Our franchise pillars are unsteady. We've broken this team down piece by piece this year. what looked sexy on the outside is cold and aloof in the middle.
GT: Jazz v 76ers | 12/28/15 | 7pm MST
- Thread starter BabyPeterzz
- Start date
2015-16 Jazz: 105.4 Offensive Rating
2014-15 Jazz: 105.1 Offensive Rating
Important also to note that the 2014-15 Jazz had Kanter for most of the season (which, for all his shortcomings on defense, did help us out quite a bit on offense) and relatively little injuries.
The offense hasn't regressed at all, even though it has had every excuse to.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
Our players are playing better due to a year of growth, but the system is not helping.
Utah's offensive rating this year is top 10. Even with all the injuries, you expected better?
I think your expectations are the problem, not the system.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
We are 16th, so in the bottom half. Can you really say our offensive sets are working well? I don't even care about the losses. I just want to see good team (Jazz) basketball. Our assist percentage is second to last and has dropped 6% since last year (the 2003 squad was ninth in ast% btw), and 6% is HUGE if you look at the comparisons. There is a reason for this. We run plays for the ball handler. Is anyone really enjoying our offensive sets?
The top teams have high ast%. Good sets also tire the opponents. We usually have 3 stagnant players on offense.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2016.html?lid=header_seasons
Go to Misc. Stats, sort by ORtg.
We are not 16th - we are 10th. Given our injuries/personnel and lack of starpower, yes, I can say that something in the system must be working very very right if we are a top 10 offense in spite of all that. I wouldn't have predicted it even for a fully healthy Jazz team.
Actually, that isn't updated for tonight's games (in which the Jazz had an absolutely horrible ORtg), so it might drop down as far as to 13th-14th after the update. But, given that tonight's game was played without 3 starters and our 6th man, such an outlier is expected.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
October we were ranked 16th:
https://stats.nba.com/league/team/#...son=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular Season&Month=1
November we were ranked 17th:
https://stats.nba.com/league/team/#...son=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular Season&Month=2
December so far we are 15th:
https://stats.nba.com/league/team/#...son=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular Season&Month=3
So no, we are not 10th. We have been in the bottom half the majority of the season. I'll take the NBA's listing over your website any day.
NBA.com and ESPN.com calculate offensive ratings using a more simple and outdated formula:
100 x Pts / ((FTA * 0.44) + FGA + TOV - OREB).
Pick a handful of games, apply this formula, and you'll see that, often, within a single game, this formula will show one team having a lot more possessions than another team. It's a simple estimate of # of possessions, and quite flawed.
Basketball reference calculates it using a significantly more refined formula, taking into account several other variables that determine the total amount of possessions for a team within a given game:
100 x Pts / (Tm FGA + .40 x Tm FTA - 1.07 x (Tm ORB / (Tm ORB + Tm DRB)) x (Tm FGA - Tm FG) + Tm TO)
100 x Pts / ((FTA * 0.44) + FGA + TOV - OREB).
Pick a handful of games, apply this formula, and you'll see that, often, within a single game, this formula will show one team having a lot more possessions than another team. It's a simple estimate of # of possessions, and quite flawed.
Basketball reference calculates it using a significantly more refined formula, taking into account several other variables that determine the total amount of possessions for a team within a given game:
100 x Pts / (Tm FGA + .40 x Tm FTA - 1.07 x (Tm ORB / (Tm ORB + Tm DRB)) x (Tm FGA - Tm FG) + Tm TO)
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
It has been a LONG time since I took Advanced Linear Statistics, but it is clear to me that Basketball Reference's calculation method is prone to high variance and multicollinearity, due to the relatively large number of predictor variables. There are pros and cons to any method. Regardless of the merits of simple and adjusted +/-, our assist % is a more telling to me. The sets we run are unwatchable, and as we have seen time and time again, are very stoppable. There is a place for our on ball screen/search dribble drive offense, but we run it WAY too often, and teams adjust and shut it down.
The larger number of variables exist because those variables are necessary in order to CALCULATE the number of possessions, as opposed to simply estimating them like NBA.com does.
To be clear, I'm not claiming that basketball-reference is perfect; just that it's far more accurate than NBA.com. In fact, I can prove it.
Let's look at Game 1 of the 2013 NBA Finals, as this is one of the best examples that had me dig into the differences between formulas in the first place:
According to basketball-reference:
SAS ortg 108.2
MIA ortg 103.5
SAS +4.7 efficiency differential
According to NBA.com:
SAS 102.3 ortg
MIA 102.9 ortg
SAS -0.6 efficiency differential.
The Spurs won by 4 points, and yet NBA.com gave the Spurs a lower offensive rating than the Heat in that game.
The main reason why NBA.com's numbers are way off (according to them, the Spurs lost Game 1!) is because they calculate offensive and defensive ratings from team pace rather than from game pace. Basketball-reference calculates team A's and team B's possessions, adds them and divides by 2, and that gives us game pace and then based on THAT calculates ortg/drtg.
It's a very good method, and from this and several other examples, I've found the error margin is very small if we compare estimated results to real (calculated manually from play-by-play).