UConn stats.... What the heck is N.I.S.E. ? Why does it matter...?

[DavidinNaples]

N.I.S.E. is short for Net Index of Scoring Efficiency. It is a totally made up (by me) measure of scoring efficiency or points scored per shot taken. Last season, Paige took a total of 537 shots and 126 free throws. That is 663 total scoring attempts. She scored 756 points. Her N.I.S.E. was 1.14, which is very good. (756 divided by 663) For every shot or free throw taken, Paige scored 1.14 points. Anything above 1.0 is wonderful.

So what was the N.I.S.E. for the rest of the team?
Azzi = 405 shots & free throws for 462 points. NISE = 1.14 (same as Paige)
Ashlyn = 271 shots & free throws for 308 points. NISE = 1.13
K.K. = 235 shots & free throws for 218 points. NISE = 0.92
Jana = 217 shots & free throws for 200 points. NISE = 0.92

What about Sarah? Saving the best on the team for last.
Sarah = 537 shots & free throws for 657 points. NISE = 1.22 (which is really, really great..!)

What about Serah, the transfer from Wisconsin?
Serah = 618 shots and free throws for 577 points. NISE = 0.93

Conclusions:
1. What matters is not points scored, but how many shots & free throws it took to score those points. (efficiency)
2. Sarah, Paige & Azzi leading in NISE makes sense. All are quality shooters & don't take many bad shots.
3. Serah's NISE should improve to over 1.0 with outside shooters to keep the defense honest. Fewer double teams.
4. Free throws only score 1 point each, but are scored at 80% or so rate. Baskets score 2 or 3 pts but are harder to make.
5. I'm soooo ready for the season to start that I'm making up stats.... 😀

Go Huskies..!!

On edit:
Hannah Hidalgo from ND has NISE of 0.98 (770 shots & free throws for 761 points) Her per game average for points was 23.8 ppg.
As requested, in 2024, Caitlin Clark took 1,150 shots & free throws. She scored 1,234 points. NISE was 1.07. Scoring per game was 31.6 ppg.

 

[victor64]

Really impressive made up stat. Tells a lot. Thanks.

 

[FanSince17]

N.I.S.E. is short for Net Index of Scoring Efficiency. It is a totally made up (by me) measure of scoring efficiency or points scored per shot taken. Last season, Paige took a total of 537 shots and 126 free throws. That is 663 total scoring attempts. She scored 756 points. Her N.I.S.E. was 1.14, which is very good. (756 divided by 663) For every shot or free throw taken, Paige scored 1.14 points. Anything above 1.0 is wonderful.

So what was the N.I.S.E. for the rest of the team?
Azzi = 405 shots & free throws for 462 points. NISE = 1.14 (same as Paige)
Ashlyn = 271 shots & free throws for 308 points. NISE = 1.13
K.K. = 271 shots & free throws for 218 points. NISE = 0.92
Jana = 217 shots & free throws for 200 points. NISE = 0.92

What about Sarah? Saving the best on the team for last.
Sarah = 537 shots & free throws for 657 points. NISE = 1.22 (which is really, really great..!)

What about Serah, the transfer from Wisconsin?
Serah = 618 shots and free throws for 577 points. NISE = 0.93

Conclusions:
1. What matters is not points scored, but how many shots & free throws it took to score those points. (efficiency)
2. Sarah, Paige & Azzi leading in NISE makes sense. All are quality shooters & don't take many bad shots.
3. Serah's NISE will improve to over 1.0 with outside shooters to keep the defense honest. Fewer double teams.
4. Free throws only score 1 point each, but are scored at 80% or so rate. Baskets score 2 or 3 pts but are harder to make.
5. I'm soooo ready for the season to start that I'm making up stats.... 😀

Go Huskies..!!

What about a CC vs PB comparison? Come on, we haven't had a good CC, PB argument in a while.

 

[Puppy Love]

A three point shooter could have more misses and a greater scoring efficiency to a strictly 2 point shooter who makes an equal number of shots in this calculation. Since a missed shot ‘costs’ your team a scoring opportunity, it seems like there needs to be a penalty for missed shots or consideration given to whether the makes were twos or threes.

 

[YKCornelius]

A three point shooter could have more misses and a greater scoring efficiency to a strictly 2 point shooter who makes an equal number of shots in this calculation. Since a missed shot ‘costs’ your team a scoring opportunity, it seems like there needs to be a penalty for missed shots or consideration given to whether the makes were twos or threes.

