••OFFICIAL KENTUCKY VS GEORGIA GAME THREAD••

[The_Answer1313]

Basically explained on the blog here. Sounds reasonable to me:

The most common formula for estimating possesions is (FGA – OR) + TO + (Y * FTA),

where FGA = field goal attempts, OR = offensive rebounds, TO = turnovers, Y = some number between zero and 1, and FTA = free throw attempts.

Going through the three terms in the formula, a possession can end by:

1) a shot not rebounded by the offense. An offensive rebound would continue the possession. This is captured by the term FGA-OR.

2) a turnover. (duh.)

3) Free throws – sometimes.

The only mystery here is what Y should be. First off, I’ll clear up why Y needs to be there. We don’t know how many possesions are used up by free throws, that’s why. In the ideal situation, if every trip to the line resulted in two free throws, then we could multiply free throws by one half and be done with it. However, technical fouls, the "and one" situation, missing the front end of the 1 and 1, and shooting 3 shots resulting from a 3-point attempt all deviate from the ideal situation. Oliver estimates that Y should be .4. John Hollinger in Pro Basketball Prospectus estimates it to be .44. From the data I’ve seen for college hoops, .44 is more accurate so I’ve been using that.

So that’s how possesions can be estimated, and using possesions, folks can get a better understanding of which teams do good things on offense and defense.

You might wonder why offensive rebounds are treated as continuing a possesion, rather than starting a new one. I’ve seen two good reasons. First, by including them each team’s possesions can reasonably be assumed to come out equal for each game. Second, getting and preventing offensive rebounds are skills. So if some teams do those skills better than others, it makes sense to attach those skills to a team’s offensive or defensive ability.

 

[The_Answer1313]

This is why I absolutely love this stuff tho.

In the past if a team scored say I don't know 90 points per game, people would say oh that team has a great offense. Conversely if a team gave up say 50 points per game, people would naturally say oh that team has a great defense.

Because that's what actually happened. It's not some made up figure. This is actual points scored and actual points given up.

All these systems do is put that on a per possession basis. One can debate how strength of schedule is factored in and one can debate how previous results are weighed and whatnot but if UK scores 100 points in an 80 possession game, they scored 1.25 points per possession. It's an actual figure that cannot be debated. It reflects exactly what happened on the court that game.

John Gassaway on his blog used to do something I absolutely loved. He's look at each major conference, take the raw offensive efficiency numbers and raw defensive efficiency numbers and subtract them to get the efficiency margin and then order the teams. You can use raw figures when looking at conferences because even tho conferences don't play a completely balanced schedule, it's reasonably close enough. Looking at standings this way, it tells you a lot more about how teams will do in the tournament compared to say just looking at conference W/L record.

Nothing is a perfect system and this is sports. Upsets happen all the time. Teams don't always play to their abilities. But I think the methodology is sound.

 

[Old_Red]

I wondered why this thread was pinned.

 

[jameslee32]

I wondered why this thread was pinned.

To further humiliate the trolls. 🤣

 

[the nail at the foul line]

T up that dwarf

 

[the nail at the foul line]

Cylinder

 

[ukfan117]

The moment Wagner goes out, we go on a run. Wagner and Edwards should be coming off the bench, not start.