As an engineer in the space program, I use numbers a lot. Numbers are a great basis for evaluating many of NASA's launch operations. We use numbers to make judgement calls on several technical issues. We use numbers to quantify how "well" every component on a rocket is performing. Whether it's structural data to see how vehicle components are holding up, hot fire data from an engine, or flow rates of cryogenics and gases between vehicles and ground facilities, the numbers we analyze thereof are constantly used to monitor how things are going in a variety of operations.
Basketball is deeper than just numbers. That still holds true. But lately, the value of using numbers to come up with statistical analysis has improved considerably - mostly thanks to John Hollinger. Using numbers has improved to a point where some stats have become virtually meaningless. For example, teams used to use the +/- stat to get an idea of how players affect team success. Now, +/- numbers can be seen as misleading. Numbers are now being used liberally by every team in the league to come up with game plans against opponents. Numbers are being broken down to a point where players make judgement calls on how to guard certain players. As an example, players now have statistical proof (to anchor watching lots of film when studying opponents) as to why one should force Jerry Stackhouse or Jason Terry left instead of letting them go right. Numbers are used more and more in TV coverage of the games, as well. When you watch the Magic on national TV, you see always see Jeff Van Gundy or Mark Jackson break down Dwight Howard's field goal percentages depending on how far away he is from the basket: at 0-6 ft, 6-12 ft, and 12+ ft away from the basket. It's truly remarkable how much has been put into numbers in today's NBA.
Whatever tools John Hollinger has to crunch numbers, I certainly would love to get my hands on those (it's gotta be something better than Excel, although it wouldn't surprise me if that's all he uses). One of the most valuable player statistics that most people are aware of is Hollinger's Personal Efficiency Rating (PER). One of the things that makes the numbers accurate is that playing time is well accounted for (unlike the potentially misleading "per-48 minutes" stats). This also seems to filter out the "gunners" of the NBA, as historically, guys like Allen Iverson, Stephon Marbury, and Steve Francis were rarely too high up on the PER ratings despite their huge numbers. Efficiency is truly overlooked when glancing at the" regular" NBA stats, so it is truly nice to be able to crunch numbers in such a way to truly define a player's value and filter out the deceiving inefficient players.
How do these numbers work so well? I wanted to point out some of the stats he compiles which the PER is based off of. Here is the formula below:
The last metric in this formula, Estimated Wins Added (EWA), is particularly interesting. If you sort that column on Hollinger's Stat home page, you find some really interesting numbers. It comes in handy to find out the most value-added players, as well as the players who drag your team down. For example, I see tons of complaints about Keith Bogans being the NBA's worst starter. If you look at the EWA and sort it by lowest EWA value, you see Bogans as the 2nd worst in the league. According to this number, he's losing 1.5 games per season. I understand the coach's argument for wanting to bring scorers off the bench and starting good defenders, but are Ronnie Brewer or CJ Miles worse defenders than Bogans? I have my doubts. There are many cases where teams benefit from bringing scorers off the bench (e.g. Dallas this year backing up DeShawn Stevenson with Jason Terry, Denver last year backing up Aaron Afflalo with J.R. Smith). But I have a hard time seeing what value Keith Bogans has in Tom Thibodeau's eyes.
D-Rose could use more offensively talented off-guards than Bogans
I also highly recommend looking at the team stats and Playoff Odds. Halfway through the NBA season, these numbers resemble the big picture of the NBA season pretty darn well. Unfortunately, there aren't enough games in the playoffs to make the numbers work. Plus, the playoffs are a totally different game; the big disparity is in the Western Conference, where every round is a heavyweight slug-fest. In the East, the top 3 teams have incredibly inflated numbers feasting on the bottom-feeders of the East.
It's amazing how much numbers can tell the story. But are Hollinger's statistics an exact science? Of course not. No matter how advanced numbers get, basketball will always be unpredictable. And that's the beauty of it.
Basketball is deeper than just numbers. That still holds true. But lately, the value of using numbers to come up with statistical analysis has improved considerably - mostly thanks to John Hollinger. Using numbers has improved to a point where some stats have become virtually meaningless. For example, teams used to use the +/- stat to get an idea of how players affect team success. Now, +/- numbers can be seen as misleading. Numbers are now being used liberally by every team in the league to come up with game plans against opponents. Numbers are being broken down to a point where players make judgement calls on how to guard certain players. As an example, players now have statistical proof (to anchor watching lots of film when studying opponents) as to why one should force Jerry Stackhouse or Jason Terry left instead of letting them go right. Numbers are used more and more in TV coverage of the games, as well. When you watch the Magic on national TV, you see always see Jeff Van Gundy or Mark Jackson break down Dwight Howard's field goal percentages depending on how far away he is from the basket: at 0-6 ft, 6-12 ft, and 12+ ft away from the basket. It's truly remarkable how much has been put into numbers in today's NBA.
