Go Figure!
Weighting Your Player Efficiency Ratings
to Improve and Focus Team Performance
IntroductionThe game of basketball in the past two decades has seen a rapid advance in the use of individual and team statistics to analyze performance. Generally speaking it is used to either quantify game performance or as a carrot to motivate individual players performance. Pat Riley, Coach of the NBA's Miami Heat, is one of the prominent examples of a coach using statistics to alert players to performance variances throughout course of a long season. An example of this might be his assistant's charting how many times a player makes a physical effort to attack the glass on the offensive boards on every shot attempt. He might also being charting a player who's defensive footwork is causing problems in the team scheme of things. Coach Riley's staff will record the number of penetration breakdowns he allows per time he closes out to his defender receiving the ball. He uses literally dozens of these types of statistics to alert players to deviations in performance. He uses them to have players compare their performance not to others in a game but rather to themselves at the same time last year, last month, or last week. In addition he might use them to compare a player's performance at the same position on another team. Granted not all coach's have the staff or film capability to chart these kind of minute details but the point is that statistics can be an extremely useful tool to assist you in focusing a player in on their performance weaknesses. Weaknesses that don't often show up in the normal game statistics. Most coach's use statistics to assess performance after the fact. I want to show you today an innovative way you might consider using statistics to "motivate" you players toward improvement in areas where your team or individual players may be substantially limited. In today's clinic I will show you how you can weight statistics categories to emphasize the need for individual or your team to improve in very specific areas. I would like to make this qualifying statement prior to getting into the heart of today's feature clinic. Statistics don't lie, but they never tell the whole story. Be careful as a coach in how you use statistics in evaluating performance. What you may be missing is something as simple as your leading scorer averaging 19.8 points per game taking too many shots. What your normal team statistics won't tell is that your team performs better when he takes 4-5 fewer shots per game and increases his assist:turnover ratio. Some new statistics programs allow you to calculate which groups of players have better +/- ratings when they play together on the court. This however doesn't help the player's who have problems recognizing where they need improvement. That their ability to recognize their lack of contribution may make a significant impact on your teams performance. Just playing the five that work together best doesn't resolve the issue of changing weak performance contributions from your bench. Simply relying on statistics to take the place of years of experience and intuitive judgment as a coach is a big mistake. Basketball is a game of, not only the obvious but of the subtle, which often times is the difference between your team consistently winning or losing. Rather use statistics as a tool to understand and motivate. Using An Efficiency Ratio's (ER)I want to show you today how you can using player performance ratings to focus your team on phase goals during the course of the season when you team performs below it's capability. The most common method of rating player performances based on game stats is what is called an Efficiency Ratio. Here is a commonly used example: |
|
ER= Points + Rebounds + 2
(assists) + 2 (charges taken, steals, blocked shots) |
This formula yields a set of values which from years of accumulated stats gives this type of evaluation ranking.
|
Player Efficiency
Ratio |
| To get a better idea of how these work let us take a look at the statistics for a game from the 2000 NBA Playoffs - Game 5 was won by the Indiana Pacer 120-87 against the eventual NBA Champion Los Angeles Lakers. Here are the stats and in the last column you will we ER (Efficiency Ratio) for each player. Note that despite the fact that Kobe Bryant is one of today's bright young stars, he played a very poor game (0.54). For the Pacers Reggie Miller and Austin Croshere were exceptional. |
| LAKERS | REBOUNDS | ||||||||||||||
| PLAYER | POS | MIN | FGM-A | 3PM-A | FTM-A | OFF | DEF | TOT | AST | PF | ST | TO | BS | PTS | ER |
| Rice | F | 30 | 3-8 | 1-2 | 4-7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 0.89 |
| Green | F | 16 | 3-4 | 0-0 | 1-1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1.50 |
| O'Neal | C | 42 | 17-27 | 0-0 | 1-6 | 7 | 4 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 35 | 1.71 |
