Subscribe!
CourtIntelligence powered by kenpom.com

Most recent entries

  • Weeks in Review III, 12/5-12/18
  • Introduction to the PASR recruiting model
  • On unbalanced conference schedules
  • Play-by-Play Theater: Quickest individual 3’s
  • Weeks in Review II, 11/22-12/4
  • The ACC/Big Ten Challenge bar chart
  • Week in Review I, 11/14-11/21
  • The slowest season(?)
  • What I did this summer
  • The first annual #ShootersClub
  • The good stuff


    At other venues...
  • ESPN.com ($)
  • Deadspin
  • Slate

  • Strategy
  • Whether to foul up 3 late
  • The value of 2-for-1’s

  • Philosophy
  • Brady Heslip’s non-slump
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • A treatise on plus-minus
  • The preseason AP poll is great
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • The lack of information in close-game performance
  • Why I don’t believe in clutchness*

  • Fun stuff
  • The missing 1-point games
  • Which two teams last lost longest ago?
  • How many first-round picks will Kentucky have?
  • Prepare for the Kobe invasion
  • Predicting John Henson's free throw percentage
  • Can Derrick Williams set the three-point accuracy record?
  • Play-by-play Theater: earliest disqualification
  • Monthly Archives

  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • July 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003

  • RSS feed

    Creative vs. opportunistic scorers

    by Drew Cannon on Monday, October 15, 2012


    A while back, I wrote this article describing a new way of understanding positions in basketball, the focus being separating offensive responsibilities from defensive responsibilities. Another guy in the basketball office and I were arguing recently about whether a specific player deserved to be termed a “scorer.”

    The argument basically went like this: He said (correctly) that this player couldn’t create his own shot, and wondered how anybody like that could be described as a scorer. To which I responded (correctly) that you didn’t need to create your own shot to score and score effectively. Our eventual compromise was to create a subscript to the “scorer” designation with a descriptor that the scorer was either “creative” or “opportunist.” (This does, admittedly and unfairly, make it sound like the creative scorer is a genius and the opportunist scorer is a thief – that’s not the intention.)

    I was working on a project that involved me trying to define my offensive positions statistically, and we realized that we could do this pretty easily – opportunistic scorers are considered opportunistic because they need assists from their teammates or putback opportunities to be successful. Ken ran some code, and now you can take a look at the scoring style superlatives among returnees.

    (About 9% of last season’s shots were putbacks, 53% were assisted, which leaves 37% that were creative. On twos, the breakdown was 13% putback, 43% assisted, and 45% creative, and threes were 84% assisted and 16% creative.)

    BEST CREATIVE*
    >60% creative division: Pierre Jackson, Baylor (74%).
    >50% creative division: Khalif Wyatt, Temple (56%).
    >40% creative division: Kenny Boynton, Florida (40%).
    The typical “high creative” guy is a guard who rarely shoots three-pointers, though obviously none of these three follow that rule. Boynton and Wyatt were creative enough inside the arc (and frequent enough two-point shooters) that it canceled out their mostly assisted three-point attempts. Jackson, on the other hand, created more than half of his own three-point makes.

    BEST OPPORTUNIST
    <10% creative division: Jack Cooley, Notre Dame (9%).
    <33% creative division: Doug McDermott, Creighton (15%).
    This is what I mean when I say that “opportunist” has no relationship with importance to the offense. McDermott and Cooley are obviously both fantastic basketball players, and they’re both great examples of opportunistic scorers. McDermott took 54 threes last year, and 53 of them were assisted. Both made significant use of the offensive glass and teammates assists on twos. They score most effectively by creating space and angles, but they need their teammates to be aware of them to convert those opportunities into points. That’s all “opportunist” means.

    MOST PUTBACK-DEPENDENT
    >25 FGM division: Connell Crossland, TCU (50%).
    >50 FGM division: Daryl McCoy, Drexel (45%).
    >100 FGM division: Corey Law, High Point (31%).
    Law is technically a hair higher, but Dennis Tinnon of Marshall is the best returning player with such a massive emphasis on putbacks. Take the offensive glass from him and you take a lot of his scoring.

    MOST ASSIST-DEPENDENT
    >25/50 FGM division: Ethan Wragge, Creighton (95%).
    >100 FGM division: Scott Wood, NC State (92%).
    The most assist-dependent guys are those who spend the most time behind the three-point line.

    MOST CREATIVE
    >25 FGM division: Joey Getz, UMBC (100%).
    >50/100 FGM division: Anthony Collins, South Florida (93%).
    The guys who rate high in creative scoring tend to be guards who rarely shoot three-pointers. Interestingly, players who rate the highest on creative scoring – when considering the better scorers in the country – tend to be considered legitimate draft prospects. Damian Lillard and Reggie Hamilton come to mind as guys who could create for themselves as well as hit threes, and whose success translated into NBA interest. An under-the-radar guy along those lines for this season: Shane Gibson of Sacred Heart.

    *I measured “best” with a new overall scoring stat, schedule-adjusted. Basically, I tried to create a PET score that ignored assists and rebounds and turnovers, or I tried to create a three-point score that included twos and free throws. I wanted to answer the question, “How effective is this person at actually putting points on the scoreboard?”

    The formula:
    (PTS – 0.4*FG.missed – 0.2*FT.missed + (1.125 - 1.25* (1 – SA%)/4)*(TmPoss – FG.missed – 0.43*FT.missed))/TmPoss

    Where SA% is “shot attempt percentage” and is calculated like this:
    (FGA + .43*FTA)/(Min%*(TmFGA + .43*TmFTA))

    SA% just mixes free throw attempts into the typically-used Shot%, while the overall scoring stat gives you credit for making shots and penalizes you for missing them (while any attempt makes your teammates’ score more effectively when you don’t shoot).