PDA

View Full Version : Which stats matter? (another thread about data)



Putnam
01-22-2008, 12:24 PM
Here’s another data-driven thread for those who like this sort of thing. Proceed at your own peril.
<o></o>
<o></o>

Often times we compare one team to a league average, or we look at the team’s rank in the league. But we never get to play against the league average – we only play against actual teams. And beating the league average never guarantees a win. We have to beat the opponent we face on a given night. So, perhaps it is more meaningful to count the games when we outperform our opponent. And we can look at more than points scored.


By looking at a battery of stats, we can see which game factors correlate with wins and which don't. That is to say, do we have a better record when we outperform the opponent in a particular stat? (Yeah! The Pacers are 15-3 when they score a higher field goal percentage than their opponent.) Or does beating them at one stat seem to have little effect on the game? (Yeah again. The Pacers are 10-16 when they outscore their opponent in the paint.)

For simplicity, I've arranged the 20 game stats into four categories.


<o></o>
<o></o>
Happens more than half the time
Pacers' record is better in games when they win this stat
<o></o>

Assists
Field goals made
Three-pointers made
Fewer turnovers

<o></o>
<o></o>
Happens less than half the time
Pacers' record is better in games when they win this stat
<o></o>

Points (Duh!)
Field goal %
Steals
Three-point %
Fewer blocks against
Defensive rebounds
Blocks
Free throws made
Free throws attempted
Total rebounds
<o></o>
<o></o>

Happens more than half the time
Pacers' record is worse in games when they win this stat
<o></o>

Fast-break points
Field goal attempts
Three-point attempts
Points in the paint
Offensive rebounds
<o></o>
<o></o><o></o>

Happens less than half the time
Pacers' record is worst in games when they win this stat
<o></o>

Fewer fouls


And now, let me respectfully note that if anyone feels like saying, "That is wrong!" then he is probably disputing an interpretation -- not the data. I am not proposing any interpretation here in the OP. I'm just showing the figures. I am not saying that any of these correlations are significant, or that any of them are causal. I'm just observing that Pacers' advantage in various game stats happen more or less often, and that some of them happen more often when the Pacers win than when they lose.

Thoughts? Comments?

Anthem
01-22-2008, 01:24 PM
Which stats matter? Wins and losses.

I want to read and respond, but I'm distracted by the many happy faces. Are they intentional?

BobbyMac
01-22-2008, 01:43 PM
This is interesting. what I most look at is foul differential, fast break points, and turnovers.

Unclebuck
01-22-2008, 02:20 PM
For this Pacers team, I think assists and made three pointers.

Defensively - deflections and % of challenged shots.
No, we don't know either, but I wish we did.

Putnam
01-22-2008, 02:31 PM
Here again are the same 20 game stats, showing what the Pacers record is in games when they outperform the opponent in the statistic. The no-brainer is “Points,” of course. When we outscore the opponent we win every time. But the other game stats have a less certain impact on the outcome of the game.

Getting more offensive rebounds happens pretty often, but the Pacers seem to do worse when they keep the glass clean than otherwise. The Pacers are .452 overall, so you can see which stats seem to be felicitous and which are not.

<o></o>

1.000 Points<o></o>
.833 FG%<o></o>
.787 Steals<o></o>
.736 3P%<o></o>
.692 Blocks Against (fewer)<o></o>
.666 Assists<o></o>
.666 Def Reb<o></o>
.666 FGMade<o></o>
.642 Blocks<o></o>
.608 3PMade<o></o>
.571 FTMade<o></o>
.555 FTAttempt<o></o>
.550 Tot Reb<o></o>
.523 Turnovers (fewer)<o></o>
.444 Fouls (fewer)<o></o>
.416 Fast break Points<o></o>
.407 FGAttempt<o></o>
.387 3PAttempt<o></o>
.384 Points in the Paint<o></o>
.347 Off Reb<o></o>



<o>
</o>

ChicagoPacer
01-22-2008, 02:38 PM
If you're looking for stats that predict winning and losing, an NBA statistical consultant for different franchises over the last few years has come up with four of them.

