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

Worst Ever Offense?

Expand Messages
  • igor eduardo küpfer
    I was looking at the offensive ratings over time, and I came up with the 10 worst since 1974: 1 CHI_1999 90.7 2 NYN_1977 91.1 3 NOJ_1975 91.3 4
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 23, 2003
      I was looking at the offensive ratings over time, and I came up with the 10
      worst since 1974:

      1 CHI_1999 90.7
      2 NYN_1977 91.1
      3 NOJ_1975 91.3
      4 DEN_2003 91.4
      5 PHI_1974 91.8
      6 CHI_2000 92.6
      7 CHI_1976 92.9
      8 NJ_1978 93.6
      9 GS_1998 93.9
      10 CAP_1974 94.0

      Now, that's a pretty crappy list of teams, but somehow it just didn't seem
      crappy enough. I thought to myself, well, what really matters isn't how bad
      the offense is, but how much the offense is worse than the defense. So,
      subtracting offensive rating from defensive rating, I came up with the
      following list:

      1 DAL_1993 97.6
      2 DEN_1998 97.2
      3 LAC_2000 96.2
      4 VAN_1997 98.6
      5 HOU_1983 95.3
      6 MIA_1989 96.0
      7 LAC_1987 99.6
      8 VAN_1996 96.0
      9 PHI_1996 100.5
      10 CHI_1999 90.7

      Again, those teams were bad, but none of those teams (except for Chicago)
      had an offensive rating that looks truly horrible. I decided to standardize
      the offensive ratings to the league average that year. I got this:

      1 DEN_2003 91.4
      2 CHI_2000 92.6
      3 CHI_1999 90.7
      4 LAC_1988 95.6
      5 DAL_1993 97.6
      6 VAN_1996 96.0
      7 DET_1981 96.5
      8 NYN_1977 91.1
      9 NJ_1978 93.6
      10 MIA_1989 96.0

      That's a little more like it. Denver's offense, at 91.4 points scored for
      every 100 possessions, was nearly 3 standard deviations from the league
      average of 102. Seems a little odd, considering the number of exciting
      young players, but the Numbers Never Lie.

      All of this was just to pass the time. But a more serious question arose: I
      only used teams from the 1974 season onward, because that's the point at
      which we have complete data. I wondered: has anybody come up with a way to
      estimate missing data? Or maybe a simpler question, is there a reliable way
      to estimate possessions by using available teams stats? I was going to see
      how much error I got using FGA + .4 * FTA, but I wanted to know if anyone's
      tried this first so I don't have to reinvent the wheel.

      ed
    • schtevie2003
      I am not sure exactly what is being computed when you subtract offensive ratings from defensive rating and get values in the 90s. Effectively this represents
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 24, 2003
        I am not sure exactly what is being computed when you subtract
        offensive ratings from defensive rating and get values in the 90s.
        Effectively this represents average victory margins per some
        standardized possession, no? So shouldn't the range of values
        be in the tenths? Whatever.

        Regarding the extrapolation of missing stats, in terms of overall
        league averages on a year to year basis, it is reasonable (for
        getting "close" to the correct answer) to extrapolate rebounding
        percentages, as that trend is pretty much non-trending. As for
        turnovers, it is pretty clear that this propensity was trending down
        over time and, hence, filling in the pre-1974 values for this data
        series is largely guesswork.

        That said, if one uses what I have argued is the preferred
        definition of offensive productivity - what I call "points per
        common possession" - in the denominator, which represents
        the possession variable, turnovers are ofcourse included and
        offensive rebounds are subtracted, and these terms are typically
        of equal value. So in terms of a quick and dirty bottom line, using
        just shots and reboundable freethrow attempts as an
        approximation of total possessions is a decent proxy that gets
        worse as one goes back in time from 1974.

