Looking at 4FAPM Offense at gotbuckets.com
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:41 pm
Looking at 4FAPM Offense at gotbuckets.com,
On average centers are better than the average of all players on only estimated offensive rebounding impact. Same for power forwards. The difference between these two positions is that the power forwards are by far closer to overall average on the other factors. The PG and SG positions are above overall average on three factors, all but offensive rebounds. SFs are above average on all factors, FT rate being most superior. Only average C impact on offensive rebounding and average PG impact on turnover % exceed the 65th percentile compared to all players. All together there are only 7 position factor averages that exceed 60th percentile compared to all players. That is less superiority on positional impact on the factors than I expected or a box-score based perspective would foster.
Compared to their overall offensive positional averages, the top ten PGs were more superior than the other positions’ top tens, followed by the wings, PFs and then the centers far off the pace. The centers dominated their peers on offensive rebounding and FG% but lagged average on the other 2 factors. Top PFs lead on FG% and turnover %. Top PGs, everything but rebounding. Top wings dominated most on FG% but beat average on all factors. PGs and PFs lagged positional average by a tiny bit on offensive rebounds. FG% was the factor that most separated top 10s from the rest at every position except PF where it was a close second to turnover %. Offensive rebounding and FT rate each had one second. Rebounding was on average the least sizable / "important" difference, less than 1/3rd as important as FG%, only ½ as sizable as turnover %.
On average centers are better than the average of all players on only estimated offensive rebounding impact. Same for power forwards. The difference between these two positions is that the power forwards are by far closer to overall average on the other factors. The PG and SG positions are above overall average on three factors, all but offensive rebounds. SFs are above average on all factors, FT rate being most superior. Only average C impact on offensive rebounding and average PG impact on turnover % exceed the 65th percentile compared to all players. All together there are only 7 position factor averages that exceed 60th percentile compared to all players. That is less superiority on positional impact on the factors than I expected or a box-score based perspective would foster.
Compared to their overall offensive positional averages, the top ten PGs were more superior than the other positions’ top tens, followed by the wings, PFs and then the centers far off the pace. The centers dominated their peers on offensive rebounding and FG% but lagged average on the other 2 factors. Top PFs lead on FG% and turnover %. Top PGs, everything but rebounding. Top wings dominated most on FG% but beat average on all factors. PGs and PFs lagged positional average by a tiny bit on offensive rebounds. FG% was the factor that most separated top 10s from the rest at every position except PF where it was a close second to turnover %. Offensive rebounding and FT rate each had one second. Rebounding was on average the least sizable / "important" difference, less than 1/3rd as important as FG%, only ½ as sizable as turnover %.