APBRmetrics Forum Index APBRmetrics
The statistical revolution will not be televised.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Garbage Time
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    APBRmetrics Forum Index -> General discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ben F.



Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 289
Location: MD

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:24 pm    Post subject: Garbage Time Reply with quote

I was thinking that we've had a lot of discussions lately about garbage time. From the Boston Celtics discussion where it's important to see how many players log "impactful" minutes, to the Renaldo Balkman discussion where we were trying to determine how many minutes a player has to play such that we know he's not just a garbage player. In that thread cherokee and Mike G were able to derive a formula that's a good approximation of whether the player was playing against starters or bench players, but, while that's a very good measure, there's a difference between playing against Antonio Daniels off the bench and Donnell Taylor.

Anyway, I decided to do a pretty simple study to see how much garbage time was really being played, and hope it helps people in anything from more in-depth evaluations to back of the envelope calculations (something like: Balkman played over 1000 minutes, and the Knicks only faced about 400 minutes of garbage time, so he can't solely be a garbage player).

(For this study I used PBP data from last season from BasketballValue.com.)

At first I struggled with coming up for the definitions of garbage time, but then I decided to take Ed's great within game win expectancy formula (helped along by the file that daviswylie posted) and apply it to this. I decided that if the win expectancy of either team was equal to or above 95%, it qualified as garbage time. (This was somewhat arbitrary, based on a couple observations, and what looked right, but it definitely could be argued with.) However, if at any point later in the game the win expectancy went back below 95%, that count would be wiped out. This gets rid of situations like 18 points leads in the 3rd quarter, that are then cut down to 10. If they stay at 10, or balloon back up, I will count the point that they become garbage time again as the start of the garbage time. But the point is that garbage time must be a period lasting to the end of the game.

Additionally, the win expectancy got a little funky towards the end of the game, since with 7 seconds left and a 2 point lead, the opposing team only has about a 4% chance of winning. As such I made sure garbage time had to start with > 30 seconds left in the game.

The results are as follows. SAS lead the league with 844 minutes and 11 seconds of garbage time. GARB% is my calculation of percentage of the team's minutes that were garbage minutes. I did not use the actual team figures for this, instead I simply divided the totals by 3936 ( 82 * 48 ). I did this because OT is not included in this study. While it could easily be argued that OT is never garbage time, I didn't even evaluate it as part of the study and as such ignored it in the percentage calculations.

Code:
Team   MIN    SEC   GARB%
SAS    844    11    21.4%
DAL    794    45    20.2%
PHX    729    54    18.5%
GSW    709    08    18.0%
ATL    654    00    16.6%
MEM    641    00    16.3%
CHI    627    09    15.9%
HOU    593    51    15.1%
LAC    568    58    14.5%
POR    559    42    14.2%
IND    558    27    14.2%
MIA    548    08    13.9%
PHI    542    14    13.8%
MIL    539    57    13.7%
SEA    537    33    13.7%
CLE    527    59    13.4%
ORL    517    47    13.2%
TOR    508    37    12.9%
NJN    505    30    12.8%
CHA    505    11    12.8%
DET    474    35    12.1%
NOK    472    21    12.0%
SAC    463    52    11.8%
UTA    454    23    11.5%
DEN    449    45    11.4%
WAS    446    54    11.4%
MIN    427    33    10.9%
NYK    402    43    10.2%
BOS    383    24    9.70%
LAL    350    42    8.90%
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Mountain



Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 217

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice work.

Getting to garbage time would seem a team goal.
Do you have interest in also measuring coaching behavior in garbage time including but not necessarily limited to speed and extent of pulling starters? How do the Spurs compare on other teams on that? Is their deep rotation just getting more garbage time or they getting more regular time too? Does Phoenix ride starters heavier than average for strong teams in comparable garbage time situations? Is that foolish from standpoint of being fresh for playoffs? Do the starters love the opportunity to play in the lead, have fun, hear the crowd... and get the financial rewards of big stats? Same spin for coach and owner and surely it makes fans happy too. Is championship all or the whip topping?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G



Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 1506
Location: Delphi, Indiana

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, this looks pretty amazing. It sounds like you touched all the bases here. I expect to see the best and worst teams at the top, medium teams at the bottom. After the Big3, mediumite GS pops in. I guess they had so many guys miss games, they were sometimes an elite team (like the playoff version), sometimes a lousy team?

Seeing some of the worst teams at the bottom -- NY, Bos, Min -- seems to imply that these teams tended to be competitive, but they'd lose anyway?

Now I wonder if there is an approximating formula for these %ages. Something along the lines of y + x*abs(PtDiff). Looks like y might be around .09, x close to 1.3 .

