Thread Tools

Display Modes

PauloCatarino · 08-25-2006, 04:40 PM

I was thinking about the players who are thought of as being selfish, trigger-happy, me-first, all-i-care-are-stats kind of players.

So i though: well, if i divide FGA for MP, maybe i can get some sample of players who would shoot the most when given the ball.

But the results, career wise, made me think i must be doing the wrong math.

The results go as career PLAYER - FGA/MP Regular season / Playoffs

Kobe: 0.515 - 0.529
Pistol Pete: 0.576 - 0.593
Wilt: 0.490 - 0.360
Iverson: 0.55 - 0.596
Moses: 0.426 - 0.41
Kareem: 0.464 - 0.499
Karl Malone: 0.477 - 0.476
Shaq: 0.486 - 0.452

Michael Jordan: 0.598 - 0.601

Does this mean (if acccurate) anything?

durvasa · 08-25-2006, 05:37 PM

That looks accurate to me (just confirmed the numbers for a couple players). What were you expecting?

All that tells you is how many field goal attempts a players got credited for over his career, per minute. This doesn't necessarily correspond to most selfish, or even biggest ball hog.

Jordan is by far the highest, because he was the main offensive option on his team pretty much every season. And in the seasons he played the most minutes (late 80s), he was taking the highest proportion of his team's field goals (not to mention the game was played at a slightly higher pace back then, so there were simply more opportunities for field goal attempts, per minute).

Instead of looking at FGA/min, I'd recommend (FGA + 0.44*FTA + TO)/min. This corresponds to shot attempts (including attempts which land a player on the free throw line) plus turnovers committed. Even better, something like:

Ball Hog Ratio = (TmMin / PlayerMin ) * [ FGA + 0.44*FTA + TO ] / [ TmFGA + 0.44*TmFTA + TmTO]

This would standardize it based on what the entire team would have done while he's on the court (roughly).

Career "ball hog ratio" for Iverson, Jordan, and Kobe:
Jordan 0.332
Kobe 0.307
Iverson 0.334

Here's what they did, season by season:

Jordan

Code:

year	team	ratio
1985	CHI	0.298
1986	CHI	0.386
1987	CHI	0.383
1988	CHI	0.341
1989	CHI	0.321
1990	CHI	0.337
1991	CHI	0.329
1992	CHI	0.317
1993	CHI	0.347
1995	CHI	0.332
1996	CHI	0.333
1997	CHI	0.332
1998	CHI	0.337
2002	WAS	0.360
2003	WAS	0.287

Kobe

Code:

year	team	ratio
1997	LAL	0.247
1998	LAL	0.272
1999	LAL	0.253
2000	LAL	0.268
2001	LAL	0.319
2002	LAL	0.304
2003	LAL	0.329
2004	LAL	0.291
2005	LAL	0.317
2006	LAL	0.388

Iverson

Code:

year	team	ratio
1997	PHI	0.289
1998	PHI	0.269
1999	PHI	0.326
2000	PHI	0.344
2001	PHI	0.362
2002	PHI	0.378
2003	PHI	0.329
2004	PHI	0.353
2005	PHI	0.350
2006	PHI	0.358

baller213 · 08-25-2006, 07:13 PM

TO shouldn't really be included.... they could be made from a bad pass, losing the ball when being trapped with double or triple teams, it doens't really say they were hogging the ball

**Premier** · 08-25-2006, 07:23 PM

For what you described, FGA + .44 [FTA] per x minutes will do just fine.

I use usage rate to computate situations in which a player dominates a ball, as it incorporates paceand assists. The inclusion of pace is obvious, simply because a higher pace will result in more possessions. Under other ratios, the role of an assist is not considered, though the player is still involved in the possession and the converted basket.

Usage rate is an estimation. It is hardly fact.

durvasa · 08-25-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baller213

TO shouldn't really be included.... they could be made from a bad pass, losing the ball when being trapped with double or triple teams, it doens't really say they were hogging the ball

Taking a shot doesn't mean your hogging the ball either. But the more you shoot, the more likely it is you were hogging the ball; same with turnovers.

Premier mentions usage rate, which makes sense as a "ball hogging" stat as well. It includes a 0.33*AST term, where I decided to omit that in my formula.

Problem with usage rate is you can't really compare them for players playing in different eras (since it standardizes only to league average pace). Basically, it tells you how many [fga + 0.44*fta + to + 0.33*ast] a player gets playing 40 minutes at league average pace. As a result, players who played when the league has a faster average pace will have a higher usage rate than a player who uses a similar proportion of offensive possessions in a slower-paced league. While Jordan has a higher usage rate in 1987 than Kobe did last season, in fact Kobe used up a higher proportion of his teams offensive possessions. That's why I went with the ratio.

