 34 , Apr 9, 2003View Source--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
> Yeah, there's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Onthe
> whole I side with Kevin, because with this sort of analysis we don'twant to
> want just a bottom line of scoring made and scores given up, we
> to try to find out WHY -- including looking at off and defrebounding
> stats. And TO% and FG% too -- is a team scoring more because itsFG% is
> up, or because its TO% is down? Or maybe it's FG% is unchanged, butshooting
> it's drawing more fouls (more FTA/minute or FTA/possession). Or
> and making more 3pt FGAs. These are all of interest, and getobscured
> behind the overall bottom line measure of pts per big/commonpossession.
>Just to mention what I do -- I rarely see much advantage to small
possessions (or "plays", as I call them). I use possessions as a
start then break things down to find out why a team is good
offensively or defensively, just as Dean Smith has done for 40 years
at Carolina and all the other coaches do. As he said in his books,
it's a good quick screening measure, but he never says that it's the
> 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,
> before and after the trade. But perhaps before the trade, each CPor
> often consisted of this: FGMiss-OffRebd-FGA (which they might make
> miss, and in either case yield the ball to the other team).Whereas
> after the trade, each CP consisted of this: FGA (which they mightmake
> or miss, and yield the ball to the other team).I don't understand here. FGMiss-OR-FGA is a big negative number.
In general, I do understand that possessions reflect "too much" in
some way. If a team runs up and down the court but gets tons of
offensive rebounds, the number may say that the game has slowed.
That's why I do look at plays FGA+0.4*FTA+TO to get some sense for
how this kind of thing -- though it rarely has much analytical value.
- ... This is actually misleading. I won t say wrong, but misleading. Pace is very important. Many of the individual stats are offensive and without adjustmentMessage 34 of 34 , Apr 11, 2003View Source--- 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.