http://thecity2.com/2011/10/26/team-by- ... 2010-2011/
2 of the conference finalists in the top 4 for each of mid-range and the FT line. Miami the only one with 2 top 4s. Dallas 1 (mid-range), OKC 1 (FT) and a 5th place for inside shots. Chicago no top 4 finishes. In fact they have only a 12th, 13th, 14th and a 23rd. That is a problem needing change.
League-wide there are 5 over +1 from inside, lead by the Celtics (at a bit over +2), Clips and Griz. 7 under -1, most prominently the Bucks at -4.2.
7 over +1 from mid-range, lead by Orlando and Denver both over +4. 9 below -1, with Washington at -5.3.
7 over +1 from 3 point range, lead by San Antonio at +2.9 and Golden State. 5 below -1, with Toronto at -1.8.
4 over +1 from the FT line, lead by OKC at +2.6. 3 below -1, with Orlando at -1.7.
The mid-range had the 3 biggest strengths and 5 of the 8 strengths over +2. It is the worst shot but if you avoid it and / or shoot it better than average it can really help you as it is the most common shot on average.
On average the net impact of the behavior teams at each shot location varies by less than 0.2 either way, gaining at mid-range and 3 point range, losing at FT line and inside (not getting there enough).
San Antonio and Denver were the only teams with two +2 strengths. Denver and New York the only teams with 3 +1 strengths. I think 17 teams with no +1 strength. 7 teams with 2 -1 or worse weaknesses.
Overall it was 15 positive, 10 better than +2, 6 over +4. Of the 15 negatives they were all worse than -1, 10 worse than -2 and 5 worse than -4. Only 3 of the 15 positive teams had a weakness of -1 or worse. Among the 10 strongest only Orlando had a -1 or worse weakness. Only 2 of the overall negative teams had any +1 strengths. 3 teams were positive from all 4 scoring locations (DEN, MIA, NYK), 2 negative from all (CLE, NJN).
Playoff teams lacking any +1 or better scoring location strength were Chicago, Lakers, Atlanta, Indiana, Portland, Philadelphia and New Orleans. 4 teams had a +1 strength but failed to make the playoffs.
Shot adjusted marginal scoring
Re: Shot adjusted marginal scoring
I figured these charts are useful enough, that I should start doing them for individual players. Here's the PG position (starters):
Link to the final article in the series summarizing PSAMS total scoring.
Link to the final article in the series summarizing PSAMS total scoring.
Re: Shot adjusted marginal scoring
6 PGs with 2 +1 or better scoring strengths (Curry, Billups, Westbrook, Rose, Paul barely and Ridnour). None with 3 or more. Only 8 +1 strengths scattered among the other 39 PGs so the elite 6 have nearly 10 times the rate of +1 strengths as the rest of PGs. There are a lot of PGs who think they are scorers or quality scorers. Just short of half are positive with 14 over +1 overall. 7 over +2 overall. Few have versatile scoring power though. Only Billups had 2 +2 or better strengths though he also had 2 mild to moderate weaknesses. Only Nash and Curry (barely) had positives from all 4 locations. Only B Davis, Watson and Kidd were negative from all 4 locations. Kidd was the weakest overall. Only Blake, Watson and Kidd were -1 or worse from 2 distances with Blake worse than -1.5 on two and Kidd nearly so. 8 were -2 or worse overall. Looks like a pretty normal distribution.
3 +1 or better inside, none worse than -1 from here. 5 +1s from mid-range, 9 -1s. 5 +1 or better from 3 point range, none worse than -1 from here. 9 -1s. 9 +1 or better from the FT line, 9 worse than -1 from here. The FT is the location with the most +1 strengths, mid-range and the FT line tie for the most -1 or worse weaknesses.
I won't list all the detail for the other positions but there were only 5 SGs over +2 overall with 10 under -2. Almost as negatively biased for SF, PF. C almost had as many over +2 as below -2, joining PGs in having just a -1 bias. (The number of players in the position groups varied.)
Gary Neal and Anthony Morrow joined K Martin, Wade and Allen as the only SGs with 2 +1 strengths. LeBron is the only player with 3 +1 strengths. Durant and Korver were the only other SFs with 2. Only 1 PF and 2 Cs with 2 +1 strengths. Only 17 total players with 2 +1 strengths. Versatility in scoring strength is very rare.
Among the top 25 starters overall, the FT line and inside represent over 80% of the average strength. Among the botom 25 starters overall, the FT line and inside represent 50% of the average weakness but mid-range steps and take 40% itself. On average PGs have no strong strength or weakness, varying from neutral by about .1 or less. Almost all of SGs mild weakness comes from mid-range. Mid-range weakness more than wipes out SF strength from 3 pt range and the FT line. Mid-range weakness more than wipes out mild PF strengths from the other locations. Mid-range weakness wipes out C strength from inside. On average these big minute players are negative overall by the metric as currently calibrated. Are bench players better on average or is the standard a bit too tough?
