+/- for the DePaul snoozer

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Player	Minutes	NU Pts	DePaul Pts	Raw +/-	Player Adj	Net +/-
Martinelli	24	37	27	+10	+5.1	+7.1
Langborg	36	50	43	+7	+5.2	+6.6
Nicholson	21	19	22	-3	+5.3	+4.7
Barnhizer	33	44	34	+10	+0.6	+2.6
Preston	16	32	21	+11	-1.4	+0.8
Hunger	3	5	3	+2	-0.5	-0.1
Clayton	5	10	8	+2	-1.8	-1.4
Buie	37	51	44	+7	-5.4	-4.0
Berry	25	32	28	+4	-7.3	-6.5

Martinelli and Langborg carried the team to an ugly win. Berry was deadweight for the 2nd straight game.

NU struggled to score when Nicholson was on the floor for the 2nd consecutive game.
To be exact, he and his teammates went 5 for 16 on 2 point attempts and 2 of 15 on 3 pointers.
16 points on 31 field goal attempts.
Because his teammates were shooting so badly, Nicholson was -3 for the game.
Those same teammates scored much more effectively when Preston was on the court.
So that creates a conundrum. Why have our shooters been so bad in the last two games when Nicholson is on the court?
The team overall played better with Preston in the game. No doubt about that..
NU made 6 of 7 from inside the arc and 5 of 15 from outside with Preston playing center.
27 points on 22 field goal attempts.

One thing I have noticed is that Nicholson is no longer the sole screener and he is also screening away from the ball this year - to try to get shooters open.
These were changes I suggested many times last year. All we did last year was have Nicholson running around setting ball screens, almost always for Buie.
Over and over and over. Very predictable.
The problem is - it seems to not be working... when Nicholson is on the floor, we struggle to do anything on the offensive end.
Buie can't get past the defender as easily, everybody is missing a lot of shots.
The pick and roll dunks for Nicholson are greatly reduced and he rarely gets the ball thrown into the post, unless its a lob off of penetration.

So its a problem that NU needs to solve.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Player	Minutes	NU Pts	DePaul Pts	Raw +/-	Player Adj	Net +/-
Martinelli	24	37	27	+10	+5.1	+7.1
Langborg	36	50	43	+7	+5.2	+6.6
Nicholson	21	19	22	-3	+5.3	+4.7
Barnhizer	33	44	34	+10	+0.6	+2.6
Preston	16	32	21	+11	-1.4	+0.8
Hunger	3	5	3	+2	-0.5	-0.1
Clayton	5	10	8	+2	-1.8	-1.4
Buie	37	51	44	+7	-5.4	-4.0
Berry	25	32	28	+4	-7.3	-6.5

Martinelli and Langborg carried the team to an ugly win. Berry was deadweight for the 2nd straight game.

NU struggled to score when Nicholson was on the floor for the 2nd consecutive game.
To be exact, he and his teammates went 5 for 16 on 2 point attempts and 2 of 15 on 3 pointers.
16 points on 31 field goal attempts.
Because his teammates were shooting so badly, Nicholson was -3 for the game.
Those same teammates scored much more effectively when Preston was on the court.
So that creates a conundrum. Why have our shooters been so bad in the last two games when Nicholson is on the court?
The team overall played better with Preston in the game. No doubt about that..
NU made 6 of 7 from inside the arc and 5 of 15 from outside with Preston playing center.
27 points on 22 field goal attempts.

One thing I have noticed is that Nicholson is no longer the sole screener and he is also screening away from the ball this year - to try to get shooters open.
These were changes I suggested many times last year. All we did last year was have Nicholson running around setting ball screens, almost always for Buie.
Over and over and over. Very predictable.
The problem is - it seems to not be working... when Nicholson is on the floor, we struggle to do anything on the offensive end.
Buie can't get past the defender as easily, everybody is missing a lot of shots.
The pick and roll dunks for Nicholson are greatly reduced and he rarely gets the ball thrown into the post, unless its a lob off of penetration.

So its a problem that NU needs to solve.

It’s a conundrum.

 

[IGNORE2]

Player	Minutes	NU Pts	DePaul Pts	Raw +/-	Player Adj	Net +/-
Martinelli	24	37	27	+10	+5.1	+7.1
Langborg	36	50	43	+7	+5.2	+6.6
Nicholson	21	19	22	-3	+5.3	+4.7
Barnhizer	33	44	34	+10	+0.6	+2.6
Preston	16	32	21	+11	-1.4	+0.8
Hunger	3	5	3	+2	-0.5	-0.1
Clayton	5	10	8	+2	-1.8	-1.4
Buie	37	51	44	+7	-5.4	-4.0
Berry	25	32	28	+4	-7.3	-6.5

Martinelli and Langborg carried the team to an ugly win. Berry was deadweight for the 2nd straight game.

