- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "McKibbin, Stuart" <smckibbi@c...> wrote:
> I'm charting 5 categories of stats: 1) Offensive rebounds, putbacks

by the

> rebounder and second chance points. I do not count recovering a

blocked shot

> as an offensive rebound. 2) In-the-act FTA's, technical FTA's, and-

1 FTA's,

> bonus FTA's, and threepoint FTA's. 3) Steals, fastbreak attempts

off steals,

> fastbreak points off steals 4) Blocked shots, who recovers them,

fastbreak

> attempts off blocks, points off blocks 5) Offensive fouls

charted,

>

> First, apparently I undercount steals and blocks. In the games I've

> the boxscores say the Lakes had 123 steals and 115 blocks, and the

opponent

> 104 steals and 66 blocks. My numbers are Lakers 109 steals and 86

blocks,

> opponents 86 steals and 45 blocks. I only catch about 72% of the

blocks and

> 86% of the steals. It's a fast paced game, and little tip blocks in

traffic

> are hard to pickup on, but I didn't think my numbers were THAT bad.

Of

> course, it could simply be that the official scorekeepers are

especially

> liberal in handing out gold stars. One question: Because my numbers

are so

> far off does that limit the usefulness of my stats?

Good luck replicating NBA numbers. Their scorers are quite arbitrary

>

in awarding steals and blocks. As an example, the Toronto block

shot "record" was rescinded a few days later when people questioned

it. A lot of steals and blocks are awarded without any logic I see.

I tend to undercount them as well.

Does this affect the usefulness? Yes, somewhat. For instance, if

your analysis says, for example, that 80 steals lead to 100 points

and we then say that a steal increases offensive efficiency to

approximately 1.25 pts/poss, but the league actually recorded 100

steals, the conclusion is clouded. If we go to use the overcounted

NBA numbers, we could easily be overstating the value of an NBA-

official steal.

> Some preliminary numbers from the 14 games. Lakers 109 steals, 67

fastbreak

> attempts, 83 points. Opponents 86 steals, 59 fastbreak attempts, 82

points.

> So if we assume the teams averaged 1 point for each non-fastbreak

attempt

> steal that means Lakes 109 steals, 125 points; opponents 86 steals,

109

> points. Totals: 195 steals, 234 points or 1.2 points per steal. I

realize we

> can't extrapolate this to the league at large (Laker games may not

be

> representative) but it is interesting.

Would be nice if you didn't assume 1 pt for non-fastbreak attempts.

>

Also note that if you use the official count on steals, you have 227

steals and your estimate of 234 points off of it -- pretty close to 1

pt/assist. That's where the potential undercounting is a problem.

Maybe "true" steals are worth 1.2 pts, but NBA official steals may be

worth only about 1 pt.

> Blocks: I counted 131 blocks for the games, the shooting team

recovered 56

> of them. So a block deprived the offense of the ball just 57% of

the time.

> Moreover, those 75 defensive recoveries resulted in very few

fastbreak

> attempts yielding just 33 points. It seems the blocked shot isn't

much of a

> fastbreak starter.

Good info. A blocked shot is primarily a defensive contribution.

>

> Offensive rebounds: My numbers matchup with the boxscores pretty

well (once

> you add in the offensive recovery of blocked shots). What is

amazing is how

> much better the Lakers are than their opponents at the rebounder

sticking

> the ball back in the hole. Lakers 150 off rebs (plus 6 off team

rebs), 72

> shots by the rebounder, 48 putback baskets. Overall 176 points from

the 156

> second chance opportunities. The opponents had 156 off rebs (plus

11 off

> team rebs) 75 shots by rebounder, but only 29 putback baskets.

Overall 161

> points in 167 second chance opportunities.

Hmmm. Mixed results. I have generally done incomplete looks at the

>

issue and almost always with _good_ teams. Those good teams suggest

that scoring off an offensive rebound is a little more efficient than

scoring in general. Maybe it ain't true with mediocre or poor teams.

