| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
supersub15
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 109
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:44 am Post subject: Inside Scoring |
 |
|
I'm trying to compile a list of the best and worst inside scorers in the league and noticed a discrepancy between NBA Hotzones and 82games.com.
Let's take Tim Duncan, for example:
In NBA Hotzones, he's 207 of 340. Over 37 games, he's scoring 11.19 points inside.
In 82games is showing Duncan as scoring only 8.9 points inside.
What am I missing here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Eli W
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 330
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Those HotZones numbers are for shots from 0-8 feet.
Those 82games numbers are for the sum of their classifications of tips, dunks, and close shots. They classify some shots within 8 feet as jump shots, and don't include them in their "inside" totals. So there won't be a perfect match with HotZones.
Basically, 82games slices up closer shots while HotZones lumps them together, and HotZones slices up longer shots while 82games lumps them together.
_________________
Eli W. (formerly John Quincy)
CountTheBasket.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supersub15
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 109
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eli W wrote: | Those HotZones numbers are for shots from 0-8 feet.
Those 82games numbers are for the sum of their classifications of tips, dunks, and close shots. They classify some shots within 8 feet as jump shots, and don't include them in their "inside" totals. So there won't be a perfect match with HotZones.
Basically, 82games slices up closer shots while HotZones lumps them together, and HotZones slices up longer shots while 82games lumps them together. |
Thanks for the clarification. So, now, for the purposes of compiling this list, if I were to study the best and worst inside scorers, would it be more beneficial to count those 0-8 ft jumpers as inside scoring or not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Küpfer
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 627
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| supersub15 wrote: | | So, now, for the purposes of compiling this list, if I were to study the best and worst inside scorers, would it be more beneficial to count those 0-8 ft jumpers as inside scoring or not? |
Edit: it seems to me that equally important in terms of inside scoring efficiency is number of inside scoring attempts -- probably as a proportion of total possessions. You should probably look at both.
_________________
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supersub15
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 109
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ed Küpfer wrote: | | Edit: it seems to me that equally important in terms of inside scoring efficiency is number of inside scoring attempts -- probably as a proportion of total possessions. You should probably look at both. |
Just to be clear, when you say "proportion of total possessions", does that mean "possession" or "FGA"? If it's the former, do I use Hollinger's Usage Rate as a basis for the number of total possessions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Küpfer
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 627
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would use possessions, but I can't imagine it would make a huge difference. Don't sweat the details too much -- you're probably going to run into an unforeseen problem that will require you to re-analyse the whole thing, so don't try too hard to get it right the first time.
_________________
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
