Slow pace = More winning? (supersub15, 2009)
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:27 pm
Author Message
supersub15
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 273
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:02 pm Post subject: Slow pace = More winning? Reply with quote
Wrote this with a Raptors angle: http://www.raptorblog.com/091030a.php
Thoughts?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
magicmerl
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 54
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
supersub15
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 273
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
magicmerl wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
I like to use the Charlotte Bobcats example:
Under Sam Vincent (2 seasons ago):
Pace 91.8
DRtg 109.4 (20th)
Under Larry Brown:
Pace 88.3
DRtg 106.1 (7th)
Almost the same crew (until the big trade with Phoenix), 2 different results.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 860
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:33 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
supersub15 wrote:
magicmerl wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
I like to use the Charlotte Bobcats example:
Under Sam Vincent (2 seasons ago):
Pace 91.8
DRtg 109.4 (20th)
Under Larry Brown:
Pace 88.3
DRtg 106.1 (7th)
Almost the same crew (until the big trade with Phoenix), 2 different results.
Larry Brown is one of the top defensive coaches around. Charlotte's defensive improvement has far more to do with his ability to teach defense and implment great schemes than it does with pace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
davearchie
Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
magicmerl wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but pace is reflective of the not only how long a team's offensive possessions are, but also how long its opponents' possessions are. It stands to reason that if a team is playing tough D, its opponent is going to have few < 10 seconds possessions.
What would really test this is a correlation between average time of offensive possession and defensive rating.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jon Nichols
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 369
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:33 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
davearchie wrote:
magicmerl wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but pace is reflective of the not only how long a team's offensive possessions are, but also how long its opponents' possessions are. It stands to reason that if a team is playing tough D, its opponent is going to have few < 10 seconds possessions.
What would really test this is a correlation between average time of offensive possession and defensive rating.
Agreed. Also, an alternative method to this study would be to look at it team-by-team and see if they are better defensively at a slower or faster pace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Kevin Pelton
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 976
Location: Seattle
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:14 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
davearchie wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but pace is reflective of the not only how long a team's offensive possessions are, but also how long its opponents' possessions are. It stands to reason that if a team is playing tough D, its opponent is going to have few < 10 seconds possessions.
While that logic certainly makes sense, it proved not to be the case when I looked at the issue last year:
Quote:
Conventional wisdom would probably hold that a fast defense is a bad defense, because it means opponents are scoring quickly. One of the criticisms of the Seven Seconds or Less Suns was their unwillingness to expend defensive energy so they could get the ball back more quickly. While that might be true of the Don Nelson Warriors, it doesn't seem to apply to either this year's Phoenix team (11.9 seconds, right at average) or Mike D'Antoni's new Knicks squad (12.0 seconds, on the slow side).
Additionally, the presence of two of the league's four top defenses amongst the fastest-paced squads seems to cast doubt on the importance of forcing opponents deep into the shot clock.
Also, there is evidence that offenses tend to control pace more than defenses.
I do not recall ever finding such a dramatic discrepancy in overall team performance by pace. I might revisit the numbers to take another look.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Qscience
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
Posts: 67
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
supersub15 wrote:
magicmerl wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
I like to use the Charlotte Bobcats example:
Under Sam Vincent (2 seasons ago):
Pace 91.8
DRtg 109.4 (20th)
Under Larry Brown:
Pace 88.3
DRtg 106.1 (7th)
Almost the same crew (until the big trade with Phoenix), 2 different results.
Well looking at the lack of scoring wait til Larry Brown is 21st or worse this year. So no it has nothing to do with it because the champions were the La Lakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
IrishHand
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
magicmerl wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
Yeah...OP's analysis is closer to "good rushing teams win in football" than a good argument that slow pace causes winning.
Losing teams are also going to have higher paces because they have to, by necessity, push the ball more as they get further behind.
Kevin also correct - offense dictates pace. At the team level, average time of offensive possession ranges from 13.8 seconds (NYK/GS) to 16.8 seconds (POR). Average time of defensive possession ranges from 15.0 (SAC) to 15.9 (POR/ATL/PHI), with top defensive teams on both ends of the list.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Qscience
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
Posts: 67
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Actually hated the game in the late 90s when teams slowed the pace down to a crawl. Efficiency is still the most important factor above all the pace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
supersub15
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 273
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:04 am Post subject: Reply with quote
IrishHand wrote:
Yeah...OP's analysis is closer to "good rushing teams win in football" than a good argument that slow pace causes winning.
