2016-2017 SPURS Game Grades Averages (Games 1-10)

[TheDoctor]

Methodology:
1) Write down the given grade in each game for each player.
2) Assign a value to the grade based on the following made-up scale:



A+
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
C-
D+
D
D-
F


6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0


3) Average the grades values after 10 games.


RESULTS FOR GAMES 1-10:



GAMES PLAYED
PLAYER

G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
AVG GRADE


2
Danny Green

DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
5
DNP
4
4.5


10
Kawhi Leonard

6
5.5
4.5
6
4
5.5
1
4
2.5
4
4.3


10
Patty Mills

5.5
2.5
5
5
2
5
0.5
5
5.5
4
4.0


10
David Lee

4.5
4.5
4
4
1.5
2.5
3
5
3
4
3.6


9
Manu Ginobili

5
4.5
DNP
2.5
1
4
0.5
3
5
6
3.5


6
Tony Parker

3.5
1
DNP
4
4.5
DNP
DNP
DNP
2.5
5.5
3.5


10
Jonathon Simmons

5.5
2
3.5
3.5
2
3
0.5
5.5
3
5.5
3.4


10
Pau Gasol

0.5
0.5
4.5
5
3.5
4
2
0
6
5
3.1


9
LaMarcus Aldridge

5.5
2.5
3
DNP
3
3.5
2
1
3
3.5
3.0


10
Dewayne Dedmon

3.5
5.5
4
4
2
5.5
2.5
0
2.5
0
3.0


9
Kyle Anderson

2
4
3
3
0
0
0.5
2.5
5.5
DNP
2.3


6
Davis Bertans

DNP
DNP
3
4
DNP
4
1
0.5
0
DNP
2.1


6
Nico Laprovittola

DNP
DNP
DNP
4
0
0
4.5
3.5
0
DNP
2.0


7
Bryn Forbes

DNP
DNP
2.5
0
0
0
4.5
3.5
0
DNP
1.5


4
Dejounte Murray

DNP
DNP
0
DNP
0
2.5
DNP
DNP
0
DNP
0.6



WIN / LOSS


G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
TEAM AVG GRADE


4.2
3.3
3.4
3.7
1.8
3.3
1.6
2.9
2.8
4.2
3.1



TEAM AVG SCORE: 101.9 pts

[Wildcat67]

Cool thanks for doing all this work.

Would like to point out that this seems to end up being a relative scale more than an absolute scale.

[Chinook]

Thanks, Doc. Is there any way you can include the team average score by game as well? It would be an interesting thing to correlate.

[TheDoctor]

Cool thanks for doing all this work.

Would like to point out that this seems to end up being a relative scale more than an absolute scale.

Definitely. Especially when each grade is awarded by an ST member's perception of a player performance regarding X game in specific. There is no system established to award the grade to begin with, performance included, just a an opinion so to speak. See it as a summary of the collected grades through 10 games.

[apalisoc_9]

very Very nice...I was hoping someone would do us all a favour and do this task. IIRC creating a thread about this and suggesting someone do it..Not sure if OP was the one who raised his hand and volunteered...but I know there was one dude

If i wasnt too busy with school and work, I would...

But thanks op.

Interesting that at 7-3 with a game against GSW and LA the average team score is a C..Meaning there's room from improvement.

If we can raise the team average by around B, we would probably be winning 90% of our games..

Could also be a sign that we are grading harshley

[Chinook]

Cool thanks for doing all this work.

Would like to point out that this seems to end up being a relative scale more than an absolute scale.

Yeah, but that's probably more useful. I think looking at LMA's and Gasol's scores as them being underwhelming is better than looking at somewhat higher scores and seeing them as above-average. We know both of those guys are above-average players already. We don't need the grades for that.

[Chinook]

very Very nice...I was hoping someone would do us all a favour and do this task. IIRC creating a thread about this and suggesting someone do it..Not sure if OP was the one who raised his hand and volunteered...but I know there was one dude

If i wasnt too busy with school and work, I would...

But thanks op.

Interesting that at 7-3 with a game against GSW and LA the average team score is a C..Meaning there's room from improvement.

If we can raise the team average by around B, we would probably be winning 90% of our games..

Could also be a sign that we are grading harshley

It's not really shocking. A C is an average score. The team is on a 57-win pace so far, which seems about expected given their talent. So the scores in general seem pretty good.

[apalisoc_9]

You know a better grading average to tell if our team is performing at a desired level or not is to assign players with value scores. For example, Bryn Forbes getting 1.0 screws everything up but we know he barely plays.

Maybe even something along the lines of their MPG.

