3-to-make-2, 2-to-make-1 (and other ignored FT changes)

[Doctor MJ]

Be cautious of relying too much on data, but also be cautious of ignoring data based on presumption that using incomplete data is worse than using none. No matter the choice, there is risk.

I assume the formulas used for the estimates have a fixed percentage for offensive rebounding (as well as turnovers). The available footage from Wilt's prime shows he was excellent at taking care of the ball, and since he did not get whistled for many offensive fouls in that time, can we fairly assume that he would have a negative impact on a team as far as cutting down turnovers? Will we dare to call him a "turnover machine" as numerous others on this board have? But that is minor compared to the rebounding impact. Apparently the idea with this fixed % is that Wilt (arguably the top offensive rebounder ever)would have the same impact on the boards vs. his peers year in, year out. His impact on Luke Jackson and his shift to F is a major part of this as well. As much of a reach as it may seem to be, there is no question if anyone was an outlier of this magnitude, it would be Wilt and those Sixers, who had the top rebounding frontline in league history.

I don't begrudge anyone making adjustments to the quantitative estimates based on what they know isn't factored in, and what they expect those factors to have actually been.

Clearly there is no splitting up of offensive vs defensive rebounds, so the estimate is bound to not have this perfect. However, since the total rebounds are available, it's not so much Wilt being compared to other people incorrectly as Wilt's offensive rebounding competing against his defensive rebounding. In correct allocation would thus result in underrating offense or defense while overrating the other side.

Re: turnovers. It's interesting you call him excellent at taking care of the ball. I'm under no illusion that I've watched as much as you have, but this was not my impression. Perhaps you can set me straight. I've notice a trend in Wilt to hold on to the ball as far away from his body as possible. This becomes particularly problematic when you're holding it horizontally away from the man guarding you because you're essentially holding the ball out for someone else to grab.

What's indisputable is that Wilt committed turnovers in this way. As a modern observer, I really can't imagine any modern player letting this happen. So how was Wilt's ball control excellence so noteworthy while he also had tendencies to endanger the ball in Globetrotter-esque ways?

[Doctor MJ]

This is not as much about the team's total FTA as it is about how often they were being attempted by the career 51% FT shooter (Wilt). And of course, it has to be converted to an estimate (with fixed percentages) per 100 possessions. Given the FTA boxscore inflation, the way FT's were awarded period, as well as the banning of the "Hack-A-Wilt" off ball intentional fouls after 1966, does this not leave fair possible margin for error? Teams would keep on fouling him, dragging the game on forever until the league cracked down. Isn't the difference between a good offense and a poor offense merely one missed shot out of 20 possessions, or 5 out of 100? Another potential error with the fixed percentage estimates (in this case TOV%) may be underrating Big O's impact on the '71 Bucks (if you can believe it). As if he would not have had a major impact in the Bucks taking care of the ball. But then again we have absolutely no idea how well the '69-'70 Bucks took care of the ball, so we cannot statistically estimate the effect of Big O's disciplined ball control with any kind of accuracy.

Maybe I misunderstand: The 3-to-make-2 bonus was given after a foul threshold had been reached, correct? So the more fouls a team is drawing, the more bonus it gets?

How then do we end up with data that tells us that when various factors caused Wilt to shoot less free throws the team's free throws shot up?

I mean, if the data's completely wrong, then it's completely wrong, but what reason to we have to suggest this is the case?

[Dipper 13]

Maybe I misunderstand: The 3-to-make-2 bonus was given after a foul threshold had been reached, correct? So the more fouls a team is drawing, the more bonus it gets?

How then do we end up with data that tells us that when various factors caused Wilt to shoot less free throws the team's free throws shot up?

I mean, if the data's completely wrong, then it's completely wrong, but what reason to we have to suggest this is the case?