Puppy Love, I would argue that the penalty for missed FG attempts is the same regardless of whether it was a 3 or a 2 point shot. In either case you get zero points.

I am also confused by your first sentence: how does one player have more misses than a second player who makes an equal number of shots? That's an incongruent statement. I think you meant to say "a strictly 2 point shooter who takes an equal number of shots", correct? If so, you are correct that the three point shooter could have a greater scoring efficiency while even missing more shots, but I would suggest that is part of the beauty of DavidinNaples' findings.

Said differently, the simplicity of his calculus illustrates that there is utility to look at the number of shots taken and made by a player, and not just how many points she averaged or what her FG and FT percentages might be. A different storyline can often emerge. I will illustrate what I mean in my response to him.

 

[Puppy Love]

Puppy Love, I would argue that the penalty for missed FG attempts is the same regardless of whether it was a 3 or a 2 point shot. In either case you get zero points.

I am also confused by your first sentence: how does one player have more misses than a second player who makes an equal number of shots? That's an incongruent statement. I think you meant to say "a strictly 2 point shooter who takes an equal number of shots", correct? If so, you are correct that the three point shooter could have a greater scoring efficiency while even missing more shots, but I would suggest that is part of the beauty of DavidinNaples' findings.

Said differently, the simplicity of his calculus illustrates that there is utility to look at the number of shots taken and made by a player, and not just how many points she averaged or what her FG and FT percentages might be. A different storyline can often emerge. I will illustrate what I mean in my response to him.

What I was trying to say (badly) player A takes 5 3 pointers and makes two…they have six points on two makes whiles player B takes 5 2 pointers and makes 3, resulting in six points on three makes. If you divide by total shots, they are both 1.0. The additional missed shot from player A is a scoring opportunity for the other team. The efficiency of a high volume 3 point shooter will look better than it really is when you consider the full outcome of the shot. If the miss results in a turnover, there is more to consider than just the outcome of the shot.

 

[Golden Husky]

N.I.S.E. is short for Net Index of Scoring Efficiency. It is a totally made up (by me) measure of scoring efficiency or points scored per shot taken. Last season, Paige took a total of 537 shots and 126 free throws. That is 663 total scoring attempts. She scored 756 points. Her N.I.S.E. was 1.14, which is very good. (756 divided by 663) For every shot or free throw taken, Paige scored 1.14 points. Anything above 1.0 is wonderful.

So what was the N.I.S.E. for the rest of the team?
Azzi = 405 shots & free throws for 462 points. NISE = 1.14 (same as Paige)
Ashlyn = 271 shots & free throws for 308 points. NISE = 1.13
K.K. = 235 shots & free throws for 218 points. NISE = 0.92
Jana = 217 shots & free throws for 200 points. NISE = 0.92

What about Sarah? Saving the best on the team for last.
Sarah = 537 shots & free throws for 657 points. NISE = 1.22 (which is really, really great..!)

What about Serah, the transfer from Wisconsin?
Serah = 618 shots and free throws for 577 points. NISE = 0.93

Conclusions:
1. What matters is not points scored, but how many shots & free throws it took to score those points. (efficiency)
2. Sarah, Paige & Azzi leading in NISE makes sense. All are quality shooters & don't take many bad shots.
3. Serah's NISE should improve to over 1.0 with outside shooters to keep the defense honest. Fewer double teams.
4. Free throws only score 1 point each, but are scored at 80% or so rate. Baskets score 2 or 3 pts but are harder to make.
5. I'm soooo ready for the season to start that I'm making up stats.... 😀

Go Huskies..!!

On edit:
Hannah Hidalgo from ND has NISE of 0.98 (770 shots & free throws for 761 points) Her per game average for points was 23.8 ppg.
As requested, in 2024, Caitlin Clark took 1,150 shots & free throws. She scored 1,234 points. NISE was 1.07. Scoring per game was 31.6 ppg.

Nice...or NISE.

 

[YKCornelius]

N.I.S.E. is short for Net Index of Scoring Efficiency. It is a totally made up (by me) measure of scoring efficiency or points scored per shot taken. Last season, Paige took a total of 537 shots and 126 free throws. That is 663 total scoring attempts. She scored 756 points. Her N.I.S.E. was 1.14, which is very good. (756 divided by 663) For every shot or free throw taken, Paige scored 1.14 points. Anything above 1.0 is wonderful.
Conclusions:
1. What matters is not points scored, but how many shots & free throws it took to score those points. (efficiency)
2. Sarah, Paige & Azzi leading in NISE makes sense. All are quality shooters & don't take many bad shots.
3. Serah's NISE should improve to over 1.0 with outside shooters to keep the defense honest. Fewer double teams.
4. Free throws only score 1 point each, but are scored at 80% or so rate. Baskets score 2 or 3 pts but are harder to make.
5. I'm soooo ready for the season to start that I'm making up stats.... 😀

Go Huskies..!!