        *****************

        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
        <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
        > I was looking at the offensive ratings over time, and I came up
        with the 10
        > worst since 1974:
        >
        > 1 CHI_1999 90.7
        > 2 NYN_1977 91.1
        > 3 NOJ_1975 91.3
        > 4 DEN_2003 91.4
        > 5 PHI_1974 91.8
        > 6 CHI_2000 92.6
        > 7 CHI_1976 92.9
        > 8 NJ_1978 93.6
        > 9 GS_1998 93.9
        > 10 CAP_1974 94.0
        >
        > Now, that's a pretty crappy list of teams, but somehow it just
        didn't seem
        > crappy enough. I thought to myself, well, what really matters
        isn't how bad
        > the offense is, but how much the offense is worse than the
        defense. So,
        > subtracting offensive rating from defensive rating, I came up
        with the
        > following list:
        >
        > 1 DAL_1993 97.6
        > 2 DEN_1998 97.2
        > 3 LAC_2000 96.2
        > 4 VAN_1997 98.6
        > 5 HOU_1983 95.3
        > 6 MIA_1989 96.0
        > 7 LAC_1987 99.6
        > 8 VAN_1996 96.0
        > 9 PHI_1996 100.5
        > 10 CHI_1999 90.7
        >
        > Again, those teams were bad, but none of those teams (except
        for Chicago)
        > had an offensive rating that looks truly horrible. I decided to
        standardize
        > the offensive ratings to the league average that year. I got this:
        >
        > 1 DEN_2003 91.4
        > 2 CHI_2000 92.6
        > 3 CHI_1999 90.7
        > 4 LAC_1988 95.6
        > 5 DAL_1993 97.6
        > 6 VAN_1996 96.0
        > 7 DET_1981 96.5
        > 8 NYN_1977 91.1
        > 9 NJ_1978 93.6
        > 10 MIA_1989 96.0
        >
        > That's a little more like it. Denver's offense, at 91.4 points
        scored for
        > every 100 possessions, was nearly 3 standard deviations from
        the league
        > average of 102. Seems a little odd, considering the number of
        exciting
        > young players, but the Numbers Never Lie.
        >
        > All of this was just to pass the time. But a more serious
        question arose: I
        > only used teams from the 1974 season onward, because
        that's the point at
        > which we have complete data. I wondered: has anybody come
        up with a way to
        > estimate missing data? Or maybe a simpler question, is there
        a reliable way
        > to estimate possessions by using available teams stats? I
        was going to see
        > how much error I got using FGA + .4 * FTA, but I wanted to
        know if anyone's
        > tried this first so I don't have to reinvent the wheel.
        >
        > ed
      • Dean Oliver
        Interesting. I did this analysis for my book to some degree actually. There were a lot of rookie coaches on the bad teams. There was a lot of player turnover
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 25, 2003
          Interesting. I did this analysis for my book to some degree actually.
          There were a lot of rookie coaches on the bad teams. There was a lot
          of player turnover (injuries, etc.). Your list is not that dissimilar
          than mine, though I did look at it a few ways, too. There were a
          number of other characteristics of the bad teams, too, that I will
          save for the book.

          As far as filling in the old data -- ain't easy. I have done it
          before for the purpose of evaluating Wilt and Russell (also in the
          book). The tools to do so just aren't accurate, nor can they be
          (fortunately it doesn't make much difference in evaluating Wilt and
          Russ). Turnovers are inherently pretty independent of other stats.
          Offensive rebounds aren't horrible to estimate, though. But turnovers
          make a big difference. The league wide trend only gets you so much.

          DeanO

          I still owe an update on the sports ec. I should have a chance to
          breathe over the weekend.

          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
          <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
          > I was looking at the offensive ratings over time, and I came up with
          the 10
          > worst since 1974:
          >
          > 1 CHI_1999 90.7
          > 2 NYN_1977 91.1
          > 3 NOJ_1975 91.3
          > 4 DEN_2003 91.4
          > 5 PHI_1974 91.8
          > 6 CHI_2000 92.6
          > 7 CHI_1976 92.9
          > 8 NJ_1978 93.6
          > 9 GS_1998 93.9
          > 10 CAP_1974 94.0
          >
          > Now, that's a pretty crappy list of teams, but somehow it just
          didn't seem
          > crappy enough. I thought to myself, well, what really matters isn't
          how bad
          > the offense is, but how much the offense is worse than the defense. So,
          > subtracting offensive rating from defensive rating, I came up with the
          > following list:
          >
          > 1 DAL_1993 97.6
          > 2 DEN_1998 97.2
          > 3 LAC_2000 96.2
          > 4 VAN_1997 98.6
          > 5 HOU_1983 95.3
          > 6 MIA_1989 96.0
          > 7 LAC_1987 99.6
          > 8 VAN_1996 96.0
          > 9 PHI_1996 100.5
          > 10 CHI_1999 90.7
          >
          > Again, those teams were bad, but none of those teams (except for
          Chicago)
          > had an offensive rating that looks truly horrible. I decided to
          standardize
          > the offensive ratings to the league average that year. I got this:
          >
          > 1 DEN_2003 91.4
          > 2 CHI_2000 92.6
          > 3 CHI_1999 90.7
          > 4 LAC_1988 95.6
          > 5 DAL_1993 97.6
          > 6 VAN_1996 96.0
          > 7 DET_1981 96.5
          > 8 NYN_1977 91.1
          > 9 NJ_1978 93.6
          > 10 MIA_1989 96.0
          >
          > That's a little more like it. Denver's offense, at 91.4 points
          scored for
          > every 100 possessions, was nearly 3 standard deviations from the league
          > average of 102. Seems a little odd, considering the number of exciting
          > young players, but the Numbers Never Lie.
          >
          > All of this was just to pass the time. But a more serious question
          arose: I
          > only used teams from the 1974 season onward, because that's the point at
          > which we have complete data. I wondered: has anybody come up with a
          way to
          > estimate missing data? Or maybe a simpler question, is there a
          reliable way
          > to estimate possessions by using available teams stats? I was going
          to see
          > how much error I got using FGA + .4 * FTA, but I wanted to know if
          anyone's
          > tried this first so I don't have to reinvent the wheel.
          >
          > ed
        • John Hollinger
          I have the Nuggets rated as the worst offense of recent history. Relative to the league average in offensive efficiency, as I measure it, they are far, far
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 26, 2003
            I have the Nuggets rated as the worst offense of recent history.
            Relative to the league average in offensive efficiency, as I measure
            it, they are far, far worse than even the 99 Bulls.



