Progression Charts - Game 4

[jleves]

Decided to consolidate them into one post.

Drummond:

I expect you'll see a pretty steady upward trend with a bad game every now and then. I think fouls are going to be a big factor in the other lines being high.

Alex:

This is going to look like an EKG - Fouls don't seem to make a difference.

Daniels:

This may be the most interesting to watch trend.

Napier:

I really don't like this one - too hard to read. Suggestions?

 

[high-post]

Good stuff. Not to nitpick, but are you adding a minutes metric to the charts. Or is that not an option?

 

[jleves]

Good stuff. Not to nitpick, but are you adding a minutes metric to the charts. Or is that not an option?

I generate it off of Excel so I can add or do just about anything. I didn't add minutes because it would stretch the chart so that the other lines would be way flatter.

 

[auror]

I would suggest for Napier that Assist - TO doesn't really tell you much. And certainly tells you nothing more than showing both assists and turnovers does already. So I'd remove one or the other 2.

 

[jleves]

I would suggest for Napier that Assist - TO doesn't really tell you much. And certainly tells you nothing more than showing both assists and turnovers does already. So I'd remove one or the other 2.

I wanted to do assist to TO ratio - but he had zero turns one game and you can't chart that

 

[Dogbreath2U]

I wanted to do assist to TO ratio - but he had zero turns one game and you can't chart that

you might chart rebounds for Bazz rather than A/TO ratio.

 

[DogMania]

A little too mhch time on our hands? I do appreciate the creativity and analysis.

Here's my try:

AD: Big + athletic + Freshman = Inconsistency

 

[jleves]

you might chart rebounds for Bazz rather than A/TO ratio.

I could - but I dont want to embarrass Alex and Andre.

 

[bmayuc]

I think these graphs need to be PER 40 MIN stats rather than just pure numbers.

If you do per minute, you can see effectiveness untied to playing time...

just a thought, but cool graphs.

 

[jleves]

I think these graphs need to be PER 40 MIN stats rather than just pure numbers.

If you do per minute, you can see effectiveness untied to playing time...

just a thought, but cool graphs.

Per 40 minutes are great when comparing players in different situations (ie. the one I did for Daniels vs Harkless), but not as informative when you are not comparing but showing what kids are doing game to game.

ie. Do you really care if Alex is putting up 12 points per 40 minutes or that he is putting up 4 points in a game where he wasn't as effective as Olander and Roscoe because he wasn't effective? I made the numbers up, btw.

 

[intlzncster]

Per 40 minutes are great when comparing players in different situations (ie. the one I did for Daniels vs Harkless), but not as informative when you are not comparing but showing what kids are doing game to game.

ie. Do you really care if Alex is putting up 12 points per 40 minutes or that he is putting up 4 points in a game where he wasn't as effective as Olander and Roscoe because he wasn't effective? I made the numbers up, btw.

IMO, per minute rates are sort of garbage, unless guys actually play similar minutes. The rate at which a player produces is affected by a bunch of variables that are difficult to compare. Lazy example: when a player gets his minutes: if he plays against the other team's bench, he may benefit. If he plays a lot more minutes, he'll be playing tired more often (or warmed up). If he plays a couple minutes, he may not be able to get into the groove, etc.

 

[bmayuc]

Per 40 minutes are great when comparing players in different situations (ie. the one I did for Daniels vs Harkless), but not as informative when you are not comparing but showing what kids are doing game to game.

ie. Do you really care if Alex is putting up 12 points per 40 minutes or that he is putting up 4 points in a game where he wasn't as effective as Olander and Roscoe because he wasn't effective? I made the numbers up, btw.

However, what this thread is about is charting a player over time. the reason per-40 stats would be more useful here are that it tracks their efficiency(progression) over time. I couldn't care less if alex is averaging 16 pts/per40, unless at the beginning of the year he was at 10 pts/40. It just normalizes the graphs in relation to their playing time.

To use your example. If Alex puts 4 points 4 rebs in 28 minutes he had a terrible game. But if he had 4 pts 4 rbs in 15 minutes due to matchups, foul trouble, etc, that' s a different story. but it would look the same on that graph. Without normalizing for per/40 stats, u can't account for those things outside a players control. plus then you don' t have to put a "MIN" line on the graph as well.

Whatev works is cool i appreciate the effort. I just think per/40 would give a greater level of understanding of efficiency rather than raw data.