| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
erivera7
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 178
Location: Chicago, IL
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:27 pm Post subject: Stan Van Gundy and Statistics |
 |
|
Hey, everyone.
I was at Magic practice earlier today and I was able to chat with Stan Van Gundy a little bit about the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference and about the numbers, in general.
Check it out. I'm sure there will be some people around here interested in what he had to say.
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ed Küpfer
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 784
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's pretty neat.
BTW I was talking to some people and said that every fan wishes they had a team blog with as much content and access as yours. You do a lot of good work.
_________________
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erivera7
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 178
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ed Küpfer wrote: | That's pretty neat.
BTW I was talking to some people and said that every fan wishes they had a team blog with as much content and access as yours. You do a lot of good work. |
Oh, cool, thanks for the kind words.
Yeah, my colleague and I just try to do the best we can to provide the best Orlando Magic content out there. It's always nice to know people enjoy the work we do.
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Italian Stallion
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 103
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I actually thought he was off in his analysis of offensive rebounding stats. He said they don't correlate well to winning. If that's true, it's probably because the teams that tend to get more offensive rebounds are poor shooting teams that have more opportunities to get offensive rebounds. They are simply bad offensive teams and that's what keeps them from being good teams. However, if a good offensive team improved it's offensive rebounding rate, that would almost certainly be correlated to winning more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erivera7
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 178
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Italian Stallion wrote: | | I actually thought he was off in his analysis of offensive rebounding stats. He said they don't correlate well to winning. If that's true, it's probably because the teams that tend to get more offensive rebounds are poor shooting teams that have more opportunities to get offensive rebounds. They are simply bad offensive teams and that's what keeps them from being good teams. However, if a good offensive team improved it's offensive rebounding rate, that would almost certainly be correlated to winning more. |
Maybe, but the main reason why Van Gundy doesn't elect to emphasize offensive rebounding is because he wants his players to get back in transition and prevent easy baskets.
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3535
Location: Hendersonville, NC
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | With Vince Carter and this time of the year, do you think he’s found a happy medium in the offense at this point?
SVG: I think he’s playing very, very well. He’s been very efficient since the first of February and his shooting percentages are very, very high, both from the floor and from three.. |
Yeah, Vince turned it around again. Apparently he does this at the end of the month. | Code: | per 36 minutes
G MPG 2FGA 2FG% 3fga 3FG% eFG% FTA TSA TS% Pts Reb Ast
OcNov 14 31.8 13.2 .442 6.6 .366 .478 4.4 21.8 .516 22.5 5.6 2.6
Dec 13 31.7 12.1 .453 4.7 .278 .443 6.6 19.7 .529 20.9 5.9 4.6
Jan 14 27.0 8.8 .315 4.7 .224 .323 3.6 15.0 .387 11.6 3.6 3.0
FebMa 18 32.3 10.2 .524 4.1 .515 .596 4.3 16.2 .635 20.5 4.3 3.3
|
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnschuhmann
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| erivera7 wrote: | | Maybe, but the main reason why Van Gundy doesn't elect to emphasize offensive rebounding is because he wants his players to get back in transition and prevent easy baskets. |
Working on a Hawks story earlier this week, I realized that they gave up a lot of fast break points (6th most) for a team that doesn't turn the ball over much (fewest in the league).
So I came up with a little calculation to measure transition defense...
Opponents fast break points (per 100 poss.) - Own turnovers (per 100 poss.)
Not exactly the most precise way to look at it, but it provides some interesting results...
Best Teams (through Tuesday's games)
1. Boston (-4.7)
2. Orlando (-3.6)
3. Oklahoma City (-3.5)
4. Charlotte (-2.9)
5. LA Clippers (-2.6)
Worst
30. Atlanta (+4.7)
29. Toronto (+3.5)
28. Golden State (+2.5)
27. New Jersey (+2.4)
26. Memphis (+2.3)
Atlanta stands out, because they're 14th in overall defensive efficiency. Could be much better if they just did a better job of getting back on D. They're 5th in offensive rebounding %, but I imagine the trade-off is not in their favor.
_________________
John Schuhmann, NBA.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erivera7
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 178
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for crunching the numbers, John.
Yeah, I don't think it's any coincidence that the Magic give up fewer points in transition because it emphasizes NOT getting offensive rebounds. Conversely, I think opponents try to have more success by attacking Orlando on the fast break because the defense isn't set with Dwight Howard in the middle as the anchor. But again, that's why Stan Van Gundy tells his team to get back to prevent that from happening.
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Küpfer
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 784
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| schubee wrote: | So I came up with a little calculation to measure transition defense...