| Bryant | G | 37 | 4-20 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0.54 |
| Harper | G | 25 | 3-8 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 1.25 |
| Horry | 29 | 3-8 | 1-6 | 0-0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 0.68 | |
| Fisher | 22 | 0-6 | 0-3 | 2-2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0.43 | |
| Fox | 15 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.50 | |
| Shaw | 12 | 0-4 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.23 | |
| Knight | 5 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0.42 | |
| Salley | 4 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1.75 | |
| George | 3 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.25 | |
| TOTAL | 240 | 36-90 | 4-19 | 11-21 | 13 | 21 | 34 | 18 | 33 | 9 | 12 | 2 | 87 | 0.87 | |
| (40.0) | (21.1) | (52.4) | 12 | Total TO: 12 (19 Pts) | |||||||||||
| PACERS | REBOUNDS | ||||||||||||||
| PLAYER | POS | MIN | FGM-A | 3PM-A | FTM-A | OFF | DEF | TOT | AST | PF | ST | TO | BS | PTS | ER |
| Rose | F | 44 | 12-18 | 4-5 | 4-4 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 32 | 1.80 |
| Davis | F | 23 | 4-7 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1.50 |
| Smits | C | 14 | 5-7 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 1.00 |
| Miller | G | 39 | 7-12 | 4-6 | 7-7 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 25 | 2.50 |
| Jackson | G | 30 | 4-9 | 0-2 | 2-2 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 1.36 |
| Perkins | 29 | 2-7 | 2-6 | 0-0 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0.75 | |
| Croshere | 25 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 11-12 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 13 | 2.10 | |
| McKey | 12 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.50 | |
| Best | 10 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3.60 | |
| Mullin | 5 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 2-3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2.60 | |
| Tabak | 5 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.33 | |
| Bender | 4 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 3-4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5.00 | |
| TOTAL | 240 | 39-68 | 10-20 | 32-36 | 6 | 40 | 46 | 26 | 24 | 7 | 14 | 4 | 120 | 1.73 | |
Game to Game AnalysisGauging a player's contribution on one game is unfair as you can see by Kobe's game 5 rating. He certainly had a major impact on the Los Angeles Lakers season. So it is important to chart game efficiency over the course of a season. Game to game analysis is where you begin to see trends that tip you off as a coach where performance drop-offs are occurring. Now let us take a look at game 6 won by the Los Angeles Lakers 116-111 and where we can compare the Efficiency Ratings for this final game of the championship to those in game 5. In game 5 the Lakers played quite poorly and the Pacers excelled, with the exception of one or two players. In game 6 you see the Efficiency Ratio's are much closer and the Lakers had a considerably greater number of players who contributed solid performances. The Pacers on the other hand who had fewer players who excelled in game 6. |
| PACERS | REBOUNDS | ||||||||||||||
| PLAYER | POS | MIN | FGM-A | 3PM-A | FTM-A | OFF | DEF | TOT | AST | PF | ST | TO | BS | PTS | ER |
| Rose | F | 42 | 9-20 | 2-3 | 9-11 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 29 | 1.05 |
| Davis | F | 35 | 8-10 | 0-0 | 4-6 | 5 | 9 | 14 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 3.28 |
| Smits | C | 25 | 1-8 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.46 |
| Jackson | G | 40 | 3-7 | 2-4 | 2-2 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 2.46 |
| Miller | G | 40 | 8-19 | 2-10 | 7-7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 25 | 1.30 |
| Croshere | 23 | 4-7 | 3-5 | 5-6 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 1.21 | |
| McKey | 14 | 1-2 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0.66 | |
| Perkins | 13 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 2.50 | |
| Best | 8 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.00 | |
| Bender | DNP - Coach's Decision | ||||||||||||||
| Mullin | DNP - Coach's Decision | ||||||||||||||
| Tabak | DNP - Coach's Decision | ||||||||||||||
| TOTAL | 240 | 36-77 | 12-25 | 27-32 | 9 | 32 | 41 | 24 | 27 | 2 | 9 | 6 | 111 | 1.35 | |
| (46.8) | (48.0) | (84.4) | Team Rebs: 8 | Total TO: 9 (21 Pts) | |||||||||||
| LAKERS | REBOUNDS | ||||||||||||||
| PLAYER | POS | MIN | FGM-A | 3PM-A | FTM-A | OFF | DEF | TOT | AST | PF | ST | TO | BS | PTS | |
| Rice | F | 35 | 5-7 | 3-3 | 3-6 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 2.15 |
| Green | F | 20 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 2.16 |
| O'Neal | C | 47 | 19-32 | 0-0 | 3-12 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 41 | 1.61 |
| Bryant | G | 45 | 8-27 | 2-6 | 8-9 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 26 | 1.28 |
| Harper | G | 37 | 3-10 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 1.55 |
| Horry | 27 | 3-6 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 1.00 | |
| Fox | 14 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 4-4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1.66 | |
| Fisher | 8 | 2-3 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 3.25 | |
| Shaw | 7 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.80 | |
| George | DNP - Coach's Decision | ||||||||||||||
| Knight | DNP - Coach's Decision | ||||||||||||||
| Salley | DNP - Coach's Decision | ||||||||||||||
| TOTAL | 240 | 43-90 | 10-17 | 20-33 | 13 | 31 | 44 | 25 | 24 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 116 | 1.41 | |
| (47.8) | (58.8) | (60.6) | T Rebs: 13 | Total TO: 5 (8 Pts) | |||||||||||
Throwing Your Weight Around to Make Your PointOkay, so I have only demonstrated with statistics what you probably already recognized as a coach watching those games. What I want to demonstrate to you today is that you can change the equations you use for Efficiency Ratio's to emphasize key point or goals you need your team to both recognize and strive for if you team to going to reach it's full potential. Here's what I mean. Let's compare side by side two different efficiency ratio's (one our normal one, and the other a weighted version with more emphasis placed on rebounding and assists. Let us say for example that Larry Bird recognized that rebounding was the crucial element for the Pacers long-term success. Sharing the basketball might be what Phil Jackson was saying was the critical to the Lakers success. Let's see what happens if we change the ratio by using a "weight" or multiplier of 2 for rebounds and 3 for assists to our ER values in game 6. |
|
ER= Points + Rebounds + 2
(assists) + 2 (charges taken, steals, blocked shots) Adjusted ER for Increasing Performance Value of Rebounds and Assists AER*= Points + 2 (Rebounds)
+ 3 (assists) + 2 (charges taken, steals, blocked shots) |
Comparison of Normal and Adjusted Efficiency Ratio'sNote that your adjusted efficiency ratio's will have much higher numerical value than the normal ER and you may have to, through experience, use and adjust the ratio scale to grade your performances. None-the-less, you will be able show how some players performances stand out much more than others in comparison with their teammates or their opponents. Let's see how the AER alters the player performance ranking for the Lakers and Pacers in game 6 based on increasing (weighting) the importance of rebounding and assists. |
| PACERS | REBOUNDS | ||||||||||||||
| PLAYER | POS | MIN | FGM-A | 3PM-A | FTM-A | OFF | DEF | TOT | AST | PF | ST | TO | BS | PTS | AER |
| Rose | F | 42 | 9-20 | 2-3 | 9-11 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 29 | 1.17 |
| Davis | F | 35 | 8-10 | 0-0 | 4-6 | 5 | 9 | 14 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 4.50 |
| Smits | C | 25 | 1-8 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.73 |
| Jackson | G | 40 | 3-7 | 2-4 | 2-2 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 5.08 |
| Miller | G | 40 | 8-19 | 2-10 | 7-7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 25 | 1.35 |
| Croshere | 23 | 4-7 | 3-5 | 5-6 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 1.47 | |
| McKey | 14 | 1-2 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0.58 | |
| Perkins | 13 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 4.25 | |
| Best | 8 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.33 | |
| Bender | DNP - Coach's Decision | ||||||||||||||
| Mullin | DNP - Coach's Decision | ||||||||||||||
| Tabak | DNP - Coach's Decision | ||||||||||||||
| TOTAL | 240 | 36-77 | 12-25 | 27-32 | 9 | 32 | 41 | 24 | 27 | 2 | 9 | 6 | 111 | ||
| (46.8) | (48.0) | (84.4) | Team Rebs: 8 | Total TO: 9 (21 Pts) | |||||||||||
| LAKERS | REBOUNDS | ||||||||||||||
| PLAYER | POS | MIN | FGM-A | 3PM-A | FTM-A | OFF | DEF | TOT | AST | PF | ST | TO | BS | PTS | AER |
| Rice | F | 35 | 5-7 | 3-3 | 3-6 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 2.76 |
| Green | F | 20 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 3.00 |
| O'Neal | C | 47 | 19-32 | 0-0 | 3-12 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 41 | 2.12 |
| Bryant | G | 45 | 8-27 | 2-6 | 8-9 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 26 | 1.64 |
| Harper | G | 37 | 3-10 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 2.15 |
| Horry | 27 | 3-6 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 1.36 | |
| Fox | 14 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 4-4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1.66 | |
| Fisher | 8 | 2-3 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4.25 | |
| Shaw | 7 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.40 | |
