A question about pace
In his most recent blog entry Henry Abbot talked a little about pace and used Portland as an example:
Last night, with 9:26 left in a game against the Lakers, Travis Outlaw made a 3-pointer for Portland. He is credited with 3 points for that one possession, and Portland cements its reputation as one of the slowest-paced teams in the NBA. Thanks to four consecutive offensive rebounds, that shot came at the end of a possession that lasted an entire minute.
My question is: Is this accurate? Do they really count that whole trip down as one possession when the shot clock reset every time the ball was rebounded? I'm not a statistician, but if I was the one deciding when a possession starts and stops I would certainly have counted that as 4 (or maybe five) possessions. So does anybody know for sure? Is The Blogfather wrong on this one? Is there a universal way that this stat is kept, or does it vary from source to source?
0 recs |
13 comments
Comments
I think Henry is correct
I have been wondering why different people (ie Knickerblogger.net vs Hollinger) have different pace numbers… and it may be due to differences in handling exactly this situation… but I know for a fact that at least some metrics don’t consider it a change in possession unless the other team gets the ball. This isn’t great for measuring pace (may partly explain why PDX has such a slow pace— we are the best offensive rebounding team in the league), but its the right way to do it as far as offensive efficiency goes— scoring on your 5th shot of the possession is just as good as scoring on the 1st.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Jan 6, 2009 12:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
Offensive rebounding and offensive efficiency are not the same thing, generally. Ok, maybe you run picks for the rebounders to try to get them better position for the offensive rebound, but generally, if you get offensive rebounds, that says nothing about how efficient your offense is.
I do not think offensive efficiency should get a boost for offensive rebounds. It skews the picture.
If you can't convince them, confuse them -- Harry Truman, U.S. President
by jscot on Jan 6, 2009 1:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
offensive rebounding is part of offense
if you score on a 2nd chance bucket, you scored before your opponents got the ball— that possession was a success.
Offensive efficiency takes into account 4 factors: effective field goal % (including 3s), offensive rebounding, turnover rate and free throw rate.
If you want to break Off Eff down into its 4 component parts, you can do that… but that’s not what we’re talking about there. Offensive rebounding is part of overall offensive efficiency.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Jan 6, 2009 3:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In my mind
offensive efficiency measures how well you get good shots and convert them. Offensive rebounding determines how many shots you get.
You can have a pathetic offense and still score by getting lots of rebounds. It doesn’t mean you have an efficient offense.
If you can't convince them, confuse them -- Harry Truman, U.S. President
by jscot on Jan 7, 2009 3:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
by the definition used by most stat geeks...
… that would mean you have an efficient offense.
It seems to me that your definition of “offensive efficiency” is closer to “Team True Shooting %.”
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True Shooting %
Doesn’t reflect turnovers, right?
If you can't convince them, confuse them -- Harry Truman, U.S. President
by jscot on Jan 8, 2009 7:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps shots per minute ...
or shots per 48 minutes would be a better way to measure pace? Rebounding would certainly appear to skew the equation if pace is based on possessions.
"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez
by bfan on Jan 6, 2009 12:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
i like that idea
but not every possession ends in a shot.
by MattyDread on Jan 6, 2009 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ahhh ...
You have found a chink in my idea’s armor. I wonder then if you eliminate offensive possessions in which there was a turnover excluding 24 second violations? A possession must either end in a turnover, a 24 second violation, or a shot, right?
Or you could average the number of possessions vs. the number of shots. This would account slightly for possessions with multiple shots, and minimize the effect of offensive rebounds.
"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez
by bfan on Jan 6, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've always been concerned
about this exact thing happening and becoming a glaring flaw of the offense. However, when you are as young as the team is it is hard to have a reliable fast-break mentality simply because it takes experience to execute reliably. A good example of this was the beginning of last season when Nate was repeatedly saying they wanted to play a more fast-paced game. When it was tried, it was picked apart pretty quickly by opposing defenses and he had to resort to returning to the half-court offense.
With Rudy, the improvement of Sergio and the addition of Batum who seems more than capable of keeping up on a fast-break, its easier to run this season, but not with the second unit as it is comprised in Brandon’s absence with Sergio and Pryzbilla left as the only ones really capable.
Obviously Brandon will bring a lot of that back with him, but Martell’s return is what I believe will really increase the pace of the game.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 6, 2009 1:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Pace is made
by folks in San Antonio, who know what picante sauce is supposed to taste like.
by EngineerScotty on Jan 6, 2009 1:44 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
hehe
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 6, 2009 2:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Henry is correct
There’s not 100 percent consensus amongst the APBRmetrics community with regards to possessions, but pretty much anywhere you see the figure quoted, it is referring to that definition.
I used to be a holdout to the alternative view, and still use the other definition — known as “minor possessions” or “plays” so as to be distinguished from possessions — but have slowly come completely around. Good offense should lead to offensive rebounding and the same is true at the defensive end.
For example, when Brandon Roy drives and draws the center over, leaving Joel Przybilla or Greg Oden alone on the weak side for a putback if Roy’s shot misses, isn’t that part of the offense? On the same note, the failure isn’t really one of rebounding so much as the defense breaking down at the point of attack.
Another advantage of this definition is it means teams have roughly the same number of possessions in the game, the exceptions being related to end-of-quarter shots.
The discrepancy between Hollinger’s pace numbers and KnickerBlogger’s has to do with the various formulas used to estimate possessions.
by kpelton on Jan 6, 2009 3:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs





