            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003" <schtevie@h...>
            wrote:
            > I am not sure exactly what is being computed when you subtract
            > offensive ratings from defensive rating and get values in the 90s.
            > Effectively this represents average victory margins per some
            > standardized possession, no? So shouldn't the range of values
            > be in the tenths? Whatever.
            >
            > Regarding the extrapolation of missing stats, in terms of overall
            > league averages on a year to year basis, it is reasonable (for
            > getting "close" to the correct answer) to extrapolate rebounding
            > percentages, as that trend is pretty much non-trending. As for
            > turnovers, it is pretty clear that this propensity was trending
            down
            > over time and, hence, filling in the pre-1974 values for this data
            > series is largely guesswork.
            >
            > That said, if one uses what I have argued is the preferred
            > definition of offensive productivity - what I call "points per
            > common possession" - in the denominator, which represents
            > the possession variable, turnovers are ofcourse included and
            > offensive rebounds are subtracted, and these terms are typically
            > of equal value. So in terms of a quick and dirty bottom line,
            using
            > just shots and reboundable freethrow attempts as an
            > approximation of total possessions is a decent proxy that gets
            > worse as one goes back in time from 1974.
            >
            > *****************
            >
            > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
            > <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
            > > I was looking at the offensive ratings over time, and I came up
            > with the 10
            > > worst since 1974:
            > >
            > > 1 CHI_1999 90.7
            > > 2 NYN_1977 91.1
            > > 3 NOJ_1975 91.3
            > > 4 DEN_2003 91.4
            > > 5 PHI_1974 91.8
            > > 6 CHI_2000 92.6
            > > 7 CHI_1976 92.9
            > > 8 NJ_1978 93.6
            > > 9 GS_1998 93.9
            > > 10 CAP_1974 94.0
            > >
            > > Now, that's a pretty crappy list of teams, but somehow it just
            > didn't seem
            > > crappy enough. I thought to myself, well, what really matters
            > isn't how bad
            > > the offense is, but how much the offense is worse than the
            > defense. So,
            > > subtracting offensive rating from defensive rating, I came up
            > with the
            > > following list:
            > >
            > > 1 DAL_1993 97.6
            > > 2 DEN_1998 97.2
            > > 3 LAC_2000 96.2
            > > 4 VAN_1997 98.6
            > > 5 HOU_1983 95.3
            > > 6 MIA_1989 96.0
            > > 7 LAC_1987 99.6
            > > 8 VAN_1996 96.0
            > > 9 PHI_1996 100.5
            > > 10 CHI_1999 90.7
            > >
            > > Again, those teams were bad, but none of those teams (except
            > for Chicago)
            > > had an offensive rating that looks truly horrible. I decided to
            > standardize
            > > the offensive ratings to the league average that year. I got this:
            > >
            > > 1 DEN_2003 91.4
            > > 2 CHI_2000 92.6
            > > 3 CHI_1999 90.7
            > > 4 LAC_1988 95.6
            > > 5 DAL_1993 97.6
            > > 6 VAN_1996 96.0
            > > 7 DET_1981 96.5
            > > 8 NYN_1977 91.1
            > > 9 NJ_1978 93.6
            > > 10 MIA_1989 96.0
            > >
            > > That's a little more like it. Denver's offense, at 91.4 points
            > scored for
            > > every 100 possessions, was nearly 3 standard deviations from
            > the league
            > > average of 102. Seems a little odd, considering the number of
            > exciting
            > > young players, but the Numbers Never Lie.
            > >
            > > All of this was just to pass the time. But a more serious
            > question arose: I
            > > only used teams from the 1974 season onward, because
            > that's the point at
            > > which we have complete data. I wondered: has anybody come
            > up with a way to
            > > estimate missing data? Or maybe a simpler question, is there
            > a reliable way
            > > to estimate possessions by using available teams stats? I
            > was going to see
            > > how much error I got using FGA + .4 * FTA, but I wanted to
            > know if anyone's
            > > tried this first so I don't have to reinvent the wheel.
            > >
            > > ed
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.