Fun with Stats!!!

[EwingSweatsALot]

Defensive points allowed per 100 over opponents average.

It's basically how many points out player allows based on what the opponent scores on average. Based off twos and threes. No location because not enough data.

By positional groupings.

PG
Lin 0.43
Walker 28.33!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wing
Lamb -18.53
Batum -2.08
Hairston 2.66

PF
Williams -5.82
Zeller -4.86

C
Hawes -7.21
Jefferson 14.56
Kaminsky 16.68

[TinmanZBoy]

I still wish Clifford was a little less anal about defensive rebounding so we could get some more fast break opportunities. I like being good at defensive rebounding, but I would be happy with just being very good instead of GOAT status at it if it meant some more transition baskets.

You'd be ok at potentially giving up offensive rebounds and second chance points for the "chance" of maybe scoring a leaked out, cherry picking, fast break transition basket or two?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I think we are good enough at rebounding to let some of our guards to use some discretion and leak out for fast breaks a little more than they currently do. There is no reason we should be so terrible in transition with so many fast and athletic players. I feel like we have to be missing some opportunities to get easy baskets.

edit: Also, fast break opportunities may not be guaranteed points, but neither are offensive rebounds.

Basically u just run once the defensive rebound is secured...let you guard push the tempo, creat havoc on d, lin is very good at this, not sure about kemba, have not watch enough games of him... But I think it will not happen, I feel like Clifford is calling play for every possession, you can see lin had to watch toward him every time he brought the ball up...

Tbh, I am a little surprised with lin's efficiency so far...his pace is about 97', not the pace he likes... The good thing is his usage rate is high...26.5, highest in the team, which means ball is in his hand a lot when he was on the court... And a lot of PnR...
If I am opposing teams, I would do what Atlanta and Mavericks did to him, trap him, harass him when he slowly brings the ball up, see if lin and Hornets can find ways to counter...but if u put lin in open court and run situation, the opponents basically have no good ways to contain him... Still early, we will see...

[Yit]

Hi all,
Here's what I have been working on tracking the performances of the Hornet's players. I am trying to translate the basic stats into what I call as Contribution Points (it is not exactly the same as Hollinger's PER but hopefully the method I am using tie-up better to the eyeball test).

Essentially, there are 3 components to CP - the first being shooting efficiency (computed by ratio of points scored/total team points divided by ratio of time on court/48 multiplied by 100) + the positive contributors (Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks) - the negative factors (Turnovers and Block against).

I have dropped the values for players playing less than 10 minutes (as the swing in data is too huge due to minor variations) - so players will get UR (unrated instead).

Note: It's an open-ended scoring system - so technically players can score extremely high - but generally my own interpretation of it is as such (if you have other ideas please critique or suggest - thanks in advance) - to me any players playing above 20 and above is Decent, playing 30 and above is Good, and playing 40 and above is Great. Players below 20 really needs to buck up (or are under-performing in my opinion). I am still considering whether I should accumulate the scores or average it out over the season.

So far after 9 games here's how our players are holding out:
(sorry seems the table function isn't turn on for realgm so if the formatting seems off - my apologies)

Contribution Points of Players Per Game
Player---G1---G2---G3---G4---G5---G6---G7---G8---G9
KW15 ---36--- 26---39--- 25---30--- 51---18--- 21---39
JL7 ------33---28--- 26---38--- 20---31--- 38---46--- 15
BR22 ----21---NA---NA---UR---UR---UR---UR--NA---NA
NB5 ----- 19---30---38--- 33--- 23---23--- 28---38--- 50
JL3 ------NA---42---33--- 37---32--- 10--- 40---35--- 28
TD30 ----NA---NA---NA--UR---UR---UR---NA---NA---UR
AH9 -----NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA
MW2 ----25---33--- 30---19--- 38--- 21---21--- 21--- 27
PJH19 -- 10---10---19--- 24---12--- 14---25--- 16--- 20
MKG14--NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA
CZ40 ----24---18---20--- 20---31--- 9---33--- 30---NA
FK44 ----NA---23---UR---18---UR---UR---UR---UR---18
TH50 ---NA---NA---NA---UR---UR---UR---NA---NA---NA
AJ25 ----43---30---30--- 32--- 60--- 30---20---16--- 20
SH00 ----23---31---12--- 29--- 6--- 15--- 9--- 9--- 11

Ideas and suggestions are always welcomed!

