Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    Yes, that's how its talked about by analysts, commentators, and coaches.

    But statistically, to calculate an effeceincy rating the number of possessions is FGA+turnovers+jump balls+holding the ball at the end of a period. More ORs increases the number of possessions, and both teams do not have the same number of possessions per game because of this.

    As shown in the play-by-play log, this is three possessions:

    08:28 Granger Jump Shot: Missed
    08:26 Hibbert Rebound (Off:1 Def:0)
    08:26 Hibbert Tip Shot: Missed
    08:24 Hibbert Rebound (Off:2 Def:0)
    08:24 Hibbert Layup Shot: Missed
    08:16 Scola Rebound (Off:0 Def:1)

    And that's consistent with how I was taught to calculate those effeciency stats back when I did that. So even though the common vernacular considers ORs to be "extending the possession" the stats are different. And even if the possessions are calculated differently now, you'd have comparability issues with the old effeciency data -- especially if the old play-by-play logs are lost.
    Couple of points - 1st I mislabeled the stat in the bottom half of the post (got it right at the top). I am not using total ORB's, but ORB% - which is Tm's ORB/(Tm's ORB + Opp DRB).

    It is not entirely necessary for a team to get a lot of offensive rebounds to be good at this number, or, tangentially, for them to be a bad
    shooting team to be good in this stat. All that is required is that they are able to get a higher percentage of their own misses back.

    Second thing:

    Originally posted by O'Bird
    The point is made very convincingly that increasing threes doesn’t decrease FTA’s, at least league-wide.
    The point was made in this thread that the way the game is officiated has changed over the last 30 years, and this is something that is not considered in the data, and I certainly overlooked it when writing the post. I don't know what the officiating did to the FTA/FGA exactly, but it seems reasonable, if not expected, that the changes would result in more FTA's.

    Therefore, you can't make the claim you're making here (and that I implied in my post) with this data.

    Comment


    • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

      When you look at this, you have to wonder why anyone would ever take another mid-range shot again.


      Here's an interesting article on why the mid-range game has been losing importance:

      http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/0...hould-be-lost/

      Quote:
      In the National Basketball Association this season, three-point shots were dropping 37% of the time, just slightly worse than 40% for mid-range jump shots, according to Roland Beech of NBA stats site 82games.com.

      Keep in mind that these stats may be uncharitable to the three-pointer, because they include desperation heaves at the end of a period. Remove NBA shots taken with fewer than two seconds left in a quarter, and the percentage on mid-range jumpers is unchanged, but three-pointers inch up to 38%, according to Beech.

      Comment


      • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

        Originally posted by count55 View Post
        Couple of points - 1st I mislabeled the stat in the bottom half of the post (got it right at the top). I am not using total ORB's, but ORB% - which is Tm's ORB/(Tm's ORB + Opp DRB).

        It is not entirely necessary for a team to get a lot of offensive rebounds to be good at this number, or, tangentially, for them to be a bad
        shooting team to be good in this stat. All that is required is that they are able to get a higher percentage of their own misses back.
        Yep - I like ORB% much better than the raw number of ORBs. A good shooting, good rebounding team could have fewer ORBs than a bad shooting, avarege rebounding team because of the number of opportunities.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          When you look at this, you have to wonder why anyone would ever take another mid-range shot again.
          Same reason that teams take shots that aren't at the rim: the defense is in the way.

          Comment


          • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            When you look at this, you have to wonder why anyone would ever take another mid-range shot again.
            That is why : pushes players to take the extra step out for a 3-pointer, because the %age isn't that much lower but the benefit is higher.

            I slightly disagree, because a made 2-pt shot can prevent a fast break, where those additional missed 3-pointers might lead to an opponent score. I think it needs to be done in the context of an offense that looks for long rebounds.

            But I see the point of it, so to speak.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              That is why : pushes players to take the extra step out for a 3-pointer, because the %age isn't that much lower but the benefit is higher.

              I slightly disagree, because a made 2-pt shot can prevent a fast break, where those additional missed 3-pointers might lead to an opponent score. I think it needs to be done in the context of an offense that looks for long rebounds.

              But I see the point of it, so to speak.
              Interesting stat. The WSJ must have pulled the article b/c I get a 404 when I click the link.

              I wonder if they consider a layup in those stats? Do they consider whether the person is fouled or not..and gets a free throw? Do they consider that a person looking for a mid range shot is usually going to be in a better rebounding position?

              A big hole in this logic is that I doubt they factor in that poor shooters (I'm thinking Jeff Foster) typically never shoot from the perimeter and great shooters like Danny shoot a ton of threes. Who's to say that Danny wouldn't hit 55% within the arc if that was his game? Seriously, they are comparing an entirely different group of players and making a conclusion from it. Perhaps someone has a link that works and that the article actually dispels my criticism.

