You got it, prof. That's exactly right. Pts per possession, or per 100 possessions, are independent of tempo or even game time played. You could measure a team's pts per possession after one half, one quarter, 5 minutes, anytime you wanted to, to get a sense of how well they're capitalizing on the possessions they've been getting. That's why you can't just compare the Pistons' point total to the Suns and say, "the Suns are a better offensive team than the Pistons are." If you want to measure things by efficiency, you have to even things out by comparing based on an equal number of possessions for both teams. Pts per 100 possessions is presumably used because it gives a nice round number for the purposes of comparison, but anything you could conclude from that number would be exactly the same if you used pts per possession.

On the other hand, the total number of possessions a team has in one game (or half, quarter, etc.) would be a measure of the tempo they're playing at, with more possessions equalling a faster tempo. Obviously the Suns play at a faster pace than the Pistons, and this is illustrated by Phoenix's higher number of possessions per game.

Oh yeah, who's smart?? thanks d4, for the patience.

Next question: pertaining to what I was calling defensive efficiency. Would you say that the best defensive teams are those whose opponents have a lower number of points per 100 possessions? (still trying to get my head around the Suns topping that category) Is there a way to use the numbers I had to evaluate defensive efficiency (independent of tempo of course).

Come to think of it, prof, maybe you were confused about this: if I want to compare two different teams according to offensive efficiency, I have to use something like pts per 100 possessions for the comparison to make sense. But if I want to compute your "goodness index" and use THAT for a basis of comparison between the same two teams, then all I need is total numbers for pts scored and pts allowed. The calculation of "goodness" for each team will be the same (or so close as to be effectively the same) regardless of whether I use efficiency or point totals. This is because when I compare one team's offense with its own defense, the matter of tempo is not relevant, because nobody plays with one tempo on offense and a different one on defense, i.e. no team averages more or fewer possessions on offense than they do on defense.

Ah yes, good question. Take another look at your numbers: the league leader in fewest pts allowed per 100 possessions was the Spurs, and the Pistons were tied for 5th. I assume Phoenix was pretty low on that list, although I'm not sure. This seems like a good way to measure defensive efficiency.

However, the "defensive efficiency" stat you came up with involved dividing that number by the total number of defensive possessions per game, and THAT introduces a factor of tempo. Not only that, but it introduces that factor in this particular way: the MORE defensive possessions you give up (i.e. the faster tempo you play at), the BETTER your "professor's defensive efficiency" will be, because the larger number in the denonimator will lower the overall value (and a lower number should be "better," in the case of defense). This is what leads to what I think is the misleading ranking of having Phoenix #1 in the league: they're being rewarded simply for allowing more possessions per game.

oh my god. i want to die.

let me try to put this question exactly as it is forming in my head: why is that when i divide each team's "points given up per 100 possessions" by "opponent possessions per game" Phoenix (106/97 =1.093) has the lowest number, Portland (112/87=1.287) has the highest number, San Antonio (100/89 = 1.124) has the fifth lowest number, and Detroit (103/87=1.184) has the 20th lowest number? Does this number mean anything at all?

I'm thinking it doesn't since the rankings it yields are so all over the place (scattering teams I think of as good or bad defensively all over the place). But then it seemed like a meaningful number for comparing offenses or maybe it wasn't.

See my 7:16 post, prof.

Overall, with the number you calculated in your first post starting off this thread, you introduced a factor of tempo by dividing by possessions per game. On offense, you were effectively introducting a factor that said: the faster tempo you play at, the worse your ranking will be, i.e. a team that plays up-tempo is penalized because they're expected to be more efficient. It might not quite be right, but it's not too crazy, since a faster pace will probably get you more good looks (with the cost of giving your opponent more good looks on the other end), and perhaps that accounts for matching reasonably well with what you'd expect for the overall rankings. But on defense, dividing by possessions per game means that the faster your tempo, the BETTER your ranking will be, which doesn't make much sense.

prof, d4e you guys are absolutely killin' me

d4 become a preschool teacher (or a saint) his explanations were so patient and clear.

i should stick to my day job (words) and leave the numbers to people who can actually count.

The Q now becomes "if the Pistons have the most efficient O at a slow rate why wouldn't it have the same high rating at a faster tempo? And hence we would be kickin' Heat azzzzz.

Because Chauncey Billups is a terrible decision maker when offensive sets break down.

Watching him run a 3 on 1 fast break is like dying of the flesh-eating disease.

He can execute sets well, but ask the dude to change tempo, exploit a matchup, ride the hot hand or make a play to get someone open and you are inviting disaster.

__________________
Nov 13 LW Milan Lucic had an active night. He scored his first goal in eight games since his Oct. 25 hat trick and also pounded Michael Komisarek in a third-period fight. Lucic cut his hand in a fight with Michael Komisarek. "I'll be fine," he said. "(X-rays are) negative, but there's so many broken bones in there from before you can't really tell."