Seeing AL Objectively - SLCdunk article

[One Brow]

well sure there are, like paul going to the line 5 times as much because he's not afraid of contact... but again, your stats are looking at a sample that i would argue is not any more representative of "crunch time" than my sample is.

Millsap also misses a lot more with that contact. The result is a basically even eFG%. One gets free throws, the other makes more baskets. So, how is one performance much better than the other?

My numbers include all games, wins and losses.

I realize you have no obligation to me.

 

[theNBAnerd]

Millsap also misses a lot more with that contact. The result is a basically even eFG%. One gets free throws, the other makes more baskets. So, how is one performance much better than the other?

My numbers include all games, wins and losses.

well that isn't exactly true, right? i thought you were using the "clutch" stats available in places like 82games.com, which doesn't include "all games", just any portion of the last 5 minutes where neither team has a large lead. in other words, it might include 5 minutes from one game, 0 minutes from the next game, 1 minute from the next game, etc. but i see your point. i just don't like the definition of "clutch" that those sites use... a player can win/lose a game for his team at the 6 minute mark just as easily as he can win/lose a game for his team at the 4 minute mark.

I realize you have no obligation to me.

no, but i do enjoy the discussion, and so far this is a discussion where we've been able to disagree without name-calling or vitriol, so we might as well keep having fun with it. it is august, after all.

 

[fishonjazz]

Millsap also misses a lot more with that contact. The result is a basically even eFG%. One gets free throws, the other makes more baskets. So, how is one performance much better than the other?

My numbers include all games, wins and losses.

I realize you have no obligation to me.

There actually is a difference between free throws and just making baskets: In order to make free throws one has to be fouled first. Foul trouble keeps players either on the bench or less effective while in the game, and fouls add up and then end up putting a team in the "penalty".

While just making a basket doesn't cause the other team to change substitution patterns and game strategies.

 

[One Brow]

well that isn't exactly true, right?

Correctly, not literally true. I clumsily worded a comparison to your data, which had just the losses from close games. Mea culpa.

I look forward to your analysis, when you have time for it, if ever.

 

[One Brow]

There actually is a difference between free throws and just making baskets: In order to make free throws one has to be fouled first. Foul trouble keeps players either on the bench or less effective while in the game, and fouls add up and then end up putting a team in the "penalty".

While just making a basket doesn't cause the other team to change substitution patterns and game strategies.

Is that a major difference? Would it be more significant than, say, not turning the ball over?

 

[NAOS]

I'll take Millsap's TO stats (and his vastly smarter passing) + more fouls on the opponent. All day.

Back to Nerd's early posting in this thread:
Research projects are initiated by research questions. Last year it sure did seem as though the Jazz melted in the last 6 minutes of close games (the point at which Al was re-inserted into the game). Why? Well, while Nerd's study isn't comprehensive at this point, it produces the beginning of an answer. There can be lots of tussling over the details, but something tells me the signs will keep pointing to Al. The coaching staff figured this out, too, as we seemed to go to Paul more consistently in late-game situations later in the year (Nerd, is this right?).

 

[theNBAnerd]

I'll take Millsap's TO stats (and his vastly smarter passing) + more fouls on the opponent. All day.

Back to Nerd's early posting in this thread:
Research projects are initiated by research questions. Last year it sure did seem as though the Jazz melted in the last 6 minutes of close games (the point at which Al was re-inserted into the game). Why? Well, while Nerd's study isn't comprehensive at this point, it produces the beginning of an answer. There can be lots of tussling over the details, but something tells me the signs will keep pointing to Al. The coaching staff figured this out, too, as we seemed to go to Paul more consistently in late-game situations later in the year (Nerd, is this right?).

not really. if we just look at april, al still out-attempted paul 51 FGAs to 41 in the 4th quarters of overtime periods of winnable losses and losable wins.

the study is coming. brace yourselves for a long post full of nerdiness. and also, if anyone knows the code to post tables in here, i'll post all that too, just so i can be as transparent as possible.

 

[NAOS]

not really. if we just look at april, al still out-attempted paul 51 FGAs to 41 in the 4th quarters of overtime periods of winnable losses and losable wins.

the study is coming. brace yourselves for a long post full of nerdiness. and also, if anyone knows the code to post tables in here, i'll post all that too, just so i can be as transparent as possible.

I guess this comes down to how you weigh the importance of the possession. It seemed like the coaches figured out that if it was an ABSOLUTE MUST HAVE bucket in the last couple of minutes, then more plays were run for Paul as the season progressed. If they weren't Paul found a way to make the shot anyway, as the highlights show. He's a closer, no doubt.

 

[theNBAnerd]

ok, here's what i came up with when i looked at "losable wins" to add that to the study...

the sample:

first, i had to define the sample. i was going to just say any game we won by less than 10... but then i saw some problems with that. first, there were games like memphis (1/6), charlotte (3/7), and cleveland (3/5) where we were up by 10-15 points until someone hit a garbage time three or two and made it look more interesting than it really was.

but the reverse was true, too. games like detroit (3/12), which looks like a blowout but was actually tied w/ 4 minutes to go before al blew up in the "grandma game." it would help my case to leave this game out, but in all honestly, that was a game that was very much "in play" in the 4th quarter. houston (4/11 - a 12-point margin, but as close as 4 with on the road in the 4th quarter) and denver (1/15 - a 10-point game, but we only led by 2 going into the fourth on the road) are other examples.

so i guess that's just my way of saying that "in play" wasn't always a result of just looking at the final score. i actually did a fair amount of research and scanned play-by-plays to determine which games were actually won in the 4th quarter and which ones were already more-or-less in the bag.

that left me with 24 games. again, i'd be happy to share the list if i could figure out the table function. sap played in all 24. jefferson played in 20.

the results:

in these games, they were actually fairly close in terms of both scoring and FG%, with slight edges to al in both categories but an IDENTICAL point-per-shot. al had a significant rebounding lead, and paul had almost 3x the assists.