| George | DNP - Coach's Decision | ||||||||||||||
| Knight | DNP - Coach's Decision | ||||||||||||||
| Salley | DNP - Coach's Decision | ||||||||||||||
| TOTAL | 240 | 43-90 | 10-17 | 20-33 | 13 | 31 | 44 | 25 | 24 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 116 | ||
| (47.8) | (58.8) | (60.6) | T Rebs: 13 | Total TO: 5 (8 Pts) | |||||||||||
And the Results Are?It is not surprising to me to see the results of our adjusted ER. In the chart below we demonstrate this concept adjusted weighting of performance values and it's affect on how the players ranked in game 6 performance with the normally weighted Efficiency Ratio versus their ranking with Adjusted ER emphasizing rebounding and assists. |
Pacers |
Normal ER |
Performance Ranking |
Adjusted ER |
Performance Ranking |
Adjustment in Ranking |
| Rose | 1.05 | 6 | 1.17 | 7 | -1 |
| Davis | 3.28 | 1 | 4.50 | 2 | -1 |
| Smits | 0.46 | 9 | 0.73 | 8 | +1 |
| Jackson | 2.46 | 3 | 5.08 | 1 | +2 |
| Miller | 1.30 | 4 | 1.35 | 5 | -1 |
| Perkins | 1.21 | 5 | 1.47 | 4 | +1 |
| Croshere | 0.66 | 8 | 0.58 | 9 | -1 |
| McKey | 2.50 | 2 | 4.25 | 3 | -1 |
| Best | 1.00 | 7 | 1.33 | 6 | +1 |
Lakers |
Normal ER |
Performance Ranking |
Adjusted ER |
Performance Ranking |
Adjustment in Ranking |
| Rice | 2.15 | 3 | 2.76 | 3 | no change |
| Green | 2.16 | 2 | 3.00 | 2 | no change |
| O'Neal | 1.61 | 5 | 2.12 | 5 | no change |
| Bryant | 1.28 | 7 | 1.64 | 7 | no change |
| Harper | 1.55 | 6 | 2.15 | 4 | +2 |
| Horry | 1.00 | 8 | 1.36 | 9 | -1 |
| Fox | 1.66 | 4 | 1.66 | 6 | -2 |
| Fisher | 3.25 | 1 | 4.25 | 1 | no change |
| Shaw | 0.80 | 9 | 1.40 | 8 | +1 |
How to Interpret and Use the Adjusted Efficiency RatiosYou must be careful of how you interpret performance rankings. But what one can see is that certain players based upon the increased weighting on rebounding and assists had a more significant impact on the team performance regarding achieving these goals than if you looked at their ER's based on the normal weightings. Observe how both Mark Jackson and Ron Harper moved up in performance value based on the Adjusted ER. While Jalen Rose and Austin Croshere's contributions fell short for the Pacers based on the team needing rebounding help. Note for the Lakers that there was very little change in player ranking indicating to me that they were able to execute both in the areas of rebounding and ball distribution resulting in assists. It also emphasizes the importance of Ron Harper's contributions to the Laker's success. A smart coach can use these stats to motivate and focus players on performance contributions relative to "weighted" statistical goals. You can see here where the rebounding abilities of these bigger guards Mark Jackson, and Ron Harper, and their passing skills, were critical to both team's success in these performance areas. So What the Point?My point is this, statistics can be manipulated by weighting and different types of analysis to reveal almost any critical element of the game. Use this concept to give your players focus for 4, 5, or 6 games blocks of time in your season. Use Adjusted (Weighted) Efficiency Ratio's to visually emphasize to your team which players performances are reflecting your desire to improve areas that need the most improvement. You can increase or decrease the performance value of a given statistical category (shots made, missed, free throws missed, assists, charges taken, turnovers, etc.) to reflect the changing importance of a given variable during the course of the season. If missed free throws are killing you, then add more statistical weight to Missed FT's in your teams Efficiency Ratio's. To most effectively use this tool set a block of time where you not only post the normal ER values but the "weighted for time period team goals" to emphasize who is recognizing and performing up to those desired goals of more rebounds and assists. I am only saying that any coach can adjust the values of their Efficiency Ratio's to assist your team in identifying and meeting critical team needs during various phases of your season. Remember not to compare ER equations with different weightings. Do compare however, similarly weighted equations across several games to make your point. I would also encourage you to maintain your normal Efficiency Ratio's during the course of your season even as you post adjusted values. This will insure that your team doesn't become confused by differently weighted ER's and they can still monitor a normally weighted performance. To simplify the calculations us something as simple as an ExcelŽ Spreadsheet with which you can quickly adjust the weighted value of your statistics (using the formula button) to quickly come up with adjusted ER values which can be beneficial to your team achieving critical growth goals. Statistics are not the panacea for all things to coach's and player's but weighting of key performance variable is certainly food for thought. |