Author Topic: Net Impact: Our Young Guards  (Read 2179 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Net Impact: Our Young Guards
« on: January 30, 2015, 10:21:10 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
So, I set out to answer the question: "Just what kind of impact are our young players making, particularly in comparison to their peers?"  The standard "one number for everything" stats have been unsatisfying to me, in large part because I don't understand how they are calculated.

I decided to try and determine, simply, the net positive contributions that our players make - I.e. Positives minus negatives. I weighed certain categories more heavily than others, but I think it's fairly straightforward and obvious.

The basic equation:

Positives = (O-Rating / 10) + (Points + Assists + DReb + 3PM + FTA) + ((Steals + Blocks + OReb) * 2)
Negatives = (D-Rating / 10) + (FGA + PF) + (TO * 2)

I did not attempt to adjust for pace, or minutes played. Those are to be considered by the viewer of the results.  This equation gives double value to box score events related to the creation / loss of a possession, because it's a double-sided event (one team gets a possession, the other team loses one).  Extra points are given for three point makes and free throw attempts because they have intrinsic value beyond the points scored.

It should be noted that the baseline for each position / role is going to be different. Centers naturally do more box score things than off-ball guards, for example.

I plugged stats for the Celtics' younger players and similar young players around the league into this equation to try to get a sense of how the Celtics stack up.


I.

First: Marcus Smart versus Other Young Point Guards

Smart - 29.1 POS / 21.0 NEG ... 8.1 NET in 22 mpg
Payton - 33.6 POS / 25.1 NEG ... 8.5 NET in 27.5 mpg
Napier - 24.4 POS / 20.4 NEG ... 4.0 NET in 21.1 mpg
Schroder - 26.4 POS / 22.5 NEG ... 3.9 NET in 17.8 mpg
Lavine - 27.8 POS / 26.2 NEG ... 1.6 NET in 23.5 mpg
Exum - 20.5 POS / 19.5 NEG ... 1.0 NET in 18.6 mpg

Smart leads this group in overall productivity by a significant margin, despite getting less positive attention nationally than most of them.  Payton has a higher number, but plays 5 more mpg.  Smart does fewer negative things per minute, gets steals, has a good assist to turnover ratio, and hits threes.

Guys like Lavine, Exum, and Schroder are overrated for being more scoring oriented and having greater athleticism, in my opinion. I won't be surprised to see Smart continue to lead this group in the future.

For comparison, a high-end example of this role:

Isaiah Thomas - 42.2 POS / 28.4 NEG ... 13.8 NET in 25.6 mpg.

The perfect sparkplug guard.


II.

Bradley vs Other Youngish Off-Ball SGs

Bradley - 31.9 POS / 28.0 NEG ... 3.9 NET in 30.3 mpg
Shumpert - 31.9 POS / 26.5 NEG ... 5.4 NET in 26 mpg
Fournier - 34.3 POS / 27 NEG ... 7.3 NET in 30.5 mpg
Ross - 31.1 POS / 25.1 NEG ... 6.0 NET in 27.3 mpg
Caldwell-Pope - 33.2 POS / 26.3 NEG ... 6.9 NET in 31.5 mpg

Bradley doesn't look so hot in this grouping. His negatives lead the group.  It hurts him that he doesn't get to the free throw line, rebound, or get assists. His points are basically equal to his field goal attempts.  He also doesn't get many steals despite his ball hawk rep, and his defensive rating is actually really high.  That comes from playing big minutes on a bad defensive team, but still he hasn't made a big enough defensive contribution to impact the team defense in a significant way.

None of these guys is a huge contributor, though.

For comparison, a high-end example of this role:

Danny Green - 38.9 POS / 24.7 NEG ... 14.2 NET in 30.9 mpg.

Low-usage perfection.



Just to give you an idea of the upper bound of this, check out Anthony Davis's historic season.

Anthony Davis - 67.8 POS / 31.8 NEG ... 36.0 NET in 36 mpg.

Exactly two positives for every negative each minute he's on the floor.  Wow.


