by John Levasseur
As a coach, especially in high school, possessions are incredibly valuable in basketball. We don't have a shot clock, so I always tell my teams, “If we only score once at the end of each quarter, and the other team doesn't get the ball at all, we should be ok with winning 8-0.” Obviously we don't follow that religiously, but it helps the players to understand the value of possessions and finding good shots. The same philosophies have begun to take hold in the NBA.
As a coach, especially in high school, possessions are incredibly valuable in basketball. We don't have a shot clock, so I always tell my teams, “If we only score once at the end of each quarter, and the other team doesn't get the ball at all, we should be ok with winning 8-0.” Obviously we don't follow that religiously, but it helps the players to understand the value of possessions and finding good shots. The same philosophies have begun to take hold in the NBA.
With some help from the guys at basketball-reference.com, we can see that the league has slowed down considerably. The league used to regularly average over 100 possessions per 48 minutes (AKA the pace statistic), that's a league-wide average meaning that teams regularly played above that. In 1980 for one example, only three teams in the league averaged fewer then 100 possessions per 48, and the spurs averaged 109 to lead the league. If you compare that to teams of today, which play at an average of 93.9 possessions per 48, there is a huge discrepancy. Even the league leader this past season, the 76ers, only averaged 99.2 possessions. Teams of that era, and teams that push the pace in today's NBA, usually end up giving up a lot of defensive focus and energy. The result of this is that while that team may be able to put up a lot of points due to their pace of play, they also are giving up a lot of points on defense. A classic example of this is the Denver Nuggets from the ‘91 season. They averaged 113 possessions, and scored a league-high 120 PPG, but they also gave up 131 PPG and went 20-62 that year with the worst record in the NBA.
The interesting part of this whole discussion is that because of the proliferation of the three-point shot, the points per game haven't dropped that much. Teams are shooting twice as many threes in today's NBA, and that number is only going to climb as more teams embrace analytics. For readers who aren't sure how the three point shot is more efficient, think of it this way: You can take a 16-20 foot jumper and make 45% of them, scoring .9 points every shot. Or you can take a 22 foot jumper for three points, hit 36% of them (the league average from '13-'14) and still score 1.08 points for every shot. It's not much, but for guys who shoot better than that like Kevin Durant, they score an average of 1.17 points per shot.
However, this is where the numbers end and the basketball philosophy begins. Each team, from the front office to the coaching staff, has to decide if they are going to try and push the pace and maximize the amount of possessions or try and only find good shots. There are positives and negatives to both approaches, most notably playoff performance.
Teams like the Bobcats (Hornets) and the Grizzlies went in the direction of what is called 'possession control.' Relying on their defense to win games, they rarely made risky passes and were bottom of the league in turnovers. They pushed the ball infrequently and slowed other teams down to their tempo, holding other teams to an average of 97.1 and 94.6 points against respectively. They both managed to finish near the bottom of the playoff bracket in their conferences, and were eliminated fairly quickly.
In comparison, analytics teams are built upon statistical averages, and averages work best when taken from a large sample, like an 82 game NBA season. This also explains why analytics teams play at a higher pace, they want to take enough shots in a game to allow the averages to come to fruition. When you put them in the vacuum of the playoffs, suddenly a cold spell that would only result in three losses during the season results in the end of your season. Look the Rockets from this past season, a team that went cold at the wrong time despite a good season and relied on the law of averages. Next year, they could be extremely hot in the playoffs and we could be looking at an NBA champion. They were top 10 in the league in three point attempts and in pace, and were the second team in the league in PPG. Back to that ‘91 Nuggets team, they took a (then) astounding 1059 three pointers but only made 28% of them. The Trailblazers of that same year took 150 fewer, but they converted on 38% of them instead, and made it to the Western Conference Finals.
So from a statistical perspective, the best teams typically shoot at the highest percentage instead of taking the most shots, the best example of that is this season’s San Antonio Spurs. The Spurs are the model of the NBA right now and they were second in the NBA in field goal percentage, and more importantly, first in three point percentage and assists per game. They were 20th in turnovers, and finished first in three point percentage but only 16th in triples attempted. In fact, they played the 10th fastest of any team in the league and shot a better field goal percentage than any other NBA team, yet were 13th in total shots attempted. What does this point to? A team that is patient and extremely well coached in being able to wait for finding an open shot and not rushing offensive possessions or taking contested shots, resulting in being the most highly efficient team in the NBA. They were so efficient that even on possessions where they turned the ball over, they still scored at least one point!