Players playing 30+ minutes players are assigned a 1.5 multiplier
20-29 a 1.25 Multiplier

etc..

Should give us a better overview if our team is performing at its potential.

[apalisoc_9]

It's not really shocking. A C is an average score. The team is on a 57-win pace so far, which seems about expected given their talent. So the scores in general seem pretty good.

Below average. currently 2.9..So around C.

[apalisoc_9]

I was wondering, What ever happened to the idea of creating statistics with Screens?

I thought the NBA was going to get their ass working on it, but they failed us.

I am hoping someone with enough time out there surfaces and starts tracking these stats...

Any statisticians here? Would be nice if there was an easier way to track screens on ball or off ball without having to watch every single minute..That would be an extremely difficult task considering the amount of Screen on ball or off ball is in one possesssion...Maybe Ill try to do it later this season in a smaller sample size.

[Chinook]

Below average. currently 2.9..So around C.

I had them pegged for 58 wins, so it evens out.

[TheDoctor]

Thanks, Doc. Is there any way you can include the team average score by game as well? It would be an interesting thing to correlate.

Done :tu OP updated.

[daledondale]

Great work OP.

[apalisoc_9]

Done :tu OP updated.

damn..I must have scrwed up my math :lol...

[travis2]

Methodology:
1) Write down the given grade in each game for each player.
2) Assign a value to the grade based on the following made-up scale:



A+
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
C-
D+
D
D-
F


6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0


3) Average the grades values after 10 games.


RESULTS FOR GAMES 1-10:



GAMES PLAYED
PLAYER

G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
AVG GRADE


2
Danny Green

DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
5
DNP
4
4.5


10
Kawhi Leonard

6
5.5
4.5
6
4
5.5
1
4
2.5
4
4.3


10
Patty Mills

5.5
2.5
5
5
2
5
0.5
5
5.5
4
4.0


10
David Lee

4.5
4.5
4
4
1.5
2.5
3
5
3
4
3.6


9
Manu Ginobili

5
4.5
DNP
2.5
1
4
0.5
3
5
6
3.5


6
Tony Parker

3.5
1
DNP
4
4.5
DNP
DNP
DNP
2.5
5.5
3.5


10
Jonathon Simmons

5.5
2
3.5
3.5
2
3
0.5
5.5
3
5.5
3.4


10
Pau Gasol

0.5
0.5
4.5
5
3.5
4
2
0
6
5
3.1


9
LaMarcus Aldridge

5.5
2.5
3
DNP
3
3.5
2
1
3
3.5
3.0


10
Dewayne Dedmon

3.5
5.5
4
4
2
5.5
2.5
0
2.5
0
3.0


9
Kyle Anderson

2
4
3
3
0
0
0.5
2.5
5.5
DNP
2.3


6
Davis Bertans

DNP
DNP
3
4
DNP
4
1
0.5
0
DNP
2.1


6
Nico Laprovittola

DNP
DNP
DNP
4
0
0
4.5
3.5
0
DNP
2.0


7
Bryn Forbes

DNP
DNP
2.5
0
0
0
4.5
3.5
0
DNP
1.5


4
Dejounte Murray

DNP
DNP
0
DNP
0
2.5
DNP
DNP
0
DNP
0.6



WIN / LOSS


G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
TEAM AVG GRADE


4.2
3.3
3.4
3.7
1.8
3.3
1.6
2.9
2.8
4.2
3.1



TEAM AVG SCORE: 101.9 pts

How are you calculating the "TEAM AVG GRADE"?

All scores averaged: 3.05
Game scores unweighted, unrounded: 2.96
Game scores unweighted, rounded: 3.12

Method 1 should be the correct score. Alternatively, you can weight the game scores by the number of scores for that game; it's the same thing.

Method 2 would be incorrect because of the uniform weighting (not all games have the same number of players).

Method 3 would be incorrect because of the rounding and the uniform weighting (not all games have the same number of players, loss of precision).

Unfortunately, to 1 decimal place, I don't know if you used 1 or 3 as your tool.


I like the fact that you are keeping track of win/loss scores. Should be able to empirically derive a "win" threshold (with some uncertainty attached).

In any case...nice job. :tu

[Chinook]

How are you calculating the "TEAM AVG GRADE"?

All scores averaged: 3.05
Game scores unweighted, unrounded: 2.96
Game scores unweighted, rounded: 3.12

Method 1 should be the correct score. Alternatively, you can weight the game scores by the number of scores for that game; it's the same thing.

Method 2 would be incorrect because of the uniform weighting (not all games have the same number of players).

Method 3 would be incorrect because of the rounding and the uniform weighting (not all games have the same number of players, loss of precision).