I'll post about the young big men - Sully, KO, Zeller - later.

Thoughts? Comments?  Constructive criticism of my method and corrections in my calculations (the numbers are a week or so old, though) are welcome.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 02:09:42 PM by PhoSita »
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Net Impact: Our Young Guards
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2015, 10:39:28 AM »

Offline The One

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2017
  • Tommy Points: 203
Kudos to you sir...that seemed to be a yeoman's task.

I am pleased to see our prospect Smart doing well in comparison to his peers.


Re: Net Impact: Our Young Guards
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2015, 10:58:58 AM »

Offline TheTruthFot18

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2125
  • Tommy Points: 263
  • Truth Juice
1. Payton and Lavine are getting more PT due to lack of depth and/or injuries at pg.
  - Even with Rondo gone, Smart is competing for minutes with Turner and Pressey.

2. Napier is a younger Kemba Walker playing with experienced players while Schroder is sophomore backup on the East's top team.
  - We are not a top team nor do we have really experienced vets to guide Smart.

3. Exum is still riding the draft hype.
  - Being 19 and relatively no solid potential rating, people want to believe he's super raw and every basket is a breakout. Smart had much higher expectations (understandably) and that fan fight might still linger with people.

Still glad we have him. You can't teach passion 

The Nets will finish with the worst record and the Celtics will end up with the 4th pick.

- Me (sometime in January)

--------------------------------------------------------

Guess I was wrong (May 23rd)

Re: Net Impact: Our Young Guards
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2015, 11:28:44 AM »

Offline GratefulCs

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3181
  • Tommy Points: 496
  • Salmon and Mashed Potatoes
So, I set out to answer the question: "Just what kind of impact are our young players making, particularly in comparison to their peers?"  The standard "one number for everything" stats have been unsatisfying to me, in large part because I don't understand how they are calculated.

I decided to try and determine, simply, the net positive contributions that our players make - I.e. Positives minus negatives. I weighed certain categories more heavily than others, but I think it's fairly straightforward and obvious.

The basic equation:

Positives = (O-Rating / 10) + (Points + Assists + DReb + 3PM + FTA) + ((Steals + Blocks + OReb) * 2)
Negatives = (D-Rating / 10) + (FGA + PF) + (TO * 2)

I did not attempt to adjust for pace, or minutes played. Those are to be considered by the viewer of the results.  This equation gives double value to box score events related to the creation / loss of a possession, because it's a double-sided event (one team gets a possession, the other team loses one).  Extra points are given for three point makes and free throw attempts because they have intrinsic value beyond the points scored.

It should be noted that the baseline for each position / role is going to be different. Centers naturally do more box score things than off-ball guards, for example.

I plugged stats for the Celtics' younger players and similar young players around the league into this equation to try to get a sense of how the Celtics stack up.

First: Marcus Smart versus Other Young Point Guards

Smart - 29.1 POS / 21.0 NEG ... 8.1 NET in 22 mpg
Payton - 33.6 POS / 25.1 NEG ... 8.5 NET in 27.5 mpg
Napier - 24.4 POS / 20.4 NEG ... 4.0 NET in 21.1 mpg
Schroder - 26.4 POS / 22.5 NEG ... 3.9 NET in 17.8 mpg
Lavine - 27.8 POS / 26.2 NEG ... 1.6 NET in 23.5 mpg
Exum - 20.5 POS / 19.5 NEG ... 1.0 NET in 18.6 mpg

Smart leads this group in overall productivity by a significant margin, despite getting less positive attention nationally than most of them.  Payton has a higher number, but plays 5 more mpg.  Smart does fewer negative things per minute, gets steals, has a good assist to turnover ratio, and hits threes.

Guys like Lavine, Exum, and Schroder are overrated for being more scoring oriented and having greater athleticism, in my opinion. I won't be surprised to see Smart continue to lead this group in the future.

For comparison, a high-end example of this role:

Isaiah Thomas - 42.2 POS / 28.4 NEG ... 13.8 NET in 25.6 mpg.