Here's what I get for Jordan, Kobe, and Iverson when I include the 0.33*AST term in my formula:

Code:

     Jordan              Kobe                Iverson
----------------    ---------------     ---------------
1985 CHI  0.299     1997 LAL  0.242     1997 PHI  0.297
1986 CHI  0.376     1998 LAL  0.267     1998 PHI  0.274
1987 CHI  0.371     1999 LAL  0.251     1999 PHI  0.324
1988 CHI  0.336     2000 LAL  0.268     2000 PHI  0.338
1989 CHI  0.323     2001 LAL  0.315     2001 PHI  0.355
1990 CHI  0.334     2002 LAL  0.304     2002 PHI  0.373
1991 CHI  0.324     2003 LAL  0.327     2003 PHI  0.326
1992 CHI  0.314     2004 LAL  0.290     2004 PHI  0.355
1993 CHI  0.341     2005 LAL  0.319     2005 PHI  0.355
1995 CHI  0.328     2006 LAL  0.380     2006 PHI  0.361
1996 CHI  0.326     AVG       0.305     AVG       0.335
1997 CHI  0.323                                                     
1998 CHI  0.327                                                     
2002 WAS  0.359
2003 WAS  0.285
AVG       0.328

**Pioneer10** · 08-27-2006, 07:56 PM

Some nice post durvasa.

My quick glance suggests which fits common sense the more you're team sucked (i.e. needed the main gun to score) the more that player shot. For example, Kobe w/o Shaq is approaching the same rate as Jordan early in his career

PauloCatarino · 08-28-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by durvasa

That looks accurate to me (just confirmed the numbers for a couple players). What were you expecting?

All that tells you is how many field goal attempts a players got credited for over his career, per minute. This doesn't necessarily correspond to most selfish, or even biggest ball hog.

Jordan is by far the highest, because he was the main offensive option on his team pretty much every season. And in the seasons he played the most minutes (late 80s), he was taking the highest proportion of his team's field goals (not to mention the game was played at a slightly higher pace back then, so there were simply more opportunities for field goal attempts, per minute).

Instead of looking at FGA/min, I'd recommend (FGA + 0.44*FTA + TO)/min. This corresponds to shot attempts (including attempts which land a player on the free throw line) plus turnovers committed. Even better, something like:

Ball Hog Ratio = (TmMin / PlayerMin ) * [ FGA + 0.44*FTA + TO ] / [ TmFGA + 0.44*TmFTA + TmTO]

This would standardize it based on what the entire team would have done while he's on the court (roughly).

Career "ball hog ratio" for Iverson, Jordan, and Kobe:
Jordan 0.332
Kobe 0.307
Iverson 0.334

Here's what they did, season by season:

Jordan

Code:

year	team	ratio
1985	CHI	0.298
1986	CHI	0.386
1987	CHI	0.383
1988	CHI	0.341
1989	CHI	0.321
1990	CHI	0.337
1991	CHI	0.329
1992	CHI	0.317
1993	CHI	0.347
1995	CHI	0.332
1996	CHI	0.333
1997	CHI	0.332
1998	CHI	0.337
2002	WAS	0.360
2003	WAS	0.287

Kobe

Code:

year	team	ratio
1997	LAL	0.247
1998	LAL	0.272
1999	LAL	0.253
2000	LAL	0.268
2001	LAL	0.319
2002	LAL	0.304
2003	LAL	0.329
2004	LAL	0.291
2005	LAL	0.317
2006	LAL	0.388

Iverson

Code:

year	team	ratio
1997	PHI	0.289
1998	PHI	0.269
1999	PHI	0.326
2000	PHI	0.344
2001	PHI	0.362
2002	PHI	0.378
2003	PHI	0.329
2004	PHI	0.353
2005	PHI	0.350
2006	PHI	0.358

Superb post.

Thanx!

kflo · 08-30-2006, 10:13 AM

is ballhog a good or a bad thing?

if someone shoots 100 times, and makes 100 baskets, are they a ballhog? and if so, is that bad?

PauloCatarino · 08-30-2006, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kflo

is ballhog a good or a bad thing?

A bad thing.

Quote:

if someone shoots 100 times, and makes 100 baskets, are they a ballhog? and if so, is that bad?

Yes, it is. He should try tennis.

durvasa · 08-30-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kflo

is ballhog a good or a bad thing?

if someone shoots 100 times, and makes 100 baskets, are they a ballhog? and if so, is that bad?

You should "hog the ball" to the extent you help your team win while doing so. Michael Jordan used up an overwhelming percentage of his team's offensive possessions in the late 80s, but he was also far and away the most efficient offensive player on his team. Being a ball hog, in that scenario, isn't such a bad thing.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes