Do-It-Yourself Three-Point Shooters

With five seconds left on the shot clock and all their teammates covered, guards have to create. Some perform much better at it than others.

Creating and then converting a three-pointer is basketball’s version of a grand slam. A 24-second violation nets nothing – and a wild shot attempt isn’t much better. So it’s a three-point swing if a player can nail a three off the dribble. Since few players shoot high percentages in these situations, the players who excel have tremendous value.

After evaluating all three-point shooters for volume, accuracy and the ability to create their shot without an assist, Spurs guard Gary Neal stood out. He hit 41.9 percent overall from three-point range last season, even though only 54.2 percent of his made threes were assisted. On average, 84.2 of NBA three-pointers were assisted in 2011-12.

Most top three-point marksmen have a very high percentage of their threes assisted. That’s no problem of course, it’s their job to spot up and drain threes. But it makes players who can convert threes off the dribble even more valuable, especially for teams that don’t get many open three-point looks from their set offense.

In addition to Neal, other players who shine in this area include Kyrie Irving, Kyle Lowry, Jose Juan Barea and Lou Williams. 

The Common Factor

Besides playing for the Oklahoma City Thunder, Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and James Harden don’t seem to have much in common. And that was the case when the Sonics/Thunder selected them in three consecutive drafts, except for one key factor.

All three players were exceptionally young for their class. At 18.74 years old on draft night, Durant was the youngest freshmen (and player) taken in the past five drafts combined. One year later, they landed the youngest sophomore from these five draft classes. Westbrook, at 19.62 years old, was actually younger than many freshmen in the 2008 draft. Then they took Harden in 2009. Only one other sophomore besides Westbrook was younger than Harden at 19.83.

As a result, the Thunder nabbed three players with far more college playing experience than prospects their same age. The Sports Resource Newsletter covered this topic last year. Westbrook, for example, had played 75 games for UCLA. Most of the draft selections close to his age had fewer than half that many.

Obviously, it wasn’t just about their age relative to their class. Durant and Harden also put up outstanding statistics, but so had many others in their draft class. Their numbers were made far more impressive by the fact that they were over one year younger (in some cases) than players that shared the same college class.

Maybe other teams valued this common factor, but went another direction on draft night. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that Oklahoma City exploited this edge three straight years. Whatever happened, the Thunder may soon start the next NBA dynasty because of those selections.

Time to Move On

If a point guard had these averages after his name (3.6 PPG, 1.9 APG), most people wouldn’t think much of him. But if you change them to 21.3 and 11.3, that’s a different story. These stats are actually for the same player during the same timeframe. They show Jeremy Lin’s production in his first nine games this season before he saw regular action and exploded on the scene. The second set of numbers reveal Lin’s numbers per 36 minutes of game action. He began his strong performance before Linsanity, although few noticed.

Once some ideas become entrenched in sports, it’s difficult to change. I have no idea why basketball started using per game statistics, but it’s time to stop. NBA players – even those that we call regulars – vary widely in minutes played per game. We already saw how useless they are for bench players. Per game stats cause misconceptions about performance, and hamper the ability to identify breakout players. We should evaluate players per minute or, better yet, per possession. But the latter concept is too great a leap for the mainstream.

In the meantime, here’s an alternative to points per game. True Scoring Rate (TSR) is simply a player’s points scored per 36 minutes. Why 36 minutes? That’s the approximate average for a top NBA starter. This way we find out who scores at the greatest rate, something points per game has never done.

Points per game shortchanges players like Kyrie Irving, who had played just 31 minutes per game (through February 23). Irving ranked 23rd in points per game (18.1), but his 21.1 TSR placed 15th, ahead of point guards Tony Parker (20.3) and Chris Paul (19.1). Both surpassed him in points per game, largely because they saw more minutes.

True Scoring Rate is not really new, just a way of simplifying per minute rates. It’s easy to understand and calculate. Most importantly, it adjusts for the large discrepancies in playing time.

The next Jeremy Lin might be sitting on an NBA bench right now, and TSR can help find him.

We Can Do That

Critics like to point out the shortcomings of sports statistics. There are areas where the numbers have minimal impact. But much of the criticism comes from misunderstanding what analytics do best.

A recent article stated that statistics do a much better job of describing the past than predicting the future. While there is some truth to that point, the predictive power depends on what you’re measuring.

The article states that no stat could have predicted that Mark Whiten would have the greatest one-game offensive performance ever. That’s true, but it’s also an impossible task. On the other hand, metrics like batting average on balls in play and home runs per fly ball can identify which hitters should break out after slow starts. Remember Dan Uggla earlier this season?

The real power of sports analytics is what they can do now and will do in the future, especially when combined with technology and/or social media. Last week, I learned about an Austin startup which built an algorithm that measures the level of excitement in sports games. Now fans know immediately if their favorite team is headed for a thrilling finish and whether to watch the game or not.

