Nylon Calculus: Transition quantity versus quality
Every incoming coach hire is required by an obscure provision of the NBA collective bargaining agreement to pledge to “play with pace.” I am pretty sure it is in the same section that mandates the new coach to promise to “commit to the defensive end,” optionally describing at least one guy as, “just a basketball player.”
There’s good reason for both. On offense, attacking in transition is generally more efficient than playing against a set defense. As a play type using the NBA’s play type stats, it is indeed one of the most efficient plays with the average player scoring 1.1 points per play (PPP) last year.
One of the keys to transition efficiency actually lies in the shots not taken. That is not unlike the spots where returning WWII bombers didn’t have bullet holes. Getting out in transition gives the offense the option to take the quick shot, or to pull the ball back out and reset if the defense has recovered.
Read More: The Warriors are passing their into the record books
That is likely why turnovers figure so prominently in the points per possession efficiency for players in transition, explaining 35 percent of the differences in transition efficiency between players. That is more than for pick-and-roll ball handlers and twice as much as turnovers explain for isolations or spot-up plays. If you turn the ball over, you lose your options to do anything else. If you at least get a shot off in transition, it’s likely to be a good one.
The full breakdown on the contribution to player efficiency is shown below based on the 2015-2016 season for those four Synergy play types. The contributing factors are effective field goal percentage, free throw rate and turnovers:
Looking at the differences between players, I found that there is much less variation in efficiency in transition than in points scored per forty minutes, similar to what I found with spot-ups, isolation and pick-and-roll ball-handlers. This is true in looking at all players or by position. The larger variation indicates getting out in transition is a difference making skill.
Below is a box plot of transition points per forty by position for players with at least 500 minutes.
The year-to-year relationship between transition scoring volume is also much stronger than transition efficiency. Looking at players with as little as 250 minutes played both last year and this year to date the R^2 was .59 for transition points per 40 minutes and and a negligible .06 for point per play. The transition points per forty minutes is shown for qualifying player below.
Contrasted with the much less linear pattern in year-to-year efficiency.
Both the greater variation between players on transition scoring volume compared to transition efficiency and the greater year to year correlation suggest that when it comes to transition plays the ability to get out in transition is the defining skill to look for.
Obviously. there are bad transition plays that lead to turnovers, no-hope wild, contested lay-ups, or PUJITs. But, the overall efficiency of the play makes the volume argument much more compelling for reasonable transition opportunities than generating pick-and-roll ball-handler plays or isolations.