Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Times Fouled and Possessions

Expand Messages
  • bricks299
    Bob I don t have each team s technical FTA. Here are possessions per 48 minutes without team rebounds using FGA + (AFTA)(.457) + TO - OReb. Team rebounds are
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 22, 2003
      Bob

      I don't have each team's technical FTA. Here are possessions per 48
      minutes without team rebounds using FGA + (AFTA)(.457) + TO - OReb.
      Team rebounds are normally close anyway:

      1997-98 OFF DEF Diff
      Chicago 91.5 91.2 +0.3
      Indiana 89.5 90.0 -0.5
      Miami 89.8 90.0 -0.2
      Charlotte 91.6 91.6 0.0
      Atlanta 89.6 89.9 -0.3
      Cleveland 91.7 92.1 -0.4
      New Jersey 93.5 93.4 +0.1
      New York 89.9 90.4 -0.5
      Washington 93.9 93.8 +0.1
      Orlando 90.1 88.9 +1.2
      Detroit 90.8 90.1 +0.7
      Boston 95.7 94.9 +0.8
      Milwaukee 92.1 92.4 -0.3
      Philadelphia 92.5 92.2 +0.3
      Toronto 94.7 95.0 -0.3

      Utah 91.6 91.4 +0.2
      Seattle 91.9 91.5 +0.4
      Los Angeles-L 95.6 95.6 0.0
      Phoenix 93.4 93.5 -0.1
      San Antonio 89.8 90.6 -0.8
      Portland 92.3 92.3 0.0
      Minnesota 94.9 95.1 -0.2
      Houston 93.3 93.1 +0.2
      Sacramento 94.2 94.2 0.0
      Dallas 91.8 91.7 +0.1
      Vancouver 94.2 93.7 +0.5
      Golden State 93.7 93.6 +0.1
      Los Angeles-C 94.6 94.5 +0.1
      Denver 91.6 91.7 -0.1

      The biggest difference is +/- 0.8 possessions per 48 minutes.

      Ben Ricks

      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
      >
      > could you please run the numbers for say the 97-98 season for each
      team and
      > list poss/48min game for each team (both off and def poss)?
      thanks...
      >
      > bob chaikin
      > bchaikin@b...
    • igor eduardo küpfer
      ... From: bricks299 To: Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 1:45 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Times
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 22, 2003
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "bricks299" <homecourtgames@...>
        To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 1:45 PM
        Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Times Fouled and Possessions


        > Bob
        >
        > I don't have each team's technical FTA. Here are possessions per 48
        > minutes without team rebounds using FGA + (AFTA)(.457) + TO - OReb.
        > Team rebounds are normally close anyway:
        >

        <snip>

        The following is a comparison of the two FTA coefficients (.4 vs .457), as
        shown by the differences between offensive possessions and defensive
        possessions,by season. The smaller coefficient outperforms the larger
        exactly half the time, although with a larger standard error. The difference
        is small enough (to me) as to not warrant using the extra decimal places.
        What is needed is some empirical data, counting actual possessions in a
        game, and seeing how close we are.

        TrimMean SEMean
        .4 .457 .4 .457

        1974 -.037 -.044 .180 .194
        1975 +.055 +.043 .162 .151
        1976 +.702 +.693 .381 .371
        1977 -.006 -.008 .133 .117
        1978 +.072 +.102 .164 .145
        1979 -.031 -.015 .096 .084
        1980 -.158 -.167 .171 .197
        1981 +.045 +.025 .153 .153
        1982 -.016 -.013 .128 .119
        1983 -.016 -.007 .145 .122
        1984 -.005 -.001 .118 .120
        1985 -.005 -.005 .217 .208
        1986 -.009 +.004 .089 .082
        1987 +.012 +.015 .096 .084
        1988 +.004 +.019 .158 .134
        1989 +.011 -.005 .113 .095
        1990 -.013 -.013 .118 .102
        1991 -.057 -.025 .159 .152
        1992 +.061 +.064 .181 .169
        1993 -.032 -.040 .090 .069
        1994 -.090 -.080 .316 .305
        1995 -.006 -.012 .106 .103
        1996 -.003 -.003 .086 .081
        1997 +.012 +.021 .085 .081
        1998 -.008 -.003 .097 .084
        1999 +.017 +.013 .162 .167


        ed
      • Dean Oliver
        ... vs .457), as ... larger ... difference ... places. ... in a ... I ve got some of these. I ll try to pass them on after I m done traveling (again). My
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 22, 2003
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
          <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
          > <snip>
          >
          > The following is a comparison of the two FTA coefficients (.4
          vs .457), as
          > shown by the differences between offensive possessions and defensive
          > possessions,by season. The smaller coefficient outperforms the
          larger
          > exactly half the time, although with a larger standard error. The
          difference
          > is small enough (to me) as to not warrant using the extra decimal
          places.
          > What is needed is some empirical data, counting actual possessions
          in a
          > game, and seeing how close we are.

