:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/840343/bball_dictionary.jpg)
First of all, Happy New Year, everyone! And I won't blame you if you don't want to look at these numbers after last night's disappointing (to say the least) performance by the Monta-less Warriors (this is the part where I say, hey, small sample size, just one game, yada yada, but still...). But for those who do venture beyond the jump, I do have something new for you...
So, here's the new thing:
Expected Synergy Stats
The math behind this is actually relatively simple. I take a prior average for the % each play is run and the efficiency (PPP) for each team. Right now, I'm using last season's data, but as the season progresses, I will start to blend the current season. The expected rate and PPP is then the simple average between the offense of one team and the defense of the other team for each play type. Here is what the expected Synergy stats looked like for last night's game:
|
|
EXPECTED |
|||
|
|
GSW |
PHI |
||
|
PLAY |
% |
PPP |
% |
PPP |
|
ALL |
|
0.93 |
|
0.95 |
|
BALL |
13.0% |
0.87 |
10.3% |
0.81 |
|
CUT |
7.1% |
1.18 |
8.1% |
1.21 |
|
HAND |
2.3% |
0.95 |
2.7% |
0.91 |
|
ISO |
12.8% |
0.85 |
12.3% |
0.85 |
|
OTHER |
6.5% |
0.41 |
6.9% |
0.45 |
|
POST |
8.5% |
0.82 |
9.4% |
0.92 |
|
REB |
6.1% |
0.99 |
6.2% |
1.06 |
|
ROLL |
5.2% |
0.99 |
4.6% |
0.97 |
|
SCREEN |
5.0% |
0.89 |
4.4% |
0.89 |
|
SPOT |
19.4% |
1.01 |
19.3% |
0.98 |
|
TRANS |
12.2% |
1.16 |
14.1% |
1.18 |
The top line (ALL) gives the overall predicted team efficiency (0.93 for GSW and 0.95 for PHI). Now let's look at what really happened:
|
PHI@GSW |
GSW |
PHI |
||||
|
|
% |
# |
PPP |
% |
# |
PPP |
|
ALL |
100.0% |
103 |
0.75 |
100.0% |
106 |
0.95 |
|
BALL |
5.8% |
6 |
1.17 |
4.7% |
5 |
0.60 |
|
CUT |
11.7% |
12 |
0.58 |
5.7% |
6 |
1.17 |
|
HAND |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
2.8% |
3 |
1.00 |
|
ISO |
19.4% |
20 |
0.50 |
18.9% |
20 |
0.70 |
|
OTHER |
1.0% |
1 |
0.00 |
1.9% |
2 |
1.00 |
|
POST |
8.7% |
9 |
0.78 |
8.5% |
9 |
1.00 |
|
REB |
8.7% |
9 |
0.89 |
6.6% |
7 |
0.86 |
|
ROLL |
4.9% |
5 |
0.80 |
2.8% |
3 |
1.33 |
|
SCREEN |
6.8% |
7 |
0.71 |
1.9% |
2 |
1.50 |
|
SPOT |
17.5% |
18 |
0.89 |
26.4% |
28 |
0.96 |
|
TRANS |
15.5% |
16 |
0.81 |
19.8% |
21 |
1.10 |
As you can see, PHI lived up to their end of the bargain, going for a 0.95 PPP exactly. But we, um, did not quite live up to expectations, managing a pathetic 0.75 PPP. Much of this was due to going 0.5 PPP on ISO plays and an extremely low 0.58 PPP on cut plays (which are usually among the most efficient plays a team can get). Also, our efficiency in transition was only 0.81 PPP compared to the expected 1.16. In short, we played like crap.
Here's a Treemap representation of the game. The area of each tile represents the %-rate and the color represents the efficiency (red is hotter, blue is colder). Click on each tile to pop-up the % and PPP.
Synergy Treemap
Reference
These are the reference rates on offense and defense from last season used to calculated the expected numbers shown above.
2010-11 Offense
|
|
GSW |
PHI |
||
|
|
% |
PPP |
% |
PPP |
|
ALL |
100.0% |
0.95 |
100.0% |
0.94 |
|
BALL |
13.7% |
0.88 |
11.5% |
0.83 |
|
CUT |
7.4% |
1.19 |
7.6% |
1.21 |
|
HAND |
2.2% |
0.99 |
3.2% |
0.80 |
|
ISO |
14.0% |
0.85 |
13.9% |
0.82 |
|
OTHER |
6.6% |
0.39 |
6.1% |
0.50 |
|
POST |
6.6% |
0.76 |
8.8% |
0.93 |
|
REB |
6.1% |
0.98 |
5.9% |
1.05 |
|
ROLL |
5.2% |
0.96 |
5.2% |
0.91 |
|
SCREEN |
4.6% |
0.86 |
4.0% |
0.83 |
|
SPOT |
20.2% |
1.05 |
19.5% |
0.94 |
|
TRANS |
13.4% |
1.20 |
14.3% |
1.19 |
2010-11 Defense
|
|
GSW |
PHI |
||
|
|
% |
PPP |
% |
PPP |
|
ALL |
100.0% |
0.92 |
100.0% |
0.88 |
|
BALL |
9.0% |
0.78 |
12.3% |
0.86 |
|
CUT |
8.5% |
1.21 |
6.7% |
1.17 |
|
HAND |
2.1% |
1.01 |
2.4% |
0.90 |
|
ISO |
10.6% |
0.88 |
11.5% |
0.85 |
|
OTHER |
7.6% |
0.40 |
6.4% |
0.42 |
|
POST |
9.9% |
0.91 |
10.3% |
0.87 |
|
REB |
6.4% |
1.07 |
6.0% |
0.99 |
|
ROLL |
3.9% |
1.02 |
5.2% |
1.01 |
|
SCREEN |
4.7% |
0.94 |
5.4% |
0.91 |
|
SPOT |
19.1% |
1.02 |
18.6% |
0.97 |
|
TRANS |
13.8% |
1.17 |
10.9% |
1.12
|
Here are the league average efficiencies from last season. You can use these to compare the values in the tables above. Blue line represents GSW's average.
Here are the league average rates (% of time each play was run) from last season. GSW is in blue.