[HornetJail]

Hi all,
Here's what I have been working on tracking the performances of the Hornet's players. I am trying to translate the basic stats into what I call as Contribution Points (it is not exactly the same as Hollinger's PER but hopefully the method I am using tie-up better to the eyeball test).

Essentially, there are 3 components to CP - the first being shooting efficiency (computed by ratio of points scored/total team points divided by ratio of time on court/48 multiplied by 100) + the positive contributors (Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks) - the negative factors (Turnovers and Block against).

I have dropped the values for players playing less than 10 minutes (as the swing in data is too huge due to minor variations) - so players will get UR (unrated instead).

Note: It's an open-ended scoring system - so technically players can score extremely high - but generally my own interpretation of it is as such (if you have other ideas please critique or suggest - thanks in advance) - to me any players playing above 20 and above is Decent, playing 30 and above is Good, and playing 40 and above is Great. Players below 20 really needs to buck up (or are under-performing in my opinion). I am still considering whether I should accumulate the scores or average it out over the season.

So far after 9 games here's how our players are holding out:
(sorry seems the table function isn't turn on for realgm so if the formatting seems off - my apologies)

Contribution Points of Players Per Game
Player---G1---G2---G3---G4---G5---G6---G7---G8---G9
KW15 ---36--- 26---39--- 25---30--- 51---18--- 21---39
JL7 ------33---28--- 26---38--- 20---31--- 38---46--- 15
BR22 ----21---NA---NA---UR---UR---UR---UR--NA---NA
NB5 ----- 19---30---38--- 33--- 23---23--- 28---38--- 50
JL3 ------NA---42---33--- 37---32--- 10--- 40---35--- 28
TD30 ----NA---NA---NA--UR---UR---UR---NA---NA---UR
AH9 -----NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA
MW2 ----25---33--- 30---19--- 38--- 21---21--- 21--- 27
PJH19 -- 10---10---19--- 24---12--- 14---25--- 16--- 20
MKG14--NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA
CZ40 ----24---18---20--- 20---31--- 9---33--- 30---NA
FK44 ----NA---23---UR---18---UR---UR---UR---UR---18
TH50 ---NA---NA---NA---UR---UR---UR---NA---NA---NA
AJ25 ----43---30---30--- 32--- 60--- 30---20---16--- 20
SH00 ----23---31---12--- 29--- 6--- 15--- 9--- 9--- 11

Ideas and suggestions are always welcomed!

You may want to look at "GameScore", which is a Hollinger stat that is similar to the one you've created.

From basketball-reference:

GmSc
Game Score; the formula is PTS + 0.4 * FG - 0.7 * FGA - 0.4*(FTA - FT) + 0.7 * ORB + 0.3 * DRB + STL + 0.7 * AST + 0.7 * BLK - 0.4 * PF - TOV. Game Score was created by John Hollinger to give a rough measure of a player's productivity for a single game. The scale is similar to that of points scored, (40 is an outstanding performance, 10 is an average performance, etc.)

For example Kemba's GmSc for each game this season is 15.7, 6.7, 17.5, 10.9, 12.2, 22.6, 6.0, 5.8, 12.4. Someone like Russell Westbrook routinely hangs around the 20-25 range.

[ckman]

Among 321 qualified players (at least 6min per game), PJ ranked at #307 with a 5.69 PER

[Yit]

You may want to look at "GameScore", which is a Hollinger stat that is similar to the one you've created.

From basketball-reference:

GmSc
Game Score; the formula is PTS + 0.4 * FG - 0.7 * FGA - 0.4*(FTA - FT) + 0.7 * ORB + 0.3 * DRB + STL + 0.7 * AST + 0.7 * BLK - 0.4 * PF - TOV. Game Score was created by John Hollinger to give a rough measure of a player's productivity for a single game. The scale is similar to that of points scored, (40 is an outstanding performance, 10 is an average performance, etc.)

