My attempt at offensive efficiency stats: How the young guns stack up

[Grandpa Jazz]

Wanted to see how our young core players were faring at this early date. The formula i came up with was this: Two points for FG attempts, three for 3 pt. attempts and one for free throws attempted. The total designated as potential points. Point total= actual points. Supplemental points added to actual point totals. Supplemental points being Offensive Rebounds, Assists, and Steals, minus Turn Overs. After adding final supplemental points to actual points dividing that total by Potential points. Results for players with meaningful minutes and some other top players around the league came out thus as an Offensive Efficiency Number or OE

Kanter: .653
Favors: .623
Harris: .579
Burks .484
Hayward: .413
Lucas III: .324
Jefferson: .280 Killed by his lack of success on the three ball. As was Hayward, Lucas III and Burks. If your gonna shoot the three you need to make your share.

Other players of interest:

LeBron James: .594
Paul Millsap: .628
LaMarcus Aldridge: .617
Damien Lillard: .476
Carlos Boozer: .821
Deron Williams: .506
Kevin Durant: .416

Very early in the season but i will recompute every week or so and see how it goes. If there is already a similar stat out there, and it probably is, then ignore me at will. Somewhat surprised by the good showing of our young Bigs. Not surprised by Haywards woeful start.

 

[Hotdog]

Our bigs are causing teams trouble

 

[colton]

Grandpa--the major problem with your stat, that I see immediately, is that you are saying hitting 50% of 3 pt shots is equivalent to hitting 50% of 2 pt shots... which is clearly is not because one gives the team 50% more pts than the other. So you might want to rethink your formula.

 

[The Midnight]

The lesson from this is to get back Boozer and Millsap... they're still killing it for their new teams.. LOL

 

[Grandpa Jazz]

which is clearly is not because one gives the team 50% more pts than the other. So you might want to rethink your formula.

Thanks Colton, However, the positive points scored (3) on a three point shot are indeed reflected in the players scoring totals (actual points scored). So then the player gets full credit for the make, rather it be a 2 pt. shot a 3 pt. shot or a free throw. When he shoots a three a player has three added to his potential points and if he makes the shot three points are added to his scoring total. Same as two pt. shots and free throws. I know it's a Monday but i hope i am not out in left field on this.

 

[bordelais7]

Thanks Colton, However, the positive points scored (3) on a three point shot are indeed reflected in the players scoring totals (actual points scored). So then the player gets full credit for the make, rather it be a 2 pt. shot a 3 pt. shot or a free throw. When he shoots a three a player has three added to his potential points and if he makes the shot three points are added to his scoring total. Same as two pt. shots and free throws. I know it's a Monday but i hope i am not out in left field on this.

Assuming zeroes on all other categories, which player would you value more? A player which goes 10/20 from the free throw line, 10/20 from 2, or 10/20 from 3? It seems the answer there is obvious, yet your formula scores them all at .500. Perhaps modeling similarly to eFG% would yield a more "fair" result?

 

[colton]

Assuming zeroes on all other categories, which player would you value more? A player which goes 10/20 from the free throw line, 10/20 from 2, or 10/20 from 3? It seems the answer there is obvious, yet your formula scores them all at .500.

This.

 

[Grandpa Jazz]

There is a bigger risk/reward to shooting a three. The formula debits a player three points for taking a three and deposits three in his scoring total if he makes the shot and does not if he misses the shot. Same for a two point shot or a free throw. This was an attempt at quantifying success or lack of success (without resorting to percentages for that very reason ), as a shooter. To my mind this method does not reward a player for being proficient at any particular shot (such as a three). It does not reward a 2 pt. fg the same as a 3 pt. fg in any way. In other words on a made three he gets three points on a made two he gets two points. How much risk does that player take with his shot selection and what amount of success did he have with those shots. I totally fail to see how

formula scores them all at .500.

. Now the problem may be that i should leave stats to the experts and mayhaps you guys are experts. Seems we need a moderator! Oops we already past moderator and moved on to administrator. Can anyone explain the error in someones thinking (i think the error is in your thinking and you feel the error is all mine). Of course the end result is a percentage. Like a batting average. The inequity between a three a two or a free throw should be gone ( to my way of thinking) and the number adjusted by the other things which make an offense successful such as steals, assists etc. If the verdict is against me i will never, ever junk up this forum with my poor math (logic) skills again.