Only 5 over +4 overall and just 12 over +3 (with Kobe just missing). All the conference finalists had at least one except Chicago (Rose at +2.49). Miami with 2 and no other conference finalist was anywhere close to having a second guy over +3 or +2 (Westbrook was at +1.52). 10 big minute guys worse than -3 on this metric. Surprisingly all the conference finalists except Miami had one. They may not have had strong scoring past the big 3 but no big minute guy really whacked them hard to -3 or worse. Chalmers was -2.55 and will need to improve or be replaced. The big 3 make it hard to get shots but he could still shoot / score better.
3 +1 or better inside, none worse than -1 from here. 5 +1s from mid-range, 9 -1s. 5 +1 or better from 3 point range, none worse than -1 from here. 9 -1s. 9 +1 or better from the FT line, 9 worse than -1 from here. The FT is the location with the most +1 strengths, mid-range and the FT line tie for the most -1 or worse weaknesses.
I won't list all the detail for the other positions but there were only 5 SGs over +2 overall with 10 under -2. Almost as negatively biased for SF, PF. C almost had as many over +2 as below -2, joining PGs in having just a -1 bias. (The number of players in the position groups varied.)
Gary Neal and Anthony Morrow joined K Martin, Wade and Allen as the only SGs with 2 +1 strengths. LeBron is the only player with 3 +1 strengths. Durant and Korver were the only other SFs with 2. Only 1 PF and 2 Cs with 2 +1 strengths. Only 17 total players with 2 +1 strengths. Versatility in scoring strength is very rare.
Among the top 25 starters overall, the FT line and inside represent over 80% of the average strength. Among the botom 25 starters overall, the FT line and inside represent 50% of the average weakness but mid-range steps and take 40% itself. On average PGs have no strong strength or weakness, varying from neutral by about .1 or less. Almost all of SGs mild weakness comes from mid-range. Mid-range weakness more than wipes out SF strength from 3 pt range and the FT line. Mid-range weakness more than wipes out mild PF strengths from the other locations. Mid-range weakness wipes out C strength from inside. On average these big minute players are negative overall by the metric as currently calibrated. Are bench players better on average or is the standard a bit too tough?
Only 5 over +4 overall and just 12 over +3 (with Kobe just missing). All the conference finalists had at least one except Chicago (Rose at +2.49). Miami with 2 and no other conference finalist was anywhere close to having a second guy over +3 or +2 (Westbrook was at +1.52). 10 big minute guys worse than -3 on this metric. Surprisingly all the conference finalists except Miami had one. They may not have had strong scoring past the big 3 but no big minute guy really whacked them hard to -3 or worse. Chalmers was -2.55 and will need to improve or be replaced. The big 3 make it hard to get shots but he could still shoot / score better.
Last edited by Crow on Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:49 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Re: Shot adjusted marginal scoring
You know, it's almost as if Westbrook shouldn't be shooting so many mid-range jumpers. (Except it's exactly like that.)
Re: Shot adjusted marginal scoring
Westbrook's weakness at mid-range is only exceeded by John Wall and they are both only exceeded Bibby and Rondo's weakness from the FT line.
Some will casually but incorrectly claim that Westbrook now has a decent mid-range or that it at least a lot better. Still a major weakness.
John Wall a scorer? Not an efficient one yet. Barely not in the bottom 10 for PGs at -1.57. Jennings just slightly ahead of him despite more experience. But oh how exciting they are... to many.
Some will casually but incorrectly claim that Westbrook now has a decent mid-range or that it at least a lot better. Still a major weakness.
John Wall a scorer? Not an efficient one yet. Barely not in the bottom 10 for PGs at -1.57. Jennings just slightly ahead of him despite more experience. But oh how exciting they are... to many.
Last edited by Crow on Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Shot adjusted marginal scoring
Yeah, and remember this is adjusted for those (well, all) types of shots, so it gives them the maximum benefit of the doubt, if people want to argue that they have to take those shots. I can kind of buy that argument for Wall (at least, in theory), but Westbrook really doesn't have an excuse when one of the top 5 scorers in the NBA plays with him.
Re: Shot adjusted marginal scoring
Durant 1st on points per game, 5th on this scoring efficiency impact measure. James #2 on both. Melo third on pts/g, 21st on efficiency. Wade 4th on pts, 7th on efficiency. Bryant 5th on pts, 13th on efficiency. Stoudemire 6th on pts, 16th on efficiency. Rose 7th on pts, 18th on efficiency. Dirk, 10th on pts, 1st on efficiency impact. Pierce 24th on pts, 5th on efficiency impact. K Martin 9th on pts, 3rd on efficiency impact. Howard 11th on pts, 6th on efficiency impact. Hilario 65th on pts, 8th on efficiency impact. Curry 28th on pts, 9th on efficiency impact in the league.