Useful to know that approximately 1/2 of all offensive rebounds are

shot by the rebounder. I can definitely use that. I've always

assumed 1/5th would be, knowing that it doesn't make a huge

difference to my analysis. I need to review this stuff a little

later to see how it all adds up.

> Last thought, the following stats show how unique and outstanding a

player

> Shaquille O'Neal is: 54 off rebs, 33 putback shots by him making

24 (73%).

> He personally scored 57 points directly after his grabbing the

rebound, his

> teammates chipping in for another 12 points. In the 14 games, I

charted

> 27(!) of his FTA's as "and-1's" (17.4% of the 155 FTA's he shot in

those 14

> games), the next highest on the Lakers is Kobe with 7.

I estimate total possessions from free throws as 0.4 * FTA. So

0.4*155 = 62 total possessions from his free throws. The "and 1's"

do not count as a possession, which is why I use 0.4, not 0.48 or

something closer to 0.5 (which would account only for technical

fouls). From your numbers, 155-27 = 128. 128 foul attempts on two-

shot fouls means 64 possessions. So I'm off by 2 possessions, which

could be some of the technical fouls shot by the Lakers.

Let me take a guess then at how many FTA's Kobe had:

(x-7)/2 ~ 0.4x

x ~ 35

That is very low, knowing that he has shot 144 in 16 games.

He "should have" shot many more "and-1's", probably on the order of

20. The person who should have the next most and-1's is Devean

George or Robert Horry, with maybe 4-5.

How many total "and-1's" have their been for the Laker team? How

many total technical foul shots for the team?

I need to check to see how variation from the 0.4 would affect my

offensive efficiency ratings. I think your info slightly raises

Kobe's pts produced, his scoring possessions, and his total

possessions. So, it would slightly help my calculated numbers for

him.

For some of you that> calculate offensive efficiency, that helps him, right? He had 37

personal

> fouls in the 14 charted games, 9 are offensive (24.3%). For those

of you

> that calculate defensive efficiency, that helps, too, right?

Keep counting. If 25% of all fouls are offensive, that is a useful

>

piece of knowledge. Or if it's 20-30%, that helps. - Stuart should be getting paid for this.

--- In APBR_analysis@y..., "McKibbin, Stuart" <smckibbi@c...> wrote:

.... I only catch about 72% of the blocks and

> 86% of the steals. ...: Because my numbers are so

> far off does that limit the usefulness of my stats?

If you know about what your "error" is, it seems practical to factor

that in.

> ....Blocks: I counted 131 blocks for the games, the shooting team

recovered 56

> of them. So a block deprived the offense of the ball just 57% of

the time.

One could keep track of such things as shot-clock violations

following a block, reduced shooting pct (to beat the clock) after a

recovered block, or even 'dumb' fouls trying to recover the block.

In other words, what is the offensive efficiency after an offensive

recovered block?

I may be splitting hairs, but there is a lot of good in a blocked

shot.

>...Lakers 150 off rebs (plus 6 off team rebs), 72

> shots by the rebounder, 48 putback baskets. Overall 176 points from

the 156

> second chance opportunities ...

>... Shaquille O'Neal is: 54 off rebs, 33 putback shots by him

making 24 (73%).

> He personally scored 57 points directly after his grabbing the

rebound, his

> teammates chipping in for another 12 points.

If Lakers have: 176 pts / 156 OReb

and Shaq has: 57 pts / 54 OReb

then

non-Shaq Lakers: 119 pts / 102 OReb

That would seem to make Shaq weaker at scoring after an OReb than his

teammates are?

> In the 14 games, I charted

> 27(!) of his FTA's as "and-1's" (17.4% of the 155 FTA's he shot in

those 14

> games), the next highest on the Lakers is Kobe with 7. For some of

you that

> calculate offensive efficiency, that helps him, right?

I guess I have counted 13.5 FGA too many for Shaq, and his overall

pct. should be .554 instead of .534.

The effect on his scoring 'rate' is significant; instead of the 29.5

I have given him, he should be at 30.7.

> Anyway, I'll continue this for the rest of the year.

Keep up the good works, Stuart.