Pomroy O-Ratings for MSU Game

[NersEllenson]

Interesting numbers.

Pomroy must place a HUGE weight on Turnovers.  Explains why last year Jake had a decent O-Rating as he rarely turned the ball over - since he rarely ever did anything with it as far as driving the ball, pushing in transition etc.

Steve:  132
JJJ:  113
Duane: 106  (3 turnovers)
Juan: 103
Carlino: 98 (3 turnovers)
Derrick:96
Burton: 85  (3 turnovers in 19 minutes killed his rating)

[MikeDeanesDarkGlasses]

Interesting numbers.

Pomroy must places a HUGE weight on Turnovers.  Explains why last year Jake had a decent O-Rating as he rarely turned the ball over - since he rarely ever did anything with it as far as driving the ball, pushing in transition etc.

Steve:  132
JJJ:  113
Duane: 106  (3 turnovers)
Juan: 103
Carlino: 98 (3 turnovers)
Derrick:96
Burton: 85  (3 turnovers in 19 minutes killed his rating)

IT would be nice to see a graph of this to see what the trends are, going back to game one.  Part of the turnover problem is not having a big man so guards have to slash inside.  Of course, we took some ill-advised shots when 2 defenders were guarding or when Carlino launched a few deep threes.  This team needs to limit those bad shots in order to have a better shot at winning.  There are still too many low-quality possessions.

If we convert 5 low quality possessions in this game to high quality then we are within striking distance.  We are getting closer and improving but have a long way to go.  Efficient basketball has to be played from here on out for this team to put some wins together. 

[Jay Bee]

Pomeroy doesn't do anything to Offensive Rating (ex 47.5 ft). It's based a calc from someone else.

[Eldon]

Interesting numbers.

Pomroy must place a HUGE weight on Turnovers.  Explains why last year Jake had a decent O-Rating as he rarely turned the ball over - since he rarely ever did anything with it as far as driving the ball, pushing in transition etc.

Steve:  132
JJJ:  113
Duane: 106  (3 turnovers)
Juan: 103
Carlino: 98 (3 turnovers)
Derrick:96
Burton: 85  (3 turnovers in 19 minutes killed his rating)

No statistic is perfect of course, but a high weight on not turning the ball over has its downsides.

Reminds of A-Rod's first year or two as a starter. He had good qb ratings, but that's because qb rating doesn't include sacks. I think he was sacked the most times in NFL history that season. Often times those sacks were his own fault. He had no internal clock and was EXTREMELY risk-averse to throwing an interception.

In a word, metrics like qb rating and potentially KenPom's O-rating overvalue players who are overly conservative.

[bamamarquettefan]

I found the same things when calculating the math to create the Value Add formulas. A turnover is the most damaging thing because a player ends the possession by himself, so it is a -1 for the player (since the average trip results in about 1.0 point, so if you turn it over without giving your team a chance the trip is a 0.0 all because of you and therefore you cost your team an entire points).

By the same token a steal is worth an entire point because you ended the opponents possession without giving them a chance to score, so you get a 1.0 yourself, plus you get a little more because teams with more steals force more turnovers that are not steals, so the pressure means you are really credited more than 1.0 per steal in Value Add.

Other things are usually worth a fraction of a point. When you miss a shot then you cost your team an average of 0.67 points, because your team has a 0.33 chance of grabbing the offensive rebound, so a missed shot hurts a team less than a turnover.

If you make a shot you are often dividing the credit with an assist, so you don't get a full +1.0 for that, and while a three-point shot is worth more than 1.0 even with an assist, someone who is getting points by making shots is almost always losing some of it back with missed shots.

When you get a steal or turn it over it is all you basically so the math really does indicate that you are helping your team more if you have steals and do not have turnovers. That was really how Jae Crowder rose to No. 2 in the national ratings in Value Add way before the national media discovered him - he just never turned the ball over and had tons of steals as well as blocks and rebounds.