For example Kemba's GmSc for each game this season is 15.7, 6.7, 17.5, 10.9, 12.2, 22.6, 6.0, 5.8, 12.4. Someone like Russell Westbrook routinely hangs around the 20-25 range.

thanks Motor, interesting. Although I don't quite agree with how hollingers had given a lower weightage to defensive rebounds compared to offensive rebounds. Also would like to understand how he determined the other weightages.

[HornetJail]

Among 321 qualified players (at least 6min per game), PJ ranked at #307 with a 5.69 PER

Spencer Hawes plays nearly as many minutes with a marvelous 6.7 PER and TS% of .403 as well. How do we manage to play this many negative players every game and still win games?

[Mystical Apples]

Among 321 qualified players (at least 6min per game), PJ ranked at #307 with a 5.69 PER

Spencer Hawes plays nearly as many minutes with a marvelous 6.7 PER and TS% of .403 as well. How do we manage to play this many negative players every game and still win games?

PER is an individual box score stat that may or may not help the team on offense and doesnt really touch defense. Hawes' value is in creating space for his teammates which isn't quantifiable with box scores.

See: Jefferson, Al

[HornetJail]

Among 321 qualified players (at least 6min per game), PJ ranked at #307 with a 5.69 PER

Spencer Hawes plays nearly as many minutes with a marvelous 6.7 PER and TS% of .403 as well. How do we manage to play this many negative players every game and still win games?

PER is an individual box score stat that may or may not help the team on offense and doesnt really touch defense. Hawes' value is in creating space for his teammates which isn't quantifiable with box scores.

See: Jefferson, Al

Except Hawes has done that like 5 times all season and he can't defend or score for **** either

[TTNN]

Hi all,
Here's what I have been working on tracking the performances of the Hornet's players. I am trying to translate the basic stats into what I call as Contribution Points (it is not exactly the same as Hollinger's PER but hopefully the method I am using tie-up better to the eyeball test).

Essentially, there are 3 components to CP - the first being shooting efficiency (computed by ratio of points scored/total team points divided by ratio of time on court/48 multiplied by 100) + the positive contributors (Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks) - the negative factors (Turnovers and Block against).

I have dropped the values for players playing less than 10 minutes (as the swing in data is too huge due to minor variations) - so players will get UR (unrated instead).

Note: It's an open-ended scoring system - so technically players can score extremely high - but generally my own interpretation of it is as such (if you have other ideas please critique or suggest - thanks in advance) - to me any players playing above 20 and above is Decent, playing 30 and above is Good, and playing 40 and above is Great. Players below 20 really needs to buck up (or are under-performing in my opinion). I am still considering whether I should accumulate the scores or average it out over the season.

So far after 9 games here's how our players are holding out:
(sorry seems the table function isn't turn on for realgm so if the formatting seems off - my apologies)

Contribution Points of Players Per Game
Player---G1---G2---G3---G4---G5---G6---G7---G8---G9
KW15 ---36--- 26---39--- 25---30--- 51---18--- 21---39
JL7 ------33---28--- 26---38--- 20---31--- 38---46--- 15
BR22 ----21---NA---NA---UR---UR---UR---UR--NA---NA
NB5 ----- 19---30---38--- 33--- 23---23--- 28---38--- 50
JL3 ------NA---42---33--- 37---32--- 10--- 40---35--- 28
TD30 ----NA---NA---NA--UR---UR---UR---NA---NA---UR
AH9 -----NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA
MW2 ----25---33--- 30---19--- 38--- 21---21--- 21--- 27
PJH19 -- 10---10---19--- 24---12--- 14---25--- 16--- 20
MKG14--NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA
CZ40 ----24---18---20--- 20---31--- 9---33--- 30---NA
FK44 ----NA---23---UR---18---UR---UR---UR---UR---18
TH50 ---NA---NA---NA---UR---UR---UR---NA---NA---NA
AJ25 ----43---30---30--- 32--- 60--- 30---20---16--- 20
SH00 ----23---31---12--- 29--- 6--- 15--- 9--- 9--- 11

Ideas and suggestions are always welcomed!

Pure discussion about your scoring system.

