Game Thread GAME# 63: WIZARDS @ BLAZERS - MARCH 4, 2020 - WEDNESDAY, 7:00, NBCSNW

[BonesJones]

You're asking a great question about why something does or doesn't have a strong correlation and I could only guess. The fact that there is not a strong correlation between wins and assists is not something I thought would be the case, but the data is clear from a mathmatical standpoint.

The data is so noisy that you may lose your hearing if you keep thinking of it as a legitimate sign of anything.

Thats my point. Its beyond noisy.

 

[Tince]

Why do you need data to prove it matters? You dont! Dont focus on stats to prove everything that your eyes should tell you.

The eye-ball test is about as flawed of a way to validiate anything. Humans are great at confirmation bias which allows them to see things that align with what they already believe and miss (not see) things that go against what they believe to be true.

 

[Tince]

The data is so noisy that you may lose your hearing if you keep thinking of it as a legitimate sign of anything.

Thats my point. Its beyond noisy.

It's noisy because there isn't a strong correlation. If the correlation were strong, it would look real clean and have an obviously progression to it.

 

[Tince]

Never said that. Simply said that team based stats are more relevant to that team than the stats of other teams when determi ing what works for said team... Thats different than measuring the quality of an area of the game for a team through comparison.

I really do want to understand your point, so here's my main question I guess:

When do you think it's more valuable to compare Portland's stats to other teams and when would it be less valuable?

 

[BonesJones]

The eye-ball test is about as flawed of a way to validiate anything. Humans are great at confirmation bias which allows them to see things that align with what they already believe and miss (not see) things that go against what they believe to be true.

Dude, you're obviously trying to push a narrative if youre going to sit here and say that visual observation coupled with team-based stats is more flawed than a statistical average of other teams that have a shit ton of noise and an utter lack of proper context.

 

[BonesJones]

I really do want to understand your point, so here's my main question I guess:

When do you think it's more valuable to compare Portland's stats to other teams and when would it be less valuable?

Again, theres a difference between evaluating what style of play is best for the team based on what results in wins for that team, and comparing the quality of a team-based attribute in regards to the rest of the NBA.

 

[BonesJones]

It's noisy because there isn't a strong correlation. If the correlation were strong, it would look real clean and have an obviously progression to it.

Its noisy for some of the reasons I brought up, which you conveniently ignored.

 

[Tince]

Dude, you're obviously trying to push a narrative if youre going to sit here and say that visual observation coupled with team-based stats is more flawed than a statistical average of other teams that have a shit ton of noise and an utter lack of proper context.

I'm pushing the narrative that assists don't have a strong correlation to winning because not only is it true, but about 10 years ago I was stunned to find out it was true. Up to that point I had been repeating what I was told by coaches I valued and validating those points by using my confirmation bias only to realize that there were other ways to skin a cat than I was originally willing to consider.

The data really isn't that crazy, I'm not sure why it appears noisy to you.

 

[Tince]

Again, theres a difference between evaluating what style of play is best for the team based on what results in wins for that team, and comparing the quality of a team-based attribute in regards to the rest of the NBA.

Fair opinion, my friend. I've always been with you that all things being equal, a team that moves the ball early and often is much more enjoyable to watch on a nightly basis.

 

[hoopsjock]

It would be very rare for a measurable to have meaning to one team and not 29 other teams. I guess in general, I would say yes it would make more sense to look at league wide data to see if it is a measure that holds any value. Specifically, regarding assists, I'm not sure why they wouldn't have had a strong correlation league wide for many years, but would have a strong correlation to one team.

There are real flaws with using assists as a measure of "quality".

If you're looking at a list of team assists per game you can't really compare one team to another because that stat doesn't factor in pace of play or turnover percentage or anything else.

Portland is last in the league per game this year in:

Assists (a whopping 1.4 per game behind 29th)
Passes Made (no surprise)
Potential Assists (1.3 per game behind 29th)
Assist Points Created (3.4 points per game behind 29th)
Secondary Assists (actually 29th in this one)

Phoenix leads the league in assists but is also 8th in the league in turnovers per game and high turnover % so their assists are different than Portland who doesn't pass anywhere near them but also doesn't turn the ball over nearly as much.

 

[Tince]

If you're looking at a list of team assists per game you can't really compare one team to another because that stat doesn't factor in pace of play or turnover percentage or anything else.

Portland is last in the league per game this year in:

Assists (a whopping 1.4 per game behind 29th)
Passes Made (no surprise)
Potential Assists (1.3 per game behind 29th)
Assist Points Created (3.4 points per game behind 29th)
Secondary Assists (actually 29th in this one)

Phoenix leads the league in assists but is also 8th in the league in turnovers per game and high turnover % so their assists are different than Portland who doesn't pass anywhere near them but also doesn't turn the ball over nearly as much.

