next »

[Roy H.]

Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.

Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.

Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop.  If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.

That's the point, both teams have put the ball in the hoop exactly the same numbeer of  times, taking roughly the same time off the clock in total (if we assume similar time to taking a shot off). Except the second team boasts PPP that's twice as large.

Is this the scenario?

A:  Celtics have ball.  Miss shot.  Lakers get ball.  (Outcome unknown).  Celtics get ball, make shot.  Lakers get ball.

B:  Celtics have ball.  Miss shot.  Offensive rebound.  Make shot.  Lakers get ball.

Sure, in each case there's a miss and a make.  However, in the second scenario, the Celtics offense prevents a possession for the Lakers.  Ball control -- whether through preventing turnovers or grabbing offensive boards -- is a sign of a good offense.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.

Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.

Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop.  If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.

That's the point, both teams have put the ball in the hoop exactly the same number of  times, taking roughly the same time off the clock in total (if we assume similar time to taking a shot off). Except the second team boasts PPP that's twice as large.

There's something missing here. Team one missed one shot. Team two missed two shots. I take it that was a typo.

So both teams missed one shot, only one team has 1 PPP and the other 2 PPP because of the offensive rebound.

What is missing here is, what happened when the first team missed his shot? Did the second team score or miss? Let's say they scored for the sake of argument.

Team two then scored 4 points to the first team's 2, taking 3 shots in 2 possessions, so the 2 PPP remains true. If they missed, then it would be the same as the first team 1 PPP, only they would have shot 1/3 from the field.

So in all there's a possession here missing you're not accounting for.

[kozlodoev]

Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.

Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.

Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop.  If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.

That's the point, both teams have put the ball in the hoop exactly the same numbeer of  times, taking roughly the same time off the clock in total (if we assume similar time to taking a shot off). Except the second team boasts PPP that's twice as large.

Is this the scenario?

A:  Celtics have ball.  Miss shot.  Lakers get ball.  (Outcome unknown).  Celtics get ball, make shot.  Lakers get ball.

B:  Celtics have ball.  Miss shot.  Offensive rebound.  Make shot.  Lakers get ball.

Sure, in each case there's a miss and a make.  However, in the second scenario, the Celtics offense prevents a possession for the Lakers.  Ball control -- whether through preventing turnovers or grabbing offensive boards -- is a sign of a good offense.

I guess I just consider generating extra opportunities distinctly different measure from the actual ability to get a bucket in a given opportunity.

[kozlodoev]

Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.

Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.

Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop.  If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.

That's the point, both teams have put the ball in the hoop exactly the same number of  times, taking roughly the same time off the clock in total (if we assume similar time to taking a shot off). Except the second team boasts PPP that's twice as large.

There's something missing here. Team one missed one shot. Team two missed two shots. I take it that was a typo.

So both teams missed one shot, only one team has 1 PPP and the other 2 PPP because of the offensive rebound.

What is missing here is, what happened when the first team missed his shot? Did the second team score or miss? Let's say they scored for the sake of argument.

Team two then scored 4 points to the first team's 2, taking 3 shots in 2 possessions, so the 2 PPP remains true. If they missed, then it would be the same as the first team 1 PPP, only they would have shot 1/3 from the field.

So in all there's a possession here missing you're not accounting for.

Roy explained the situation in his post. Sorry if it was unclear.

In essence, both teams score one basket on two shots, except the PPP is different, because one of them didn't get an offensive rebound.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.

Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.

Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop.  If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.

That's the point, both teams have put the ball in the hoop exactly the same number of  times, taking roughly the same time off the clock in total (if we assume similar time to taking a shot off). Except the second team boasts PPP that's twice as large.

There's something missing here. Team one missed one shot. Team two missed two shots. I take it that was a typo.

So both teams missed one shot, only one team has 1 PPP and the other 2 PPP because of the offensive rebound.

What is missing here is, what happened when the first team missed his shot? Did the second team score or miss? Let's say they scored for the sake of argument.

