quote:

---

The numbers bear out the same on paper, rather you are ahead, behind or even. You either believe in the strategy or you don't.

---

No the numbers don't bear out the same. If you are behind, you want more possessions because this increases variance and gives you a better chance to come back from a large deficit. If you are ahead, you should want to decrease variance.

As a common sense example, suppose the spurs are up 8 and there is a way that they can limit each team to just 5 more possessions in the game, and that each team would have a 50% chance of scoring on each possession. They would obviously love to do this and the CLippers would hate this. The game is basically over. Now, suppose there is a way that the Clippers could make there be 20 more possessions in the game. They would obviously love to do this and the SPurs would hate it. The Clippers would pick this option, even if we told them that by picking the option they would only have a 40% chance of scoring each possession. Even though their chances of scoring are less, they have a much better chance of winning the game by getting 20 possessions (at 40%) than 5 possessions (at 50%).

The above should be clear and obvious. It should also be clear that at a certain point in the game it is not smart to start hacking when you are up alot, thereby giving many more possessions to the team that is behind. What point in the game and how large the lead must be in order for a team to not employ the hack may be up for debate, but there is definitely a point where it is not a smart move.

quote:

---

quote:

---

so it's a moo point.

---

Moo points

---

Cows

The strategy is based on the FT shooter making a certain % versus the points per possession the other team averages and then calculating in your points for possessions.

Yes lengthening the game, provides more opportunities for anomalies to occur, but if the averages hold for all parties the same advantage applies regardless of circumstance when employed.

Additionally, if you have a lead, then this strategy prevents the opportunity to catch up quickly with the 3 ball, so it can just as easily be argued that it situationally creates a bigger advantage if you have a lead.

This is a similar argument to going for 2 vs the XP in football, or going for it on 4th down. Most coaches just employ these tactics situationally, however if you use math and the averages hold it often makes sense to do it in all cases, which some coaches are starting to realize.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

so it's a moo point.

---

Moo points

---

Cows

---

Delicious.

Slightly off-topic, hypothetical question, say you and your friends are going to try and buy tickets off scalpers and if nothing seems like a good deal, just go watch in a bar. What should one watch out for when dealing with scalpers (obviously I know counterfeit tickets, looking for tips/things to be aware of), and what bar would be fun to watch the game at in SA? I live on the north side so don't know too many bars other than ones north of 1604.

quote:

---

Slightly off-topic, hypothetical question, say you and your friends are going to try and buy tickets off scalpers and if nothing seems like a good deal, just go watch in a bar. What should one watch out for when dealing with scalpers (obviously I know counterfeit tickets, looking for tips/things to be aware of), and what bar would be fun to watch the game at in SA? I live on the north side so don't know too many bars other than ones north of 1604.

---

Wait till the game starts. You'll be able to find tickets cheaper.

Side note: Would anyone else enjoy a short "Cheryl" chant from our crowd if Reggie is calling the game? Only because he loves the Spurs so much

Oh and congrats to Kawhi for DPOY!

The expected value per possession of the strategy does not change, but the mavs fan is right that variance factors into the equation. If I were at home I would draw some pictures, but imagine two graphs. Each graph shows not just the average, but the cones of uncertainty for scoring over the last two minutes of game time. Graph A has a higher average and fewer events. Graph B has a lower average but more events. Because the situation in graph B encompasses more events, the coen of uncertainty diverges more from the average and eventually encompasses more possible outcomes than graph A, even though graph A has a higher average points per possession.



You're absolutely right that you have to believe in the strategy whether the shooter is making them or not. Whether DeAndre makes them or not, you keep making him shoot them; he's a 40% shooter regardless of noise in the data. On the other hand, time is a constraint with a major impact on decision-making. Understanding that averages hold is farther than most analysts get in their statistical understanding of the game. Understanding the interaction of confidence intervals and constraints at a practical level is a step that many trained statisticians and financial forecasters fail to achieve. Sometimes all that can kill you IS noise.


I've posted some long thoughts on this before, but I think hack-a-whoever is very situational. Forcing two-for-ones at the end of quarters, increasing the length of the game when you are behind, and breaking an opponent's momentum/killing pace are all valid uses. Lineup analysis is necessary to determine whether it will actually give you an advantage in expected points per possession. Second order effects are also relevant though. I think the fouled team works a lot harder to get offensive rebounds. Transition opportunities (dramatically more efficient than half-court offense against a set defense) for the fouling team disappear. The fouling team can lose offensive continuity as well. Of course, you can end up with players in foul trouble and getting in the bonus early. It should be used very sparingly, imo.