Several years ago, while struggling to learn a new computer program, a colleague offered invaluable advice: write down everything you’d like the program to do, because it probably has that capability. Turns out that it could do everything I thought of and far more.

I believe analytics and technology can solve many of the problems agents and other sports insiders face. In general, sports analytics can do much more than we realize.

What is your greatest challenge? Analytics may have a solution.

Simple and Informative

Save percentage is a useful statistic for closers, but not for other types of relievers. It has minimal value when evaluating setup men. Relievers that protect leads in the seventh and eighth innings rarely close games. Therefore, they have few chances to earn saves, but can still get blown saves.

That explains how an outstanding setup man like Mike Adams could have a 50 percent save percentage (two saves in four save opportunities). The stat fails to demonstrate his ability to maintain leads, which he had shown by accumulating 24 holds this season.

Save plus hold percentage evens the playing for closers and setup men, showing how well all relievers maintain leads. It is simple to calculate, yet gets little attention in the mainstream sports media. A hold is a save situation that gets preserved and passed on to the next reliever. So a hold is basically a save that does not end a game.

To calculate save plus hold percentage, combine saves and holds and then divide by saves, holds and blown saves. Among relievers with at least 15 save and hold opportunities through August 16, these pitchers led the Major Leagues.

The top 10 includes four closers, five setup men and one pitcher (Antonio Bastardo) who has filled both roles.

Adams’ 92.9 save plus hold percentage left him just short of the top 10. But he easily surpassed the Major League average of 84.9 percent this season.

Since it’s easy to explain and informative, save plus hold percentage makes a great tool for agents in both arbitration and free agency.

The Accelerators: Point Guards who Pick up the Pace

When Pooh Jeter took the court for the Sacramento Kings last season, his teammates had to be ready to run. Based on a metric comparing team pace with and without each NBA player on the court, Jeter increased the pace more than any other point guard.

The Kings had 4.1 more possessions per 48 minutes when Jeter played versus when he sat. Only three players at any position – who saw at least 750 minutes in 2010-11– surpassed him.

This stat is just one way to put words into numbers and tell a story. While a scouting report saying a player pushes the ball is strong evidence, it becomes even more powerful when hard statistical information backs it up.

Three starting one guards followed Jeter in this category: Jose Calderon, Russell Westbrook and Stephen Curry. Jeff Teague, another backup point known for his quickness, placed fifth.

This metric may not always demonstrate speed. Calderon, for example, could excel at getting the Raptors a good shot early in their offensive sets. So while he’s not the type of guard who usually pushes the ball, Toronto still played faster with Calderon in the game.

This stat does get influenced by who shares the court with each point guard. Obviously, you can’t run if your teammates can’t keep up. It also matters who plays the same position for their team.

Nonetheless, NBA agents now have another tool to show how their free agents can impact clubs looking to up the tempo.

The Other Side of Twitter

I’ve built a sports news gathering organization comparable to ESPN. There are 640 correspondents everywhere from Rio de Janeiro to Rochester, New York to Vilnius, Lithuania. Twenty-four hours per day, seven days a week, the news keep flowing directly to my phone. And it costs absolutely nothing.

Some view Twitter as a way of reaching out to others, which is absolutely true. But there’s another huge component that rarely gets mentioned: Twitter enables you to customize the news that comes to you. Whether I want to learn about a hot high school basketball prospect in New York City, track a minor leaguer in Williamsport, Pennsylvania or learn about emerging sports research or technology, I have a source.

Twitter has major advantages over more traditional ways of gathering information, even Google:

1) Getting the jump on real-time sports information. If there is a big trade brewing or other breaking news, you’ll see it on Twitter well before it hits the major sports websites. Why? Writers like Buster Olney or Ken Rosenthal will usually tweet before they post a story. It takes far less time to blast out 140 characters than an entire article that needs to pass through editors before reaching a webpage.

2) Everything comes to you. The mindset has always been to seek out topics which interest and have value to us. Since Twitter enables you to select followers and subjects that provide news you care about, there is no effort or energy required to find it. Whenever you want it, specialized information is there waiting for you.

3) Going beyond Google. For all its strengths, Google requires multiple steps to finding great sports info. You need to first find the right search terms. When you do, there’s no guarantee Google will have what you need. Even if it does, you may waste time sifting through meaningless links. With Twitter, the posts and links come to you. Your trusted followers do the legwork!

While negative tweets have come back to haunt athletes and other people in sports, it’s not very common. Besides, interacting isn’t necessary. It’s possible to build your news gathering organization without ever posting.

I’ve heard skeptics say “I barely have time to check email, why do I want to get on Twitter?” Unlike email, Twitter isn’t something you need to respond to. I’ll avoid reading Twitter for several days during baseball arbitration season. If somebody wants to contact you via Twitter, they’ll use one of its methods that directs correspondence to your inbox, just like an email.

For sports agents, the other side of Twitter can have tremendous value. And it will only get bigger and better.