x

[jackolso]

1

[babyjax13]

1) 76% correlation isn't all that high.
2) TS% was just as high as EF FG% but they choose not to address it
3) Some of the stats, like "they win more when their field goal percentage is higher than the other team's" are obvious.

but,

the info about the averages is interesting, so just skip the table and down to the second half of the article....

[jackolso]

1

[QuantumMacgyver]

Interesting stats to a point, but most of it is simple common sense. It felt like all that was being said is:
In order to win more games the Jazz needs to score more while shooting a higher percentage, and keeping the other team from scoring as much and shooting a lower percentage.

[StocktonShorts]

The analysis also shows that defense is a much lower factor than offensive effectiveness in game outcomes.

The stats at the bottom of the page support the same idea. The team that shoots the best has a high probability of winning.

And how do you measure defense? Surely opponent's effective FG% has to factor in.

Your defense and your opponent's offense are inextricably linked.

[jackolso]

1

[StocktonShorts]

And how do you measure defense? Surely opponent's effective FG% has to factor in.

Your defense and your opponent's offense are inextricably linked.

When you're reading the article, follow the link to Hollinger's. At the bottom of the page they explain what each of the variables means.

If the Jazz play really strong defense, to win they still have to outscore their opponent. This season the Jazz have won by holding their opponents to low scores, and they've beat them with little defense and simply out gunning them. So defense counts but not nearly as much as offensive effectiveness.

I'm not sure I follow. Is there something in any of those articles that suggests that winning correlates more strongly with offensive efficiency vs. defensive efficiency?

[hoops4life]

70% correlation is fairly good but I would expect it to be stronger.

[QuantumMacgyver]

And how do you measure defense? Surely opponent's effective FG% has to factor in.

Your defense and your opponent's offense are inextricably linked.

When you're reading the article, follow the link to Hollinger's. At the bottom of the page they explain what each of the variables means.

If the Jazz play really strong defense, to win they still have to outscore their opponent. This season the Jazz have won by holding their opponents to low scores, and they've beat them with little defense and simply out gunning them. So defense counts but not nearly as much as offensive effectiveness.

That's not true. Through the first 20 games or so of the season the Jazz were top 3 in the league in Opp FG%, and Opp 3PT FG%. That's why they were winning, because they were playing defense. Over the last 20 or so games the jazz are in the bottom 3 in the league in the same categories.

[jackolso]

1

[HammerDunk]

The Jazz lost on bad defense. The Spur missed several wide open 3 pointers in the 4th as well. The Jazz shooting 54% was the only thing that kept them in the game, and with the lines of Okur and Bell, it's a wonder they shot that percentage.

This whole losing streak comes down to bad defense. That's where it starts and where it ends.

[StocktonShorts]

The Spurs game was a good example of what those stats reveal about what wins games.

The Jazz shot 54.7% field goals. The Spurs shot 51.2%. The Jazz lost so it must have been defense. No.

The Spurs shot 35% from the 3 pt line making 7 of 20. The Jazz shot 16.7% from the 3 line making 2 of 12. If the Jazz had shot the same percentage from the 3 line the game would have been tied. The Spurs shot 79.3% from the foul line. The Jazz 75%. The Spurs made two more free throws than the Jazz.

So the Spurs won on defense or did they win on shooting efficiency?

Jazz had a better eFG% this game than the Spurs (.560 to .556). I'm not sure what you're trying to prove any more.

[QuantumMacgyver]

The Spurs game was a good example of what those stats reveal about what wins games.

The Jazz shot 54.7% field goals. The Spurs shot 51.2%. The Jazz lost so it must have been defense. No.

The Spurs shot 35% from the 3 pt line making 7 of 20. The Jazz shot 16.7% from the 3 line making 2 of 12. If the Jazz had shot the same percentage from the 3 line the game would have been tied. The Spurs shot 79.3% from the foul line. The Jazz 75%. The Spurs made two more free throws than the Jazz.

So the Spurs won on defense or did they win on shooting efficiency?

Jazz had a better eFG% this game than the Spurs (.560 to .556). I'm not sure what you're trying to prove any more.

Agreed. I thought you had been trying to say that it's all about outscoring your opponent, and defense was secondary. But the Spurs games stats all support defense being primary over offense.

[jackolso]

1

[king everything]

Odd formula stats are well, odd- misleading and just plain too complicated. I leave em to Hollinger and Locke, Douche Bags Deux.

[StocktonShorts]

Let's say team 1 plays some of the best defense in the history of the game and holds their opponent (team 2) to only 2 points for the entire game. That's great defense!

Let's also say that team 2 is lousy on defense so team 1 gets twice as many good shots during the game. Unfortunately team 1 is really a poor shooting team and only manages to score 1 point on a made free throw.

So despite playing the best defense in history holding team 2 to only 2 pts, team 1 lost the game.

You said that Team 1 played "some of the best defense in the history of the game" but how do we know that based on the stats? Where's the empirical evidence that the team that gave up 2 points played better defense than the team that only gave up 1 point?

[HammerDunk]

If you can't see that the Jazz are losing because of bad defense, you really shouldn't be making thread after thread after thread after thread after thread about ANYTHING! Where did you come from anyway? Watch more basketball, that's all you need to do, WATCH...