First, shooting efficiency: (computed by ratio of points scored/total team points divided by ratio of time on court/48 multiplied by 100)

So (ratio of points scored/total team points muliplied by 100), this portion pretty much means, if a team's total score is normalized to 100, how many points were generated by this one player. So, that's a portion of normalized player contribution by points.

Then by factor in player min/48 min, you normalized that player points contribution to 48 min playing time to even out playing time difference.

Noticed that this factor was dealing with only points earned, though you call it shooting efficiency, it has nothing to do with their field goal percentage. But a lot to do with how quick they pile up shots during their on court time. So, higher USG%, higher the number. Chuckers who have high FGM, with high FGA will score the same with efficient player who get the same FGM but less FGA.

Then other factors, you add directly positive factors subtract negative factors. However, all those are not weighted, and it was added directly to the normalized points a player scored.

So that could be argued that, 1 assist generate minimum 2 points, though after normalization, one game point might not be equivalent to 1 point in your CP calculation, but roughly should still be in that range, so without weight on it, you are under estimate the contribution of assist. That argument could apply to rebound, as not each rebound could results in score, and then block shot not even ensure to gain a possession yet, thus should weight further less than rebounding..... Then talk about shot blocked, was that as negative as TO? And how about shot missed? Are they better than shot blocked? Why that is not counted?

Just my 2 cents,

[Yit]

Pure discussion about your scoring system.

First, shooting efficiency: (computed by ratio of points scored/total team points divided by ratio of time on court/48 multiplied by 100)

So (ratio of points scored/total team points muliplied by 100), this portion pretty much means, if a team's total score is normalized to 100, how many points were generated by this one player. So, that's a portion of normalized player contribution by points.

Then by factor in player min/48 min, you normalized that player points contribution to 48 min playing time to even out playing time difference.

Noticed that this factor was dealing with only points earned, though you call it shooting efficiency, it has nothing to do with their field goal percentage. But a lot to do with how quick they pile up shots during their on court time. So, higher USG%, higher the number. Chuckers who have high FGM, with high FGA will score the same with efficient player who get the same FGM but less FGA.

Then other factors, you add directly positive factors subtract negative factors. However, all those are not weighted, and it was added directly to the normalized points a player scored.

So that could be argued that, 1 assist generate minimum 2 points, though after normalization, one game point might not be equivalent to 1 point in your CP calculation, but roughly should still be in that range, so without weight on it, you are under estimate the contribution of assist. That argument could apply to rebound, as not each rebound could results in score, and then block shot not even ensure to gain a possession yet, thus should weight further less than rebounding..... Then talk about shot blocked, was that as negative as TO? And how about shot missed? Are they better than shot blocked? Why that is not counted?

Just my 2 cents,

Thanks TTNN, useful points - this is still works in progress - you are correct about the weightage adjustments (that may or may not be required) - I am going with something simple first and see if that matches reasonably well with the eye-ball test (aka opinions of observers). So far - I think it's holding up reasonably fine of course there are other matrix missing as we are using the basic stats. If we are using this as a basis for comparison, I just can't understand why PJH is being used continually by the coach as a starter- I can't really see why Lamb isn't starting in his place.

[Yit]

Updating after Game 10

Contribution Points of Players Per Game
Player---G1---G2---G3---G4---G5---G6---G7---G8---G9---G10
KW15 ---36--- 26---39--- 25---30--- 51---18--- 21---39--- 26
JL7 ------33---28--- 26---38--- 20---31--- 38---46--- 15--- 15
BR22 ----21---NA---NA---UR---UR---UR---UR--NA---NA --- UR
NB5 ----- 19---30---38--- 33--- 23---23--- 28---38--- 50--- 47
JL3 ------NA---42---33--- 37---32--- 10--- 40---35--- 28--- 30
TD30 ----NA---NA---NA--UR---UR---UR---NA---NA---UR----NA
AH9 -----NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA----NA
MW2 ----25---33--- 30---19--- 38--- 21---21--- 21--- 27----21
PJH19 -- 10---10---19--- 24---12--- 14---25--- 16--- 20----UR
MKG14--NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---NA---- NA
CZ40 ----24---18---20--- 20---31--- 9---33--- 30---NA---- 10
FK44 ----NA---23---UR---18---UR---UR---UR---UR---18----NA
TH50 ---NA---NA---NA---UR---UR---UR---NA---NA---NA----NA
AJ25 ----43---30---30--- 32--- 60--- 30---20---16--- 20---- 49
SH00 ----23---31---12--- 29--- 6--- 15--- 9--- 9--- 11-----11

Not all players have gathered enough stats for a 10 Game average - but here are the figures for players that has reach the point where a 10-game average could be computed:
NB5 - 33 +/- 10
AJ25 - 33 +/- 14
KW15 - 31 +/- 10
JL7 - 29 +/- 10
MW2 - 26 +/- 6
SH00 - 15 +/- 9

[yosemiteben]

Hornets as a team though 10 games: 6th in offensive effeciency, 14th in defensive efficiency (source)

Small sample size, but that's also against the #2 ranked strength of schedule up to this point (source).

[Benjamin Linus]

Hornets as a team though 10 games: 6th in offensive effeciency, 14th in defensive efficiency (source)

Small sample size, but that's also against the #2 ranked strength of schedule up to this point (source).

I know it's only been ten games, but it's so nice to finally be able to watch a team that's not completely awful on offense for once. Even if we cool off, we should still post by far our best offensive season since we've came back into the league. This is copied from a post I made earlier this year regarding where we've ranked in terms of offensive efficiency since the expansion...

2014-15 - 3rd worst
2013-14 - 7th worst
2012-13 - 3rd worst
2011-12 - The worst
2010-11 - 6th worst
2009-10 - 7th worst
2008-09 - 4th worst
2007-08 - 8th worst
2006-07 - 8th worst
2005-06 - 6th worst
2004-05 - 4th worst

[MasterIchiro]

Kemba looks a great deal like Victor Oladipo.

However, the coverage and commentary here on this board of both players swings to polar opposite extremes. One gets trashed, the other is an emerging star.

http://www.fantasypros.com/nba/compare/kemba-walker-victor-oladipo.php

[catsfan]

Kemba looks a great deal like Victor Oladipo.

However, the coverage and commentary here on this board of both players swings to polar opposite extremes. One gets trashed, the other is an emerging star.

http://www.fantasypros.com/nba/compare/kemba-walker-victor-oladipo.php

one is a shooting guard and the other is the point guard. if kemba were wade's size, he would be all league.

[MasterIchiro]

Kemba looks a great deal like Victor Oladipo.

However, the coverage and commentary here on this board of both players swings to polar opposite extremes. One gets trashed, the other is an emerging star.

http://www.fantasypros.com/nba/compare/kemba-walker-victor-oladipo.php

one is a shooting guard and the other is the point guard. if kemba were wade's size, he would be all league.

Of course PG and SG have a size disparity yet Kemba's counting stats and rate stats are identical to Oladipo's. Now either Kemba is being mistreated by his own fans or hornets fans are overrating Oladipo.

Put another way, Kemba is able to impose himself on offense at the same level as Oladipo despite a distinct size disadvantage.

[Liver_Pooty]

Kemba looks a great deal like Victor Oladipo.

However, the coverage and commentary here on this board of both players swings to polar opposite extremes. One gets trashed, the other is an emerging star.

http://www.fantasypros.com/nba/compare/kemba-walker-victor-oladipo.php

one is a shooting guard and the other is the point guard. if kemba were wade's size, he would be all league.

Of course PG and SG have a size disparity yet Kemba's counting stats and rate stats are identical to Oladipo's. Now either Kemba is being mistreated by his own fans or hornets fans are overrating Oladipo.

Put another way, Kemba is able to impose himself on offense at the same level as Oladipo despite a distinct size disadvantage.

Oladipo has been very disappointing this year. Downright terrible at times.

[JDR720]

Oladipo is in a slump, last season he averaged 43.6% shooting and his rookie year he shot 42%. and i believe he plays defense, which is something Kemba seems to have forgotten how to do.

[EwingSweatsALot]

Update on the Team Net Rating Difference, basically a stat that may not matter. I just enjoy it because it factors in who you have played and how good they are on offense and defense.

It is up to date through last night's games.