PDA

View Full Version : Teamwork Score - Attempt at Statistic Construction



shafty
02-25-2012, 01:55 AM
This is an attempt at something that non-statisticians (me) should likely stay away from. It's not easy to lump various variables together (advanced stats) in an equation and subtract/add them in a way that is weighs correctly without going deep into the original formula and making tweaks. With that being said...

This stat is designed to show how much a player is producing points within the offense - a "teamwork" score. Not only their points, but producing points for others as well. This is done by looking at % of possessions scored while being assisted ((FGM x %AST) = ___ / TFGM), degree of assisting others in points scored (AST%), gauging how much you are using possessions for yourself (USG%), and lastly, points produced per 36 minutes to show how much you are contributing with your usage (P/36). After adding/subtracting the various components, the total is divided by ten for no reason whatsoever. It's easier on the eye...

Formula: Player A scores within offense X% of possessions. Player A creates offense for others Y% of possessions. X + Y = Compatibility score. Compatibility score – USG + PTS PER36 = ____ / 10 = Teamwork score

2012 to date - Results:

KD 11.77 + 17.4= 29.17 – 31.4 = -2.23 + 26.3= 24.07/10 = 2.40
LB 8.34 + 41.8 = 50.14 – 32.6 = 26.54 + 27.1 = 53.64/10 = 5.36
CA 6.10 + 24.5 = 30.60 – 32.2 = -1.6 + 22.7 = 21.10/10.0 = 2.11
KB 12.0 + 28.2 = 40.20 – 37.9 = 2.3 + 26.9 = 29.2/10 = 2.92
DR 4.52 + 38.9 = 43.42 – 27.2 = 16.22 + 22.2 = 38.42/10 = 3.84
ME 8.07 + 27.9 = 35.97 – 30.2 = 5.77 + 21.50= 27.27/10 = 2.72
RW 5.60 + 30.6 = 36.20 – 33.3 = 2.90 + 24.3 = 27.20/10 = 2.70
SN 2.00 + 50.9 = 52.90 – 22.9 = 30 + 15.6 = 45.60/10 = 4.56
CP 3.31 + 42.4 = 45.71 – 23.4 = 22.31 + 19.1 = /10 = 4.14


you'll notice that guys like nash and cp3 are rewarded for doing an amazing job of setting others up, but when they score, they are almost always doing it alone. lebron seems to have found a perfect balance - one in which he can help others score and others help him. melo clearly has some work to do. westbrook has pretty poor numbers as well - especially for a point guard.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data:

KD:

2012: rim - 47.9%, 3-9 ft - 25.9%, 10-15 ft - 25.0%, 16-23 ft - 43.8%, 3's - 76.1%
2011: rim - 60.8%, 3-9 ft - 41.7%, 10-15 ft - 36.6%, 16-23 ft - 64.3%, 3's - 85.5%
2010: rim - 49.8%, 3-9 ft - 27.6%, 10-15 ft - 40.3%, 16-23 ft - 54.2%, 3's - 77.3%

2012 AST%: 17.4
2011 AST%: 13.2
2010 AST%: 13.5

2012 USG%: 31.4
2011 USG%: 30.6
2010 USG%: 32.0

TFGM = 37.12 / 10.0 = 37.12 =10 x 43.7% = 4.37 assisted possessions/37.12 = 11.77%
37.12 x .174 = 6.46 possessions

Carmelo:

2012: rim - 21.5%, 3-9 ft - 25.0%, 10-15 ft - 8.70%, 16-23 ft - 23.8%, 3's - 66.7%
2011DN: rim - 51.2%, 3-9 ft - 38.1%, 10-15 ft - 24.2%, 16-23 ft - 39.1%, 3's - 90.5%
2011NY: rim - 37.5%, 3-9 ft - 33.3%, 10-15 ft - 33.3%, 16-23 ft - 38.5%, 3's - 77.4%
2010: rim - 43.9%, 3-9 ft - 19.0%, 10-15 ft - 21.9%, 16-23 ft - 36.0%, 3's - 84.7%