NU struggled to score when Nicholson was on the floor for the 2nd consecutive game.
To be exact, he and his teammates went 5 for 16 on 2 point attempts and 2 of 15 on 3 pointers.
16 points on 31 field goal attempts.
Because his teammates were shooting so badly, Nicholson was -3 for the game.
Those same teammates scored much more effectively when Preston was on the court.
So that creates a conundrum. Why have our shooters been so bad in the last two games when Nicholson is on the court?
The team overall played better with Preston in the game. No doubt about that..
NU made 6 of 7 from inside the arc and 5 of 15 from outside with Preston playing center.
27 points on 22 field goal attempts.

One thing I have noticed is that Nicholson is no longer the sole screener and he is also screening away from the ball this year - to try to get shooters open.
These were changes I suggested many times last year. All we did last year was have Nicholson running around setting ball screens, almost always for Buie.
Over and over and over. Very predictable.
The problem is - it seems to not be working... when Nicholson is on the floor, we struggle to do anything on the offensive end.
Buie can't get past the defender as easily, everybody is missing a lot of shots.
The pick and roll dunks for Nicholson are greatly reduced and he rarely gets the ball thrown into the post, unless its a lob off of penetration.

So its a problem that NU needs to solve.

The raw plus the adjustment do not equal the net. Why?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

The raw plus the adjustment do not equal the net. Why?

I made a change a couple games ago to the "Net +/-"

Now, I take 20% of the "Raw +/-" to combine it with the player adjustment.

The Raw +/- still stands on its own as "How well did the team play when this guy was on the court"
The Player adjustment also stands on its own as "How did they individual play relative to the guys he was on the court alongside."

 

[PURPLECAT88]

The raw plus the adjustment do not equal the net. Why?

Yeah, there's a problem with the formula in that column.

 

[PURPLECAT88]

I made a change a couple games ago to the "Net +/-"

Now, I take 20% of the "Raw +/-" to combine it with the player adjustment.

The Raw +/- still stands on its own as "How well did the team play when this guy was on the court"
The Player adjustment also stands on its own as "How did they individual play relative to the guys he was on the court alongside."

That makes the player adjust 5 times more valuable than the raw. I understand the value of your player adjustment, and I appreciate your efforts, but do you really think it's five times as valuable as the raw numbers?

 

[Figrating]

The pick and roll dunks for Nicholson are greatly reduced and he rarely gets the ball thrown into the post, unless its a lob off of penetration.

So its a problem that NU needs to solve.

Looked like it was becoming something NU might do every possession, a real weapon, and it's disappeared.

Here's hoping the guys that beat Purdue show up again soon.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

That makes the player adjust 5 times more valuable than the raw. I understand the value of your player adjustment, and I appreciate your efforts, but do you really think it's five times as valuable as the raw numbers?

Its more about trying to get the Net +/- on the scale of the margin of victory (or loss).
In the past, the Net numbers have added up to 5x the margin of victory.
If we only played 5 guys and we won by 10, they'd all have a Raw +/- of +10. The total Net +/- would be 50.

Now, when you add up the Net numbers, it equals the margin of victory (with rounding errors).

Part of the problem is that basketball is a team sport, so Raw +/- tells you how the team performed whereas Player Adjust tells you how the player performed (mostly on offense) relative to his teammates.

Combining those is not straightforward and I'm open to questions and suggestions.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Its more about trying to get the Net +/- on the scale of the margin of victory (or loss).
In the past, the Net numbers have added up to 5x the margin of victory.
If we only played 5 guys and we won by 10, they'd all have a Raw +/- of +10. The total Net +/- would be 50.

Now, when you add up the Net numbers, it equals the margin of victory (with rounding errors).

Part of the problem is that basketball is a team sport, so Raw +/- tells you how the team performed whereas Player Adjust tells you how the player performed (mostly on offense) relative to his teammates.

Combining those is not straightforward and I'm open to questions and suggestions.

PWB, as you know, I’m not the biggest proponent of +/-, but I was starting to understand your thought process on using both the raw+/- and the net player adjustment. It got me closer to seeing it as a more true reflection of what happened. I would suggest revert back to this. The new process feels too complicated and I’m not sure it is a better tool for digging in for discussion purposes.

