[i]This is Regressing, a numbers-minded column by our clever friends at the [url=http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/]Harvard College Sports Analysis Collective[/url]. Over the next few days, they'll be applying rigorous statistical analysis to some of the finest basketball movies in the history of cinema (and also[/i] Hoosiers[i]). Today:[/i] Space Jam [i]by the numbers.[/i]
Tunes scored 132 points per 100 possessions. The Monstars scored 154. That's obviously impossible, since the team with the higher offensive efficiency is pretty much by definition the team that wins the game. The issue is selection bias — we see more successful Monstars' possessions in the movie. The other issue is that the movie doesn't make any sense. • Jordan's [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html]usage rate[/url] is 44 percent, meaning he used 44 percent of his team's possessions. For comparison's sake, the NBA single-season record is [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/usg_pct_season.html]Kobe's 39 percent[/url] in 2006. MJ is second at 38 percent. There were plenty of games in which Jordan actually exceeded that 44 percent usage rate. In Game 6 of the 1998 Finals, for instance, he checked in at 55 percent. This is probably the second-most realistic part of the movie.
• Both teams shot an extraordinary percentage from the field, due in large part to the vast majority of field goals scored by dunk. In fact, only one field goal was missed during the action in the film — Bupkus was thwarted by the initiative of one Wile E. Coyote and his timely detonation of a small cache of explosives strategically placed around the hoop.
• Michael Jordan and Stan Podolak were the only two players to record a non-dunk field goal attempt, Podolak's coming after being dog-piled and smashed to the ground by the Monstar team. The ball squirted out and found its way into the hoop; inexplicably, he did not draw a foul.
• No rebounds were recorded in the game by either team, a testament to the high levels of offensive efficiency on both sides.
• Marvin the Martian exhibited little control over the proceedings, whistling no personal fouls on either team. It's unclear whether his extraterrestrial origins biased him in favor of the alien visitors, looking the other way as the Tunes players were flattened, stomped, and dismembered, but the non-calls appeared to even out in the end (viz., dynamite).
• Bill Murray, [url=http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3881433]Club Trillion[/url] member.
• Blanko, the Shawn Bradley Monstar, failed to register a single stat throughout the course of the game. Even in a world where Elmer Fudd has a 40-inch vertical, Bradley's "talent" can't muster even a shot attempt. [i]This[/i] is the most realistic aspect of the movie.
http://deadspin.com/5783575/compiling-the-absurd-box-score-for-space-jam-or-shawn-bradley-sucked-against-cartoons-too
[size=2]Calculating The Fresh Prince Of Bel Air’s Usage Rate, And What It Can Tell Us About Ball Hogs[/size]
All nine makes are by Smith, and the one miss is Carlton's. Assuming the shot near the top of the key is a three-pointer, Will's effective field goal percentage, a stat that adjusts for the extra value of treys, is 111 percent. Everyone else's is zero percent. Small sample size and selection bias are the usual culprits, but the figures can't be too far off. The other players badly miss all five (undefended) layups they take in practice. They also display dribbling skills that make me think we didn't appreciate Chris Dudley enough. Sure, it looks bad when you're getting quintuple-teamed on one side of the court and all your teammates are open on the other. But there's no way in hell that those guys will catch a pass the length of the floor, even taking into account the court's tiny dimensions. Meanwhile, Will is good enough to win the tipoff and nail a half-court shot [i]before his feet touch the ground[/i].
http://deadspin.com/5784151/calculating-the-fresh-prince-of-bel-airs-usage-rate-and-what-it-can-tell-us-about-ball-hogs
[size=2]An Advanced Statistical Analysis Of Jimmy Chitwood’s Basketball Performance In Hoosiers[/size]
So how much can we credit Jimmy for his team's offensive dominance or blame him for Hickory's defensive incompetence? Before Chitwood agreed to return to the team, Hickory's offensive rating was just 100. After, it was a scalding 163.6. That's not too surprising, but he was almost equally valuable on defense: The Huskers had a defensive rating of 175.0 without Jimmy, but 126.2 with him. That's 49 points prevented per 100 possessions. This makes Jimmy worth about [i]112 points over the course of an entire game[/i] in which each team had 100 possessions. You don't need me to put that in perspective, though I'll note that no NBA player is currently worth more than 20 points using the same metric.
http://deadspin.com/5782785/an-advanced-statistical-analysis-of-jimmy-chitwoods-basketball-performance-in-hoosiers
[quote=“Gill, post:3, topic:25185”]An Advanced Statistical Analysis Of Jimmy Chitwood’s Basketball Performance In Hoosiers
So how much can we credit Jimmy for his team's offensive dominance or blame him for Hickory's defensive incompetence? Before Chitwood agreed to return to the team, Hickory's offensive rating was just 100. After, it was a scalding 163.6. That's not too surprising, but he was almost equally valuable on defense: The Huskers had a defensive rating of 175.0 without Jimmy, but 126.2 with him. That's 49 points prevented per 100 possessions. This makes Jimmy worth about [i]112 points over the course of an entire game[/i] in which each team had 100 possessions. You don't need me to put that in perspective, though I'll note that no NBA player is currently worth more than 20 points using the same metric.
http://deadspin.com/5782785/an-advanced-statistical-analysis-of-jimmy-chitwoods-basketball-performance-in-hoosiers[/quote]
more like Jesus Chitwood