Charts,stats,mathematics etc We are moving the ball better and more importantly we are playing Harder
so you will never quote another stat again right??? By the way, there's a paradox in your statement, moving the ball better should result in less effort - meaning you don't have to player harder - it's about playing smarter. perhaps this is just another way to knock t-mac in disguise?
Sorry for the word obsession if you take issue with that. Let me just say, I have serious suspicion when comes putting higher priority on some choicy stats over people's experience for something as obvious as ball movement. Best way to answer the question if the ball moves better is to actually watch the game and count the time ball moved, since unfortunately we don't have such a stat. Using AFG percentage doesn't have much more merit than our observations especially when AFG/G is actually higher. You dismiss one difference (two actually) as virtually identical or attribute it two other factors, while advocating another which isn't much significantly different itself. That's pick and choose to me. On the other hand, although observers don't actually count, I believe human brains are sophisticated enough to notice something like ball movement. Wizards coach also commented on that. So, to me, simple observations are equally valuable, or useless if you wish, as some picky stats like AFG percentage. Now causation - whether it's due to absence of Tmac or team played harder or more comfortable with the system or something else - is a totally different matter. Let's all settle on the team gets more wins, Yeah!!
No, we don't. Directly measuring ball movement in that way is difficult. But trying to measure the impact of ball movement is more tractable. For instance, we know that ball movement means very little unless it leads to quality shots. What type of shots would we expect from good ball movement? If we can identify this, then maybe by counting how many such shots we get proportionately we'll have a good proxy for "ball movement". That's the idea behind using Ast%. Again, not perfect, but it's a start. And as I said above, I think Ast% is indicative of the type of shots we're getting in the offense. So if we can understand the type of shots we're getting compared to before, that will help determine the impact of the ball movement. I do think that Ast% is a better indicator of ball movement than Ast/g because it directly describes the type of shots we're making (and, indirectly, also indicates type of shots we're attempting). Ast/g, however, mixes in FGA/g and FG% (ast/g = ast% * fg% * fga/g), metrics that to me have less to do with getting scores off passes. I don't agree that I was arbitrarily picking and choosing one stat over the other. I don't totally disagree with this. But I believe that if the observations are simple and obvious, then it should be straightforward to define and then, at least in principle, quantify them. Maybe those stats aren't available, but if we can at least define what it is we'd want to track, that will help make our observations more focused and on point. I'm not a fan of the "I know what it is if I see it" approach. If it can't be explained, tested and verified, than I don't consider that real understanding. Of course.
If you have ever played with a really good offensive player, people hesitate to come set a screen for them because they are bringing an extra defender into the situation. I think sometimes the Rockets do that, they don't want to get in Tmac's way.....hopefully that is over and everyone moves and the ball hops. DD
Great thread. Statistical analysis aside I think the obvious point here with regards to Tmac is the Rockets have clearly been executing the offense better(which makes the ball movement easier) and happen to also have hit a stretch where they are playing weaker opponents. I don't see why they wouldn't be 6-2 (or better) in the last 8 games if we had Tmac in the lineup. It's also not just that the opponents are weaker, we also haven't beat anyone in the last 8 games who can truly exploit our weaknesses either. While it's encouraging to see that there are clearly more easy baskets than normal(something that doesn't show up as readily in the stat column), I want to see this type of execution against great defensive teams. I knew there was going to be a learning curve to getting into the RA system, and I gotta believe we are turning a major corner right now but I'm still skeptical about our future until I see us put it to some of the elites....and I'm also skeptical we could do with without Tmac. ...besides who would we get in exchange for Tmac who is going to put up 30pts-6ast-7reb or 25pts-7ast-6reb a game for us in a playoff series?...and those numbers are from the VG offense!
Damn stats, do we really have to look at numbers instead of looking at the game the way the ball and our players move. The TV don't lie you idiots.
