[TheFarm07]

With no game tomorrow and 10 games in the books, I looked through the stats on the team and found these nuggets:

                     PPG    RPG   FG%
Belibi             12.0    6.5     57.6%
Jones             15.2    9.4    62.3%
Williams         12.0    2.3    35.5%
Wilson           6.3      3.9    48.8%
Lexie             11.1    5.2    36.4%

• We have 5 players averaging double digits in points (4 of the starters listed above and Brink at 11 ppg)
  
• We also have Anna and Hannah averaging around 6 ppg
  
• Haley leads in the 3 major statistical categories (PPG, RPG, APG = 15.2/9.4/3.5)
  
• Kiana leads in minutes per game at 31.3
  
• Brink is leading in overall FG% at 62% with Belibi at 58% and Haley at 57% right behind her
  
• Wilson is leading 3P% at 54%
  
• Lexie (37%) and Jump (42%) are also hitting pretty well from deep
  
• Lexie is money from the FT line (30/33 = 91%) and Kiana (16/19 = 84%) and Haley (22/26 = 85%) are not that far off
  

• Kiana is hitting only 28% of her 3's (and only 36% overall)
  
• Lacie is also pretty cold at 5/20 (25%)
  

• Lexie has a better conversion rate from long range (37%) than her overall FG% (36%)
  
• Hannah and Anna also has the same pattern (42% from 3P%, but 39% overall for Hannah and 54%/49% for Anna)
  

As a team:

PPG = 83.9 (Conference only: 75.1)
OPPG = 52.9 (53.4)
FG% = 46.7% (43.5%)
3P% = 34.3% (32.2%)
FT% = 74.1% (79%)
Turnovers (we've lost) = 13.2 (14.6)
Turnovers (forced) = 16.8 (15.3)
Rebounding margin = 14.8 (14.0)
Assists per game = 18.8 (16.3)
% of made shots that were assisted = 59.1% (57.9%)

[TheFarm07]

With no game tomorrow and 10 games in the books, I looked through the stats on the team and found these nuggets:

                     PPG    RPG   FG%
Belibi             12.0    6.5     57.6%
Jones             15.2    9.4    62.3%
Williams         12.0    2.3    35.5%
Wilson           6.3      3.9    48.8%
Lexie             11.1    5.2    36.4%

• We have 5 players averaging double digits in points (4 of the starters listed above and Brink at 11 ppg)
  
• We also have Anna and Hannah averaging around 6 ppg
  
• Haley leads in the 3 major statistical categories (PPG, RPG, APG = 15.2/9.4/3.5)
  
• Kiana leads in minutes per game at 31.3
  
• Brink is leading in overall FG% at 62% with Belibi at 58% and Haley at 57% right behind her
  
• Wilson is leading 3P% at 54%
  
• Lexie (37%) and Jump (42%) are also hitting pretty well from deep
  
• Lexie is money from the FT line (30/33 = 91%) and Kiana (16/19 = 84%) and Haley (22/26 = 85%) are not that far off
  

• Kiana is hitting only 28% of her 3's (and only 36% overall)
  
• Lacie is also pretty cold at 5/20 (25%)
  

• Lexie has a better conversion rate from long range (37%) than her overall FG% (36%)
  
• Hannah and Anna also has the same pattern (42% from 3P%, but 39% overall for Hannah and 54%/49% for Anna)
  

As a team:

PPG = 83.9 (Conference only: 75.1)
OPPG = 52.9 (53.4)
FG% = 46.7% (43.5%)
3P% = 34.3% (32.2%)
FT% = 74.1% (79%)
Turnovers (we've lost) = 13.2 (14.6)
Turnovers (forced) = 16.8 (15.3)
Rebounding margin = 14.8 (14.0)
Assists per game = 18.8 (16.3)
% of made shots that were assisted = 59.1% (57.9%)

[BobK]

Thanks. Great summary

[BobK]

Thanks. Great summary

[M T]

While PPG is an oft quoted statistic, it is significantly impacted by time on the court.
Points per 40-minutes is a much better offensive stat, IMO.   
(I really hate announcers who say "She really improved her scoring between year N and year N+1, and had more on-court time as well.")

