+/- and Defensive Charting Bonanza: Tennessee State, South Carolina, and UNLV

Caveat: Single-game +/- figures are so “noisy” (i.e., influenced by randomness) that they’re rendered practically useless. Even with a complete season’s worth of data, the +/- metric (especially in this– its unadjusted– form) suffers from this noisiness. Still, when taken in conjunction with the defensive box score, traditional box score, and old-fashioned “eye test,” the single-game +/- can be a part of the total evaluation process. It also serves as a good summary of Roy Williams’s substitution patterns/rotation.

Some definitions:

Pts-Pts All.: the points scored and points allowed by the team during a given player’s minutes
Off Eff: the points scored per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Def Eff: the points allowed per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Net Eff: the scoring margin per 100 possessions with a given player on the court

Since I’m dumping three games worth of data, I won’t provide many thoughts/explanations/trends/nuggets in this post. I’ve been posting a bunch of +/- and defensive charting tidbits on Twitter @FreeportKid, so definitely check that out if you’re interested in this kind of stuff. Once the schedule slows down a little (four games in one week is pretty intense), I’ll post a summary article discussing some +/- and defensive charting trends, analyses, and insights (especially some defensive stuff that relates to the UNLV loss, and some thoughts regarding Strickland/Bullock/Hairston and the allocation of minutes in the Carolina backcourt). Sorry this is essentially a pure data dump; I promise some analysis later (to provide some context and meaning to this sea of numbers).

+/- Stats vs. Tenn. St.

Player Minutes Pts-Pts All. Off Eff Def Eff Net Eff
Bullock 18.9 47-19 134.3 58.5 +75.8
Henson 25.5 74-39 155.8 83.9 +71.9
Barnes 25.0 68-40 158.1 89.9 +68.2
Marshall 28.2 78-47 160.8 94.0 +66.8
Zeller 26.1 71-42 142.0 84.8 +57.2
TEAM 40.0 102-69 139.7 94.5 +45.2
Watts 7.2 12-8 104.3 69.6 +34.7
Strickland 25.1 59-48 128.3 103.2 +25.1
McAdoo 12.0 27-25 142.1 125.0 +17.1
Hairston 14.0 31-27 110.7 101.9 +8.8
Crouch 3.5 10-11 133.3 137.5 -4.2
Hubert 5.3 10-13 100.0 123.8 -23.8
White 4.3 10-13 111.1 144.4 -33.3
Simmons 2.8 7-9 116.7 150.0 -33.3
Dupont/Cooper 1.0 3-2 150.0 100.0 +50.0
+/- by Backcourt
Combo Minutes Pts-Pts-All.
Marshall-Strickland 16.8 45-37
Marshall-Bullock 10.1 27-8
Strickland-Hairston 7.5 14-9
White-Crouch 3.5 10-11
Marshall-Hairston 1.3 6-2
White-Strickland 0.8 0-2
+/- by Frontcourt
Henson-Zeller 20.6 62-29
McAdoo-Henson 4.9 12-10
Watts-McAdoo 3.6 9-4
McAdoo-Zeller 3.4 6-11
Simmons-Hubert 2.8 7-9
Watts-Zeller 2.1 3-2
Watts-Hubert 1.5 0-2
Cooper-Hubert 1.0 3-2
Most-used Line-ups
Marshall-Strickland-Barnes-Henson-Zeller 9.9 31-16
Marshall-Bullock-Barnes-Henson-Zeller 5.8 20-6
Strickland-Hairston-Bullock-Henson-Zeller 4.9 11-7
Marshall-Strickland-Barnes-McAdoo-Zeller 3.4 6-11