The interesting point is that the Spurs managed to post very similar numbers last season, and yet they still lost in the finals to the Heat. I think there will always be arguments that the Spurs were one incredible shot by Ray Allen, or one great defensive play by Chris Bosh, away from being back to back champions; but at the end of the day, that is where statistics can fail and what makes basketball so special. Math can try and break it down, and point to the Golden State Warriors as the team to watch this year as a dark horse candidate to reach the finals, but there is no accounting for great players who make great plays. What we can see though, is that in today's NBA, field goal percentage (making shots) is still king.
The interesting part of this whole discussion is that because of the proliferation of the three-point shot, the points per game haven't dropped that much. Teams are shooting twice as many threes in today's NBA, and that number is only going to climb as more teams embrace analytics. For readers who aren't sure how the three point shot is more efficient, think of it this way: You can take a 16-20 foot jumper and make 45% of them, scoring .9 points every shot. Or you can take a 22 foot jumper for three points, hit 36% of them (the league average from '13-'14) and still score 1.08 points for every shot. It's not much, but for guys who shoot better than that like Kevin Durant, they score an average of 1.17 points per shot.
However, this is where the numbers end and the basketball philosophy begins. Each team, from the front office to the coaching staff, has to decide if they are going to try and push the pace and maximize the amount of possessions or try and only find good shots. There are positives and negatives to both approaches, most notably playoff performance.
Teams like the Bobcats (Hornets) and the Grizzlies went in the direction of what is called 'possession control.' Relying on their defense to win games, they rarely made risky passes and were bottom of the league in turnovers. They pushed the ball infrequently and slowed other teams down to their tempo, holding other teams to an average of 97.1 and 94.6 points against respectively. They both managed to finish near the bottom of the playoff bracket in their conferences, and were eliminated fairly quickly.
In comparison, analytics teams are built upon statistical averages, and averages work best when taken from a large sample, like an 82 game NBA season. This also explains why analytics teams play at a higher pace, they want to take enough shots in a game to allow the averages to come to fruition. When you put them in the vacuum of the playoffs, suddenly a cold spell that would only result in three losses during the season results in the end of your season. Look the Rockets from this past season, a team that went cold at the wrong time despite a good season and relied on the law of averages. Next year, they could be extremely hot in the playoffs and we could be looking at an NBA champion. They were top 10 in the league in three point attempts and in pace, and were the second team in the league in PPG. Back to that ‘91 Nuggets team, they took a (then) astounding 1059 three pointers but only made 28% of them. The Trailblazers of that same year took 150 fewer, but they converted on 38% of them instead, and made it to the Western Conference Finals.
So from a statistical perspective, the best teams typically shoot at the highest percentage instead of taking the most shots, the best example of that is this season’s San Antonio Spurs. The Spurs are the model of the NBA right now and they were second in the NBA in field goal percentage, and more importantly, first in three point percentage and assists per game. They were 20th in turnovers, and finished first in three point percentage but only 16th in triples attempted. In fact, they played the 10th fastest of any team in the league and shot a better field goal percentage than any other NBA team, yet were 13th in total shots attempted. What does this point to? A team that is patient and extremely well coached in being able to wait for finding an open shot and not rushing offensive possessions or taking contested shots, resulting in being the most highly efficient team in the NBA. They were so efficient that even on possessions where they turned the ball over, they still scored at least one point!
The interesting point is that the Spurs managed to post very similar numbers last season, and yet they still lost in the finals to the Heat. I think there will always be arguments that the Spurs were one incredible shot by Ray Allen, or one great defensive play by Chris Bosh, away from being back to back champions; but at the end of the day, that is where statistics can fail and what makes basketball so special. Math can try and break it down, and point to the Golden State Warriors as the team to watch this year as a dark horse candidate to reach the finals, but there is no accounting for great players who make great plays. What we can see though, is that in today's NBA, field goal percentage (making shots) is still king.