I have always wondered why the NBA included 3ptFG% with 2ptFG%, but has a seperate 3ptFG% stat? For example, last night vs sixers, CBillups was listed as 3-9 FG and 0-5 3ptFG. wHY NOT 3-4 2PTfg% and 0-5 3ptFG% ??!! I think the NBA does a diservice to its players and itself when you include the two, because you do get an extra point for making a shot beyond the arc. I just dont get it.........

Also, what other things do u hate???.


LI-I-I-I-KE:

1. RED WINGS WEARING WHITE ON THE ROAD AND RED AT HOME
2. ANYTEAM WEARING THROWBACKS WHEN THE OTHER TEAM IS DRESSED PRESENT
3. MUSIC DURING THE GAME
4. OVERTIME IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL(I hate the stats for TD passes included in regular play stats)
5. A OT POINT IN HOCKEY EVEN WHEN U LOSE
6. BRAIDS COMING OUT THE BACK OF HELMETS
7. ROY WILLIAMS FIRST DOWN SIGNAL
8. BLAHA AND KELSER'S HOMERITIS
9. ABC ON ESPN AND VISE-VERSA
10. EXPANSION

Since your list goes beyond just stats, I'll throw in my long-standing hatred of the phrase "scoring the basketball." It's obviously influenced by the non-stop use of the word "football" in commentary on that sport: teams are "running the football" or "throwing the football," a good player is a "good football player," a bad team is a "bad football team," etc. It's so commonplace that it's hardly noticeable a lot of the time, but it sticks out like a sore thumb when basketball analysts use it. OK, so the Bulls right now are "not a very good basketball team"...WTF other kind of team would they be?! But the worst, of course, is the aforementioned "scoring the basketball," which is just awful.

I have always wondered why the NBA included 3ptFG% with 2ptFG%, but has a seperate 3ptFG% stat? For example, last night vs sixers, CBillups was listed as 3-9 FG and 0-5 3ptFG. wHY NOT 3-4 2PTfg% and 0-5 3ptFG% ??!! I think the NBA does a diservice to its players and itself when you include the two, because you do get an extra point for making a shot beyond the arc. I just dont get it.........

Also, what other things do u hate???.


LI-I-I-I-KE:

1. RED WINGS WEARING WHITE ON THE ROAD AND RED AT HOME
2. ANYTEAM WEARING THROWBACKS WHEN THE OTHER TEAM IS DRESSED PRESENT
3. MUSIC DURING THE GAME
4. OVERTIME IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL(I hate the stats for TD passes included in regular play stats)
5. A OT POINT IN HOCKEY EVEN WHEN U LOSE
6. BRAIDS COMING OUT THE BACK OF HELMETS
7. ROY WILLIAMS FIRST DOWN SIGNAL
8. BLAHA AND KELSER'S HOMERITIS
9. ABC ON ESPN AND VISE-VERSA
10. EXPANSION

I like all of those things. :pound:

How about these things (that aren't stats):

Slapping hands with everyone on a missed free throw.

Intentionally fouling the other team in the closing moments when there is clearly no chance to catch them.

Fans sitting next to you at the game who don't know who Jason Maxiell is.

Players that take the last shot of the half from 3/4 court...just after the buzzer so it won't hurt their stats.

Some stupid stats of D. Vitale.


"....It is absolutely wacky, baby!”

“It is time for everyone to sit down..."

“I'm living the American dream.”

“I learned from my mom and dad.."

"...if you gave 110 percent all the time, a lot of beautiful things will happen..."

“You'd have to live in a cave not to know about the Carrier Dome. It put Syracuse on the map.”

"..you've got your team playing at a higher level.."

“They have one of the blue chip coaches in America..."

"...but one thing is this year, the league has a lot of balance...."

"Twelve for 23... It doesn't take a genius to see that's under 50 percent."



Vitale is well known for covering the biggest games with his rare form of energy, coining terms like

"Diaper Dandy" (an outstanding freshman)
a "PTPer" (a prime time performer),
"Maalox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maalox) Masher" (the end of a close game),
"Trifecta" (a three point basket),
"slap a lapper" and "dipsy-doo dunkeroo slam-jam-bam, baby!" (an exciting slam dunk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slam_dunk)).

