Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: NBA stats site
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Oliver" <deano@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 5:41 PM
Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: NBA stats site
> Play-by-play data is going to spawn an entirely new wave of
> analysis. This is that wave.
Indeed. I'm already itching to try a player rating based on changing game
states, like baseball's Player Game Percentage.
Speaking of play by play, I wish I could see the attempts for the clutch
shooters. My quick study on Tim Duncan showed that he only had about 300
attempts in "clutch time" defined by Roland's page, not enough for
>One other thing I like about this is that it seems to support myThe shooting percentages definitely change as the shot clock winds
>long-standing but poorly supported statement about shooting with 3
>or fewer seconds on the clock being much poorer. I can't check it
>for sure with their posted numbers, but they can. Hint, hint.
down, as does the type of shot a team is likely to take. We're
doing some research on this to see if the better teams are primarily
better at executing in the later seconds on the clock, get to that
situation less often, or if everyone struggles with time running out
and it's a matter of the good teams being stronger in the earlier
shot clock segments...likewise the defensive numbers are interesting
>Perhaps the Pythag would be informative here. Using Tim Duncan as anagree completely that the 50-16 vs 5-11 is a nicer look than the
>OffPts DefPts Min Win% W-L
>OnCourt 97.0 88.9 3151 75.6% 50-16
>OffCourt 91.7 97.9 775 29.9% 5-11
>50-16 is a number people can easily understand, while points scored
>and allowed appeals only to us statheads :-)
others we show...of course it's a projected stat versus an actual
one, but we can certainly look to add this for future page updates
>BTW2: Roland, nba.com shows Duncan as playing 3181 minutes. Typo,We calculate playing time to the second and accumulate as opposed to
>or is there a rounding error? Not that a 1% error is a big deal.
the NBA which I believe rounds to the nearest minute on a game
basis. So, that explains part of it. I'm sure we will differ from
official stats in certain places
>The 5-man units provide enough information for now -- I could spendA good point too, and particularly in-season you might have in the
>hours looking at them! I would suggest showing the floor time as
>absolute minutes, as well as the percentage of total team minutes.
first month a unit with something like 2% of total minutes
translating into 5 actual minutes together...not a big sample!
>That data set could lead to a flood of ideas on what to do with it.We have an ever-expanding list of research ideas to pursue,
including such obscure things as: performance of players in
different foul states (eg playing with 5 fouls), does getting a shot
blocked change a player's subsequent shot selection, rookie play pre
and post-wall, where does home court advantage actually come from,
and in particular detailed analysis of five-man unit traits, how
these characteristics match up against opponent five-man units, etc
- Very interesting data on 82games.com. A couple of questions:
1) What is the source of the raw data from which the +/-
summaries were generated?
2) Apparently I am misunderstanding the +/- definition in the
tables. By my way of thinking when you take the +/- for a given
player when ON the court and multiply it by his fraction of playing
time and then add the +/- for the same player when OFF the court
and muliply it by his fraction of non-playing time, what you should
get is the team plus minus, no? In doing a loose check on Paul
Pierce, I find the implication that the '03-'03 Celtics were
outscored (which may be the case) but also that the team
implied figure based on Mr. Battie's +/- differed, which cannot be,
according to my conception of the stat. Please advise.