Opponents fast break points (per 100 poss.) - Own turnovers (per 100 poss.) |
That is pretty cool. I never though of that one. You could try opponents steals instead of own turnovers as well.
_________________
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnschuhmann
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ed Küpfer wrote: | | That is pretty cool. I never though of that one. You could try opponents steals instead of own turnovers as well. |
Not a bad idea. That would eliminate all dead-ball turnovers, and only dead-ball turnovers, right?
Results are slightly different...
1. Boston +4.1
2. Orlando +4.3
3. Oklahoma City +4.5
4. LA Clippers +5.0
5. New York +5.7
30. Atlanta +10.9
29. Toronto +10.4
28. Memphis +10.0
27. New Jersey +9.6
26. Golden State +9.3
There's a correlation of 0.24 between this number and off. reb. %.
_________________
John Schuhmann, NBA.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crow
Joined: 20 Jan 2009
Posts: 795
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a good start.
And it could be taken further, if you had the data, time and access to decision-makers to make it worthwhile.
If you had the play by play data for opponent fast breaks you could compile the 4 factors of offense after the defensive plays and check how the best and worst teams at fast break conversion were actually getting those marks.
And then if you had access to Synergy you could take it down to the what & where details of the good offensive plays. And I guess how they got the ball for the fast break in the first place.
After most or all statistical work I'd think if you had access to Synergy you'd want to try to cross-check it various ways. Maybe use what you see / learn from the tape to refine, then market & sell the best of the stat findings or the best of the "actionable recommendations".
By the way does Synergy allow you to readily view all plays by a lineup for a season? That would be sweet. You check a lineup's raw or Adjusted +/- then go to the video to try to find plays and actions within plays (boxscore and non-boxscore) that helped raise or lower the performance. This way +/- is just a directional aide and you get back to "what's real".
Last edited by Crow on Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:18 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnschuhmann
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looked at it some more for an article today:
http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/john_schuhmann/03/18/hawks.transition/
Turns out that the Hawks are the 2nd worst team in the league in converting offensive rebounds into second chance points. So even though they rank 7th in offensive rebounding percentage, their 2nd chance points per possession are no more than the league average.
That tells me that they'd be better off getting back on D.
I used Synergy to watch some of their offensive boards and to try to get a better idea of why they don't convert them very well, but it's tough to get a gauge on it. Sometimes, they just missed point-blank putbacks, sometimes they kicked it out and missed a jumper, and sometimes they missed tip-ins.
Maybe Smith's and Horford's tip vs. catch ratios are higher than normal? Hard to quantify that.
The Hawks rank 12th in FG% inside of 5 feet, so it's not like they're poor finishers.
_________________
John Schuhmann, NBA.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hawksfanatic
Joined: 13 Mar 2010
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| schubee wrote: | | Ed Küpfer wrote: | | That is pretty cool. I never though of that one. You could try opponents steals instead of own turnovers as well. |
Not a bad idea. That would eliminate all dead-ball turnovers, and only dead-ball turnovers, right? |
Is there a way that you could estimate the expected value of points scored per opponent steal? With your current measure, you are assuming that a steal will result in an expected value of 1 point scored per steal. That may be the case, but I suspect the expected value should be higher. This might give you better results.
Also, nice article on the Hawks. But it had me concerned when you said "If you subtract their opponents' steals per 100 possessions (to eliminate dead-ball turnovers) from their opponents' fast-break points, you get 10.8, the highest differential in the league." It was not clear to me the first time that your fast-break points were in per 100 form, so it tripped me up in trying to understand what you were doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnschuhmann
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hawksfanatic wrote: | | Is there a way that you could estimate the expected value of points scored per opponent steal? With your current measure, you are assuming that a steal will result in an expected value of 1 point scored per steal. That may be the case, but I suspect the expected value should be higher. This might give you better results. |
Actually, didn't John Huizinga figure out how many points the league scores off a steal on average with his "Value of a Blocked Shot" research? Anyone have a link to his paper?
Otherwise, it's obviously not a perfect measurement, because you're subtracting a number based on possessions from a number based on points. As I said above, it's not precise. But it does give you an idea of where teams stand as far as transition defense.
| hawksfanatic wrote: | | Also, nice article on the Hawks. But it had me concerned when you said "If you subtract their opponents' steals per 100 possessions (to eliminate dead-ball turnovers) from their opponents' fast-break points, you get 10.8, the highest differential in the league." It was not clear to me the first time that your fast-break points were in per 100 form, so it tripped me up in trying to understand what you were doing. |
Good point.
_________________
John Schuhmann, NBA.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