Also, from time to time he would refer to a player making almost all his shots by saying "call the fire chief cause he's on fire!".

His most well-known bon mot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon_mot) is to end a sentence with "baby!" He frequently says, "It's awesome baby!"

Another phrase he uses is "Freeze it!" during a instant replay, when he wants to spotlight a certain play. Vitale's signature style is composed of his catchphrases, voice and his accent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accent_%28linguistics%29).

On a more serious note, I have always wondered about why doesn't the league compute and show an adjusted FG% to take into account the fact that some field goals are three point goals, because 2 out of 6 three point attempts gives you the same points as 3 out of 6 two point attempts.

I would also like the league to break out FG percentage by location within the arc, e.g. FG% for each player in the paint and out of the paint. Since they already compute points in the paint, why not FG% in the paint?

Dick Vitale quotes (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/dick_vitale/)

Funny Dick Vitale Quotes - Funny Quotes by Dick Vitale (http://www.basicjokes.com/dquotes.php?aid=2904)

Dick Vitale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Vitale)

:hoops:

I've always believed in the PP stat. That's the points scored versus the points possible. If a player takes 6 "3 point shots" and 6 regular shots, then his points possible is 30. If he has 15 points then his PP is 50%. Doesn't really matter where the shots are taken....... Just score baby, score.......

On a more serious note, I have always wondered about why doesn't the league compute and show an adjusted FG% to take into account the fact that some field goals are three point goals, because 2 out of 6 three point attempts gives you the same points as 3 out of 6 two point attempts.

Actually, most web sites that post NBA statistics include the Adjusted FG% which you speak of.


AFG%: Adjusted FG Percentage = [(PTS - FTM)/FGA]/2
ADJ FG% measures shooting efficiency by taking into account the total points a player produces through his field goal attempts. The intention of this adjustment is largely to evaluate the impact of three-point shooting. For ex: If Shaquille O'Neal has 3-5 FG, all two-point shots for 6 points, then his ADJ FG% = [(6/5)]/2 = .600. Meanwhile, if Ray Allen is 2-5 FG, but his 2 FGM are both three-pointers for 6 points, then his ADJ FG% = [(6/5)]/2 = .600


Daniel Gibson and Steve Nash currently lead the NBA in AFG%. Last year, Nash was the highest with Mikki Moore second. Moore actually shot 60.9% from 2-point range. Without shooting any 3-pointers, his AFG% was the same (60.9%). No Piston was in the top 50 last year. Prince was 59th at 50.1%.


ESPN - NBA Statistics and League Leaders - National Basketball Association (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/statistics?stat=nbafgpct&qual=true&sort=afg%&league=nba&split=0&season=2008&seasontype=2&pos=all)

Players that take the last shot of the half from 3/4 court...just after the buzzer so it won't hurt their stats.

Yeah, that is really pathetic when they do that.

Actually, most web sites that post NBA statistics include the Adjusted FG% which you speak of.


Thanks for let me know. Those dirty dogs stole my idea. They will be hearing from my attorney like yesterday.

:eyebrows::laugh:

:hoops:

Players that take the last shot of the half from 3/4 court...just after the buzzer so it won't hurt their stats.

Dare I ask.

Are there any of those on our Pistons?

If so is video of them doing it on YouTube?

Thanks

:hoops:

Since your list goes beyond just stats, I'll throw in my long-standing hatred of the phrase "scoring the basketball." It's obviously influenced by the non-stop use of the word "football" in commentary on that sport: teams are "running the football" or "throwing the football," a good player is a "good football player," a bad team is a "bad football team," etc. It's so commonplace that it's hardly noticeable a lot of the time, but it sticks out like a sore thumb when basketball analysts use it. OK, so the Bulls right now are "not a very good basketball team"...WTF other kind of team would they be?! But the worst, of course, is the aforementioned "scoring the basketball," which is just awful.
I couldn't help but read this post with a John Madden voice in my head. That is EXACTLY how he talks all the time!

Tom Brady is a good football player. And what you need to be successful in the game of football is to have your good football players playing good football more times than the other teams football players. Now that's good football.