This doesn't account for GSW's high garb%, but maybe one could factor in 'games missed by starters', or G*(PER-9), ala Justin's new stat. Such pocket approximations could estimate past seasons (for which there is no bbvalue data).
_________________
40% of all statistics are wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
supersub15



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 81

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trying to wrap my head around this. Does this include positive and negative garbage time, i.e. playing garbage time while winning and losing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
davis21wylie2121



Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 373
Location: Atlanta, GA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

supersub15 wrote:
Trying to wrap my head around this. Does this include positive and negative garbage time, i.e. playing garbage time while winning and losing?


Yep, that's why teams like the Hawks and Grizz rank alongside the likes of the Suns and Bulls.

BTW, great work, Ben!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ben F.



Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 289
Location: MD

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the kudos, guys. Any comments regarding picking 95% as the cutoff point?

Mike G wrote:
After the Big3, mediumite GS pops in. I guess they had so many guys miss games, they were sometimes an elite team (like the playoff version), sometimes a lousy team?


I think this is a good theory. Another theory is that their style is a highly volatile one - gambling on threes and steals - and as such could produce extreme results.

Mike G wrote:
Seeing some of the worst teams at the bottom -- NY, Bos, Min -- seems to imply that these teams tended to be competitive, but they'd lose anyway?


It seems that way. I can think of a couple explanations for this: I wonder if perhaps this is a measure of coaching ability - that is, Doc Rivers and Isiah Thomas probably should have won more games than they did given their situations. Or, it could be that the Knicks' and Celtics' garbage players were not nearly as bad as a typical garbage unit, thus keeping the score closer than expected or even making a rally or two to wipe out previous garbage time. This could also be seen, however, as a strike against these coaches since it would seem that players that were worthy to play when the game would be decided did not.

So I wonder if you could create some measure of coaching based on the expected garbage time (from pythagorean win%) versus the actual, and see how that ends up.

Mountain wrote:
Do you have interest in also measuring coaching behavior in garbage time including but not necessarily limited to speed and extent of pulling starters? How do the Spurs compare on other teams on that? Is their deep rotation just getting more garbage time or they getting more regular time too? Does Phoenix ride starters heavier than average for strong teams in comparable garbage time situations?


I don't trust the substitution data on the play by play enough to do this. There are often subs that are out of place in the PBP, and lots of other mistakes that can confound the results. I can try and see what I can pull out, but take the results only with a grain of salt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Ben F.



Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 289
Location: MD

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Something else to consider - I factored in the relative strength of each team when calculating win expectancy, but I think this may have been a mistake. Looking back we know that Dallas, trailing by 6 with 2 minutes left has a better chance of winning than ATL does, but I'm not sure that should factor into the evaluation of garbage time at that moment. A coach of either team will most likely make the decision to pull players based on time and score, not based on the strength of his team.

There's that issue, and the issue that trailing by 6 with 2 minutes left isn't really garbage time. Even trailing by 8 with 2 minutes left isn't garbage time, really (although if you were down 18 before and cut it to 8, I'm not sure the coach would stick his starters back in). Yet down 8 with 2 minutes left shows a 2.6% chance of winning. I think the idea of garbage time is being out of contention with a fair amount of time left in the fourth quarter. Any ideas on what that time should be (4 minutes? 6 minutes?) or a way to perhaps find it by mining the PBP?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Ben F.



Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 289
Location: MD

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, last post for the day so that I give everyone else a chance to respond. Here are the new results, ignoring the teams' pythagorean winning% and with a new wrinkle: garbage time can't start until the start of the 4th quarter.

Code:
Team    MIN     SEC     GARB%
GSW     465     11     11.82%
DAL     423     24     10.76%
SAS     415     09     10.55%
ATL     406     35     10.33%
MIA     401     36     10.20%
CHA     374     52     9.52%
PHX     372     05     9.45%
LAC     371     11     9.43%
MIL     365     20     9.28%
CHI     364     45     9.27%
ORL     362     09     9.20%
MEM     360     24     9.16%
IND     359     44     9.14%
PHI     354     35     9.01%
HOU     346     58     8.82%
TOR     345     47     8.79%
POR     342     48     8.71%
CLE     337     09     8.57%
DEN     336     17     8.54%
SAC     334     06     8.49%
SEA     319     17     8.11%
DET     315     59     8.03%
NJN     312     58     7.95%
WAS     312     09     7.93%
UTA     310     06     7.88%
NYK     305     17     7.76%
NOK     281     28     7.15%
MIN     281     04     7.14%
BOS     277     24     7.05%
LAL     273     13     6.94%


As you can see, the order doesn't change a whole lot. GSW vaults to the top of the list, but besides that the same general rankings stay the same (DAL, PHX, SAS, ATL, MEM near the top, BOS, NYK, LAL near the bottom). The totals went a lot farther down, which I think is more accurate. While it's interesting that SAS played over 1/5th of their minutes with the game pretty much decided, I'm not sure it's an accurate representation of true garbage time. And as I brought up in my previous post, I'm not sure this really is either, because you have situations where the game is still winnable involved as well.

