| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mavs128
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 32
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:01 pm Post subject: Unstoppable force vs. immovable object |
 |
|
Question: does anyone know of any studies done that show how a team who is dominant in one area is affected when they play a team that is dominant in the opposite area?
For instance, if the playoffs started today Seattle would be matched up against Houston. Seattle has the top OReb% in the league at 32.5%.....but on the flip side, Houston has the top DReb% in the league at 74.4%. I'm wondering if either sides' dominance is expected to come out more, or if it's expected to even off at 29% OReb for Seattle and 71% DReb for Houston, or what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jambalaya
Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 282
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:51 pm Post subject: rebounding matchup |
|
|
i think it will be close on your DR/OR question.
at first i thought reggie evans will have a field day against the remaining houston power forwards. but he only got 7 and 8 total rebounds the last two times out against them. i would assume van grundy's emphasis on boxing out has some effect.
yao ming should get a good rate of defensive rebounds. whether fortson is a major factor in such a playoff matchup is a main unknown.
i would guess sura and mcgrady will do pretty well rebounding under our bucket.
how big collison is off the bench is the other key.
houston's starting five might win or keep it close in their matchup against the sonic starting five but the sonic bench should win theirs. in the playoffs the bench's role usually shrinks but maybe not for the sonics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Küpfer
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 783
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:01 pm Post subject: Re: Unstoppable force vs. immovable object |
|
|
| mavs128 wrote: | | Question: does anyone know of any studies done that show how a team who is dominant in one area is affected when they play a team that is dominant in the opposite area? |
I tried this once with ORTG vs DRTG, and didn't get very far. The amount of noise is enormous. I know DeanO did something similar with game pace. Other than that, I don't know of anything. It's a good idea though, especially on a smaller scale -- say, for REB% or shooting or turnovers. Maybe I'll try something over the weekend.
_________________
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Küpfer
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 783
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: Unstoppable force vs. immovable object |
|
|
Just fooling around, and I came up with this:
Team 1 excected EFG% = 1 / (1 + EXP(-(-3.1 + 3.5 * EFG_team1 + 2.9 * defEFG_team2)))
where EFG_team1 is Team 1's EFG% and defEFG_team2 is Team 2's defensive EFG%. The RMSE on that one is about 6%, meaning 2/3 of all games will be within 6% of the expected amount.
Team 1 expected TO% = 1 / (1 + EXP(-(-3.6 + 5.8 * TO%_team1 + 6.1 * defTO%_team2)))
where TO%_team1 is Team 1's TOs per possession, and defTO%_team2 is Team 2's defensive TOs per possession. The RMSE is about 4%.
Team 1 expected OR% = 1 / (1 + EXP(-(4.1*OR%_team1 - 3.1 * DR%_team2)))
The RMSE on this one isn't very good, a little less than 8%.
_________________
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:54 pm Post subject: Re: Unstoppable force vs. immovable object |
|
|
| Ed Küpfer wrote: | Just fooling around, and I came up with this:
Team 1 excected EFG% = 1 / (1 + EXP(-(-3.1 + 3.5 * EFG_team1 + 2.9 * defEFG_team2)))
where EFG_team1 is Team 1's EFG% and defEFG_team2 is Team 2's defensive EFG%. The RMSE on that one is about 6%, meaning 2/3 of all games will be within 6% of the expected amount.
Team 1 expected TO% = 1 / (1 + EXP(-(-3.6 + 5.8 * TO%_team1 + 6.1 * defTO%_team2)))
where TO%_team1 is Team 1's TOs per possession, and defTO%_team2 is Team 2's defensive TOs per possession. The RMSE is about 4%.
Team 1 expected OR% = 1 / (1 + EXP(-(4.1*OR%_team1 - 3.1 * DR%_team2)))
The RMSE on this one isn't very good, a little less than 8%. |
What is the significance of the coefficients? This generally seems to suggest that offense wins but are those differences significant?
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Küpfer
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 783
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:01 pm Post subject: Re: Unstoppable force vs. immovable object |
|
|
| HoopStudies wrote: | | What is the significance of the coefficients? This generally seems to suggest that offense wins but are those differences significant? |
Everything was significant at 0.001. I should note that the equations above were all more accurate than the log5 type-estimates.
