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

Re: Times Fouled and Possessions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.