Whatever tools John Hollinger has to crunch numbers, I certainly would love to get my hands on those (it's gotta be something better than Excel, although it wouldn't surprise me if that's all he uses). One of the most valuable player statistics that most people are aware of is Hollinger's Personal Efficiency Rating (PER). One of the things that makes the numbers accurate is that playing time is well accounted for (unlike the potentially misleading "per-48 minutes" stats). This also seems to filter out the "gunners" of the NBA, as historically, guys like Allen Iverson, Stephon Marbury, and Steve Francis were rarely too high up on the PER ratings despite their huge numbers. Efficiency is truly overlooked when glancing at the" regular" NBA stats, so it is truly nice to be able to crunch numbers in such a way to truly define a player's value and filter out the deceiving inefficient players.
How do these numbers work so well? I wanted to point out some of the stats he compiles which the PER is based off of. Here is the formula below:
- Players on pace to play 500 or more minutes
- *To qualify: a player must have played 6.09 MPG.
- TS%: True Shooting Percentage - what a player's shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers. True Shooting Percentage = (Total points x 50) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44)]
- AST: Assist Ratio - the percentage of a player's possessions that ends in an assist. Assist Ratio = (Assists x 100) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44) + Assists + Turnovers]
- TO: Turnover Ratio - the percentage of a player's possessions that end in a turnover. Turnover Ratio = (Turnover x 100) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44) + Assists + Turnovers]
- USG: Usage Rate - the number of possessions a player uses per 40 minutes. Usage Rate = {[FGA + (FT Att. x 0.44) + (Ast x 0.33) + TO] x 40 x League Pace} divided by (Minutes x Team Pace)
- ORR: Offensive rebound rate
- DRR: Defensive rebound rate
- REBR: Rebound Rate - the percentage of missed shots that a player rebounds. Rebound Rate = (100 x (Rebounds x Team Minutes)) divided by [Player Minutes x (Team Rebounds + Opponent Rebounds)]
- PER: Player Efficiency Rating is the overall rating of a player's per-minute statistical production. The league average is 15.00 every season.
- VA: Value Added - the estimated number of points a player adds to a team’s season total above what a 'replacement player' (for instance, the 12th man on the roster) would produce. Value Added = ([Minutes * (PER - PRL)] / 67). PRL (Position Replacement Level) = 11.5 for power forwards, 11.0 for point guards, 10.6 for centers, 10.5 for shooting guards and small forwards
- EWA: Estimated Wins Added - Value Added divided by 30, giving the estimated number of wins a player adds to a team’s season total above what a 'replacement player' would produce.
 |
| Derrick Rose could use some more talented off-guards than Keith Bogans (#6 above). |
The last metric in this formula, Estimated Wins Added (EWA), is particularly interesting. If you sort that column on Hollinger's Stat home page, you find some really interesting numbers. It comes in handy to find out the most value-added players, as well as the players who drag your team down. For example, I see tons of complaints about Keith Bogans being the NBA's worst starter. If you look at the EWA and sort it by lowest EWA value, you see Bogans as the 2nd worst in the league. According to this number, he's losing 1.5 games per season. I understand the coach's argument for wanting to bring scorers off the bench and starting good defenders, but are Ronnie Brewer or CJ Miles worse defenders than Bogans? I have my doubts. There are many cases where teams benefit from bringing scorers off the bench (e.g. Dallas this year backing up DeShawn Stevenson with Jason Terry, Denver last year backing up Aaron Afflalo with J.R. Smith). But I have a hard time seeing what value Keith Bogans has in Tom Thibodeau's eyes.
D-Rose could use more offensively talented off-guards than Bogans
It's amazing how much numbers can tell the story. But are Hollinger's statistics an exact science? Of course not. No matter how advanced numbers get, basketball will always be unpredictable. And that's the beauty of it.
3 comments:
Is there something to be said about sticking with a winning formula? Ie the bulls w boguns
We'll see against the better teams, but I doubt they lose any chemistry if Brewer (not very ball dominant) plays
Thanks for your great posts!
Here are the best DFS basketball options for a six-game March 1 game day. March 1, 2016– Best DFS Basketball Value Picks The Studs Damian Lillard, PG ($9,600) Anyone with a brain would be tempted to pick Stephen Curry, who is averaging like a hundred points lately..5 Bold Predictions After The NBA All-Star Break.
Post a Comment