On edit:
Hannah Hidalgo from ND has NISE of 0.98 (770 shots & free throws for 761 points) Her per game average for points was 23.8 ppg.
As requested, in 2024, Caitlin Clark took 1,150 shots & free throws. She scored 1,234 points. NISE was 1.07. Scoring per game was 31.6 ppg.

David, I found your NISE presentation to be quite thought-provoking. I love the simplicity in it, and as I mentioned in my response to Puppy Love, I think the figures can sometimes point/underscore other storylines or perceptions. Let me explain:

I used your formula to compare two aspects of the results. First, I compared the 2024-25 NISE of the top players in many of the top programs. What I found is that a majority of these players had NISE values slightly above 1.00, which was not surprising to me. (As an aside, the closest NISE score I found to Sarah Strong was 1.15 from Gianna Kneepkens. We truly have a Sensational Sophomore!). So I took a closer look at those "top players" that did not have a NISE above 1.00 to see if anything popped out.

Suffice to say, interesting storylines appeared, especially when I compared the second aspect: the NISE scores of these "top players" against the overall NISE score of their team. Here are three examples of the hidden storylines:

- Juju Watkins had a relatively poor NISE score of 0.915, not just in comparison to most other top players across WCBB, but also in comparison to USC's overall NISE score of 0.939. Her efficiency was way below her teammates: Avery Howell (1.106), Kayleigh Heckel (0.958), Kiki Iriafen (0.942), Rayah Marshall (0.929) and Kennedy Smith (0.927). Conclusion: the nation's fourth leading scorer's 42.6/32.5/82.0 shooting percentages masked her overall inefficiency, especially relative to those of her teammates. This should have been addressed and corrected by Lindsey Gottleib. IMO, this helps explain why Howell and Heckel quickly sought out other options.

- Ta'Niya Latson had an even greater disparity between her NISE (0.925) and that of FSU's overall NISE score (0.961). The next three top scorers for FSU (who all had double-digit averages by the way) had NISE scores well above Latson's: Makayla Timpson at 1.002, O'Mariah Gordon at 0.980, and Sydney Bowles at 0.997. Conclusion: The nation's leading scorer shot the ball way too much for the Seminoles last year. The average fan looking simply at Ta'Niya's 45.1/34.3/81.8 percentages without comparison to her teammates might conclude her high volume shooting was justified. IMO, it wasn't and NISE underscores this contention.

- Behind UConn, Notre Dame had the second highest NISE of Top Twenty programs at 1.024 (As another aside, UCLA was the only other program above 1.000 (at 1.004). Of their eight rotational players, Irish had four above the team average (Sonia Citron at 1.077, Olivia Miles at 1.076, Liza Karlen at 1.056, and Maddie Westbeld at 1.032) and one close to team average (Liatu King at 1.021). The other three? Hannah Hidalgo at 0.988, Cass Prosper at 0.916 and Kate Koval at 0.868. Conclusions: (1) Hannah Hidalgo shot the ball way too much. Her 46.3/40.0/85.6 percentages are - at best - comparable to Miles' 48.3/40.6/79.0 and Citron's 48.4/37.2/89.0, but do not justify shooting approximately 200 more field goal attempts than each of her stellar teammates. (2) How much of Hannah's ball dominance drove the downfall of the Irish in the latter half of the season? How does this translate into this year?

Thanks for dreaming up this NISE score. When used in a certain context, I find it illuminating. Good stuff!

 

[PacoSwede]

i'm no stats guru. for those of you who are, can u come up with a stat that measures the 'clutch factor' in a player's performance. i guess that's a no-can-do.

yet the 'eye test' tells me that players -- such as maya and paige and other lesser players (maria conlon comes to mind) -- are the kind that regularly seem to 'come through' when most needed, the pressure is greatest and success for the team is on the line.

i, a stats dummy, would love it if that quality could be quantified. is there any chance of doing so?