I'm not arguing there is variance and situational strategies to employ. I'm just saying if you believe the averages will hold then the advantage is the same, so if that is your philosophy (and it appears to be Pops) then you use it regardless if you are up, behind or even. Kind of like going for it on 4th down in your own territory. If the averages hold then it is the same advantage, but of course situationally it may or may not be worth employing. You can't just dismiss the strategy when you are ahead, as there are still the same mathematical advantages, which is why Pop kept using it.

quote:

---

Slightly off-topic, hypothetical question, say you and your friends are going to try and buy tickets off scalpers and if nothing seems like a good deal, just go watch in a bar. What should one watch out for when dealing with scalpers (obviously I know counterfeit tickets, looking for tips/things to be aware of), and what bar would be fun to watch the game at in SA? I live on the north side so don't know too many bars other than ones north of 1604.

---

Tricky. I haven't dealt too much with scalpers but you should be able to find some tickets if you aren't too picky on where you want to sit. Just be sure to really analyze the tickets. Especially if you are buying multiple tickets make sure they are all in the same section, row, seats, same game etc. Couldn't tell you how many stories I have heard (not necessarily at Spurs games) of people buying multiple tickets to find out they are actually in a different row/section. I think some hard tickets will only say "Home Game A" on it also. It won't even have a date of the game or opponent or anything because they print the hard tickets out early. So just gotta look out for that. It's not "Home Game C" which can confuse people since its the third game of the series for example. I always see people selling tickets on the corner of I35 and Walters street across from the McDonalds. Never stopped though.

As far as bars go if you don't make it in. There's really nothing around the AT&T Center unless you want to head downtown. I know The Ticket sports bar gets good crowds in for games but other than that maybe Fatsos or Sideliners would have a good Spurs crowd (which are both a good ways away from the AT&T Center). Might just be better to head back up north (Can always go to Patty Mills' bar "The Roo Pub". I'm from the northside as well so I'm not too sure what else would be in closer proximity to the AT&T Center.

Last year, they would sell standing room only tickets if the prices are too steep and you just wanted to get into the building so there's always that if you enjoy playing $7 per beverage. But at least you are in the building.

Follow up with a less abstract reason not to hack... a .400 three point shooter is 1.2 expected points, but will usually take around 10 seconds to get a decent shot for an average of 0.12 points per second. A .400 free throw shooter taking two is 0.8 points, but that only takes 2 seconds so he is scoring 0.4 points per second. Adding time for the hacking team's possession closes the gap but does not erase it.

Given a lead and a limited amount of time, you don't want to increase the points scored per second by either team. This is WHY the cone of uncertainty during game time diverges more in hack-a-whoever.

quote:

---

You're absolutely right that you have to believe in the strategy whether the shooter is making them or not.

---

This is true on a math test, but false on a basketball court. His 40% shooting is not truly random. The fact that he made the previous free throw increases the probability that he will make the next one, because basketball is a game about rhythm and mental confidence.

quote:

---

Given a lead and a limited amount of time, you don't want to increase the points scored per second by either team.

---

points per second don't matter here. You're also giving yourself more possessions.

Thanks Sher. Close to the AT&T Center isn't a requirement, just wanted to make sure I don't miss out on a nice game-watching spot. Roo Pub may end up being the go-to.

Early- and mid-game leads/deficits are overvalued, so I agree with you at least partially. It's a game of runs. It doesn't matter too much whether you are up 8 or down 8 in the first half. Things change by the middle of the fourth quarter though, that's more where what I'm talking about probably comes into play.

Yes, but the value of those points are measured against an existing lead. If you are up 8, you want the expected points scored over the rest of the game to look more like 10 per team than 30 per team.

I was about to say the same thing. The only negative is it gives more opportunities for anomalies off that average. If the hacking team still scores the same points per possession, the amount of time makes no difference. And again, you have to add in that the trailing team doesn't get a chance to make a 3pt shot that possesion.

Tversky broke the hot hand fallacy decades ago. Come on, man.

*******, Timmy was gassed.

http://streamable.com/zxno

Kawhi breaks Reddick's ankles.

http://streamable.com/exyd

Clippers assistant Mike Woodson stealing snacks from the front row.

quote:

---

Kawhi breaks Reddick's ankles.

http://streamable.com/exyd

---

Oh that was filthy....