Dean Oliver's Four Factors:

-Effective FG% (fg% adjusted for 3pt shots). Teams that shoot well score more.
-Rebounding (measured as % of available rebounds your team grabs). Teams that rebound well on the offensive end get lots of second chances. Teams that do the same on the defensive end eliminate their opponents' second chances.
-Free Throws (measured by your tendency to get to the line and make FTs: FTM/FGA). Free throws are generally a more effective way to score than FGs.
-Turnovers (measured by the % of your teams offensive trips down the floor that end in a TO). Turning the ball over guarantees zero points/poss.

You can synthesize all of these items together to come up with efficiency ratings for both teams in a game. Team A's Eff rating is basically pts per trip down the floor.

If you want proof it works, take a look at this link:

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/indiana-pacers/team/profile/08/11

The Pacers are 18-1 when they win the efficiency battle and 1-22 when they lose it. The four factors tell you where the Pacers either won or lost the efficiency battle.

Bball
01-22-2008, 02:43 PM
I always look at the final score for an important stat. If the Pacers outscore their opponent, they've never lost a game. Can't argue with that stat!

-Bball

ChicagoPacer
01-22-2008, 02:58 PM
Here's another link that gets into the Four Factors discussed above:

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2008/o_oe.htm

-FG% differential - 12th in the league
-Rebounding differential - 14th
-Turnover differential - 14th
-FTM/FGA differential - 29th

We just don't get to the line very much. We give teams a lot more freebies than we get.

Putnam
01-22-2008, 03:10 PM
This is good. Dean Oliver makes convincing sense, and I'm sure the formula has been proven over many games, seasons and teams. Thanks for sharing it.


The importance of field goal % is borne out for the Pacers (.833 when they are better than their opponent), and the free throw deficit has been talked about in other threads. But I see a puzzle:


If you're looking for stats that predict winning and losing, an NBA statistical consultant for different franchises over the last few years has come up with four of them.

Dean Oliver's Four Factors:

-Effective FG% (fg% adjusted for 3pt shots). Teams that shoot well score more.
-Rebounding (measured as % of available rebounds your team grabs). Teams that rebound well on the offensive end get lots of second chances. Teams that do the same on the defensive end eliminate their opponents' second chances.
-Free Throws (measured by your tendency to get to the line and make FTs: FTM/FGA). Free throws are generally a more effective way to score than FGs.
-Turnovers (measured by the % of your teams offensive trips down the floor that end in a TO). Turning the ball over guarantees zero points/poss.





How come the Pacers don't seem to get as much Oomph out of offensive rebounds as they might/should. Throughout the season, they have outrebounded their opponent 23 times at the offensive end. That ought to be a good thing, since, as you say, it gives them a second chance to score.

But the Pacers are 8-15 (.347) when they do that! They get an advantage on defensive rebounds less often, but win more often: 10-5 (.666) when they do.

Question: Are the Pacers bad at converting off the second chance? 82games.com shows that they are most effective at scoring on the fast break and that their eFG% is highest in the first 10 seconds of a possession. But are they particularly bad at reloading?

ChicagoPacer
01-22-2008, 03:44 PM
They might be bad at finishing off when they get offensive boards.

Or they could be shooting really, really poorly that night, which means there are more offensive rebounds available. The latter is most likely, and this is why the four factors doesn't look at total offensive rebounds. It looks at % of total rebounds on the offensive end that the Pacers got, which should be around 35%. It compares that number to % of total rebounds their opponent got on their offensive end.

Example: the Pacers shoot 3-10 get three offensive boards and go 3-3 on putbacks to score 12 pts. Their opponents shoot 8-10 and get one rebound, go 1-1 on putbacks and score 18 pts. I'd take the latter every time.

NuffSaid
01-22-2008, 05:31 PM
The reason the Pacers' score better off defensive rebounds is because of their transition game. UB brought up two interesting stats that aren't shown - defensive deflections and % of challenged shots.

If you're defending the ball well and you're getting those deflections or forcing your opponent to take quick or ill-advised shots, you're more likely to cause the turnover or the missed shot. When this team steps up defensely, they're pretty good. No question! Their transition game is actually pretty good. It's when they're forced to create off the dribble or score in 1-on-1 situations where a player has to create space for himself, that's when this team struggles. In other words, the Pacers really don't have a bonafide playmaker. But if they can continue to work hard on the defensive end and get those transition basket opportunities and/or score off cuts and screen, they won't need a playmaker. JT just has to limit his game to ball distribution such as what he did last night against the 76ers. If he can do that and everyone else continues to do their part, this team will be fine moving forward.