Well, it does - sorta. See, when you have good ball movement, and good off the ball movement, but the ball doesnt go in, it looks bad. Like when the team started the 6 game losing streak.
The problem with just looking at the stats is they don't account for the secondary pass which is what we are talking about. For instance if Tmac passes to Yao and he scores, it is an assist, but if Yao passes out to Battier, over to head, to Alston back to Yao and he scores...it also counts as an assist, but it is a MUCH different play and ball movement is not accounted for in statistics. DD
First of all, ball movement that leads to quality shots is a different question. Second of all, not all hoops are counted as an assist even with a lot of ball movement, I thought we covered some of it and agreed. and DD also has pointed this out. Not only that, ball movement can increase the scoring opportunity simply by the fact that defense has to constantly react since the ball is not in one guys hand all the time. It may or may not result in a statistically counted assisted basket but it sure helps the offense. All this makes the percentage measure more suspicious. By focusing solely on percentages and discounting other stats, you handcuffed yourself to the NBA statisticians. It's really hard to believe someone needs some stats to notice the ball moves better after watching all these games.
Just about all the experts watching the games--Bullard, Drexler, Chaney, Magic Johnson(j/k)--have commented on the improvements in ball handling and passing in this last stretch. Are they all drinking out of the same jug of kool aid?
It's the important question. Maybe it's a philosophical point, but if your moving the ball more but not yielding higher quality shots, I'm not sure if that qualifies as "better" ball movement. We're talking about a Rick Adelman offense here. What characterized that offense in Sacramento? It wasn't so much one on one play and dribble drives, but rather ball movement that led to the assisted basket. So, I think that's a reasonable place to start when trying to assess how well the offense is working. Seems like there's some miscommunication here. I never said that ball movement only results in assisted basket. You saying that better ball movement doesn't necessarily lead to more assists is just repeating what we both already know. My assumption, you may disagree, is that more ball movement will tend to lead to greater percentage of assisted baskets. Being familiar with statistics, you know that statement doesn't imply one necessarily leads to the other. If that's what I thought, then I would have written in the very first post: "Therefore the ball movement hasn't improved". I thought I made it clear that this was just "one way" of looking at it, and that I wanted input from others. I explained why I favored ast% to ast/g for assessing ball movement, and in any case I've looked at both in this thread. There was no improvement in either, after adjusting for pace. Is there some other way of assessing ball movement which I have refused to consider? I don't need such stats to make basic, common sense observations. But I would prefer to have objective ways to measure or understand things like this, because that will help strengthen what I see. Actually defining what we mean by better ball movement, preferably in a measurable way, can help focus our observations and make better evaluations. When McGrady eventually returns, what should we look for to assess the change in "ball movement"? And then, more importantly, how do we determine the impact of that change in terms of generating quality shots and ultimately wins? These are the big, important questions. And yes, I think a proper use of statistics can play an important role in helping to answer them. Of course, it should go without saying that we watch the games as well. Eh, I've heard enough nonsense out of Drexler and Magic Johnson to not pay much attention to anything they say on television. Bullard has been gaga over this offense from the beginning "look at all that space .. look all that SPACE!! ... ", so I don't know if that suggests real improvement either. He's talked about how great the offense and ball movement have been while McGrady was on the floor too. I personally put more stock in the opinions of this board, by and large, compared to what those guys say. Ultimately, the coaching staff is probably the best judge, and Jonathan Feigen is a pretty good mouthpiece for them. He's written about the improved ball movement, but according to him and the coaches the improvement began before McGrady got injured.
When Tmac played, his talent alone gets you 4-5 assists a night with ball solely in his hands. Now, without Tmac, they actually needs to work harder, pass more times to get a quality shot. The team assists per game is higher but not by much. percentage of AFG is actually lower because total FG goes up more than AFG. Now, you tell me the ball moved better or not!
Durvasa, There is no way for stats to measure ball movement. Maybe if they kept track of passes per offensive possession ...but I don't see anyone doing that. DD
