RE: [APBR_analysis] Re: Defining Team Turnovers & Team Rebounds
- -----Original Message-----
From: Gabe Farkas [mailto:gabefark@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:31 PM
>What if those situations where Evans knocks the ballIt's another case of the ambiguity of the word, and
>out of bounds counted as a turnover for him? Wouldn't
>that rectify the situation? Seems to me that this
>would make sense, anyway.
>I mean, the ball WAS out on him...
for that matter the concept, of "possession". Evans
can't be charged with a turnover until the Sonics
gain possession. If the ball is bouncing around
while the rebounders scramble for it, no one's got
possession yet. Evans may've failed to get a
rebound, in effect giving the ball to the opponent,
but that's not a turnover to the opponent because
Evans never had possession. Instead it's a team
rebound to the opponent.
Also, here's a couple of comments on KevinP's post:
>--- thedawgsareout <kpelton08@...> wrote:[...]
>> Reggie Evans for the Sonics is a good example ofThis suggests that ignoring team rebounds (which I
>> this. He has bad
>> hands and is very aggressive, so he knocks a bunch
>> of rebounds out
>> of bounds. According to the stats the NBA keeps,
>> it's as if those
>> plays never occurred.
presume is what most of us do, and simply focus on
the sum of individuals' rebounds) might lead to some
inaccuracy, if there are systematic differences
between the team rebounds of good rebounding teams
(or players) vs those who are not good (actually,
Evans is an extremely good rebounder, but at the
same time KevinP could be correct that he may be
costing the Sonics some rebounds by knocking some
out of bounds).
But the only solution would be for the NBA to keep
much more detailed stats on team rebounds -- which
ones were offensive, which ones were defensive,
which ones were the trivial ones from missed FTs
and missed buzzer beaters vs which ones were "real"
such as Evans causing the ball to go to the opponent,
who was responsible for yielding that team rebd,
> I should point out calling the team turnover issueProbably correct, although the Evans example with
> "serious" is
> probably an overstatement. There are few team
> turnovers, and they're
> probably pretty evenly distributed. It's not like
> we're going to
> rate the 2002-03 Nuggets as a good offensive team or
team rebounds raises the question of whether there
are also players or teams whose style of play results
in systematically low or high team turnovers.