| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mountain
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 465
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chronz1
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 138
|
 Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Surprisingly a good read |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
94by50
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 458
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Very good read.
| Quote: | | What’s one of the most misused, misinterpreted statistics? “Turnovers are way more expensive than people think,” Zarren says. That’s because most teams focus on the points a defense scores from the turnover but don’t correctly value the offense’s opportunity cost — that is, the points it might have scored had the turnover not occurred. |
This is one of the things I never knew when I was just a casual fan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 1870
Location: Delphi, Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eh? It seems I've heard it a thousand times: "That's a 4-point turnaround. Team A was in a position to tie the game, but they turned it over, and Team B scored. Instead of a tie, they're down 4."
"Yep, that's right, Merv..."
Or some version of the above. The casual fan may have actually grown tired of hearing this line of reasoning. We don't in fact know Team A was about to score; nor do we know that Team B wouldn't have scored (on their next possession) anyway.
Subtract the average value of the 2 possessions, and it's roughly a '2-pt turnaround'. And that's only because, after the fact, Team B did score. If their extra possession is an average one, it's closer to a value of 1 point.
I can't think of many turnovers that both (a) stop a sure basket, and (b) create a sure FG at the other end. Only such a scenario would feature a TO with value approaching 2 (or -2 ).
If there's no enhanced chance to score for Team B, then it seems the TO is just about as important as a 1-shot technical foul. Generally not a game-turning event. Since there does, on average, seem to be an improved scoring opp, a TO would seem to have a value somewhat >1.
But I don't really know what 'people think' is the value of a turnover.
_________________
`
There's no I in analysys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harold Almonte
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 422
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| And not too much above 1, since just about half of TOs are stealed, the other half generally needs to be inbounded, and not all steals are acomplished in the upper and middle court. A lot of them have no more off. opp. cost than a DReb. or any other not inbounded gained possession. The number of TOs which sends directly to the FT line must be minimal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harold Almonte
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 422
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If we say that teamA loose 1/2FGA from forced not stealed TOs, and teamB could gain about 3/4FGA from steals, then the final value of a TO could end about 1.25.
This season Lg TOs=1,157; STL=597; other FTOs=560. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
94by50
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 458
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike G wrote: | | But I don't really know what 'people think' is the value of a turnover. |
On the basis of judging individuals, I think most people ignore turnovers entirely unless they're playing fantasy ball, or unless a guy has an extreme outlier on the wrong end (9 turnovers in a game, 4.5 per game, something like that). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