* al in 4th & OT of 20 losable wins: 5.1 pts on 44/83 (53%) shooting or 1.21 PPS, with an edge in rebounds
* paul in 4th & OT of 24 losables wins: 4.7 pts on 45/93 (48.4%) shooting or 1.21 PPS, with an edge in assists

if we combine their stats in these games plus the 17 "winnable losses", what we come up with is basically 4th+OT of all 41 games this season where the 4th quarter mattered.

*al in 4th + OT of 36 games that were in the balance: 4.4 pts on 69/156 (44%) shooting or 1.01 PPS, with an edge in rebounds.
*pm in 4th + OT of 41 games that were in the balance: 5.1 pts on 82/173 (47%) shooting or 1.22 PPS, with an edge in assists.

so what does that all say: paul is at a very consistent 1.21-1.22 range for PPS in the 4th and OT, while al has a huge fluctuation that has cost us dearly in the other 17-game sample. so i still stick by my original thesis: if in late game situations we relied less on al and more on paul, we would have a more consistent offensive efficiency in 4th quarters.

other tidbits:

- another thing i noticed was how many games the jazz completely ignore paul in the 4th quarter offense. in 13 of these 41 games, he had between 0 and 2 attempts. wtf?

- as far as the turnover question goes, neither guy has enough late-game TOs to make any kind of statistical importance. in the losable wins, paul would basically have a single turnover once in every 5 games, while for al it was more like once in every 10 games. (and before anyone shouts, "that's twice as often!", just remember that a 0.1-per-game difference in ANYTHING is not enough to statistically impact anything.i didn't keep track of that when i studied the losses.

- al's best three games in the wins sample: 13-4-0 in that unconscious finish vs. detroit in the grandma game; 14-10-0 (albeit with 3 extra periods) in the dallas thriller; and 8-8-0 in the playoff-clinching win vs. phx.

- paul's best three games in the wins sample: 16-3-2 in a road win @ denver; 13-4-1 on 6-for-7 vs. minny; and 12-5-1 (albeit with 3 extra periods) in the dallas thriller.

 

[One Brow]

I'll take Millsap's TO stats (and his vastly smarter passing) + more fouls on the opponent. All day.

The passing rating of Jefferson and Millsap is pretty close to identical. So, again this supposed performance difference is not showing up in the statistics.

There can be lots of tussling over the details, but something tells me the signs will keep pointing to Al.

If it turns out that Jefferson consistently out-performed Millsap in the wins (which seems likely, given the even overall performance and Jefferson performing worse in the losses), will the signs still point to Jefferson, for you? Will there be any posible result where the signs do not point to Jefferson, for you?

 

[One Brow]

Even without a table, do you have specific criteria for games that were not decidedat the beginnning of the fourth quarter, that was applied to every game?

 

[theNBAnerd]

Even without a table, do you have specific criteria for games that were not decidedat the beginnning of the fourth quarter, that was applied to every game?

again, when i tried to use a set criteria, there were always hang-ups, like those i mentioned. by and large, it was 10 or less, although i did look at things in the 11-15 range to make sure those were games where a late 1-point lead ballooned at the 3-minute mark.

my sample was:
12/30 phi - 3 pt game
1/2 noh - 4 point game
1/7 @gsw - 1 point game
1/10 cle - 8 pt game, but within 5 as late as the final minute
1/15 @den - 10 pt game, but only up 2 going into fourth, close until about the 4 minute mark
1/21 min - 10 pt game, but only up 3 going into fourth, close until about the 3 minute mark
1/28 sac - 3 pt game
1/30 por - 4 pt game
2/4 lac - 9 pt game, but tied going into 4th, close until a 14-0 run mid-quarter
2/12 @mem - 10 pt game, but as close as 1 pt with 5 minutes left
3/2 mia - 1 pt game
3/12 det - 15 pt game, but tied w/ 4 min and then jefferson hit 6 of 6
315 min - OT game (any OT game made it regardless of final outcome)
3/17 gsw - OT game
3/18 @lal - 4 pt game
3/20 okc - 7 pt game, jazz needed late 10-4 run to win
3/22 @sac - 1 pt game
4/2 @por - 5 pt game
4/6 gsw - 6 pt game
4/9 sas - 7 pt game, came from being 4-5 pts down at around 8 minute mark
4/11 @hou - 12 pt game, but it was as close as 4 until fav+gordon scored 13 straight jazz points
4/16 dal - OT game
4/21 orl - OT game
4/24 pho - 12 pt game, but jazz had to come from behind in 4th and didn't make it a double-digit lead until 3 or so mins remaining

games that were single-digit wins, but i excluded because they weren't really in contention:
1/6 mem - lead was as high as 13 in the final minute when grizz made some "make it look better" shots
3/5 cle - lead was between 10 and 15 all throughout the second half until the final 2 minutes
3/7 cha - up 14 with 0:56 remaining, then their bench guys hit 8 straight points in the final half minute after both teams' starters sat down