          I've got some of these. I'll try to pass them on after I'm done
          traveling (again).

          My general comment to Ben when he first passed on his note to me was
          that he may be right that 0.45 works better to account for FT
          possessions. However, there are minor errors in the rest of the
          possession formula associated with team ORs and other little things
          that get lumped into that multiplier on FTA. Or you can get more
          complex with your possession formula, something BobC has done.

          I share the sentiment that it doesn't matter too much. Soon, we will
          be able to just count possessions for each team and do the simple
          division to get pts/poss. Still, the formula estimate will remain
          useful (in historical work, in individual possession calcs), but the
          difference between 0.4 and 0.45 won't make a huge difference in
          estimates. Plus, the multiplier changes with rules and enforcement
          of such. It was lower in the 3-to-make-2 era, for example, and is
          higher in the 1-and-1 world of college hoops.

          DeanO
        • bchaikin@aol.com
          I have noticed that many people have used the following formula to estimate possessions: FGA + (FTA)(.4) + TO - OReb The times fouled shooting factor should be
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 22, 2003
            I have noticed that many people have used the following formula to
            estimate possessions:

            FGA + (FTA)(.4) + TO - OReb

            The times fouled shooting factor should be .457; not .4.

            Or you can get more complex with your possession formula, something BobC has done. 

            the proper formula is:

            FGA + FTA/2 + TO - oreb - techFTA - (AOSF FGM) - flagrants

            (denominator 2 larger prior to 81-82 when 3 to make 2 bonus was in affect), but i add 0.33 to account for the techs and flagrants...

            and not more complex, just more exact, simply because it works in a simulation, which does not take into account technicals and flagrants, but does account for AOSF FGM (act of shooting fouls FGM, i.e. traditional 3 pt plays)...

            your average for 97-98 (the last year i updated the sim) was 92.4 poss/48 min/team. the sim uses 91.5 on average and the stats come out pretty much exact (i.e. avg pts/g/team right on the money, well within 1%)....

            if you ever run the B-BALL sim for a full season (takes about 40 seconds on a pentium to run an 1189 game season) it lists each team's poss/g in the final stats file...

            bob chaikin
            bchaikin@...
          • John Hollinger
            I agree with the general sentiment -- if 0.4 vs. 0.44 would only change the result between two players are teams with microscopic differences. Also, in the
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 22, 2003
              I agree with the general sentiment -- if 0.4 vs. 0.44 would only
              change the result between two players are teams with microscopic
              differences.

              Also, in the specific example that brought up this thread, there's a
              couple things missing -- times fouled on 3-pointers, flagrant fouls
              and breakaway fouls -- that would further adjust the coefficient.



              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
              wrote:
              > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
              > <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
              > > <snip>
              > >
              > > The following is a comparison of the two FTA coefficients (.4
              > vs .457), as
              > > shown by the differences between offensive possessions and
              defensive
              > > possessions,by season. The smaller coefficient outperforms the
              > larger
              > > exactly half the time, although with a larger standard error. The
              > difference
              > > is small enough (to me) as to not warrant using the extra decimal
              > places.
              > > What is needed is some empirical data, counting actual
              possessions
              > in a
              > > game, and seeing how close we are.
              >
              > I've got some of these. I'll try to pass them on after I'm done
              > traveling (again).
              >
              > My general comment to Ben when he first passed on his note to me
              was
              > that he may be right that 0.45 works better to account for FT
              > possessions. However, there are minor errors in the rest of the
              > possession formula associated with team ORs and other little things
              > that get lumped into that multiplier on FTA. Or you can get more
              > complex with your possession formula, something BobC has done.
              >
              > I share the sentiment that it doesn't matter too much. Soon, we
              will
              > be able to just count possessions for each team and do the simple
              > division to get pts/poss. Still, the formula estimate will remain
              > useful (in historical work, in individual possession calcs), but
              the
              > difference between 0.4 and 0.45 won't make a huge difference in
              > estimates. Plus, the multiplier changes with rules and enforcement
              > of such. It was lower in the 3-to-make-2 era, for example, and is
              > higher in the 1-and-1 world of college hoops.
              >
              > DeanO
            • Dean Oliver
              ... affect), ... The problem is that your last 3 terms aren t available in most stat books so we end up estimating them. I just end up rolling them into the
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 23, 2003
                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
                > the proper formula is:
                >
                > FGA + FTA/2 + TO - oreb - techFTA - (AOSF FGM) - flagrants
                >
                > (denominator 2 larger prior to 81-82 when 3 to make 2 bonus was in
                affect),
                > but i add 0.33 to account for the techs and flagrants...
                >

                The problem is that your last 3 terms aren't available in most stat
                books so we end up estimating them. I just end up rolling them into
                the multiplier on FTA, but there are other ways.

                DeanO
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.