ChicagoPacer
01-22-2008, 07:50 PM
The reason the Pacers' score better off defensive rebounds is because of their transition game. UB brought up two interesting stats that aren't shown - defensive deflections and % of challenged shots...

I agree with what you've said here. The Pacers don't really have that playmaker who can drive and attract defensive help or draw contact and get to the line. What they're really good at is getting the ball out in transition and getting more high pct baskets in transition.

When you look at the 4 Factors, this is what leads to the high difference in FG% between the Pacers and their opponents. If the Pacers aren't getting more of those easy transition baskets, then the shooting advantage goes away.

UB is right, those stats are critical for Ws.

Pacers record with FG shooting advantage: .850
Record without: .091

Turnovers and Rebounding are pretty much a wash and haven't really helped or hurt the team this year. The other thing that hurts them is not getting to the line.

Getting to the line advantage: 5-3 .625
Not getting to the line as much: 14-20 .412

The team is giving up 7 gimme pts/game to their opponents. If they cut this disadvantage in half, they'd probably be a 45-47 win team.

FlavaDave
01-22-2008, 07:53 PM
Jeff Foster multiple putback misses could explain the irrelevancy of our offensive rebounds.

Putnam
01-22-2008, 08:27 PM
If you're defending the ball well and you're getting those deflections or forcing your opponent to take quick or ill-advised shots, you're more likely to cause the turnover or the missed shot. When this team steps up defensely, they're pretty good.

Clearly. But this isn't much to hang your hat on. The Pacers only score about 14 point a game on fast breaks -- about 13.4% of all their scoring. They get an advantage over their opponents, but not enough to win games with.




Pacers record with FG shooting advantage: .850
Record without: .091

Shouldn't these sum to 1.00?

FlavaDave
01-22-2008, 08:28 PM
If you're looking for stats that predict winning and losing, an NBA statistical consultant for different franchises over the last few years has come up with four of them.

Dean Oliver's Four Factors:

-Effective FG% (fg% adjusted for 3pt shots). Teams that shoot well score more.
-Rebounding (measured as % of available rebounds your team grabs). Teams that rebound well on the offensive end get lots of second chances. Teams that do the same on the defensive end eliminate their opponents' second chances.
-Free Throws (measured by your tendency to get to the line and make FTs: FTM/FGA). Free throws are generally a more effective way to score than FGs.
-Turnovers (measured by the % of your teams offensive trips down the floor that end in a TO). Turning the ball over guarantees zero points/poss.

You can synthesize all of these items together to come up with efficiency ratings for both teams in a game. Team A's Eff rating is basically pts per trip down the floor.

If you want proof it works, take a look at this link:

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/indiana-pacers/team/profile/08/11

The Pacers are 18-1 when they win the efficiency battle and 1-22 when they lose it. The four factors tell you where the Pacers either won or lost the efficiency battle.


By the way, that stat is phenomenal. The accuracy is unbelievable.

FlavaDave
01-22-2008, 08:54 PM
If you're looking for stats that predict winning and losing, an NBA statistical consultant for different franchises over the last few years has come up with four of them.

Dean Oliver's Four Factors:

-Effective FG% (fg% adjusted for 3pt shots). Teams that shoot well score more.
-Rebounding (measured as % of available rebounds your team grabs). Teams that rebound well on the offensive end get lots of second chances. Teams that do the same on the defensive end eliminate their opponents' second chances.
-Free Throws (measured by your tendency to get to the line and make FTs: FTM/FGA). Free throws are generally a more effective way to score than FGs.
-Turnovers (measured by the % of your teams offensive trips down the floor that end in a TO). Turning the ball over guarantees zero points/poss.

You can synthesize all of these items together to come up with efficiency ratings for both teams in a game. Team A's Eff rating is basically pts per trip down the floor.

If you want proof it works, take a look at this link:

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/indiana-pacers/team/profile/08/11

The Pacers are 18-1 when they win the efficiency battle and 1-22 when they lose it. The four factors tell you where the Pacers either won or lost the efficiency battle.