:pound::pound::pound:

I couldn't help but read this post with a John Madden voice in my head. That is EXACTLY how he talks all the time!

:pound::pound::pound:

Speaking of Madden, Frank Caliendo does a better Madden than Madden does Madden. Have you seen Frank TV?

FrankCaliendo.com - Video of Frank Caliendo, comedian & impressionist (http://www.frankcaliendo.com/index.php?page=video)

The first time I heard Caliendo was on Stoney & Wojo. I was driving to the Post Office. I had to pull over on the side of the road because I was laughing so hard.

Is there any relationship between this John Madden who plays for the New Jersey Devlis and the American football analyst on TV.

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/nhl/profiles/players/65x90/1774.jpg

ESPN - New Jersey Devils News, Schedule, Players, Scores, Stats, Photos, Rumors - NHL Hockey (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/players/profile?playerId=557)

:hoops:

Time of possession in football and winning.

Not cause-effect.

Time of possession in football and winning.

Not cause-effect.

Ta, can you elaborate why you single out this particular stat? I mean, it seems to me that no single statistical average has a one to one cause effect relation with winning and that only single stat that has a one to one cause effect relation with winning in the course of a particular contest is points scored. Or do you mean that time of possession has absolutely no correlation with winning. Just looking for a clarification because i like to learn about how statistically adept individuals (i.e. not me) think through these issues. thanks

It is definitely correlated, but not as strongly as other stats.

A big reason why it is correlated is that turnovers tend to take away from your TOP. And of course, turnovers also make you lose. So in this case, 'A' causes both 'B' and 'C'.

The general perception is that if you have a high time of possession, it leaves less time for the other team to use, which therefore benefits you. That sounds right, until you really think about it.

Would it really be any better for the Lions if they took 10 plays to score and chewed up 6:00 on the clock than if they just ran back the kickoff? Sure, you'd leave the other team with more time on the clock, but when they are done, the Lions would also have more time on the clock... and so on.

Basically, as long as you get the same number of possessions as the other team, you will have an equal chance of winning... provided that the other team is equal to you in ability.


The only time that I think chewing up the clock would be beneficial is if you are an inferior team. In that case, you want to minimize the # of possessions in the game to increase your odds of getting lucky. The examples would be that tons of guys beat Tiger Woods over the course of 18 holes, but not many over the course of 72 holes. This is why some crappy high school teams used the stall tactic.

The other argument that I've heard is that the defensive line gets tired. I guess my problem with that is that I would think that offensive line would as well.

Lifetime team records vs another team. Like saying "Oh the ____ haven't won in/against ____ for __ years." Why the freak should I care how well the guys who were on the team 20 years ago played? Does that remotely have any effect whatsoever on this particular matchup? Now, if you're talking about the last few seasons and you take into account who was on the team then vs now, then you're making a good point. But I want to blow my brains out everytime I hear things like "the Packers are 0-10 lifetime at Dallas" Who freaking cares? How many of those game were even played in this decade? And how many of the players are still in the league, let alone still playing for the same team? (besides Old Man Favre, of course)

I guess here is what I would change about the time of possession stat.

Take the total time of possession for each team and divide by the number of plays that they had.

So, in the Lions vs. Vikings game for example,

The Lions took up 32 seconds per play.

The Vikings took up 34 seconds per play.


They killed us in total time of possession, but it wasn't because they were running the ball and milking the clock, it was because they were getting first downs and not turning the ball over.

this isn't a stat, but i hate this trend when a player is being interviewed:

'if i would have told you that ____ and that you guys were winning by 10, what would you have said?' or some variation

When they say "the team that scores first wins x% of the time" - not accounting for the notion that any team that fails to score never wins at all. It would have to be the team that scores first when both teams score to make any sense at all.

When they say "the team that scores first wins x% of the time" - not accounting for the notion that any team that fails to score never wins at all. It would have to be the team that scores first when both teams score to make any sense at all.

That has always bugged me too.

Here is why it's a meaningless stat.

It's usually used in playoff series where one team wins the first game of the series. Well, to take a simple example, if you matched heads vs. tails against eachother in a race to 2, the side of the coin that scored first would go on to win 75% of the time. What does that tell you? It's not like that side of the coin gained a psychological advantage or got momentum, or whatever else they are implying.