Nice post, I like the data as well! If those things meant a ton, you'd assume we'd be last in the NBA standings as well.

Would it make sense that a team that passes more is also more likely to get assists and turnovers? I don't have the answer, just a theory to why there would be no correlation.

 

[hoopsjock]

Nice post, I like the data as well! If those things meant a ton, you'd assume we'd be last in the NBA standings as well.

Would it make sense that a team that passes more is also more likely to get assists and turnovers? I don't have the answer, just a theory to why there would be no correlation.

See this is where I get frustrated with you sometimes. No stat can be taken and matched exactly with the standings page. I'm factoring in a multitude of stats that all show Portland being horrible in. I've also showed that when Portland performs better in these categories over the last two seasons the results are a much higher winning percentage.

Not once have I ever said that Portland needs to lead the league in assists either. More passes could or could not lead to more assists or turnovers. I will say that it looks like Portland's assist to turnover percentages are actually better with more passes, so no in Portland's case it leads to being more efficient.

 

[Tince]

See this is where I get frustrated with you sometimes. No stat can be taken and matched exactly with the standings page. I'm factoring in a multitude of stats that all show Portland being horrible in. I've also showed that when Portland performs better in these categories over the last two seasons the results are a much higher winning percentage.

Not once have I ever said that Portland needs to lead the league in assists either. More passes could or could not lead to more assists or turnovers. I will say that it looks like Portland's assist to turnover percentages are actually better with more passes, so no in Portland's case it leads to being more efficient.

Sorry for frustrating you, not my intention.

We agree Portland has been horrible this year. The cause of them being horrible, we might see differently.

Do you think we get more assists because we're making more shots or because we're making more shots, we get more assists? The causation of assists has always been tricky in small sample sizes.

 

[hoopsjock]

I'm pushing the narrative that assists don't have a strong correlation to winning because not only is it true, but about 10 years ago I was stunned to find out it was true. Up to that point I had been repeating what I was told by coaches I valued and validating those points by using my confirmation bias only to realize that there were other ways to skin a cat than I was originally willing to consider.

The data really isn't that crazy, I'm not sure why it appears noisy to you.

I had time to go back further...

Portland with more than 21 assists:

In 2017-18 was 16-4. That's an .800 winning %.
They were 33-29 in their other games which is a .532 winning %.

2016-17 they were 22-21 with a .512 winning %.
Without they were 19-20 with a .487 winning %.

2015-16 they were 27-10 which is a .730 winning %.
Under that leaves them with a 17-28 record and a .377 winning %.

2014-15 above 27-13 which is a .675 winning %.
Below was 24-18 which is a .571 winning %.

2013-14 above 39-12 a .765 winning %.
That means they were 15-14 below for a .517 winning %

2012-13 above they were 22-22 a .500 winning %.
Below they were 11-27 for a .289 winning %.


That's 8 seasons under Stotts with multiple different types of teams where EVERY single season they had a winning percentage higher if they surpassed 21 assists. In only one of the seasons was it even remotely close and that makes sense considering the team was .500 that season overall. So no matter what the talent level of the team if they got more than 21 assists they outperformed their winning percentage for both the entire regular season and when they didn't get as many assists.

How's that for correlation?

 

[hoopsjock]

Sorry for frustrating you, not my intention.

We agree Portland has been horrible this year. The cause of them being horrible, we might see differently.

Do you think we get more assists because we're making more shots or because we're making more shots, we get more assists? The causation of assists has always been tricky in small sample sizes.

That's why I always check my data against both assists and potential assists so I know if it's just missed shots or lack of passing leading to assist opportunities. The data under Stotts strongly suggests the lack of assists are due to a lack of ball movement, not shot percentage.

 

[Tince]

I had time to go back further...

Portland with more than 21 assists:

In 2017-18 was 16-4. That's an .800 winning %.
They were 33-29 in their other games which is a .532 winning %.

2016-17 they were 22-21 with a .512 winning %.
Without they were 19-20 with a .487 winning %.

2015-16 they were 27-10 which is a .730 winning %.
Under that leaves them with a 17-28 record and a .377 winning %.

2014-15 above 27-13 which is a .675 winning %.
Below was 24-18 which is a .571 winning %.

2013-14 above 39-12 a .765 winning %.
That means they were 15-14 below for a .517 winning %

2012-13 above they were 22-22 a .500 winning %.
Below they were 11-27 for a .289 winning %.


That's 8 seasons under Stotts with multiple different types of teams where EVERY single season they had a winning percentage higher if they surpassed 21 assists. In only one of the seasons was it even remotely close and that makes sense considering the team was .500 that season overall. So no matter what the talent level of the team if they got more than 21 assists they outperformed their winning percentage for both the entire regular season and when they didn't get as many assists.