By the way, that stat is phenominal. The accuracy is unbelievable.

ChicagoPacer
01-23-2008, 01:05 AM
Shouldn't these sum to 1.00?

I'll show you why they won't. Take a team that's 10-20 (.333). They go 8-2 when a stat is in their favor (.800). That means they must go 2-18 when it isn't (.100).

% of games in your favor (.333)* win pct in favor (0.800)+ % of games not in favor (.667)* win pct not (.100) = your win pct. (.333)

Young
01-23-2008, 01:21 AM
Assists, 3 points made, rebounding, and turnovers.

We need assists. Shows there is good ball movement.

You live by the 3 and you die by the 3. Like it or not the Pacers do. To live you gotta make em.

Need to rebound both on offense and defense. Especially when you shoot a high volume of 3s offensive rebounds are big, = second chance points.

Then there are turnovers. Need to force turnovers and get easy baskets.

I think when you live and die by the 3 and don't get to the line a lot offensive rebounds and turnovers, fast break chances, become especially important.

ChicagoPacer
01-23-2008, 01:50 AM
By the way, that stat is phenominal. The accuracy is unbelievable.

It has to be. The guys on the thread making jokes about scoring more points might even like this explanation.

Efficiency is pts per possession. And a possession is time you have the ball until the time the other team gets it. It's basically a trip down the floor. Basketball is back and forth, so teams have almost the same number of possessions in a game. The only time you might get an extra one is because a quarter must end some time, so a team might have 1 extra chance per quarter. These generally even out over 4 quarters. If possessions are the same for both teams, then all you're really measuring are points--exactly what the guys taking cracks earlier want you to measure (and they're right). What Oliver does is figure out why team A scored more than B. He summarizes them into the things that can happen every time a team has the ball:

1-made FG (FG%)
2-made FT (Free Throws per FGA)
3-Turnover
4-offensive rebounds - you can miss a shot and it gets rebounded by the other team. Possession over. Or you get the reb, keep possession, "erase a mistake" and can get another chance.

Compare the two teams playing and these 4 things will tell you why a team won or lost based upon these 4 things. But they won't tell you how you won or lost. Enter UB with a good observation about why the Pacers shoot better than the other team (they're good at getting easy transition buckets).

This guy does a really great job of laying out a bunch of important stat concepts used by teams today (including this one). A quick 2 page read:

http://www.knickerblogger.net/index.php/2007/10/29/a-laymans-guide-to-advanced-nba-statistics/

Putnam
01-23-2008, 10:51 AM
I'll show you why they won't. Take a team that's 10-20 (.333). They go 8-2 when a stat is in their favor (.800). That means they must go 2-18 when it isn't (.100).

% of games in your favor (.333)* win pct in favor (0.800)+ % of games not in favor (.667)* win pct not (.100) = your win pct. (.333)


Yeah, I knew why they didn't. I asked "Shouldn't they?" I present a lot of statistical data to non-experts, and I always find it is clearer and better accepted when you use a common baseline (which would sum to 1.00) rather than what you show.


Also, why do you illustrate your points with contrived examples, when we have the actual Pacers data before us?

Putnam
01-23-2008, 11:11 AM
By the way, that stat is phenominal. The accuracy is unbelievable.


It has to be.

In other words, it is tautological.

When a statistical measure is too good, it is because it is measuring the same thing by two different names. Everybody knows that the team that scores the most points wins the game, and what ChicagoPacers has shown us is a detailed formula for determining which team scores the most points by the combination of field goals, free throws, and extra chances from steals and rebounds.

I like the formula. But I'm not sure it tells us more about the Pacers. The formula asserts (quite reasonably) that both FG% and rebounds are import to winning. But then how come the Pacers own data confirms this in the case of FG% (they are .833 in games when they exceed their opponent in that) but not in the case of rebounds?

Hicks
01-23-2008, 12:23 PM
I always look at the final score for an important stat. If the Pacers outscore their opponent, they've never lost a game. Can't argue with that stat!

-Bball

I often see comments like these and about wins and losses, and I get annoyed because of course those are the end-game, but it doesn't tell you jack about HOW TO DO IT. That's why the other stats come into play. Now I could easily be taking this too seriously, but I see it so often over the years I really wonder.

