Twist on Kenpom

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

For those that like this stuff, a look at "possessions"

http://uponfurtherreview.kansascity.com/?q=node/2934

Rebounding is a PRODUCTION stat, not an EFFICIENCY stat. I can't help it if Pomeroy or others don’t understand this point.

[mcmwcat]

not sure if i agree or not.  you can strategerize your offense in order to get a higher % of missed shots.  in that case points from OR% would contribute to OE.

basically it's arguing semantics.  pomeroy has simplified his numbers to make them easy to read.  UFR can do his own numbers if he don't like

[michigancat]

For those that like this stuff, a look at "possessions"

http://uponfurtherreview.kansascity.com/?q=node/2934

Rebounding is a PRODUCTION stat, not an EFFICIENCY stat. I can't help it if Pomeroy or others don’t understand this point.

 

[kso_FAN]

basically it's arguing semantics.  pomeroy has simplified his numbers to make them easy to read.  UFR can do his own numbers if he don't like

This. I don't think his point is without merit, but it seems to me to be unnecessary.

He simply seems to arguing for a way to use stats to verify how crisp/clean an offense looks, and that's basically his justification. But at the end of the day its about scoring points, and to me it really doesn't matter if the made shot comes from 5 crisp passes and pretty screens or some thrown up missed shot that a bigger, more athletic player goes and gets and puts back.

Really, he shows how useless his own argument is when he says this:

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

Ultimately, very little in most cases (See MarchPhog’s reply to yesterday’s post). The order (rank) of teams by virtue of their offensive or defensive efficiency is not going to change a whole lot unless a team was extremely good or bad at rebounding.

[kso_FAN]

FWIW; kenpom on why he uses offensive rebounding as a continuation of a possession:

You might wonder why offensive rebounds are treated as continuing a possesion, rather than starting a new one. I've seen two good reasons. First, by including them each team's possesions can reasonably be assumed to come out equal for each game. Second, getting and preventing offensive rebounds are skills. So if some teams do those skills better than others, it makes sense to attach those skills to a team's offensive or defensive ability.

[sys]

pomeroy is right.  the other guy apparently fails to understand the reason people are interested in a single off eff % to go along with the categorical breakdowns.  he's also a poor writer.  i find his stuff tedious.

[mcmwcat]

wait.  we are more efficient overall w/ the manley way?  wouldn't that mean we are getting killed on the boards?

edit: never mind.  i thought the Manley was the 'new way' and pomeroy was traditional.

why don't you label them as pomeroy and UFR?  who is Manley?

[kso_FAN]

wait.  we are more efficient overall w/ the manley way?  wouldn't that mean we are getting killed on the boards?

edit: never mind.  i thought the Manley was the 'new way' and pomeroy was traditional.

why don't you label them as pomeroy and UFR?  who is Manley?

Manley is the writer, and from what I'm reading he came up with it.

My numbers are messed up there so I deleted the post.

[mcmwcat]

wait.  we are more efficient overall w/ the manley way?  wouldn't that mean we are getting killed on the boards?

edit: never mind.  i thought the Manley was the 'new way' and pomeroy was traditional.

why don't you label them as pomeroy and UFR?  who is Manley?

Manley is the writer, and from what I'm reading he came up with it.

My numbers are messed up there so I deleted the post.

 

[fatty fat fat]

my goodness, what a twist. 

[kso_FAN]

Here, I apologize for the error filled post before.

BTW, I don't call the traditional numbers kenpom b/c kenpom makes some adjustments to his pace and efficiency numbers.

UFR/Manley uses this for offensive possessions: opponents TOs + Total rebounds + opponents FG makes + opponents FT makes * .53, then reverses the formula for defensive possessions.

Traditional possessions are FGAs-ORs-TOs-FTAs*.475.  And defensive numbers for defensive possessions.

UFR/Manley:
OFF   0.849
DEF   0.820
DIF   0.029
Traditional:
OFF PPP   1.044
DEF PPP   0.942
DIF PPP   0.101

Big 12 only:
UFR/Manley
OFF   0.845
DEF   0.908
DIF   -0.063
Traditional:
OFF PPP   1.025
DEF PPP   1.043
DIF PPP   -0.018

[mcmwcat]

thanks for doing this _FAN.  can you throw in OR% for conference games?

fatty, cut - it - out

[kso_FAN]

thanks for doing this _FAN.  can you throw in OR% for conference games?

