The games, thankfully, have begun in earnest. The time is appropriate to go over a few ideas regarding the study of tempo-free analysis. The tempo-free movement, if you will, is growing. Thanks to the work of Ken Pomeroy and the group at basketballprospectus.com, there is a much greater emphasis or at least exposure to the idea of using tempo free analysis to study trends. Baseball was enlightened by the work of Bill James. Many of his disciples have worked at applying his analysis to the basketball court. Basketball analysis is still relatively in its infancy but in the last five years alone significant strides have been made.
Without going into a list and breakdown of formulas, which you will see on this site in future essays (from yours truly and the insightful work of Michael Protos), let us simply look at the concept of points per possession. For years a team giving up 55 points a game was automatically presumed a great defensive club. One allowing 70 was thought to be sloppy and disinterested on the defensive end. Tempo-free allows us to see the pace of a team. Maybe that 55 PPG allowed team is good defensively. But if there average possessions are 50, they really are not that great (1.10 Points per possession allowed ) on the defensive end. Conversely, the team allowing 70 per outing maybe a race horse pace team averaging 80 possessions. If that’s the case, they are doing a solid job (.88 points per possession allowed) on the defensive end.
Let’s take a look from last season. In Atlantic 10 play La Salle averaged 74.3 points per game while St. Bonaventure chucked in at 69.2 per. The better offensive team? St. Bonaventure. The following figures illustrate:
|
Team |
Points Per Game |
Average Possessions |
Points Per Possession |
| St. Bonaventure |
69.2 |
65 |
1.07 |
| La Salle |
74.3 |
73 |
1.02 |
For purposes of easier readability, the points per possession is multiplied by 100 to give us a more manageable figure known as offensive efficiency. Therefore, La Salle had an of offensive efficiency of 102 while St. Bonaventure checked in at 107.
La Salle averaged eight possessions a game more than the Bonnies. That’s not a big number, but significant as far as pace is concerned. At 73 possessions the Explorers looked to push the ball. The Bonnies’ 65 suggests a half court team that ran on opportunities.
There are teams, such as Xavier for instance, that chart every possession and actually review the points per possession during time outs. There is a formula used to calculate possessions off a scoresheet or comprehensive box score.
Possessions = FGA + (FTA * .475) – OR + TO
The .475 is a multiplier to allow for one and one free throws (with the first shot missed) and single free throws for players fouled while converting a field goal. The possession ends on a made field goal, made free throw, defensive rebound or turnover. So offensive rebounds are subtracted because they in fact, extend the life of the possession. Points per possession is very simply points divided by possessions.
To date, baseball has seen some scouts and some higher ranking personnel in front offices be slow to accept analytics. The ‘old school’ approach is to trust the eyes not numbers. Basketball is going through that as well. With basketball analysis in its younger stages, as noted, there is more skepticism to overcome. The barriers are falling, however. Even coaches asked if they used tempo-free studies, the ones claimed not to and saw little value in them at least knew of their existence, which is a huge positive step. It’s a sure sign of progress thanks to the movement which has spread considerably in a few short years.