Hicks
01-23-2008, 12:36 PM
By the way, that stat is phenomenal. The accuracy is unbelievable.

No kidding. That accuracy has me hooked on that stat right now.

ChicagoPacer
01-23-2008, 06:43 PM
I like the formula. But I'm not sure it tells us more about the Pacers. The formula asserts (quite reasonably) that both FG% and rebounds are import to winning. But then how come the Pacers own data confirms this in the case of FG% (they are .833 in games when they exceed their opponent in that) but not in the case of rebounds?

I'll use the Pacers as an actual example here this time. The short answer on the issue of rebounds is that not all things in the analysis can be weighted equally.

Possession per game for the Pacers and opposition: 98.6 and 98.4
This makes sense, because the game is back and forth so possessions should be equal. The Pacers get avg an extra possession at end of quarter 1 time in every 5 games. Pretty equal.

What is the disribution of those possessions (Pacers first, then opp)?

Field Goals: 85.9 vs. 81.9
Free Throws: 9.7 vs. 12.6
Turnovers: 16.2 vs. 15.8
These total more than 94-95, but offensive rebounds are "mistake erasers", so they're negative. They give you another chance to get a FT, FG, or commit a turnover.

Off Reb: -13.1 vs. -12.0

Net the Pacers higher turnovers with "mistake erasers" and the Pacers have a 0.7 net turnover advantage per game. That's not a lot. Its a net impact of less than 1 pt per game for Indy.

If you were to isolate this, it would be the equivalent of the other team throwing the ball into the stands once at the beginning of most games. For the rest of the game, neither team commits any turnovers and everyone boxes out perfectly so no offensive rebounds occur. All you're left with is field goals and free throws. This is where the real difference is.

Field Goal possessions favor the Pacers (85.9 to 81.9) and they also shoot better, so they get more pts per possession here: .99 pts vs. .97 pts. It's not huge difference in FG%, but it is significant when you consider how many time attempts happen per game.

Free throw possessions do not favor the Pacers (9.7 vs. 12.6). Only The critical thing here is that these 3 extra opponent possessions are really easy scores. The Pacers get 1.88 pts/FT possession and the other team gets 1.94. These numbers seem high. If it were limited to 2 shot fouls, a team shooting 75% would be expected to walk away with 1.5 pts on average. You must factor in the ability of both teams to get "and one" situations, which don't really take a possession. Free points.

The difference between this Pacers team and their opponents is ability to get to the line. 3 times a game, the Pacers work hard for field goals, some of which miss. After each time, they surrender easy foul shots.

It's a difference of 2-3 pts a game that can mean the difference between the current team and +.500 team.

kester99
01-23-2008, 08:11 PM
I seem to recall a post-game interview with Bobby Knight years ago in which he kind of erupted (nothing unusual there) at a question concerning the importance of getting more offensive rebounds. The nearest I can come to recalling the quote is, "Hell, that just means you're missing more shots."

Naptown_Seth
01-24-2008, 04:14 PM
I have Oliver's book and I've only been able to get to a small portion of it so far. But let me just say that he makes endless attempts to quantify everything. None of this is cavalier stat posturing, he's really trying to cross check any conclusions a stat comes up with.

People just brush stuff like that off way too easily, as if a pro isn't considering all the various other viewpoints and is utterly unaware of the limits of numbers.

I'd say it's quite the opposite, it's the non-stats people that are too quick to dismiss the points of view stats can provide. No stat person ever ignores the views of anecdotal analysis, not if they are any good at their work at least. In fact what they are trying to do is find ways to measure those views with the possibility of verifying them.

Buck says "defense wins games". Oliver says "what is 'defense' and can we measure it?"
To me that's a very valid question. You are taking the ambiguous and making it tangible, and therefore applicable to future efforts. It forces Buck to consider what he means and to define it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that he's wrong for saying it, and in fact by the time the process is over it could be that Oliver will have some great measures that back Buck's newly defined viewpoint.

Who the heck ever won games by "just playing better" or "just trying harder". That's not coaching or teaching, that's John Edwards Crossing Over crap.

