Application of NAPLES NISE and PPM

[SVCBeercats]

OK! So for me pictures work better than inserting tables. In NISE calculation looks like an operator error for Gabby but I can't see it.

 

[eebmg]

Any system that gives Gabby a "3" should be eliminated.

 

[CTtransplant]

OK! So for me pictures work better than inserting tables. In NISE calculation looks like an operator error for Gabby but I can't see it.

View attachment 19969

Can you give us some background on these statistics? When I googled them, all I got was "Naples Premier Property Management" and similar links. I am interested in what you are presenting.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

I expect Gabby's NISE suffers because, unlike those listed above her, she doesn't shoot
3 pointers and her FT percentage is significantly lower.

 

[SVCBeercats]

Can you give us some background on these statistics? When I googled them, all I got was "Naples Premier Property Management" and similar links. I am interested in what you are presenting.

Sorry! The Naples PPM is Positives Per Minute. It is calculated as follows: (POINTS+REBOUNDS+ASSISTS+STEALS+BLOCKS-TURNOVERS)/TOTAL MINUTES PLAYED. So Collier's PPM is calculated as follows: (503 pts+229 reb+54 A+48 stl+46 blk - 38 TO) / 774 minutes played = 1.09. The higher the number the better. The NISE is the Naples Index of Scoring Efficiency. A clever "acronym" (since it is pronounced as NICE) bestowed by a fellow on another UCONN board. It is simply the total opportunities to score (total field goals attempts plus total free throws) subtracted from total points. Thus Collier's NISE is 503 pts - (311 fga + 93 fta) = 99. The higher the number the better!

 

[Blueballer]

I dreaded the day when these very involved player efficiency stats found their way into WCBB. This is the kind of stuff that makes my head spin on the baseball boards. I guess if you're putting together a "Fantasy Team" these things have their place but otherwise it's overkill for the average fan.

 

[CTyankee]

It's a good thing this is not used for determining the All Americans or Player of the Year or anything else there Gabby is concerned...

 

[UcMiami]

OK! So for me pictures work better than inserting tables. In NISE calculation looks like an operator error for Gabby but I can't see it.

View attachment 19969

Interesting numbers - is there somewhere to get these calculations for other teams? It is a little hard to know exactly what they say without a broader context. I am not surprised by Gabby's number, based on the formula. It is interesting to note that if you shoot 50% from two and never take threes or foul shots your NICE will be 0 and if you shoot 50% from two, 33.33% from 3, and 80% from the line your NICE will be negative. (I just checked DD at TN for reference for myself - her NICE is -52, Kelsey Mitchell's is +16, and Plum's is +110)

 

[BroadwayVa]

Can you give us some background on these statistics? When I googled them, all I got was "*Naples Premier Property Management" and similar links. I am interested in what you are presenting.

with a not nice Nise for Gabby--I hope Geno is viewing these--it looks imperative that Gabby MUST sit. She only has a 3 ---can you imagine Gabby only got a 3?? She must be a negative All American.
And you have to realize she got this number in N,I,C.E. and that ant nice. Bye bye birdy---I mean Gabby--low Nise--your efficiency just isn;t up to snuff (is that another evaluation chart???). Does she have to give back the triple double or the following double double???

 

[BroadwayVa]

Interesting numbers - is there somewhere to get these calculations for other teams? It is a little hard to know exactly what they say without a broader context. I am not surprised by Gabby's number, based on the formula. It is interesting to note that if you shoot 50% from two and never take threes or foul shots your NICE will be 0 and if you shoot 50% from two, 33.33% from 3, and 80% from the line your NICE will be negative. (I just checked DD at TN for reference for myself - her NICE is -52, Kelsey Mitchell's is +16, and Plum's is +110)

This makes --some---sense out of something that looks a bit senseless to me. Apparently, and as your Plum shows---NISE --is for 3 point shooters. Thanks. I don't think I'll be looking at another NiSE soon.

 

[Intpseeker]

NISE is simple. Total FG attempts + Total FT attempts - Total Points. It looks at shooting efficiency. It is for shooters. Not three point shooters. Shooters.

It arose out of a discussion about gunners vs. efficient shooters.

Those UConn numbers above are current, and UConn's Team NISE of 191 for the starters is more than 100 points better than any other team, confirming what we know: They are efficient shooters not gunners

YMMV

 

[watanabe]

NISE is simple. Total FG attempts + Total FT attempts - Total Points. It looks at shooting efficiency. It is for shooters. Not three point shooters. Shooters.

It arose out of a discussion about gunners vs. efficient shooters.

Those UConn numbers above are current, and UConn's Team NISE of 191 for the starters is more than 100 points better than any other team, confirming what we know: They are efficient shooters not gunners

/QUOTE]
This is calculus, right?

 

[UcMiami]

The concept of NISE seems to be an average shooter is going to make 50% of their twos, 33% of their threes and 100% of their free throws (which is the only slightly harsh assessment) and the result will be a NISE score of 0. A positive NISE means an above average shooter and a negative score means a below average scorer. A poor FT shooter who gets fouled a lot is going to get seriously penalized - I think I would prefer it if the formula was FGA + 0.75xFTA as that is closer to an average percentage.