 

[cwh20]

Interesting stat and it’s fun to think about. I’m not so keen on your calculation piece for foul shots though. If PB goes 10/10 from the line which is perfect her NISE takes a hit because her NISE is greater than 1. The best anyone can do from the line is 1. The more foul shots, the more damage done. And think about a layup with no foul. That’s a NISE of 2. With a layup and made “and one” that’s 3 points on 2 shots. A NISE of 1.5. Or worse, a missed “and one” = a NISE of 1.

Edit: the more I consider this the more I think free throws should be almost free. Count the additional points but count each attempt as .25 shots taken. I’m not really sure if .25 would be the perfect factor but something lower than 0.4 would be a better indicator as to the player efficiency than using 1 per foul shot attempt. All the players would have a better overall RISE number but those getting to the foul line would be rewarded for doing so. And significantly so if they are a very good from the line.

 

[Boreifs]

Teams that take lots of free throws are going to have a lower score, since one can only get one point per shot. This stat favors jump shooters over drivers.

 

[Skeets]

What I was trying to say (badly) player A takes 5 3 pointers and makes two…they have six points on two makes whiles player B takes 5 2 pointers and makes 3, resulting in six points on three makes. If you divide by total shots, they are both 1.0. The additional missed shot from player A is a scoring opportunity for the other team. The efficiency of a high volume 3 point shooter will look better than it really is when you consider the full outcome of the shot. If the miss results in a turnover, there is more to consider than just the outcome of the shot.

N.I.S.E. is an interesting and simple stat. Maybe a more complicated N.I.S.E. would include a penalty for missed shots and a small adjustment for free throws so that they don't penalize the overall N.I.S.E.. One thought, if a player has a 2 and 3 pointer N.I.S.E. of 1.1, then maybe each free throw should be worth 1.1 to keep it neutral, or perhaps an eyelash more to recognize the value of a made free throw.

 

[NYFan]

Teams that take lots of free throws are going to have a lower score, since one can only get one point per shot. This stat favors jump shooters over drivers.

When you think about it, if you take a 2- or 3- point shot, you have one shot to get 2 or 3 points. But let's say you're fouled going for a 2-pointer. You still have a chance to get 2 points, but the N.I.S.E. stat counts it as 2 "shots", not 1 shot. Yet if someone makes both shots, the team benefits as much as if the original 2-point attempt was made without a foul.

In an ideal world, I would say every time an attempt to score is made (while the clock is running), that should increase the denominator in the equation. That also means that if you make a 2-pointer and get fouled for an "and one", if you make that extra shot, you get rewarded with a score of 3 points on one attempt (as opposed to the current scoring where you would get 3 points on 2 attempts).

Now, in reality, I don't know if the statistics are available to calculate all of this...

 

[Skeets]

When you think about it, if you take a 2- or 3- point shot, you have one shot to get 2 or 3 points. But let's say you're fouled going for a 2-pointer. You still have a chance to get 2 points, but the N.I.S.E. stat counts it as 2 "shots", not 1 shot. Yet if someone makes both shots, the team benefits as much as if the original 2-point attempt was made without a foul.

In an ideal world, I would say every time an attempt to score is made (while the clock is running), that should increase the denominator in the equation. That also means that if you make a 2-pointer and get fouled for an "and one", if you make that extra shot, you get rewarded with a score of 3 points on one attempt (as opposed to the current scoring where you would get 3 points on 2 attempts).

Now, in reality, I don't know if the statistics are available to calculate all of this...

First, let me say I like N.I.S.E. as it currently stands. What you say makes sense. However, if a player gets fouled on a 2 point shot and only makes 1 free throw, or if a player gets to the line on a non-shooting foul and misses how does that get counted? Or if a player gets fouled on a 3-pointer and makes only 1 or 2 of the free throws? Unfortunately, properly accounting made/missed free throws becomes a huge pain in the buttocks. Maybe a job for AI.

 

[cwh20]

First, let me say I like N.I.S.E. as it currently stands. What you say makes sense. However, if a player gets fouled on a 2 point shot and only makes 1 free throw, or if a player gets to the line on a non-shooting foul and misses how does that get counted? Or if a player gets fouled on a 3-pointer and makes only 1 or 2 of the free throws? Unfortunately, properly accounting made/missed free throws becomes a huge pain in the buttocks. Maybe a job for AI.

Basically the object is to get a formula that shows results that matches up to the eyeball test pretty accurately. And that is easy enough to calculate. That would be off the box score stats. There will never be a perfect method to calculate all the nuances that can occur so your point that sometimes foul shots may not be a positive or hard to capture is correct but that is always going to be the case no matter the algorithm applied.