Elgin56
01-24-2008, 04:23 PM
I have Oliver's book and I've only been able to get to a small portion of it so far. But let me just say that he makes endless attempts to quantify everything. None of this is cavalier stat posturing, he's really trying to cross check any conclusions a stat comes up with.

People just brush stuff like that off way too easily, as if a pro isn't considering all the various other viewpoints and is utterly unaware of the limits of numbers.

I'd say it's quite the opposite, it's the non-stats people that are too quick to dismiss the points of view stats can provide. No stat person ever ignores the views of anecdotal analysis, not if they are any good at their work at least. In fact what they are trying to do is find ways to measure those views with the possibility of verifying them.

Buck says "defense wins games". Oliver says "what is 'defense' and can we measure it?"
To me that's a very valid question. You are taking the ambiguous and making it tangible, and therefore applicable to future efforts. It forces Buck to consider what he means and to define it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that he's wrong for saying it, and in fact by the time the process is over it could be that Oliver will have some great measures that back Buck's newly defined viewpoint.

Who the heck ever won games by "just playing better" or "just trying harder". That's not coaching or teaching, that's John Edwards Crossing Over crap.


Tinsley?

ChicagoPacer
01-24-2008, 05:56 PM
Buck says "defense wins games". Oliver says "what is 'defense' and can we measure it?"
To me that's a very valid question. You are taking the ambiguous and making it tangible, and therefore applicable to future efforts. It forces Buck to consider what he means and to define it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that he's wrong for saying it, and in fact by the time the process is over it could be that Oliver will have some great measures that back Buck's newly defined viewpoint.

Couldn't agree more. There is a lot of good stuff coming from guys like Pelton, Rosenbaum, etc in addition to others. UB says deflections are important because they enable the Pacers to get out on the run, where they are effective, and 82games has the data to support his point:

Shot Clock Usage
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 width=560 bgColor=#cccccc border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#33cc33><TD bgColor=#000000><CENTER></CENTER></TD><TD colSpan=4><CENTER>Offense</CENTER></TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#cccccc></TD><TD colSpan=4><CENTER>Defense</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#e5e5e5><TD width=79 bgColor=#cccccc><CENTER>Secs.</CENTER></TD><TD width=60><CENTER>Att.</CENTER></TD><TD width=60><CENTER>eFG%</CENTER></TD><TD width=60><CENTER>Ast</CENTER></TD><TD width=60><CENTER>Pts</CENTER></TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#cccccc></TD><TD width=60><CENTER>Att.</CENTER></TD><TD width=60><CENTER>eFG%</CENTER></TD><TD width=60><CENTER>Ast</CENTER></TD><TD width=60><CENTER>Pts</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>0-10</CENTER></TD><TD align=right>44% </TD><TD align=right>.536 </TD><TD align=right>59% </TD><TD align=right>41.2 </TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#cccccc></TD><TD align=right>37% </TD><TD align=right>.512 </TD><TD align=right>55% </TD><TD align=right>31.6 </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>11-15</CENTER></TD><TD align=right>30% </TD><TD align=right>.463 </TD><TD align=right>62% </TD><TD align=right>24.0 </TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#cccccc></TD><TD align=right>27% </TD><TD align=right>.503 </TD><TD align=right>66% </TD><TD align=right>22.6 </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>16-20</CENTER></TD><TD align=right>18% </TD><TD align=right>.479 </TD><TD align=right>62% </TD><TD align=right>14.6 </TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#cccccc></TD><TD align=right>22% </TD><TD align=right>.476 </TD><TD align=right>62% </TD><TD align=right>17.1 </TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD><CENTER>21+</CENTER></TD><TD align=right>8% </TD><TD align=right>.398 </TD><TD align=right>61% </TD><TD align=right>5.4 </TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#cccccc></TD><TD align=right>14% </TD><TD align=right>.405 </TD><TD align=right>61% </TD><TD align=right>9.1</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

44% of our offense comes in the first 10 seconds of the shot clock. More than our opponents. We also happen to shoot much better earlier in the clock due to this transition game.

Hicks
01-24-2008, 06:08 PM
Tinsley?

I was thinking of that horse (whose name escapes me) from the book "Animal Farm".

*edit* Boxer, that's it. I believe he ends up at the glue factory.