Yeah, here you go:

OR% in 9 league games is 40.6%, still best in the league.

Overall our OR% is 42.7%.

[michigancat]

I didn't even try to read your numbers because that guy is such a dumbass.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I didn't even try to read your numbers because that guy is such a dumbass.

that's a pretty dumbass thing to say

[michigancat]

I didn't even try to read your numbers because that guy is such a dumbass.

that's a pretty dumbass thing to say

Whatever, numbers geek.

[kso_FAN]

I didn't even try to read your numbers because that guy is such a dumbass.

Meh, I don't agree completely, but I think it is an interesting concept and I wanted to look at how this change affected efficiency/PPP, etc. I think his definition for efficiency is a bit narrow, at the end of the day the object of offense is to score points and defense is to stop points, and I think there is merit for keeping off rebounding involved in the formula.

And for another comparison's sake, here is last year's numbers for UFR/Manley compared to traditional.

OFF 0.902
DEF 0.814
DIF 0.089

OFF 1.105
DEF 0.969
DIF 0.136

[michigancat]

I didn't even try to read your numbers because that guy is such a dumbass.

Meh, I don't agree completely, but I think it is an interesting concept and I wanted to look at how this change affected efficiency/PPP, etc. I think his definition for efficiency is a bit narrow, at the end of the day the object of offense is to score points and defense is to stop points, and I think there is merit for keeping off rebounding involved in the formula.

And for another comparison's sake, here is last year's numbers for UFR/Manley compared to traditional.

OFF 0.902
DEF 0.814
DIF 0.089

OFF 1.105
DEF 0.969
DIF 0.136

I can't decipher it unless it's compared to the rest of the country. Don't have the mental capacity.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I didn't even try to read your numbers because that guy is such a dumbass.

Meh, I don't agree completely, but I think it is an interesting concept and I wanted to look at how this change affected efficiency/PPP, etc. I think his definition for efficiency is a bit narrow, at the end of the day the object of offense is to score points and defense is to stop points, and I think there is merit for keeping off rebounding involved in the formula.

And for another comparison's sake, here is last year's numbers for UFR/Manley compared to traditional.

OFF 0.902
DEF 0.814
DIF 0.089

OFF 1.105
DEF 0.969
DIF 0.136

I can't decipher it unless it's compared to the rest of the country. Don't have the mental capacity.

this is what I was thinking, the whole point of the analysis is to provide more reliable comparos.  doesn't do much good in the abstract.

get to work _fan

[kso_FAN]

I may do the big 12 later. Another problem with this method is you have to look at a season box score for the numbers. For each team individually.

My first look was just comparing traditional ppp to ufr ppp. And yes this is a very limited comparison.

[catzacker]

I’m probably not adding anything to the discussion, but conceptually it seems like he’s trying to differentiate between teams that shoot a high fg% on the first shot as it’s an indicator of “self-reliance”…you’re not banking on a team being both bad at two things (fg% D and DR).  It’s kind of like saying “a defense that doesn’t get turnovers and has a good D is better than a D that gets turnovers and has a great D”. 

[sys]

I’m probably not adding anything to the discussion, but conceptually it seems like he’s trying to differentiate between teams that shoot a high fg% on the first shot as it’s an indicator of “self-reliance”…you’re not banking on a team being both bad at two things (fg% D and DR).  It’s kind of like saying “a defense that doesn’t get turnovers and has a good D is better than a D that gets turnovers and has a great D”. 

yeah.  it's not like that info is hidden with the kenpom stats (or just normal box stats).  fg%, 3fg, ftrate, efg, ts% & torate all give you info on that.  and oboard/dboard give you the flip side.

the point of having the one-number orating and drating is to generate a predictor - be it an explicit predictor like pomeroy's, or just a look at the numbers so you can make predictions thing like gasaway's tues. truths.

this dude's number is interesting as an additional data category that helps characterize an offense (like efg or anything else).  but using it like an overall orating, or thinking it replaces an overall rating is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

[kso_FAN]