Yes I would believe so. But all (intentional) fouls before the penalty or the 2 minute mark would result in only one FTA for that possession. I know there is not a great deal of change in the FTA averages between the players from '66 to '67. Even Wilt averaged 10 per game, sharply cutting down the fadeaways. But I would also think that with him as a playmaker, he was hitting teammates for made field goals, which in the previous seasons may have resulted in him being hacked and going to the line to miss a FT. Do not get me wrong though, I agree there was a great deal of improvement which Coach Hannum brought to the Sixers more balanced offense. I am just not so sure they were that mediocre in the first place under Schayes. And given the inaccuracy of the NBA Finals boxscore from 1963, I wouldn't rule anything out.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 40LAL.html

Wiley: 0/4 FT in boxscore, 0/1 in game footage
Havlicek: 2/5 FT in boxscore, 2/3 in game footage
Russell: 2/5 FT in boxscore, 3/5 in game footage
K.C. Jones: 3/5 FT in boxscore, 3/4 in game footage
Selvy: 1/5 in boxscore, 1/1 in game footage

Of the players who missed FT's, only Sam Jones (1/3) & Jerry West (6/10) were properly recorded in the boxscore.




Sports Illustrated - March 11, 1968

THE RECORD MAKERS

From time to time there are angry protests from NBA teams and players about the official scoring system in the league. It is decidedly bush, with home-town favoritism blatantly evident in the recording of individual statistics. The NBA Guide, for instance, lists 23 rebounding performances of 40 rebounds or more in a game. Just one of these records was made without the benefit of a home-town statistician. Similarly, only one of the top 36 assist marks was made on the road.

A classic scoring goof was made in a 76er-Bullet game two years ago when the official box score credited Gerry Ward with one field goal in no attempts (1 for 0). There was also the time that Hal Greer took six shots in a game and made seven of them, according to the stat men. And at half time in the All-Star game in January, Greer was credited with making two baskets but only taking one shot.

In a recent game in Evansville, Ind. between Chicago and St. Louis the official scorer recorded only three assists for the Hawks' Len Wilkens, who tops the league in that category. This led to immediate retribution when the Bulls visited St. Louis. At half time a Chicago official complained to Hawks General Manager Marty Blake that the Bulls' Jim Washington had been credited with only two rebounds. Blake replied, " Washington will get another rebound when Wilkens gets an assist in Evansville."

Currently Wilt Chamberlain is leading the league in complaining about statistics, and probably with good reason. Philadelphia Statistician Harvey Pollack is one of the few well-regarded scorers in the NBA. He won't favor anyone, including Wilt, but he thinks Chamberlain probably has a valid complaint. To check for himself, Pollack decided two Sundays ago to keep his own box score as he watched the telecast of a game between the 76ers and the Hawks in St. Louis. The official statistics showed Wilkens with 13 assists and Chamberlain with four. Pollack, however, credited eight to Wilkens and nine to Chamberlain. "I knew it was coming," Pollack said, "because Chamberlain was catching Wilkens in total assists."

Why doesn't the NBA just throw away its record book and start again—this time as a big-league operation?

[Dipper 13]

Re: turnovers. It's interesting you call him excellent at taking care of the ball. I'm under no illusion that I've watched as much as you have, but this was not my impression. Perhaps you can set me straight. I've notice a trend in Wilt to hold on to the ball as far away from his body as possible. This becomes particularly problematic when you're holding it horizontally away from the man guarding you because you're essentially holding the ball out for someone else to grab.

What's indisputable is that Wilt committed turnovers in this way. As a modern observer, I really can't imagine any modern player letting this happen. So how was Wilt's ball control excellence so noteworthy while he also had tendencies to endanger the ball in Globetrotter-esque ways?

