Reply With Quote
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.
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:
3) Average the grades values after 10 games.
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
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
Last edited by TheDoctor; 11-14-2016 at 10:30 AM.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Below average. currently 2.9..So around C.
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.
I had them pegged for 58 wins, so it evens out.
DoneOP updated.
Great work OP.
damn..I must have scrwed up my mathDone...
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.
Sig figs should make 3.05 into 3.1. Seems perfectly reasonable to get Doc's answer either from your first or third methods.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.
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")...
You mean assign weight based on minutes played?
Playing around with Excel for a bit, here's what I got: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")...
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)
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.
Thanks for taking the time for this.
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 adviceHow 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.
Last edited by TheDoctor; 11-14-2016 at 04:09 PM.
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
I'm worried that the team is not playing up to their potential. I'm even more worried that maybe they are.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
