Performance Measures for GMU's Women's Basketball Team

some out of the ordinary measures --- beyond the simple things like shooting percentages, rebounds per game, assists per game, etc.

2005-2006 season

Updated after January 22 game

explanation of the use of color below

Values based on a small amount of playing time or a small number of attempts shouldn't be taken too seriously. (For example, so far this season, Burroughs's rate of 20 rebounds per 40 minutes is based on her getting 1 rebound in just 2 minutes of playing time. It may not be reasonable to expect that Burroughs will continue to be as productive with her rebounding if she starts playing a lot more.) Note: The minutes per game for a player is determined by dividing the total number of minutes played by the player so far in the season by the number of games that the team has played, as opposed to dividing by the number of games in which the player has played. Doing it this way better reflects how much time the player has spent in games during the season.

Value (Sutton System) per 40 Minutes & p5 (pseudopoints per pseudopossession)

Each player's value (really, the partial value which can be obtained from box score entries) is determined using the Sutton System (explanation given below), and then the value per 40 minutes is obtained by dividing the total value by the number of minutes played (to obtain value per minute), and then multiplying that number by 40.

p5 (pseudopoints per pseudopossession) is a ratio which can serve as an alternative to Value per 40 minutes as an overall measure of player performance. A brief explanation is given below.

Jan 22 game season
min Value/40min Player Value/40min p5 min/game
7 25.7 Slade 11.2 1.88 22.9
32 -9.4 Akintunde 9.3 1.53 27.4
32 10.0 Daniels 8.8 1.26 32.6
10 -8.0 Williams 8.4 1.12 4.2
35 5.1 Holness 8.2 1.08 26.1
7 11.4 Shumaker 7.0 2.31 12.9
11 -1.8 Quigley 5.2 1.13 15.3
31 -0.6 Smith 5.1 1.62 19.0
DNP ----- Wakefield 4.8 1.25 17.7
27 15.6 Wade 3.8 0.82 8.9
DNP ----- Rogers -1.3 0.67 1.9
8 -10.0 Ward -5.1 0.37 5.6
DNP ----- Meyers -9.1 0.23 4.1
DNP ----- Rautzhan -13.7 -0.25 1.2
DNP ----- Burroughs -100.0 -0.33 0.1

Points per FGA

The table below gives the average number of points scored per field goal attempt for each player (i.e., the sum of 2 times the number of 2 point field goals and 3 times the number of 3 point field goals, divided by the total number of field goal attempts). Also shown is the number of field goal attempts per 40 minutes for each player.

Jan 22 game season
FGA/40min Points/FGA Player Points/FGA FGA/40min
0.0 ----- Shumaker 0.98 7.9
5.2 0.50 Smith 0.97 8.2
8.0 0.00 Williams 0.86 13.1
5.0 0.00 Akintunde 0.85 12.4
11.3 0.78 Daniels 0.85 10.7
13.7 0.75 Holness 0.78 16.0
5.7 0.00 Slade 0.78 12.6
7.3 0.00 Quigley 0.75 9.3
DNP ----- Wakefield 0.72 10.0
DNP ----- Rogers 0.67 11.6
16.3 1.18 Wade 0.60 16.9
0.0 ----- Ward 0.44 7.1
DNP ----- Meyers 0.36 8.5
DNP ----- Rautzhan 0.25 16.8
DNP ----- Burroughs 0.00 60.0

The table below shows the field goal percentages for each player for both 2 point attempts and 3 point attempts. (Usually, field goal percentages are given for 3 point attempts, and also all (both 2 and 3 point) attempts, but this makes it harder to make an easy comparison of the percentages for the two types of attempts.)

For this table, and the following one which shows average points per field goal attempt for the two types of attempts, values in gray fields are based on an average of less than 1 attempt of that type per game, and so shouldn't be taken too seriously.

field goal percentages
Player 2 point attempts 3 point attempts
Shumaker 49% -----
Smith 49% 0%
Williams 40% 29%
Akintunde 44% 0%
Daniels 35% 32%
Holness 39% 25%
Slade 39% -----
Quigley 36% 26%
Wakefield 37% 21%
Rogers 33% -----
Wade 30% 20%
Ward 18% 20%
Meyers 11% 20%
Rautzhan 17% 0%
Burroughs 0% 0%

When considering the values given below, a couple of important points should be kept in mind.
  1. Shooters tend to draw more fouls when driving inside for a shot.
  2. GMU risks turning the ball over when trying to get the ball inside for a close shot, and so unless the expected payoff is good, it may be better to avoid trying to force the ball inside.
ave. points per field goal attempt
Player 2 point attempts 3 point attempts
Shumaker 0.98 -----
Smith 0.98 0.00
Williams 0.80 0.88
Akintunde 0.88 0.00
Daniels 0.69 0.95
Holness 0.79 0.76
Slade 0.78 -----
Quigley 0.71 0.77
Wakefield 0.74 0.64
Rogers 0.67 -----
Wade 0.60 0.60
Ward 0.36 0.60
Meyers 0.22 0.60
Rautzhan 0.33 0.00
Burroughs 0.00 0.00

Points per FGA (adjusted for tendency to draw fouls)

On some teams, players who are good scoring threats tend to be fouled a lot in the act of shooting. When this happens, the fouled player gets to go to the free throw line and, if she is a decent free throw shooter, have a greater chance to make 2 points than if he took her field goal attempt in the course of regular play. I believe that this type of scoring should be taken into account when measuring each player's potential to score points.