2012 AST%: 24.5
2011 AST%: 15.3
2011 AST%: 14.3
2010 AST%: 15.9

2012 USG%: 32.2
2011 USG%: 31.0
2011 USG%: 32.5
2010 USG%: 32.0

TFGM = 34.82 / 7.3 = 7.3 x 29.14 = 2.13 / 34.82= 6.1%
34.82 x .245 = 8.53

Kobe:

2012: rim - 44.7%, 3-9 ft - 29.8%, 10-15 ft - 31.0%, 16-23 ft - 45.6%, 3's - 55.6%
2011: rim - 39.2%, 3-9 ft - 31.4%, 10-15 ft - 22.4%, 16-23 ft - 33.3%, 3's - 65.2%
2010: rim - 43.3%, 3-9 ft - 35.9%, 10-15 ft - 25.5%, 16-23 ft - 38.5%, 3's - 63.6%

2012 AST%: 28.2
2011 AST%: 26.7
2010 AST%: 23.8

2012 USG%: 37.9
2011 USG%: 35.1
2010 USG%: 32.3

TFGM = 35.73 / 10.4 = 41.34 x 10.4 = 4.30 / 35.73= 12.0
35.73 x .282 = 10.08

Lebron:

2012: rim - 47.2%, 3-9 ft - 36.1%, 10-15 ft - 27.6%, 16-23 ft - 15.7%, 3's - 34.1%
2011: rim - 37.8%, 3-9 ft - 14.5%, 10-15 ft - 10.9%, 16-23 ft - 22.8%, 3's - 60.9%
2010: rim - 48.4%, 3-9 ft - 27.6%, 10-15 ft - 20.8%, 16-23 ft - 23.0%, 3's - 54.2%

2012 AST%: 41.8
2011 AST%: 34.9
2010 AST%: 36.1

2012 USG%: 32.6
2011 USG%: 31.5
2010 USG%: 33.5

38.52 / 10.0 = 32.14 x 10.0 = 3.214 / 38.52 = 8.34
38.52 x .418 = 16.10

Rose:

2012: rim - 19.3%, 3-9 ft - 13.0%, 10-15 ft - 17.6%, 16-23 ft - 13.8%, 3's - 45.5%
2011: rim - 23.7%, 3-9 ft - 15.6%, 10-15 ft - 15.5%, 16-23 ft - 17.3%, 3's - 59.4%
2010: rim - 34.3%, 3-9 ft - 24.0%, 10-15 ft - 20.7%, 16-23 ft - 34.0%, 3's - 56.3%

2012 AST%: 38.9
2011 AST%: 38.7
2010 AST%: 30.3

2012 USG%: 27.2
2011 USG%: 32.2
2010 USG%: 33.5

TFGM = 37.66 / 7.8 = 21.84 = 1.70 / 37.66 = 4.52
37.66 x .389 = 14.65

Monta:

2012: rim - 44.2%, 3-9 ft - 5.90%, 10-15 ft - 22.7%, 16-23 ft - 33.3%, 3's - 78.9%
2011: rim - 39.1%, 3-9 ft - 18.5%, 10-15 ft - 27.8%, 16-23 ft - 35.4%, 3's - 65.7%
2010: rim - 35.4%, 3-9 ft - 24.5%, 10-15 ft - 20.9%, 16-23 ft - 31.9%, 3's - 67.5%

2012 AST%: 27.9
2011 AST%: 23.4
2010 AST%: 21.2

2012 USG%: 30.2
2011 USG%: 28.1
2010 USG%: 29.4

TFGM = 37.6 / 8.2 = 37.0 = 3.03 / 37.6 = 8.07
37.6 x .279 = 10.49

Westbrook:

2012: rim – 23.9%, 3-9 ft – 17.9%, 10-15 ft – 10.7%, 16-23 ft – 14.7%, 3's – 45.8%
2011: rim - 21.2%, 3-9 ft – 12.2%, 10-15 ft – 7.20%, 16-23 ft – 11.9%, 3's – 29.4%
2010: rim – 19.8%, 3-9 ft – 19.1%, 10-15 ft – 14.3%, 16-23 ft – 14.8%, 3's – 69.6%