Team two then scored 4 points to the first team's 2, taking 3 shots in 2 possessions, so the 2 PPP remains true. If they missed, then it would be the same as the first team 1 PPP, only they would have shot 1/3 from the field.

So in all there's a possession here missing you're not accounting for.

Roy explained the situation in his post. Sorry if it was unclear.

In essence, both teams score one basket on two shots, except the PPP is different, because one of them didn't get an offensive rebound.

Let's say they're playing against each other. You still have a possession unaccounted for. The first team missed after all after scoring in a secondary possession.

You only provided the second team with one possession when they should've had two just the same.

[kozlodoev]

Let's say they're playing against each other. You still have a possession unaccounted for. The first team missed after all after scoring in a secondary possession.

You only provided the second team with one possession when they should've had two just the same.

To quote Roy:

A:  Celtics have ball.  Miss shot.  Lakers get ball.  (Outcome unknown).  Celtics get ball, make shot.  Lakers get ball.

B:  Celtics have ball.  Miss shot.  Offensive rebound.  Make shot.  Lakers get ball

In this particular case, we're trying to capture the offensive efficiency of the Celtics. Laker possessions should be all but irrelevant.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Let's say they're playing against each other. You still have a possession unaccounted for. The first team missed after all after scoring in a secondary possession.

You only provided the second team with one possession when they should've had two just the same.

To quote Roy:

A:  Celtics have ball.  Miss shot.  Lakers get ball.  (Outcome unknown).  Celtics get ball, make shot.  Lakers get ball.

B:  Celtics have ball.  Miss shot.  Offensive rebound.  Make shot.  Lakers get ball

In this particular case, we're trying to capture the offensive efficiency of the Celtics. Laker possessions should be all but irrelevant.

I don't see how you can not find it relevant. And I don't think those are good examples because we're not comparing the same amount of possessions.

Example C.

Lakers miss shot. Celtics get ball and score. Lakers make shot. Celtics miss shot, offensive rebound, and score.

I combined the two scenarios above into one possibility of in-game situation/

In example C, Celtics when 2/3 for 4 points in two possessions, 2 PPP


Example D.

Lakers miss shot. Celtics get ball and miss. Lakers make shot. Celtics miss shot, offensive rebound, and score.

In example D, Celtics went 1/3 for 2 points in two possessions, 1 PPP (basically the same as scenario A, but with an additional miss).


I hope this illustrates the importance of including the possession that is missing from the scenarios that have been presented to this point.

[Fafnir]

Let's say they're playing against each other. You still have a possession unaccounted for. The first team missed after all after scoring in a secondary possession.

You only provided the second team with one possession when they should've had two just the same.

To quote Roy:

A:  Celtics have ball.  Miss shot.  Lakers get ball.  (Outcome unknown).  Celtics get ball, make shot.  Lakers get ball.

B:  Celtics have ball.  Miss shot.  Offensive rebound.  Make shot.  Lakers get ball

In this particular case, we're trying to capture the offensive efficiency of the Celtics. Laker possessions should be all but irrelevant.

I don't see how you can not find it relevant. And I don't think those are good examples because we're not comparing the same amount of possessions.

Example C.

Lakers miss shot. Celtics get ball and score. Lakers make shot. Celtics miss shot, offensive rebound, and score.

I combined the two scenarios above into one possibility of in-game situation/

In example C, Celtics when 2/3 for 4 points in two possessions, 2 PPP


Example D.

Lakers miss shot. Celtics get ball and miss. Lakers make shot. Celtics miss shot, offensive rebound, and score.

In example D, Celtics went 1/3 for 2 points in two possessions, 1 PPP (basically the same as scenario A, but with an additional miss).


I hope this illustrates the importance of including the possession that is missing from the scenarios that have been presented to this point.

Unless you have a typo in your examples, you're missing the debate entirely.

[kozlodoev]

Let me reiterate again:

The debate here is not what gives you a better overall result. Of course getting more opportunities to score does, and in this sense offensive rebounds are good. But so are regular rebounds and steals.

