Tempo-Free Stats

Here's some early stat calculations concerning our team, namely PPWS and eFG, stats I first found being tracked by John Gasaway, first from Big Ten Wonk and now from Basketball Prospectus.

First, a little bit about each stat.

Quote:

---

PPWS: points per weighted shot
PPWS = PTS/(FGA + (0.475 x FTA))

PPWS is an odd name that I coined a couple years ago and applied to a stat created by John Hollinger. In effect, PPWS measures how efficiently a player translates field goal attempts and free throws into points.

In PPWS terms, anything over 1.30 is outstanding. (Players attaining this level of scoring efficiency are often twice-blessed: they had an unusually great year shooting threes and they had teammates occupying the attention of opposing defenses.) Among Big Ten players who logged at least 15 minutes per game, last year's average PPWS was 1.09. A PPWS under 1.00 indicates a player who really struggled to get the ball in the hole.

Additional reading. Last year I mused that PPWS "is a more reliable tool for criticism than for praise."

---

Quote:

---

Effective FG pct. (eFG pct.--scroll down for 2005 figures)
eFG pct. = (FGM + (0.5 x 3PM))/FGA

About this stat....
A straight field goal percentage is fine as far as it goes (better than rebounds-per-game, certainly) but, since the advent of the three-point shot, it’s less informative than the following:

Effective FG pct. = (FGM + (0.5 x 3PM))/FGA

For instance—Illinois ranked second in the Big Ten last year in straight FG pct. in conference play:

Michigan State: .498 (431/866)
Illinois: .485 (432/890)

But, of course, the Illini attempted many more three point shots (351) than did the Spartans (283) and, as the old saying goes, making a third of your three-pointers is just as good as making half your two-pointers.

So the fact that Illinois shot .013 lower from the field than did Michigan State is misleading when unaccompanied by the additional fact that Bruce Weber’s team sank a very healthy share of those three-pointers:

Illinois eFG pct. = (432 + (0.5 x 145))/890 = (432 + 72.5)/890 = 504.5/890 = .567
Michigan State eFG pct. = (431 + (0.5 x 93))/866 = (431 + 46.5)/866 = 477.5/866 = .551

An eFG pct. merely recognizes mathematical reality: a made three-pointer is worth 0.5 more than a made two-pointer. Using a straight FG pct. in the presence of the three-point shot, then, is roughly analogous to calculating a batting average using plate appearances instead of official at-bats.

---

Now, I know most of you don't care about this sort of stuff, comparable in a way to sabermetrics in baseball, but I've kind of looked at it as pinpointing guys that'd help us by shooting more or less.

Anyways, here's the PPWS.

1. C. Johnson 1.50
2. Clark 1.40
3. Petersen 1.32
4. Brackins 1.19
5. Garrett 1.01
6. Hubalek 0.96
7. Vette 0.96
8. Boozer 0.53
9. Thompson 0.38
10. Haluska 0.11

It essentially means any given shot from Clark is worth 1.4 points right now, while any given shot from Jiri is working out to .96 points.

Now, effective Field Goal%, along with real FG%.

1. Vette 100% (100%)
2. C. Johnson 75% (75%)
3. Clark 68% (61%)
4. Petersen 65% (46%)
5. Brackins 57% (56%)
6. Hubalek 44% (44%)
7. Garrett 41% (41%)
8. Boozer 28% (21%)
9. Thompson 14% (14%)
10. Haluska 6% (6%)

eFG is a stat that is helped out by made threes, cause, well, 3>2. In a system like Mac's that depends some on the three, this stat holds a greater significance than a team that likes to limit threes.

Now, it's hard to draw conclusions on guys with less than 20 attempts, and really, premature to draw any major conclusions on anyone that's not a freshman.

I really think that this highlights that Cory Johnson is a legitimate scoring threat when he touches the ball, as, IIRC, he led us in PPWS last year. If he can defend a guy, I'd like to see more PT out of him for his scoring ability. I also think that this shows that the more touches for Rahshon with chances to score are going to help our scoring. Along with that, Petersen is not a horrible option at the 2, because when he does shoot, he's not hurting us a ton, and it's pretty evident that our offense needs help, not so much the defense.