I understand your comment on the stats favoring more conservative players, but really I do believe that is more accurate and the more common fault is that people do not look at turnovers and missed shots to realize that a guy with 25 points on 10 of 30 shooting with 5 turnovers is usually not as valuable as a guy who it 5 of 7 shots in a game and came up with 6 assists and 4 steals without a turnover.

i actually just posted something on Cracked Sidewalks on how important blocked shots are, but will not duplicate that discussion here.

[MikeDeanesDarkGlasses]

Bama - does it say in the statistics anywhere how many possessions each team had?

[brewcity77]

Calculating possessions: http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/stats_explained

Based on last night's game, the formula gives us 64.55 possessions for both teams. Because Michigan State won the tip-off and started the second half with the ball, the likely stat for that is 65 possessions for MSU and 64 possessions for Marquette.

[mattyv1908]

Interesting numbers.

Pomroy must place a HUGE weight on Turnovers.  Explains why last year Jake had a decent O-Rating as he rarely turned the ball over - since he rarely ever did anything with it as far as driving the ball, pushing in transition etc.

Steve:  132
JJJ:  113
Duane: 106  (3 turnovers)
Juan: 103
Carlino: 98 (3 turnovers)
Derrick:96
Burton: 85  (3 turnovers in 19 minutes killed his rating)

Ners, you couldn't be more wrong in your assumption.  ORtg is a measurement of how proficient a player (along with his team mates on the court) are at scoring based on possessions.  You don't get docked points for turnovers or rewarded points for assists.  Well, technically a turnover is a wasted possession so it would acount for a SLIGHTLY lower ORtg but you get my drift.

The reason I would guess Burton's rating was so low was because he was on the court for the majority of MSU's run in which our team saw many empty possessions allowing that run to occur.  That doesn't mean Burton was the sole problem or even they primary problem, just that the team scored fewer points per possession when he was in the game.  Lots of reasons that could be.

[NersEllenson]

Ners, you couldn't be more wrong in your assumption.  ORtg is a measurement of how proficient a player (along with his team mates on the court) are at scoring based on possessions.  You don't get docked points for turnovers or rewarded points for assists.  Well, technically a turnover is a wasted possession so it would acount for a SLIGHTLY lower ORtg but you get my drift.

The reason I would guess Burton's rating was so low was because he was on the court for the majority of MSU's run in which our team saw many empty possessions allowing that run to occur.  That doesn't mean Burton was the sole problem or even they primary problem, just that the team scored fewer points per possession when he was in the game.  Lots of reasons that could be.

Hi Matty - I agree/disagree.  Turnovers are a HUGE negative for O-Rating, because to your point, a Turnover results in an empty possession.   Why would what the other team is doing on the offensive end - "going on a run" affect a player's O-Rating? I can't recall if Burton was on the floor during that one explosion MSU had in second half?  Burton put up 10 points in his 19 minutes so there was production during his time, which contradicts the empty possession notion, no?  It would seem odd to me that we scored fewer points per possession (when due to Deonte's 3 turnovers) we had 3 less possessions, yet he contributed 10 points in 19 minutes.

Unfortunately, I can't see on Pomroy how he defines/formulate his O-Ratings. Perhaps you can help clarify?

[mattyv1908]

Hi Matty - I agree/disagree.  Turnovers are a HUGE negative for O-Rating, because to your point, a Turnover results in an empty possession.   Why would what the other team is doing on the offensive end - "going on a run" affect a player's O-Rating? I can't recall if Burton was on the floor during that one explosion MSU had in second half?  Burton put up 10 points in his 19 minutes so there was production during his time, which contradicts the empty possession notion, no?  It would seem odd to me that we scored fewer points per possession (when due to Deonte's 3 turnovers) we had 3 less possessions, yet he contributed 10 points in 19 minutes.

Unfortunately, I can't see on Pomroy how he defines/formulate his O-Ratings. Perhaps you can help clarify?

Ners-

1.  For a team to go on a run, it would be indicative of the opponent to not score during that run or they would simply be trading baskets.

