The Offense and Shot Distribution

[BballTim]

Tim, not every trip to the free throw line is the result of a shot.  You know that.
You seem to want to make up stats to prove a point here.
I think just about everyone who watched that game last night came away feeling that Rondo took to many shots and our scorers weren't given enough opportunities.  Even Doc said as much.
It makes you look silly when you turn yourself into knots trying to defend Rondo no matter what the situation.  
Last night Rondo looked like he was purposely ignoring Pierce for the majority of the game.  Why?  I have no idea. But some of Doc's comments leads me to believe he saw the same thing.  
No one player is bigger than the team.  Let's just hope everyone understands that.  

 Again, my post had absolutely nothing to do with Rondo. I said in my first post that the team was better off with the big three shooting and Rondo getting them the ball, and I repeated that statement in my previous post. And yes I know that not all trips to the free throw line are the result of a shot. Some are and-1s and some are the result of technical fouls. Those don't "take up possessions". This is accounted for when most basketball websites say that a free throw counts as approximately .44 possessions. However if you get fouled when you aren't shooting and get 2 shots that still uses a possession.

  By the way, the stats that I'm "making up" are available on almost every basketball stat website on the internet.

[dysgenic]

This is a great thread, many great points.  The guy I'd most like to see get more shots is Jeff Green.  They don't look for him or run plays enough for him imo.  I agree that right now the big 3 isn't shooting enough for this team to be successful.  However, this problem should partially be solved if and when Shaq and JO return, along with Delonte getting a little more comfortable and hopefully getting a few more shots. 

[ballin]

Ballin, great post, and thank you for the research.

Expect to see more opposition from people here, but I'm in agreement with you.

A few months ago I started a thread highlight that Shaq needed to take more shots.  Even if his increase in shots led to a 10% decline in his fg%, he was still a much more efficient option than Rondo & Davis shooting.  But alas there was enormous pushback to even that.. and 10% assumed in a drop is a lot!

Great job, and I agree with your analysis.  Its time to get back to the basics, and have each player do what they do best.  For Rondo that is driving to the hoop and either finishing nearby or dishing it.  For Davis that is setting picks, looking for the offensive rebound, and taking charges.  Players need to stick with what they are good at!!!

I agree with you completely about Shaq. It's funny, I didn't actually think to mention him because he's been out injured for so long, but when he comes back I would love to see him get fed the ball. He obviously can't play the minutes he used to, but when he's in, he's still a beast and he'll definitely help the offense.

[Fafnir]

Ballin, great post, and thank you for the research.

Expect to see more opposition from people here, but I'm in agreement with you.

A few months ago I started a thread highlight that Shaq needed to take more shots.  Even if his increase in shots led to a 10% decline in his fg%, he was still a much more efficient option than Rondo & Davis shooting.  But alas there was enormous pushback to even that.. and 10% assumed in a drop is a lot!

Great job, and I agree with your analysis.  Its time to get back to the basics, and have each player do what they do best.  For Rondo that is driving to the hoop and either finishing nearby or dishing it.  For Davis that is setting picks, looking for the offensive rebound, and taking charges.  Players need to stick with what they are good at!!!

Shaq already shot a lot in his minutes, getting him more shots would require more post ups. His post game wasn't actually that efficient, it was offensive rebounds and passes for dunks that made him efficient. Hard to create many more of those for him.

[dysgenic]

I just read a very interesting blog/discussion concerning  game theory pertaining to utility vs. marginal utitility and optimization.  It was about football, but I believe that it translates to basketball very well.  Basically, there are 2 arguments:

1. The numbers should be looked at independently without variables.
Big 3 are efficient relative to BBD/Rondo, Big 3 should shoot more.  Argument- the numbers prove Big 3 efficiency and more shots shouldn't effect the numbers.  Even if efficiency drops due to increased FGA, efficiency should still be higher than BBD/Rondo.

2. The numbers cannot be assessed independently.  Part of the REASON that Big 3 are efficient is that the defense is forced to pay attention to Rondo/BBD.  The assumption that increased shots for Big 3= increased team effiency is not necessarily true as the defense will start to employ double teams, shades, etc.. that will tend to mitigate the very factors that led to high efficiencies in the first place.  As an extreme example, imagine that Doc ordered BBD and Rondo to never take another shot as long as they were on the floor with the Big 3.  (this is the marginal utility argument)

I tended to side more on the marginal utility side (minority), and in a basketball discussion I also tend toward argument number 2.  Now, I'm not saying that the Big 3 shouldn't get more shots, I am.  Just that the numbers don't conclusively prove this.

