I've read a couple of older posts here that offer a formula to measure the relative defensive values of players, expressed as:

Net Def = (ATH+SPD+2*DEF)/4

I don't take this as a value that can be used to determine actual game performance so much as a metric with which to compare two players with varying levels of ATH, SPD, and DEF.   I've started applying it to recruits I'm scouting as one tool with which to raise my team's abysmal defense in the future (with an eye toward potentials thrown in).

But I'm wondering if anyone knows of a similar metric for measure Net Offense?  I would imagine the formula would include ATH and SPD, and either/or/both LP and PER, but also BH?

ethan, that formula is entirely subjective and imho not nearly accurate enough to use as a reliable source. It basically just represents one random person's opinion.

I figured it was subjective, and like I said it's not useful in projecting game results.  But I'm looking for a better way to measure defense AND offense.  Most of us would agree that ATH and SPD play a major role in a player's effectiveness.  The NetDef thing was a good start in trying to measure that role.

Years ago I saw a similar formula put forth on NBA players, trying to measure their defense.  As you said, it was subjective, but it did offer a way to compare players and, for the most part, confirmed what the naked eye already suspected.

Net offense is going to depend much more on the other players you have and how the new guy might fit in.  There's no easy answer to that at all.

Posted by girt25 on 2/5/2011 10:58:00 AM (view original):
ethan, that formula is entirely subjective and imho not nearly accurate enough to use as a reliable source. It basically just represents one random person's opinion.

girt, do you not agree it is an improvement over the formula?

net def = DEF

You might not, which is cool, the point of such formula's is to give coaches something they can use in their heads while recruiting, and is not meant to be accurate, other than attempts to be more accurate than simply looking at def

to answer the original ?, I do similar things for post play and for guard play, I think you can see why I hesitate to post what I use - LOL

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/5/2011 11:14:00 AM (view original):
Net offense is going to depend much more on the other players you have and how the new guy might fit in.  There's no easy answer to that at all.

True.  And IQ as well.  (Though IQ ought to factor into DEF as well)

It's not like we can't eyeball a guy and look at his ATH/SPD and LP/PER to get an idea.  My puzzlement probably involves as much how much ATH affects the scoring ability of guards, or SPD impacts bigs, and how much of a factor ballhandling plays in offense for anyone.

At D3 and D2, we can't have many players who have it all.  We have to make choices and accept flaws in our recruits - as much as I like guards with high ATH, I don't know how much SPD I could sacrifice, for example, and still expect them to be a good scorer.

Posted by oldresorter on 2/5/2011 11:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 2/5/2011 10:58:00 AM (view original):
ethan, that formula is entirely subjective and imho not nearly accurate enough to use as a reliable source. It basically just represents one random person's opinion.

girt, do you not agree it is an improvement over the formula?

net def = DEF

You might not, which is cool, the point of such formula's is to give coaches something they can use in their heads while recruiting, and is not meant to be accurate, other than attempts to be more accurate than simply looking at def

to answer the original ?, I do similar things for post play and for guard play, I think you can see why I hesitate to post what I use - LOL

Thanks , OR :)  I'm probably not shy enough to keep my questions to myself yet.  I can take the heat, but it's the best way I have to pick up tips from more experienced coaches.  I ask a lot of dumb questions on purpose :)

When you evaluate post and guard play, do you factor in both ATH and SPD or do you use ATH for bigs and SPD for guards only?  And do you factor in BH to some extent for everyone?

I think you need to factor in almost all the rating categories to arrive at an overall player value.   But they may need to be weighed differently by position.  ie.. Lowpost or ShotBlocking may be more valued in a C/PF than they are in a PG.   I think this is what seble may be trying to achieve with allowing a coach to customize a formula to be used in recruiting.
You should also look at gpa and FT%.   When comparing a 75% vs a 50% FT shooter you may be willing to give up 10 points of rebounding.   gpa generally translates to 1) amount of practice minutes required in study hall and;  2)  the speed at which they will learn your Off/Def sets

I'm not sure I want to get that detailed, Iguana, but thanks.  As for Seble, he's not "allowing" me to do anything - I built an Excel spreadsheet with my roster on it to look at my current situation, with a separate table for the recruits I'm watching.  It's been helpful to me in deciding which recruits (allowing for potentials and WE) are going to upgrade my squad and which ones are probably not worth the effort.

I put together a hurried formula for offense just to get an idea:  NetOff = ((ATH+SPD) + (LP+PER) + BH))/4 and it coincides pretty well with my team's scoring so far - and I didn't even include Play Distribution or IQ, two other factors that are huge in a player's offensive contribution.  So it's little more than an imaginary metric to give me a gauge.  Not much else.

I have four different ratings-based formulas I use to assess offense.  One for the capability to play PG (this one doesn't factor in scoring ability at all, only the ability to successfully run the show, so that a guy could have a miserable PE but still be the starting PG), one for the capability to score while playing guard, one for scoring as a SF, and one for scoring as a big.  I think that makes more sense than just having one overall offensive formula.

Like OR, I don't want to give out the actual formulas, and who knows how far off base they are to begin with?  But my guess is that most experienced coaches would probably all come up with fairly similar formulas if they all sat down and thought about what they value at each position.  There is an aspect of my formulas where players are rewarded (possibly too much) for versatility, but otherwise I think that they're probably pretty standard compared to what other coaches have come up with.

Davis, I'm not at all sure that most experienced coaches would come up with similar formulas.  If nothing else I think there are wildly varying opinions on the importance of athleticism for scoring, particularly guard scoring, in the lower divisions.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/5/2011 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Davis, I'm not at all sure that most experienced coaches would come up with similar formulas.  If nothing else I think there are wildly varying opinions on the importance of athleticism for scoring, particularly guard scoring, in the lower divisions.

Yeah, now that I think about it you've probably got a point here.  I do think most coaches would probably consider the same traits, but maybe with very different weights placed on them.

For one example, I know that I probably place less emphasis on LP than other coaches, based on discussions I've seen here.

I guess there are a lot of different ways to be successful, as long as you have a reasonable plan and execute it.  (I know sometimes I'll even pass on a blue chip local recruit if he just doesn't seem like my kind of player.)

I don't usually have that problem.  I'll adjust my strategy a bit if there's a blue-chipper close to me that I think I can get and going after him won't leave me with any glaring positional holes.

Interesting that so many coaches seem to have formulas for figuring out who they think is a good scorer, or to rank recruits for them, etc. Guess I never realized that. I've never done anything aside from just giving it the eyeball test.

Dan, my formulas aren't the final word on who I recruit - but they are a big help for me in the screening process.