 

[meyers7]

N.I.S.E. is short for Net Index of Scoring Efficiency. It is a totally made up (by me) measure of scoring efficiency or points scored per shot taken. Last season, Paige took a total of 537 shots and 126 free throws. That is 663 total scoring attempts. She scored 756 points. Her N.I.S.E. was 1.14, which is very good. (756 divided by 663) For every shot or free throw taken, Paige scored 1.14 points. Anything above 1.0 is wonderful.

So what was the N.I.S.E. for the rest of the team?
Azzi = 405 shots & free throws for 462 points. NISE = 1.14 (same as Paige)
Ashlyn = 271 shots & free throws for 308 points. NISE = 1.13
K.K. = 235 shots & free throws for 218 points. NISE = 0.92
Jana = 217 shots & free throws for 200 points. NISE = 0.92

What about Sarah? Saving the best on the team for last.
Sarah = 537 shots & free throws for 657 points. NISE = 1.22 (which is really, really great..!)

What about Serah, the transfer from Wisconsin?
Serah = 618 shots and free throws for 577 points. NISE = 0.93

Conclusions:
1. What matters is not points scored, but how many shots & free throws it took to score those points. (efficiency)
2. Sarah, Paige & Azzi leading in NISE makes sense. All are quality shooters & don't take many bad shots.
3. Serah's NISE should improve to over 1.0 with outside shooters to keep the defense honest. Fewer double teams.
4. Free throws only score 1 point each, but are scored at 80% or so rate. Baskets score 2 or 3 pts but are harder to make.
5. I'm soooo ready for the season to start that I'm making up stats.... 😀

Go Huskies..!!

On edit:
Hannah Hidalgo from ND has NISE of 0.98 (770 shots & free throws for 761 points) Her per game average for points was 23.8 ppg.
As requested, in 2024, Caitlin Clark took 1,150 shots & free throws. She scored 1,234 points. NISE was 1.07. Scoring per game was 31.6 ppg.

I always thought it was Naples Index of Scoring Efficiency.

 

[meyers7]

What I was trying to say (badly) player A takes 5 3 pointers and makes two…they have six points on two makes whiles player B takes 5 2 pointers and makes 3, resulting in six points on three makes. If you divide by total shots, they are both 1.0. The additional missed shot from player A is a scoring opportunity for the other team. The efficiency of a high volume 3 point shooter will look better than it really is when you consider the full outcome of the shot. If the miss results in a turnover, there is more to consider than just the outcome of the shot.

But they both took 5 shots to get 6 points. That's the point of efficiency.

Shooting 50% on 2 pt is gonna get you a similar efficiency to shooting 40% on 3s. Similar for FTs, the closer you get to 100% the better your efficiency (NISE) number will be.

If you are shooting 50/40/80, you're gonna be around 1.0 for NISE.

example
5/10 on 2 pt - 10
2/5 on 3 pt - 6
8/10 on FT - 8

25 shots for 24 points. NISE of 0.96

And that's an efficient shooter/scorer.

 

[Puppy Love]

But they both took 5 shots to get 6 points. That's the point of efficiency.

Shooting 50% on 2 pt is gonna get you a similar efficiency to shooting 40% on 3s. Similar for FTs, the closer you get to 100% the better your efficiency (NISE) number will be.

If you are shooting 50/40/80, you're gonna be around 1.0 for NISE.

example
5/10 on 2 pt - 10
2/5 on 3 pt - 6
8/10 on FT - 8

25 shots for 24 points. NISE of 0.96

And that's an efficient shooter/scorer.

Yes, they both took five shots, but the three-point shooter scored six of 15 potential points. The two point shooter scored six of 10 potential points. My earlier argument was that the extra miss on the part of the three-point shooter cost the team a scoring opportunity. I think the extra point on the three-point shot muddies the waters in the calculation. In reality, of course, no one is strictly a three point or two point shooter, but players who are high volume three shooters will look more efficient in this kind of calculation than they really are. My personal preference would be for a weighted average.

 

[Dogdude]

It's easy to argue minutiae, but the simplicity is why I think it works well. Over the course of a season, all the little irregular bumps in the system get averaged out. While it may not be perfect for a single game (and looking at Paige's plus/minus with the Wings shows why this stat is so misleading), over the course of a season it bears out with exactly what you perceive in a player's effectiveness. Keep it as is!