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

Re: olympic stats

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... What it literally says is that trying to get yourself to the line doesn t dramatically improve your net point total. On a margin, trying to increase your
    Message 1 of 48 , Sep 2, 2004
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "thefiend42" <smckibbi@c...> wrote:
      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
      > wrote:
      > > Two things:
      > >
      > > 1. The complaints over Duncan's foul trouble seemed justified. The
      > > reffing, as most noted, was pretty bad. But it makes a point that
      > > losing just one player cost a lot to the US this time. Usually, the
      > > US doesn't rely on just one guy.
      > >
      > > 2. I ran Roboscout on the entire tournament. When I do that, it
      > > looks for general trends that win and lose games, rather than
      > > team-specific ones. One very clear thing that came out is that
      > > getting to the foul line was useless. Counting on getting fouled
      > as a
      > > strategy made no sense. I've never seen it quite so meaningless.
      > > (Not surprisingly, shooting was more important in this tournament
      > than
      > > in the NBA, though not by a huge amount.) I mean to run this
      > analysis
      > > on other international tournaments to see if it's a consistent trend
      > > or just associated with the ref problems in this Olympics.
      > Dean,
      > Sorry if I'm a bit thick here, but I want to properly interpret what
      > Roboscout spits out. You say getting to the foul line was useless,
      > meaningless and made no sense. I'm having trouble understanding the
      > force of those descriptions. Is it useless because you won't get the
      > calls, the refs won't bail you out? Or is it useless because the refs
      > wouldn't allow a team to have a large FTA margin? Or is it useless
      > because even increasing the number of your team's FTAs---like going
      > from 20 to 40 FTAs in a game---would not increase the chance of
      > winning? Or is it useless because you should be sitting back and
      > shooting threes instead?

      What it literally says is that trying to get yourself to the line
      doesn't dramatically improve your net point total. On a margin,
      trying to increase your ability to get to the line helps about a tenth
      as much as trying to increase your ability to shoot the ball.
      Basically, teams that got to the line a fair amount didn't really
      increase their net point total much... That reflects on the refs
      inconsistency here, I believe, whether that's because they wouldn't
      allow a large margin or just inconsistency. I haven't looked for bias,
      but I think it's purely inconsistency. It also reflects the fact that
      teams didn't shoot all that well from the stripe, but that effect is
      relatively small, based on my experience in looking at teams with poor
      foul shooting.

      > Anyway, it seems clear that a strategy to get to the foul line at Tim
      > Duncan's expense worked.

      Actually, teams didn't get to the line too much against the US. I
      don't know for sure, but I think that many of the fouls called on
      Duncan were not shooting fouls. They were loose ball or offensive
      fouls. The US was 4th of 12 at keeping opponents off the foul line
      (though, as mentioned, this didn't help much in net pts).


      Dean Oliver
      Author, Basketball on Paper
      When basketball teams start playing Moneyball, this is the book
      they'll use!
    • schtevie2003
      ... Out with emotion, in with on point arguments. ... I am not sure which reasoning you are characterizing. But I don t think we are disagreeing here, at
      Message 48 of 48 , Sep 20, 2004
        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "carlos12155" <carlosmanuel@b...> wrote:
        > I'm reluctant to post in this topic, because for some reason it seems
        > too emotionally loaded, but here I go. Schtevie, I think that your
        > reasoning has some flaws and will try to point them out.

        Out with emotion, in with on point arguments.

        > A)The notion that other things being equal a faster pace should mean
        > improved offensive efficiency only holds true if the faster pace is
        > the product of more fast breaks and the offensive efficiency in half
        > court sets remains the same. If the faster pace is the result of
        > shooting earlier in half court sets, there is no reason offensive
        > efficiency should improve. A faster or slower pace per se does not
        > tell us anything about offensive efficiency.

        I am not sure which reasoning you are characterizing. But I don't think we are disagreeing
        here, at least not completely. I am saying that we know that average time per possession
        increased. This could have come about either by relatively fewer fast breaks in the mix -
        which implies a decrease in offensive productivity, as fast breaks are "better breaks" - or
        by more time spent in half-court sets - which should not imply an increase in offensive
        productivity, if anything, perhaps a decrease.

        You write "if the faster pace is the result of shooting earlier in half court sets [now me: this
        is equivalent to going backwards in time] there is no reason offensive efficiency should
        improve". This is my point exactly, going back in time, the offenses were worse.

        Hence, I disagree with your last sentence. It is precisely because (in going backwards) that
        the pace quickened (and despite teams presumably having the benefit of a higher
        proportion of fast breaks) and their productivity dropped which implies that they were
        playing sub-optimally (i.e. they could have done better than they did, just by playing more
        under control and waiting for a better shot.)

        > B)You discard too easily the possibility of another explanation. Maybe
        > another factor made the offensive efficiency of half court sets
        > improve and as a result fast breaks became less neccesary. These
        > alternative explanations need to be discussed and shown to be false.

