Re: Times Fouled and Possessions
- I agree with the general sentiment -- if 0.4 vs. 0.44 would only
change the result between two players are teams with microscopic
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...>
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpferdefensive
> <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
> > possessions,by season. The smaller coefficient outperforms thepossessions
> > exactly half the time, although with a larger standard error. The
> > is small enough (to me) as to not warrant using the extra decimal
> > What is needed is some empirical data, counting actual
> in awas
> > 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
> that he may be right that 0.45 works better to account for FTwill
> 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
> be able to just count possessions for each team and do the simplethe
> division to get pts/poss. Still, the formula estimate will remain
> useful (in historical work, in individual possession calcs), but
> 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.
- --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
> the proper formula is:affect),
> FGA + FTA/2 + TO - oreb - techFTA - (AOSF FGM) - flagrants
> (denominator 2 larger prior to 81-82 when 3 to make 2 bonus was in
> 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.