tommy
01-01-2012, 02:34 AM
So this is the 3rd game I've charted (4th actually - just haven't posted UNCG yet) in an attempt to quantify our defensive performance. I'm continuing to try to refine my techniques and provide more detailed and accurate information. Obviously, I have a long way to go, and I know my methods are open to all sorts of questioning. If you have any suggestions for me going forward, I'm all ears. But a lot of guys on the board found the previous analyses of the OSU and Washington games helpful and/or interesting, so I thought I'd continue with Western Michigan.
I fully acknowledge the limitations of this type of charting. That being said, I did watch this game and re-watched many plays, forward and back, forward and back, to make sure I was getting down everything of consequence that happened. I'm not perfect, but I think I got just about all of it.
I know this kind of thing isn't for everyone, but it is for some, so I hope some of you find it useful.
Not all the numbers are going to match up with the boxscore. This is because sometimes I analyze a play differently than others. Or because credit or blame for a particular play belongs to more than one player (that's why there are halves and thirds and even sixths -- that's what you get when you add halves and thirds) and because some plays are most fairly attributable to "team" rather than any individual player(s). Or because I missed something. I don't think this happened much, but it might've happened here or there.
Also, I know that in a blowout game like this one was, numbers tend to be skewed, and sometimes the conclusions that can be drawn are less certain. And of course this is only one game, just a snapshot.
So the major change I've made here since last time is analyzing the game in terms of possessions. So for each possession, I'm marking down the following:
1. Which players were on the floor? If you're on the floor for a given possession, it counts for you, if not, not. Obviously.
2. Were you engaged in the outcome of the possession in my judgment? Shows general level of activity, but also perhaps how involved in the opponent's offense your man was.
3. Forcing a missed FG attempt, either a 2 or a 3. I tracked 3's separately, but lumped them together in the table below.
4. FG's allowed, again both 2 and 3 pointers.
5. Forced turnover. Many of these are shared. Also, turnovers include charges taken, but not blocked shots, as the latter are forced FG misses.
6. "Creating" a missed free throw.
7. "Creating" a made free throw.
8. General catch-all for good defensive play that doesn't fit into other categories. I call it deflection/peskiness/disruptiveness. DPD. Might be able to capture some of the "intangibles" that have interested many on these boards lately.
9. Ball denial, both on the wing and in the post. Good denial gets you a plus. Failure to deny when you could've/should've gets you a minus.
10. "SIF" My shorthand for staying in front. These are only counted when your man makes a definitive move to the hoop. Stay with him, you get a plus, lose him you get a minus.
11. Help. Good help gets you a plus; failure to help when you could've/should've gets you a minus.
12. Catch-all for defensive lapses not otherwise covered, sort of the flip side of #8. I just call this "got beaten - other."
Then below I did one additional analysis: on what % of plays that a guy was on the floor did the team get a stop vs. what % of plays that he was on the floor did we give up points? How did guys measure up against each other and compared to the team as a whole? I thought this might address a little bit the issue of "intangibles" as well, as if you're doing things to help the team make stops, even if they don't show up in other areas of the charting -- like how you move, your talk, being in the right spot, getting other guys in the right spot, leadership, etc., that might show up in the team's success defensively while you're on the floor. So that's the second chart below.
OK so the main chart is first.
On floor
Engaged
Forced miss
FG Allow
Turnover
FT miss
FT Allow
DPD
Deny +
Deny -
SIF +
SIF -
Help +
Help -
Beaten-other
Curry
50
3
1
0
1.5
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Rivers
49
6
1
1.5
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
Dawkins
32
5
2.5
1
.33
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Mason
33
16
7.5
4.5
1.833
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
Thornton
34
10
1.5
2.5
2
0
0
2
1
0
4
4
0
1
0
Kelly
40
12
5.5
2.5
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
1
1
Miles
51
21
10.5
4
2
1
3
3
2
0
0
2
8
1
1
Cook
50
9
3
4
1.833
0
0
2
0
0
6
3
0
0
0
Gbinije
36
6
2
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Hairston
36
4
.5
2
.5
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
4
0
0
A couple of things that I see. First, our bigs were very good giving help when appropriate. Thornton stayed in front of his man when his man made a move to the hoop 50% of the time. Cook, 2/3 of the time. Much more in there to consider.
OK the second table is below, showing the % of possessions that each guy played that resulted in stops, and the % that resulted in scores by WMU.
stops
scores
% stops
Curry
29
17
63.0
Rivers
27
18
60.0
Dawkins
19
13
59.3
Mason
18
14
56.2
Thornton
21
10
67.7
Kelly
20
18
52.6
Miles
28
20
58.3
Cook
26
23
53.0
Gbinije
19
17
52.8
Hairston
22
13
62.9
Team
46
33
58.2
Here, Thornton clearly outshined Cook, and none of the bigs were very good. Hmm.
