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

Re: Value of Assists

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Pelton
    ... http://www.sonicscentral.com/kevin7.html Is that the study you re referring to? I imagine you read it. As I explained in my message to you specifically,
    Message 1 of 19 , Jan 8, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nick_scholtz" <nick@l...>
      wrote:
      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
      > wrote:

      > Interesting. I thought that a year or two ago there was a study
      > done on the Sonics that compared their win/loss records in games
      > when they (1) had more rebounds than their opponent (2) shot more
      > free throws than their opponent (3) had fewer turn overs than
      > their opponent OR (4) had more assists than their opponent.
      >
      > IIRC correctly, assists were by far the best predictor of wins, but
      > that study only covered one team for a third of a season.

      http://www.sonicscentral.com/kevin7.html

      Is that the study you're referring to? I imagine you read it. As I
      explained in my message to you specifically, again the important
      distinction is in looking at pure assists (or assists per
      possession) as opposed to assists per field goal made. A team with
      more assists is almost always going to have more points, which I
      hear correlates very strongly with winning.

      Just to throw it out there, here are the correlations this year for
      the Sonics (i.e. the number of times the team with the better mark
      has won the game):

      Assists: .844
      Ast/FGM: .719

      I was pretty surprised to see the latter be so high. And, just for
      the record:

      FG%: .813
      3PT%: .688
      Steals: .656
      Rebounding percentage: .594
      FT%: .594
      Turnovers: .500 (surprising)
      Blocks: .500
    • Dean Oliver
      ... Historically, FG% and Defensive rebounds have been the best indicators in this kind of study (see chp 6). This kind of study is, well, flawed. Defensive
      Message 2 of 19 , Jan 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Pelton" <kpelton08@h...>
        wrote:
        > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "nick_scholtz" <nick@l...>
        > wrote:
        > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
        > > wrote:
        >
        > > Interesting. I thought that a year or two ago there was a study
        > > done on the Sonics that compared their win/loss records in games
        > > when they (1) had more rebounds than their opponent (2) shot more
        > > free throws than their opponent (3) had fewer turn overs than
        > > their opponent OR (4) had more assists than their opponent.
        > >
        > > IIRC correctly, assists were by far the best predictor of wins, but
        > > that study only covered one team for a third of a season.
        >
        > http://www.sonicscentral.com/kevin7.html

        Historically, FG% and Defensive rebounds have been the best indicators
        in this kind of study (see chp 6). This kind of study is, well,
        flawed. Defensive rebounds are purely a reflection of fg%. So are
        total rebounds, to a lesser degree. There are lots of correlations
        between stats and this kind of study, while interesting, doesn't tell
        you how to use the info to make teams better (my goal). Kevin points
        out that turnovers aren't a huge predictor, which is true in the other
        large studies I've looked at. That doesn't mean that you can tell
        your team to just go out and commit turnovers. Turnovers matter an
        immense amount -- but this kind of study doesn't reflect it.

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