He held it high more often than horizontal. I don't believe the NYK vs LAL 1970 Game 7 was an indication how how careless he was with the ball. With the Sixers there was so much more player movement and cutting that kept the defense honest as opposed to the Lakers. Remember the Sixers had multiple players who were big time offensive threats. Sure he would change his tactics if the defense took it away, but the key was him keeping it high (away from the D). I don't recall seeing any footage of him playing this way with the Warriors (a stale offense with horrible spacing).


viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1189203&start=15#p32323898

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1189203&start=30#p32351988

[ElGee]

In those days, every single missed FT was recorded, so if a player was to hit the first one and miss the last two (one of which was a penalty) shot, boxscore would have him at a 33% accuracy during this sequence, instead of 50% as it would be in this era. You have to realize the highest number of possible points a player could score on any given trip to the line was 2, despite potentially receiving 3 attempts in the penalty. What you need to understand is that missing one FT in the penalty does not penalize the team at all, but rather the individual. And since all the possession estimates used for ORtg & DRtg here are 100% dependent on statistics that are already recorded in the box score, this heavily distorts not only the individual's FT% but also the team possession efficiency estimates.

How can something so obvious be so neglected?

Well, I can't speak for others, but in my work it was not neglected. It is implicit in the FT-factor used...There are three factors to consider when affecting pace:

-3 to make 2
-and-1 frequency
-1 shot fouls

There were no 3-shot fouls on 3-pointers then so that was not an issue. The frequency of and-1's was seemingly lesser than it is today, both based on the numerical data I researched (and, if IIRC, borrowing from others research into the matter) and based on empirical evidence that "continuation" was whistled significantly tighter back then. The "FT factor" -- which is really a guess at extra free throws like 3-to-make-2, which is why it's not a perfect 0.5 -- was also "best fit" to known information as far back as we have it.

Specifically, three to make 2 only arose at the end of quarters (when teams were over the limit). At a league average of 73.2% (let's exclude that more guards probably shot these backcourt fouls than bigs), in 1967 if there was a 3-to-make-2 in every quarter, each team would have 324 "extra" FTA on the year. At those percentages, 46% of the time a player will use the 3rd attempt, for an "extra" 150 FTA per season per team. To put this into perspective, that would "inflate" a team's pace by less than a possession per game.

Only that's been accounted for. And-1 rates and any 1-shot fouls (technical or other penalty fouls) are factored into that estimation. So no, it was not neglected in the slightest. That each possession is an unknown -- using pre-turnover estimation rates or not -- is built in to the "error" in the estimation, which is discussed in some detail in the research.

[Dipper 13]

^Thanks for clarification. However the blatantly inaccurate boxscores & unprofessionalism of the scorekeepers leaves room for concern. It's not like '67 was the first or only time he ever acted as a "decoy" or passer.



Christian Science Monitor - Mar 1, 1966

Philadelphia's improvement this year has come from three men - Wilt Chamberlain, rookie Bill Cunningham, and guard Wally Jones. Chamberlain seems to have his game to the needs of the moment. If his teammates are shooting well, Wilt uses himself as a decoy a lot in the pivot and transfers his interest to playing more defense. But if the 76ers are having trouble, Chamberlain is still capable of going out and getting himself a bundle. "I think that I can score as many points as I want any time I feel like it, up to 50 a game," Wilt said. Cunningham from North Carolina became Philadelphia's first draft selection, with the premise that he could beef-up the 76ers' backcourt. But when they showed that Cunningham didn't have the quickness to make it as a guard, Philadelphia (in one of those necessity is the mother of invention things) tried him in the corner.



Christian Science Monitor - Oct 30, 1963

Alex Hannum has changed Wilt's game. He's got Chamberlain handing off, playing defense, and using himself a Iot as a decoy. I understand Hannum has even rested Wilt a couple of times.



The Afro American - Feb 8, 1964

"When I coached elsewhere in the NBA, I never thought Chamberlain achieved his full potential as a pro basketball player. As a scorer —yes. But as an all-around player — no," says Hannum.

"I had a talk with Wilt before the season started and I told him this. I also told him that I wanted him to play more defense, to use himself more as a decoy, to hand-off more, and to place greater emphasis on mixing up his offense.