Official John Wall Appreciation Thread

[Illuminaire]

Ooooh!

Now I don't have to hand track that anymore. Go Prada!

We still need some context regarding the same data for other PGs around the league, though, for that to really be meaningful.

[Zonkerbl]

john wall missed assist tracker. pretty interesting read

http://www.bulletsforever.com/2012/2/27 ... #storyjump

The correct formula is [(Should’ve made baskets) – (Actual made baskets)]/(Total assist opportunities).

Should’ve made baskets includes actual made baskets + shots an average NBA team would have made that the wizards miss because they suck.

Total assist opportunities = assists + misses = 251 + 321 = 572.

Wizards convert on 251/572 = 43.9% of Wall’s assist opportunities. The median NBA team converts 44.2% of their opportunities. Had Wall’s teammates converted 44.2% of the 572 opportunities they would have made 253 of them. So… two baskets. If Wall played for the Heat, which makes 48.8% of their fg attempts on average, they would have converted 279 of them — 28 more baskets, and Wall’s assist average would be 8.45.

Does the act of Wall passing you the ball in an assist opportunity situation significantly increase your chance of making a shot? Through 33 games, the wizards are averaging 83.2 attempts per game. That’s a total of 2746 fg attempts so far this season. They’ve made a total of 1178 fgs. Take out the total attempts that were made with Wall’s help, and take out the total makes, and you get 927 non-Wall assisted makes and 2174 non-Wall assisted attempts, for a fg% of 42.6%. So having Wall pass the ball to you in an assist situation improves your field goal percentage by 43.9-42.6 = 1.3%. That looks like a pretty crappy number.

So it would be interesting to do similar analysis for other PGs and see if they significantly increase the fg% of their teammates when they pass to them. If your average top ten pg increases his teammates fg% by 5 points and Wall only increases it by 1.3%, then yeah, Wall sucks.

[tontoz]

As a team, the Wizards rank 27th in the league in effective field goal percentage, 29th in the league in three-point shooting and 28th in the league in points per possession on spot-up attempts, according to MySynergySports.com.

Wall is averaging 7.6 assists (10th in the league in assists per game) in spite of the above. I think that is self explanatory.

Trying to figure out how many assists he is missing out on will always be speculation.

[Nivek]

The median NBA team converts 44.2% of their opportunities.

Where are you getting this number? If you're simply using the league's FG%, the rest of your analysis is wrong.

A couple years ago, 82games tracked POTENTIAL assists. They found on average that a potential assist boosted shooting percentage by about 8%. In other words, the conversion rate on FGA preceded by a pass that was a potential assist was about 50%. The same type of FGA not preceded by a potential assist went in about 42% of the time.

Using the numbers above, if the Wizards were an average team, Wall would have an additional 35 assists this season -- slightly more than 1 per game. So, he'd be sitting at about 8.6 assists per game -- which would move him from 10th in the league in assists per game to a tie for 4th with Chris Paul.

[Ruzious]

The median NBA team converts 44.2% of their opportunities.

Where are you getting this number? If you're simply using the league's FG%, the rest of your analysis is wrong.

A couple years ago, 82games tracked POTENTIAL assists. They found on average that a potential assist boosted shooting percentage by about 8%. In other words, the conversion rate on FGA preceded by a pass that was a potential assist was about 50%. The same type of FGA not preceded by a potential assist went in about 42% of the time.

Using the numbers above, if the Wizards were an average team, Wall would have an additional 35 assists this season -- slightly more than 1 per game. So, he'd be sitting at about 8.6 assists per game -- which would move him from 10th in the league in assists per game to a tie for 4th with Chris Paul.

Prada should have discussed his article with you before finalizing it. I think if he had that info, he would have included it - and had a solid conclusion and a very good article.

[nate33]

Using the numbers above, if the Wizards were an average team, Wall would have an additional 35 assists this season -- slightly more than 1 per game. So, he'd be sitting at about 8.6 assists per game -- which would move him from 10th in the league in assists per game to a tie for 4th with Chris Paul.

I just wanted to quote this again.

[Zonkerbl]

still -- why are the zards only shooting 1.3% better instead of 8% better? Isn't that Wall's fault?

The 82games article breaks down the improvement in fg% by shot. Do the zards not shoot much better on non-3pt jumpers when Wall assists on them?

[tontoz]

Using the numbers above, if the Wizards were an average team, Wall would have an additional 35 assists this season -- slightly more than 1 per game. So, he'd be sitting at about 8.6 assists per game -- which would move him from 10th in the league in assists per game to a tie for 4th with Chris Paul.

I just wanted to quote this again.

I think Wall's playmaking ability gets taken for granted sometimes. It is easy to focus too much on the things a player doesn't do well when you watch them every game. His shooting and turnover problems probably take attention away from his playmaking ability, as does having teamates who can't shoot a lick.

[Nivek]

still -- why are the zards only shooting 1.3% better instead of 8% better? Isn't that Wall's fault?

The 82games article breaks down the improvement in fg% by shot. Do the zards not shoot much better on non-3pt jumpers when Wall assists on them?

Maybe the Wizards are shooting 8% better on shoots preceded by a pass that's a potential assist.

Remember, Prada is including turnovers in his "failed to convert" category. Including turnovers in that category are making all this a bit tougher.

[tontoz]

still -- why are the zards only shooting 1.3% better instead of 8% better? Isn't that Wall's fault?

