If you want/need a refresher on some of the stats that I like to use, see these four posts to educate yourself.
| Player | %Min | %Shots | eFG% | PPWS | FTr | Ar | TO% | Rb% | eff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kruis | 0.70 | 0.12 | 0.600 | 1.45 | 0.80 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.12 | - |
| DeBoer | 0.58 | 0.30 | 0.300 | 0.57 | 0.10 | 0.31 | 0.12 | 0.12 | - |
| Vallie | 0.53 | 0.10 | 0.667 | 1.63 | 1.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.13 | - |
| Snikkers | 0.53 | 0.43 | 0.500 | 1.19 | 0.62 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.11 | - |
| Mast | 0.53 | 0.07 | 0.500 | 0.77 | 2.00 | 0.07 | 0.17 | 0.05 | - |
| Haverdink | 0.50 | 0.17 | 0.800 | 1.46 | 0.20 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.03 | - |
| Rietema | 0.48 | 0.07 | 0.500 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.50 | 0.06 | - |
| Powell | 0.48 | 0.36 | 0.500 | 1.10 | 0.20 | 0.48 | 0.06 | 0.06 | - |
| DeVries | 0.43 | 0.16 | 0.500 | 1.21 | 0.50 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.13 | - |
| Dykstra | 0.13 | 0.55 | 0.500 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.11 | - |
| DeYoung | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.29 | 0.50 | 0.11 | - |
| Calvin | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.509 | 1.12 | 0.45 | 0.61 | 0.18 | 0.50 | 108.9 |
| Opponent | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.458 | 0.99 | 0.49 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.50 | 99.2 |
A few things that jumped out at me after looking at the numbers:
- It really seemed as though Bryan Powell reigned in his shot attempts, but he still ended up firing up 36% of the teams shots while he was on the floor (his average for last year was 25%). The big difference was that he was efficient with his shots in this game and, although he was 0-3 on three pointers, none of his attempts were “bad shots”.
- Calvin struggled with turnovers on offense last year (they turned it over on 21% of their possessions last year), but against Ferris State, their turnover rate was just 18% (league average is 20%). Maybe that isn’t a huge difference in a single game, but taking care of the ball will be big for Calvin this year.
- The Knights paired a high free throw rate (.45) with a pretty good 77% free throw percentage. Calvin doesn’t have the reliable three point shooters that they’ve had in the past, so they’ll need to use their length and athleticism to get to the basket and get to the line (and knock the free ones down down) to find extra points.
- David Rietema didn’t necessarily impress me in the starting lineup. He’s not a scorer so his contribution will be in taking care of the ball and distributing it to his teammates. Three turnovers isn’t a terrible number, but he’s going to need to learn that he can’t dribble around/through everyone at this level.
Rotations
This one is new for me, but I think it’s pretty cool. Here’s a look at all of the player combinations that Calvin had on the floor at any point, and how they performed (sorted by minutes).
| G | G | F | F | C | MIN | PF | PA | +/- | O-Pos | D-Pos | OEff | DEff | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rietema | Haverdink | Snikkers | Vallie | Kruis | 4.7 | 6 | 10 | -4 | 6 | 8 | 100.0 | 125.0 | -25.0 |
| Powell | Haverdink | Snikkers | DeVries | Kruis | 2.7 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 140.0 | 100.0 | 40.0 |
| Powell | Mast | DeBoer | Vallie | Kruis | 2.4 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 200.0 | 66.7 | 133.3 |
| Powell | Haverdink | DeBoer | Snikkers | Kruis | 2.3 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 150.0 | 133.3 | 16.7 |
| Rietema | Mast | DeBoer | Vallie | Kruis | 2.1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 66.7 | 25.0 | 41.7 |
| Rietema | Mast | Snikkers | Vallie | Kruis | 2.1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 60.0 | 75.0 | -15.0 |
| Powell | Mast | DeBoer | DeVries | DeYoung | 2.1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 50.0 | 40.0 | 10.0 |
| Rietema | DeBoer | Snikkers | Vallie | Kruis | 2.0 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| Rietema | Mast | DeBoer | DeVries | Kruis | 1.9 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 120.0 | 166.7 | -46.7 |
| Powell | Haverdink | DeBoer | Vallie | DeYoung | 1.7 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 200.0 | -200.0 |
| Powell | Mast | DeBoer | Dykstra | DeVries | 1.7 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 160.0 | 50.0 | 110.0 |
| Rietema | Mast | Snikkers | DeVries | Kruis | 1.6 | 3 | 5 | -2 | 3 | 3 | 100.0 | 166.7 | -66.7 |
| Powell | Mast | DeBoer | Snikkers | DeVries | 1.4 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 300.0 | 150.0 | 150.0 |
| Powell | Mast | DeBoer | Vallie | DeYoung | 1.4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 66.7 | 100.0 | -33.3 |
| Powell | Haverdink | Snikkers | Vallie | Kruis | 1.2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 300.0 | 50.0 | 250.0 |
| Powell | Mast | DeBoer | Dykstra | Kruis | 1.2 | 2 | 5 | -3 | 2 | 2 | 100.0 | 250.0 | -150.0 |
| Rietema | Haverdink | Mast | Snikkers | Kruis | 1.0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 200.0 | 0.0 | 200.0 |
| Rietema | Haverdink | Snikkers | DeVries | Kruis | 0.9 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 0.0 |
| Powell | Vallie | Dykstra | DeVries | Kruis | 0.9 | 2 | 3 | -1 | 2 | 2 | 100.0 | 150.0 | -50.0 |
| Rietema | Haverdink | DeBoer | Vallie | Kruis | 0.9 | 2 | 3 | -1 | 2 | 2 | 100.0 | 150.0 | -50.0 |
| Powell | DeBoer | Vallie | Dykstra | DeVries | 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - |
| Rietema | Haverdink | DeBoer | Dykstra | DeVries | 0.6 | 0 | 5 | -5 | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 250.0 | -250.0 |
| Powell | Haverdink | Mast | Vallie | DeVries | 0.6 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | 1 | - | 200.0 | - |
| Rietema | Haverdink | Mast | Snikkers | DeVries | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Rietema | Mast | DeBoer | DeVries | DeYoung | 0.4 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | -100.0 |
| Rietema | Haverdink | Snikkers | Dykstra | DeVries | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | - | 0.0 | - |
| Rietema | Haverdink | Mast | Vallie | DeVries | 0.3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 200.0 | 0.0 | 200.0 |
| Powell | Mast | Snikkers | DeVries | Kruis | 0.3 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 1 | - | 100.0 | - |
| Powell | Haverdink | DeBoer | Vallie | Kruis | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
MIN - Number of minutes each combination was on the floor together.
