Comments on: Statistical Analysis Request

By: Mike G

Mike G — Sat, 17 May 2008 11:24:28 +0000

I don’t think you’ll find any coach that thinks “going for 3 is a bad idea.” You take what the defense gives, and ‘forcing a 3′, like forcing any shot, is a bad idea (exceptions granted).

It’s not all that unusual, in the normal course of a game, for a team to make up 5-6 points in 30 seconds. Maybe a study should just look at those intervals and see how it was done.

By: Lakers Blog

Lakers Blog — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:58:51 +0000

I’m looking forward to seeing some stats on this… I will check back soon…

By: Mike G

Mike G — Fri, 16 May 2008 12:24:16 +0000

If I were coaching, down by 5 or 6, half a minute, I’d do this (until it works, or doesn’t):

1) Look for a 3; if the opponent has that covered, the 2 is a better bet.

2) Go aggressively for a steal, rather than for a deliberate foul. Even tell the refs, “We’re not trying to foul here”. You may have a 60% chance of a foul, 15% for a steal, 15% for something else good: turnover (by a player expecting a foul), offensive foul, missed call, etc.; and 10% that you’ll miss the guy with the ball and the opponent gets a breakaway, etc.
I like these odds better.

Then go back to #1.

The opponent is likely strategizing: Don’t give up a 3, and don’t foul in the act. Therefore, the uncontested (or lightly defended) 2 is often available.

To make up 5-6 pts in 30 sec., you need to have several things go right. They don’t have to be perfect, if the opponent plays imperfectly.

By: Brian Cronin

Brian Cronin — Fri, 16 May 2008 05:24:27 +0000

I expect to research this soon by (first, at least) modeling what teams have historically done to identify how a specific shot will change the probability of winning. Thus based on the situation you can get an idea as to what is the best choice, and/or explain why coaches instictively agree that going for 3 is a bad idea.

Awesome, Ryan!

Drop me a line whenever you finish, and I’ll link to it/post it here!

By: cwod

cwod — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:13:03 +0000

Mark Jackson says some dumb stuff.

By: Hudson River

Hudson River — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:08:23 +0000

I think its tough to analyze a coach’s impact without actually being in the locker room, or in training camp. A coach can inspire a team or demoralize them, adapt to them or pound them with a system.

Theres no dispute there is a huge disparity between the Spurs offense and the Suns offense and I strongly doubt that the change in offensive efficiency relies solely on the players.

By: o_boogie

o_boogie — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:53:42 +0000

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/52536/20080515/knicks_send_isiah_on_scouting_trip_to_europe/

HAHA i so called it. bon voyage isiah!

By: Ryan J. Parker

Ryan J. Parker — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:54:04 +0000

I expect to research this soon by (first, at least) modeling what teams have historically done to identify how a specific shot will change the probability of winning. Thus based on the situation you can get an idea as to what is the best choice, and/or explain why coaches instictively agree that going for 3 is a bad idea.

By: caleb

caleb — Thu, 15 May 2008 19:44:05 +0000

An example on the other end of the spectrum would beletting yourself be the worst defensive team in the league while playing Renaldo Balkman for 8 minutes a game.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:54:12 +0000

I would agree that much of coaching is talent evaluation and putting the right players in the right roles. Though there was something about that Laker – Piston series that made you think Larry Brown somehow really did give them an edge.