Bordelais7- Looked up eFG% and it looks to me that what i am doing has the same exact effect as eFG. Yet allows that stat to be incorporated with FG attempts and free throws. Could be that my reasoning powers are lacking here and if that is the case i am all ears.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

There is a bigger risk/reward to shooting a three. The formula debits a player three points for taking a three and deposits three in his scoring total if he makes the shot and does not if he misses the shot. Same for a two point shot or a free throw. This was an attempt at quantifying success or lack of success (without resorting to percentages for that very reason ), as a shooter. To my mind this method does not reward a player for being proficient at any particular shot (such as a three). It does not reward a 2 pt. fg the same as a 3 pt. fg in any way. In other words on a made three he gets three points on a made two he gets two points. How much risk does that player take with his shot selection and what amount of success did he have with those shots. I totally fail to see how. Now the problem may be that i should leave stats to the experts and mayhaps you guys are experts. Seems we need a moderator! Oops we already past moderator and moved on to administrator. Can anyone explain the error in someones thinking (i think the error is in your thinking and you feel the error is all mine). Of course the end result is a percentage. Like a batting average. The inequity between a three a two or a free throw should be gone ( to my way of thinking) and the number adjusted by the other things which make an offense successful such as steals, assists etc. If the verdict is against me i will never, ever junk up this forum with my poor math (logic) skills again.

Bordelais7- Looked up eFG% and it looks to me that what i am doing has the same exact effect as eFG. Yet allows that stat to be incorporated with FG attempts and free throws. Could be that my reasoning powers are lacking here and if that is the case i am all ears.

Bordy and Colton are correct.

3 of 6 on 3's is 9/18 =.5
3 of 6 on 2's is 6/12 =.5
3 of 6 on ft is 3/6 = .5

That is the point they are making.

You have a good idea here, but it's going to take a bit of fine tuning to make it a meaningful number.

Does that make sense now?

One idea off the top of my head, which could be flawed as well, is to count the number of shots as 1 for all possibles... but still allow the full points for each type of shot. It will add a pps element to your number but I'm not too sure it will make sense with the rebound and other numbers added in.

 

[colton]

What I think bordy and I are trying to get at, is that "points per shot" is probably a better indicator of offensive efficiency than "points per points possible". eFG% takes that into consideration, essentially dividing points scored by shots taken (and then dividing by 2 to "normalize").

eFG% = (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA


edit: I'm not saying you HAVE to do the exact same sort of thing to make a good statistic, but (hopefully no offense) if you don't get the concept then you probably should not invent your own offensive statistic.

 

[Grandpa Jazz]

I digress! My stat days have reached the end. No Mas!



Edit: I have spent the past 2-3 hrs examining my method and it does reflect a true shooting efficiency. As for the eFG% stat it is perfectly correct as far as it goes. It adjusts a shooters percentage based on the fact that 3 pt. shots score 3 pts. while a 2 pt. shot only scores 2. Well... Duh! My stat takes into consideration all three ways a player gains points and yields an efficiency based on those attempts. Pts actually scored compared to the possible points scored. On its own a pure shooting efficiency. But my aim was to quantify Offensive efficiency, and this does. Shooting less does not lower his efficiency and shooting more does not raise his efficiency. After his shooting efficiency is determined then the other offensive stats are added in. As Offensive rebounds, steals, assists, and turnovers are often (correctly) valued at 1 point each (you could argue about assists) as they represent a possession for his team. Anything that reflects those offensive positives for his team is accounted for. Is this a perfect stat? Of course not, none are. Except the most basic.
I was trying for a stat that reflected overall Offensive efficiency and this does work. If anyone differs with that assessment then fine feel free to ignore my numbers.
As far as jazzspazz trying to educate me that 3 of 6 attempts yields 50 % on all shots. Well that is actually insulting. I do get the concept colton, but find it not germane to the issue.

 

[colton]

As far as jazzspazz trying to educate me that 3 of 6 attempts yields 50 % on all shots. Well that is actually insulting. I do get the concept colton, but find it not germane to the issue.

Let's go back a step--what do you mean by "efficiency", then? Maybe that's the heart of our disagreement. Is the offense not running more efficiently if they earn three points for a given trip down the floor instead of two? I'm saying "yes", but apparently you're saying "no". So please explain what you are trying to get at with your efficiency stat.

 

[Grandpa Jazz]

More efficient for sure if they score three instead of two. Lets see if i can explain my thinking. Durant scores a lot of points, correct? Shoots his share of threes and gets lots of free throws. But how many free throws, how many threes does he need to score his near 30 ppg. In other words how efficient is he scoring those points. You can't add up his 3 pt percentage his 2 pt percentage and his free throw percentage and divide by three. What i did was make a ratio out of all three categories taking his 3 pt attempts and multiplying by three, his 2 pt. attempts and multiplying by 2 and his free throws get 1 point added to the total. Take that total "possible points" he could of scored and compare with how many points he actually scored. I am calling the mathematical result his shooting efficiency. Its akin to his shooting percentage but is adjusted to cover all types of shots 1, 2, and 3's. Other players shoot differently than Kevin Durant such as Kanter who shoots twos only and some number of free throws. Well his efficiency is not effected by not shooting threes but consists only of his 2 pt shots and his free throws. This way the resulting number should be fair because it only includes the types of shots he took and the actual points scored shooting them. It can't reflect how MANY points he scored but only his efficiency with the shots he actually took. A player who shoots seldom but makes a high percentage and contributes offensively in other ways would be a very "efficient" offensive player. This is the best explanation i can come up with. If you still believe it's flawed it just may be that it is but i can't see it. Have a good night colton!! Remember... No harm, no foul. Or, maybe i should stay out of the "restricted Zone". Both attempts at humor.

 

[colton]

OK, I'll make one more attempt to explain my point of view.

Suppose Player X has only 2 pt attempts, and is hitting 50% of them. His efficiency would be 50%. Now suppose he takes a bunch of 3 pt shots, and hits 45% of them, which would be an awesome percentage. His efficiency would actually go DOWN, would it not?

Suppose Player Y has only 2 pt attempts, and is hitting 50% of them. His efficiency would be 50%. Now suppose he takes a bunch of free throws, and hits 55% of them, which would be a horrible percentage. His efficiency would actually go UP, would it not.

What I'm not getting is why any meaningful stat should reward Player Y and penalize Player X.

 

[GVC]

Suppose Player Y has only 2 pt attempts, and is hitting 50% of them. His efficiency would be 50%. Now suppose he takes a bunch of free throws, and hits 55% of them, which would be a horrible percentage. His efficiency would actually go UP, would it not.

I'd argue the player who does nothing but shoot free throws at 55% is providing more value (higher points per possession plus putting pressure on the other team's bench drawing fouls) than the player shooting 2 pointers at 50%.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

I'd argue the player who does nothing but shoot free throws at 55% is providing more value (higher points per possession plus putting pressure on the other team's bench drawing fouls) than the player shooting 2 pointers at 50%.

^ pining for Al Jefferson.

 

[bordelais7]

Maybe this isn't a mathematical disagreement after all, and is merely a disagreement over how useful or interesting this metric is. It's a formula which clearly penalizes high-risk/high-reward (3-point) shooters, simply because they are leaving more potential points on the table, while disregarding the increased value of the shot.

I place the usefulness of this formula (I'm dubbing it the "Jerry Sloan Shooting Efficiency Algorithm") somewhere between +/- and MLA/6

 

[colton]

Maybe this isn't a mathematical disagreement after all, and is merely a disagreement over how useful or interesting this metric is. It's a formula which clearly penalizes high-risk/high-reward (3-point) shooters, simply because they are leaving more potential points on the table, while disregarding the increased value of the shot.

I place the usefulness of this formula (I'm dubbing it the "Jerry Sloan Shooting Efficiency Algorithm") somewhere between +/- and MLA/6

Newbies probably don't even know about the fabled MLA/6 metric.* Do any of those threads exist, or were they prior to the great board collapse?


* Harpring was the Jazz leader in that category, by far. That's all I'm going to say for now.

 

[bordelais7]

I haven't found an original version in my search, but there is this version which appears to have been translated into Chinese, then translated back to English by Google. In its transformed glory, MLA/6 (or "violently Lei Apu") by tatermoog ("Reversal of Helen")

https://translate.google.com/transl...mla/6%22+harpring&safe=off&espv=210&es_sm=122

[Jazzfanz translation] violently Lei Apu: Matt Harpring Helen published by the reversal of Tiger bashing basketball · basketball court https://bbs.hupu.com/nba
Violently Lei Apu: Matt Harpring

First, thanks person providing data

Now our task is to

After retiring as Matt Harpring comrades statue ready to start (% @ * # ¥! ...), Modeling has been decided - he miss layup shot.

You asked me why?

Remember that one person traces left in the NBA, the key is to remember his most famous technical characteristics. Such as Charles Barkley to the "rebound mound" in the name came into the league, people are aware of his incredible rebounding ability.

Because there is Darryl Dawkins dunk famous. Because some aspects of some of the players are too strong, so that people have forgotten his weaknesses, such as Dennis Rodman's rebounds.

Then for Matt Harpring, our grand launch his signature technique - miss Leia Pu (miss layup)

Indeed, many people have nostalgic Miss Lei Apu beauty, how many people a lifetime, they can not get rid of Leia Pu thoughts illusion. If Kirilenko stalwart noble Duke, wretched low as Palacio pawns, have had feelings for Leia Pu breeding (ever miss layup). But no one can do it so creative, no one can be like Matt Harpring, as this music is not complete, Yuxianyusi. Everyone can miss layup, but not everyone can rise to this behavior as an art form. NBA official website almost all understand the true meaning of which, see

This picture, it would be Matt Harpring career official portrayal of a simple microcosm official biography:

Wing and let me love, I want you to fly.


Amen

Unfortunately, not everyone understands our Matt's great, do not understand what he missed. I therefore intend to ...... no, I'm going to strive to Matt Harpring history of unrequited love to show it to everyone, so that people see these feats, these Albert, these worthy tribute to drip exciting.

Just this year, I listed a Harpring adults "Miss Lei Apu" a list of all the moves. I would also like to trace those past years, but John said, "If everyone's story have been faithfully recorded, and that the whole world is not fit these books." At least, this list could truthfully reflect Matt Harpring this year's glorious history. I did not cut and dry, are simply miss Leia Pu. As Lover's Harpring have repeatedly miss (miss) over lizard lady (4-foot jumpers - four feet jumper) and Tipu Lady (tip - tipped), but with his right Miss Lei Apu compared to the real affection, these are negligible.

Like hymn general list is as follows:

Mavericks at Jazz, 11/2/05
First Quarter:
[: 18] Matt Harpring miss layup blocked by Dirk Nowitzki.
Second Quarter:
[9:59] Matt Harpring miss layup blocked by Keith Van Horn.

Suns at Jazz, 11/5/05
First Quarter:
[3:23] Matt Harpring missed layup.

Jazz at Nets, 11/9/05
Second Quarter:
[8:36] Matt Harpring missed layup.
Third Quarter:
[1:39] Matt Harpring missed driving layup.

Grizzlies at Jazz, 11/19/05
Second Quarter
[4:43] Matt Harpring missed layup.
Third Quarter
[10:44] Matt Harpring missed driving layup.

Bucks at Jazz, 11/21/05
Third Quarter
[8:34] Matt Harpring missed layup.

Warriors at Jazz, 11/25/05
Fourth Quarter
[1:42] Matt Harpring missed layup.

Lakers at Jazz, 12/1/05
First Quarter
[8:00] Matt Harpring missed driving layup.
[4:56] Matt Harpring's layup blocked by Luke Walton.