It does not reward three point shooters - Napheesa with her very positive score is not a three point shooter, but she shoots a very high percentage on 2 point shots and that is what is driving her score.

And I am not surprised by Gabby's score - she shoots .550 overall, doesn't shoot threes and shoots a fair number of FTs at a regressing .671 - she comes out with a positive score so she is 'above average' but just barely AS A SCORER. Her game is more reflected by the Naples PPM of 1.00 which takes into account all the other things she is doing.

My issue with that calculation is that it over emphasizes scoring - while blocks and steals and rebounds can be justified as being worth 50% of baskets since good teams only score 50% of their possessions, assists are by definition resulting in baskets (good passes where the shooter misses don't get counted as assists in US scoring.) An improvement to the formula might be to count 2x on assists to credit them as equal to points.

 

[DaddyChoc]

 

[CTtransplant]

The concept of NISE seems to be an average shooter is going to make 50% of their twos, 33% of their threes and 100% of their free throws (which is the only slightly harsh assessment) and the result will be a NISE score of 0. A positive NISE means an above average shooter and a negative score means a below average scorer. A poor FT shooter who gets fouled a lot is going to get seriously penalized - I think I would prefer it if the formula was FGA + 0.75xFTA as that is closer to an average percentage.

It does not reward three point shooters - Napheesa with her very positive score is not a three point shooter, but she shoots a very high percentage on 2 point shots and that is what is driving her score.

And I am not surprised by Gabby's score - she shoots .550 overall, doesn't shoot threes and shoots a fair number of FTs at a regressing .671 - she comes out with a positive score so she is 'above average' but just barely AS A SCORER. Her game is more reflected by the Naples PPM of 1.00 which takes into account all the other things she is doing.

My issue with that calculation is that it over emphasizes scoring - while blocks and steals and rebounds can be justified as being worth 50% of baskets since good teams only score 50% of their possessions, assists are by definition resulting in baskets (good passes where the shooter misses don't get counted as assists in US scoring.) An improvement to the formula might be to count 2x on assists to credit them as equal to points.

After sleeping on this calculation, I came to the same conclusion as you. You need to factor the free throws by 0.7 or 0.75. The way it is now you are penalized for drawing fouls (since no one has ever shot 100%). Drawing a foul is a large contribution, it gives you points and gets a defender close to sitting on the bench.

 

[Intpseeker]

As a clarification, the NISE began after watching players from other teams who might score lots of points but seemed to be 'gunners' playing, sometimes, well outside of the team concept. The question: could you look at certain stats and distinguish gunning from a team player scoring a bunch of points within the flow.

It doesn't presume to look at the whole player. Gabby is an efficient scorer, but it doesn't look at all the various ways she contributes. BTW, there are not that many players with a positive NISE. In fact, many entire teams have produced spectacularly negative NISE stats.

One interesting note: keeping track of the top 10-15 and the AAC, the team's we think of as good, have higher NISE scores. The inconsistent teams have lower NISE score. Not surprising. Efficient scoring usually wins games.

Last night, Ohio State was a +16 for the game with Mitchell ( often well into the negative numbers) at a +5. They did make 15 shots in a row, which is going to make the NISE gaudy. MD on the other hand, chalked up a -7 in the loss. Not so efficient.

The NISE is a straight-forward, simple way to look at one part of the game, and it is only meant to increase the enjoyment and fun of the game.

 

[SVCBeercats]

My issue with that calculation is that it over emphasizes scoring

You are correct. As the title states it is for shooting efficiency. Look at PPM for inclusion of more stats. I like PPM because it shows what I believe. Collier should be touted as much or more than Samuelson for sure and even Williams to a lesser degree. She is over looked except by Geno. She gives him what he wants - consistent high level production every game.

 

[meyers7]

After sleeping on this calculation, I came to the same conclusion as you. You need to factor the free throws by 0.7 or 0.75. The way it is now you are penalized for drawing fouls (since no one has ever shot 100%).

What does it matter? The point is scoring efficiency COMPARED to other players/teams. Using .7 or .75 would/could make everyone's NISE higher, but still compared to every one else it doesn't matter. It's pretty straight forward, you are given a chance to score, did you? Basically how many chances did it take to get x amount of points. It's better from an efficiency standpoint to get 3 points for 1 try vs 1 point for 1 try.

Drawing a foul is a large contribution, it gives you points and gets a defender close to sitting on the bench.

Does not contribute to scoring efficiency though. And that's what NISE is for. It tells you what the scoring efficiency is, it does not tell how many defenders get sent to the bench.

 

[watanabe]

Gabbie is, "breaking NISE."

 

[UcMiami]

You are correct. As the title states it is for shooting efficiency. Look at PPM for inclusion of more stats. I like PPM because it shows what I believe. Collier should be touted as much or more than Samuelson for sure and even Williams to a lesser degree. She is over looked except by Geno. She gives him what he wants - consistent high level production every game.

This paragraph was specific to the PPM - it counts made baskets as two points (or three) but assists as only 1 point. That seems to me to over emphasize scoring in a concept that is supposed to be counting all positives that occur. The only negative it counts is bad passes (or other forms of TO) while it ignores missed shots. What I was saying is if you count baskets made at two, shouldn't you at least count assists made as two as making a basket and getting an assist both result in the same positive on the floor.