PF - Points for
PA - Points against
+/- - Points for minus points against
O-Pos - Number of offensive possessions
D-Pos - Number of defensive possessions
OEff - Offensive efficiency rating
DEff - Defensive efficiency rating
Margin - Efficiency margin (OEff - DEff)
Let's not put too much into just a few minutes or possessions, but it is interesting to see what happened when specific groups were on the floor. I'll be keeping track of this all year for entertainment purposes. Hopefully it will carry more weight once we're several games into the season.
Player Chart
This chart is similar to the one above, but it only looks at individuals. I tracked plus/minus last year (and will this year), but that proved to contain a lot of noise. For these charts, I'm mostly looking at the efficiency numbers (which take number of possessions into account), so hopefully we'll get a better, fairer comparison.
| Player | MIN | G% | F% | C% | PF | PA | +/- | O-Pos | D-Pos | OEff | DEff | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kruis | 28.3 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 58 | 52 | 6 | 51 | 50 | 113.7 | 104.0 | 9.7 |
| DeBoer | 22.7 | 12% | 88% | 0% | 46 | 41 | 5 | 43 | 39 | 107.0 | 105.1 | 1.8 |
| Vallie | 21.1 | 4% | 96% | 0% | 32 | 32 | 0 | 33 | 34 | 97.0 | 94.1 | 2.9 |
| Snikkers | 21.1 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 45 | 36 | 9 | 36 | 38 | 125.0 | 94.7 | 30.3 |
| Mast | 20.9 | 88% | 12% | 0% | 47 | 35 | 12 | 40 | 41 | 117.5 | 85.4 | 32.1 |
| Powell | 20.6 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 44 | 33 | 11 | 34 | 33 | 129.4 | 100.0 | 29.4 |
| Rietema | 19.4 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 35 | 39 | -4 | 38 | 40 | 92.1 | 97.5 | -5.4 |
| Haverdink | 17.9 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 33 | 33 | 0 | 30 | 33 | 110.0 | 100.0 | 10.0 |
| DeVries | 17.1 | 0% | 64% | 36% | 39 | 36 | 3 | 34 | 36 | 114.7 | 100.0 | 14.7 |
| DeYoung | 5.5 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 4 | 8 | -4 | 10 | 10 | 40.0 | 80.0 | -40.0 |
| Dykstra | 5.5 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 12 | 15 | -3 | 11 | 11 | 109.1 | 136.4 | -27.3 |
| Nadeau | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - |
| Mantel | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - |
| Henry | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - |
| Van Eck | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - |
| Totals | 200.0 | - | - | - | 395 | 360 | 35 | 360 | 365 | 109.7 | 98.6 | 11.1 |
G%, F%, and C% track the percentage of time that the player was "playing" that position. To do this, I ordered the players from "most guard like" to "most center like" (I went with Nadeau, Rietema, Powell, Haverdink, Mantel, Mast, DeBoer, Snikkers, Vallie, Dykstra, Henry, DeVries, DeYoung, Van Eck, Kruis). At any point in time, I removed the players that are on the bench from the list, and called the "left most" two players "guards", the middle two "forwards", and the "rightmost" player the "center". If you don't agree with the order of my list, leave me a comment and we'll get it "fixed" before the season really begins.
Again, I think the efficiency numbers (offensive, defensive, and margin) are the coolest part of these charts. It's important to keep in mind (especially in the individual chart) that a variety of factors are in play, and you can't attribute the entire number to the individual player. The more games we have, the more weight the numbers will carry. The possession/minutes numbers won't be one million percent exact here, but we'll be pretty close. I hope you understand.
Want to stay up to date on the happenings at FFTMAG? Follow me on Twitter, “like” us on Facebook, and grab our RSS Feed. Need a ride to a game? Check out the Ride Board and post your needs.
