What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

AllBuffs.com Intro To APBRmetrics

Goose

Hoops Moderator
Club Member
Junta Member
Welcome to the AllBuffs "Intro To APBRmetrics" area, or "How You Too Can Be A Stat Nerd". We're going to keep it simple, but this is going to discuss some stuff that we'll be discussing throughout the season when it comes to talking about the BasketBuffs. No more use of points per game for you. From now on, you're going to use words like "efficiency" and "tempo".

HISTORY

Everyone here has heard of "Moneyball", the book (now movie) of Billy Beane and how his use of Sabermetrics changed baseball. APBRmetrics is the basketball equivilent. Dean Oliver and John Hollinger both took Bill James' ideas for baseball and ushered them in to basketball using the internet. Basketball was more open to the idea of advanced stats than baseball was, with the Houston Rockets taking it to a new level in 2006 by hiring Daryl Morey as their GM.

TERMS WE WILL USE

The first four terms we will use are Dean Oliver's "Four Factors". These are considered the building blocks of APBRmetrics and efficiency. In other words, the better you are at these four things, the better your team is.

eFG% (Effective Field Goal Percentage): eFG% = (.5*3FGM + FGM) / FGA

eFG% was developed to take into account the fact that the standard FG% doesn't account for the extra value per shot for a 3 pointer. For example, shooting 33.3% from three point range over six shots would equal 2 makes/6 attempts and yield 6 points for the team. To get the same 6 points shooting from two point range, a team needs to shoot 50% (3 makes /6 attempts). To account for this, "effective" Field Goal percentage was born. An easy example from last year is
Shannon Sharpe. Here are his numbers from last season:
FGM
FGA
FG%
3PM
3PA
3P%
TS%
29
69
.420
1
15
.067
.428

So, for Shannon, we have the following:

(.5 * 1 + 29)/69 = 29.5/69 = .4275

Another example is
Levi Knutson:
FGM
FGA
FG%
3PM
3PA
3P%
TS%
158
312
.506
81
171
.474
.636

(.5 * 81 +158)/312 = 198.5/312 = .636

TO% (Turnover Percentage): TO% = Turnovers/Possesions

This one is pretty self explanatory. Basically, if you have the ball 20 times and turn it over 3 times, your turnover percentage is 15%. A turnover is a wasted possesion. The less wasted possesions, the more likely you are to score. Just think of this as the basketball equivilent of dating.

OR% (Offensive Rebounding Percentage): OR% = OR / (Offensive Rebounds for You + Defensive Rebounds for the Opponent)

This is the percentage of shots that you miss that you're able to get the rebound on. It basically is saying "hey, it's ok if you miss the shot if you're going to get the rebound". Now KenPom makes a good point in that this stat does NOT include "team rebounds" (where two or more guys fight over the ball), so it doesn't always line up perfectly with box scores, but it's pretty consistent overall. Let's use last year's game at Kansas State for an example:
CU Off. Reb
10
KSU Def. Reb
14

Using the formula, we get:

10 / (10+14) = 10/24 = 41.7%

And that right there tells you why CU won that game.

FTRate (Free Throw Rate): FTRate = FTA/FGA

This metric tells you how often you're shooting free throws, which is more valuable in the college game than it is in the pros. The more you can get to the line, the more "free" points that you get. Let's use last year's Texas game for an example:
CU FTA
32
CU FGA
60

Using the formula, we get:

32/60 = 53.3%

And that's how we won the Texas game.

Now along with the four factors, there are three other terms you're going to see us use regularly. They are much easier.

Offensive/Defensive Efficiency = Points Scored * 100 / Possessions

This is just telling you how many points your team would score/give up if there were 100 possessions in a game. You will not see possessions listed in the box score, so I usually just rely to the people who are much smarter than I like Ken Pomeroy to inform me of these stats. For our example, we'll use a hypothetical game in which there are 67 posessions (which is right around the national average from last year):
Colorado
75
Arizona
72

For offensive efficiency, we would have:

75*100 / 67 = 111.9

For defensive efficiency, we would have:

72*100 / 67 = 107.5

The national average last year was 101.3, so this would be considered a great game for CU's offense, but a below average one for the D.

