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

Re: Pace and optimality

Expand Messages
  • schtevie2003
    ... there seems ... pace or that ... aloud is ... identifying an ... for ... rarely see pace as an ... uncommon.  ... falling for a ... and ... first kept),
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 16, 2004
      --- 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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,
      > 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
      > 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

      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...


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