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

Iverson effect

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    I ve been meaning to look at this for a while, but I m only a couple days away from being free of my massive workload. So here is my question: Why has Philly
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 17 3:06 PM
      I've been meaning to look at this for a while, but I'm only a couple
      days away from being free of my massive workload. So here is my
      question: Why has Philly done so much better since Iverson came
      back? Offensive or defensive improvement? If it's D, then what's he
      doing? We know he's good for steals and basic off-the-ball D. Is
      that it? Have steals or forced TO's gone up? If it's O, then how?
      The guy isn't shooting well. Has he really "made his teammates
      better"? Has he improved the team's ability to get OR's?

      Easy questions, but I won't have time to look at them for a couple
      more days. Anyone else want to take a stab?

      The other thing that I did get a chance to look at is the preliminary
      effects of the zone. The big thing I thought I noticed and then did
      a quick study on was that the best offensive teams of last seem to be
      doing a lot better this year than the best defensive teams of last
      year. Basically, I did a statistical correlation between last year's
      offensive ratings and this year's win% and found a very good
      correlation. No correlation existed between last year's DRtgs and
      this year's win%. This implies that last year's best offensive teams
      tend to be good this year. What I then did was look at the
      correlation between last year's O and D rtgs and the improvement in
      record from last year. What I saw was that poor defensive teams last
      year are more likely to be improved (and good defensive teams are
      more likely to be worse). No real effect with offense.

      What this implies to me is that last year's good offensive teams were
      good and continue to be good (Lakers, Bucks, Mavs are the examples in
      my head). It also echoes the fact that the Knicks and Heat and
      Hornets, who were good D teams last year, are struggling this year.
      The Wolves and Nets, who weren't particularly good defensively last
      year, are improved. I need to complete the stats and can then send
      them on.

      What does this mean in terms of the zone? It implies that it is
      serving to equalize defenses, which makes sense. By giving teams
      another option defensively, it should narrow the gap a bit between
      the best and worst D teams. That seems to be happening.

      Dean Oliver
      Journal of Basketball Studies
    • Mike Goodman
      I was just watching a replay of some Sixers/Pacers from last season. When Iverson is in the game, nothing happens without his influence. On D: if he isn t
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 18 4:46 AM
        I was just watching a replay of some Sixers/Pacers from last season.
        When Iverson is in the game, nothing happens without his influence.
        On D: if he isn't stealing the ball, he's missing a steal; this
        prompts the opposition to hurry to take advantage. Teams often react
        badly to any disruption in their offensive rhythm.

        On O: when Iverson beats his man, the defense is broke. Even if he
        misses his shot, the opposition seems to be constantly scrambling,
        increasing the chaos that favors the offensive team; i.e. offensive
        boards, missed assignments.

        Not all missed shots are equal (harking back to earlier Tendex
        discussion). On a team without a steady supply of scorers off the
        bench (an understatement, in Philly's case), points however-gotten
        are welcome.

        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...> wrote:
        >
        > I've been meaning to look at this for a while, but I'm only a
        couple
        > days away from being free of my massive workload. So here is my
        > question: Why has Philly done so much better since Iverson came
        > back? Offensive or defensive improvement? If it's D, then what's
        he
        > doing? We know he's good for steals and basic off-the-ball D. Is
        > that it? Have steals or forced TO's gone up? If it's O, then
        how?
        > The guy isn't shooting well. Has he really "made his teammates
        > better"? Has he improved the team's ability to get OR's?
        >
        > Easy questions, but I won't have time to look at them for a couple
        > more days. Anyone else want to take a stab?

        This is a good analysis (preliminary) and sounds about right, both
        from what the numbers have shown, and what one might expect.
        It looked to me as though there were a lot of really high shooting
        pct around the league, but in total, the league-wide scoring
        efficiency is .509 (.510 last season).

