Tempo Free +/-
Since the introduction of the +/-, a few people have mentioned they would like to see a tempo free version. A tempo free version is intended to ignore the pace at which teams play. There are 347 Division 1 college basketball programs and they all have coaches who attempt to recruit kids who fit their program. Some coaches prefer to slow the game down as much as possible with a sagging defense and a patient offense (Doc Sadler) while others run up and down the court whenever possible (Texas). In the end, Texas ends up with more possessions and more opportunities to accumulate stats, the difference makes comparing stats across teams somewhat difficult.
Below you'll find my first attempt at a Tempo Free +/-. Before I get into how I did it, I do want to say that I have no clue if I what I did to get rid of the pace is correct. If something is backwards or screwed up, let me know and I'll do what I can to fix it (or forget it all together).
Method: Found the teams +/- per game for the season and then used a multiplier to take all teams to 68.2 possessions per game. Why 68.2? According to KenPom, it is the average number of possessions for games this season. This made sense to at the time but now I'm not sure it should be so simple. The multiplier was the product of 68.2 divided the team's possessions per game according to Statsheet. For example, Texas averages 76.6 possessions per game, so 68.2/76.6 = .890. Texas averages +53.17 per game, multiply that by .890 and you get +47.32. Data first and I'll throw out some more thoughts below.
| NAME | FGA | FTM | FTA | FTMiss | PTS | REB | AST | TO | STL | BLK | PF | Plus/Minus | Per Game | Tempo Free |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas | 1068 | 318 | 449 | 131 | 1530 | 737 | 333 | 227 | 166 | 116 | 323 | 1133 | 62.94 | 60.61 |
| Baylor | 979 | 227 | 339 | 112 | 1343 | 722 | 266 | 247 | 97 | 128 | 298 | 920 | 54.12 | 53.90 |
| Texas | 1166 | 307 | 492 | 185 | 1545 | 809 | 291 | 257 | 157 | 115 | 352 | 957 | 53.17 | 47.32 |
| Missouri | 1142 | 285 | 396 | 111 | 1481 | 675 | 309 | 255 | 225 | 94 | 351 | 925 | 51.39 | 47.43 |
| Iowa State | 1047 | 243 | 391 | 148 | 1364 | 692 | 280 | 245 | 97 | 98 | 274 | 817 | 45.39 | 44.03 |
| Kansas State | 1039 | 403 | 610 | 207 | 1483 | 728 | 277 | 285 | 134 | 89 | 416 | 764 | 42.44 | 39.43 |
| Oklahoma | 1036 | 283 | 385 | 102 | 1345 | 649 | 237 | 224 | 106 | 51 | 278 | 748 | 41.56 | 41.02 |
| Texas Tech | 1084 | 348 | 486 | 138 | 1407 | 691 | 252 | 263 | 129 | 88 | 373 | 709 | 39.39 | 36.12 |
| Colorado | 941 | 358 | 468 | 110 | 1394 | 518 | 262 | 236 | 150 | 47 | 393 | 691 | 38.39 | 37.51 |
| Texas A&M | 979 | 342 | 528 | 186 | 1318 | 673 | 221 | 213 | 118 | 67 | 346 | 673 | 37.39 | 37.17 |
| Oklahoma State | 1060 | 276 | 390 | 114 | 1343 | 674 | 218 | 201 | 111 | 48 | 352 | 667 | 37.06 | 36.36 |
| Nebraska | 965 | 223 | 348 | 125 | 1228 | 584 | 270 | 209 | 136 | 61 | 327 | 653 | 36.28 | 38.06 |
For the visual learners:
Thoughts:
- Surprising to see how fast Texas Tech plays, did Bobby Knight coached teams play faster than I remembered or is this Pat Knight's own doing?
- K-State fans won't be impressed with the +/-, just not a good system for their team. They foul a lot, turn the ball over quite a bit, don't shoot particularly well, and miss a lot of free throws. It will be interesting to see how this plays out with them.
- Oklahoma and Iowa State have me questioning everything I just typed. Neither teams fouls a lot though and that helps them here, it will also help them in close games.
Like I said earlier, this made some sense to me at the time I was doing it. What does everyone else think? I'm more of a fan of the game by game +/- because I think it can highlight some things that are missed when looking at a box score.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
at face value...
it definitely seems to make a lot of sense to me.
Some people are like Slinkies...not really good for anything but they make you smile when pushed down the stairs.
Everybody but Nebraska goes down with the Tempo adjustment.
Admittedly, I’m no math whiz – does that mean the whole Big 12 plays above the national average of possessions?
lol can't have a CKC without KC - Nicholai Khabibulin (LN21)
Didn't notice that when I was doing it, but I'll check it.
I do remember Nebraska averages 65 possessions a game.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
no.
I know Colorado for one doesn’t.
Beadlemaniacs - Award winning* college basketball blog
You know you like college hockey
according to statsheet, Colorado averages 69.8 possession per 40 minutes.
KenPom has national average at 68.2
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
they do really?
wow
Beadlemaniacs - Award winning* college basketball blog
You know you like college hockey
after checking, it looks like the numbers are correct.
Baylor plays just above the average at 68.3 possessions per game.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
And whether the reference point of 68.2 is correct or not
is not so important as that there is a reference point at all. Just equalizing in terms of teams’ possessions will do the trick. You could think of it as dividing by a team’s # of possessions to get a +/- per possession, then multiply by some number (68.2 in this case) to bring the number back to a value closer to the range of the original +/-.
Conversation b/t Special baseball operations consultant Zapp Brannigan and GM Dayton Moore: "...but paper covers rock and rock crushes scissors...we have a conundrum. Get me some paper, a rock, and some scissors."
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 23, 2010 3:16 PM CST reply actions
yes, definitely
i should have been more clear on that. the 68.2 is arbitrary (IMO), but it is also the best number you have available.
Conversation b/t Special baseball operations consultant Zapp Brannigan and GM Dayton Moore: "...but paper covers rock and rock crushes scissors...we have a conundrum. Get me some paper, a rock, and some scissors."
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 25, 2010 5:41 PM CST up reply actions
I like it Warden
the next thing Id do is to use eFG rather than straight FG%.
And maybe something that weights it based on importance, ie rebounding being more important than getting to the line
Beadlemaniacs - Award winning* college basketball blog
You know you like college hockey
damn Fetch...
are you a math major? By the time you get done with Warden and his plus/minus there are only going to be two people in the world who can figure it out.
Some people are like Slinkies...not really good for anything but they make you smile when pushed down the stairs.
As far as field goals, I only use FGA.
So in a way, it is more eFG than FG%. A made three will count as a +2 and a made two pointer will only count as a +1.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.

by 