How's that for correlation?

Great research! So what is your conclusion?

One thing that jumps out to me is that Stotts' offense was over your 21 assist number the majority of games in his first 5 seasons, but not in 2 of the 3 three (correct?).

Now how do we figure out if assists lead to more made shots or if more made shots lead to more assists.

 

[Tince]

That's why I always check my data against both assists and potential assists so I know if it's just missed shots or lack of passing leading to assist opportunities. The data under Stotts strongly suggests the lack of assists are due to a lack of ball movement, not shot percentage.

I like this! Do you have data on the % of possible assisted field goals that are made? That would be super interesting.

Great work!

 

[hoopsjock]

Great research! So what is your conclusion?

One thing that jumps out to me is that Stotts' offense was over your 21 assist number the majority of games in his first 5 seasons, but not in 2 of the 3 three (correct?).

Now how do we figure out if assists lead to more made shots or if more made shots lead to more assists.

So let me get this straight...

When you present data that shows there is no correlation between assists and team success based on all 30 teams it's indisputable evidence but when I show for a specific team that assist numbers do in fact have a correlation between a higher winning percentage compared to lower assist totals you automatically resort to having to qualify it?

 

[hoopsjock]

I like this! Do you have data on the % of possible assisted field goals that are made? That would be super interesting.

Great work!

I'm sure somewhere out there you could find that data but it's way too much work on my end to win an internet discussion and I simply don't have time to present that for you.

 

[Tince]

So let me get this straight...

When you present data that shows there is no correlation between assists and team success based on all 30 teams it's indisputable evidence but when I show for a specific team that assist numbers do in fact have a correlation between a higher winning percentage compared to lower assist totals you automatically resort to having to qualify it?

The simple answer to your question would be: No

I think you've proven that if the Blazers hit a magic number of 21 assists they are more likely to win. The why and therefore the significance is unanswered.

I'm glad you think that comparing rosters from different years is valid, I agree with you.

 

[hoopsjock]

I like this! Do you have data on the % of possible assisted field goals that are made? That would be super interesting.

Great work!

I can't go all the way with this but as an easy general search I looked up their fg% in games above 21 assists.

45% or above 210 out of 308 games.

46% or above 189 out of 308 games.

47% or above 160 out of 308 games.

48% or above 140 out of 308 games.

49% or above 118 out of 308 games.

50% or above 108 out of 308 games.

I know this doesn't exactly answer your question but only once in those 8 seasons (2012-13 the worst team) did they shoot below 45% FG% for the year.

 

[Tince]

I can't go all the way with this but as an easy general search I looked up their fg% in games above 21 assists.

45% or above 210 out of 308 games.

46% or above 189 out of 308 games.

47% or above 160 out of 308 games.

48% or above 140 out of 308 games.

49% or above 118 out of 308 games.

50% or above 108 out of 308 games.

I know this doesn't exactly answer your question but only once in those 8 seasons (2012-13 the worst team) did they shoot below 45% FG% for the year.

Sorry, I asked the question poorly. I'm wondering how many attempts (and/or field goal percentage) where they take a shot that would be assisted if it were to go in and how many of them are actually made. I'm still asking the question poorly!

 

[hoopsjock]

Sorry, I asked the question poorly. I'm wondering how many attempts (and/or field goal percentage) where they take a shot that would be assisted if it were to go in and how many of them are actually made. I'm still asking the question poorly!

No, I said I get your question but don't have the 13 years it would take to answer it correctly so I presented FG% over an 8 year span to show the correlation between blistering shooting and getting more assists. I specifically said it wasn't what you were asking.

More specifically getting the individual game data for what you are asking is the problem.

 

[Tince]

No, I said I get your question but don't have the 13 years it would take to answer it correctly so I presented FG% over an 8 year span to show the correlation between blistering shooting and getting more assists. I specifically said it wasn't what you were asking.

I'm not always great with my reading comprehension either, my bad!

 

[wizenheimer]

I was curious, so I looked it up. Past NBA champs over last 13 years (fun number) and their assist ranking:

2006-07 - Spurs, 11th over Cleveland 15th
2007-08 - Boston, 8th over Lakers, 4th
2008-09 - Lakers, 2nd over Orlando' 29th
2009-10 - Lakers, 15th over Boston, 2nd
2010-11 - Dallas, 2nd over Miami, 26th
2011-12 - Miami, 21st over OKC, 30th
2012-13 - Miami, 7th over Spurs, 1st
2013-14 - Spurs, 1st over Miami, 11th
2014-15 - Warriors, 1st over Cavs, 10th
2015-16 - Cavs, 13th over Warriors, 1st
2016-17 - Warriors, 1st, over Cavs, 13th
2017-18 - Warriors, 1st over Cavs, 12th
2018-19 - Raptors 13th, over Warriors, 1st

ok then, 26 finals teams and only 4 were in the bottom half of the league in assists; and the last one was 8 years ago when Miami won the title over OKC. Of course, Miami had a prime Lebron, a prime DWade, and a prime Bosh, so their capacity to resort to one-on-one was unparalleled. Put another way, 22 of 26 teams were in the top half of the league in assists, and 13 of 26 teams were in the top-10

meanwhile Portland is last in the league for the 2nd time in 3 years. Unlike Miami with Labron & Dwade, or OKC with Durant & Westbrook, Blazers don't have a tag-team of elite, superstar one-on-one talent. They need more ball movement and player motion off the ball, and the passers who can exploit it.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I was curious, so I looked it up. Past NBA champs over last 13 years (fun number) and their assist ranking:

2006-07 - Spurs, 11th over Cleveland 15th
2007-08 - Boston, 8th over Lakers, 4th
2008-09 - Lakers, 2nd over Orlando' 29th
2009-10 - Lakers, 15th over Boston, 2nd
2010-11 - Dallas, 2nd over Miami, 26th
2011-12 - Miami, 21st over OKC, 30th
2012-13 - Miami, 7th over Spurs, 1st
2013-14 - Spurs, 1st over Miami, 11th
2014-15 - Warriors, 1st over Cavs, 10th
2015-16 - Cavs, 13th over Warriors, 1st
2016-17 - Warriors, 1st, over Cavs, 13th
2017-18 - Warriors, 1st over Cavs, 12th
2018-19 - Raptors 13th, over Warriors, 1st

ok then, 26 finals teams and only 4 were in the bottom half of the league in assists; and the last one was 8 years ago when Miami won the title over OKC. Of course, Miami had a prime Lebron, a prime DWade, and a prime Bosh, so their capacity to resort to one-on-one was unparalleled. Put another way, 22 of 26 teams were in the top half of the league in assists, and 13 of 26 teams were in the top-10

meanwhile Portland is last in the league for the 2nd time in 3 years. Unlike Miami with Labron & Dwade, or OKC with Durant & Westbrook, Blazers don't have a tag-team of elite, superstar one-on-one talent. They need more ball movement and player motion off the ball, and the passers who can exploit it.

They need a lot of things, better shooters, better passers, better players. Passing will only go so far. Cause all those teams were just flat out better than the Blazers.

 

[bobf]

So let me get this straight...

When you present data that shows there is no correlation between assists and team success based on all 30 teams it's indisputable evidence but when I show for a specific team that assist numbers do in fact have a correlation between a higher winning percentage compared to lower assist totals you automatically resort to having to qualify it?

It’s valid for Tince to do that I think. In general if there is no correlation between A and B then there is no causation. But if there is high correlation between A & B there can still be zero causation in either direction.

 

[hoopsjock]

2012-2020 Blazers under Stotts

19 or less assists: 90-134 (.402%)

20 or more assists: 263-150 (.637%)

21 or more assists: 237-123 (.658%)

22 or more assists: 206-102 (.669%)

23 or more assists: 183-79 (.698%)

24 or more assists: 156-63 (.712%)

25 or more assists: 131-40 (.766%)

26 or more assists: 100-21 (.826%)

27 or more assists: 73-12 (.859%)

28 or more assists: 57-11 (.838%)

29 or more assists: 38-7 (.844%)

30 or more assists: 20-7 (.741%)

31 or more assists: 12-4 (.750%)

32 or more assists: 9-3 (.750%)

Under Stotts over 35% of their games they've had less than 20 assists in a game and win just 40% of the time when that happens. The problem this season? They're only averaging 20.1 assists per game!!! Only 19% of their games they have 26 or more assists but win at a near 83% clip when they do so.

This is why I don't care what other team's records are when they get assists. It's a fact the Blazers are better when they have more assists. Look at those winning percentages and just try to dispute them.

 

[kjironman1]

Best pass Ive ever thrown in my life, dude bricked the layup... Apparently it really bothered me because it was like 13 years ago and I still cant believe it...

Now just think if it was live on National TV ESPN and in front of 20,000 screaming fans and you were destined to be featured on ESPN highlight reel GLORY? Do you think you might go "MeJ" on him next time?
How many times these guys gotta get back on defense when they are shell shocked because someone else dribbled it off their knee?

 

[kjironman1]

Even Stotts makes plenty of mentions when the ball is moving and they are making shots they play better all around. Assists do indeed matter but i think the point here is getting lost a bit?
Playing well on offense also helps defense and assists are a metric that shows shots are falling and the team is finding the open shooter. When they are relying solely on ISO it gets tough to watch as well as win.

Very interesting conversation by all involved.