              Comment


              • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                This thread is the best thing going this off season. Please keep it going, everybody!
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment


                • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Interesting stat. The WSJ must have pulled the article b/c I get a 404 when I click the link.
                  Try this:

                  http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/0...hould-be-lost/

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  I wonder if they consider a layup in those stats?
                  A lay-up isn't a mid-range shot.


                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Do they consider whether the person is fouled or not..and gets a free throw?
                  They simply consider the % of shots that enter the basket, plain and simple. I don't think that people are significantly more fouled on mid-range jump-shots compared to 3pt jump-shots. Defenders generally try to not foul on jump-shots, even mid-range ones.


                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Do they consider that a person looking for a mid range shot is usually going to be in a better rebounding position?
                  How do you know this? And why does it matter - the goal is for the team to rebound, not to maximize the chances of the guy taking the shot to rebound his own miss. The mid-range shot produces the less offensive rebounds.

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  A big hole in this logic is that I doubt they factor in that poor shooters (I'm thinking Jeff Foster) typically never shoot from the perimeter and great shooters like Danny shoot a ton of threes. Who's to say that Danny wouldn't hit 55% within the arc if that was his game?
                  Not sure I understand your point here. If it was his game... well, it was Shaq's game and he'd hit 60% of his shots. But I'm not sure what's the point here. You mean if Granger could hit 55% of his mid-range shots? We already know he can't.

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Seriously, they are comparing an entirely different group of players and making a conclusion from it. Perhaps someone has a link that works and that the article actually dispels my criticism.
                  Why should they be comparing the same players. That's not the point of the article. It was to explain why teams are using the mid-range game less and less. From a player to player perspective, there are still plenty of guys whose mid-range game is their best asset and their shot-selection reflects that: Garnett, McDyess, Ellis, etc. They'd just be helping their teams more if they could add a couple more ft to their range while not losing more that 2% or so in efficiency - more or less the league average.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                    But the thing to remember is that an open mid range shot is still better than a defended shot of another type, for the most part.
                    "man, PG has been really good."

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                      Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                      Yes, that link does work. Thanks. Interestingly, the story raised several of my points: "That could reflect the players who take those shots — perhaps the best shooters are skipping the mid-range jumpers in favor of more valuable threes. “There’s a bit more to the argument than just this data,” Pomeroy added. “Interior shots tend to generate more free throws and a better chance for an offensive rebound.”

                      Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                      A lay-up isn't a mid-range shot.
                      I believe everyone here knows that. I just had not read the article until now.


                      Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                      They simply consider the % of shots that enter the basket, plain and simple. I don't think that people are significantly more fouled on mid-range jump-shots compared to 3pt jump-shots. Defenders generally try to not foul on jump-shots, even mid-range ones.
                      The assertion made in the article about more foul shots matches my own. I think that's open for debate. Generally, people avoid fouling 3 point shooters like it's the plague. I suspect more block attempts are made on shorter shots simply because of the type of players shooting and defending and proximity...but this is JMHO.


                      Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                      How do you know this? And why does it matter - the goal is for the team to rebound, not to maximize the chances of the guy taking the shot to rebound his own miss. The mid-range shot produces the less offensive rebounds.
                      Ok, maybe I did imply that. However, I believe it's easier for someone to beat someone to the glass and block out their man for an offensive rebound when they're floating within 10-15 feet than it is when they are 25 feet from the basket. The fact is, Troy Murphy's offensive rebounding numbers versus total numbers percentage-wise align logically with that conclusion.

                      Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                      Not sure I understand your point here. If it was his game... well, it was Shaq's game and he'd hit 60% of his shots. But I'm not sure what's the point here. You mean if Granger could hit 55% of his mid-range shots? We already know he can't.
                      My main point prior to reading the article was that they were comparing apples and oranges. You cannot make conclusions by putting weight on the 40% and 37% because an entirely different set of players with vastly different skillsets are shooting the 3's versus the mid range shots. While Peja may hit 45% from three, we have Ben Wallace shooting 20% from 12 feet out.

                      The article does go on to say that Beech's site also ranks players by accuracy on mid range shots. That is what you need to do IMO to have any valuable comparison, so kudo's on that point. The article states: "Most of the best shooters from that range do even better from three, once you adjust for the high value of the shot". I can buy that, btw. However, it's still not that simple even if you look purely at what that means in terms of points per attempt. The offensive system employed by the Pacers, for example, is geared toward shooting threes. It is likely IMO, that if the Pacers practiced midrange more, their three percentages would go down and midrange percentages would rise. As a result, the fact that "most" of the best shooters do better from three may simply be due to offensive systems. Combine this with the other drawbacks to being 25 feet from the rim, it's not at all clear to me what is actually the better plan.
                      [/QUOTE]

                      Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                      Why should they be comparing the same players. That's not the point of the article. It was to explain why teams are using the mid-range game less and less. From a player to player perspective, there are still plenty of guys whose mid-range game is their best asset and their shot-selection reflects that: Garnett, McDyess, Ellis, etc. They'd just be helping their teams more if they could add a couple more ft to their range while not losing more that 2% or so in efficiency - more or less the league average.
                      Actually, part of the article does touch on comparing the same players...which makes the most sense IMO. More than comparing shooting percentages of nearly mutually exclusive groups of players.