Although, it might have seemed to, I'm not making definitive statements, hence the "?". Just that I found it curious that slow-paced teams consistently beat the average DRtg and made the playoffs more often than faster-paced teams.
Quote:
Losing teams are also going to have higher paces because they have to, by necessity, push the ball more as they get further behind.
I don't buy that. Is Golden State running because they are behind at minute 1 of the game? I'm exaggerating of course, but I think it has to do with coaching style. A Larry Brown or a Jeff van Gundy team will never run. A Mike D'Antoni or a Don Nelson team will never slow it down. Simple as that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IrishHand
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:44 am Post subject: Reply with quote
supersub15 wrote:
Quote:
Losing teams are also going to have higher paces because they have to, by necessity, push the ball more as they get further behind.
I don't buy that. Is Golden State running because they are behind at minute 1 of the game? I'm exaggerating of course, but I think it has to do with coaching style. A Larry Brown or a Jeff van Gundy team will never run. A Mike D'Antoni or a Don Nelson team will never slow it down. Simple as that.
I wasn't saying that the only reason that a team would have a high pace is because they're losing. My point was that, regardless of a team's preferred pace (what you're referring to), the losing team is going to have some portion of the game where they have an incentive to play at a high pace while the winning team is going to have an incentive to play slower. Over an 82-game season, this is going to make a significant difference in pace for a team losing 60 as opposed a team winning 60.
All things being equal, I would expect a 60-win team to have a slower pace than a 60-loss team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chronz1
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 200
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:04 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Is this an accurate method of classifying teams, its probably not a significant change but isnt better to categorize the teams by pace above league averages?
And I always assumed the better defensive teams played at a naturally slower pace because they took away early offense opportunities, while great offensive teams created more of them. The overall pace of the team will still be dictated by the offensive style of play, but given that same offense. The better defensive version will have the lower pace rating. I thought this explained the slight correlation with slower teams being better defensively, and faster teams being better. Though there is no rule of thumb, very fast teams can be very poor offensively.
supersub15
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 273
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:02 pm Post subject: Slow pace = More winning? Reply with quote
Wrote this with a Raptors angle: http://www.raptorblog.com/091030a.php
Thoughts?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
magicmerl
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 54
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
supersub15
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 273
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
magicmerl wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
I like to use the Charlotte Bobcats example:
Under Sam Vincent (2 seasons ago):
Pace 91.8
DRtg 109.4 (20th)
Under Larry Brown:
Pace 88.3
DRtg 106.1 (7th)
Almost the same crew (until the big trade with Phoenix), 2 different results.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 860
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:33 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
supersub15 wrote:
magicmerl wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
I like to use the Charlotte Bobcats example:
Under Sam Vincent (2 seasons ago):
Pace 91.8
DRtg 109.4 (20th)
Under Larry Brown:
Pace 88.3
DRtg 106.1 (7th)
Almost the same crew (until the big trade with Phoenix), 2 different results.
Larry Brown is one of the top defensive coaches around. Charlotte's defensive improvement has far more to do with his ability to teach defense and implment great schemes than it does with pace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
davearchie
Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
magicmerl wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but pace is reflective of the not only how long a team's offensive possessions are, but also how long its opponents' possessions are. It stands to reason that if a team is playing tough D, its opponent is going to have few < 10 seconds possessions.
What would really test this is a correlation between average time of offensive possession and defensive rating.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jon Nichols
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 369
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:33 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
davearchie wrote:
magicmerl wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but pace is reflective of the not only how long a team's offensive possessions are, but also how long its opponents' possessions are. It stands to reason that if a team is playing tough D, its opponent is going to have few < 10 seconds possessions.
What would really test this is a correlation between average time of offensive possession and defensive rating.
Agreed. Also, an alternative method to this study would be to look at it team-by-team and see if they are better defensively at a slower or faster pace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Kevin Pelton
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 976
Location: Seattle
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:14 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
davearchie wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but pace is reflective of the not only how long a team's offensive possessions are, but also how long its opponents' possessions are. It stands to reason that if a team is playing tough D, its opponent is going to have few < 10 seconds possessions.