Pace

Pace is the last term we will use and it just basically tells you how many posessions a team has in a game. This is used for the efficiency stats mentioned above.

OTHER LINKS

There is a wealth of info out there, however it all starts with KenPom.com. Basically, if you can use KenPom for the basic info, you're set. Everyone should bookmark his site now.


Basketball Reference also has a college basketball section. I prefer the site for NBA info, but the college basketball stuff isn't bad either and is worth a bookmark.
 
And that's why we're posting this. I promise it's not as tricky as it looks, so if there are any questions, please feel free to ask them. Buffnik and I are working on game previews for this season that will use some of these stats, so we wanted to get this up now so everyone could look over it in case they had questions.
 
Rep. Thank you. These are interesting stats. I look forward to seeing them as the season progresses. Initially I am excited to see the free throw and rebounding ones. Free throws and rebounding are so important to a successful college team, I am glad to have what looks like a good way to measure them.

This type of stuff reminds of what the guy at Purple Row does for the Rockies. I like that kind of analysis and definitely appreciate the effort.
 
Great stuff, Goose.

If you look at the 2010-11 season, the Buffs were exceptionally good with offensive efficiency. Where we struggled was with rebounding efficiency and defensive efficiency. If we can make major strides in those areas, we can absorb the offensive losses from last season.

Basically, you have to look at it like a coach would.

Do we have someone as efficient as Alec Burks (#6 in the nation in offensive efficiency among players who played top minutes)? No.

Do we have a 6th man as efficient as Levi Knutson (#6 in the nation among all players in offensive efficiency regardless of minutes)? No.

So how do we make up for that?

1. We rebound better to get more possessions than our opponent.
2. We limit the other team's offensive efficiency so that our own offense doesn't have to be as good.
3. We limit turnovers so that we don't waste possessions.
4. We cause more turnovers in order to force wasted possessions.

These things are all complementary. If you control the defensive glass, you don't give up easy points (better d efficiency) and you're more likely to get easy points yourself off fast break opportunities (better o efficiency). Forcing turnovers work the same way.

We have an opportunity to be just as good as last season, or even better, if the team completely buys into Boyle's system and finishes Top 3 in the conference in rebounding and defense.
 
Holy ****e this is awesome

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
 
Jesus, Goose. What's apbr stand for?
?
a-1.jpg

pbr1.jpg
 
Ok, be forewarned, I like basketball and stats a little too much. I have been playing around with the kenpom.com stats for the last month or so (also beware, the site is going from free to $20 a year in the next week). But here is something I put together for last years Pac 10 stats + CU and Utah.

TeamConfAdjTempoAdjOEeFG%TO%OR%FTRateAdjDE
eFG% DEF
TO% Def
OR% DEF
FTRate DEF
Arizona 5P1066.2117.354.118.833.743.696.448.618.629.236.6
Washington 7P1071.1117.853.716.737.631.594.746.420.631.944
ColoradoB1267.9117.352.516.934.639.3102.450.619.332.435.7
Washington St.P1068.5106.551.618.228.2369446.12132.832.6
CaliforniaP1068.8109.350.819.530.147.198.950.418.228.633.8
UCLA 7P1066.6107.250.32235.744.393.246.31831.333
Arizona St.P1063.9102.850.11927.82999.749.1203339.3
Southern California 11P1063.1106.149.918.230.435.492.146.218.528.436.1
StanfordP1065.6103.24920.43337.797.649.121.330.136.3
OregonP1067.5105.648.217.830.430.898.151.722.432.735.8
UtahMWC68.3100.947.720.128.836.799.347.415.732.238.7
Oregon St.P1070.2100.747.321.833.643.6100.953.823.432.437.3
 
Great work, jgisland.