I think I've posted this stuff in the past, but it's interesting to follow.

If only Cory Johnson was four inches taller...

Also, I can try to figure out the career numbers on this for CoJo, Clark, Jiri and Thompson, as well as Wes from last year, plus JC numbers for BP and SH if I haven't scared away anyone yet. :)

Career Numbers

Clark: 1.15 PPWS, 55% eFG, 48% FG
W Johnson: 1.06 PPWS, 50% eFG, 44% FG
C Johnson: 1.20 PPWS, 59% eFG, 55% FG
Hubalek: 1.05 PPWS, 49% eFG, 47% FG
----
Thompson: 0.72 PPWS, 35% eFG, 34% FG
-----
Haluska @ IH 1.07 PPWS, 50% eFG%, 46% FG
Petersen @ KWood 1.18 PPWS, 57% eFG%, 45% FG
---
Mike Taylor (last year) 0.99 PPWS, 46% eFG%, 38% FG%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossCyed

Mike Taylor (last year) 0.99 PPWS, 46% eFG%, 38% FG%

---

And that doesn't include his off the court problems and the liability he was with turnovers. Yep, I sure do miss him.

More numbers than most people like, eh? :happy8se:

Rashon is a senior and needs to shoot.

Eight games in....

PPWS
1. Clark 1.26
2. CJohnson 1.20
3. Petersen 1.09
4. WJohnson 1.06
5. Brackins 1.00
6. Hubalek .99
7. Boozer .82
8. Garrett .77
9. Thompson .64
10. Haluska .31

eFG
1. Clark 61%
2. CJohnson 57.1%
3. Petersen 51.3%
4. WJohnson 50%
5. Brackins 46.6%
6. Hubalek 45.9%
7. Boozer 42.3%
8. Thompson 31.5%
9. Garrett 30.2%
10. Haluska 15.4%

We've got a pretty pisspoor offense. Maybe we should look to run more shots through Rahshon, because he's still the best shooter on the team through 8 games. Maybe we can get Cory in there, unleashing the dragon a bit. If he can find his shot, it tends to go in.

I really like CJ's offensive game. He's shown that he can score a lot of points real quickly. I wish he got a chance to play for longer stretches. It seems like he's never in for more than a couple of minutes before getting yanked, presumably for a defensive mistake or missed rebound. He must be doing something wrong. Maybe in this next stretch of games, he'll get an opportunity to show what he can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by necromancy

I really like CJ's offensive game. He's shown that he can score a lot of points real quickly. I wish he got a chance to play for longer stretches. It seems like he's never in for more than a couple of minutes before getting yanked, presumably for a defensive mistake or missed rebound. He must be doing something wrong. Maybe in this next stretch of games, he'll get an opportunity to show what he can do.

---

The problem is, that he's going to be behind Rahshon or Wes or Craig or Jiri most of the time.

how long do you spend doing this. am:notworthy:azing,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bjwitt

how long do you spend doing this. am:notworthy:azing,

---

I've got a spreadsheet I can plug the totals into pretty quickly, but I also go to basketballstate.com and they have the stats sometimes (and sometimes they want me to sign up). They had the PPWS and eFG available for me today, so I wrote em down while I could.

ic very efficient

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwitt

And that doesn't include his off the court problems and the liability he was with turnovers. Yep, I sure do miss him.

---

The funny thing is he'd be our most efficient shooting guard behind Peterson who barely shoots. Taylor would be a tremendous help to this team.

As for Cory, his problem isn't scoring, he's very good at that. It's defense and rebounding. I still have high hopes for Cory, we'll need him to be a BIG contributor next year, he's at the very least first off the bench for the big guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BryceC

As for Cory, his problem isn't scoring, he's very good at that. It's defense and rebounding. I still have high hopes for Cory, we'll need him to be a BIG contributor next year, he's at the very least first off the bench for the big guys.

---

It would be nice to see him get more minutes when we're having trouble scoring. Although we might take a hit on the defensive end, he could at least be a catalyst on the offensive end when we hit those (frequent) dry spells.

Maybe next year is when he starts reaching his potential.

We've got a pretty good defense, but our offense is BAD. Bad enough to deserve capital letters. We could use just about any offense.

The problem is CJ plays in slop time a lot.