        > The other thing that I did get a chance to look at is the
        preliminary
        > effects of the zone. The big thing I thought I noticed and then
        did
        > a quick study on was that the best offensive teams of last seem to
        be
        > doing a lot better this year than the best defensive teams of last
        > year. Basically, I did a statistical correlation between last
        year's
        > offensive ratings and this year's win% and found a very good
        > correlation. No correlation existed between last year's DRtgs and
        > this year's win%. This implies that last year's best offensive
        teams
        > tend to be good this year. What I then did was look at the
        > correlation between last year's O and D rtgs and the improvement in
        > record from last year. What I saw was that poor defensive teams
        last
        > year are more likely to be improved (and good defensive teams are
        > more likely to be worse). No real effect with offense.
        >
        > What this implies to me is that last year's good offensive teams
        were
        > good and continue to be good (Lakers, Bucks, Mavs are the examples
        in
        > my head). It also echoes the fact that the Knicks and Heat and
        > Hornets, who were good D teams last year, are struggling this
        year.
        > The Wolves and Nets, who weren't particularly good defensively last
        > year, are improved. I need to complete the stats and can then send
        > them on.
        >
        > What does this mean in terms of the zone? It implies that it is
        > serving to equalize defenses, which makes sense. By giving teams
        > another option defensively, it should narrow the gap a bit between
        > the best and worst D teams. That seems to be happening.
        >
        > Dean Oliver
        > Journal of Basketball Studies
      • John Maxwell
        Random quick notes It s really the Iverson/McKie effect. The media seem to have forgotten that McKie missed the team s first 4 games. Current record of
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 18 7:31 AM
          Random quick notes

          It's really the Iverson/McKie effect. The media seem to have forgotten that
          McKie missed the team's first 4 games.

          Current record of opponents in first 5 games (not including games vs.
          Philly)
          Minnesota: 7-1
          Dallas: 5-3
          Washington: 1-7
          Indiana: 5-6
          Houston: 5-4
          Overall: 23-21

          Current record of opponents in past 5 games (not including games vs. Philly)
          Dallas: 5-3
          Miami: 2-6
          Charlotte: 4-4
          Atlanta: 3-6
          New Jersey: 7-1
          Overall: 21-20

          No real difference. Only other thoughts on the strength of schedule would be
          that three of the first five oppoenents were Western Conference opponenets
          while only one in the next five was.

          Over the last 5 games as a team . . .
          taking 10 more shots, one less three-pointer
          Taking just over 6 more free throws per game
          Averaging over 7 more steals per game
          Averaging 16 more points per game
          More than 4 fewer turnovers per game

          Opposition over last 5 games . . .
          Taking one less shot
          Taking one less three pointer
          Field goal percentage down from .427 to .396
          Three point field goal percentage down from .324 to .209
          Averaging nearly 3 fewer assists
          Averaging nearly 5 more turnovers
          Averaging nearly 2 fewer steals

          Just eyeballing it, it looks like the return of McKie and Iverson has
          increased the pace of the 76ers games.

          First 5 games - only 1 game with Philly scoring more than 80 points
          Last 5 games - all 5 games over 80 points, 4 games over 90

          McKie and Iverson's vs. Bell and Claxton in their 10 starts
          M and I are on the left, B and C on the right

          38.0 (Pts) 22.0
          .391, 71-of-182 (FGPct) .453, 48-of-106
          .250, 7-of-28 (3GPct) .200, 3-of-15
          .745, 41-of-55 (FTPct) .875, 21-of-24)
          9.6 (Rbs) 6.3
          13.0 (Ast) 8.9
          5.00 (Stls) 1.83
          7.2 (TO) 5.1

          The increase in turnovers probably isn't a "real" increase since McKie and
          Iverson are both probably effecting more possessions per game than Bell and
          Claxton.

          Bell's percentages are up since going back to his bench role.

          I'll try and run some efficiency ratings when I get back from watching the
          Carolina Panthers stink up the joint against the San Francisco 49ers.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.