The perfect sparkplug guard.


Bradley vs Other Youngish Off-Ball SGs

Bradley - 31.9 POS / 28.0 NEG ... 3.9 NET in 30.3 mpg
Shumpert - 31.9 POS / 26.5 NEG ... 5.4 NET in 26 mpg
Fournier - 34.3 POS / 27 NEG ... 7.3 NET in 30.5 mpg
Ross - 31.1 POS / 25.1 NEG ... 6.0 NET in 27.3 mpg
Caldwell-Pope - 33.2 POS / 26.3 NEG ... 6.9 NET in 31.5 mpg

Bradley doesn't look so hot in this grouping. His negatives lead the group.  It hurts him that he doesn't get to the free throw line, rebound, or get assists. His points are basically equal to his field goal attempts.  He also doesn't get many steals despite his ball hawk rep, and his defensive rating is actually really high.  That comes from playing big minutes on a bad defensive team, but still he hasn't made a big enough defensive contribution to impact the team defense in a significant way.

None of these guys is a huge contributor, though.

For comparison, a high-end example of this role:

Danny Green - 38.9 POS / 24.7 NEG ... 14.2 NET in 30.9 mpg.

Low-usage perfection.



Just to give you an idea of the upper bound of this, check out Anthony Davis's historic season.

Anthony Davis - 67.8 POS / 31.8 NEG ... 36.0 NET in 36 mpg.

Exactly two positives for every negative each minute he's on the floor.  Wow.


I'll post about the young big men - Sully, KO, Zeller - later.

Thoughts? Comments?  Constructive criticism of my method and corrections in my calculations (the numbers are a week or so old, though) are welcome.
TP for the work phosita!


I'm glad smart's advanced numbers back up the eye test. He seems to be a guy who, mor often than not, makes the right play on both ends of the court
I trust Danny Ainge

Re: Net Impact: Our Young Guards
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2015, 11:45:10 AM »

Online Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47136
  • Tommy Points: 2401
TP for all the work. Interesting numbers & way to look at things.

Re: Net Impact: Our Young Guards
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2015, 11:53:06 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Tommy Points: 1469
TP for the work, Pho.  I like your simple and straight-forward, but relatively inclusive, formula.  I can't wait to see how Sully, Zeller, and Olynyk do.  I suspect they will end up looking fairly good compared to many of their peers. 

Maybe if I get a chance later, I'll plug in your numbers for Kelly compared to the other bigs in the rookie/sophomore game. 
DKC Seventy-Sixers:

PG: G. Hill/D. Schroder
SG: C. Lee/B. Hield/T. Luwawu
SF:  Giannis/J. Lamb/M. Kuzminskas
PF:  E. Ilyasova/J. Jerebko/R. Christmas
C:    N. Vucevic/K. Olynyk/E. Davis/C. Jefferson

Re: Net Impact: Our Young Guards
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2015, 07:20:08 PM »

Offline Rosco917

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6108
  • Tommy Points: 559
So, I set out to answer the question: "Just what kind of impact are our young players making, particularly in comparison to their peers?"  The standard "one number for everything" stats have been unsatisfying to me, in large part because I don't understand how they are calculated.

I decided to try and determine, simply, the net positive contributions that our players make - I.e. Positives minus negatives. I weighed certain categories more heavily than others, but I think it's fairly straightforward and obvious.

The basic equation:

Positives = (O-Rating / 10) + (Points + Assists + DReb + 3PM + FTA) + ((Steals + Blocks + OReb) * 2)
Negatives = (D-Rating / 10) + (FGA + PF) + (TO * 2)

I did not attempt to adjust for pace, or minutes played. Those are to be considered by the viewer of the results.  This equation gives double value to box score events related to the creation / loss of a possession, because it's a double-sided event (one team gets a possession, the other team loses one).  Extra points are given for three point makes and free throw attempts because they have intrinsic value beyond the points scored.

It should be noted that the baseline for each position / role is going to be different. Centers naturally do more box score things than off-ball guards, for example.

