Re: NBA and scoring
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
> i've attached a spreadsheet to this email that shows you the yearlynumbers
> since 1977-78 (when they first started keeping all the stats theykeep today
> - including the trio of TO, BS, and ST).What's your take on why it gets slower in the playoffs? I've noticed
> absolutely consistent over a 16 year period. so shooting isn't thereason
> scoring went down.Pace is the biggest reason. Definitely. And it is coaches slowing
the game down.
> are indeed quite simple. first and foremost is the premise that itshould
> never be advantageous to commit a foul - not ever. the first thingthe league
> should do is to bring back the bonus free throws (last used in thevery early
> 1980s) when a team is in the penalty, the 3 to make 2 and 2 to make1 (when
> the bucket is made). that right there will open up the lane. peopletoday
> will say that the extra free throws will slow up the game, but the1970s
> disproves that....This is probably a very good suggestion. One thing Bob overlooks a
little in his statement that "shooting isn't the problem" is that big
men are shooting worse in the '90's. No one guy is shooting 65%
anymore like they did in the '80's. And this is because of the hard
fouling. Bringing back the 3/2 should help that. I hesitate only a
little with Bob's suggestions about obvious hard fouls, that
hesitation due only to ref's indecision on a lot of stuff already.
But I agree completely with the spirit of it.
> what not to do?...
> one - if the league allows zone defenses, they might as well give
> magazines and newspapers as they enter the arenas. if they allowzones no
> one, i repeat, no one will re-up their season tickets....Not sure I agree. I tend to believe that the zone is a less
effective defense than a man in many ways. Allowing it does
strengthen the defense by giving it another option, but getting away
from the stifling man would also be good for offenses. But I have
seen little evidence that a zone even slows down the game. Since a
zone (some zones) tries to take away the middle, it should become a
coach's theory to take earlier shots in an offense. Further, you can
hide weak defending good shooting perimeter players in a zone -- not
sure if this is the problem, as Bob says. You can hide good
offensive big men in foul trouble, then.
> two - forget the present zone defense rules. they only encourage
> or two-on-two basketball with 6-8 guys standing above the key.that's a whole
> lot of fun to watch - nothing i like better than watching 7' 7"shawn bradley
> playing above the key on offense. if they simply called defensive 3seconds
> (which is in the rule book - i know i used to ref) like they nowcall
> offensive 3 seconds, and i mean call it often, that will solve thattime) is
> lastly, what i'd love to see but will never happen (TV commercial
> each team limited to one timeout per half...to having
> institute these changes and in just a few years (2-3) you'd be back
> games with total ball possessions per team per game in the high 90sto low
> 100s, even if you do not change the shot clock from 24 to 20seconds...
The defensive 3-s rules:
Rule 12, Section II, part c: Defenders may be in a position within
the "inside" lane for a tight 2.9 seconds. They must re-establish a
position with both feet out of the "inside" lane, to be legally clear
of the area.
Rule 12, Section II, part d: A defender may be positioned within the
"inside" lane with no time limitations, if an offensive player is
positioned within the 3' "posted-up" area.
Has anyone counted to see how often it gets violated now?
> p.s. - dean, my software does use team possessions as a game
Does this mean you couldn't simulate a 20-s clock? Your software has
some great potential. You might want to give a primer here on what
Journal of Basketball Studies
- Dean Oliver wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:The data's not available I suspect, but shooting percentage by time left on
> Harlanzo suggested a few changes to "make the game entertaining and
> watchable." One at a time...
> > Obviously, enforcing the already enacted 5-second back down rule
> > could help but I've never seen the rule called.
> I've seen it enforced, but not since early in the season. I
> haven't seen it violated much either. It's a good rule that has made
> something of a difference. It fixed only one egregious problem
> though. There is still a lot of waiting around for the perfect shot,
> while actually jeopardizing the team's chances by waiting so long.
> (How to quantify this?)
the clock might be instructive. 14-24 are probably pretty good, because
these are fast break or open shot situations for the most part, but it mighe
be interesting to see <4, 5-8 and 9-12 (or other granularites) to see if
waiting longer is beneficial.
Gary Collard | Office: garyc@..., 469-357-8485
i2 | Mobile: 214-924-3263
SCP QA Team | Fax: 469-357-8613
| Home: collardg@..., 972-790-1166
Co-Moderator, Society for American Baseball Research (SABR)
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Gary Collard <garyc@i...> wrote:
> The data's not available I suspect, but shooting percentage by timeleft on
> the clock might be instructive. 14-24 are probably pretty good,because
> these are fast break or open shot situations for the most part, butit mighe
> be interesting to see <4, 5-8 and 9-12 (or other granularites) tosee if
> waiting longer is beneficial.I've never seen these data (maybe Harvey Pollack has it?). I'm going
to a HS game tonight and I'll track this during the game. Can't
really do it on a televised game.
Journal of Basketball Studies