RealGM

Justin's site is the Bible for most of us here, unless you have a downloadable NBA history that works in a spreadsheet. I'd love to see two stats added.

(a) points rate -- there are rebound rate and assist rate on there already. How difficult would it be to add points rate which would allow comparing volume scoring much more easily?

(b) relative efficiency -- (might want a snappier name) How does this player's scoring efficiency (tsp for example) compare to league wide efficiency during that year?

Put these 4 numbers together and you get a decent snapshot of the older players from when the league was statistically very different. Not perfect of course but no stat is other than NBA championships won during the appropriate year.

penbeast0 wrote:Justin's site is the Bible for most of us here, unless you have a downloadable NBA history that works in a spreadsheet. I'd love to see two stats added.

(a) points rate -- there are rebound rate and assist rate on there already. How difficult would it be to add points rate which would allow comparing volume scoring much more easily?

(b) relative efficiency -- (might want a snappier name) How does this player's scoring efficiency (tsp for example) compare to league wide efficiency during that year?

Put these 4 numbers together and you get a decent snapshot of the older players from when the league was statistically very different. Not perfect of course but no stat is other than NBA championships won during the appropriate year.

Sounds like Adjusted stats in baseball (eg Adjusted ERA, or ERA+). I'd like to know the "adjusted" stats in basketball...

Points rate would be cool. Adjusted points rate might be cooler

penbeast0 wrote:(a) points rate -- there are rebound rate and assist rate on there already. How difficult would it be to add points rate which would allow comparing volume scoring much more easily?

(b) relative efficiency -- (might want a snappier name) How does this player's scoring efficiency (tsp for example) compare to league wide efficiency during that year?

Excellent thoughts. I believe volume and efficiency are rolled up in a player's Offensive Win Shares, but that process isn't very transparent.

Point (a) suggests some sort of parallel between the % of all (Tm+Opp) rebounds a player gets (Reb%) and the % of all (Tm+Opp) points he scores. I like this idea very much.

Since a team (and its opponents) generate rather different totals of rebounds, and a player's Reb% is relative to that;
then perhaps a player's Scoring% (whatever you call it) should be relative to TS% within his team's games.

The Warriors + their opponents shoot .564 TS%
In Bulls games, the avg for both sides is .522
So shooting .540 for the Bulls is good; for the Warriors it's not so good.

jicama wrote:Since a team (and its opponents) generate rather different totals of rebounds, and a player's Reb% is relative to that;
then perhaps a player's Scoring% (whatever you call it) should be relative to TS% within his team's games.

The Warriors + their opponents shoot .564 TS%
In Bulls games, the avg for both sides is .522
So shooting .540 for the Bulls is good; for the Warriors it's not so good.

This would be really useful, I think...a player's TS% minus the team TS%. I look at a guy like Jason Richardson whose TS% has bounced around dramatically over his career...it would be easier to understand at a glance if he is just sucking, the system is a good or bad fit for him, etc.

Another guy I'm curious about is someone like Jarrett Jack who is having a career years (~.61 TS%.) Is this a product of the Raptors system, or has he just improved dramatically? Seeing his TS% relative to that of his teams over the years would be helpful in understanding these sorts of things.

Finally, Charlie V. You look at his TS% and figure that he is having a terrible year and shouldn't really be getting many touches, yet is turns out that he is one of the more efficient scoring options on the team.

Anyway, no clue if Justin actually reads any of these comments, but certainly would be nice if this sort of info were available..