Although not all foul shots occur two at a time due to a player being fouled in the act of going for a 2 point shot, in order to arrive at a relatively simple measure that reflects players' ability to draw fouls in the act of shooting, and to capitalize on their drawn fouls by hitting their free throws, I'm going to take the measure considered above (points per FG attempt), and augment the numerator by adding on points from free throws, and augment the denominator and adding on the number of free throw attempts, divided by 2. (Clearly, this measure isn't perfect. If a player makes a 3 point play by hitting a 2 point FG on which she was fouled, and then makes the free throw, she should get get 3 points in the numerator and 1 scoring attempt in the denominator, whereas this measure adds 1.5 scoring attempts in the denominator, and so the player is cheated a bit. However, I think it's the case here that an imperfect adjustment to reward a player for her ability to draw fouls is better than no adjustment at all --- generally, players who draw a lot of fouls will benefit from the adjustment (unless their free throw percentage is too low).)

I'll also count each pair of free throw attempts as a field goal attempt for the purpose of determining each player's number of scoring attempts per 40 minutes. It is hoped that this measure will be a good one for determining if the right players are attempting to score when GMU is on offense.

Jan 22 game season
Scoring Att. per 40 min. Adj. Points per Att. Player Adj. Points per Att. Scoring Att. per 40 min.
0.0 ----- Shumaker 1.00 8.9
5.0 0.00 Akintunde 0.95 16.6
6.4 0.40 Smith 0.94 9.2
11.9 0.84 Daniels 0.93 12.6
8.0 0.00 Williams 0.91 13.7
5.7 0.00 Slade 0.85 14.5
DNP ----- Wakefield 0.84 11.7
14.3 0.80 Holness 0.83 18.6
10.9 0.33 Quigley 0.79 10.3
DNP ----- Rogers 0.74 12.3
21.5 1.03 Wade 0.65 19.9
0.0 ----- Ward 0.56 8.7
DNP ----- Meyers 0.38 9.7
DNP ----- Rautzhan 0.25 16.8
DNP ----- Burroughs 0.00 60.0

Rebounds per 40 Minutes

The values in the table below were obtained by dividing each player's total number of rebounds by her total number of minutes played, to get rebounds per minute, and then multiplying that number by 40.

Jan 22 game season
min RB/40min Player RB/40min min/game
DNP ----- Burroughs 20.0 0.1
32 6.3 Akintunde 11.1 27.4
7 5.7 Slade 8.6 22.9
7 0.0 Shumaker 7.1 12.9
31 3.9 Smith 7.1 19.0
35 6.9 Holness 7.0 26.1
8 0.0 Ward 6.7 5.6
27 11.9 Wade 5.4 8.9
DNP ----- Wakefield 5.2 17.7
DNP ----- Rogers 5.2 1.9
11 0.0 Quigley 5.1 15.3
DNP ----- Meyers 4.8 4.1
DNP ----- Rautzhan 4.2 1.2
10 8.0 Williams 4.2 4.2
32 6.3 Daniels 3.8 32.6

This is a link to a similar web page created after the 1/15 game.
This is a link to a similar web page based on the 2004-2005 season.
This is a link to a similar web page based on the 2003-2004 season.
This is a link to a similar web page based on the 2002-2003 season.
This is a link to some corresponding results for the men's team.

partial explanation of the Sutton value system

Applying the Sutton value system results in a partial measure of a player's overall value to the team based on data obtained from box scores, and so not including defensive contributions other than steals and rebounds. To obtain each player's overall value for her time on the court during the game, one starts with a value of 0, and then adds 2 points for each 2 point field goal (FG), 1 point for each rebound (RB), subtracts a point for each missed field goal (MFG), subtracts 2 points for each turnover (TO), and so on, using the point values indicated in the table below.

value
three point field goal (TR) 4
two point field goal (FG) 2
missed field goal (MFG) -1
rebound (RB) 1
turnover (TO) -2
steal (S) 2
free throw (FT) 1
missed free throw (MFT) -0.5
foul (F) -1
assist (A) 1
block (BLK) 0.5

Although at first it may seem very odd to give a value of 4 to a 3 point field goal, while only giving a value of 2 to a 2 point field goal, be assured that there is a reason for this. A short explanation can be found here, and for a fuller explanation, one should go here.

brief explanation of p5 (pseudopoints per pseudopossession)

 A measure of points per possession could be obtained by dividing the number of points a player scores by the number of possessions that a player "burns" --- with a burnt possession being a turnover or a scoring attempt not followed by an offensive rebound (which "cancels" a missed shot). That is, a ratio with total points scored being the numerator, and the denominator being the number of turnovers plus the number of scoring attempts (field goal attempts, plus free throw attempts divided by 2) minus the number of offensive rebounds.

However, to make a measure which incorporates more aspects of the game, the denominator is altered to let steals cancel out turnovers, and to count defensive rebounds in addition to offensive rebounds (since a defensive rebound occurs when the opposing team doesn't get an offensive rebound, suggesting that a defensive rebound is just as valuable as an offensive rebound). Also, the numerator is altered to include the number of assists and an adjustment for blocked shots (counting each block as 1/2 point) and fouls.

Compared with Value per 40 minutes, p5 favors players who are selective with their shots, and have a good points per shot average even if they don't shoot a lot. Value per 40 minutes favors players who score a lot, even if their shooting percentages aren't so good. I think both measures should be considered since it isn't good if everyone on the team is very conservative with their shooting, trying only shoots with a good chance of success (since someone needs to create some scoring even when the going is tough), while at the same time, if a team is already playing several good shooters who shoot a lot, it may not be a bad idea to complement them with players who don't burn a lot of possessions with bad shots. Thus if there are 3 or 4 players on the floor who are good scorers, it may be good to focus more on p5 when selecting the other player(s).