 

[Hungry Jack]

PWB, my 2 cents: allocate the player adjustment as a percentage of the points scored by the player (of team total) during their minutes.

For example, if big Matt is +10 during his minutes, and the team outscore the opponent, 30 to 20 as he scores 12 points, then big Matt gets 40% of the +10, or 4.0.

Better yet, Martinelli scored 16 of the team's 37 points during his minutes, and the team was +10. His adjustment would be +4.3 (16/37 = 43% of the team's +10).

 

[PURPLECAT88]

Its more about trying to get the Net +/- on the scale of the margin of victory (or loss).
In the past, the Net numbers have added up to 5x the margin of victory.
If we only played 5 guys and we won by 10, they'd all have a Raw +/- of +10. The total Net +/- would be 50.

Now, when you add up the Net numbers, it equals the margin of victory (with rounding errors).

Part of the problem is that basketball is a team sport, so Raw +/- tells you how the team performed whereas Player Adjust tells you how the player performed (mostly on offense) relative to his teammates.

Combining those is not straightforward and I'm open to questions and suggestions.

I see what you're saying. It's just going to take a bit to get used to, and we'll have to look at "net" entirely independently from looking at "raw". Because it just doesn't make sense to have NM at a raw +10, give him a very positive player adjustment, and then see his net number go down.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

These things are usually best discussed at the granular level...

Lets say we are playing Indiana. IU wins the jump ball and Galloway shoots an airball that goes out of bounds.
NU comes down the court, Buie drives and scores in the paint.

NU leads 2-0. How do we evaluate Buie, Nicholson, Bernhizer, Berry and Langborg so far?

Each of those 5 players is +2.

Buie is the only one who did anything measurable. Since the baseline expectation is that we score 1 point per possession, Buie should be credited for doing 1 point better than the expectation. Thats gets Buie a Player Adjustment of +1. What about the other 4 players? In order to offset the 1 point credit Buie receives, the other 4 guys get -0.25 for their Player Adjustment. This effectively gives all of the credit to Buie.

(Reminder here that for the purposes of Player Adjustment, rebounds, assists, turnovers, blocks, steals, missed shots, etc all get credit or debit - just not in this example)

So the "Net" is the only part left...

Is it better to
a) add Raw and Player Adjust together
Buie +3, everybody else + 1.75 (seems weird if the score is 2-0)

or
b)
divide the Raw +/- by 5 to allocate it equally, then add the adjustment to that...
Buie +1.4 with everybody else +0.15

or
c)
take the Raw +/-, add the Player Adjust and divide that result by 5...
Buie gets a +0.6, the other 4 guys each get a +0.35. (seems too low for Buie)

or
d)
take the average of b and c.
Buie gets a +1, the other 4 guys each gets a +0.25.

 

[Hungry Jack]

These things are usually best discussed at the granular level...

Lets say we are playing Indiana. IU wins the jump ball and Galloway shoots an airball that goes out of bounds.
NU comes down the court, Buie drives and scores in the paint.

NU leads 2-0. How do we evaluate Buie, Nicholson, Bernhizer, Berry and Langborg so far?

Each of those 5 players is +2.

Buie is the only one who did anything measurable. Since the baseline expectation is that we score 1 point per possession, Buie should be credited for doing 1 point better than the expectation. Thats gets Buie a Player Adjustment of +1. What about the other 4 players? In order to offset the 1 point credit Buie receives, the other 4 guys get -0.25 for their Player Adjustment. This effectively gives all of the credit to Buie.

(Reminder here that for the purposes of Player Adjustment, rebounds, assists, turnovers, blocks, steals, missed shots, etc all get credit or debit - just not in this example)

So the "Net" is the only part left...

Is it better to
a) add Raw and Player Adjust together
Buie +3, everybody else + 1.75 (seems weird if the score is 2-0)

or
b)
divide the Raw +/- by 5 to allocate it equally, then add the adjustment to that...
Buie +1.4 with everybody else +0.15

or
c)
take the Raw +/-, add the Player Adjust and divide that result by 5...
Buie gets a +0.6, the other 4 guys each get a +0.35. (seems too low for Buie)

or
d)
take the average of b and c.
Buie gets a +1, the other 4 guys each gets a +0.25.

In my proposed method, Boo gets 100% of the +2 as he accounted for all scoring.

Far from perfect, but it's a method.

If there is an assist on the play, you could award 20% for the assist, giving 80% to the scorer. If there are two assists (Is hoops like hockey?), the 20% gets split in two.