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

Re: Charting Laker games - Status

Expand Messages
  • HoopStudies
    ... by the ... blocked shot ... 1 FTA s, ... off steals, ... fastbreak ... charted, ... opponent ... blocks, ... blocks and ... traffic ... Of ... especially
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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
      >
      > First, apparently I undercount steals and blocks. In the games I've
      charted,
      > 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      shot "record" was rescinded a few days later when people questioned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.
    • mikel_ind
      Stuart should be getting paid for this. ... If you know about what your error is, it seems practical to factor that in. ... recovered 56 ... the time. One
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 8, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.