Unfortunately, to 1 decimal place, I don't know if you used 1 or 3 as your tool.


I like the fact that you are keeping track of win/loss scores. Should be able to empirically derive a "win" threshold (with some uncertainty attached).

In any case...nice job. :tu

Sig figs should make 3.05 into 3.1. Seems perfectly reasonable to get Doc's answer either from your first or third methods.

[travis2]

Sig figs should make 3.05 into 3.1. Seems perfectly reasonable to get Doc's answer either from your first or third methods.

For now, that's true. There is no guarantee that will continue.

And don't get me started on "sig figs"...those things are misused and misunderstood as badly (or more) than "statistics" (which of course are compared to "lies" and "damn lies")...:bang

[NameLess Scrub]

You know a better grading average to tell if our team is performing at a desired level or not is to assign players with value scores. For example, Bryn Forbes getting 1.0 screws everything up but we know he barely plays.

Maybe even something along the lines of their MPG.

Players playing 30+ minutes players are assigned a 1.5 multiplier
20-29 a 1.25 Multiplier

etc..

Should give us a better overview if our team is performing at its potential.

You mean assign weight based on minutes played?

[Chinook]

For now, that's true. There is no guarantee that will continue.

And don't get me started on "sig figs"...those things are misused and misunderstood as badly (or more) than "statistics" (which of course are compared to "lies" and "damn lies")...:bang

Playing around with Excel for a bit, here's what I got:

Average grade for a given player in a given game (essentially the average value of each cell that wasn't DNP): 3.059090909

Average score for players in an average game (average of the average game scores): 3.111354555

Average score of a game with average performances by the players (average of the player averages): 2.955740741

[travis2]

Playing around with Excel for a bit, here's what I got:

Average grade for a given player in a given game (essentially the average value of each cell that wasn't DNP): 3.059090909

Average score for players in an average game (average of the average game scores): 3.111354555

Average score of a game with average performances by the players (average of the player averages): 2.955740741

What you essentially have there is (in order): Method 1, Method 3, Method 2.

(I used Excel for my original post too...the average() function works well ignoring "DNP" values by default)

[apalisoc_9]

You mean assign weight based on minutes played?

Yeah.

It might be a great gauge for the teams potential in the playoffs. Could be super useful late in the season when the spurs start playing tough teams...

What does a B- performance look against a warriors team in March? If we cant beat a warriors team with a team average of B, there is zero chance we're winning a potential series against them..maybe small but astronomically small.

[SAGirl]

Thanks for taking the time for this. :tu

[TheDoctor]

How are you calculating the "TEAM AVG GRADE"?

All scores averaged: 3.05
Game scores unweighted, unrounded: 2.96
Game scores unweighted, rounded: 3.12

Method 1 should be the correct score. Alternatively, you can weight the game scores by the number of scores for that game; it's the same thing.

Method 2 would be incorrect because of the uniform weighting (not all games have the same number of players).

Method 3 would be incorrect because of the rounding and the uniform weighting (not all games have the same number of players, loss of precision).

Unfortunately, to 1 decimal place, I don't know if you used 1 or 3 as your tool.


I like the fact that you are keeping track of win/loss scores. Should be able to empirically derive a "win" threshold (with some uncertainty attached).

In any case...nice job. :tu

Because I only used 1 decimal place, excel automatically rounded the 3.05 into 3.1. But will use two places from now on which is a more accurate approach. Thanx for the advice :tu

[SAGirl]

Yeah.

It might be a great gauge for the teams potential in the playoffs. Could be super useful late in the season when the spurs start playing tough teams...

What does a B- performance look against a warriors team in March? If we cant beat a warriors team with a team average of B, there is zero chance we're winning a potential series against them..maybe small but astronomically small.
It's going to be an unpopular opinion but I believe there are guys in the rotation that don't have another gear at this point. For example if you see those grades, Tony and Manu git very high curved grades though they were underperforming and in Tony 's case by a whole lot.

Maybe the ceiling on the team when the time comes is going to be determined by how much and what kind of play you can get from Tony and Manu and whether Pau is not so severely exploited on defense in the postseason that Pop can afford to play him.

There is a lot if room for improvement (Danny didn't play most of those,games for example, and Pau is getting a rhythm and more comfortable than he was to start.

Where one should expect better play is LMA and Tony (just the one good game for Tony for example, one hopes he's not going to be that inconsistent, or fragile)... imagine if you must play Lapro

[GSH]

Should give us a better overview if our team is performing at its potential.


I'm worried that the team is not playing up to their potential. I'm even more worried that maybe they are.

