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

Re: NBA and scoring

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... numbers ... keep today ... What s your take on why it gets slower in the playoffs? I ve noticed this, too. ... reason ... Pace is the biggest reason.
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 13, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:

      > i've attached a spreadsheet to this email that shows you the yearly
      numbers
      > since 1977-78 (when they first started keeping all the stats they
      keep today
      > - including the trio of TO, BS, and ST).

      What's your take on why it gets slower in the playoffs? I've noticed
      this, too.

      > absolutely consistent over a 16 year period. so shooting isn't the
      reason
      > 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 it
      should
      > never be advantageous to commit a foul - not ever. the first thing
      the league
      > should do is to bring back the bonus free throws (last used in the
      very early
      > 1980s) when a team is in the penalty, the 3 to make 2 and 2 to make
      1 (when
      > the bucket is made). that right there will open up the lane. people
      today
      > will say that the extra free throws will slow up the game, but the
      1970s
      > 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
      fans
      > magazines and newspapers as they enter the arenas. if they allow
      zones 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
      one-on-one
      > 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 3
      seconds
      > (which is in the rule book - i know i used to ref) like they now
      call
      > offensive 3 seconds, and i mean call it often, that will solve that
      > problem....
      >
      > lastly, what i'd love to see but will never happen (TV commercial
      time) is
      > each team limited to one timeout per half...
      >
      > institute these changes and in just a few years (2-3) you'd be back
      to having
      > games with total ball possessions per team per game in the high 90s
      to low
      > 100s, even if you do not change the shot clock from 24 to 20
      seconds...

      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
      clock...

      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
      it does.

      Dean Oliver
      Journal of Basketball Studies
    • Gary Collard
      ... The data s not available I suspect, but shooting percentage by time left on the clock might be instructive. 14-24 are probably pretty good, because these
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 13, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Dean Oliver wrote:

        > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., harlanzo@y... wrote:
        >
        > 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 data's not available I suspect, but shooting percentage by time left 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, 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)
        mailing list
      • Dean Oliver
        ... left on ... because ... it mighe ... see if ... I ve never seen these data (maybe Harvey Pollack has it?). I m going to a HS game tonight and I ll track
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 13, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., Gary Collard <garyc@i...> wrote:

          > The data's not available I suspect, but shooting percentage by time
          left 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, but
          it mighe
          > be interesting to see <4, 5-8 and 9-12 (or other granularites) to
          see 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.

          Dean Oliver
          Journal of Basketball Studies
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.