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

Tendex rebuttal

Expand Messages
  • McKibbin, Stuart
    Michael Tamada said: [A turnover and steal have opposite values, one loses a possession and one gains a possession] Basically true. Although I have a
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 5, 2001

      Michael Tamada said: "[A turnover and steal have opposite values, one loses a possession and one gains a possession] Basically true. Although I have a suspicion that ST's lead to more fastbreaks and more points than ordinary TO's...."

      Steals are the ONLY turnovers that can lead to fast breaks or to transition fouls to prevent fastbreaks. Throwing or kicking the ball out of bounds, offensive fouls, 3 second calls, 5 second calls, 8 second calls, and 24 second calls all require the referee to stop the action and handle the ball thus allowing the defense time to set up. By the way, what's the classification of a jumpball?

      And you're right, Michael, that's why I'm tracking the result of a steal because I, like you, suspect it's the opportunity to attack the basket in an open court situation that is the value of a steal. That is, I'm trying to chart that the steal is of value not because it ends an opponents possession, but because it's a helluva a start to an offensive possession---and maybe, just maybe, more valuable than a point, maybe 1.2 points or something. It's very possible I'm dead wrong. For example, in Sunday's Laker-Utah game, the Jazz had 8 steals, 5 of those steals became fast break opportunities---those 5 fastbreak attempts yielded 8 points. But overall I see I'm back to 1 steal = 1 point. Anyway, you get the picture.

      Michael Tamada said: "One area where Tendex's double counting is bad (but unavoidable with current statistics) is that it gives 2 points for a FG, and then also gives a point to the assist guy, if any. So an unassisted FG only generates 2 points in Tendex, whereas an assisted generates 3 points. All FGs are worth 2 points (i.e. +1 compared to the value of a possession) and it is silly to make some of them worth 3 points (in Tendex) and others worth only 2."

      Another double counting problem, although it doesn't occur near as often as the one Michael points out, is that offensive fouls are counted as both a TO (-1) and a PF (-1) by the scorekeepers, so that one action is worth two possessions. That's one reason why I'm also charting offensive fouls.

      SM

    • Michael K. Tamada
      ... Actually, this one could be an example of good double-counting. Or at least not so bad. Because an offensive foul truly is a foul (and a bad thing) and a
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 11, 2001
        On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, McKibbin, Stuart wrote:

        > Another double counting problem, although it doesn't occur near as often as
        > the one Michael points out, is that offensive fouls are counted as both a TO
        > (-1) and a PF (-1) by the scorekeepers, so that one action is worth two
        > possessions. That's one reason why I'm also charting offensive fouls.

        Actually, this one could be an example of good double-counting. Or at
        least not so bad. Because an offensive foul truly is a foul (and a bad
        thing) and a turnover (another bad thing).

        On the other hand, as fouls go, OFs are not as bad as loose ball or
        defensive fouls, because they do not count as team fouls. And as
        turnovers go, OFs are not as bad as the kind of turnover that was caused
        by the opponent getting a steal, because the fast break potential for the
        opponent is practically nil.

        So I think the value of an off. foul is intermediate. Worse than -1 but
        not as bad as the combined total of an average TO and average PF.


        --MKT
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.