I plugged stats for the Celtics' younger players and similar young players around the league into this equation to try to get a sense of how the Celtics stack up.


I.

First: Marcus Smart versus Other Young Point Guards

Smart - 29.1 POS / 21.0 NEG ... 8.1 NET in 22 mpg
Payton - 33.6 POS / 25.1 NEG ... 8.5 NET in 27.5 mpg
Napier - 24.4 POS / 20.4 NEG ... 4.0 NET in 21.1 mpg
Schroder - 26.4 POS / 22.5 NEG ... 3.9 NET in 17.8 mpg
Lavine - 27.8 POS / 26.2 NEG ... 1.6 NET in 23.5 mpg
Exum - 20.5 POS / 19.5 NEG ... 1.0 NET in 18.6 mpg

Smart leads this group in overall productivity by a significant margin, despite getting less positive attention nationally than most of them.  Payton has a higher number, but plays 5 more mpg.  Smart does fewer negative things per minute, gets steals, has a good assist to turnover ratio, and hits threes.

Guys like Lavine, Exum, and Schroder are overrated for being more scoring oriented and having greater athleticism, in my opinion. I won't be surprised to see Smart continue to lead this group in the future.

For comparison, a high-end example of this role:

Isaiah Thomas - 42.2 POS / 28.4 NEG ... 13.8 NET in 25.6 mpg.

The perfect sparkplug guard.


II.

Bradley vs Other Youngish Off-Ball SGs

Bradley - 31.9 POS / 28.0 NEG ... 3.9 NET in 30.3 mpg
Shumpert - 31.9 POS / 26.5 NEG ... 5.4 NET in 26 mpg
Fournier - 34.3 POS / 27 NEG ... 7.3 NET in 30.5 mpg
Ross - 31.1 POS / 25.1 NEG ... 6.0 NET in 27.3 mpg
Caldwell-Pope - 33.2 POS / 26.3 NEG ... 6.9 NET in 31.5 mpg

Bradley doesn't look so hot in this grouping. His negatives lead the group.  It hurts him that he doesn't get to the free throw line, rebound, or get assists. His points are basically equal to his field goal attempts.  He also doesn't get many steals despite his ball hawk rep, and his defensive rating is actually really high.  That comes from playing big minutes on a bad defensive team, but still he hasn't made a big enough defensive contribution to impact the team defense in a significant way.

None of these guys is a huge contributor, though.

For comparison, a high-end example of this role:

Danny Green - 38.9 POS / 24.7 NEG ... 14.2 NET in 30.9 mpg.

Low-usage perfection.



Just to give you an idea of the upper bound of this, check out Anthony Davis's historic season.

Anthony Davis - 67.8 POS / 31.8 NEG ... 36.0 NET in 36 mpg.

Exactly two positives for every negative each minute he's on the floor.  Wow.


I'll post about the young big men - Sully, KO, Zeller - later.

Thoughts? Comments?  Constructive criticism of my method and corrections in my calculations (the numbers are a week or so old, though) are welcome.





Great! Thank you, very informative.

Re: Net Impact: Our Young Guards
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2015, 02:45:24 AM »

Offline celtics2030

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tommy Points: 72
Payton is better though , even with those numbers.

Way better passer,

Already has the abilities on offense to be an NBA player

He just cannot shoot the 3 ball, and does not even choose to do it

Marcus , the complete oppossite, only shoots 3's , cant do nothing inside the three point line.

Marcus is a good defender, he has the heart and confidence to play in the NBA for sure.....his game needs major improvement thought

Payton is also a good defender, his game is already at the point where you can say its already their but now he just needs to tune it.

He can be a 17,18 guy with 8 or 9 asissts a game.

Marcus can be around 15 and 7 , 5 imo, but hes going to need to do a lot of work to get to that point, and stop shooting so many three's.

Re: Net Impact: Our Young Guards
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2015, 06:37:31 AM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
It's not like we are getting top three draft pics either

We have to make do,with later round guys ....more hit or miss than ,    Irving or Wall