Game Contributions

[SB Shock]

I have developed a formula that looks at the player overall contributions to the game beyond the obvious of how many points did they score. With the Christmas break I went ahead and created a spreadsheet.

The reason I did this was you can have a guy shooting alot and maybe getting into double digits but actually costing the team points. At the same time, you might have a guy who gets alot of assist and steals balls but doesn't score much but his contribution is very important. So my objective was to quantify a guy team contribution to the score beyond the buckets made.

From this formula I have found that the calculated player contributions will correlate with the difference in score (~75% correlation)

This formula looks at the each player contributions in the following area.

• FG %
  3pt %
  FT %
  Off Rebounds
  Blocks
  Steals
  Turnovers
  
  For the Creighton game, the players contributions were -13.3 points (they lost by 12)
  
  Clemente: -2.1 (FG% is costed the team 4pts)
  Hawkins: -2.7 (turnovers)
  Durley: -6.9 (turnover and FG%)
  Hannah: 6.6 (assist and steals were positives
  Murry: 4.9 (assist, steals and 3pt % were positives)
  Ellis: -3.9
  Stutz: -1.5
  Chamberlain: -2.7
  Hatch: -3.2
  Griz: -1.9
  
  Here is the results for the season.
  
  
  
  WSU biggest weakness as a team is their shooting %. They are losing -8.8 pts per game shots inside the arc and -5.3 points per game from 3pt line (which these shouldn't be a suprise).
  
  WSU biggest strength is steals (+8.6 points per game and off rebounds +6.6 points per game)
  

[ShockerFever]

Interesting prospective.

Thanks for the efforts.

[Snapshot9]

More over, let's discuss who has improved or not?

Hawkins is improving, he is driving for layups, and finishing the ball for other player's shots that are missed. He is one of the most improved on the team.

Clemente had a down game against CU because they keyed on him. HCGM should have had other players step up to help Clemente more.

Ellis is the same, but more aggressiveness is coming out of him.

Hannah brings it 1 game, then silent the next game. He needs to score in double figures every game. Has a good shot.

Murry is also a player we rely on, Freshman or not, and needs to start scoring or assists earlier in the game, like the first half as well as the 2nd half.

Hatch is seasoned more as a player, but where has his shot gone. He is looking more like last season before he started shooting 3's. He needs to step it up some.

Chamberlain has 'moxy'. He acts as a catalyst when he comes in and hits a 3 when noone else can. Definite improvement over start of the year.

Kyles has the tools, waiting on him to use them.

Durley is a wild card. How he will play is game to game. CU was smart enough to read his Offensive moves and stop them before he could execute them. Durley is predictable to opponents teams.

Clemente is hard working every game, but will need help in conference play. Hawkins is stepping up to help some.

Gris is struggling.

Stutz is learning, slowly. Needs to learn to be instinctive with his play.
and to take charge in a game and use his height.

[ShockTalk]

Interesting that the front line (1,2,3) has a "combined" contribution of 3.1 where the guards are a "combined" -2.0. I included Hatch as a SF. This would seem to indicate that the big men are pulling there weight better than the guards. 4 of the 7 frontliners have a positive number, where Hannah is the only guard with a positive number. If you look at only the 3 position (Hawkins, Hatch, Ellis), their number is -0.1, while the four at the 1 & 2 positions have 3 of 4 with positive numbers an a total "combined" number of 3.2. Most here have said, (and I would agree), that it is in the paint where we have the biggest deficit. Yet your numbers would not indicate this, especially since the overall numbers included the Creighton game where the 1-3s had terrible numbers. Question -- Was this just an unusually bad game for the 1-3s or does your formula need tweeking, or do I just not understand what's being presented here (a good possibility)?

[SB Shock]

Most here have said, (and I would agree), that it is in the paint where we have the biggest deficit. Yet your numbers would not indicate this, especially since the overall numbers included the Creighton game where the 1-3s had terrible numbers. Question -- Was this just an unusually bad game for the 1-3s or does your formula need tweeking, or do I just not understand what's being presented here (a good possibility)?

It very possible that things need some tweeaking. The whole objective is to measure "quantitatively" what are the players contributions outside of scoring and how they may be creating (or losing) points for the team that ultimately makes the difference in the final score.

