29 Nov 2004 18:42:51
George W. Harris
ACC Offense/Defense Ratings (All Games Through 11/26/04)

Welcome to the first in my weekly series
of posts assessing the offensive & defensive
performance of ACC teams in all games. This
early in the season, it's difficult to compare
ratings between teams, since some teams (such as
Wake) have played tougher schedules than others
(such as Virginia Tech and NC State).

First is the rating of team offensive
performance, from best (highest) to worst
(lowest); then the rating of team defensive
performance, from best (lowest) to worst
(highest); and finally, a tally of each team's
tendencies, from highest offense to highest
defense. The basic form of these ratings is

[points/(def rebounds + turnovers)]

with the obvious team's number for each
category.

Rank)Team Rating

1)NCState 3.175
2)Va Tech 2.684
3)Duke 2.476
4)UNC 2.339
5)Virginia 2.310
6)Wake 2.253
7)Maryland 2.143
8)Clemson 2.121
9)FSU 1.898
10)Ga Tech 1.732
11)Miami 1.558

Average 2.221

Defense

Rank)Team Rating

1)Duke 1.027
2)Ga Tech 1.049
3)Maryland 1.149
4)Va Tech 1.179
5)NCState 1.268
6)Virginia 1.294
7)Clemson 1.306
8)Wake 1.520
9)UNC 1.553
10)FSU 1.612
11)Miami 1.832

Average 1.359

Tendencies

Offense Rating
^
|
NCState 2.039
UNC 1.906
Wake 1.852
Va Tech 1.786
FSU 1.747
Virginia 1.742
Miami 1.691
Clemson 1.665
Duke 1.631
Maryland 1.585
Ga Tech 1.365
|
v
Defense

Average 1.744

--
Real men don't need macho posturing to bolster their egos.

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.


29 Nov 2004 16:31:01
Edward M. Kennedy
Re: ACC Offense/Defense Ratings (All Games Through 11/26/04)

"George W. Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com > wrote
> 1)NCState 3.175

Either your system is borken, the laws of physics have changed,
or there is another way other than turnovers and rebounds to
lose possession.

Your system doesn't account for the total number of possessions
in a game. Offensive fouls and foul shots come to mind. The former
is simply missing (hard to get), and the latter doesn't distinguish
between getting 10 points from either 10 first foul shots or 50
when shooting two free throws. Fouls are treated like a made
baskets possession-wise on the first shot, and you get dinged
for a possesion (rebound) if you miss the second.

There's no way a Herb Sendek team should be leading the ACC.
Indeed, they are lousy free throw shooters. They must be missing
the first and making the second a lot. I bet they charge a lot
too. And draw lots of technicals when the have the ball. I guess
there is some skill to the last one, but I really don't count that as
"offense".

The alternating possession thing kinda muddies the water too.
You can get tied up a lot but not have it count. That ought
to average out some, but the more you get tied up, the more
you will tend to not get dinged for being tied up. Being tied
up ought to count as half a turnover, but of course that stat
would require going through the play-by-play and is therefore
unknowable to us.

--Ted




29 Nov 2004 21:56:44
George W. Harris
Re: ACC Offense/Defense Ratings (All Games Through 11/26/04)

"Edward M. Kennedy" <nospam@baconburger.com > wrote:

:"George W. Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com > wrote
: > 1)NCState 3.175
:
:Either your system is borken, the laws of physics have changed,
:or there is another way other than turnovers and rebounds to
:lose possession.
:
:Your system doesn't account for the total number of possessions
:in a game. Offensive fouls and foul shots come to mind. The former
:is simply missing (hard to get),

Offensive fouls count as turnovers.

:and the latter doesn't distinguish
:between getting 10 points from either 10 first foul shots or 50
:when shooting two free throws. Fouls are treated like a made
:baskets possession-wise on the first shot, and you get dinged
:for a possesion (rebound) if you miss the second.

Yeah, well, whattaya gonnado?
:
:There's no way a Herb Sendek team should be leading the ACC.

And if they'd played a schedule harder than
New Orleans, Elon, East Carolina and Campbell
University, they wouldn't be.

:The alternating possession thing kinda muddies the water too.

Not really. If you lose the ball on a tie-up, it
counts as a turnover. If you don't, it doesn't really matter.

:--Ted
:

--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.