Three things that jumped out at me:

1. Tempo is fast in the Pac-12.
2. Washington is extremely well-coached.
3. Our defense was awful last year.
 
Great work, jgisland.

2. Washington is extremely well-coached.

if I am reading it correctly, Washington was really aggressive on defense (high defensive FT rate) so they must have a deep bench to keep the offensive numbers up even with the foul trouble some guys would be in.
 
Great work, jgisland.

Three things that jumped out at me:

1. Tempo is fast in the Pac-12.
2. Washington is extremely well-coached.
3. Our defense was awful last year.

1. I ran the #'s on this. The B12 adjusted conf tempo last year was 67.358 and the P10 was 67.15 last year. So very similar pace of play. FYI - of all major conferences the B10 by far plays the slowest pace, 64.573.

2. Yes they are, and they should be really good again, even with losing Isiah Thomas. They picked up a Frosh Tony Wroten who seems to be the real deal.

3. Awful, Atrocious, miserable....pick your negative adjective, that is what our defense was.
 
if I am reading it correctly, Washington was really aggressive on defense (high defensive FT rate) so they must have a deep bench to keep the offensive numbers up even with the foul trouble some guys would be in.

Pretty much, they played 8 guys pretty heavy minutes which is a pretty deep rotation in college basketball. They averaged 20.2 fouls a game which was the highest in the P10 and way up there nationally.
 
Ok, be forewarned, I like basketball and stats a little too much. I have been playing around with the kenpom.com stats for the last month or so (also beware, the site is going from free to $20 a year in the next week). But here is something I put together for last years Pac 10 stats + CU and Utah.

Team
Conf
AdjTempo
AdjOE
eFG%
TO%
OR%
FTRate
AdjDE
eFG% DEF
TO% Def
OR% DEF
FTRate DEF
Arizona 5
P10
66.2
117.3
54.1
18.8
33.7
43.6
96.4
48.6
18.6
29.2
36.6
Washington 7
P10
71.1
117.8
53.7
16.7
37.6
31.5
94.7
46.4
20.6
31.9
44
Colorado
B12
67.9
117.3
52.5
16.9
34.6
39.3
102.4
50.6
19.3
32.4
35.7
Washington St.
P10
68.5
106.5
51.6
18.2
28.2
36
94
46.1
21
32.8
32.6
California
P10
68.8
109.3
50.8
19.5
30.1
47.1
98.9
50.4
18.2
28.6
33.8
UCLA 7
P10
66.6
107.2
50.3
22
35.7
44.3
93.2
46.3
18
31.3
33
Arizona St.
P10
63.9
102.8
50.1
19
27.8
29
99.7
49.1
20
33
39.3
Southern California 11
P10
63.1
106.1
49.9
18.2
30.4
35.4
92.1
46.2
18.5
28.4
36.1
Stanford
P10
65.6
103.2
49
20.4
33
37.7
97.6
49.1
21.3
30.1
36.3
Oregon
P10
67.5
105.6
48.2
17.8
30.4
30.8
98.1
51.7
22.4
32.7
35.8
Utah
MWC
68.3
100.9
47.7
20.1
28.8
36.7
99.3
47.4
15.7
32.2
38.7
Oregon St.
P10
70.2
100.7
47.3
21.8
33.6
43.6
100.9
53.8
23.4
32.4
37.3

Allsome work here.

EVERYONE REP THIS POST!
 
1. I ran the #'s on this. The B12 adjusted conf tempo last year was 67.358 and the P10 was 67.15 last year. So very similar pace of play. FYI - of all major conferences the B10 by far plays the slowest pace, 64.573.

Wisconsin might have single handedly brought the Big 10 down from 67 to 64 by themselves.
 
kenpom.com stats for the last month or so (also beware, the site is going from free to $20 a year in the next week)

Kenpom is going paid? that sucks. I don't use it enough to justify paying for it, but I do enjoy going there once a month or so during the season.
 