+/- Stats vs. South Carolina

Player Minutes Pts-Pts All. Off Eff Def Eff Net Eff
Bullock 13.4 31-17 121.6 66.7 +54.9
Zeller 20.5 41-22 115.5 61.1 +54.4
Barnes 24.4 53-33 115.2 74.2 +41.0
TEAM 40.0 87-62 116.0 84.9 +31.1
Henson 29.1 58-41 108.4 77.4 +31.0
Marshall 31.2 67-54 116.5 94.7 +21.8
Strickland 31.1 63-49 109.6 88.3 +21.3
Watts 8.8 22-19 133.3 118.8 +14.5
Hairston 14.6 31-27 114.8 101.9 +12.9
McAdoo 18.5 43-38 114.7 108.6 +6.1
White 3.3 10-2 133.3 33.3 +100.0
Hubert 1.1 4-0 133.3 0.0 +133.3
Simmons/Crouch/Dupont/Cooper 1.1 3-2 150.0 100.0 +50.0
+/- by Backcourt
Combo Minutes Pts-Pts-All.
Marshall-Strickland 25.6 53-43
Strickland-Hairston 5.5 10-6
Marshall-Hairston 3.4 5-7
Marshall-Bullock 2.2 9-4
White-Bullock 1.2 3-0
White-Hairston 1.1 4-0
White-Crouch 1.1 3-2
+/- by Frontcourt
Henson-Zeller 17.3 35-15
McAdoo-Henson 11.8 23-26
Watts-McAdoo 5.6 16-12
Watts-Zeller 3.2 6-7
McAdoo-Hubert 1.1 4-0
Cooper-Simmons 1.1 3-2
Most-used Line-ups
Marshall-Strickland-Barnes-Henson-Zeller 11.7 25-10
Marshall-Strickland-Barnes-Watts-McAdoo 5.6 16-12
Marshall-Strickland-Hairston-McAdoo-Henson 4.6 12-14
Strickland-Hairston-Bullock-McAdoo-Henson 3.8 8-6

+/- Stats vs. UNLV

Player Minutes Pts-Pts All. Off Eff Def Eff Net Eff
McAdoo 17.6 44-35 133.3 109.4 +23.9
Hairston 16.1 45-39 140.6 120.0 +20.6
Bullock 18.5 47-42 120.5 110.5 +10.0
Henson 31.7 60-69 96.8 110.4 -13.6
TEAM 40.0 80-90 100.0 113.9 -13.9
Marshall 30.2 54-68 91.5 115.3 -23.8
Strickland 29.1 54-69 93.1 117.0 -23.9
Barnes 28.4 45-65 76.3 109.2 -32.9
Zeller 24.2 40-55 87.0 122.2 -35.2
Hubert 1.5 3-2 100.0 100.0 0.0
Watts 1.3 4-6 80.0 109.1 -29.1
Simmons/Crouch/Dupont/Cooper 0-4 1-0 100.0 0.0 +100.0
+/- by Backcourt
Combo Minutes Pts-Pts-All.
Marshall-Strickland 19.6 29-47
Strickland-Hairston 7.5 19-16
Marshall-Hairston 7.3 22-19
Marshall-Bullock 4.0 7-8
Strickland-Bullock 1.3 2-0
Crouch-Dupont 0.4 1-0
+/- by Frontcourt
Henson-Zeller 18.1 27-42
McAdoo-Henson 12.6 32-25
McAdoo-Zeller 3.9 10-8
Barnes-Zeller 1.6 3-5
McAdoo-Hubert 1.1 2-2
Barnes-Henson 1.1 1-2
Watts-Zeller 0.7 0-0
Barnes-Watts 0.7 4-6
Simmons-Hubert 0.4 1-0
Most-used Line-ups
Marshall-Strickland-Barnes-Henson-Zeller 14.6 20-34
Marshall-Bullock-Barnes-McAdoo-Henson 3.3 7-8
Strickland-Hairston-Bullock-McAdoo-Zeller 2.2 5-6

Shifting gears, I’ve been charting every Carolina defensive possession since the 2004-05 season. This concept, aided by Luke Winn’s terrific Sports Illustrated piece, is finally getting some national attention. It’s a great way to measure individual defensive contributions and to see who’s making consistently timely and effective help-side rotations (the backbone of Roy Williams’s- and virtually any– defensive system). Click on the Winn link to read a little more about the charting process. (And here’s a piece by David Hess with even more on defensive charting.)

Some definitions:

FG-FGA: the made field goals and field goal attempts that a player is responsible for (both as a primary and help defender)– same for 3Pt-A and FT-FTA
Pts All.: the number of opponents’ points that a defender is responsible for allowing
TOF: forced turnovers (including offensive fouls drawn (OFD))
Defl.: deflections
DR (ORA): defensive rebounds and offensive rebounds allowed
Denies: when a player can deny an opponent or force an offensive reset by making a strong individual defensive play (of the type that doesn’t force a turnover or missed shot– i.e., wouldn’t otherwise show up in the defensive box score)

Defensive Box Score vs. Tenn. St.