Anyway, to help evaluate whether or not this is truly capturing garbage time, and to try and answer Mountain's question, I decided to find the garbage minutes totals for every player in the league.

Now, the disclaimer is the same as above. All of this should be taken with a grain of salt because there are plenty of PBP errors and there's always the chance that I could have had a programming error as well. But here are the top 25 garbage time players:

Code:
RNK   Player                 MIN     SEC
1     Barbosa,Leandro        279     09
2     Dunleavy,Mike          276     54
3     Williams,Marvin        273     32
4     Udrih,Beno             268     20
5     Head,Luther            266     29
6     Korver,Kyle            263     29
7     Dixon,Juan             254     08
8     Barnes,Matt            249     49
9     Maggette,Corey         241     45
10    Webster,Martell        239     07
11    Sefolosha,Thabo        231     53
12    Morrison,Adam          231     04
13    Posey,James            226     15
14    Green,Gerald           221     39
15    Ellis,Monta            220     58
16    Delfino,Carlos         219     58
17    Bonner,Matt            219     24
18    Buckner,Greg           218     43
19    Barry,Brent            217     02
20    Jasikevicius,Sarunas   216     54
21    Herrmann,Walter        216     40
22    Pietrus,Mickael        216     25
23    Boykins,Earl           215     08
24    Felton,Raymond         214     50
25    Wright,Dorell          214     16


While I wasn't 100% sure of my definition of garbage time before this, the top 25 really strengthens my confidence in it. Maggette and Felton are the only real starters on this list. Barbosa leading the way doesn't surprise me too much because PHX played a lot of garbage time and doesn't like to go too deep into their bench. Barbosa plays most of their minutes with Nash off the floor, from observation.

I do, however, think it's still capturing a lot of time in "winnable" games, or at least times when the coach thinks the game is still winnable, situations like I described in my previous post. There are still stars father down on the list with large chunks of garbage minutes.

Anyway, I'd appreciate any comments/suggestions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
kjb



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 664
Location: Washington, DC

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not sure if you can program this, but you could approach the garbage time definition differently. Instead of arbitrarily choosing the 95% cutoff, you could look at the pbps and see when coaches actually removed their starters, their stars, or some substantial number of starters. Still kinda hazy, though.

Or, you could look at a sampling -- at what point do coaches think garbage time has started (based on sub patterns)? Then use that to refine the 95% cutoff point.
_________________
My blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Mike G



Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 1506
Location: Delphi, Indiana

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ben F. wrote:
.. Any comments regarding picking 95% as the cutoff point?


I was thinking about this while driving today. If I'm the coach, unless playoff seedings are not too relevant, I'm still strategizing at 5% (or 95%). Maybe 97% is garb, and 94-95% is scratch-n-sniff.

Late-season games might be considered differently. Whole games are garbage when a team is resting its starters.
_________________
40% of all statistics are wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ben F.



Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 289
Location: MD

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kjb wrote:
Not sure if you can program this, but you could approach the garbage time definition differently. Instead of arbitrarily choosing the 95% cutoff, you could look at the pbps and see when coaches actually removed their starters, their stars, or some substantial number of starters. Still kinda hazy, though.

Or, you could look at a sampling -- at what point do coaches think garbage time has started (based on sub patterns)? Then use that to refine the 95% cutoff point.


This is a good idea, and I've been thinking about how to approach it. It gets really thorny when you have games that are complete blowouts, and with a 30 point lead the coach doesn't want to play bottom of the bench players for 20 minutes so he still plays starters.

But I could see using the same definitions that we have now (95% and in the 4th quarter) as initial cutoffs and then seeing what percent of the time a lineup has 2 or less starters.

Mike G wrote:
If I'm the coach, unless playoff seedings are not too relevant, I'm still strategizing at 5% (or 95%). Maybe 97% is garb, and 94-95% is scratch-n-sniff.


Yeah, I suppose the question is how to come up with a cutoff that isn't just based on estimation but on some better rule. For example, something like what kjb suggested above, trying to determine at what point coaches put in lineups that have 2 or less starters. If we looked at the win expectancy every time that happened we might be able to get a better cutoff.

Mike G wrote:
Late-season games might be considered differently. Whole games are garbage when a team is resting its starters.


One thought I had early on when I saw BOS at the bottom of the list was I wonder if you can look at the difference between garbage time for the first 75% of the season (or some other cutoff point that marks when teams start to tank) and garbage time for the last 25%. Because my guess is that in those throw away games, win expectancy falls to one side early and then doesn't change.

