--- In

APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:

> > I wasn't very impressed with that article on pace management,

> > though. They pretty much assumed the answer that they got,

something

> > I discussed with schtevie offline for a while.

> >

> > Not sure if there are any others.

> >

> > DeanO

>

>

> Can you post some of your comments? I tried to follow the argument

on the article, but

> the math was slightly beyond me.

p. 43: "We remark that for simplicity we will think of a team's

unconstrained mode as its best scoring offensive style of play versus

the current opponent."

This is the assumption that ruins everything. They assume that there

is exactly one pace at which the teams is optimal, rather than an

array of paces or a range of paces.

p. 44: "A popular belief among sports analysts is that, when the

score is tied or a team is ahead, a lengthy possession is better than

a short possessions. Surprisingly this belief, as a general

statement is false."

This is the kind of analysis that is nice to do, but they biased

their answer by assuming that a team gets worse by holding the ball.

Now that may be true if they hold it too long -- I have seen that --

but they need more to strengthen such a statement.

Figures 1 through 3 use the notation (P, time units), where P is the

probability of scoring and time units is how many time units each

possession takes. Note that in each case, the intermediate time unit

case (=2) has the highest P. If they had left all the P the same and

just changed the pace, their arguments would have been potentially

stronger, but now their results are clouded by changing P.

Too bad.

DeanO