Butting in here.. you might be right in the sense that offensive rebounds should be discounted to the degree that they're substitutable.Italian Stallion wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:49 pmI understand that "player X" missing is some kind of negative.Nate wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:46 pmPeople typically penalize "player X" for missing, and then offset that penalty with more credit for Adams/Kanter so that the sum of "player X misses" and "Kanter rebounds and scores" is roughly the same as "Lebron goes coast to coast." It seems like you're ignoring that "miss" penalty in your reckoning.Italian Stallion wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:45 pm....
Imagine, player X misses a shot, Stevie Adams or Enes Kanter is standing under the basket, they get the offensive rebound and put it back in.
In both cases the team has 2 points, but most boxscore models will say that what Kanter and Adams did was worth more because they get credit for both the rebound and score. I'm calling BS on that. The accounting for possessions has some quirky problems in it and this is one example that I think it not correct.
I am saying people are so worried about the accounting looking right, they are getting the reality of the values wrong.
To be clear, I don't have some kind of fool proof way to account for these things and get the values right. I simply think a LOT of things of value (both positive and negative) are going on in every possession, many of which are not being accounted for, and some that are being given too much value to make the accounting look neat. IMO, the OREB/Putback Score combination is overvalued.
Home for all your discussion of basketball statistical analysis.