jon abbey:
oh, and I’m less sure about this one, but I think maybe you shouldn’t be credited with a rebound when it’s off your own shot.

Lol the way I see it, it’s not that much different than having your pass deflected by a defender and having it land back in your hands. In one case the player almost got a miss and in the other the player almost got a turnover, both of which would have cost his team possession, but the outcome is the same. The “almost turnover” scenario gets no mention in the box score (even though I know for a fact that some teams, like the Rockets, keep track of things like deflections) while the missed shot scenario has all kinds of crap that ends up with the exact same result. It just doesn’t seem logical to me, the only reason it seems to happen is because people feel a compulsive need to use every number in the box score. Battier went on a rant a few days ago about how stupid assists were, and he’s probably the most statistically inclined player in the league. You think Spoelstra gives a shit that Battier doesn’t get a lot of assists?

jon abbey:
heh, people are making this way more confusing than it needs to be. whether it’s a good shot or bad shot doesn’t matter, what matters is that a basket was scored. it’s a ‘good’ play because it resulted in a basket, same as if the initial shot was made. I’m just talking about how the box score deals with that, and pointing out that this is one of many ways in which a box score falls short (the hockey pass is another, turnovers attributed to just one player are often another, etc, etc).

enjoy your burger!! :)

I’ve been thinking about this, and I’ve decided that perhaps the best way to handle this from a statistical side is to eliminate the missed field goal from the guy who shot and the offensive rebound from the guy got tipped it. Basically, a missed field goal that leads to a rebounded shot is treated almost like a pass. This obviously isn’t perfect, but an offensive rebound is an extension of the possession in which it occurred, it doesn’t create a new possession entirely. In the Felton example above, it does seem weird to give Felton a ton of credit for simply drawing attention, but it’s much worse to penalize him for making a positive contribution to scoring. It also removes some of the double dipping Chandler receives for the possession, in that he gets credit for creating a new possession and making a shot. This achieves what Abbey wants (and is perfectly true) in that Felton gets a statistical boost for the play while Chandler loses some of it. I think it’s a bit of a reach to say what Felton did is as good as an actual dump off pass to Chandler that he just finished. It’s just not a bad play

enjoy your burger!! :)

daJudge:
OK Jon and Ruru, thanks for the clarification. But isn’t the “penetration” or other potential efficacy of the attempt the reason why it’s a good shot/ bad shot, whatever the result is of the completed play?

no, the penetration is some of it, but getting the ball up on the boards is what gives Chandler the open chance to follow. if the penetration is followed by a poor pass that results in a turnover or a blocked shot out of bounds or even a wild shot that eludes Chandler, then it hasn’t actually helped the team in a positive way.

“And really, if you are going to look at the result of the “completed play”, does that really define whether it is good or bad or merely fortuitous?”

but that is what a box score is allegedly supposed to measure, results of completed plays, that’s all I’m trying to talk about. whether shots are good or bad is a different discussion.

Penetration draws help defenders that put them out of position for rebounds.

on the play in question, Felton is credited only with a missed (blocked) shot and Chandler gets a rebound and a basket, and to me that’s fundamentally wrong. if Brand stays on Chandler, Felton probably easily scores, Brand’s play briefly delays the basket but doesn’t prevent it, and it happened because of Felton’s initial penetration and ability to draw a second defender (not saying Chandler should get no credit either, just that the box score misrepresents reality in this case).