Most recent entries

  • Your 2016 kPOY: Brice Johnson
  • Spiking the football on the 30-second shot clock
  • Sweet 16 probabilities
  • Need scheduling help?
  • 2016 NCAA tournament log5
  • 2016 Big West tournament preview
  • 2016 WAC tournament preview
  • 2016 Sun Belt tournament preview
  • 2016 American tournament preview
  • 2016 Big Ten tournament preview
  • The good stuff

    At other venues...
  • ($)
  • Deadspin
  • Slate

  • Strategy
  • Whether to foul up 3 late
  • The value of 2-for-1’s
  • Whether to foul when tied (1, 2, 3)
  • Who's the best in-game coach?

  • Philosophy
  • All points are not created equal
  • Brady Heslip’s non-slump
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • A treatise on plus-minus
  • The preseason AP poll is great
  • The lack of information in close-game performance
  • Why I don’t believe in clutchness*

  • Fun stuff
  • The missing 1-point games
  • Which two teams last lost longest ago?
  • How many first-round picks will Kentucky have?
  • Prepare for the Kobe invasion
  • Predicting John Henson's free throw percentage
  • Can Derrick Williams set the three-point accuracy record?
  • Play-by-play Theater: earliest disqualification
  • Monthly Archives

  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • July 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003

  • RSS feed

    Behold average possession length

    by Ken Pomeroy on Tuesday, July 23, 2013

    At some point in the distant past, time of possession became a popular stat in football. Control the ball and you win the game. Eventually, analytically-minded people realized that wasn’t true at all. You controlled the ball because you won the game. A lead added incentive to run the ball more often which drained the clock. But time of possession still persists as a staple of the football box score.

    There hasn’t been much work in this area on the basketball side. The only thing I’ve seen related to time of possession in the college game was this piece from David Hess from two seasons ago. Yet time of possession can give hoops fans useful information about a team’s style.

    One of the most simple and useful things to come out of advanced hoops stats is the calculation of a team’s pace. It’s best use is to give us some description of a team’s style and it also helps us understand how counting stats can be skewed by the opportunities a team has on offense and defense.

    It’s also helpful in coaching-change season, when we have a reference for every newly-hired coach that wins the press conference by promising an uptempo style. Even during the season, as we’re assured by someone covering the game that coach so-and-so likes to run when possible, we can look at a team’s average pace and get an idea of whether that’s true.

    However, even in cases where a team owns a slow tempo, there’s always been a possible excuse. Maybe the team really does like to run, but their defensive style causes their overall tempo to be slow. One way to test this is to split a team’s pace into offensive and defensive components.

    The measurement for component pace is about as simple as it gets: each team’s average possession length (APL, measured in seconds) on offense and defense. The number is not adjusted for competition and it measures the length of an entire possession, so offensive rebounds count. In the future this will probably change, but the raw data is insightful on its own. 

    In working on this, I was concerned whether the underlying play-by-play data would be good enough to support such calculations. Anyone that has done work with play-by-plays understands the occasional inaccuracies that can occur. However, I was reassured when checking if there was continuity in a team’s computed APL between seasons.

    Here’s a comparison of each D-I team’s offensive APL from 2012 and 2013, and likewise the relationship between defensive APL over the last two seasons.

    Not surprisingly, there’s more continuity in a team’s offensive APL than its defensive APL. And as you also would expect, there’s more variation among teams on the offensive side, because the offense possesses the ball and thus is in more control of possession length. But back to that in a moment. It looks like there’s season-to-season continuity in the statistic, but a confirming reference point is season-to-season continuity in a team’s overall pace.

    Offensive APL has slightly a slightly better correlation from year-to-year than raw tempo, which is generally accepted as a fairly reliable measure of a team’s pace. In reality, tempo doesn’t exactly capture what a team is trying do offensively. It’s influenced by what’s happening on defense, which by the way, has no relationship to a team’s offensive style.

    However, because there’s more variation in offensive APL, tempo is more influenced by that side of the ball, which is demonstrated in the following plots. If all you have is a team’s tempo (which is all we have prior to the 2010 season), you are getting more contribution from a team’s offensive style than its defensive style in determining that figure.

    I think what we are seeing here should be expected if the APL data is reasonably accurate. Defensive APL is going to be more noisy because the offense has more control over possession length. If Bo Ryan wants to stall the hell out of the ball, as he did in 2012, the defense is largely at his mercy. Still, the defensive APL is not completely random. It was nice to see Eastern Michigan and Syracuse show the same tendency towards forcing longer possessions since they play an identical and distinct defense. And across Division I, zone and pack-line teams tend to force longer possessions.

    Also comforting for analytical purposes is that two of the top three movers in defensive APL last season, Morehead State and South Carolina, had new coaches. Defensive APL will be more jumpy from season-to-season even when there isn’t a coaching change, but it’s good to see that there is some signal there.

    There are infinity interesting things to find in the data on a team level, but here a few I noticed…

    Of all the coaches in D-I, Jim Boeheim has the biggest gripe about possessions-per-game being an inaccurate measurement of his offense’s style. The last four seasons, the Orange have had an offensive APL rank of 41, 12, 133, and 4, while their adjusted tempo has ranked 252, 209, 177, and 41.

    BYU led the country in shortest offensive possessions the past two seasons, but also had longer than average defensive possessions. That difference was more exaggerated last season as their use of the zone increased. They were first in offensive tempo and 325th in defensive tempo. As shown above, there’s more spread in offensive APL and so BYU still ended up with a fast overall tempo anyway.

    The 2010 season was interesting - VMI and Seattle ranked first and second, respectively, in both offensive and defensive APL. I wish the old Duggar Baucom would come back.

    I can sense you’re suffering from scatterplot fatigue, but here are two more, relating defensive APL and defensive efficiency.

    In general, longer defensive possessions make for a better defense. No doubt this relationship can be explained by the tendency to prevent easy buckets in transition and more bad shots late in the shot clock. Stephen F. Austin was the best counterexample last season, regularly forcing short and empty possessions. But they also demonstrate the amount of noise in this measure. Previous seasons reveal a defensive APL around average.

    A total of eight teams have ranked in the top 50 in adjusted defensive efficiency and defensive APL over the past four seasons, while 62 times a top 50 defense has ranked in the bottom 50 of defense APL. Kudos to Danny Kaspar and Dana Altman last season, but faster possessions and a great defense do not mix. Here’s guessing that Texas State and Oregon experience defensive possession length that is close to, or even above, the national average next season.

    You might see why there’s some incentive to play zone or pack-line defense. I’ll put something together on the continuing decline in scoring when people start coming back to the site, but I’m skeptical that it’s because coaches are control freaks who insist on calling set plays instead of letting their teams get easy buckets in transition. Many coaches are doing more things to prevent opponents from shooting quickly.

    In the meantime, APL data is now available on each team’s scouting report going back to 2010. It should add another layer to our analysis of a team’s style. Possessions per game is still the way to determine a team’s efficiency, but if a coach insists he likes to run, his offensive APL is your personal lie-detector test.