Jazz at Blazers, 12/4/05
Second Quarter
[10:23] Matt Harpring misses layup

Sonics at Jazz, 12/9/05
Second Quarter
[6:20] Matt Harpring misses layup
[2:54] Matt Harpring misses layup.
Third Quarter
[10:11] Matt Harpring misses layup

Pistons at Jazz, 12/12/05
[9:59] Maurice Evans blocks Matt Harpring's layup

Blazers at Jazz, 12/14/05
Third Quarter
[: 12] Joel Przybilla blocks Matt Harpring's layup Fourth Quarter [7:54]

Joel Przybilla blocks Matt Harpring's layup

Jazz at Pacers, 12/16/05
Fourth Quarter
[8:22] Jermaine O'Neal blocks Matt Harpring's layup

Jazz at Cavaliers, 12/20/05
First Quarter
[6:22] Matt Harpring misses layup

Jazz at Celtics, 12/21/05
First Quarter
[7:52] Matt Harpring misses layup
Third Quarter
[10:56] Mark Blount blocks Matt Harpring's layup Fourth Quarter [0:00]

Delonte West blocks Matt Harpring's layup

Jazz at Knicks, 12/23/05
Third Quarter
[8:22] Matt Harpring misses layup
[7:24] Matt Harpring misses layup

Grizzlies at Jazz, 12/26/05
Second Quarter
[5:45] Pau Gasol blocks Matt Harpring's layup [4:01] Matt Harpring

misses layup

76ers at Jazz, 12/31/05
Second Quarter
[8:59] Samuel Dalembert blocks Matt Harpring's layup Third Quarter

[4:15] Matt Harpring misses layup Fourth Quarter [10:15] Matt Harpring

misses driving layup [6:35] Chris Webber blocks Matt Harpring's layup

[1:49] Matt Harpring misses layup

Lakers at Jazz, 1/3/06
Fourth Quarter
[2:20] Lamar Odom blocks Matt Harpring's layup

Jazz at Wizards, 1/9/06
Fourth Quarter
[7:16] Matt Harpring misses layup

Jazz at 76ers, 1/11/06
Second Quarter
[11:15] Matt Barnes blocks Matt Harpring's layup

Raptors at Jazz, 1/17/06 (note: NBA.com used instead of ESPN for stats)

Second Quarter [10:37] Harpring Layup Shot: Missed Fourth Quarter

[10:44] Harpring Layup Shot: Missed Block: Bonner (1 BLK) [10:41]

Harpring Layup Shot: Missed [6:10] Harpring Layup Shot: Missed Block:

Bosh (1 BLK) [4:55] Harpring Layup Shot: Missed Block: Rose (1 BLK)

[3:51] Harpring Layup Shot: Missed [3:50] Harpring Layup Shot: Missed

Cavaliers at Jazz, 1/21/06
Fourth Quarter
[4:07] Matt Harpring misses layup

Spurs at Jazz, 1/30/06
Second Quarter
[2:19] Matt Harpring misses layup
Fourth Quarter
[2:08] Nazr Mohammed blocks Matt Harpring's layup

Kings at Jazz, 2/3/06
Second Quarter
[7:16] Francisco Garcia blocks Matt Harpring's layup [6:58] Francisco

Garcia blocks Matt Harpring's layup [3:42] Matt Harpring misses layup

Amen

Ah, so that hymn, this verse, the simple way to enjoy the rush is not enough, but also the depth of the analysis, to explore the essence of the beauty and greatness of which will be more humbling.

MLA's as percentage of Harpring's overall missed field goals: 28.1.
PPMLA (points-per-MLA): 8.56
MLA / 6 (MLAs divided by 6): 8.
MLA per Points Gained my MLA: DNE.
Awesomeness of MLAs: Very Awesome Indeed.
MLA per Game Played: 1.30.

In fact, we found that Harpring adults are subvert their own lies, he has so many amazing moves, not just miss layup, also includes trips and out of control in the defense of passing, to know an NBA player has a superior ability has been very is not easy. Harpring adults able to complete so many stupid at the same time as he was so missed Leia Pu, so if Harpring did not miss Leia Pu in the game, this game will not warrant labeled "Jazz game" label. He is so missed Leia Pu, plants and trees that touched the hearts of Salt Lake City, I understand that this monumental miss, and we will be surrounded by these jazz together, again and again, never resting until the end of time.

 

[colton]

That was as entertaining as the original, thanks. I propose we all use "Miss Lei Apu" as Harpring's new nickname.