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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Pace and optimality

Expand Messages
  • Gabe Farkas
    The first metric that comes to mind is %age outscoring opponents. Not exactly, margin of victory, but similar. That way, it can be used to compare across
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 16, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The first metric that comes to mind is %age outscoring
      opponents. Not exactly, margin of victory, but
      similar.

      That way, it can be used to compare across different
      scoring eras. For example, a 60-50 victory (20% margin
      of victory) would weigh equally with a 120-100 margin
      of victory.

      Does that make sense?



      --- Dean Oliver <deano@...> wrote:

      >
      > I've tended to stay away from the intertemporal
      > discussion, but there
      > seems to be an implication in the last post that
      > there may be an
      > optimal pace or that the game wasn't played
      > optimally before. My
      > question to be asked aloud is whether there is a
      > science known to
      > anyone in that discussion on identifying an optimal
      > pace or an optimal
      > way to play the game. I have some tools for looking
      > at optimal
      > offensive structure, including pace, but I rarely
      > see pace as an
      > issue. Sometimes I do for certain teams, but it's
      > pretty uncommon.
      >
      > The pace has seemed to level out the last 8 years or
      > so after falling
      > for a long long time. Since then, offenses have
      > gotten slightly less
      > efficient:
      >
      > season Rtg Poss/G
      > 1996 108 92.4
      > 1997 107 90.8
      > 1998 105 91.0
      > 1999 102 89.6
      > 2000 104 93.7
      > 2001 104 91.4
      > 2002 105 91.3
      > 2003 104 91.7
      > 2004 103 90.7
      >
      > Thoughts?
      >
      > Dean Oliver
      > Author, Basketball on Paper
      > http://www.basketballonpaper.com
      > "Oliver's book provides an insightful framework for
      > basketball. His
      > approach highlights and simplifies the basic goals
      > of team offenses
      > and defenses, with an interesting description of how
      > teamwork among
      > players with different roles can be evaluated. This
      > book is a unique
      > and surprisingly practical addition to a coach's
      > library." Dean
      > Smith, Hall of Fame Basketball Coach, University of
      > North Carolina
      >
      >
      >


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • ivan ivan
      that makes sense. i think percentages are much more telling than differentials Gabe Farkas wrote: The first metric that comes to mind is
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 16, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        that makes sense.
        i think percentages are much more telling than differentials

        Gabe Farkas <gabefark@...> wrote:
        The first metric that comes to mind is %age outscoring
        opponents. Not exactly, margin of victory, but
        similar.

        That way, it can be used to compare across different
        scoring eras. For example, a 60-50 victory (20% margin
        of victory) would weigh equally with a 120-100 margin
        of victory.

        Does that make sense?



        --- Dean Oliver <deano@...> wrote:

        >
        > I've tended to stay away from the intertemporal
        > discussion, but there
        > seems to be an implication in the last post that
        > there may be an
        > optimal pace or that the game wasn't played
        > optimally before.  My
        > question to be asked aloud is whether there is a
        > science known to
        > anyone in that discussion on identifying an optimal
        > pace or an optimal
        > way to play the game.  I have some tools for looking
        > at optimal
        > offensive structure, including pace, but I rarely
        > see pace as an
        > issue.  Sometimes I do for certain teams, but it's
        > pretty uncommon. 
        >
        > The pace has seemed to level out the last 8 years or
        > so after falling
        > for a long long time.  Since then, offenses have
        > gotten slightly less
        > efficient:
        >
        > season      Rtg      Poss/G
        > 1996      108      92.4
        > 1997      107      90.8
        > 1998      105      91.0
        > 1999      102      89.6
        > 2000      104      93.7
        > 2001      104      91.4
        > 2002      105      91.3
        > 2003      104      91.7
        > 2004      103      90.7
        >
        > Thoughts?
        >
        > Dean Oliver
        > Author, Basketball on Paper
        > http://www.basketballonpaper.com
        > "Oliver's book provides an insightful framework for
        > basketball.  His
        > approach highlights and simplifies the basic goals
        > of team offenses
        > and defenses, with an interesting description of how
        > teamwork among
        > players with different roles can be evaluated.  This
        > book is a unique
        > and surprisingly practical addition to a coach's
        > library."  Dean
        > Smith, Hall of Fame Basketball Coach, University of
        > North Carolina
        >
        >
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com

      • schtevie2003
        ... there ... optimal ... uncommon. I would only ask for a heads on reply to the theoretical argument posed: if one assumes the NBA on average is playing
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 16, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
          wrote:
          >
          > I've tended to stay away from the intertemporal discussion, but
          there
          > seems to be an implication in the last post that there may be an
          > optimal pace or that the game wasn't played optimally before. My
          > question to be asked aloud is whether there is a science known to
          > anyone in that discussion on identifying an optimal pace or an
          optimal
          > way to play the game. I have some tools for looking at optimal
          > offensive structure, including pace, but I rarely see pace as an
          > issue. Sometimes I do for certain teams, but it's pretty
          uncommon.