                      ...now the part in bold, yes, I agree with that.
                      Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-29-2010, 09:28 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        Yes, that's how its talked about by analysts, commentators, and coaches.

                        But statistically, to calculate an effeceincy rating the number of possessions is FGA+turnovers+jump balls+holding the ball at the end of a period. More ORs increases the number of possessions, and both teams do not have the same number of possessions per game because of this.

                        As shown in the play-by-play log, this is three possessions:

                        08:28 Granger Jump Shot: Missed
                        08:26 Hibbert Rebound (Off:1 Def:0)
                        08:26 Hibbert Tip Shot: Missed
                        08:24 Hibbert Rebound (Off:2 Def:0)
                        08:24 Hibbert Layup Shot: Missed
                        08:16 Scola Rebound (Off:0 Def:1)

                        And that's consistent with how I was taught to calculate those effeciency stats back when I did that. So even though the common vernacular considers ORs to be "extending the possession" the stats are different. And even if the possessions are calculated differently now, you'd have comparability issues with the old effeciency data -- especially if the old play-by-play logs are lost.
                        Actually, that's almost always not right - offensive rebounds are definitely NOT counted as new possessions when calculating basketball stats at most websites (e.g. 82games.com). I think what you see being tallied in that play-by-play are player individual rebound totals.

                        Op. cit.:
                        Basketball on Paper (Dean Oliver) basis for many stats on 82games.com
                        In a game, a team alternates possession with its opponent so that, at the end of the game, each team has just about the same number of possessions on which to try to score . . .
                        It is convenient (and almost correct) to think that there are only three ways for a possession to end: a field goal attempt that is not rebounded by the offense (either a make or a defensive board of a miss), a turnover, or some free throws.
                        KenPom.com
                        We can estimate possessions very well from box score stats by using this formula.

                        FGA-OR+TO+0.475xFTA

                        For each team, possessions are counted for the team and their opponents, and then averaged.
                        Kevin Pelton (APBRmetrics)
                        Possessions - Here is one place where defining a term becomes tricky, because there are two different definitions of possessions used by various analysts. (Baseball analysts, alas, are lucky enough not to have this problem. An out is an out is an out.) The most commonly-held view is that a possession is all the time a team holds the ball before the other team gets it. The defining characteristic of this definition is that an offensive rebound does not start a new possession. There are also those who view the offensive rebound as starting a new offensive possession. These people define possessions as time before an attempt to score is made or a turnover is recorded. Analysts operating on the first definition call these plays instead of possessions.
                        Statistically: .96 * (FGA + 0.44*FTA + TO - OR)
                        or
                        FGA + 0.4 * FTA - 1.07 * (OReb/(OReb + OppDReb)) + TO Plays: FGA + 0.44*FTA + TO

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                          Well, then that's different than how I was taught, but that was a long time ago.

                          The point of some of those statistics was to show the increase in possessions caused by ORs, which of course negates a lower FG%. Obviously, the point of the statistics you're referencing is to standardize the performance of two teams over the course of a game. I have another stat that I think captures that pretty well, too. The final score.

                          Aside, I kept the scorebook once for a team that just could not shoot. And they were losing most games until they encountered a really small team that could not rebound. So they'd just keep shooting and rebounding and missing and rebounding and shooting again until the ball finally went in. Would have made a great SNL skit.

                          Oh and by the way, 0.475XFTA and/or 0.44XFTA and/or 0.4XFTA???? So we can change those assumptions and get different results? That sounds like something from the Hollinger school of stupid and worthless stats.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Yes, that link does work. Thanks. Interestingly, the story raised several of my points: "That could reflect the players who take those shots — perhaps the best shooters are skipping the mid-range jumpers in favor of more valuable threes. “There’s a bit more to the argument than just this data,” Pomeroy added. “Interior shots tend to generate more free throws and a better chance for an offensive rebound.”
                            Interior shots, yes. Mid-range jump-shots, not so much.