The more I think about it, the 'drawing fouls' argument on this thread really persuaded me that Pierce needs to get 3-5 more FGA per game.  The reason for this is the increase in utility that comes from drawing fouls.  Plus, it gives the C's 2 ways to score when he attempts a shot- FGs or FTs.  Ray and KG shoot mostly jump shots.

Edit to add: isn't this what always happens to veteran teams?  They increasingly tend to be jumpshooting teams, because they no longer have the athleticism to take the ball to the basket.  One of the reasons that Rondo is so important.

[Fafnir]

I believe your argument 1 as you've defined it has been addressed by a statistical paper.

If you have a single very efficient shooter and 4 perfectly average shooters the most efficient shot distribution for the team is still close to even if you assume a linear relationship to efficiency.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1801

If KG/Pierce/Allen shot more they'd likely see their efficiency drop, and that would hurt the team's offense. Its a somewhat counter-inituitive result of analyzing networks.

Sometimes the optimal result doesn't mean maximizing your fastest (or most efficient) path. You can see this in real life when a city doesn't properly analyze traffic patterns, they have traffic congestion so they build a new bypass. But by adding that new avenue for cars to go they often actually make the traffice network flow slower on the aggregate.

I don't think this is always going to hold, but this sort of analysis is definitely worth thinking about with our current team and its very even usage pattern.

[Chris]

Honestly, I think the worst thing the C's would do would be to give this even a second of thought.  When the team is at its best offensively is when they are moving the ball to the open man, and guys are shooting open shots in rhythm.  Their problems come when they zero in on one or two players, and try to force the ball to them.  That is when you get guys like Rondo and Davis stuck at the top of the key, or the elbow, with no passing lanes, the shot clock ticking down, and the only real choice being to take a flat footed, out of rhythm jumper that has little to no chance to go in.

I could have sworn the C's were leading the league in offensive efficiency (or maybe it was another, similar stat) a couple months ago, so I think this might have been dramatically influenced by their recent slump, which has been marked by stagnancy and predictability.

Would I love to see Davis taking fewer forced shots?  Would I like to see Rondo never take another desperation, flat footed shot again?  Absolutely.  But the only way to avoid those types of low percentage shots is to let the offense flow without zeroing in on particular players.  Once they let the offense happen, that is when they are at their best.

[GreenNote]

I don't think you can just simply say "Big 3, yall need to shoot more".   I think its possible that the reason they have high TS%s is that they shoot when its most likely for them to make it.  That may mean that they defer to other players when they are covered well or double teamed.  Part of the TS% and other effeciency type ratings is that the player is smart of enough to know when he is best able to succeed. 

Glen Davis is never ever double teamed and still sucks in terms of efficiency.  I can't stand Baby's game at all and it pains me seeing such a high volume shooter getting any type of praise on the offensive end.

To me, its imperative to incorporate Jeff Green and hope Shaq/JO can come back and contribute. 

Very good point indeed. Also, you have to take into account that Ray, PP, and KG are guarded more closely (except when KG is far from the basket) and it makes it harder for them to take more unforced shots.

I think that Rondo needs to play the way he did last year and live with the FTs. If anything he will get guys in foul trouble.

The Cs will not go anywhere if he keeps playing 'scared'.

[Chris]

I think that Rondo needs to play the way he did last year and live with the FTs. If anything he will get guys in foul trouble.

I think you will see this right around April 16th or 17th.  I think we have been seeing a lot of conscious self preservation by Rondo this season.  He knows its a long season, and because of that, he has purposely been shying away from throwing his body around as much as we have seen in the past, which has led to more lazy floaters than we would all like to see.  But once the playoffs start, I expect him to be going up strong much more often.

[Carhole]

I believe your argument 1 as you've defined it has been addressed by a statistical paper.

If you have a single very efficient shooter and 4 perfectly average shooters the most efficient shot distribution for the team is still close to even if you assume a linear relationship to efficiency.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1801

If KG/Pierce/Allen shot more they'd likely see their efficiency drop, and that would hurt the team's offense. Its a somewhat counter-inituitive result of analyzing networks.

Sometimes the optimal result doesn't mean maximizing your fastest (or most efficient) path. You can see this in real life when a city doesn't properly analyze traffic patterns, they have traffic congestion so they build a new bypass. But by adding that new avenue for cars to go they often actually make the traffice network flow slower on the aggregate.

