KU: Road Sweet Road

"The top interestingly is filled with post players."

That is true, but it should be true. In college, height is far more important than the NBA. In high school, even more so. Let's take it to the extreme - junior high. It probably doesn't matter how "good" some point guard is in junior high, if there is a player on the team or in the league that is 6'7", he's going to be the best player in the league. You can't teach height.

The point is that EFF is a static formula for all basketball. If the level of competition you play at is not equivalent to the NBA, then (on average) the height variable is more important.

By the time you get to the NBA, small players are so incredibly good (Kobe, Nash, Paul, etc) that it largely balances out.

Let me give you another example. Let's say you have a kids' baseball team. And, they average batting .500. In fact, everyone bats .500 because the players can't pitch over the plate consistently and they fielders can't field consistently and they can't throw consistently. But, no skill is required to run. Who are the best players in the league? Obviously, it is going to be anyone who makes contact with the bat.

You don't say, "Well there should be an equal number of pitchers to hitters". You say, the best players were hitters.

No law says smalls have to be equivalent to bigs. Basketball is a game where height matters. If not, every 5'6" kid would be playing. As long as the goal is above their heads instead of in front of them like soccer and hockey, it will be a big advantage to have height. Thus, the better players (on average) are taller.

It's almost impossible for 5'11" player to be as "good" or "valuable" as a 6'11" player assuming both were equally recruited and sought after.

Martin

"Your hateration for Collins is ridiculous." 

I don't "hate" Collins. I "love" Collins. What I "hate" is INGNORANCE!

"Collins was MVP of that game."

There is no objective way on this planet, or any other, that would end with Collins being the MVP of that game! That' is patently absurd and is the product (100%) of emotion - the kind that come with only remembering three made three-pointers and not the rest of the game.

"But at least give collins his props for the 2nd half and admit he carried them."

There is no way he "carried them the 2nd half". He "carried" them the last six minutes - not seven, but six. He had a fantastic last six minutes! But, so what? Six minutes is only 15% of 40! The rest of the game, he stunk. That's a fact. Just watch the first 34 minutes again.

What I also "hate" is being in a position whereby the only way Aldrich gets his due is at Collins expense. I wish it weren't so, but facts are facts and the day that I run away from facts will never come!

"You sound like Skip Bayless hatin' on LeBron."

First of all, I'd bet my life Skip Bayless doesn't "hate" LeBron. Secondly, LeBron is the best player in the NBA and I already annointed him NBA MVP for the season.

Martin

That differential is less in the NBA and that is what EFF was originally created for. However, that's not really the main point.

As to "weightings" among the various categories, I could go on all day about that. I actually have gone on all day about it in my books 20 years ago. My contention is that the variance is minor and unquestionably, IMO, not worth the trouble or complication.

Besides, the foundational premise for EFF is 100 possessions = 100 points = 100 EFF units. The justification for the formula in the first place is to essentially say that every possession equates (in one way or another) into an EFF unit. Therefore, how do you explain a possession in the context of an EFF unit?

Rebounding is simple. You gain a possession, thus you gain an EFF unit. Steals, same thing. Turnovers, same thing. Missed FG, same thing.

Points is essentially equivalent simply because the number of points and the number of EFF units are basically the same.

The tricky ones are assists, blocks and missed free throws. I'm not going to go into pages and pages of analysis on this. I'm simply going to say that an assist is already being given a lot of credit - essentially equivalent to a possession. Many argue that an assist is NOT equal to a possession and therefore doesn't deserve equal billing with a rebound. I give it equal billing because of 1) the Simplicity Act (1986) and 2) the fact that the point guard does a lot of stuff that isn't measurable, so if I err on the assist side, that's fair. Of course, there is a lot more to it, but that's a nutshell verion.

If someone is giving more value to an assist and less value for a rebound, that's 100% subjective and means nothing to me.

What you have to recognize is that college basketball IS more dependent upon the big man than, say the NBA. In the NBA two of the top-4 players are bigs and two are smalls. That probably isn't true in college based on EFF, but that is only because it shouldn't be. There is no law that I know of that says you should have 25 of the top-50 players be bigs and 25 be smalls. One of the reasons they aren't quite equivaelnt is because (in college) guards are not as good shooters as bigs doing layups. Of course, they are not in the NBA either, but they are a lot closer.

So, I'm not in favor of artificially making guards more valuable than they are simply because the level of play for guards in college is inferior and we feel some obligation to level the playing field.