The discussion is about metrics that accurately reflect how efficienttly you put the ball in the basket, all else equal.

[Fafnir]

Let me reiterate again:

The debate here is not what gives you a better overall result. Of course getting more opportunities to score does, and in this sense offensive rebounds are good. But so are regular rebounds and steals.

The discussion is about metrics that accurately reflect how efficienttly you put the ball in the basket, all else equal.

Yeah, I think of the Joe Johnson led Atlanta Hawks, the Chicago Bulls, and Brandon Roy Trailblazers as teams when this issue comes up.

All are/were limited offensive teams that lean heavily offensive boards to make up for their overall lacklust offensive/talent/play.

Over the course of the season it probably doesn't matter too much but if you're trying to use the predictions for a given matchup its something you really have to look at.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Let me reiterate again:

The debate here is not what gives you a better overall result. Of course getting more opportunities to score does, and in this sense offensive rebounds are good. But so are regular rebounds and steals.

The discussion is about metrics that accurately reflect how efficienttly you put the ball in the basket, all else equal.

It's the all else equal part that I'm finding lacking. In one example the Celtics had 2 possessions. In the second example they had 1 possession.

And as I illustrated above, grabbing an offensive rebound doesn't necessarily lead to better results. In fact, it might lead to a lower FG% if the subsequent shot was missed. But in maintaining the equality of the possessions, it would be reflected just the same as in the scenario A mentioned above, only with a lower FG%, yet with the same PPP.

Make with that what you will. One team having the same PPP as another team, doesn't mean that they're as efficient with their shots, but it does reflect their ability to score the ball given a possession.

[SHAQATTACK]

Doc is plenty good of a coach for the Celtics .  He is whole lot better than Eric Spolstra  of the Heat .  I doubt Spo could do any better on the C's and he coached the HEAT to a world championship... or did he not ?

I still think there is serious lack of talent to complete witht HEAT, SPURS, ect  .  Give Doc the right players and he will win for Boston. !!!

Old tired players and  average role players aren't going no where.



   

[kozlodoev]

Let me reiterate again:

The debate here is not what gives you a better overall result. Of course getting more opportunities to score does, and in this sense offensive rebounds are good. But so are regular rebounds and steals.

The discussion is about metrics that accurately reflect how efficienttly you put the ball in the basket, all else equal.

It's the all else equal part that I'm finding lacking. In one example the Celtics had 2 possessions. In the second example they had 1 possession.

And as I illustrated above, grabbing an offensive rebound doesn't necessarily lead to better results. In fact, it might lead to a lower FG% if the subsequent shot was missed. But in maintaining the equality of the possessions, it would be reflected just the same as in the scenario A mentioned above, only with a lower FG%, yet with the same PPP.

Make with that what you will. One team having the same PPP as another team, doesn't mean that they're as efficient with their shots, but it does reflect their ability to score the ball given the possession.

The point is, in both cases the Celtics have had two shot clocks, and have taken two shots -- and the 1 possession vs 2 possession is a bizzare artifact of the idea that getting an offensive rebound somehow counts for "extending" the possession rather than generating a new one.

Again, this discussion started with the definition of possession, which I find inadequate for the purposes of measuring offensive firepower.

I'm sure there's an argument to be made that PPP indicates how many points you'll expect to get, on average, after the ball changes hands from one team to the other. I don't find this indicative of how good or efficient offense you're running.

[dark_lord]

If this this historic losing streak continues, Doc will by gone by January 20th!!!

He is an average coach at best, and he apparently has LOST this team.

This is sad.  The effort is pitiful.  The commitment to small ball by Doc is simply astonishing. 

We might be playing the WORST basketball in the NBA.

Smitty77

the only way this would happen is if ainge were to get fired first.  neither are happening imo

[triboy16f]

If the loses keep piling up and Danny will still not fire Rivers than ownership won't have a choice but to can both Ainge and Rivers. Ainge is playing a dangerous game of not doing what is best for the org vs keeping his personal loyalty in tact.