At the same time, I've already started to limit my sampling to just the 4th quarter, because I don't think coaches consider any lead outside of the 4th quarter safe. For example, there was a WAS vs IND game early in the year where the Wizards lead by 30 with 22 minutes left in the game. But the starters played for the next 7 minutes, came out, and then at the start of the 4th quarter came in for another 2 minutes. Even though the game was out of reach for all 22 minutes, I don't think you can consider it all garbage time when starters are playing.

So I think that garbage time and tanking are two separate studies. That being said, you do raise a very good point that teams may play "garbage time" players at the end of the season in games they don't care about and in situations that aren't garbage time by any definition. I don't really know what to do about that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
basketballvalue



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 51

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ben F. wrote:

Now, the disclaimer is the same as above. All of this should be taken with a grain of salt because there are plenty of PBP errors and there's always the chance that I could have had a programming error as well. But here are the top 25 garbage time players:

Code:
RNK   Player                 MIN     SEC
1     Barbosa,Leandro        279     09
2     Dunleavy,Mike          276     54
...




Nice work Ben. This is interesting. One question, can you also provide the list of top garbage minutes as a % of total minutes played? I'm guessing that while Barbosa apparently played a lot of garbage minutes, he also played enough non-garbage minutes that he'd rank low on that list. I don't think of him as the quintessential garbage time player, after all.

Also, I think I caught most of the pbp errors and corrected them, but a few slipped through. I think the accuracy for minutes played should be closer to 99% than 90%.....

Thanks,
Aaron

www.basketballvalue.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
supersub15



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 81

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You also got situations like those that Sam Mitchell used to advocate, i.e. in some games, he'd be so pissed at the general effort of his starters, he used to leave them in just to humiliate them. It happened many times, and I won't be surprised if some other coaches use this tactic. How many times have we wondered why so-and-so coach is still playing the starters?

My suggestion is to establish cut-offs, i.e. garbage time is when a team is down:
1. 30 pts down with 1 quarter to go
2. 25 pts with 10 minutes to go
3. etc.

Those are obviously arbitrary and should be refined, but they make sense in that even if the starters are still in the game, they probably know it's a useless task and basically just fold the tent.

To recapitulate, I don't think you can define garbage time by when the starters are taken out of the game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ben F.



Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 289
Location: MD

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

basketballvalue wrote:
Nice work Ben. This is interesting. One question, can you also provide the list of top garbage minutes as a % of total minutes played? I'm guessing that while Barbosa apparently played a lot of garbage minutes, he also played enough non-garbage minutes that he'd rank low on that list. I don't think of him as the quintessential garbage time player, after all.

Yes, this was the next step, but I wanted to come to a better definition of garbage time before I linked it up with actual NBA minutes.

basketballvalue wrote:
Also, I think I caught most of the pbp errors and corrected them, but a few slipped through. I think the accuracy for minutes played should be closer to 99% than 90%.....

My 90% comment was not directed completely at the BasketballValue data. While I have had to clean some stuff up that you didn't catch, the reason I'm not 100% confident in my lineup data is due to possible errors in my own programming. To find who's in the game my program goes through the PBP and finds people who have committed an action. But there are situations where a rebound at the end of a quarter will be mistakenly placed in the next quarter by the NBA PBP and as such my program thinks that player is in the game. There are also subs that have the wrong timestamp next to them, etc. Usually my program should catch this and fire an error so I know to take a look and fix it. But I think there are situations where it slips through undetected so the lineup data I have doesn't actually reflect what was on the floor at that time.

supersub15 wrote:
To recapitulate, I don't think you can define garbage time by when the starters are taken out of the game.

This is a fair argument but then what do you suggest is the best way to define garbage time? As I defined it above, it's based on the chance the team has to win the game, which is essentially what you were trying to do with the cutoffs you proposed. But choosing a percentage is arbitrary if not backed up by some kind of data. As such we proposed to look at starters to see if we could refine the percentage. I understand your argument, and I don't think it will give us the exact garbage time count, but it could be more accurate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Harold Almonte



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

supersub15 wrote:
Quote:
You also got situations like those that Sam Mitchell used to advocate, i.e. in some games, he'd be so pissed at the general effort of his starters, he used to leave them in just to humiliate them. It happened many times, and I won't be surprised if some other coaches use this tactic. How many times have we wondered why so-and-so coach is still playing the starters?

My suggestion is to establish cut-offs, i.e. garbage time is when a team is down:
1. 30 pts down with 1 quarter to go
2. 25 pts with 10 minutes to go
3. etc.


That's very far above 100% win expectancy, but I think 95% could be a little low. Maybe a combination of 99% or 100% with no more than 2 starters (4 between the two teams) on the floor (the last quarter of course, or maybe any quarter)

I also think a garbage% team list must be some correlated with the "absolute or net" points-margin team list, with exceptions to those teams that are both extreme winning and losing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    APBRmetrics Forum Index -> General discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group