Player FG-FGA 3Pt-A FT-FTA Pts All. TOF (OFD) Defl. Floor burns DR (ORA) Denies
Marshall  5-10.5 3-7 0-0 13 0 (0) 6 0 4 (0) 1
Strickland 1-2 1-2 0-0 3 3.5 (0) 4 0 1 (1) 1
Barnes 2.5-8.5 2.5-5.5 0-0 7.5 0.5 (0) 2 0 0 (0) 2
Henson 3-16 1-6 0-0 7 1.5 (1) 1 0 8 (2) 1
Zeller 4.5-12.5 1.5-4.5 0-0 10.5 3.5 (1) 4 2 4 (1) 1
Bullock 1-2.5 0-1 0-0 2 0.5 (0) 1 0 4 (0) 2
McAdoo 1.5-1.5 0-0 0-0 3 1 (0) 1 1 3 (2) 1
Hairston 1-2 0-1 1-2 3 0.5 (0) 1 2 3 (0) 0
Watts 2.5-4.5 0-0 0-0 5 0 (0) 0 0 1 (0) 1
White 1-3 0-1 1-3 3 0 (0) 0 0 0 (0) 0
Cooper 1-1 0-0 0-0 2 0 (0) 0 0 0 (0) 0
Simmons 1.5-2.5 1.5-1.5 0-0 4.5 0 (0) 0 0 0 (0) 0
Hubert 0.5-1.5 0.5-0.5 0-0 1.5 1 (0) 1 0 2 (1) 0
Dupont 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 (0) 0 0 1 (0) 0
Team 2-3 0-1 0-0 4 0 (0) 0 0 1 (5) 0
Totals 28-71 11-31 2-5 69 12 (2) 21 5 32 (12) 10

Tenn. State Shooting by Level of Contestedness:

  • Open: 4-5 (0-1 3-pt.); 80.0 eFG%
  • Lightly contested: 17-33 (10-21); 66.7 eFG%
  • Contested: 7-24 (1-7); 31.3 eFG%
  • Heavily contested: 0-9 (0-2); 0.0 eFG%

% of attempts well-contested: 46.5%

Defensive Box Score vs. South Carolina

Player FG-FGA 3Pt-A FT-FTA Pts All. TOF (OFD) Defl. Floor burns DR (ORA) Denies
Marshall  3-5 2-3 0-0 8 7 (0) 11 0 2 (2) 2
Strickland 2-7 1-6 0-0 5 3.5 (1) 7 0 3 (0) 1
Barnes 2.5-5 2.5-2.5 1-2 8.5 4.5 (2) 5 0 3 (0) 2
Henson 4-11 0-1 0-1 8 2 (0) 1 0 6 (5) 1
Zeller 1-4 0-1 4-6 6 4 (2) 4 3 1 (2) 0
Bullock 1.5-4.5 0.5-2.5 0-0 3.5 1 (0) 0 0 2 (1) 2
McAdoo 3-7.5 0-1 1-1 7 0 (0) 2 1 1 (0) 0
Hairston 1-2 0-1 1-2 3 2 (1) 1 2 1 (0) 1
Watts 0-1 0-0 0-0 0 1 (0) 4 0 1 (1) 0
Simmons 0-1 0-0 0-0 0 0 (0) 0 0 0 (0) 0
Crouch 1-2 0-1 0-0 2 0 (0) 0 0 0 (1) 0
Team 4-5 3-4 0-0 11 0 (0) 0 0 0 (2) 0
Totals 23-55 9-23 7-12 62 25 (6) 35 6 20 (14) 9

South Carolina Shooting by Level of Contestedness:

  • Open: 4-5 (1-2 3-pt.); 90.0 eFG%
  • Lightly contested: 19-29 (8-15); 79.3 eFG%
  • Contested: 0-17 (0-6); 0.0 eFG%
  • Heavily contested: 0-4 (0-0); 0.0 eFG%

% of attempts well-contested: 38.2%

Defensive Box Score vs. UNLV

Player FG-FGA 3Pt-A FT-FTA Pts All. TOF (OFD) Defl. Floor burns DR (ORA) Denies
Marshall 7.5-14.5 3.5-7.5 0-0 18.5 1 (0) 2 0 4 (1) 0
Strickland 2.5-3.5 1.5-1.5 0-0 6.5 2 (0) 4 0 2 (1) 0
Barnes 4.5-8.5 0.5-2.5 2-2 11.5 0 (0) 3 2 2 (1) 0
Henson 4.5-15 2-8 4-4 15 2.5 (0) 5 0 6 (1) 1
Zeller 3.5-9.5 1-2 1-3 9 2 (2) 3 0 7 (4) 0
Bullock 2-4 1-2 0-1 5 2 (0) 3 0 3 (2) 2
McAdoo 2-6 2-4 4-4 10 3.5 (1) 3 0 3 (0) 1
Hairston 1.5-6 0.5-3.5 2-2 5.5 0 (0) 2 1 0 (0) 0
Watts 0-0 0-0 2-2 2 0 (0) 0 0 1 (0) 0
Team 3-4 1-1 0-0 7 0 (0) 0 0 0 (4) 0
Totals 31-71 13-32 15-18 90 13 (3) 25 3 28 (14) 4