        The attractiveness of the argument I am making is based on the fact that as a result of the
        basic theory and facts, we know that the game changed in a certain direction (towards
        greater "efficiency"). And, we know what this means in terms of turnover and scoring
        percentages, overall they increase - by "definition". Furthermore, if nothing else changed,
        it is necessarily true that the fact that the game slowed during this time period implies
        that things could have been done better previously, but weren't. As to other explanations,
        I invite anyone to suggest them, and I have identified the categories where they are likely
        to be (differing rule changes/interpretations, changes in populations, etc.) And I agree
        that they should be discussed, but they need not be shown to be false for the game
        improvement argument to hold. What needs to identified are the relative contributions of
        various factors. (So, at the end of the day, one might say that the actual gain in offensive
        efficiency from the 60s (say) to the 80s (say) was x% due to refs deciding that palming the
        basketball was no longer a turnover, y% due to improved shooting ability, and z% due to
        an increase in athleticism, etc.) Right now, however, I am trying to establish the ceteris
        paribus argument that fast play was hasty play, causing many, many, forgone points.

        > C)You assume that the offensive team controls the pace when in fact
        > the defensive and offensive team control it. Now, it's true that the
        > correlation between a slowing pace and improved offense suggests that
        > the offensive team was causing the change, but it doesn't follow that
        > improved shot selection was neccesarily the cause.

        I actually do believe that the offensive team primarily controls the pace in this instance
        because it is the plausible story. (The alternative is an odd story that the offenses were led
        to their improvements by defenses playing better! This story would be that the defenses
        were eliminating fast breaks and playing harder defense, obliging teams to protect the ball
        more and be more patient, with great unexpected gains in productivity.) But for my
        argument to play out, it depends not at all on the assumption of offenses consciously
        slowing down play or being induced superior performance by better defense. (In which
        instance, the superiority of the moderns versus the old school is all the greater still.)

        And you are correct that improved shot selection is not neccesarily the cause of increased
        productivity. But, there is no strong anecdotal evidence that players became better
        shooters (and I don't think that free throw evidence would support it) so, by elimination,
        that leaves shot selection (and better ball control/fewer turnovers).

        > D)You assume that the scoring skill of 60s players was comparable with
        > today's players on the basis of their similar free throw shooting. It
        > seems to me a bit too simple.

        Yes it is simple, but one can argue in terms of broad categories. To repeat: if productivity
        increased, either there were more shots available (i.e. fewer turnovers) or they were better
        shooters (but not better free throwers?) or they got better shots (call it shot selection.)
        That is all possible categories, no?

        > Now, I agree with the general idea that 60s teams probably played too
        > fast, but before stating it as a fact we should try to prove it.

        I have given a proof (again, barring no "out of bound" explanation like changes in rules or
        their interpretation, asymmetric effects of improved or worsened athleticism, a deeper or
        shallower talent pool, etc.) Fleshing out the story of what happened and when is not proof,
        but confirmation.

        > couple of ideas are, 1) Tracking the offensive efficiency of
        > individual players who played during the time period. If there was a
        > "coaches driven" change, their off. eff. should show an evolution
        > quite different from today's players.

        The reason I say this is not proof but confirmation is that we know that if the league
        average moved in one way, it will be reflected in averaged player averages. I think that the
        more interesting story is to try to explain why it moved in the way it did, and my strong
        prior is that league-wide strategy changes were based on emulating teams perceived as
        "successful". As I have noted, my guess is that perceptions of success related (and
        probably still relate) more to trying to "be like Mike, or the Celtics dynasty, or the Bad
        Boys, or whatever" rather than "be like the team that maximizes offensive efficiency".

        2) Compare data with foreign
        > leagues (where we can assume there is less scoring skill) and see
        > where the difference in talent shows up. If we could get data about a
        > long period of time, it could be interesting to see whether we can
        > detect statistically the improvement by international players that has
        > been seen.

        Sounds good to me.

        > Carlos
        > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "schtevie2003" <schtevie@h...>
        > wrote:
        > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
        > > What exactly is your trouble with the notion that slowing game pace
        > and inc=
        > > reasing
        > > offensive productivity directly imply that teams in the base time
        > period we=
        > > re not exhibiting
        > > optimal ball control and shot selection? The idea couldn't be more
        > simple.=
        > > If you have
        > > trouble with this piece of theory, state it. If you think there
        > were offse=
        > > tting factors
        > > otherwise explaining the empirical phenomenon, identify them.
        > Otherwise, s=
        > > tate that you
        > > don't (in a civil fashion.)
        > >
        > > Finally, perhaps, you can expound further on the general issue of
        > posting p=
        > > ropriety and
        > > identify what are legitimate and illegitimate topics of
        > conversations in th=
        > > e "stats group". In
        > > this learned discussion, be sure to include at least some mention of
        > the re=
        > > lative virutes of
        > > simulations and formal statistical analysis; that should be interesting.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > > bob chaikin
        > > > bchaikin@b...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.