_________________
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:28 pm Post subject: Re: Unstoppable force vs. immovable object |
|
|
| Ed Küpfer wrote: | | HoopStudies wrote: | | What is the significance of the coefficients? This generally seems to suggest that offense wins but are those differences significant? |
Everything was significant at 0.001. I should note that the equations above were all more accurate than the log5 type-estimates. |
What were the confidence intervals around the coefficients?
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Küpfer
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 783
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:43 pm Post subject: Re: Unstoppable force vs. immovable object |
|
|
| HoopStudies wrote: | | Ed Küpfer wrote: | | HoopStudies wrote: | | What is the significance of the coefficients? This generally seems to suggest that offense wins but are those differences significant? |
Everything was significant at 0.001. I should note that the equations above were all more accurate than the log5 type-estimates. |
What were the confidence intervals around the coefficients? |
I should have mentioned that I only analysed home team results.
EFG%:
| Code: | Odds 95% CI
Predictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower Upper
Constant -3.14682 0.0161214 -195.20 0.000
1oEFG% 3.50320 0.0265769 131.81 0.000 33.22 31.54 35.00
2dEFG% 2.93039 0.0290748 100.79 0.000 18.73 17.70 19.83 |
TO%
| Code: | 95% CI
Predictor Coef SE Coef Z P Odds Ratio Lower Upper
Constant -3.59823 0.0119828 -300.28 0.000
1oTO% 5.77781 0.0578701 99.84 0.000 323.05 288.41 361.85
2dTO% 6.07966 0.0545186 111.52 0.000 436.88 392.61 486.15 |
OR%
| Code: |
Odds 95% CI
Predictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower Upper
Constant 0.0854750 0.0203862 4.19 0.000
1oOR% 4.17706 0.0212634 196.44 0.000 65.17 62.51 67.95
2dDR% -3.10289 0.0247316 -125.46 0.000 0.04 0.04 0.05 |
_________________
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Küpfer
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 783
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:59 pm Post subject: Re: Unstoppable force vs. immovable object |
|
|
It evens out once you include away teams.
EFG%:
| Code: |
Predictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower Upper
Constant -3.09752 0.0114094 -271.49 0.000
HOME 0.0460184 0.0007412 62.09 0.000 1.05 1.05 1.05
1oEFG% 3.22721 0.0187841 171.81 0.000 25.21 24.30 26.15
2dEFG% 3.00915 0.0205559 146.39 0.000 20.27 19.47 21.10
|
TO%
| Code: | 95% CI
Predictor Coef SE Coef Z P Odds Ratio Lower Upper
Constant -3.65004 0.0084608 -431.40 0.000
HOME -0.0284064 0.0010110 -28.10 0.000 0.97 0.97 0.97
1oTO% 6.05658 0.0407233 148.73 0.000 426.91 394.16 462.39
2dTO% 6.29438 0.0384019 163.91 0.000 541.52 502.26 583.85 |
OR%
| Code: | Odds 95% CI
Predictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower Upper
Constant -2.99216 0.0057565 -519.79 0.000
HOME 0.0769602 0.0008089 95.14 0.000 1.08 1.08 1.08
1oOR% 3.78669 0.0151349 250.20 0.000 44.11 42.82 45.44
2dOR% 3.15742 0.0176015 179.38 0.000 23.51 22.71 24.34
|
_________________
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Küpfer
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 783
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:46 pm Post subject: Re: Unstoppable force vs. immovable object |
|
|
And to fill out the fourth factor,
FTA/poss = - 0.216 + 0.0108 * Home + 0.886 * 1FTA + 0.917 * 2FTA
where Home is a dummy, 1FTA is Team 1's FTA/poss, and 2FTA is team 2's FTA allowed/poss.
| Code: | Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
Constant -0.216195 0.006288 -34.38 0.000
Home 0.0108320 0.0008882 12.20 0.000
1FTA 0.88636 0.01859 47.69 0.000
2FTA 0.91714 0.01631 56.25 0.000
S = 0.0759282 R-Sq = 17.9% R-Sq(adj) = 17.9% |
_________________
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