I’m probably not adding anything to the discussion, but conceptually it seems like he’s trying to differentiate between teams that shoot a high fg% on the first shot as it’s an indicator of “self-reliance”…you’re not banking on a team being both bad at two things (fg% D and DR).  It’s kind of like saying “a defense that doesn’t get turnovers and has a good D is better than a D that gets turnovers and has a great D”. 

yeah.  it's not like that info is hidden with the kenpom stats (or just normal box stats).  fg%, 3fg, ftrate, efg, ts% & torate all give you info on that.  and oboard/dboard give you the flip side.

the point of having the one-number orating and drating is to generate a predictor - be it an explicit predictor like pomeroy's, or just a look at the numbers so you can make predictions thing like gasaway's tues. truths.

this dude's number is interesting as an additional data category that helps characterize an offense (like efg or anything else).  but using it like an overall orating, or thinking it replaces an overall rating is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

I agree. To me its more another indicator of offensive efficiency, but tied to possessions. I like that part about it. I think it has some use, but I don't plan on using this very much, the four factors and traditional way of possessions and points per possession is more than adequate.

And Manley does have some stats credibility, even if you don't like his writing. I didn't realize he came up with the EFF stat that he uses.

http://uponfurtherreview.kansascity.com/?q=node/23

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Anyone commenting on the "quality" of the writing is just looking for something to b*tch about.  It's obviously meant to be a casual blog.


In sum:  sys, pull the stick out of your ass

[kso_FAN]

Here's a comparison with this year's Big 12, first run using the traditional kenpom numbers, sorted by the difference between Off PPP and Def PPP.

   kenpom            
   OFF   DEF   DIF   Wins   Losses
UT   1.110   0.840   0.270   9   0
KU   1.173   1.013   0.160   8   1
MU   1.075   1.041   0.034   4   5
aTm   1.071   1.038   0.033   5   4
CU   1.072   1.071   0.001   4   6
BU   1.055   1.058   -0.003   6   4
KSU   1.027   1.043   -0.016   4   5
OSU   1.014   1.070   -0.056   4   5
OU   0.994   1.050   -0.056   4   5
NU   0.980   1.043   -0.063   3   6
ISU   0.978   1.097   -0.119   1   8
TT   0.972   1.131   -0.159   3   6

And here with UFR/Manley's numbers.

   UFR            
   OFF   DEF   DIF   Wins   Losses
UT   0.961   0.701   0.260   9   0
KU   1.013   0.872   0.141   8   1
MU   0.908   0.868   0.040   4   5
BU   0.919   0.881   0.038   6   4
CU   0.895   0.923   -0.028   4   6
NU   0.857   0.887   -0.030   3   6
aTm   0.861   0.906   -0.045   5   4
OU   0.854   0.903   -0.049   4   5
ISU   0.868   0.920   -0.052   1   8
OSU   0.840   0.896   -0.056   4   5
KSU   0.844   0.908   -0.064   4   5
TT   0.827   0.966   -0.139   3   6

And a final category of OR% compared to OR% given up.

   OR%   Opp OR%   DIF   Wins   Losses
KSU   40.8%   33.2%   7.6%   4   5
UT   35.6%   29.1%   6.5%   9   0
CU   36.5%   30.2%   6.3%   4   6
KU   33.0%   27.7%   5.3%   8   1
aTm   37.3%   32.1%   5.2%   5   4
BU   36.1%   35.2%   0.9%   6   4
OSU   36.5%   36.4%   0.1%   4   5
NU   27.7%   29.3%   -1.6%   3   6
MU   31.6%   37.1%   -5.5%   4   5
TT   32.7%   39.2%   -6.5%   3   6
OU   27.2%   35.8%   -8.6%   4   5
ISU   23.8%   33.4%   -9.6%   1   8


I do think there is some merit in looking at Manley's OR% free PPP, but it doesn't give you a real indicator for all teams. It lets you know who is most efficient in the half court or getting easy shots in transition, but its not real practical b/c you have to compare to the OR% numbers to get a good indication of where the teams are in the league. Its then when you can see why MU and KSU are at the same position for example b/c MU has much better UFR numbers, but KSU is much better in rebounding. Of course, kenpom's numbers have that built in.