Nevertheless, when it comes to comparing guards or comparing bigs, you can always gleen anything you want by comparing them to each other. In KU's game against OU, Taylor had a superior EFF to Collins, yet the stories will be about Collins. Why? Because he hit three straight threes late in the game. No other reason on earth. Had Collins had the great first 34 minutes and Taylor the great last six, it would have been Taylor's picture on the front of the (fill in the blank). The VAST majority of how people look at this stuff is emotional.

Martin

Sorry for keeping this topic alive, I just don't understand the offensive rebound issue. If you snag an offensive rebound, you gain a possession? Is gaining a possession and keeping the other team from gaining a possession the same thing? A team can get a lot of offensive rebounds in a game and not score, yet an assist can only be gained by scoring. Therefore, how can offensive rebounds and assists be equal?

I'm probably way off, again, so show me the light here...
JT

Good questions.

"If you snag an offensive rebound, you gain a possession?"

Yes. A possession begins with a new shot clock. Every possession has the potential to become 1, 2 or 3 points. Even 4 is possible. The average is 1 point per possession historically for much of basketball. Therefore, when equating points and possessions you are basically putting them on an equal footing.

Obviously on any given rebound, nobody knows if that possession will be no points or three points. But, you have to say that it is worth one point.

"Is gaining a possession and keeping the other team from gaining a possession the same thing?"

Yes. And, it is exactly why an offensive rebound is no different than a defensive rebound. Either way, your team "gains" a possession and a new shot clock. Besides, as I stated before, since they are mutually exclusive, the gaining of one automatically means the absence of the other.

"A team can get a lot of offensive rebounds in a game and not score, yet an assist can only be gained by scoring. Therefore, how can offensive rebounds and assists be equal?"

That's the argument for giving an assist equal value to a rebound because otherwise, it's tough to to make the case that an assist is as valuable as a rebound.

It is true that the only time an assist can happen is on a score. However, it is also true (as I said above) that each possession averages 1 point. Therefore, every steal or rebound is equivalent to a point. An assist is subjective. About half the FGs made are made without an assist at all. Theoretically, you could score every FG in a game with zero assists and win. But, you could never win a game without rebounding. If anything, I err on the side of assists by giving them full possession/point value.

Martin

...I'll keep that in mind for future posts...
JT

PER is pretty complex and doesn't assign a simple weight to each stat category, but Zach Fein decided to approximate it with a linear weights formula

http://www.feinsports.com/?p=508#more-508

Here are the weights he came up with:

Offensive_Reb x 39.190
Assists x 34.677
Defensive_Reb x 14.707  

Based on his ratio of Rebound value to Assist Value, he gives a rebound (roughly) 52% more value than an assist. I don't agree with that, but that's a lot more valid than giving assists more value than rebounding.

I do want to comment on one thing here. It continues to boggle my mind to the Nth degree how anyone can give a different weight to Offensive Rebounds versus Defensive Rebounds. I have never heard a valid argument for that in my life and I have been reading it for 23 years now.

Here is the most simple argument anyone could ever put forward about that issue.

An DEFENSIVE rebound is exactly the same value and and OFFENSIVE rebound because a DEFENSIVE rebound <<< prevents >>> and OFFENSIVE rebound. If you don't get it, the other guy does.

Secondly, every single rebound creates a new possession. Every one of them! It doesn't matter if it is offensive or defensive.

And, if that isn't convincing enough, let's take it to the extreme. Let's say that there wasn't a single defensive rebound in a game. Every single rebound was offensive. Thus, at the end of the game, there would be (according to this guy anyway) almost three times the value for rebounds that a typical game would have!!! That's absurd. You can always figure out what's wrong with something by taking it to the extreme. That's when flipping on the light shows you how many cockroaches you have. That's part of what I call the "sniff" test. You can't just throw a number (or formula) out there without evaluating the results based upon common sense.

Having said that, it pretty much comes out in the wash anyway unless someone had a real inordinate ratio of offensive vs defensive or defensive vs offensive rebounds. If you play enough games, that's probably not going to matter much. Still, it's a fundamental flaw.

Martin

Excellent point about a defensive rebound preventing an offensive rebound and vice versa.

I'm guessing you've discussed this at length many times, so I don't want to rehash the discussion, but could you give some examples of the reasons people give to defend the unequal weighting?