2012 AST%: 30.6
2011 AST%: 42.7
2010 AST%: 38.6

2012 USG%: 33.3
2011 USG%: 31.6
2010 USG%: 25.7

TFGM = 37.12 / 9.2 = 22.6 = 2.079 / 37.12 = 5.60
37.12 x .306 = 11.36

Nash:

2012: rim – 13.0%, 3-9 ft – 0.00%, 10-15 ft – 0.00%, 16-23 ft – 18.3%, 3's – 36.4%
2011: rim – 7.70%, 3-9 ft – 7.10%, 10-15 ft – 5.90%, 16-23 ft – 14.6%, 3's – 32.1%
2010: rim – 6.90%, 3-9 ft – 3.10%, 10-15 ft – 0.00%, 16-23 ft – 8.80%, 3's – 26.6%

2012 AST%: 50.9
2011 AST%: 53.1
2010 AST%: 57.7

2012 USG%: 22.9
2011 USG%: 21.4
2010 USG%: 21.1

TFGM = 36.44 / 5.4 = 13.54 = 0.73 / 36.44 = 2.00
36.44 x .509 = 18.55

CP3:


2010: rim – 10.1%, 3-9 ft – 2.90%, 10-15 ft – 2.00%, 16-23 ft – 8.20%, 3's – 40.4%
2011: rim – 12.9%, 3-9 ft – 9.70%, 10-15 ft – 13.8%, 16-23 ft – 11.6%, 3's – 47.9%
2012: rim – 13.7%, 3-9 ft – 13.0%, 10-15 ft – 5.30%, 16-23 ft – 4.40%, 3's – 50.0%

2012 AST%: 42.4
2011 AST%: 45.8
2010 AST%: 45.4

2012 USG%: 23.4
2011 USG%: 21.1
2010 USG%: 22.2

TFGM = 36.48 / 7.0
=17.28 %AST x 7.0 = 1.21 /36.48 = 3.31

3.31 + 42.4

DaLakerz Rulz
02-25-2012, 02:12 AM
While this is an admirable attempt, I really don't think we need more equations and advanced stats to try and prove that Lebron is the best player in the NBA right now.

shafty
02-25-2012, 02:15 AM
that's not what i'm attempting to do, though. no agendas here. i just wanted to see if this stat was reliable is all. it's nice to have a stat for things we used to only be able to see with our eyes - that's how i see it, anyway

lakers4sho
02-25-2012, 02:54 AM
you do know that usage rate involves assists by the player, right?

and what does this bit

(FGM x %AST) = ___ / TFGM)

suppose to capture?


let's start from those 2.

Evolution23
02-25-2012, 02:57 AM
I'm not reading all that. Teamwork > ball hogs. That's all I know.

shafty
02-25-2012, 03:11 AM
you do know that usage rate involves assists by the player, right?

it doesn't. check the definition :)


and what does this bit

(FGM x %AST) = ___ / TFGM)

suppose to capture?


this projects the percentage of team's possessions a player is being assisted on when he scores. this is done in order to get the unit into the same form as the others (% of team possessions)

lakers4sho
02-25-2012, 03:30 AM
it doesn't. check the definition :)

actually, it very well does. IDK which "definition" you are using

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?sort=usageRate&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fsort%3dusageRate

and just think about it. if usage rate estimates the team plays used by a player, shouldn't assists by that player be given a certain weight? plays =/= scoring


this projects the percentage of team's possessions a player is being assisted on when he scores. this is done in order to get the unit into the same form as the others (% of team possessions)

is %AST in your formula different from AST%?

shafty
02-25-2012, 03:49 AM
actually, it very well does. IDK which "definition" you are using

interesting... hollinger seems to be the only one to use USG in that way. universally, the definition has been: Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor. (bball ref)

a "possession" is used when a player shoots, attempts FTs, or turns it over. this is why many PGs will have low usage rate. in any case, this has been accounted for in my formula.


is %AST in your formula different from AST%?

yes, quite the opposite really. %AST = percentage of shots assisted on, AST% = percentage of shots one assists

SMH!
02-25-2012, 03:53 AM
intriguing daphne

lakers4sho
02-25-2012, 04:14 AM
interesting... hollinger seems to be the only one to use USG in that way. universally, the definition has been: Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor. (bball ref)

a "possession" is used when a player shoots, attempts FTs, or turns it over. this is why many PGs will have low usage rate. in any case, this has been accounted for in my formula.



yes, quite the opposite really. %AST = percentage of shots assisted on, AST% = percentage of shots one assists

I like Hollinger's formula better, personally. Nothing different but the weighted assists. Captures the entire picture. In any case, it doesn't really matter.

anyways, the flaw of your formula is that you're adding apples and oranges together. take this as an example:

Compatibility score – USG + PTS PER36

you're basically combining a percentage, raw points, and some "compatibility score", whatever that is.

FriedTofuz
02-25-2012, 04:21 AM
dirive

shafty
02-25-2012, 04:47 AM
anyways, the flaw of your formula is that you're adding apples and oranges together. take this as an example:

Compatibility score USG + PTS PER36

compatibility score (X + Y) and USG rate are all apples (% of team possessions). pts per 36 is the only "orange". this is ok, because we're asking how many points a player is producing with the possessions he is taking from his team.

in sum, a player is taking this many possessions from his team (-USG) and scoring this many points (+PPG) while operating within his team's offense ___ % of the time. this is all compiled together in a way that is fair.

SugeKnight
02-25-2012, 05:18 AM
Kevin Durant sucks!

DenButsu
02-25-2012, 05:49 AM
You may want to try re-posting this in the stats forum. You might get some feedback there about your methodology. But not from me. I'm not qualified...

shafty
02-25-2012, 07:13 AM
where is this stats forum?

Furymaker
02-25-2012, 07:20 AM
interesting

Chronz
02-25-2012, 03:37 PM
Usage Rate and Usage% are 2 separate stats

BBR went to Usage% to prevent double counting when adding up a teams possessions

bmd1101
02-25-2012, 08:24 PM
This is an attempt at something that non-statisticians (me) should likely stay away from. It's not easy to lump various variables together (advanced stats) in an equation and subtract/add them in a way that is weighs correctly without going deep into the original formula and making tweaks. With that being said...

This stat is designed to show how much a player is producing points within the offense - a "teamwork" score. Not only their points, but producing points for others as well. This is done by looking at % of possessions scored while being assisted ((FGM x %AST) = ___ / TFGM), degree of assisting others in points scored (AST%), gauging how much you are using possessions for yourself (USG%), and lastly, points produced per 36 minutes to show how much you are contributing with your usage (P/36). After adding/subtracting the various components, the total is divided by ten for no reason whatsoever. It's easier on the eye...

Formula: Player A scores within offense X% of possessions. Player A creates offense for others Y% of possessions. X + Y = Compatibility score. Compatibility score USG + PTS PER36 = ____ / 10 = Teamwork score

2012 to date - Results:

KD 11.77 + 17.4= 29.17 31.4 = -2.23 + 26.3= 24.07/10 = 2.40
LB 8.34 + 41.8 = 50.14 32.6 = 26.54 + 27.1 = 53.64/10 = 5.36
CA 6.10 + 24.5 = 30.60 32.2 = -1.6 + 22.7 = 21.10/10.0 = 2.11
KB 12.0 + 28.2 = 40.20 37.9 = 2.3 + 26.9 = 29.2/10 = 2.92
DR 4.52 + 38.9 = 43.42 27.2 = 16.22 + 22.2 = 38.42/10 = 3.84
ME 8.07 + 27.9 = 35.97 30.2 = 5.77 + 21.50= 27.27/10 = 2.72
RW 5.60 + 30.6 = 36.20 33.3 = 2.90 + 24.3 = 27.20/10 = 2.70
SN 2.00 + 50.9 = 52.90 22.9 = 30 + 15.6 = 45.60/10 = 4.56
CP 3.31 + 42.4 = 45.71 23.4 = 22.31 + 19.1 = /10 = 4.14


you'll notice that guys like nash and cp3 are rewarded for doing an amazing job of setting others up, but when they score, they are almost always doing it alone. lebron seems to have found a perfect balance - one in which he can help others score and others help him. melo clearly has some work to do. westbrook has pretty poor numbers as well - especially for a point guard.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data:

KD:

2012: rim - 47.9%, 3-9 ft - 25.9%, 10-15 ft - 25.0%, 16-23 ft - 43.8%, 3's - 76.1%
2011: rim - 60.8%, 3-9 ft - 41.7%, 10-15 ft - 36.6%, 16-23 ft - 64.3%, 3's - 85.5%
2010: rim - 49.8%, 3-9 ft - 27.6%, 10-15 ft - 40.3%, 16-23 ft - 54.2%, 3's - 77.3%

2012 AST%: 17.4
2011 AST%: 13.2
2010 AST%: 13.5

2012 USG%: 31.4
2011 USG%: 30.6
2010 USG%: 32.0

TFGM = 37.12 / 10.0 = 37.12 =10 x 43.7% = 4.37 assisted possessions/37.12 = 11.77%
37.12 x .174 = 6.46 possessions

Carmelo:

2012: rim - 21.5%, 3-9 ft - 25.0%, 10-15 ft - 8.70%, 16-23 ft - 23.8%, 3's - 66.7%
2011DN: rim - 51.2%, 3-9 ft - 38.1%, 10-15 ft - 24.2%, 16-23 ft - 39.1%, 3's - 90.5%
2011NY: rim - 37.5%, 3-9 ft - 33.3%, 10-15 ft - 33.3%, 16-23 ft - 38.5%, 3's - 77.4%
2010: rim - 43.9%, 3-9 ft - 19.0%, 10-15 ft - 21.9%, 16-23 ft - 36.0%, 3's - 84.7%

2012 AST%: 24.5
2011 AST%: 15.3
2011 AST%: 14.3
2010 AST%: 15.9

2012 USG%: 32.2
2011 USG%: 31.0
2011 USG%: 32.5
2010 USG%: 32.0

TFGM = 34.82 / 7.3 = 7.3 x 29.14 = 2.13 / 34.82= 6.1%
34.82 x .245 = 8.53

Kobe:

2012: rim - 44.7%, 3-9 ft - 29.8%, 10-15 ft - 31.0%, 16-23 ft - 45.6%, 3's - 55.6%
2011: rim - 39.2%, 3-9 ft - 31.4%, 10-15 ft - 22.4%, 16-23 ft - 33.3%, 3's - 65.2%
2010: rim - 43.3%, 3-9 ft - 35.9%, 10-15 ft - 25.5%, 16-23 ft - 38.5%, 3's - 63.6%

2012 AST%: 28.2
2011 AST%: 26.7
2010 AST%: 23.8

2012 USG%: 37.9
2011 USG%: 35.1
2010 USG%: 32.3

TFGM = 35.73 / 10.4 = 41.34 x 10.4 = 4.30 / 35.73= 12.0
35.73 x .282 = 10.08

Lebron:

2012: rim - 47.2%, 3-9 ft - 36.1%, 10-15 ft - 27.6%, 16-23 ft - 15.7%, 3's - 34.1%
2011: rim - 37.8%, 3-9 ft - 14.5%, 10-15 ft - 10.9%, 16-23 ft - 22.8%, 3's - 60.9%
2010: rim - 48.4%, 3-9 ft - 27.6%, 10-15 ft - 20.8%, 16-23 ft - 23.0%, 3's - 54.2%

2012 AST%: 41.8
2011 AST%: 34.9
2010 AST%: 36.1

2012 USG%: 32.6
2011 USG%: 31.5
2010 USG%: 33.5

38.52 / 10.0 = 32.14 x 10.0 = 3.214 / 38.52 = 8.34
38.52 x .418 = 16.10

Rose:

2012: rim - 19.3%, 3-9 ft - 13.0%, 10-15 ft - 17.6%, 16-23 ft - 13.8%, 3's - 45.5%
2011: rim - 23.7%, 3-9 ft - 15.6%, 10-15 ft - 15.5%, 16-23 ft - 17.3%, 3's - 59.4%
2010: rim - 34.3%, 3-9 ft - 24.0%, 10-15 ft - 20.7%, 16-23 ft - 34.0%, 3's - 56.3%

