## Re: The strategy

Expand Messages
• For what it s worth, if you take out defensive rebounds and consider just whether they let opponents make shots (or turn the ball over), the Nets drop to
Message 1 of 9 , May 31, 2003
• 0 Attachment
For what it's worth, if you take out defensive rebounds and consider
just whether they let opponents make shots (or turn the ball over),
the Nets drop to third:

Sacramento - 85.0
San Antonio - 85.7
New Jersey - 85.8
Indiana - 87.2
Detroit - 87.7

New Jersey had a much better defensive rebound % than Sacramento and
San Antonio, both of whom were below average. Detroit had the best
defensive rebounding % in the league, so that's why they shoot up
taking that as part of defense.
• ... consider ... and ... All this and Bob s stuff is consistent with what I do. That s good. We re all on the same page. Kevin is pointing at a points per
Message 2 of 9 , Jun 1, 2003
• 0 Attachment
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton" <kpelton08@h...>
wrote:
> For what it's worth, if you take out defensive rebounds and
consider
> just whether they let opponents make shots (or turn the ball over),
> the Nets drop to third:
>
> Sacramento - 85.0
> San Antonio - 85.7
> New Jersey - 85.8
> Indiana - 87.2
> Detroit - 87.7
>
> New Jersey had a much better defensive rebound % than Sacramento
and
> San Antonio, both of whom were below average. Detroit had the best
> defensive rebounding % in the league, so that's why they shoot up
> taking that as part of defense.

All this and Bob's stuff is consistent with what I do. That's good.
We're all on the same page. Kevin is pointing at a points per 100
play number, which I don't calculate much. I look at the difference
shown above between Sac and NJ as pretty much noise. Estimates of
plays and possessions are good to just under 1%, so differences of
less than 1 in these numbers aren't really differences.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.