29 Nov 2004 20:23:10
Edward M. Kennedy
Re: ACC Offense/Defense Ratings (All Games Through 11/26/04)


"George W. Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com > wrote in message news:ph6nq0holrr0bi56fu43hlsimlfd6aklha@4ax.com...
> "Edward M. Kennedy" <nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:
>
> :"George W. Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote
> :> 1)NCState 3.175
> :
> :Either your system is borken, the laws of physics have changed,
> :or there is another way other than turnovers and rebounds to
> :lose possession.
> :
> :Your system doesn't account for the total number of possessions
> :in a game. Offensive fouls and foul shots come to mind. The former
> :is simply missing (hard to get),
>
> Offensive fouls count as turnovers.

Doh!

> :and the latter doesn't distinguish
> :between getting 10 points from either 10 first foul shots or 50
> :when shooting two free throws. Fouls are treated like a made
> :baskets possession-wise on the first shot, and you get dinged
> :for a possesion (rebound) if you miss the second.
>
> Yeah, well, whattaya gonnado?

Gin and tonic. I also think offensive rebounds need to be
accounted for, though probably not as much a defenive
ones.

In theory, you'd rate a 2-0 performance with all rebounds
going to the winning team as an infinitely good offensive
rating and a zero defensive rating. Something is out of
wack there. You seem to think rebounding is part of
defense and offense, but it is usually a seperate thing,
putbacks notwithstanding. A team that loses 2-0 has
played either an excellent defensive game with lousy
rebounding, or Dean Smith's four corners.

And no way in heck can you call that a good offense.

> :There's no way a Herb Sendek team should be leading the ACC.
>
> And if they'd played a schedule harder than
> New Orleans, Elon, East Carolina and Campbell
> University, they wouldn't be.

I know. Why you let facts get in the way of the principle
is beyond me.

> :The alternating possession thing kinda muddies the water too.
>
> Not really. If you lose the ball on a tie-up, it
> counts as a turnover. If you don't, it doesn't really matter.

You lose the possession arrow. That is a bad thing.
Tieing up the opponent is a good defensive move, but
you only get credit for ~half of them. Getting tied up
is a bad thing, but you only get dinged ~half the time.

--Tedward




30 Nov 2004 02:14:49
George W. Harris
Re: ACC Offense/Defense Ratings (All Games Through 11/26/04)

"Edward M. Kennedy" <nospam@baconburger.com > wrote:

:
:"George W. Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com > wrote in message news:ph6nq0holrr0bi56fu43hlsimlfd6aklha@4ax.com...
: > "Edward M. Kennedy" <nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:

: > :and the latter doesn't distinguish
: > :between getting 10 points from either 10 first foul shots or 50
: > :when shooting two free throws. Fouls are treated like a made
: > :baskets possession-wise on the first shot, and you get dinged
: > :for a possesion (rebound) if you miss the second.
: >
: > Yeah, well, whattaya gonnado?
:
:Gin and tonic. I also think offensive rebounds need to be
:accounted for, though probably not as much a defenive
:ones.

Why? There's no effective difference
between (shooting and scoring), and (shooting,
missing, getting the rebound and scoring). Same
for between (shooting, missing and giving up the
defensive rebound), and (shooting, missing, getting
the rebound, shooting again and giving up the
defensive rebound).
:
:In theory, you'd rate a 2-0 performance with all rebounds
:going to the winning team as an infinitely good offensive
:rating and a zero defensive rating.

Yeah? If the losing team never got a defensive
rebound or forced a turnover, then their defense was
nonexistant. If the losing team never scored, their
offense was nonexistant.

:Something is out of
:wack there. You seem to think rebounding is part of
:defense and offense, but it is usually a seperate thing,
:putbacks notwithstanding. A team that loses 2-0 has
:played either an excellent defensive game with lousy
:rebounding, or Dean Smith's four corners.
:
:And no way in heck can you call that a good offense.

If the only thing that stops them from scoring
is the clock running out, then what's wrong with the
offense?
:
: > :There's no way a Herb Sendek team should be leading the ACC.
: >
: > And if they'd played a schedule harder than
: > New Orleans, Elon, East Carolina and Campbell
: > University, they wouldn't be.
:
:I know. Why you let facts get in the way of the principle
:is beyond me.

I'm funny that way.
:
: > :The alternating possession thing kinda muddies the water too.
: >
: > Not really. If you lose the ball on a tie-up, it
: > counts as a turnover. If you don't, it doesn't really matter.
:
:You lose the possession arrow. That is a bad thing.

And if it affects the game later on (in another
tie-up) then that's taken into account.

:Tieing up the opponent is a good defensive move, but
:you only get credit for ~half of them. Getting tied up
:is a bad thing, but you only get dinged ~half the time.