                            http://www.82games.com/rebounds.htm



                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            The assertion made in the article about more foul shots matches my own. I think that's open for debate. Generally, people avoid fouling 3 point shooters like it's the plague. I suspect more block attempts are made on shorter shots simply because of the type of players shooting and defending and proximity...but this is JMHO.
                            Perhaps. But that would be at least partially upset by the fact that a foul on a 3pt shooter is worth 3 free-throws vs. 2 for a foul on a 2pt jump-shot. I don't think there's a source with this data, but I strongly believe the difference is pretty residual, basically negligible. Teams tend to foul more on close jump-shots - tear-drops, those leaners inside the paint - but they're equally careful on not fouling mid-range jump-shots (precisely because they're inefficient shots). I'm sure there are lots of games where there isn't a single FT drawn of a jump-shot.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Ok, maybe I did imply that. However, I believe it's easier for someone to beat someone to the glass and block out their man for an offensive rebound when they're floating within 10-15 feet than it is when they are 25 feet from the basket. The fact is, Troy Murphy's offensive rebounding numbers versus total numbers percentage-wise align logically with that conclusion.
                            Okay, but rebounding is still an argument in favour of 3pt shots vs. midrange shots.

                            In 100 missed 3pointers, the team gets 27 offensive rebounds with the shooter getting 3 of them.

                            In 100 missed midrange jumpshots, the team gets 19 offensive rebounds with the shooter grabbing 4 of them.

                            The fact that the shooter grabs more rebounds himself is meaningless.


                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            My main point prior to reading the article was that they were comparing apples and oranges. You cannot make conclusions by putting weight on the 40% and 37% because an entirely different set of players with vastly different skillsets are shooting the 3's versus the mid range shots. While Peja may hit 45% from three, we have Ben Wallace shooting 20% from 12 feet out.
                            This is what I don't get. Ben Wallace rarely takes any shot from 12 feet out. He rarely shoots at all.

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            The offensive system employed by the Pacers, for example, is geared toward shooting threes. It is likely IMO, that if the Pacers practiced midrange more, their three percentages would go down and midrange percentages would rise. As a result, the fact that "most" of the best shooters do better from three may simply be due to offensive systems. Combine this with the other drawbacks to being 25 feet from the rim, it's not at all clear to me what is actually the better plan.
                            But the numbers are league-wide. You could equally say the difference in efficiency would be even smaller if every team would practice 3 pointers as much as the Pacers.

                            Teams try to maximize their shooting efficiency by optimizing their shot-selection. The reason they've been using the midrange game less and less and the 3pt shot more is simply because they want to win and the later is more efficient, not some stylistic preference. I also miss the midrange game, but it is what it is.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                              Originally posted by cordobes View Post

                              This is what I don't get. Ben Wallace rarely takes any shot from 12 feet out. He rarely shoots at all.

                              But the numbers are league-wide. You could equally say the difference in efficiency would be even smaller if every team would practice 3 pointers as much as the Pacers.

                              Teams try to maximize their shooting efficiency by optimizing their shot-selection. The reason they've been using the midrange game less and less and the 3pt shot more is simply because they want to win and the later is more efficient, not some stylistic preference. I also miss the midrange game, but it is what it is.
                              Lots of good points.

                              The article is really saying two things. A) They talk about the 40% and 37% and attempt to give it credence. B) They talk about something more credible by comparing the same player's 3PT% versus MidRange%.

                              Part A is the one I am criticizing. Ben Wallace is not the best example. The point I'm making is that they are comparing the shooting percentages of two different groups of players with vastly different shooting skills: 1) Those who shoot volume 3's versus 2) Those who shoot volume midrange. Taken to a smaller sample, it's like comparing Danny Granger and Troy Murphy's 3PT% to Roy Hibbert and Tyler Hansborough's 2PT% and attempting to draw some kind of conclusion from it. I simply don't think there is any meaning at all to the comparison.

                              Part B has a lot more substance. As a result, I can buy the idea that most teams have decided that moving the offense out is more efficient. However, I still think there are substantial cons to it AND it depends on the set of players on your team. But as you say, the league is moving that way for a reason. In any event, Part B was not my "beef".

                              BTW, I do enjoy seeing a mix of midrange and perimeter shots ala Pacers pre-2000. That style is beautiful and I think that team would contend for the championship with it...even today.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Value of Hungry Hungry Hibbert

                                Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                                Okay, but rebounding is still an argument in favour of 3pt shots vs. midrange shots.

                                In 100 missed 3pointers, the team gets 27 offensive rebounds with the shooter getting 3 of them.

                                In 100 missed midrange jumpshots, the team gets 19 offensive rebounds with the shooter grabbing 4 of them.

                                The fact that the shooter grabs more rebounds himself is meaningless.
                                I have to comment on this. The fact the shooter grabs more rebounds for midrange shots is actually quite important. The shooter is often more aware of where the ball is going than anyone and is in a far better spot to follow their shot, sometimes to the rim for a layup. If they are lucky, they will get an And-One. Neither of these situations are captured by looking simply at midrange percentages.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X