Comments on: Thoughts from Bill James

By: Dianthe

Dianthe — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:08:10 +0000

Good for people to know.

By: Mountain

Mountain — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:50:56 +0000

guess “on” causation

The adaptation of coaches or not to pace success trends (if there are any) could also be tracked and the results charted. Does failure to adapt lead to more frequent exits or do those with a firm stance beat the trend chasers? I imagine it is a mixed bag but the details might be interesting. How commonly do coaches successfully change their spots? Riley is one.

By: Mountain

Mountain — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:39:09 +0000

With low correlation of the efficiencies and the 4 factors with pace - and winning and pace too- they may not be much “inherent” that aids low pace teams. Historical study needed before making any firm conclusions.

1 season could be influenced by the particular mix of philosophy at the time of the league and the quality of the coaching by philosophy. Pace and all the correlations could be further worked with the added variables of coaching experience and win %. I wonder how well GMs follow the relative success of high-low pace teams thru the decades and how quickly and far they go to copy the more successful pace.

Rules like handcheck enforcement might be playing a role in low pace edge. I could see how that might help patient teams maintain possession and eventually find the shot they like or get fouled but that is just a guess as causation.

By: Mountain

Mountain — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:06:54 +0000

Ok I checked- The 5 low pace teams in west are indeed about 2.5 pts tougher on net efficiency than the east.

Good luck in the playoffs.

By: Mountain

Mountain — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:01:44 +0000

Hornets beat low paced teams 52% of time vs 43% for all low pace teams so maybe you could in that light feel better about the near .500 performance because it is above average for the best performing group against this type of opponent They are only 6 better in entire league on this actually- Spurs, Pistons, Celtics, Rockets, Magic and Jazz. But maybe a tie for 7th isn’t enough given current performance and ambitions?

A schedule heavy of western conference opponents is tougher on offensive and defensive efficency than the east (moreso on offensive) but I havent compared it for just low paced squads.

I agree long term study would be interesting.

By: atthehive

atthehive — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:53:01 +0000

Yeah, that last concept has intrigued me all season. I’m a New Orleans Hornets fan and the “losing to lower pace” teams more often seemed counterintuitive since the Hornets play among the slowest styles in the league (and one would therefore assume that a slow pace would be a plus). But as you suggest, low pace teams seem to perform far better than their medium and fast paced counterparts, and quite likely, there’s a strength of schedule aspect totally ignored by simple pace vs. pace analysis. Even still, do you think there’s an inherent advantage slow teams have over faster ones just because of the way the game is played today? If there were W-L pace profiles of the early ’90’s, the ’80’s, etc. it would be fascinating to see the way the game has changed.

By: Mountain

Mountain — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:02:14 +0000

Using W-L profiles at 82games top 10 pace teams beat other top pace teams 50% of time. They beat mid-pace teams 65% of time. They beat low pace teams just 42% of time.

Mid 10 pace teams beat top pace teams 43% of time. They beat mid-pace teams 52% of time. They beat low pace teams just 25% of time.

Low 10 pace teams beat top pace teams 54% of time. They beat mid-pace teams 72% of time. They beat low pace teams just 43% of time.

There are many other cuts you could prepare and look at but this one suggests low pace teams are winning more often against all 3 pace levels though the gap over high pace teams is modest especially against high and low pace teams. Pace control is one thing but ultimately you want pace clash wins.

By: Mountain

Mountain — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:19:05 +0000

All the current western conference seeds are high or low on pace (i.e. outside middle third). The story isn’t quite as clearcut in east where 3 teams are barely in the middle third at 18, 19 and 20 on average pace but it is a pretty strong surface case that something about pace is worth understanding better. The odds of this being completely random are pretty small right? Multi-year again would help of course.

I havent worked up the averages yet but it seems like mid-paced teams are getting pounded this season.

By: Mountain

Mountain — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:47:32 +0000

Pace is a complex thing. Even if you have a general preference it can change within a game based on what’s working or not in terms of shots, matchups, quality of D, how the refs call it, the way the ball bounces off the rim to the competing rebounders (results a function of positioning and randomness), turnovers, who has lead and by how much, the impact of how what happens in garbage time, etc.

Pace might be worthy of some attention but it is not a first concern and might not be that high of the list of concerns. But the more you study it the better you can judge how important it is.

It may matter more / less for particular players.

By: Mountain

Mountain — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:58:54 +0000

at the hive, variance in pace vs average pace by team would be interesting next first step.

Variance at team level between their average pace and difference of actual game pace from “predicted pace” (set as the average of the 2 or weighted more weighly to the better and / or home team or really whatever function best predicts actual pace) would be even better, accounting for the variability among teams in the average pace of their schedules of opponents affected by conference and division and the relation of their pace level to that of others.

It comes down to investing the time. Maybe later.