          I would only ask for a heads on reply to the theoretical argument
          posed: if one assumes the NBA on average is playing optimally in year
          1 and then the pace slows in year 2 AND offensive productivity
          increases in year 2 as well, should not the baseline interpretation
          be that the NBA in year 1 was playing sub-optimally (unless one
          invokes differences in rule interpretation or rule changes, or other
          obviating factors, and in which case the futher, ultimate obligation
          is to identify them.)

          And on the other point: In cross-section (that is to say in any given
          year across teams) pace need not be an issue (in fact there is no
          reason to assume that it is - i.e. the teams with the highest
          offensive productivity can also be the fastest paced teams, with this
          fact having no comment on the argument above) but intertemporally it
          clearly was (i.e. the NBA averages moved dramatically over time!)

          > The pace has seemed to level out the last 8 years or so after
          falling
          > for a long long time. Since then, offenses have gotten slightly
          less
          > efficient:
          >
          > season Rtg Poss/G
          > 1996 108 92.4
          > 1997 107 90.8
          > 1998 105 91.0
          > 1999 102 89.6
          > 2000 104 93.7
          > 2001 104 91.4
          > 2002 105 91.3
          > 2003 104 91.7
          > 2004 103 90.7
          >
          > Thoughts?

          To repeat a conclusion noted last year. It is only when pace slows
          and offensive productivities increase that one can say with
          theoretical correctness (absent mitigating factors) that the offense,
          on net, has improved. If pace slows and productivity does too
          (something that started in the early 90s, I think) one can claim that
          either offenses worsened or defenses improved. I think that the rise
          in 3 point percentage, the rise in the perceived importance of
          defense (after the successes of the Pistons, then Bulls, etc.) should
          imply that the prudent assumption is the latter rather than the
          former. But then again, there are always those who are inclined to
          believe in regress, against all ancillary suggestive evidence.




          > Dean Oliver
          > Author, Basketball on Paper
          > http://www.basketballonpaper.com
          > "Oliver's book provides an insightful framework for basketball. His
          > approach highlights and simplifies the basic goals of team offenses
          > and defenses, with an interesting description of how teamwork among
          > players with different roles can be evaluated. This book is a
          unique
          > and surprisingly practical addition to a coach's library." Dean
          > Smith, Hall of Fame Basketball Coach, University of North Carolina
        • schtevie2003
          ... there seems ... pace or that ... aloud is ... identifying an ... for ... rarely see pace as an ... uncommon.  ... falling for a ... and ... first kept),
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 16, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
            > I've tended to stay away from the intertemporal discussion, but
            there seems
            > to be an implication in the last post that there may be an optimal
            pace or that
            > the game wasn't played optimally before.  My question to be asked
            aloud is
            > whether there is a science known to anyone in that discussion on
            identifying an
            > optimal pace or an optimal way to play the game.  I have some tools
            for
            > looking at optimal offensive structure, including pace, but I
            rarely see pace as an
            > issue.  Sometimes I do for certain teams, but it's pretty
            uncommon. 
            >
            > The pace has seemed to level out the last 8 years or so after
            falling for a
            > long long time.  Since then, offenses have gotten slightly less
            efficient:
            >
            > season Rtg    Poss/G
            > 1996    108    92.4
            > 1997    107    90.8
            > 1998    105    91.0
            > 1999    102    89.6
            > 2000    104    93.7
            > 2001    104    91.4
            > 2002    105    91.3
            > 2003    104    91.7
            > 2004    103    90.7
            >
            > Thoughts?
            >
            > i have plotted game pace versus W-L percentage on an annual basis,
            and
            > cumulative since the late 1970s (since 1977-78, when turnovers were
            first kept), and
            > have yet to see any significant pattern. for every high scoring
            team in a
            > specific season that plays little defense there are also high
            scoring teams that
            > play good defense (sometimes even in the same season), and there
            have been low
            > scoring teams inefficient on offense and also low scoring teams
            with
            > efficient scoring offenses. if there is a discernible pattern
            there, i haven't been
            > able to find it, and consequently i don't expect there to be any
            holy grail
            > associated with game pace...

            Well, what we know is that the averages have moved in a way which
            isn't controversial (I think.) To repeat a point just made in a
            response to DeanO, cross-sectional studies imply nothing. I don't
            know if this is what you are referring to in your mention of plotting
            data.

            What is the interesting study, I anticipate, is to understand the
            sociology of observed average change. My guess is that the average
            team follows the perceived exemplar. And in this vein I think the
            Celtic's dynasty was a very bad teacher indeed, as they were great
            because of their defense and (by all accounts) their transition
            game. As their overall offense was just average (or slightly above)
            their half-court offense must have been below average. But my guess
            is that the received wisdom was that the Celtic's were great so one
            should emulate them and run and shoot quickly as well. But this
            wisdom wasn't, as the other team's did not have Bill Russell. So it
            went, perhaps, for the Piston's of the late 80s, etc.

            > as for 1996-2004, is the offense getting less efficient with time
            or the
            > defense getting more efficient? the answer is - yes... i.e. is the
            cup half empty
            > or half full - its both...

            True.

            > bob chaikin
            > bchaikin@b...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.