UNLV Shooting by Level of Contestedness:

  • Open: 8-9 (1-1 3-pt.); 94.4 eFG%
  • Lightly contested: 19-38 (10-23); 63.2 eFG%
  • Contested: 4-19 (2-8); 26.3 eFG%
  • Heavily contested: 0-5 (0-0); 0.0 eFG%

% of attempts well-contested: 33.8%

Before presenting the cumulative +/- data through six games, a few more definitions:

Offensive On-Court/Off-Court: the difference in the team’s offensive efficiency during the possessions with a given player on the court and the possessions with that player on the bench

Defensive On-Court/Off-Court: the difference in the team’s defensive efficiency during the possessions with a given player on the court and the possessions with that player on the bench (presented such that a positive rating reflects that the team was better defensively with that player on the court, and a negative rating reflects that the team was worse defensively)

On-Court/Off-Court Rating: the difference in the team’s net efficiency during the possessions with a given player on the court and the possessions with that player on the bench; this is the metric by which players are ranked in the cumulative table that follows

Cumulative +/- through 6 Games

Player Min. Off. Eff Def. Eff Net Eff Off. On-C/Off-C Def. On-C/Off-C On-C/Off-C
Zeller 154.8 115.1 86.9 +28.2 +2.2 +15.1 +17.3
Henson 169.0 111.4 85.6 +25.8 -9.6 +23.5 +13.9
Marshall 180.1 117.1 92.5 +24.6 +10.6 +0.5 +11.1
Bullock 94.1 120.9 95.7 +25.2 +11.3 -5.3 +6.0
Barnes 164.1 110.0 87.6 +22.4 -13.5 +15.8 +2.3
TEAM 240.0 114.3 92.6 +21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hairston 78.5 124.9 104.9 +20.0 +16.0 -18.4 -2.4
McAdoo 89.1 119.8 102.3 +17.5 +8.7 -15.5 -6.8
Watts 31.6 115.4 107.4 +8.0 +1.3 -17.1 -15.8
Strickland 172.9 106.5 91.1 +15.4 -26.8 +5.2 -21.6
+/- by Backcourt Combination
Combo Minutes Off. Eff Def. Eff. Net Eff.
Marshall-Strickland 130.6 108.2 90.4 +17.8
Strickland-Hairston 34.0 106.7 84.8 +21.9
Marshall-Bullock 31.7 131.7 93.5 +38.2
Marshall-Hairston 18.5 149.3 111.1 +38.2
+/- by Frontcourt Combination
Henson-Zeller 119.3 112.9 78.8 +34.1
McAdoo-Henson 48.7 110.3 102.6 +7.7
McAdoo-Zeller 17.0 146.7 116.2 +30.5
Watts-McAdoo 14.7 146.1 94.3 +51.8
Watts-Zeller 14.7 98.3 116.4 -18.1
+/- by Number of Freshmen on the Court
0 Freshmen 112.5 109.3 81.1 +28.2
1 Freshman 63.2 113.5 106.2 +7.3
2+ Freshmen 64.3 123.4 98.8 +24.6

 

 

Adrian

About Adrian

I'm the editor of Maple Street Press's Tar Heel Tip-off, and live in Raleigh with my wife and 2-year-old daughter. I grew up along the banks of the Allegheny River, and terrorized the WPIAL as a pass-first point guard. Follow me on Twitter @FreeportKid.
This entry was posted in Miscellaneous. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to +/- and Defensive Charting Bonanza: Tennessee State, South Carolina, and UNLV

Register |

  1. TrueBlue
    TrueBlue says:

    I’m not sure you go into this much detail…

    Do you have a stat on Barnes’ efficiency when he shoots set jumpers or 1 or 2 dribbles versus 3+ dribbles? Or perhaps his efficiency when he … nevermind, that wouldn’t make sense.

    You know what I’m talking about. The argument on IC about Barnes as a set shooter against the Barnes that wants to drive.

    Any stats to add insight?

    thanks

  2. Michael Tompkins says:

    I think these numbers hinted at what happened in the Wisky & Kentucky games. The +/- for Strictland and Bullock/Hairston was very strong. Rell, Jimmy and I have been discussing the minutes of Marshall going back down to about 30-32 as a result. And unfortunately I don’t think the numbers in the ACC games, with the exception of Duke will show this clearly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>