Those are great. And damn. Timmy was sucking air.

Obviously, if the averages hold, hacking is always the smart play, but there is no way to know if the averages will hold. When it's close to the end of the game, you don't want to give the other team more possessions, because that means there is a larger chance that an anomaly could occur (both for the Clipps scoring and for Spurs not scoring). You want to reduce variance, i.e., make the expected points and possessions for each team to be as low as possible. This is the same reason why football teams run no huddle if they are down big at any point in the game. They want to increase variance, i.e., make the expected points and possessions for each team as high as possible. Obviously, if the averages hold, it won't matter, but at least there is a chance for the team to win.

This is the best I can simplify it: Spurs are up by 8. You have the option of there being 5 more possessions of regular defense being played or having there be 20 more possessions with hack strategy being employed. You would obviously pick Option A, as the Spurs almost never lose. You would pick Option A, even though if the averages hold, the Spurs should win by more with Option B. But there are also times in Option B where the Clipps come back and win (variance, anomalies, whatever you want to call it).

quote:

---

Yes, but the value of those points are measured against an existing lead. If you are up 8, you want the expected points scored over the rest of the game to look more like 10 per team than 30 per team.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

*******, Timmy was gassed.

http://streamable.com/zxno

---

He just needed to recharge. That's not fruit punch Gatorade, it's transmission fluid.

quote:

---

*******, Timmy was gassed.

http://streamable.com/zxno

---

Bet he's drinking tiger blood. Only way to explain how he does what he does.

Congrats, I think we all stated the same thing.

Actually...

quote:

---

I was about to say the same thing. The only negative is it gives more opportunities for anomalies off that average. If the hacking team still scores the same points per possession, the amount of time makes no difference. And again, you have to add in that the trailing team doesn't get a chance to make a 3pt shot that possesion.

---

See my above response. There is no way to know that the average points per possession will hold. Therefore, you want to reduce variance. If we knew what everyone would score each possession, then there would be no reason to have this discussion because there would never be any variance.

And the fact that the trailing team could make a 3 is already factored into the points per possession numbers that we've been using.

quote:

---

Clippers assistant Mike Woodson stealing snacks from the front row.

---

Lol. Stress eating.

quote:

---

Congrats, I think we all stated the same thing.

---

You originally said the numbers bear out the same no matter what time of game or whether you are ahead/behind. You either agree with strategy or not.

My whole point was that that's not the case. But yea, it sounds like we are all in agreement now.

Writing about basketball strategy is better than working anyways...

quote:

---

quote:

---

I was about to say the same thing. The only negative is it gives more opportunities for anomalies off that average. If the hacking team still scores the same points per possession, the amount of time makes no difference. And again, you have to add in that the trailing team doesn't get a chance to make a 3pt shot that possesion.

---

See my above response. There is no way to know that the average points per possession will hold. Therefore, you want to reduce variance. If we knew what everyone would score each possession, then there would be no reason to have this discussion because there would never be any variance.

And the fact that the trailing team could make a 3 is already factored into the points per possession numbers that we've been using.

---

And there is no way to know if there will be a variance. Pop has shown he uses the strategy throughout the game not just at the end of games like most coaches. He obviously believe the averages will hold throughout the game much more so than most coaches that just use this strategy situationally or towards end of games. It's not a bad strategy at anytime as long as your team meets or exceeds those averages. Yes there is a bigger chance of an anomaly if you use the strategy more, but there is also a higher chance to extend your lead and benefit more if you use it more often. Again, it all comes down to your philosophy and the only decided factor on the right one is if it works or not and the win column.

You have a really nice sample size for Jordan in 1827 FTs shot in regular season+playoffs for his career. Over that time he has made just 41.54% of them. The current season has him making 39% on 471FTs, which would be in line with his career.

It would take him shooting a great deal over his career and season averages to make it not worth it to hack him.

The Clippers averaged 1.12 points per possession. For Hacking Jordan not to work, he needs to hit 56% of his FTs, to make 1.12 points per possession, the Clippers average.

This year, DeAndre Jordan shot over 5 FTs 29 times. In those 29 games, he hit 60% one time (6-9). He hit 56% or more just 3 times out of 29 chances. (8-14, 6-9, 4-7.) So 26 of 29 times that DJ shot over 5 FTs, he hit at a rate lower than the Clippers points per possession rate this year.

I would say that the statistical probability that hacking Jordan will work to lower their points per possession is great.