True Usage: Re-Imagining Offense With Multiple Credit Posses

[rlee]

True Usage: Re-Imagining Offense With Multiple Credit Possessions (from Seth Partnow, nylon calculus.com):

http://nyloncalculus.com/2014/08/08/re- ... rue-usage/

[Bobbofitos]

Can you please contain these posts to your thread? It's spamming the forum with random links - if you wanted to discuss it, by all means discuss it, but just making a new thread with a link is bothersome. Maybe others disagree.

[rlee]

Sure. Will do. Thought some here would find it interesting and might want to discuss it. Glad to do it your way, though

Spamming, as I understand generally accepted meaning, certainly not intended.

[kohanz]

Can you please contain these posts to your thread? It's spamming the forum with random links - if you wanted to discuss it, by all means discuss it, but just making a new thread with a link is bothersome. Maybe others disagree.

I have to agree. If you post the article, you should at least add some insight, opinion, etc.. Enough to start an organic discussion. Otherwise this feels too much like twitter.

[Crow]

It is a good article. I like breaking usage out into usage and assist usage. I might preference the term total usage over true usage for the sum. I feel that the two kinds of usage are not equal and calling it true usage maybe infers too much equality to me. Of course old definition did too, but true usage much more with potential assists. I might ultimately prefer dividing possession use amongst passer and shooter to maintain an even 100% max recording on possession usage.

[Crow]

Ray does a lot of table setting at apbr.org, basketballintelligence and now here. That is a valid role and takes a lot of time. I agree that a new post should include some lead-off talk but I have sometimes been guilty of not doing so, hoping if the topic appeals that someone else will do the larger task of breaking into what is interesting or important about the topic. For a community to work, the work should be divided. It might look odd to some to see a skeleton post but one could also see it as an opportunity to step up and take a turn at providing a summary, analysis or opinion and accept that maybe the poster was short on time, hadn't worked all the way thru the topic or really wanted help. But I guess it might be good to say one of these things and make use of this shortcut rare rather than the norm.

[Crow]

I might try making an assist usage "possession" about 1/3rd to 1/4th possession and then the assisted or potentially assisted shooting possession worth 2/3rds to 3/4ths.

[sethypooh21]

I'm less concerned about "apportioning credit" than I am about describing offense in a slightly better (or at least alternative) way. Certainly, until there's a good metric for "playmaking efficiency" this isn't ready to replace any of the stuff we already use, but I like the idea of thinking about possessions as cooperative endeavors rather than rivalrous goods to be consumed if that makes sense.

[wilq]

Can you please contain these posts to your thread? It's spamming the forum with random links - if you wanted to discuss it, by all means discuss it, but just making a new thread with a link is bothersome. Maybe others disagree.

I agree. What's more, I feel the same way about the entire "New Blog: Basketball Intelligence" topic.
It contains 150+ posts and huge majority of them are just links to the blog. Seriously, what's the point of it?
Do we really need 150 posts to a) learn about the blog and b) already have it in the bookmarks?
Maybe just add the address to the signature and you'll be fine without everyday "updates"?

[Crow]

Some folks asked for the daily links. It would seem possible to ignore if you don't want the convenience.

Might be worth mentioning that Ray has been hosting the new version of this forum for the past several years, I believe.

[rlee]

Thanks, Crow.

This whole thing is rather strange. To clarify:

1) Yes, the daily posts to the blog were not my idea. I received approximately 15 requests from folks to do it & about that many are using it on a daily basis.

2) Also true that in my capacity as APBR Exec Director, I approved APBRMetrics using the APBR server. I don't know where the "rumor" started that I was considering terminating that use due to a few strange comments. I am not so considering and never told any one that I was (though several people have somehow "heard" that I was and asked me not to). I am not that thin-skinned.

3) Back to the original issue: it never occurred to me that posting a link to a story re: analytics would be considered "spamming" since I can't see any interpretation of the definition of that word as applying. My thought is/was that there are some stories that might be interesting to the group that perhaps might have been missed. My idea was to post a link to the story (without comment since I don't feel I have the analytic "chops" to say anything worthwhile in many instances) that others might be inclined to comment on. In those instances, I could certainly say introductorily, " I recently came across this story that may be of interest and that may be worthy of discussion. I do not feel qualified to add anything particularly useful." I would be glad to say that as an introductory statement if it is not understood as a "default".

Once again, Crow, thanks for helping to clarify.

[Crow]

Thanks again Ray for the hosting.

[Mike G]

Personally, I think it's good to have discussions at all levels of analytical "chop"-ness. That's why I have gone back and forth between this forum and APBR with some basic stuff. Almost everyone has some interest in numbers, and very few are equally conversant at all levels.

In school, everyone appreciates the kid who raises his hand and asks the question everyone is wondering, but afraid to look dumb for asking.
Some folks here assume everyone knows everything they know, but I don't think that can be true.

By confining his link-posts to a single thread (usually), it's easy enough to opt out of reading them.
Carry on, Mr. L.

[rlee]

Thanks Mike for a couple of excellent points

[wilq]

Some folks asked for the daily links

1) Yes, the daily posts to the blog were not my idea. I received approximately 15 requests from folks to do it & about that many are using it on a daily basis.

I didn't know about it so at least I understand the point of it. But now I wonder why those 15 people prefer to visit APBR forum to click on your link rather than bookmark the blog and visit it daily on their own... it's not like they comment here or anything, speaking of which...

My thought is/was that there are some stories that might be interesting to the group that perhaps might have been missed. My idea was to post a link to the story [...] that others might be inclined to comment on.

I like this idea but IMO there are two problems with the execution of it:
1) by providing only the links you encourage the discussion... but not here [which is why a word like spam was used even though it's too strong - it just looks like a daily ad for your blog]. Because if I have to visit another site to read anything I'll comment under original source.
2) your stated goal of starting the discussion doesn't seem to work here because there wasn't any discussions in said thread in the last few months. Why? Outside of the issue #1 I think that very short one line summary is just not enough to comment on...
So for example, instead of posting only the link here maybe you should try to choose your favorite story of the day and explain why it is the best? IMO that would work way better as a conversation-starter than one line summary of everything. Am I wrong?

(without comment since I don't feel I have the analytic "chops" to say anything worthwhile in many instances)

OK, but each day you can still explain why did you choose those topics in the first place and/or what was the most interesting about them. Or at least what's your process behind defining story's intelligence?

By confining his link-posts to a single thread (usually), it's easy enough to opt out of reading them. Carry on, Mr. L.

True.