I don't think this is always going to hold, but this sort of analysis is definitely worth thinking about with our current team and its very even usage pattern.

The blanket statment is not true.

First because you are assuming they are already taking every "open shot" which if you are watching the games (which I am sure you are) is not the case. Of the big 3 I would say Ray takes the highest percentage of his available good shots. PP and KG pass up a few ( 3 or 4) good opportunities a game most nights.

If pp shot 10 more times a game and played like kobe, yes his efficiency would almost certainly take a big hit but if he took 2 more available shots a game it almost certainly wouldnt.

Second your point that "their efficiency would drop and hurt the teams offense" doesnt make statistical sense if their increase is taking shots away from the least efficient players.

If PP has a TS% of 60 and Baby's is 45, even if PP drops his efficiency to 55 on a larger sample size that reduces Baby's shots their is a net benefit for the team.

Also it benefits baby under your assumption that volume is directly related to efficiency. Under that assumption if Baby shoots less his TS% should rise on the shots he does take.

[Carhole]

Tim, not every trip to the free throw line is the result of a shot.  You know that.
You seem to want to make up stats to prove a point here.
I think just about everyone who watched that game last night came away feeling that Rondo took to many shots and our scorers weren't given enough opportunities.  Even Doc said as much.
It makes you look silly when you turn yourself into knots trying to defend Rondo no matter what the situation.  
Last night Rondo looked like he was purposely ignoring Pierce for the majority of the game.  Why?  I have no idea. But some of Doc's comments leads me to believe he saw the same thing.  
No one player is bigger than the team.  Let's just hope everyone understands that.  

 Again, my post had absolutely nothing to do with Rondo. I said in my first post that the team was better off with the big three shooting and Rondo getting them the ball, and I repeated that statement in my previous post. And yes I know that not all trips to the free throw line are the result of a shot. Some are and-1s and some are the result of technical fouls. Those don't "take up possessions". This is accounted for when most basketball websites say that a free throw counts as approximately .44 possessions. However if you get fouled when you aren't shooting and get 2 shots that still uses a possession.

  By the way, the stats that I'm "making up" are available on almost every basketball stat website on the internet.

Disclaimer - This is not meant to be an argument starter just an interesting observation.

I think the advanced stats are much better than the basic stats and provide some useful insight but I am still very much a believer in "watching and understanding the game" tells you everything you REALLY need to know.

I find it very interesting how people refer to the new stats as some sort of gospel. In this thread it has been the statistical assumption that FTA are basically 44% of a possession. And when people dont fall right in line with that their is a strong implication that they are somehow "uninformed" and less accurate with their assessments.

Someone somewhere did their own individual analysis to come up with these now accepted statistical "facts" but what is the proof that a fta is 44% of a possession in how it effects a game? It is just a guys/girls determination.

Isaac Newton, one of the worlds greatest minds, gave us the laws of gravitation and laws of motion which were strictly adhered to for hundreds of years before Einstein proved them false. Whoops?

Stats and theories of how they apply to sport are interesting but contempt "stat" posters have for other posters on here grows daily

(BBall not pointed at you just the last thread I saw to quote)

[Fafnir]

I believe your argument 1 as you've defined it has been addressed by a statistical paper.

If you have a single very efficient shooter and 4 perfectly average shooters the most efficient shot distribution for the team is still close to even if you assume a linear relationship to efficiency.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1801

If KG/Pierce/Allen shot more they'd likely see their efficiency drop, and that would hurt the team's offense. Its a somewhat counter-inituitive result of analyzing networks.

Sometimes the optimal result doesn't mean maximizing your fastest (or most efficient) path. You can see this in real life when a city doesn't properly analyze traffic patterns, they have traffic congestion so they build a new bypass. But by adding that new avenue for cars to go they often actually make the traffice network flow slower on the aggregate.

I don't think this is always going to hold, but this sort of analysis is definitely worth thinking about with our current team and its very even usage pattern.

The blanket statment is not true.

First because you are assuming they are already taking every "open shot" which if you are watching the games (which I am sure you are) is not the case. Of the big 3 I would say Ray takes the highest percentage of his available good shots. PP and KG pass up a few ( 3 or 4) good opportunities a game most nights.

If pp shot 10 more times a game and played like kobe, yes his efficiency would almost certainly take a big hit but if he took 2 more available shots a game it almost certainly wouldnt.

Second your point that "their efficiency would drop and hurt the teams offense" doesnt make statistical sense if their increase is taking shots away from the least efficient players.