2.  ORtg doesn't count a turnover any differently than any other outcome that doesn't yield points.  A turnover isn't a loss of possession, it is the result of that possession.  For example, say MU has 10 possessions and every possession results in them drawing a foul and going 1 for 2 from the line scoring ten points.  That would equate to a 100 ORtg or 100 points per 100 possessions.  Say that same 10 possessions resulted in 3 turnovers, 2 missed shots and 5 made three pointers for 15 points.  You'd see an ORtg over that 10 possessions of 150.  It's a ratio.

3.  Burton was in for the majority of the 4+ minutes Marquette didn't score a basket.

4.  A 19 minute, one game sample is not enough to measure a player's offensive efficiency.  As the season progresses a more accurate picture will be told but if you're using only a single game's performance you'd be mistaken to think that Taylor is a more efficient offensive player than Gardner.

5.  As a previous poster indicated, Pomroy doesn't alter his formula for ORtg.  It's simply that standard ORtg which is factored by taking the amount of points scored divided by the number of possessions and then multiplied out to 100 possessions.  I believe Marquette had 64 possessions last night and scored 68 points.  68/64 = 1.0625 X 100 = 106.3 ORtg for the team.  If you simply (and crudely) divided MU's 64 possessions over 40 minutes that's 1.6 possessions per minute.  If Burton played 19 minutes he roughly saw 30.4 possessions last night and the team roughly (crudely) scored 26 points in his time on the court.  Of course that's not completely accurate as I have no clue exactly how many possessions Burton actually saw but it's a start to hopefully show you it's factored.

[mattyv1908]

Last thought Ners, what ORtg does is try to measure a team, or player's, offensive efficiency regardless of tempo.  While one team may score more ppg than another team, you really can't look at offensive efficiency if those two teams play vastly different tempos.

Look at the pace that the Arkansas '40 minutes of hell' team played at compared to Bo Ryan's Badger teams.  Looking at simply their ppg it would appear that Arkansas was a better offensive team, but in reality you need a stat like ORtg to compare the efficiency because of the stylistic diffences in which my two example teams played.

[MikeDeanesDarkGlasses]

Last thought Ners, what ORtg does is try to measure a team, or player's, offensive efficiency regardless of tempo.  While one team may score more ppg than another team, you really can't look at offensive efficiency if those two teams play vastly different tempos.

Look at the pace that the Arkansas '40 minutes of hell' team played at compared to Bo Ryan's older Badger teams.  Looking at simply their ppg it would appear that Arkansas was a better offensive team, but in reality you need a stat like ORtg to compare the efficiency because of the stylistic diffences in which my two example teams played.

You don't need an O rating to know that a team like Arkansas is going to have more possessions in a game than Bo Ryan's teams and  you can look at offensive efficiency.  The value of a possession goes down in quick tempo while it's value goes up significantly in a slow game.  It's quite simple really. 

[jesmu84]

Interesting numbers.

Pomroy must place a HUGE weight on Turnovers.  Explains why last year Jake had a decent O-Rating as he rarely turned the ball over - since he rarely ever did anything with it as far as driving the ball, pushing in transition etc.

Steve:  132
JJJ:  113
Duane: 106  (3 turnovers)
Juan: 103
Carlino: 98 (3 turnovers)
Derrick:96
Burton: 85  (3 turnovers in 19 minutes killed his rating)

So you make this claim in this thread followed by multiple people stating you're incorrectly understanding how the ratings work. THen you go into the Dawson thread and use this same debunked claim as evidence. Interesting indeed

[Jay Bee]

Hi Matty - I agree/disagree.  Turnovers are a HUGE negative for O-Rating, because to your point, a Turnover results in an empty possession.   Why would what the other team is doing on the offensive end - "going on a run" affect a player's O-Rating? I can't recall if Burton was on the floor during that one explosion MSU had in second half?  Burton put up 10 points in his 19 minutes so there was production during his time, which contradicts the empty possession notion, no?  It would seem odd to me that we scored fewer points per possession (when due to Deonte's 3 turnovers) we had 3 less possessions, yet he contributed 10 points in 19 minutes.