While that logic certainly makes sense, it proved not to be the case when I looked at the issue last year:
Quote:
Conventional wisdom would probably hold that a fast defense is a bad defense, because it means opponents are scoring quickly. One of the criticisms of the Seven Seconds or Less Suns was their unwillingness to expend defensive energy so they could get the ball back more quickly. While that might be true of the Don Nelson Warriors, it doesn't seem to apply to either this year's Phoenix team (11.9 seconds, right at average) or Mike D'Antoni's new Knicks squad (12.0 seconds, on the slow side).
Additionally, the presence of two of the league's four top defenses amongst the fastest-paced squads seems to cast doubt on the importance of forcing opponents deep into the shot clock.
Also, there is evidence that offenses tend to control pace more than defenses.
I do not recall ever finding such a dramatic discrepancy in overall team performance by pace. I might revisit the numbers to take another look.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Qscience
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
Posts: 67
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
supersub15 wrote:
magicmerl wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
I like to use the Charlotte Bobcats example:
Under Sam Vincent (2 seasons ago):
Pace 91.8
DRtg 109.4 (20th)
Under Larry Brown:
Pace 88.3
DRtg 106.1 (7th)
Almost the same crew (until the big trade with Phoenix), 2 different results.
Well looking at the lack of scoring wait til Larry Brown is 21st or worse this year. So no it has nothing to do with it because the champions were the La Lakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
IrishHand
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
magicmerl wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
Here's my completely non-statistical alternative theory:
Veteran team => slow pace
Veteran team => more winning
Yes?
Yeah...OP's analysis is closer to "good rushing teams win in football" than a good argument that slow pace causes winning.
Losing teams are also going to have higher paces because they have to, by necessity, push the ball more as they get further behind.
Kevin also correct - offense dictates pace. At the team level, average time of offensive possession ranges from 13.8 seconds (NYK/GS) to 16.8 seconds (POR). Average time of defensive possession ranges from 15.0 (SAC) to 15.9 (POR/ATL/PHI), with top defensive teams on both ends of the list.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Qscience
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
Posts: 67
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Actually hated the game in the late 90s when teams slowed the pace down to a crawl. Efficiency is still the most important factor above all the pace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
supersub15
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 273
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:04 am Post subject: Reply with quote
IrishHand wrote:
Yeah...OP's analysis is closer to "good rushing teams win in football" than a good argument that slow pace causes winning.
Although, it might have seemed to, I'm not making definitive statements, hence the "?". Just that I found it curious that slow-paced teams consistently beat the average DRtg and made the playoffs more often than faster-paced teams.
Quote:
Losing teams are also going to have higher paces because they have to, by necessity, push the ball more as they get further behind.
I don't buy that. Is Golden State running because they are behind at minute 1 of the game? I'm exaggerating of course, but I think it has to do with coaching style. A Larry Brown or a Jeff van Gundy team will never run. A Mike D'Antoni or a Don Nelson team will never slow it down. Simple as that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IrishHand
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 115
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:44 am Post subject: Reply with quote
supersub15 wrote:
Quote:
Losing teams are also going to have higher paces because they have to, by necessity, push the ball more as they get further behind.
I don't buy that. Is Golden State running because they are behind at minute 1 of the game? I'm exaggerating of course, but I think it has to do with coaching style. A Larry Brown or a Jeff van Gundy team will never run. A Mike D'Antoni or a Don Nelson team will never slow it down. Simple as that.
I wasn't saying that the only reason that a team would have a high pace is because they're losing. My point was that, regardless of a team's preferred pace (what you're referring to), the losing team is going to have some portion of the game where they have an incentive to play at a high pace while the winning team is going to have an incentive to play slower. Over an 82-game season, this is going to make a significant difference in pace for a team losing 60 as opposed a team winning 60.
All things being equal, I would expect a 60-win team to have a slower pace than a 60-loss team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chronz1
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 200
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:04 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Is this an accurate method of classifying teams, its probably not a significant change but isnt better to categorize the teams by pace above league averages?
And I always assumed the better defensive teams played at a naturally slower pace because they took away early offense opportunities, while great offensive teams created more of them. The overall pace of the team will still be dictated by the offensive style of play, but given that same offense. The better defensive version will have the lower pace rating. I thought this explained the slight correlation with slower teams being better defensively, and faster teams being better. Though there is no rule of thumb, very fast teams can be very poor offensively.