Re: Pro Basketball Prospectus
- --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
> PFs ended up at 0.35 because that was the ratio of made foul shotsto
> personal fouls, minus the average points per possessions that ateam would score if
> the foul hadn't been committed.This seems sound, to me. However, I was under the impression that
average points-following-a-foul were not significantly different
from average points-per-possession.
> lets use the 01-02 season as an example. there were 42619 FTM and50497 PF
> for a ratio of FTM/PF of 0.85. courtesy of harvey pollack's guide,there were
> 4553 offensive fouls committed that season, so now that ratio nowcreeps up to
> over 0.90 FTM/PF. although a small minority of fouls can beconsidered good
> fouls (as in fouling a poor FT shooter near the end of a game ifyou are losing),
> and many fouls result in no FTA (non-shooting fouls committedbefore the
> bonus and thus not resulting in any FTA), the bottom line is thatthe only way for
> a player to score from the FT line (except the rare technicals,double fouls,
> etc) is to be fouled, and thus - on average - every PF committedresults in
> the opponent scoring close to a point, somewhere around 0.90 ormore points per
> personal foul committed....and your
> are you somehow accounting for the discrepancy between this 0.90
> value of 0.35 in your other coefficients? is this what you meanby "...minus the
> avg pts/poss that a team would score if the foul hadn't beencommitted..."?...
Logically, if a foul doesn't increase the likelihood of the other
team's scoring, it shouldn't be a negative factor at all. If .9 pts-
allowed results from the average foul, how can that even be
considered a net detriment to the fouling team?
I'm not convinced the majority of fouls are 'bad' fouls. If you
are playing tight defense, you are going to get called for some
fouls. Sometimes you will get away with a no-call.
Many fouls are decidedly good or neutral. Stopping Shaq from a dunk
(`1.25 vs. 1.98 probable pts) is better than letting him dunk.
> Field goals ended up at 1.65 after I subtracted credit for an
> varied by team; field goals by Utah players were worth the leastbecause they were
> most like to have credit split with the assister.Is it assumed, then, that John Stockton's FG made are as likely to
have been assisted as Kirilenko FG are? I recall DeanO claiming to
have had a formula that distinguished between the players on a team -
- not just between teams.
> am i to understand that in your individual player rating system aFGM by a
> player on one team may not be of the same value as a FGM by aplayer on another
> team? if so i would have a hard time comprehending this as atrustworty rating
> system as in any single game all FGM by players on both teams areof equal
> value (aka a 2pter is a 2tper, and a 3pter is a 3pter, a FTM aFTM)...
I think what John is saying is that individual credits can be forced
to add up to the final score, by splitting credit between the scorer
and the assister. Again, this makes sense to me.
> And now for our main event....possession"
> As far as rebounds are concerned, I think the "a rebound is a
> logic is the main reason the Danny Fortsons of the world arevastly overrated by
> most statistical methods.Fortson seems to rank high in per-minute lists and low in per-game
lists. In the rare seasons when he's stayed healthy (maybe once),
he's ranked pretty strong in my (non-linear) rating system. He's
been a high-%, medium-strength scorer as well as a rebounder.
> what praytell is a rebound if it isn't getting your teampossession of the
> ball? no matter how you take the ball away from your opponent, ifyou do take
> the ball away without your opponent scoring, how can thoseseparate events be
> valued differently? how can a steal (or a turnover that wasn't asteal) and a
> def reb be valued differently?...I'm solidly with JohnH here. A steal removes the ball from the
opponent AND gains the possession. A rebound is gaining possession
of what is essentially a loose ball.
I still don't follow how an offensive rebound is worth more because
it is rarer. There are all kinds of events rarer than a rebound,
which are worth whatever they are worth, and not based on their
For sure, some guys get a lot of defensive rebounds from missed FT,
and these are almost 'givens'. But in the long haul, I have to
guess there would be even more total rebounds available from non-FT
> as for danny fortson how is he - and "his kind" - overrated? whois
> overrating him? danny fortson is an absolutely superb reboundermatched by only a
> handful of players in the past 3 years, who, unfortunately, hasplayed in less than
> 60% of his team's games in his six years in the league, andcommits way too
> many fouls to be a regular starter.That's how I've generally assumed fouls should come into
consideration in player-ratings: They limit your minutes. Of
course, if your ratings are strictly 'per-minute', you may get wacky
> Basically, there are two ways to get a defensive 'stop':1). To me
> 1) force a turnover,
> 2) force a missed shot AND get the rebound.
>> You're asking me to equate a portion of 2) with the entirety of
> that makes no sense.[BC:]
> from the standpoint of bookkeeping stats from a team perspective iunderstand
> your concern, but from the standpoint of rating individual playersthe second
> option above is cleary two separate events and the first isclearly one, and
> the bottom line is that once a shot is missed, its a free ball andeither the
> offensive team can regain possession of the ball or the defensiveteam can.
> and as you have cleary shownevents and
> by your labelling of a steal and a turnover as equal and opposite
> of absolute equal value equivalent to that of an avg teampossession of 1.02
> - because one team gains a team possession and one loses one, thesituation is
> identical for an offensive and defensive rebound - either you areregaining
> team possession of the ball or you are losing it...It seems that Bob is agreeing with John; am I right?
- I've bought your book also. First I've read the Prospectus of
Hollinger and after that Basketball on paper. I'v read reviews that
said: the prospectus is good but basketball on paper is better. Well
I don't agree. The analytic methods are there but the conclusions
are sometimes not so strong. For example your rebounding part. You
make a conclusion and than you begin to correct yourself(offensive
rebounds create free throw attempts,...)