The 82games article breaks down the improvement in fg% by shot. Do the zards not shoot much better on non-3pt jumpers when Wall assists on them?

Keep in mind that many of the open shots are being taken by guys that the opponents want to shoot. Meanwhile a lot of the contested jumpers are coming from Nick who can actually make them at a reasonable percentage.

I would assume that the study Nivek is referencing was done on an individual basis, not a team basis. If you looked at Nick's contested jumpers vs open jumpers it would probably be close to an 8% difference.

[TheKingOfVa360]

Wall's exciting and playing well, but this game, as meaningless as it is, helps me understand the viewpoint that Kyrie is better.

****

Kyrie can shoot, but he has average playmaking ability and plays no defense. Wall's defense, rebounding, and playmaking ability is in another league than Irvings. Wall's already an elite shot blocker for his position.

[Illuminaire]

still -- why are the zards only shooting 1.3% better instead of 8% better? Isn't that Wall's fault?

Because passing before shots still happens when Wall is not in the game, and the general benefits of ball movement continue to exist even when Wall is not causing the movement.

He just does it better.

[Zonkerbl]

No, it's because my math is wrong.

Zards have averaged 15.1 tos per game, or 498 total. They’ve attempted 2746 shots, so shot attempts + tos = 2746 + 498 = 3244. They’ve made 1178 fgs, so they make 1178/3244 = 36.3% of their total “opportunities.”

On Wall assisted shots they make 251/572 = 43.9%, or 7.6% better.

[edit: To be a little more precise:

Total opportunities: 3244. Wall assisted opportunities: 572. Non-Wall-assisted: 3244 – 572 = 2672.

Total makes: 1178. Wall assisted makes: 251. Non-wall-assisted makes: 1178-251 = 927.

Non-wall-assisted “opportunities” : 927/2672 = 34.7.
Wall-assisted: 251/572 = 43.9%.

Difference: 9.2%.

So Wall’s assists are slightly “better” than the NBA average.]

[Illuminaire]

......and my point still stands.

The 8% better rate is a mathematical generality for any shot taken after any pass by any player to any other player. It's a completely separate factoid from how much better the Wiz shoot when Wall is passing them versus when some other Wizard is passing them the ball.

[Zonkerbl]

I don't see what your point is. That the number is completely meaningless and we should ignore it?

[Illuminaire]

A couple years ago, 82games tracked POTENTIAL assists. They found on average that a potential assist boosted shooting percentage by about 8%. In other words, the conversion rate on FGA preceded by a pass that was a potential assist was about 50%. The same type of FGA not preceded by a potential assist went in about 42% of the time.
/quote]

still -- why are the zards only shooting 1.3% better instead of 8% better? Isn't that Wall's fault?

My point is that you asked the wrong question, because the 8% that Kevin referenced was not John Wall specific. Your 1.3% difference is between Wall-passed and non-Wall-passed balls. Kevin's 8% difference is between potentially assisted and potentially unassisted FGs.

They weren't different because you calculated incorrectly, they were different because they were separate things to begin with.

[Nivek]

No, it's because my math is wrong.

Zards have averaged 15.1 tos per game, or 498 total. They’ve attempted 2746 shots, so shot attempts + tos = 2746 + 498 = 3244. They’ve made 1178 fgs, so they make 1178/3244 = 36.3% of their total “opportunities.”

On Wall assisted shots they make 251/572 = 43.9%, or 7.6% better.

[edit: To be a little more precise:

Total opportunities: 3244. Wall assisted opportunities: 572. Non-Wall-assisted: 3244 – 572 = 2672.

Total makes: 1178. Wall assisted makes: 251. Non-wall-assisted makes: 1178-251 = 927.

Non-wall-assisted “opportunities” : 927/2672 = 34.7.
Wall-assisted: 251/572 = 43.9%.

Difference: 9.2%.

So Wall’s assists are slightly “better” than the NBA average.]

Well, maybe. Because some of those non-Wall-assisted FGs were still assisted FGs.

[tontoz]

My point is that you asked the wrong question, because the 8% that Kevin referenced was not John Wall specific. Your 1.3% difference is between Wall-passed and non-Wall-passed balls. Kevin's 8% difference is between potentially assisted and potentially unassisted FGs.

They weren't different because you calculated incorrectly, they were different because they were separate things to begin with.

I think i actually understand this now. Wasn't sure what you guys were arguing about for a minute there.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, after reading the 82games article again I finally got what Kev was saying...

Zards made 43.9% of Wall-assisted opportunities. League average, according to the article, is 50%. If the zards had converted 50% of the 572 Wall-assisted opportunities, he would have 35 more assists and an 8.7 apg average, good for 4th in the league.

Speaking of my math, if you were to calculate the non-assisted conversion rate of the zards (instead of the non-Wall assisted rate I calculated), you would take out Wall-assisted AND NON-WALL ASSISTED fgas. Since assisted fgas have a higher conversion rate associated with them, taking them out would make the non-assisted fg conversion rate LOWER than the non-Wall-assisted rate I calculated. Which means that the 9.2% difference is (likely) TOO LOW.

Dudes, I work with the data I have. You've gotta trust me. I'm good at math.

[Zonkerbl]

Wait, so if you move the ball instead of going one on one you shoot on average 8% better? Who'd a thunk it!!!!