| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nikos
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 339
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:03 pm Post subject: Scoring Potency PER |
 |
|
I am trying to devise a scoring effectiveness equation that basically encapsulates a players scoring ability as a function of the teams offensive production in PPG and efficiency.
So far a basic equation that I think is a pretty good indicator of scoring effectiveness would be done as follows……
Michael Jordan 1987
A: Team PPG: 104.8
B: Player PPG: 37.1
C: Player MPG
Basically the equation would be ((40/C)*A)/A = 35.4% = Scoring Potency
This would be a derivative or function of some sort of what a player scores in proportion to what the team scores.
This is very basic and only a portion of what I want to get to. I want to be able to standardize a players Scoring Potency in relation to Player Scoring Efficiency TS% versus Team TS% while also factoring in League TS%.
Now I took it a step further and did the equation as follows in Excel.
Michael Jordan 1987
A: Team PPG: 104.8
B: Player PPG: 37.1
C: Player MPG
D: Player TS%
E: League TS%
So my new equation came out as (Scoring Potency*(1+(D-E)) = 36.1%
This gave me a new Scoring Potency Percentage, but I am not sure if this is a faulty way of doing the equation. I know there probably isn’t a RIGHT way, but I am trying to find the best way to accurately mimic Offensive PER where ONLY scoring is included. In other words just a SCORING PER MEASUREMENT. Right now I would be happy to incorporate Team TS% into the equation, but I am not sure how to mesh all three variables without the final outcome being too bogus.
How can I create a Scoring PER formula? How can I incorporate all three variables of TS%, Team TS%, League Average TS% into one equation?
Any help on this would be GREATLY appreciated.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mateo82
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 199
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, why do you want to factor in league ts%?
I'm not as smart as the other guys here so I'd do this more simplistically. What's wrong with prolificness * efficiency? (pts/minutes)*trueshooting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 339
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mateo82 wrote: | Hmm, why do you want to factor in league ts%?
I'm not as smart as the other guys here so I'd do this more simplistically. What's wrong with prolificness * efficiency? (pts/minutes)*trueshooting |
To compare players potencies of different eras. Some eras have different league TS% averages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mateo82
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 199
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ok, but would you be able to do this effectively by creating a rating for individual players? If you want to compare eras why not just compare eras, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 339
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mateo82 wrote: | | Ok, but would you be able to do this effectively by creating a rating for individual players? If you want to compare eras why not just compare eras, right? |
I am just speaking in terms of standardizing ratings. For example to see when Jordans most effective scoring seasons where with regards to effciency, league effciency, production of MJ relative to team etc....
Basically standardized all around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 339
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mateo82 wrote: | Hmm, why do you want to factor in league ts%?
I'm not as smart as the other guys here so I'd do this more simplistically. What's wrong with prolificness * efficiency? (pts/minutes)*trueshooting |
This is exactly where my main problem lies.
I don't know if by doing this I am over weighting or under weighting the TS% factor.
Basically I am trying to answer the question.....whats more productive of a stat.
Lets take this example from two players on the same exact team.....Tim Duncan scores 20ppg on 55%TS and Ginobili scores 18ppg on 62%. Who is more productive in their scoring? Of course this is considering they played the same exact MPG.
How do you balance TS% and Pure Usage/Volume of Scoring? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Statman
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nikos wrote: | | mateo82 wrote: | Hmm, why do you want to factor in league ts%?
I'm not as smart as the other guys here so I'd do this more simplistically. What's wrong with prolificness * efficiency? (pts/minutes)*trueshooting |
This is exactly where my main problem lies.
I don't know if by doing this I am over weighting or under weighting the TS% factor.
Basically I am trying to answer the question.....whats more productive of a stat.
Lets take this example from two players on the same exact team.....Tim Duncan scores 20ppg on 55%TS and Ginobili scores 18ppg on 62%. Who is more productive in their scoring? Of course this is considering they played the same exact MPG.
How do you balance TS% and Pure Usage/Volume of Scoring? |
Am I off base - but couldn't you take a player's points - and subtract what his points would be if he shot EXACTLY league average TS% in the same number of "shots" (fga + .42*fta)? This difference could be then adjusted per minute (or better yet per 100 team possessions) - to see who theoretically is helping (or hurting) their team the most with just their shooting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 807
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I assume you had a typo and meant
((40/C)*B)/A = 35.4% = Scoring Potency ?
Have you reviewed what Mike G does with adjusted scoring ? I believe he accounts for team pace ... and league rating when he compares players between seasons. Your scoring potency target is different than adjusted scoring but maybe there is detail in past threads that would be helpful.
It seems you address team pace by taking player's scoring potency as a ratio of team total.That could be all the team adjustment you need to do and player-league adjustment to TS% seems straightforward.