Maybe a lot of it stems from people only considering the offensive value of a rebound.  Because while they both create a new possession, the one created by an offensive rebound often starts within a few feet of the basket, and so leads to a more valuable possession.  (But obviously the defensive rebound prevents that offensive value, so should get just as much credit.)

Brilliantly stated and ... I love you!

If I ever jump on you for something, please remind me that I said that!

For anyone reading my words right now, just reread David's post. That says it all.

I wish I knew what possible rational someone has for giving unequal value to offensive and defensive rebounds. You brought up the single issue that could be argued to be an advantage - that being that an offensive rebound is closer to the basket and might be more likely to lead to a score. I have never seen evidence to support that, but if a person wanted to argue it, I could at least respect it. Even so, the difference would be relatively minor IMO. I could even imagine it is the opposite - that an offensive rebound leads to a hurried, off-balance shot - an unlikely event when you are setting up the offense after a defensive rebound.

However, even if there is any validity at all to that point of view, it is negated by the fact that the gaining of an defensive rebound, by definition, means you are removing an offensive rebound from your competitor.

Martin

martin

i am sure you hang out at this website if not write part of it.  interestingly, great archive article on the value of the offensive rebound on the site.  better field goal % after an offensive rebound that is close to the basket than for a general possession or if the ball is passed out.

validates my memories of bernard king.  unbelievable offensive rebounder who could score!

I have 82games.com as one of my favorites, but like anything else, there are only 24 hours in the day. Thanks for the article!

The thing I take away from it is this.

The other four tables are interesting, but just "noise" with respect to the question at hand.

In order to give more value to an offensive rebound versus a defensive rebound, it must be able to be shown that an offensive rebound puts you in a better scoring position than a defensive rebound.

You have to realize I only care about Effective FG%. The historical FG% number is completely misleading and has no basis in any conversation of this type. Therefore, if you look at the eFG%, you see relatively little difference.

However, almost everyone who gives different values to OffReb vs DefReb does so with a much greater differential than a few percent.

As I have said many times, even if this differential were valid - meaning OffReb is superior to DefReb, it is so small and so insignificant, that it would never justify having to have some complicated formulat to keep track of a slight variance when a person can simply add "rebounds" - especially considering most players have a relatively similar ratio between ORB & DRB.

Having said that, I still cannot let it go by without once again pointing that the gaining of a defensive rebound is exactly equal to the preventing of an offensive rebound.

Let me give you an example. Let's take it to the extreme. Let's say each team only gets one possession in the game. And, in this case, "possession" means their end of the court. If they rebound, they can keep shooting until they no longer have the ball.

Team A scores on their first (and only) possession. Team B shoots and misses. Player C gets the offensive rebound and they score and tie it up.

Now, they go to overtime.

They do it again. Team A scores. Team B shoots and misses. Player D gets the defensive rebound - meaning Team A wins.

Both players got a rebound - one offensive and one defensive. As you can see, both were of equal value because the defensive rebound prevented the offensive rebound.

Martin

agree that offensive rebounds have no greater value than defensive rebounds by your definition.  but the reason why people value the offensive rebound is because it occurs less frequently and is harder to obtain.  most defenders crash the defensive board, but only a few people on offense crash the board.  the rest hurry back to set up the defense.  so one person must overcome 3 or 4 to get the board.  the basketball fan knows that obtaining 20 defensive boards is a great game, but if someone gets 20 offensive boards, that is a fantastic game.  there has to be some value to that intuition.

...as I have so learned, any rebound, whether offensive or defensive, starts the shot clock again. Therefore, a new possession is created. It really doesn't matter that an offensive rebound is worth the same as a defensive one, because they both do the same thing. The same can be applied to assists/steals and rebounds. The points from whatever the outcome is really doesn't matter, it's the possessions gained or not gained. Sherron Collins may have 20 assists and miss half his shots, but when Aldrich has 20 rebounds and only misses 4 of 15, it doesn't matter if Sherron broke a record for most assists in a game, Cole's EFF will be higher...It's all about possessions...
JT

with the definitions in place, the argument is tilted toward equal value of defensive and offensive rebounds.  accepting the definitions of value as possessions, then offensive and defensive rebounds are the same.  Agree

BUT the key question is whether an offensive rebound or a defensive rebound do the same thing? what is the likelihood of a score after an offensive rebound versus defensive rebound?  is the answer to this question behind the intuition that having 20 offensive rebounds in a game is better than 20 defensive rebounds?

this is the beauty of stats coming to basketball.  i don't think of steals as being all that valuable anymore because they dont lead to more scoring.  i wont think that an offensive rebound is worth more than a defensive rebound if someone shows that the chance of a score is no greater with the former rather than the latter.