(Harden at 103rd on scoring and 23rd amongst big minute SGs so far. Time will tell what he rises to, how many shots he can steal away from Westbrook and Durant or at least the others. Some at the time questioned Harden over Curry; I wasn't a strong partisan either way on this. More time will tell better on the choice, on an individual basis and much more importantly a team basis. Westbrook probably couldn't be all the Westbrook he is today with Curry playing big minutes beside him- with Westbrook perhaps moved to SG though it could be the other way or some of both depending on match-up, somewhat like what is possible with Kidd-Terry- and instead of him and taking pretty big minutes and usage. But would that be better or worse for the Thunder than what they have now and may have in the future with Harden? We'll see the scenario chosen, not the other one. It would have been pretty different. More like Boston or Miami than what OKC is now. Maybe Harden will eventually turn it that way too. It might not have been a mistake to take Harden over Curry, in part to fit with Westbrook as he plays / they let him play. It may or may not have been a mistake- in the long-run- to let Westbrook gun up to 5th highest usage in the league in the regular season and 2nd highest in this past playoffs. Time and Finals appearances or titles will tell. 2010-11 RAPM had Curry and Harden virtually tied at a nice level modestly below +2. But it was Curry who made progress on RAPM and caught up to Harden. Next season and beyond? Will be interesting to see.)
(Harden at 103rd on scoring and 23rd amongst big minute SGs so far. Time will tell what he rises to, how many shots he can steal away from Westbrook and Durant or at least the others. Some at the time questioned Harden over Curry; I wasn't a strong partisan either way on this. More time will tell better on the choice, on an individual basis and much more importantly a team basis. Westbrook probably couldn't be all the Westbrook he is today with Curry playing big minutes beside him- with Westbrook perhaps moved to SG though it could be the other way or some of both depending on match-up, somewhat like what is possible with Kidd-Terry- and instead of him and taking pretty big minutes and usage. But would that be better or worse for the Thunder than what they have now and may have in the future with Harden? We'll see the scenario chosen, not the other one. It would have been pretty different. More like Boston or Miami than what OKC is now. Maybe Harden will eventually turn it that way too. It might not have been a mistake to take Harden over Curry, in part to fit with Westbrook as he plays / they let him play. It may or may not have been a mistake- in the long-run- to let Westbrook gun up to 5th highest usage in the league in the regular season and 2nd highest in this past playoffs. Time and Finals appearances or titles will tell. 2010-11 RAPM had Curry and Harden virtually tied at a nice level modestly below +2. But it was Curry who made progress on RAPM and caught up to Harden. Next season and beyond? Will be interesting to see.)
Re: Shot adjusted marginal scoring
Miami had 1-2 starters +1 or better for all 4 locations. Dallas barely missed by a tenth at one location. Even though Chicago was scoring efficiency challenged overall they covered these 4 locations to that individual standard. OKC had nobody over +.5 in 2 categories (mid-range and 3 pt range).
Boston had the 4 different +1s, Atlanta close. Lakers only had the FT line covered and the others were not that close. Memphis only had one covered. New Orleans had 3 covered but +.01 was their best inside score. NY was 2 covered, 1 near miss, 1 not close. Orlando 3 covered, 1 near miss. Portland, 1 covered, 2 near misses, 1 with no positives (mid-range). Houston had 2 covered (Inside and FT), 2 fairly close (mid-range and 3 pt) when Battier was there, but with him gone mid-range had no positives.
I would think that teams with strong scorers in each zone would be helpful against top defenses at playoff intensity, more helpful than teams with similar overall strength but less diversity of strength, less "balance". Ideally it would be handy to check the diversity of strength of past conference finalists and title winners to check on its coincidence / importance.
Boston had the 4 different +1s, Atlanta close. Lakers only had the FT line covered and the others were not that close. Memphis only had one covered. New Orleans had 3 covered but +.01 was their best inside score. NY was 2 covered, 1 near miss, 1 not close. Orlando 3 covered, 1 near miss. Portland, 1 covered, 2 near misses, 1 with no positives (mid-range). Houston had 2 covered (Inside and FT), 2 fairly close (mid-range and 3 pt) when Battier was there, but with him gone mid-range had no positives.
I would think that teams with strong scorers in each zone would be helpful against top defenses at playoff intensity, more helpful than teams with similar overall strength but less diversity of strength, less "balance". Ideally it would be handy to check the diversity of strength of past conference finalists and title winners to check on its coincidence / importance.
Re: Shot adjusted marginal scoring
Conceivably with the right script writing talents, time & motivation it would be possible to identify the shot location distribution of a player's shots and their efficiencies in his top 3-5 lineups and say the rest of them combined and compare them to each other and the overall average. And it would be possible also to compare their teammate's shot distributions and efficiencies (overall or individually) for the same top lineups and rest of lineups and against the average with a player and without him.
Re: Shot adjusted marginal scoring
One could look at the correlations between overall marginal scoring and that for each location at team level with various other team offensive stats. And look at the marginal scoring results for stars compared to teams overall to see who it doing well both individually and team-wise and who is doing well on one but not accompanied by the other (for whatever reasons, caused by him or not) and who is not doing well on either. And so on.