APBRmetrics

Good to see someone has developed this kind of data, that I asked about earlier.

http://www.d3coder.com/thecity/2012/10/ ... t-defense/

If I am reading this right, league average when open on spot ups, pos, isolations and off screens never exceeds 60%. (Less than 60% is far from automatic.)

Automatic was obviously a figure of speech, because Garnett and Bass are actually capable of knocking down that open midrange jumper. Do you have any kind of exact definition, what we can call "automatic"? Just that we don't run into such useless discussion basically about the subjective meaning of a word again.

Maybe I should have omitted the automatic reference, sorry. Mentioned more to bring this evidence to the table than to renew old disagreement.

But to respond to your question, I think 70-80% fits better with the sense behind "automatic' than under 60%. It would be interesting to see or hear about how many players average 70-80% on any of these types of open shots (often from mid-range). I am guessing it is very few, if any (and probably not the named Celtics). I think lots of players think they are automatic of those shots / from that distance, when open or otherwise and almost all are significantly over-optimistic about their success rate and could use to see and reflect on the truth.

When significantly pressured the %s are pretty bad. I'd be looking for open and lightly pressure 3s even more with this data in hand.

Layups are about 60% on average. Not automatic, but significantly higher than a "replacement" mid-range jumper (to use the terminology from the other ongoing discussion). If a jumper has the efficiency of a layup, that's pretty good.

And before anyone asks me too many details about the CAC data, I should say up front, that I signed an NDA, and am restricted from talking about most of what you guys would be interested in (other than what I was allowed to write about in the article).

Crow wrote:But to respond to your question, I think 70-80% fits better with the sense behind "automatic' than under 60%.

For me "automatic" is just an expression in a case, someone is converting a specific shot type at a clearly higher rate than the league average. When someone is shooting 75% on his FT, I would not call that "automatic", because that is about league average. So, maybe that is the main difference here, that I'm using league average as reference line while you have some sort of exact value.

EvanZ wrote: And before anyone asks me too many details about the CAC data, I should say up front, that I signed an NDA, and am restricted from talking about most of what you guys would be interested in (other than what I was allowed to write about in the article).

I suspected such thing. Can you sheed some light on the question, whether Lacob is actually referring to that CAC database? And, is there any chance someone else could get at least a glance at the database?

It actually looks awesome, the detail is really great. And I would have made a comment on your blog already about it, if it wouldn't be restricted.

EvanZ wrote: If a jumper has the efficiency of a layup, that's pretty good.

Yes, if a player is above 60% of those shots when open, or any shots, then it is a good shot.

50-55% is pretty good.
40-45% is pretty good or good when the shot clock is below 10 seconds, generally not otherwise.

How many players are above 50% on open mid-rangers? I'd guess it is not much more than a bare majority at best, maybe less. But I could be wrong.

How many players are above 60% on any type of open mid-rangers? I'd guess under or well under a third. That might make an interesting tidbit for a follow-up article, if the company sees value in a bit further promotion of the value of the information that they have.

mystic wrote: I suspected such thing. Can you sheed some light on the question, whether Lacob is actually referring to that CAC database? And, is there any chance someone else could get at least a glance at the database?

Right now, no NBA teams are actually using CAC data. They're rolling it out very soon.

The Warriors use the SportVU data. There's a couple of articles I recommend reading (the first is mine, second is Nate Parham, who also blogs at GSoM). This will give you some background on what Lacob and GSW is doing with analytics.

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2012/9 ... ion-summit

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2012/9 ... -sports-vu

Excellent work, Evan.

You might want to respond to Tango over here: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.p ... g_for_nba/

Also--any chance you could update your chart in your original post as I commented over there? Would be cool!

EvanZ wrote: http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2012/9 ... ion-summit

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2012/9 ... -sports-vu

Thanks for the links.

Btw, I found it very impressive that the difference between hands up and down is so big for all types of shots. That hands up helps defensively, should be known, but to see that quantified is really good.

This is similar to data I hand-tracked for the Wizards a few years back. Good stuff.

a CAC vantage iPad app:

http://newstandards-us.com/solutions

Thanks for the notice / link. Wonder when it will be available and what at what price / degree of availability.

I got a nice message on FB from a coach of a local college (not a big one, but I scrubbed the info, nevertheless):

My name is John Smith and I am the men's basketball coach at Some College in the Bay Area. Just read your hands down, mans down blog posting. Trying to get my guys to understand the power of contesting a shot with hands up. Do you by chance have the differential in shooting percentages for mid range shots that are pressured vs contested? As well as from the 3 pt line? A friend of mine was Karl's asst for two years at Denver and claimed a 37% decline in percentages when a hand is up. Love to pass that information on to my team. Appreciate the help...fascinating blog. First time on it today. Ill be back!
Thanks

About the iPad app, I got to test it out. It's pretty neat. I think the players and coaches will really like the platform.