Just like in the game itself.

:--Tedward

--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they
taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does." -Groucho Marx

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'


30 Nov 2004 09:13:15
Edward M. Kennedy
Re: ACC Offense/Defense Ratings (All Games Through 11/26/04)

"George W. Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com > wrote:

> :> :and the latter doesn't distinguish
> :> :between getting 10 points from either 10 first foul shots or 50
> :> :when shooting two free throws. Fouls are treated like a made
> :> :baskets possession-wise on the first shot, and you get dinged
> :> :for a possesion (rebound) if you miss the second.
> :>
> :> Yeah, well, whattaya gonnado?
> :
> :Gin and tonic. I also think offensive rebounds need to be
> :accounted for, though probably not as much a defenive
> :ones.
>
> Why? There's no effective difference
> between (shooting and scoring), and (shooting,
> missing, getting the rebound and scoring).

Time passes. You think a team that requires ten
rebounds to score a bucket has a good offense?

>Same
> for between (shooting, missing and giving up the
> defensive rebound), and (shooting, missing, getting
> the rebound, shooting again and giving up the
> defensive rebound).
> :
> :In theory, you'd rate a 2-0 performance with all rebounds
> :going to the winning team as an infinitely good offensive
> :rating and a zero defensive rating.
>
> Yeah? If the losing team never got a defensive
> rebound or forced a turnover, then their defense was
> nonexistant.

1 for 64 shooting by the opponent is nonexistant defense?
If you want to toss in 20 steals and missed shots by the
losing opponent, be my irrelevant guest.

> If the losing team never scored, their
> offense was nonexistant.

Says you. Defense, offense and rebounding are three
different things.

> :Something is out of
> :wack there. You seem to think rebounding is part of
> :defense and offense, but it is usually a seperate thing,
> :putbacks notwithstanding. A team that loses 2-0 has
> :played either an excellent defensive game with lousy
> :rebounding, or Dean Smith's four corners.
> :
> :And no way in heck can you call that a good offense.
>
> If the only thing that stops them from scoring
> is the clock running out, then what's wrong with the
> offense?

Everything is wrong with an offense that scores
two points in a game where they have all the
possessions. A real team would destroy you.

> :> :There's no way a Herb Sendek team should be leading the ACC.
> :>
> :> And if they'd played a schedule harder than
> :> New Orleans, Elon, East Carolina and Campbell
> :> University, they wouldn't be.
> :
> :I know. Why you let facts get in the way of the principle
> :is beyond me.
>
> I'm funny that way.

Too bad you don't see all the facts, like when
something is a joke.

> :> :The alternating possession thing kinda muddies the water too.
> :>
> :> Not really. If you lose the ball on a tie-up, it
> :> counts as a turnover. If you don't, it doesn't really matter.
> :
> :You lose the possession arrow. That is a bad thing.
>
> And if it affects the game later on (in another
> tie-up) then that's taken into account.

Not necessarily. You don't get it.

> :Tieing up the opponent is a good defensive move, but
> :you only get credit for ~half of them. Getting tied up
> :is a bad thing, but you only get dinged ~half the time.
>
> Just like in the game itself.

Nope -- everytime you are tied up, something
bad happens. You either lose the ball or the
possession arrow.

Either way, any rating system that ignores the
effect of being tied up half the time is inherently
flawed. In no way is being tied up a "neutral"
thing.

--Tedward




30 Nov 2004 15:56:13
George W. Harris
Re: ACC Offense/Defense Ratings (All Games Through 11/26/04)

"Edward M. Kennedy" <nospam@baconburger.com > wrote:

:"George W. Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com > wrote:
:
: >
: > Why? There's no effective difference
: > between (shooting and scoring), and (shooting,
: > missing, getting the rebound and scoring).
:
:Time passes. You think a team that requires ten
:rebounds to score a bucket has a good offense?

You think giving up ten offensive rebounds
is good defense?
:
: > Yeah? If the losing team never got a defensive
: > rebound or forced a turnover, then their defense was
: > nonexistant.
:
:1 for 64 shooting by the opponent is nonexistant defense?

A defensive possession isn't successful until
you get the ball back, so, yeah.

:If you want to toss in 20 steals and missed shots by the
:losing opponent, be my irrelevant guest.

Steals = turnovers = defense. That's taken
into account.
:
: > If the losing team never scored, their
: > offense was nonexistant.
:
:Says you. Defense, offense and rebounding are three
:different things.

Defensive rebounding is, as the name
suggests, part of defense. Offensive rebounding is,
as the name suggests, part of offense.

