Knicks · Stat: Pace (page 1)

I see people reporting on the Knicks' Pace. This is just the number of possessions that a team uses in a game. Many numbers can affect it. There is zero correlation between pace and winning. So, if I say I want to increase the Knicks PACE, there are several ways to do this.

One method is to use less time on the offensive shot clock. Think back to seven seconds or less. We can just use less shot clock to get more possessions in the overall game.

A second is to get a lot of offensive rebounds. Possessions restart after a FG attempt. So, if MitchRob is the best offensive rebounder in the league, he increases our pace with an additional possession for each OReb. Now, think back to Andre Drummond missing 12 layups in a row but getting his own rebound. Those are possessions for increased pace. A team can increase their pace by missing shots and obtaining possession on the rebound.

A third is that they can just not play defense. If you give the other team a free layup, you get the ball back in no time. Its like a free possession. Yeah, both teams get lots of shots. But PACE will be higher.

Here's the point, Pace is a volume stat that doesn't actually tell you very much about how and why the number of possessions are what they are. You look at pace next to other stats to help modify what they mean. Even then, as a stat, I think Pace is useless.

Assume the Knicks push the other team to the 24 second shot clock every possession and when they get the defensive rebound, they turn around with transition offense and score D'antoni style in SSOL. Assume no turnovers, no ORebs. For 48 minutes they hold the opposing team to 24 seconds on the clock and shoot in 7 seconds or less. This would likely be both the best offensive and defensive squad of all time right?

48 minutes * 60 seconds = 2,880 seconds. Divide by 31 seconds = 92.9 total possessions. Divide by 2, each team ends up with a PACE of 46. The lowest of all time. What does this Pace tell you about this team on its own? Literally nothing.

Now, obviously that circumstance won't happen in real life. But does McBride bring down our pace by taking 7 seconds off the clock on his constant pressure just bringing the ball up the court? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No.

If the Knicks can't get to the hoop in transition, and they stand around dribbling for 22 seconds before tossing up a contested 18 foot jumper, is that a bad thing? Yeah, probably. (depends on if it goes in )

If the Knicks get into a half court set and instead of dribbling the ball in iso, they pass the ball around the court forcing the defense to shift and re-focus, seeking weaknesses and then with 7 seconds on the clock they put up an open three from the top of the key while getting back on defense? Lower pace but damn if that's not the shot I want.

I don't care about pace.

I care about additional possessions created by steals and offensive rebounds.

I want to see points in transition before the defense sets as an increase to pace.

I want to see passes per possession - meaning pressure on the defense as a decrease to pace.

I want to see low opposing FG% paired with high defensive rebounding percentage as a increase to pace

I want to see Contested shots and Deflections even if they result in additional possessions for the opponent (and a decrease to pace).

And then, I want to see eFG. Points in the paint. 3 point percentage. FT shots. Regardless of "pace" we should be finding these shots. So, guys jacking a 3 seven seconds into the possession off the dribble versus taking 10 more seconds to swing the ball for a set shot.

Pace means literally nothing by itself because it is manipulated by so many factors. Zero correlation between pace and winning.

What am I missing that makes people care more about pace?

The best thing the Knicks can do is push the pace. When they have to think they stink. It showed late in last game. Slow tempo almost cost them the game with the iso ball. Run run run.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/four-fac...

I like the Four Factors stat board the best for team stats and understanding wins. I limited it to our last 5 games. Arguably our best basketball. Our wins the last 5 games can be attributed to opponent eFG. Our eFG is among the lowest in the league even over the last 5 games. We have just kept our opponents to worse. The team that scores the least point loses.

I don't know if they can keep up that Opp eFG rate. I think we can still do better on our eFG.

That spread between eFG and Opp-eFG is what we should be focused on.

.

knickslions wrote:The best thing the Knicks can do is push the pace. When they have to think they stink. It showed late in last game. Slow tempo almost cost them the game with the iso ball. Run run run.

Its almost like you didn't read the post.

EwingsGlass wrote:

knickslions wrote:The best thing the Knicks can do is push the pace. When they have to think they stink. It showed late in last game. Slow tempo almost cost them the game with the iso ball. Run run run.

Its almost like you didn't read the post.

Fixed.

EwingsGlass wrote:I don't care about pace.

I care about additional possessions created by steals and offensive rebounds.

I want to see points in transition before the defense sets as an increase to pace.

I want to see passes per possession - meaning pressure on the defense as a decrease to pace.

I want to see low opposing FG% paired with high defensive rebounding percentage as a increase to pace

I want to see Contested shots and Deflections even if they result in additional possessions for the opponent (and a decrease to pace).

And then, I want to see eFG. Points in the paint. 3 point percentage. FT shots. Regardless of "pace" we should be finding these shots. So, guys jacking a 3 seven seconds into the possession off the dribble versus taking 10 more seconds to swing the ball for a set shot.

Pace means literally nothing by itself because it is manipulated by so many factors. Zero correlation between pace and winning.

What am I missing that makes people care more about pace?

I think you are on to it.

For instance, FG% on its own is not very informative (but gets you a sense of things), especially across Centers to wings who take a majority of 3pt shots. eFG% informs about 3point shots and then TS% adds in FTs and FT%.

Pace combined with transitions and early shot clock made possessions and eFG% is probably better?

martin wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:I don't care about pace.

I care about additional possessions created by steals and offensive rebounds.

I want to see points in transition before the defense sets as an increase to pace.

I want to see passes per possession - meaning pressure on the defense as a decrease to pace.

I want to see low opposing FG% paired with high defensive rebounding percentage as a increase to pace

I want to see Contested shots and Deflections even if they result in additional possessions for the opponent (and a decrease to pace).

And then, I want to see eFG. Points in the paint. 3 point percentage. FT shots. Regardless of "pace" we should be finding these shots. So, guys jacking a 3 seven seconds into the possession off the dribble versus taking 10 more seconds to swing the ball for a set shot.

Pace means literally nothing by itself because it is manipulated by so many factors. Zero correlation between pace and winning.

What am I missing that makes people care more about pace?

I think you are on to it.

For instance, FG% on its own is not very informative (but gets you a sense of things), especially across Centers to wings who take a majority of 3pt shots. eFG% informs about 3point shots and then TS% adds in FTs and FT%.

Pace combined with transitions and early shot clock made possessions and eFG% is probably better?

At the very least, I think you would need to drill what we "want pace to mean" down to shot clock usage on offense and defense - independently and not together. That will tell you how fast we are getting into our offensive sets and how long we are holding on defense. Put that next to these other offense and defense stats and I think you get more color on what they mean. But I think the stat people are really looking for is shot clock usage when they say pace.

I think the 24-7 shot clock management - hold for 24 on defense and attack in SSOL is probably close to ideal. Would never be able to sort that out in the current Pace stat.

EwingsGlass wrote:https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/four-fac...

I like the Four Factors stat board the best for team stats and understanding wins. I limited it to our last 5 games. Arguably our best basketball. Our wins the last 5 games can be attributed to opponent eFG. Our eFG is among the lowest in the league even over the last 5 games. We have just kept our opponents to worse. The team that scores the least point loses.

I don't know if they can keep up that Opp eFG rate. I think we can still do better on our eFG.

That spread between eFG and Opp-eFG is what we should be focused on.

.

the bold is good and one of the most telling. Pace is just result of style of play. If are an elite offensive team pushing the pace as much as possible is just math. This is SSOL worked, because you had some of the most EFG% efficient player in the league.

this is pretty good for team offense:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/lea...