If PP has a TS% of 60 and Baby's is 45, even if PP drops his efficiency to 55 on a larger sample size that reduces Baby's shots their is a net benefit for the team.

Also it benefits baby under your assumption that volume is directly related to efficiency. Under that assumption if Baby shoots less his TS% should rise on the shots he does take.

Did you even bother to read the paper I linked?

[Fafnir]

Tim, not every trip to the free throw line is the result of a shot.  You know that.
You seem to want to make up stats to prove a point here.
I think just about everyone who watched that game last night came away feeling that Rondo took to many shots and our scorers weren't given enough opportunities.  Even Doc said as much.
It makes you look silly when you turn yourself into knots trying to defend Rondo no matter what the situation.  
Last night Rondo looked like he was purposely ignoring Pierce for the majority of the game.  Why?  I have no idea. But some of Doc's comments leads me to believe he saw the same thing.  
No one player is bigger than the team.  Let's just hope everyone understands that.  

 Again, my post had absolutely nothing to do with Rondo. I said in my first post that the team was better off with the big three shooting and Rondo getting them the ball, and I repeated that statement in my previous post. And yes I know that not all trips to the free throw line are the result of a shot. Some are and-1s and some are the result of technical fouls. Those don't "take up possessions". This is accounted for when most basketball websites say that a free throw counts as approximately .44 possessions. However if you get fouled when you aren't shooting and get 2 shots that still uses a possession.

  By the way, the stats that I'm "making up" are available on almost every basketball stat website on the internet.

Disclaimer - This is not meant to be an argument starter just an interesting observation.

I think the advanced stats are much better than the basic stats and provide some useful insight but I am still very much a believer in "watching and understanding the game" tells you everything you REALLY need to know.

I find it very interesting how people refer to the new stats as some sort of gospel. In this thread it has been the statistical assumption that FTA are basically 44% of a possession. And when people dont fall right in line with that their is a strong implication that they are somehow "uninformed" and less accurate with their assessments.

Someone somewhere did their own individual analysis to come up with these now accepted statistical "facts" but what is the proof that a fta is 44% of a possession in how it effects a game? It is just a guys/girls determination.

Isaac Newton, one of the worlds greatest minds, gave us the laws of gravitation and laws of motion which were strictly adhered to for hundreds of years before Einstein proved them false. Whoops?

Stats and theories of how they apply to sport are interesting but contempt "stat" posters have for other posters on here grows daily

(BBall not pointed at you just the last thread I saw to quote)

When someone else comes up with a good arguemnt for using something other than the .4 (or .44) estimate for FTAs as a possesion then I'll definitely consider it. Its not a "gosepl" but rather if you run a study on the average FTA in the NBA over the past 20 years that's the number that pops out.

Its not gospel, its jut the best estimate we have. If you want to posit something else, I'm all for it.

[Fafnir]

OT aside: The whole Einstein/Newton comparison isn't a good one in my view. Physicists didn’t accept Newtonian physics as Gospel. Instead they kept working at the remaining problems that were unexplained or unsolved. They started to find holes in the  Newtonian framework, their experimentation eventually paved the way to Einstein’s discoveries and modern physics.

I don't think anyone other than Dave Berri with wins produced thinks they have an advanced basketball stat that answers everything. Its all a work in progress in trying to find better tools to evaluate the game.

[Carhole]

OT aside: The whole Einstein/Newton comparison isn't a good one in my view. Physicists didn’t accept Newtonian physics as Gospel. Instead they kept working at the remaining problems that were unexplained or unsolved. They started to find holes in the  Newtonian framework, their experimentation eventually paved the way to Einstein’s discoveries and modern physics.

I don't think anyone other than Dave Berri with wins produced thinks they have an advanced basketball stat that answers everything. Its all a work in progress in trying to find better tools to evaluate the game.

No i did not click through to your link. I do not have time at the moment.

And what is it with people on this site taking similes so literally. It is a similar real world example, there are many many more.

Initially Einstein's theory was not well received because it defied newton's "generally accepted laws" and they were generally accepted without being 100% proven for hundreds of years!

So does anyone have an explanation as to how Hollinger came up with 44% of a possession. I would be interested to hear it?

Or why when figuring true shooting percentage we have to multiply total points by 50.

People who create these formulas shape the math and can use any multipliers they want to develop a system that produces results they feel fall in line with any prejudice they may have -  at least newton was bound in his own head by what he saw as the indisputable laws of the universe when he was creating his laws and theories.