Look at it this way...What determines a score? A possession of the ball determines a score. I believe in using EFF a possesion roughly equals 1 point. Therefore if an offensive rebound and a defensive rebound equal a new possession and a possesion equals roughly a single point, than a rebound = a point. So whether or not you score with a offensive rebound, that still equals a point. Aldrich may get the O-rebound, but misses the put back. The next O-rebound he gets, he puts it up and in. You have 2 O-rebounds and 2 points. But, say he misses them both. EFF counters that with a missed FG on the other side by subtracting the number of missed FG's from EFF. Defensive rebounds don't always end in points either, but sometimes they do. I wouldn't think about the score though, that's not what EFF takes into account. EFF is strictly to show how efficient a player is on the field. Say that Collins has 40 points on 15 of 26 at the end of a game with 5 assists, 3 steals, and 2 rebounds. He also has 6 turnovers and missed 2 from the line. His EFF is 31. But say that Aldrich has 20 points on 8 of 12 shooting, 17 rebounds and 5 blocks. He's perfect 4-4 from the line and has no turnovers. All that equals a 38 EFF. This doesn't look as good as Collins' 40 point game, but Aldrich, with half the points, still beats Collins' EFF...Another example: There have been great games by Clemente from K-State that have been losses and some that have been wins. But he still posts spectacular EFF's in them.  

It took me a while to wrap my mind around the concept, partly because it's not a normal train of thought if you've never heard it before. But, it makes sense the more you think about it and the more Martin explains it. 
JT

P.S. - Martin, if I completely screwed up the argument here, please correct me...I'm still trying to figure out the rebound issue...

You did a very good job of explaining it. I have constantly had to fight the "points scored" issue over the years because that's what people "see" and it is what sportscasters "report" and it is what we "remember". Besides, it is the sexiest of all stats.

However, it is only part of the picture. Anyone can score 30 points a game if they take every shot. So scoring has to be modified based upon shots taken. And, so forth.

In one of my books, I wrote the following by way of introduction to the subject.

"On March 21 of last season, the Nuggets played the Rockets at Houston. And, although I can cite many similar examples, this one should be adequate to make my point. The entire write-up in USA Today went like this: 'Alex English scored 29 of his 37 points in the second half to boost Denver to a 112-110 victory against Houston, moving the Nuggets to within a half game of the Rockets in the NBA Midwest Division. English had 18 points in the third quarter and 11 in the fourth to give Denver its fourth consecutive victory and end a two-game winning streak.'"

"Now, I certainly have no criticism of the highlighting of Alex English's 37 points. I do have a regret however. I mourn the fact that not 10 individuals alive who read that write-up and who didn't see the game know English was no more valuable or productive against Houston than Fat Lever. Even if they glanced at the box score what they would have seen was only 16 points for Lever. How can that compete with 37? Fat had 2 more rebounds, 8 more assists, 5 more steals, 6 less field goal attempts (2+8+5+6=21) (21+16=37). As you can see, both players had equal games. As it turns out, both had and EFF of 28. Both deserved mention, but as is usually the case, the scorer got it.

To make matters worse, that exclusivity of recognition unfortunately goes beyond a given box score. Alex English has been an All-Star each of the last three years while Fat Lever has been snubbed twice. This, despite the fact that Lever has ranked in the Top-10 by production (EFF) each year while English was out of the Top-20 twice. But, in scoring, ah. That's different. English has outscored Lever by 8 ppg in that span of time. Several years ago, Alex was generous enough to offer to trade his position on the All-Star team to Fat. The league said "no, no", but why do you think he did it? He knew what the deal was. Lever was the most valuable player on the team then and has been ever since."

Martin

Defensive rebounds are the "default" outcome after a missed shot, so offensive rebounds may be considered more difficult, or more indicative of player skill.  They may be weighted higher almost like a degree of difficulty adjustment.

But if we're gonna adjust for difficulty, we should probably credit David Eckstein twice for every home run he hits.

Tim Duncan is a bigman that is (or more was) the clutch player on the team. He was taking the last shot...not a guard.

Occasionally, a big man will take the last shot because the guard is guarded. But, even so, he isn't a center - at least not officially.

Martin