Unfortunately, I can't see on Pomroy how he defines/formulate his O-Ratings. Perhaps you can help clarify?

Lol.. it's Pomeroy and they are not his O-ratings. Cripes almighty.

Read the book. Basketball on Paper. Dean Oliver. 2004.

[NersEllenson]

Ners-

1.  For a team to go on a run, it would be indicative of the opponent to not score during that run or they would simply be trading baskets.

2.  ORtg doesn't count a turnover any differently than any other outcome that doesn't yield points.  A turnover isn't a loss of possession, it is the result of that possession.  For example, say MU has 10 possessions and every possession results in them drawing a foul and going 1 for 2 from the line scoring ten points.  That would equate to a 100 ORtg or 100 points per 100 possessions.  Say that same 10 possessions resulted in 3 turnovers, 2 missed shots and 5 made three pointers for 15 points.  You'd see an ORtg over that 10 possessions of 150.  It's a ratio.

3.  Burton was in for the majority of the 4+ minutes Marquette didn't score a basket.

4.  A 19 minute, one game sample is not enough to measure a player's offensive efficiency.  As the season progresses a more accurate picture will be told but if you're using only a single game's performance you'd be mistaken to think that Taylor is a more efficient offensive player than Gardner.

5.  As a previous poster indicated, Pomroy doesn't alter his formula for ORtg.  It's simply that standard ORtg which is factored by taking the amount of points scored divided by the number of possessions and then multiplied out to 100 possessions.  I believe Marquette had 64 possessions last night and scored 68 points.  68/64 = 1.0625 X 100 = 106.3 ORtg for the team.  If you simply (and crudely) divided MU's 64 possessions over 40 minutes that's 1.6 possessions per minute.  If Burton played 19 minutes he roughly saw 30.4 possessions last night and the team roughly (crudely) scored 26 points in his time on the court.  Of course that's not completely accurate as I have no clue exactly how many possessions Burton actually saw but it's a start to hopefully show you it's factored.

Thanks for the explanation Matty.  I guess where I'm confused is if a player's individual O-Rating is calculated using the same methodology as the team O-Rating for a game - which it appears to be?  As you point out in Number 2 above, you mention how the team O-Rating is calculated - which I understand/understood - where I'm confused is if that is the exact same way an individual player's O-Rating is calculated?

In other words how can you calculate an individual's true impact/O-Rating for their time on the floor/number of possessions played, when the production is also the byproduct of what the other 4 guys on the floor are doing at that time?

[Jay Bee]

There is no team O Rating.

[NersEllenson]

There is no team O Rating.

Maybe I should read the book.   

[mattyv1908]

There is no team O Rating.

Jay Bee,

You can look at any sports reference website and clearly find both NBA and NCAA team ORtg and DRtg figures.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2014_ratings.html

[mattyv1908]

Thanks for the explanation Matty.  I guess where I'm confused is if a player's individual O-Rating is calculated using the same methodology as the team O-Rating for a game - which it appears to be?  As you point out in Number 2 above, you mention how the team O-Rating is calculated - which I understand/understood - where I'm confused is if that is the exact same way an individual player's O-Rating is calculated?

In other words how can you calculate an individual's true impact/O-Rating for their time on the floor/number of possessions played, when the production is also the byproduct of what the other 4 guys on the floor are doing at that time?

Correct, a player's ORtg is a reflection of the entire team's production per possession while they are on the court.  It cannot guage solely an individual yet can provide context on how effective an offense is (over time) with that player on the court.

[Henry Sugar]

Correct, a player's ORtg is a reflection of the entire team's production per possession while they are on the court.  It cannot guage solely an individual yet can provide context on how effective an offense is (over time) with that player on the court.

I don't think you have a proper understanding of ORtg, DRtg and how they are calculated. A player's ORtg is different from the team's offensive efficiency.

[Jay Bee]

Jay Bee,

You can look at any sports reference website and clearly find both NBA and NCAA team ORtg and DRtg figures.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2014_ratings.html

Sorry, but you've got some studying to do.