Also, a related statistic is when they say, teams who go down 0-3 only win the series .001% of the time. The reason for that is because the team without a win is usually an inferior team. If the Spurs happen to find themselves down 0-3 to the Grizzlies in the playoffs, then the Spurs chance of winning the series will be more like 40%.

i think both of you are looking at those statistics in the wrong context. they're not necessarily meant to predict the outcome of the current game / series you're referring to, they're just reporting facts.

if a team that scores first wins X% of the time, that's simply stating a statistical fact. that doesn't mean you should try to score first no matter what (like go for 4th downs until you get until field goal range) to play those percentages. similarly, if 997 out of 1000 teams that go up 3-0 win a series, it's just reitering how historically difficult it is for the team down 0-3 to come back and win.

I know they are factual. I'm just saying they are stupid and I have to deal with them (ala the thread title).

100% of NBA teams that score the most points win the game. Very factual. Very useless.


Another related stat is the first to 100.

The team that reaches 100 points first wins 80% of the time. The team that reaches 160 first wins 99% of the time. Great. So scoring more points increasing your chances of winning, brilliant!

Actually their is one very interesting hoops stat that I like that few people outside of Los Angeles have ever heard of; i..e Lawler's Law.


Lawler's Law: The first team to 100 points wins the game. In games involving the Clippers since 1978, Lawler's law has been true 91.5% of the time.


The percentage is probably very close to that for all games in the league.

Ralph Lawler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Lawler)

:hoops:

Here's some follow up thoughts on my time of possession grumbling.

Detroit lost 27-28 against Dallas, yet won the TOP battle 32:25 to 27:35

Pittsburgh was crushed by New England by a score of 13 to 34, yet they won the TOP by a huge margin, 34:43 to 25:17.

Similarly, Baltimore was blown away by Indy 20-44, yet they dominated the TOP 33:09 to 26:51.


I rest my case.

Soilent Green is people, it's people !

Soilent Green is people, it's people !

Pardon?

Old School knows...

That has always bugged me too.

Here is why it's a meaningless stat.

It's usually used in playoff series where one team wins the first game of the series. Well, to take a simple example, if you matched heads vs. tails against eachother in a race to 2, the side of the coin that scored first would go on to win 75% of the time. What does that tell you? It's not like that side of the coin gained a psychological advantage or got momentum, or whatever else they are implying.

Also, a related statistic is when they say, teams who go down 0-3 only win the series .001% of the time. The reason for that is because the team without a win is usually an inferior team. If the Spurs happen to find themselves down 0-3 to the Grizzlies in the playoffs, then the Spurs chance of winning the series will be more like 40%.


In some ways then it's a little stronger than you might expect, and interestingly the third quarter is the one where the team that scores first has shown the most connection to winning the game at the end.


How often a team wins scoring first/last
Period---First Score Win%---Last Score Win%
-----------------------------------------------
1st Quarter----54%----------------56%
2nd Quarter--- 52%--------------- 52%
3rd Quarter--- 57%--------------- 54%
4th Quarter--- 54%--------------- 59%
Overtime*---- 65% ---------------65%

So from the above we can see that a team that scores first in the 3rd quarter and last in the 4th quarter has the greatest chance of winning.

The next best combination is to score last in the both the 1st and 4th quarters.

The second quarter seems to be a wash not mattering too much if you score first and last or first and last.


NBA Random Stat: How often do teams that score first and last win? from 82games.com (http://www.82games.com/random21.htm)

:hoops:

I'm with you Thee

Lifetime team records vs another team. Like saying "Oh the ____ haven't won in/against ____ for __ years." Why the freak should I care how well the guys who were on the team 20 years ago played? Does that remotely have any effect whatsoever on this particular matchup? Now, if you're talking about the last few seasons and you take into account who was on the team then vs now, then you're making a good point. But I want to blow my brains out everytime I hear things like "the Packers are 0-10 lifetime at Dallas" Who freaking cares? How many of those game were even played in this decade? And how many of the players are still in the league, let alone still playing for the same team? (besides Old Man Favre, of course)
just to let u know:
I THINK WE HAVE A WINNER HERE!!!!!:p_welldone: