Plus/Minus Superstars (Shaq and Robinson)

[SideshowBob]

Pace issue was the first thing I noticed when the new stats were put up.

http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamGeneral.html?MeasureType=Advanced&PerMode=Totals&sortField=PACE&sortOrder=DES

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/paceFactor

NBA.com's pace figures match up exactly with Hollinger's on ESPN (though Hollinger goes out to 1 decimal). This leads me to believe that they are indeed NOT counting possessions from PbP, but are just using the same (incorrect) formula that Hollinger/ESPN do.

[lorak]

Pace issue was the first thing I noticed when the new stats were put up.

http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamGeneral.html?MeasureType=Advanced&PerMode=Totals&sortField=PACE&sortOrder=DES

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/paceFactor

NBA.com's pace figures match up exactly with Hollinger's on ESPN (though Hollinger goes out to 1 decimal). This leads me to believe that they are indeed NOT counting possessions from PbP, but are just using the same (incorrect) formula that Hollinger/ESPN do.

I checked 1st Spurs game this season (31st October vs NOH). NBA.com has 96.78 pace for this game so it's almost exact as my manual calculation from pbp: 97 possessions.

[mysticbb]

I checked 1st Spurs game this season (31st October vs NOH). NBA.com has 96.78 pace for this game so it's almost exact as my manual calculation from pbp: 97 possessions.

If they are counting, the numbers should be exactly the same, so 97 would be the correct number (I just counted it myself per hand), if we count the possessions at the end of a quarter after a miss or with a few seconds left as full possessions as well. bbr is not counting those possessions, I also don't count that. bbv is counting that as well as possession. bbr is in agreement with Oliver here, who is also discounting that as possession, because by definition a possessions ends with either a FGM (or FT respectively), a DRB or a TOV, thus the defensive rebound at the end is not leading to a new possession, but just ended the previous one here.

[lorak]

I checked 1st Spurs game this season (31st October vs NOH). NBA.com has 96.78 pace for this game so it's almost exact as my manual calculation from pbp: 97 possessions.

If they are counting, the numbers should be exactly the same, so 97 would be the correct number (I just counted it myself per hand),

Yes, it's odd nba.com's number is not "full". Any explanation?

if we count the possessions at the end of a quarter after a miss or with a few seconds left as full possessions as well. bbr is not counting those possessions, I also don't count that. bbv is counting that as well as possession. bbr is in agreement with Oliver here, who is also discounting that as possession, because by definition a possessions ends with either a FGM (or FT respectively), a DRB or a TOV, thus the defensive rebound at the end is not leading to a new possession, but just ended the previous one here.

Without those kind of possessions pace of this game would be 96, so still different than b-r estimation (93.5).

And BTW, way ortg is better than play (from synergy)?

[mysticbb]

Yes, it's odd nba.com's number is not "full". Any explanation?

No, at least not yet.

Without those kind of possessions pace of this game would be 96, so still different than b-r estimation (93.5).

There are 3 uncounted possessions (at the end of the 1st, the 3rd and the 4th), which makes it 95.5. And when we use the standard estimation FGA+0.44*FTA+TOV-ORB for both teams, we get 95.3 as pace estimate.

And BTW, way ortg is better than play (from synergy)?

I would go by points per 100 possession over points per play (Synergy).

Oh, bbr is counting 94 possessions for that game for the Spurs and Hornets, if we go by the play index+ count. So, they obviously don't count something else either, because the minutes are adding up to 240 for each team.

[lorak]

Without those kind of possessions pace of this game would be 96, so still different than b-r estimation (93.5).

There are 3 uncounted possessions (at the end of the 1st, the 3rd and the 4th), which makes it 95.5. And when we use the standard estimation FGA+0.44*FTA+TOV-ORB for both teams, we get 95.3 as pace estimate.

We shouldn't count possession at the end of 1st as uncounted, because NOH started 2nd and that was their 23 possession (Spurs ended 1st with 23 possessions, NOH with 22). So we have only two "fake" possessions, so real pace is 95. Still significant difference from b-r 93.5 (why now you are using standart estimation?)

And BTW, way ortg is better than play (from synergy)?

I would go by points per 100 possession over points per play (Synergy).

But why?

[colts18]

Pace issue was the first thing I noticed when the new stats were put up.

http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamGeneral.html?MeasureType=Advanced&PerMode=Totals&sortField=PACE&sortOrder=DES

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/paceFactor

NBA.com's pace figures match up exactly with Hollinger's on ESPN (though Hollinger goes out to 1 decimal). This leads me to believe that they are indeed NOT counting possessions from PbP, but are just using the same (incorrect) formula that Hollinger/ESPN do.

Good find. that makes perfect sense. It looks like the Net rating figures come from Hollinger pace factor. But if you go to the base section of player/team stats and click on the tab to make everything per 100 possessions, that calculates a completely different possession number for some reason. I'm not exactly sure why they are using 2 different possession numbers and how they calculate each of those possession numbers.

[SideshowBob]

Pace issue was the first thing I noticed when the new stats were put up.

http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamGeneral.html?MeasureType=Advanced&PerMode=Totals&sortField=PACE&sortOrder=DES

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/paceFactor

NBA.com's pace figures match up exactly with Hollinger's on ESPN (though Hollinger goes out to 1 decimal). This leads me to believe that they are indeed NOT counting possessions from PbP, but are just using the same (incorrect) formula that Hollinger/ESPN do.

Good find. that makes perfect sense. It looks like the Net rating figures come from Hollinger pace factor. But if you go to the base section of player/team stats and click on the tab to make everything per 100 possessions, that calculates a completely different possession number for some reason. I'm not exactly sure why they are using 2 different possession numbers and how they calculate each of those possession numbers.

They use On Court possessions for that adjustment.

Player A plays game with 100 possessions. Player A is on court for 70 possessions, so his stats are adjusted for those 70 possessions, not 100.

[mysticbb]

We shouldn't count possession at the end of 1st as uncounted, because NOH started 2nd and that was their 23 possession (Spurs ended 1st with 23 possessions, NOH with 22).

That has nothing to do with it. The possession at the start of the 2nd went by default to the Hornets, not because they had the defensive rebound at the end of the 1st quarter. Their next possession is counted as the first possession in the 2nd quarter, that's how I counted it anyway.

So we have only two "fake" possessions, so real pace is 95.

Only two fake would mean 96, because that has to be devided by 2 to integrate that in pace. Pace tells us how many possession each team had, and it is per se an estimate.

Still significant difference from b-r 93.5 (why now you are using standart estimation?)

Just because I wanted to show the number, nothing else. Oliver has a reason for the more complicated formula, because it is an estimate of possessions for the whole season. The distribution of the free throws is usually different than in that specific game, which also explains that the estimate is far off.

But why? ;)

For prediction purposes, for estimations, etc. pp. It is easier to handle. And ppp is only useful for player to player comparison, not so much for team-wide comparisons anyway.

[colts18]

Good find. that makes perfect sense. It looks like the Net rating figures come from Hollinger pace factor. But if you go to the base section of player/team stats and click on the tab to make everything per 100 possessions, that calculates a completely different possession number for some reason. I'm not exactly sure why they are using 2 different possession numbers and how they calculate each of those possession numbers.

They use On Court possessions for that adjustment.

Player A plays game with 100 possessions. Player A is on court for 70 possessions, so his stats are adjusted for those 70 possessions, not 100.

explain it more. Why is that way in the team pages too? For example if you go to on court per 100 possession on the team stats page, that number is different than the Net rating. It doesn't make sense. I assume they are using a different possessions number for each one.

[lorak]

Only two fake would mean 96, because that has to be devided by 2 to integrate that in pace. Pace tells us how many possession each team had, and it is per se an estimate.

And 96 is the number which I got when counted only possessions which fits Oliver's definition (a possessions ends with either a FGM (or FT), a DRB or a TOV).

For prediction purposes, for estimations, etc. pp. It is easier to handle. And ppp is only useful for player to player comparison, not so much for team-wide comparisons anyway.

I trust you, but I would like to read about it, so do you have any studies about these better predictions and estimations or you did calculations by yourself?

[SideshowBob]

Good find. that makes perfect sense. It looks like the Net rating figures come from Hollinger pace factor. But if you go to the base section of player/team stats and click on the tab to make everything per 100 possessions, that calculates a completely different possession number for some reason. I'm not exactly sure why they are using 2 different possession numbers and how they calculate each of those possession numbers.

They use On Court possessions for that adjustment.

Player A plays game with 100 possessions. Player A is on court for 70 possessions, so his stats are adjusted for those 70 possessions, not 100.

explain it more. Why is that way in the team pages too? For example if you go to on court per 100 possession on the team stats page, that number is different than the Net rating. It doesn't make sense. I assume they are using a different possessions number for each one.

Can you give an example? I'd assume they haven't properly factored in Overtime periods in one of the pages, so that causes the discrepancy, but I could be wrong. One page may be using pace (equals poss/48Min) and the other may be using raw possessions.

[mysticbb]

And 96 is the number which I got when counted only possessions which fits Oliver's definition (a possessions ends with either a FGM (or FT), a DRB or a TOV).

I counted 194 total possession. If I exclude the end of the quarter stuff (3 times), I get 191. That devided by two gives me 95.5. So, no idea, but maybe I didn't count accurately enough.

I trust you, but I would like to read about it, so do you have any studies about these better predictions and estimations or you did calculations by yourself?

Don't trust me on that, because I might have given you a misleading idea here. ;)

I actually meant that I only use points per 100 possessions, because I can easier calculate all the stuff with that, especially because it is useful for team based analysis, while ppp is not (teams can have very, very different amount of plays due to huge differences in offensive rebounding).

[lorak]

And 96 is the number which I got when counted only possessions which fits Oliver's definition (a possessions ends with either a FGM (or FT), a DRB or a TOV).

I counted 194 total possession. If I exclude the end of the quarter stuff (3 times), I get 191. That devided by two gives me 95.5. So, no idea, but maybe I didn't count accurately enough.

You are right, it's 191 total, so 95.5.

I trust you, but I would like to read about it, so do you have any studies about these better predictions and estimations or you did calculations by yourself?

Don't trust me on that, because I might have given you a misleading idea here.

I actually meant that I only use points per 100 possessions, because I can easier calculate all the stuff with that, especially because it is useful for team based analysis, while ppp is not (teams can have very, very different amount of plays due to huge differences in offensive rebounding).

Does it (amount of plays) really matter when we use that to get points per play (or per 100 plays)?

[colts18]

Can you give an example? I'd assume they haven't properly factored in Overtime periods in one of the pages, so that causes the discrepancy, but I could be wrong. One page may be using pace (equals poss/48Min) and the other may be using raw possessions.

Example this season:

http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamGeneral. ... ossessions

Thunder are +8.8 per 100 possessions there.

http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamGeneral. ... e=Advanced

Then on the next page, by Net Rating they are +10.0.

If you multiply their pace (96.23) by 2617 minutes divided by 48 you get 5246.54 possessions. If you divide their total on court +/- (+461) by their 5246.54 possessions, you get +8.8 per 100. Which jives with the Hollinger pace numbers. But that doesn't explain how they got the +10 number. To get +10.0 per 100 for Net Rating, the Thunder would have to play around 4610 possessions (around 636 less than the Hollinger estimate).

[SideshowBob]

Yeah, something's up with that second page. They have the Thunder DRTG listed at 100.0

But here, they have their OppPoints per 100 listed as 101.2

http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamGeneral.html?sortField=OPP_PTS&sortOrder=ASC&PerMode=Per100Possessions&MeasureType=Opponent

Which yields 110-101.2 = +8.8

Something's off in their calculations there for sure

[colts18]

Yeah, something's up with that second page. They have the Thunder DRTG listed at 100.0

But here, they have their OppPoints per 100 listed as 101.2

http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamGeneral.html?sortField=OPP_PTS&sortOrder=ASC&PerMode=Per100Possessions&MeasureType=Opponent

Which yields 110-101.2 = +8.8

Something's off in their calculations there for sure

I got a rare reply back from nba.com's customer service regarding this issue:

I’ve been informed that the two are different, despite similar definitions. The misunderstanding regarding DefRtg and Opponent PTS Per 100 Possessions is explained as follows:


“The DefRtg is Opponent’s PTS per 100 of Opponents Possessions.


The other number is Indiana’s Opponent stats per 100 of Indiana’s possessions. It is not labeled as DefRtg.”


If there are any further questions, concerns or feedback, please feel free to reply back, and I’ll do my best to answer accordingly. Thank you for trying the new NBA.com/stats!


regards,
NBA Stats

Even with the reply back I'm still kind of confused on their DefRtg.