APBRmetrics

rlee · Joined: 20 Aug 2005 Posts: 61

Dave Feschuk
Toronto Star

BorisD · Joined: 29 Jul 2007 Posts: 14

Personally, no, I don't think the notion of a second assist adds any understanding of value in terms of analytics. For one, there is a low degree of difficulty in many second assists. In most instances I daresay those passes are uncontested. I know that probably every team has a guy (usually a big) who has a limited offensive game and is used simply to reverse the ball when the offense is stymied on the strongside. To give them an assist stat for just swinging the ball when they really don't add much to the offense seems rather pointless.

I think this is a noble attempt to quantify something important and meaningful on the floor, but is otherwise unquantifiable. Same thing with keeping track of number of screens set: how do you reward a guy statistically for doing what an offense calls him to do by rote? Do you punish him for setting an ill-advised ball screen that clogs up spacing on the floor so a guy with a mismatch can no longer drive? And who keeps track of this, because it all seems so subjective and situational that it would likely defy consistent monitoring.

And, for example, do we say Rasho Nesterovic is a better team offensive player than (for instance) Brad Miller or Andrew Bynum because he would likely set more screens per possession/minute/whatever? Sounds good, until you realize that Rasho runs a lot in a flex offense which calls for a lot of screens, and Miller runs in a Princeton offense which generally seeks to maintain spacing and goes away from pressure with fewer screens, or Bynum who plays in a Triple-Post Offense which calls for very little screening from its centers?

Now, assisted FTA...I'm all for that.

Mike G · Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:10 am Post subject:

When Bill Russell was calling games (in the '80s) he liked to assert that not only do easy passes tend to produce easy baskets, but that low-% shots should be rare events. Of course, he liked the Bird-DJ Celtics -- a team without a true PG, and lots of assists from lots of guys.

A team could track 'hockey assists' and not share them with the league (or the general public). This would give them a competitive advantage; for example, 'knowing' that TJ Ford's assists were accompanied by too-few h-Ast, trade him for a less-selfish player who doesn't have the market value commensurate with his 'conventional' stats.

I don't think 'degree of difficulty' has much to do with value. Like Bill said, keep it simple. The center who reverses the ball can do it well or not so well. There are many times when the next-to-last pass is the great one, and the assist is very simple.

When playing, the ballhog who only passes when there's an assist to be had is a worse teammate than the one who always shoots. Just giving up the ball to someone in better position -- a basic offensive move if there ever was one -- occasionally gets you an h-Ast; if anyone's counting.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong

ziller · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 126 Location: Sac Metro

It's nice to think about, but we need to track potential assists and FTA-assists before we consider getting deep into 'hockey assists.' As Boris indicates, 'hockey assists' are about as valuable as screens, perhaps less so in some offenses.
_________________
SactownRoyalty.com
tziller@gmail.com

kjb · Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 865 Location: Washington, DC

As a first step with assists, I think the league should address awarding them properly. No preferential treatment for stars and PGs. Uniformly applied criteria.

I like the idea of tracking "potential assists" and FT assists. But I want to see the awarding of assists fixed.

BorisD · Joined: 29 Jul 2007 Posts: 14

tsherkin · Joined: 31 Jan 2005 Posts: 247

Potential assists would be fantastic if you could use it to produce something like % of realized assists or whatever, to see how many opportunities were available to which point guards and how effectively they took advantage of those opportunities.

Mike G · Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:04 pm Post subject:

Harold Almonte · Joined: 04 Aug 2006 Posts: 616

What about boxing out, or HRebound?, Deflections or HSteals?

I think is a very good thing for the game, maybe not so important to metrics, the track and weight of every kind of indirect assists. It's already hard to rightly boxscore an assist, and adjusting methods does exist.

Harold Almonte · Joined: 04 Aug 2006 Posts: 616

When it comes to weight sharing stats, it's used to credit 2/3 (66%) to the possession end accomplisher, and 1/3 (33%) to the assistant (although PER just gives 1/3 to DReb). If one or several new potential assistant-s were introduced in calcs, and some people talks about a weighting of about an 8% for them (at least at passing); Who must be cut on credits, the finisher or the direct assistant, or both?

Charles · Joined: 16 May 2005 Posts: 134

I see no reason not to collect new stats as long as the score-keeper is not taxed to the point that accuracy is compromised. If you can find a legitimate way to use second assists to understand the game better, great. If not, no real harm done. And as Sam says it might encourage some players to move the ball more even when no direct assist is likely.

As for PER, I believe it is currently, one third to the scorer for getting open, one-third to the scorer for making the shot, one-third to the [assumed] assister for making the pass. So, I'll say 55% to the shooter, 20% to the assister, 10% for the hAssister, 5% to the screener, 5% to the guy spotted up behind the arc for spreading the floor and 5% to the coach for drawing up the play (assumed.)

I'm kidding, but the entire system is arbitrary to begin with, so there is really no reason you can't just make up whatever number you like.