Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Assigning Credit to Players
- On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, HoopStudies wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "dlirag" <dlirag@h...> wrote:[...]
> > A shot can be seen as a pass that results in one of the following[...]
> > things happening: 2 or 3 points are immediately scored (45%
> > the ball ends up in a teammate's hands (16% chance), or the ball
> > to the opposing team (39% chance).
> This gets at what Gary Skoog did in one of James' abstracts, where
> they assessed the expected runs for every given state and assigned
> credit/blame for transitions between those states.
> At the point before a shot, every possession is worth about 1 pt.
> After the shot, it could go to 2 pts with a made shot and end of
> possession, 3 pts with a made shot and end of possession, rare cases
This is how my model of basketball works. It can be used to generate
means and standard deviations, but can even more directly be used to
estimate win probabilities. The trouble is that the models make it easy
and tempting to assign all the credit for an action to a player, e.g. the
offensive rebounder gets the +2/3 that you describe, when some of the
credit perhaps should go to teammates who blocked out (unlikely however in
an offensive rebounding situation) and maybe some of the blame should go
to the defensive rebounder who failed to block the guy out. So this model
makes assignment of credit to players easy to do -- but not necessarily
> Though in this case the rebounder and scorer are the same, note thatNo, scoring a field goal is clearly more valuable than grabbing an
> there is more relative credit to the scorer (+1) than to the
> rebounder (+2/3). This may be in conflict with what the offensive
> rebound studies we did earlier here said, but I'd need to check.
offensive rebound, even when the loss of possession is taken into account.
Missing a field goal is the act that is approximately equal to an