OK, have at it! And again, welcome to suggestions for future improvement on the methods.
I fully acknowledge the limitations of this type of charting. That being said, I did watch this game and re-watched many plays, forward and back, forward and back, to make sure I was getting down everything of consequence that happened. I'm not perfect, but I think I got just about all of it.
I know this kind of thing isn't for everyone, but it is for some, so I hope some of you find it useful.
Not all the numbers are going to match up with the boxscore. This is because sometimes I analyze a play differently than others. Or because credit or blame for a particular play belongs to more than one player (that's why there are halves and thirds and even sixths -- that's what you get when you add halves and thirds) and because some plays are most fairly attributable to "team" rather than any individual player(s). Or because I missed something. I don't think this happened much, but it might've happened here or there.
Also, I know that in a blowout game like this one was, numbers tend to be skewed, and sometimes the conclusions that can be drawn are less certain. And of course this is only one game, just a snapshot.
So the major change I've made here since last time is analyzing the game in terms of possessions. So for each possession, I'm marking down the following:
1. Which players were on the floor? If you're on the floor for a given possession, it counts for you, if not, not. Obviously.
2. Were you engaged in the outcome of the possession in my judgment? Shows general level of activity, but also perhaps how involved in the opponent's offense your man was.
3. Forcing a missed FG attempt, either a 2 or a 3. I tracked 3's separately, but lumped them together in the table below.
4. FG's allowed, again both 2 and 3 pointers.
5. Forced turnover. Many of these are shared. Also, turnovers include charges taken, but not blocked shots, as the latter are forced FG misses.
6. "Creating" a missed free throw.
7. "Creating" a made free throw.
8. General catch-all for good defensive play that doesn't fit into other categories. I call it deflection/peskiness/disruptiveness. DPD. Might be able to capture some of the "intangibles" that have interested many on these boards lately.
9. Ball denial, both on the wing and in the post. Good denial gets you a plus. Failure to deny when you could've/should've gets you a minus.
10. "SIF" My shorthand for staying in front. These are only counted when your man makes a definitive move to the hoop. Stay with him, you get a plus, lose him you get a minus.
11. Help. Good help gets you a plus; failure to help when you could've/should've gets you a minus.
12. Catch-all for defensive lapses not otherwise covered, sort of the flip side of #8. I just call this "got beaten - other."
Then below I did one additional analysis: on what % of plays that a guy was on the floor did the team get a stop vs. what % of plays that he was on the floor did we give up points? How did guys measure up against each other and compared to the team as a whole? I thought this might address a little bit the issue of "intangibles" as well, as if you're doing things to help the team make stops, even if they don't show up in other areas of the charting -- like how you move, your talk, being in the right spot, getting other guys in the right spot, leadership, etc., that might show up in the team's success defensively while you're on the floor. So that's the second chart below.
OK so the main chart is first.
On floor
Engaged
Forced miss
FG Allow
Turnover
FT miss
FT Allow
DPD
Deny +
Deny -
SIF +
SIF -
Help +
Help -
Beaten-other
Curry
50
3
1
0
1.5
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Rivers
49
6
1
1.5
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
Dawkins
32
5
2.5
1
.33
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Mason
33
16
7.5
4.5
1.833
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
Thornton
34
10
1.5
2.5
2
0
0
2
1
0
4
4
0
1
0
Kelly
40
12
5.5
2.5
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
1
1
Miles
51
21
10.5
4
2
1
3
3
2
0
0
2
8
1
1
Cook
50
9
3
4
1.833
0
0
2
0
0
6
3
0
0
0
Gbinije
36
6
2
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Hairston
36
4
.5
2
.5
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
4
0
0
A couple of things that I see. First, our bigs were very good giving help when appropriate. Thornton stayed in front of his man when his man made a move to the hoop 50% of the time. Cook, 2/3 of the time. Much more in there to consider.
OK the second table is below, showing the % of possessions that each guy played that resulted in stops, and the % that resulted in scores by WMU.
stops
scores
% stops
Curry
29
17
63.0
Rivers
27
18
60.0
Dawkins
19
13
59.3
Mason
18
14
56.2
Thornton
21
10
67.7
Kelly
20
18
52.6
Miles
28
20
58.3
Cook
26
23
53.0
Gbinije
19
17
52.8
Hairston
22
13
62.9
Team
46
33
58.2
Here, Thornton clearly outshined Cook, and none of the bigs were very good. Hmm.
OK, have at it! And again, welcome to suggestions for future improvement on the methods.