For the CU game, the big guys were -2.1 (Clemente), -6.9 (Durley), Ellis (-3.90) and Stutz (-1.5). That is a grand total -14.4 points that the big guys cost the team. So I do think it captures the problem with the guys in the paint. They all need (and should) be POSITIVE contributors.

To illistrate this here is the POINT CONTRIBUTIONS (average for 35 games) for the 2006 team for reference purposes:

Starters
Miller: +1.8
Ogirri: +1.9
Wilson: +1.1
Cousinard: +2.8
Bradley: -0.8

Bench
Martin: +1.7
Braeuer +0.1
Young : +0.4
Preadom: -0.9
Rogers: -0.7

The 2006 Starters were +6.8 and their bench was +0.6
The 2008 Starters are +4.1 and the bench is -2.3

The 2006 point differential was +7.3 points per game, this formulation predicted +7.2 for whatever that is worth.

[im4wsu]

sb--

Do you have the ratings for the 2006-07 and 2007-08 teams?

[SB Shock]

sb--

Do you have the ratings for the 2006-07 and 2007-08 teams?

2006-2007
Starters
Wilson: +0.9
Cousinard: +5.1
Ogirri: -0.7
Bradley: +0.1
Martin: +3.3

2006-2007
Bench
Braeuer: +2.4
Thommason: +1.1
Mekel: -0.2
Preadom: -0.1

2007-2008
Starters
Mekel: -2.7
Cousinard: +0.9
Braeur: -0.2
Thommason: +0.5
Clemente: +2.1

2007-2008
Bench
Durley: -1.5
Griskenas: -0.5
Hatch: -0.7
Ellis: -0.6
Harris: -0.7
Praedom: -0.7

2005-06 Starters were +6.8 and their bench was +0.6
2006-07 Starters were +8.7 and their bench was +3.2
2007-08 Starters were +0.6 and their bench was -4.7
2008-09 Starters are +4.1 and the bench is -2.3

[SB Shock]

Points Created from the Bradley Game:

Positive Contributors
Clemente: +6.6
Hawkins: +0.1
Durley: +3.3
Murry: +0.7
Stutz: +6.4
Hatch: +4.8

Negative Contributors
Hannah: -3.9
Chamberlain: -6.7

Neutral
Ellis 0.0
Griskenas 0.0

[DUShock]

So thus far this team is an improvement over last season and that the key is in the lack of contribution from the bench?

Go Shocks!!!!

[im4wsu]

I have put together the following charts for the two previous years and through the Bradley game for this year. The purpose was to get a feeling for how your "game contribution" relates to "prouty" and to my "Plus/Minus". I don't know that it tells us anything, but just wanted to get some kind of a feel.

[SB Shock]

You can not really compare them from a "plus/minus" difference. The prouty is a efficiency rating. Which it's max is 1.00 (perfect) and minimum (I assume ) is 0.00.

My system is probably best described as a "Point Created (PC)" (or in some cases Point lost). I was trying to look at what are the player contributions (positive and negative) to the scoring from all the stat categories (beyond just points scored column.

Probably the best way to compare is by list order with each players PC and Prouty and to see if there is any correlation.

[SB Shock]

So thus far this team is an improvement over last season and that the key is in the lack of contribution from the bench?

Go Shocks!!!!

Yes I would agree with that assessment. But one thing that is clear by looking at the game by game stats is this team is inconsistent.

2008-09 Starters (through BU game)
Clemente +3.2
Hawkins +1.4
Stutz +1.2
Hannah +0.7
Murry -1.6

2008-09 Starters (through BU game)
Durley -1.2
Chamberlain -0.8
Hatch -0.4
Kyles -1.1
Griskenas +1.3

Starters: +4.9
Bench: -2.2

[DUShock]

Murray's stat is the most surprising to me, if he continues to bloom it'll be fun watching him. He's frustrating at times which is typical freshman. I believe he'll be a major producer by St Louis.

[SB Shock]

Murray's stat is the most surprising to me, if he continues to bloom it'll be fun watching him. He's frustrating at times which is typical freshman. I believe he'll be a major producer by St Louis.

Yes. His PC would be positive also except for the MSU and TT games where he was -11.8 and 11.6 respectively. You can see the future with Stutz and Murry as a nucleus. If Kyles and Chamberlain matures quickly, then add another 1 or 2 explosive players.

If Marshall can add these type of players every year then there will be very few SN meltdowns in the future.