[tbdog]

When it comes to playoffs, most teams don't go over the 10 player rotation. Our top 10 above C looks good. But we really need LMA to be top 2.

[raybies]

When it comes to playoffs, most teams don't go over the 10 player rotation. Our top 10 above C looks good. But we really need LMA to be top 2.

Yeah really wish he took the of season more seriously. He had a slow start last year too and he had an excuse that he was new but this year he has no excuse.

[DeRozan m8]

Why do the scale?

Why just not the grades?

[raybies]

I wonder if our bigs, namely Pau and LMA, are being neglected, or we are being too harsh on them cause of Tim, or if they are just playing bad. I think overall it's been a combination of above stated suggestions

[itzsoweezee]

Tony getting a higher average score than every big other than Lee is just absurd.

[tbdog]

Why do the scale?

Why just not the grades?

It would be nice to see the grade rather than the number

[apalisoc_9]

C'mon guys...

OP, did a fantastic job and effort here. It's also pretty straightforward, if you want a different variation lf gradings you can easily get the answer by simple calculations using the data he assembled.

The biggest thing is that he assbled a data that we can all use to evaluate the players...We can all format differently.

[travis2]

Because I only used 1 decimal place, excel automatically rounded the 3.05 into 3.1. But will use two places from now on which is a more accurate approach. Thanx for the advice :tu

3.1 is fine; unfortunately that value was ambiguous as to the method you used. You appear to be doing it correctly, so :tu and 1 place is OK. Since you're using Excel, you aren't rounding intermediate values (which is ALWAYS bad!), so there's no real worry about having 1 place at the end.

After 30 games or so I'd be interested in seeing if a separation between winning and losing scores becomes evident.

Again, good job! :tu

[travis2]

C'mon guys...

OP, did a fantastic job and effort here.

On this you and I can agree...

[travis2]

Why do the scale?

Why just not the grades?

Because you can't average letters.


It would be nice to see the grade rather than the number

So convert back at the end...:wtf

[DeRozan m8]

Because you can't average letters.



So convert back at the end...:wtf

You could easily average the letters, seeing as every letter basically represents a number.

Tbh

[Chinook]

You could easily average the letters, seeing as every letter basically represents a number.

Tbh

It doesn't work that way at all. What do you get when you average an A and a B?

[DeRozan m8]

It doesn't work that way at all. What do you get when you average an A and a B?

lol are you serious.

Every letter represents a number.

Average the numbers and the letter that corresponds to the answer is your letter.

WTH

[travis2]

lol are you serious.

Every letter represents a number.

Average the numbers and the letter that corresponds to the answer is your letter.

WTH

And that is the point. The question was why numbers were being used. That question was answered.

[Chinook]

lol are you serious.

Every letter represents a number.

Average the numbers and the letter that corresponds to the answer is your letter.

WTH

I didn't ask for your methodology. I asked for the answer. I'm assuming you either have just realized what was wrong with your initial question or always knew and are just being difficult, because there's no way that you still can't see why the numbers are used.

And just to be clear, while every letter can represent a number, the vast, vast majority of numbers cannot correspond to any combination of letters. There are just too many.

[TheDoctor]

lol are you serious.

Every letter represents a number.

Average the numbers and the letter that corresponds to the answer is your letter.

WTH

Hey, I'm open to suggestions if that's gonna make things easier to understand. What do you suggest I use instead? A traditional academic scale?


A+
97
4.33


A
93
4.00


A-
90
3.67


B+
87
3.33


B
83
3.00


B-
80
2.67


C+
77
2.33


C
73
2.00


C-
70
1.67


D+
67
1.33


D
63
1.00


D-
60
0.67


F
0
0.00


???

[Chinook]

Hey, I'm open to suggestions if that's gonna make things easier to understand. What do you suggest I use instead? A traditional academic scale?


A+
97
4.33


A
93
4.00


A-
90
3.67


B+
87
3.33


B
83
3.00


B-
80
2.67


C+
77
2.33


C
73
2.00


C-
70
1.67


D+
67
1.33


D
63
1.00


D-
60
0.67


F
0
0.00


???

I think you're fine, honestly.

[apalisoc_9]

No need to change anything, imo.

[Spur|n|Austin]

No need to change anything, imo.

+1

Nice work Doc, thanks.

[travis2]

You're fine, Doc. Sorry for the trouble. I was just looking for some info; didn't intend for a shitstorm to start. Of course, I've been around long enough I should know better...

[Em-City]

can we get update?

[TheDoctor]

can we get update?

Yes, I'm on it, don't worry mate :toast

EDIT:
Actually, I'm gonna make a new Thread and to post this and future Game Grades Averages. Better than doing a new Thread every 10 games.