: > :You lose the possession arrow. That is a bad thing.
: >
: > And if it affects the game later on (in another
: > tie-up) then that's taken into account.
:
:Not necessarily. You don't get it.

I do get it. If you lose possession
now or later, it's taken into account. If you
don't, no harm no foul.
:
: > :Tieing up the opponent is a good defensive move, but
: > :you only get credit for ~half of them. Getting tied up
: > :is a bad thing, but you only get dinged ~half the time.
: >
: > Just like in the game itself.
:
:Nope -- everytime you are tied up, something
:bad happens. You either lose the ball or the
:possession arrow.

Losing the possession arrow is only a
bad thing if there's another tie-up later in the
game. Having the possession arrow doesn't
let you score; having the *ball* lets you score.

:--Tedward
:

--
"The truths of mathematics describe a bright and clear universe,
exquisite and beautiful in its structure, in comparison with
which the physical world is turbid and confused."

-Eulogy for G.H.Hardy

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'


30 Nov 2004 12:50:57
Edward M. Kennedy
Re: ACC Offense/Defense Ratings (All Games Through 11/26/04)

"George W. Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com > wrote in message news:8l5pq0da9e8gjpcqtldovnnosgvrhpnnla@4ax.com...
> "Edward M. Kennedy" <nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:
>
> :"George W. Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> :
> :>
> :> Why? There's no effective difference
> :> between (shooting and scoring), and (shooting,
> :> missing, getting the rebound and scoring).
> :
> :Time passes. You think a team that requires ten
> :rebounds to score a bucket has a good offense?
>
> You think giving up ten offensive rebounds
> is good defense?

No, it's poor rebounding. Duke traditionally is a better defensive
team than a rebounding team -- the latter being the result of the
former, or exlcusive man-to-man defense. Coach K thinks it is
worth the tradeoff.

> :> Yeah? If the losing team never got a defensive
> :> rebound or forced a turnover, then their defense was
> :> nonexistant.
> :
> :1 for 64 shooting by the opponent is nonexistant defense?
>
> A defensive possession isn't successful until
> you get the ball back, so, yeah.

Boxing out is not defense, but if you want to invent your own
dictionary, there's not much point in discussion.

> :If you want to toss in 20 steals and missed shots by the
> :losing opponent, be my irrelevant guest.
>
> Steals = turnovers = defense. That's taken
> into account.

You missed the point. The end result is the same and
therefore reveals a flaw in your system. You claim one
team is much better, but they both gave up only two
points.

Like, duh. They both played amazing defense. You
claim one played no defense at all. Am-Zing!

> :> If the losing team never scored, their
> :> offense was nonexistant.
> :
> :Says you. Defense, offense and rebounding are three
> :different things.
>
> Defensive rebounding is, as the name
> suggests, part of defense. Offensive rebounding is,
> as the name suggests, part of offense.

It's just which half of the court you do it on. Imagine
a loose ball in soccer or puck in hockey. Getting it,
in one end or the other, is not offense or defense.

Once you have it, an offensive possession begins for
you. I've never seen any stats that include offensive
rebounding as part of your offense, nor defensive ones
as part of defense. Defense is steals, blocks, charges
taken, etc. but not rebounds.

Granted offensive rebounds and defensive rebounds
are two different animals, and as such it useful to
separate the distinctly different types of rebounds.

> :> :You lose the possession arrow. That is a bad thing.
> :>
> :> And if it affects the game later on (in another
> :> tie-up) then that's taken into account.
> :
> :Not necessarily. You don't get it.
>
> I do get it. If you lose possession
> now or later, it's taken into account. If you
> don't, no harm no foul.

Losing the possession arrow is bad.

> :> :Tieing up the opponent is a good defensive move, but
> :> :you only get credit for ~half of them. Getting tied up
> :> :is a bad thing, but you only get dinged ~half the time.
> :>
> :> Just like in the game itself.
> :
> :Nope -- everytime you are tied up, something
> :bad happens. You either lose the ball or the
> :possession arrow.
>
> Losing the possession arrow is only a
> bad thing if there's another tie-up later in the
> game.

Which occurs for every possession arrow except the last one.
Do you have any insurance? Why bother, by your logic?

You're the math guy, right? Every possession arrow change in
the first half is *guarenteed* to matter because of who gets the
ball to start the second half.

> Having the possession arrow doesn't
> let you score; having the *ball* lets you score.

Having the possession arrow lets you get the ball in jump ball
situations, which includes the start of the second half.

--Tedward