Kenpom is going paid? that sucks. I don't use it enough to justify paying for it, but I do enjoy going there once a month or so during the season.

Not everything is. The basic stuff is going to be free still, but more in-depth and (I believe) the blog are.
 
Wisconsin might have single handedly brought the Big 10 down from 67 to 64 by themselves.

Don't forget Penn State. When they played Wisconsin late in the year, I don't think either team got to 40 points.
 
Anybody who is really interested in advanced bball stats I encourage you to read "A Starting Point for Basketball Statistics." This is a paper written by 4 leading researchers on advanced basketball stats (one of which is Dean Oliver, aka the godfather of bball statistical research and former Director of Quantitative Analysis for the Nuggets who now works for ESPN). Yes, it is a little math heavy at points, but if this isn't your thing you can skip over that and still get over the jist of it. They do a nice job of why they think this approach this works and touch on a few other advanced stats methods (adjusted +/- to name one).

Paper is free to download here
 
I'm excited to meet this Goose character. Basketball can't come soon enough. Five days.

-- I'm a Guy On A Buffalo --
 
Good post Goose. It seems like the basketball forum here is going to have much higher level discussion than the football forum does. Looking forward to it.
 
This is early in the season so 1 game can drastically sway these numbers, but CU's offensive #'s are atrocious.

EFG% 48% - 174th in the country
TO% 24.4% - 247th in the country - CU turns the ball over once every 4 times down the floor.
OR% - 16.9% - 334th in the country - Nearly the worst in the country, CU needs to hit the offensive glass
FTRate - 38.8% - 153 in the country

You aren't going to win games shooting EFG% of 48% while only grabbing 16.9% of offensive boards, it just isn't going to happen. I have to believe Boyle and crew are preaching this and I hope to see better rebounding today when CU plays Maryland.

The good think is the defense is playing pretty well
Holding the opposing team to 51.7 EFG, making them turnover the ball as much as they do at 24.4%. The rebounding numbers are a little more troublesome, the opposing teams are grabbing 32.8% of their offensive rebounds. Teams are not getting to the line against CU however, nearly the best in the country at a defensive FTRate of 13.3%.
 
This is early in the season so 1 game can drastically sway these numbers, but CU's offensive #'s are atrocious.

EFG% 48% - 174th in the country
TO% 24.4% - 247th in the country - CU turns the ball over once every 4 times down the floor.
OR% - 16.9% - 334th in the country - Nearly the worst in the country, CU needs to hit the offensive glass
FTRate - 38.8% - 153 in the country

You aren't going to win games shooting EFG% of 48% while only grabbing 16.9% of offensive boards, it just isn't going to happen. I have to believe Boyle and crew are preaching this and I hope to see better rebounding today when CU plays Maryland.

The good think is the defense is playing pretty well
Holding the opposing team to 51.7 EFG, making them turnover the ball as much as they do at 24.4%. The rebounding numbers are a little more troublesome, the opposing teams are grabbing 32.8% of their offensive rebounds. Teams are not getting to the line against CU however, nearly the best in the country at a defensive FTRate of 13.3%.
Playing WSU really hurt... but we knew that was coming after SHT's performance in game 1. Losing Higgins and Burks's rebounding ability is killing us almost as bad as losing their scoring. The guards are giving us **** for rebounding (excepting Chen). I expected that from Nate, but Dinwiddie needs to start figuring out how big he is.
 
Playing WSU really hurt... but we knew that was coming after SHT's performance in game 1. Losing Higgins and Burks's rebounding ability is killing us almost as bad as losing their scoring. The guards are giving us **** for rebounding (excepting Chen). I expected that from Nate, but Dinwiddie needs to start figuring out how big he is.

Burks rebounding ability was vastly underrated last year. He wasn't banging down low, but he had a great eye to see where the ball was going to come off the rim and would be right there. He was the 2nd best re-bounder by far after dre. Pretty impressive he out rebounded Relphorde and and Dufault so handily.
 
Back
Top