2012 AST%: 38.9
2011 AST%: 38.7
2010 AST%: 30.3

2012 USG%: 27.2
2011 USG%: 32.2
2010 USG%: 33.5

TFGM = 37.66 / 7.8 = 21.84 = 1.70 / 37.66 = 4.52
37.66 x .389 = 14.65

Monta:

2012: rim - 44.2%, 3-9 ft - 5.90%, 10-15 ft - 22.7%, 16-23 ft - 33.3%, 3's - 78.9%
2011: rim - 39.1%, 3-9 ft - 18.5%, 10-15 ft - 27.8%, 16-23 ft - 35.4%, 3's - 65.7%
2010: rim - 35.4%, 3-9 ft - 24.5%, 10-15 ft - 20.9%, 16-23 ft - 31.9%, 3's - 67.5%

2012 AST%: 27.9
2011 AST%: 23.4
2010 AST%: 21.2

2012 USG%: 30.2
2011 USG%: 28.1
2010 USG%: 29.4

TFGM = 37.6 / 8.2 = 37.0 = 3.03 / 37.6 = 8.07
37.6 x .279 = 10.49

Westbrook:

2012: rim 23.9%, 3-9 ft 17.9%, 10-15 ft 10.7%, 16-23 ft 14.7%, 3's 45.8%
2011: rim - 21.2%, 3-9 ft 12.2%, 10-15 ft 7.20%, 16-23 ft 11.9%, 3's 29.4%
2010: rim 19.8%, 3-9 ft 19.1%, 10-15 ft 14.3%, 16-23 ft 14.8%, 3's 69.6%

2012 AST%: 30.6
2011 AST%: 42.7
2010 AST%: 38.6

2012 USG%: 33.3
2011 USG%: 31.6
2010 USG%: 25.7

TFGM = 37.12 / 9.2 = 22.6 = 2.079 / 37.12 = 5.60
37.12 x .306 = 11.36

Nash:

2012: rim 13.0%, 3-9 ft 0.00%, 10-15 ft 0.00%, 16-23 ft 18.3%, 3's 36.4%
2011: rim 7.70%, 3-9 ft 7.10%, 10-15 ft 5.90%, 16-23 ft 14.6%, 3's 32.1%
2010: rim 6.90%, 3-9 ft 3.10%, 10-15 ft 0.00%, 16-23 ft 8.80%, 3's 26.6%

2012 AST%: 50.9
2011 AST%: 53.1
2010 AST%: 57.7

2012 USG%: 22.9
2011 USG%: 21.4
2010 USG%: 21.1

TFGM = 36.44 / 5.4 = 13.54 = 0.73 / 36.44 = 2.00
36.44 x .509 = 18.55

CP3:


2010: rim 10.1%, 3-9 ft 2.90%, 10-15 ft 2.00%, 16-23 ft 8.20%, 3's 40.4%
2011: rim 12.9%, 3-9 ft 9.70%, 10-15 ft 13.8%, 16-23 ft 11.6%, 3's 47.9%
2012: rim 13.7%, 3-9 ft 13.0%, 10-15 ft 5.30%, 16-23 ft 4.40%, 3's 50.0%

2012 AST%: 42.4
2011 AST%: 45.8
2010 AST%: 45.4

2012 USG%: 23.4
2011 USG%: 21.1
2010 USG%: 22.2

TFGM = 36.48 / 7.0
=17.28 %AST x 7.0 = 1.21 /36.48 = 3.31

3.31 + 42.4

I think my eyes are bleeding.

NoahH
02-26-2012, 03:58 AM
Commendable work here.

shafty
02-26-2012, 11:21 AM
appreciate it. also, i have no idea how people can complain about length here... i wrote like 1.5 paragraphs explaining the process, formula, intentions and then the results are right there... don't mind the data below unless you find interest in it :)

does anyone disagree with the results? do the numbers suggest different from what is true?