One question would be is higher pace correlated with higher TS% and low pace with lower TS% (I am not sure if it is but I'd lean toward thinking it might be) that might affect your comparison of players across teams with different pace. Maybe you'd want to study the pace / TS% relationship more and then decide if and how to adjust the data. In the end I don't know if you'd really want to adjust a player's TS% by his team's which may be affected by pace; but if you did, then you could end up comparing player TS% to league TS% modified by the pace effect on TS% you found if you felt it was solid and fair (instead of just league TS% in your formula.
P.S. What statman just suggested can be interesting to look at and has been done before at the eFG% level by Sonics radioman David Locke (he called it Shooting stud or dud) but this is different than what Nikos set out to do in that it does not team adjust while he does to get to Scoring Potency which is a ratio of team total, not an absolute scoring level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 339
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark wrote: | I assume you had a typo and meant
((40/C)*B)/A = 35.4% = Scoring Potency ?
Have you reviewed what Mike G does with adjusted scoring ? I believe he accounts for team pace ... and league rating when he compares players between seasons. Your scoring potency target is different than adjusted scoring but maybe there is detail in past threads that would be helpful. |
Not sure about the threads, but if you know of any please let me know.
Yes I meant B in the equation and not A. Thanks for pointing that out.
One thing I didn't want to come into play yet with MikeG's scoring is differential. He accounts for point differential in team play, and I feel this overrates some offensive players contributions, especially if they are not extremely valuable defensively. For example Ginobili and Parker get too much credit in Mike's system for scoring considering Duncan and Bowen are the main defensive anchors that helps keep the Spurs at a high point differential (from a D standpoint). Thus I want to move away from that type of equation that factors PPG differential.
| Quote: |
It seems you address team pace by taking player's scoring potency as a ratio of team total.That could be all the team adjustment you need to do and player-league adjustment to TS% seems straightforward. |
For some reason it seems simpler for me to do it as a ratio of teams PPG, but I am not really sure how to factor in Pace and doing team and league TS% adjustments as you say?
| Quote: |
One question would be is higher pace correlated with higher TS% and low pace with lower TS% (I am not sure if it is but I'd lean toward thinking it might be) that might affect your comparison of players across teams with different pace. Maybe you'd want to study the pace / TS% relationship more and then decide if and how to adjust the data. In the end I don't know if you'd really want to adjust a player's TS% by his team's which may be affected by pace; but if you did, then you could end up comparing player TS% to league TS% modified by the pace effect on TS% you found if you felt it was solid and fair (instead of just league TS% in your formula. |
Interesting question, but I am not as concerned with Pace as I am with pure scoring potency as a function of PPG scored adjusted to team and league simultaneously. Pace might be a more accurate way of doing it, but for some reason it confuses me more. At the time of making this post, I just wanted to devise the simplest possible "Scoring PER/Potency" measure. Do you think not accounting for Pace really over or underrates too much?
| Quote: | | P.S. What statman just suggested can be interesting to look at and has been done before at the eFG% level by Sonics radioman David Locke (he called it Shooting stud or dud) but this is different than what Nikos set out to do in that it does not team adjust while he does to get to Scoring Potency which is a ratio of team total, not an absolute scoring level. |
Yeah I really want to use the team and league averages as an adjuster to the raw scoring potency of a player.
Any ideas how I can do this (without pace) as of right now? Would statman's equation apply at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 807
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 807
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| To your response and new questions my suggestion would be that you proceed as you originally planned. I discussed the pace issue at best I could for your consideration but based on what you said just go for it your way.If you want to do more adjusting later cross that bridge after you see your results and decide you want to go further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 339
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hope MikeG checks out this thread.
I think what I mainly looking for is basically what Mikes Scoring Rate is, but without adjusting for team Point differential. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 1521
Location: Delphi, Indiana
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't adjust scoring rate for team scoring differential.
I do scale scoring rate to opponent PPG. Whether your team averages scores of 90-100, 100-100, or 110-100, you are getting your points in a milieu in which the NBA (at large) is historically average, in scoring.
The 110-100 team will have players that are basically 110% of average NBA scoring ability. If that team changes coach and/or some players, they may become a 100-91 team. They still score 110% of what their opponents score. A given player on that team may see his PPG drop from 20 to 18, in the same minutes. I'd say his scoring potency is unchanged.
Adjust a player's PPG by some factors. If MJ averaged 37.1, multiply that by TS%/x , where 'x' may be league TS%, team TS%, historic average TS%, etc. Ignoring OppPPG makes for no distinction between scorers on good/bad teams. It's true that Bowen and Ginobili play for the same team, so they get one of the same factors applied to them. But other factors (like TS% and PPG) will distinguish them.
_________________
40% of all statistics are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 339
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike do you have this years Mike Goodman Database completed in Excel Format? I have your old database (prior 05-06) but I think it was during that season you changed your formula around a bit, so you can't really compare 05-07 with the past database (cause they use your new formula).
Any chance you can email your most updated database?
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