+/- per 40 minutes would be an even better stat as it evenly balances offense and defense, and is adjusted for playing time.

Points/40min is not given in the Stanford season stats. but can be computed.
Jones 21.8
Belibi 23.9
Williams 15.3
Lexie 17.5
Brink 28.1
Jump 17.2
Wilson 11.9
Prechtel 16.5
Lacie 7.6
Jana 9.9
Agnes 8.3
Alyssa 8.4

[M T]

While PPG is an oft quoted statistic, it is significantly impacted by time on the court.
Points per 40-minutes is a much better offensive stat, IMO.   
(I really hate announcers who say "She really improved her scoring between year N and year N+1, and had more on-court time as well.")

+/- per 40 minutes would be an even better stat as it evenly balances offense and defense, and is adjusted for playing time.

Points/40min is not given in the Stanford season stats. but can be computed.
Jones 21.8
Belibi 23.9
Williams 15.3
Lexie 17.5
Brink 28.1
Jump 17.2
Wilson 11.9
Prechtel 16.5
Lacie 7.6
Jana 9.9
Agnes 8.3
Alyssa 8.4

[TheWildJacko]

While PPG is an oft quoted statistic, it is significantly impacted by time on the court.
Points per 40-minutes is a much better offensive stat, IMO.   
(I really hate announcers who say "She really improved her scoring between year N and year N+1, and had more on-court time as well.")

+/- per 40 minutes would be an even better stat as it evenly balances offense and defense, and is adjusted for playing time.

Points/40min is not given in the Stanford season stats. but can be computed.
Jones 21.8
Belibi 23.9
Williams 15.3
Lexie 17.5
Brink 28.1
Jump 17.2
Wilson 11.9
Prechtel 16.5
Lacie 7.6
Jana 9.9
Agnes 8.3
Alyssa 8.4

Geez, we should play more 40-minute games, some of these players would be superstars!

Also, thank you M T and TheFarm07 for the excellent analysis.

[TheWildJacko]

While PPG is an oft quoted statistic, it is significantly impacted by time on the court.
Points per 40-minutes is a much better offensive stat, IMO.   
(I really hate announcers who say "She really improved her scoring between year N and year N+1, and had more on-court time as well.")

+/- per 40 minutes would be an even better stat as it evenly balances offense and defense, and is adjusted for playing time.

Points/40min is not given in the Stanford season stats. but can be computed.
Jones 21.8
Belibi 23.9
Williams 15.3
Lexie 17.5
Brink 28.1
Jump 17.2
Wilson 11.9
Prechtel 16.5
Lacie 7.6
Jana 9.9
Agnes 8.3
Alyssa 8.4

Geez, we should play more 40-minute games, some of these players would be superstars!

Also, thank you M T and TheFarm07 for the excellent analysis.

[Hulk01]

Points-per-shot:
Brink      1.62
Wilson    1.54
Jones      1.33
Belibi      1.30
Lexie H   1.30
Jump       1.09
Prechtel   1.02
Lacie H     1.00
Williams   0.99

[Hulk01]

Points-per-shot:
Brink      1.62
Wilson    1.54
Jones      1.33
Belibi      1.30
Lexie H   1.30
Jump       1.09
Prechtel   1.02
Lacie H     1.00
Williams   0.99

[JJJ]

So Brink really is as awesome as many of us think!

[JJJ]

So Brink really is as awesome as many of us think!

[KenCard]

So Brink really is as awesome as many of us think!

I like +/-, too, if the sample size is large.  But the stat I look at a lot for any basketball team is simply minutes per game.  To me it's an indication of how the coach values the importance of the various players.  I'm pretty sure this metric only includes games in which the player actually played, even if available.  I'd rather have it include zero minutes played if the player is available for a given game.  So it can be skewed a bit.  It's fun to compare what the coach thinks with what I think.

[KenCard]

So Brink really is as awesome as many of us think!

I like +/-, too, if the sample size is large.  But the stat I look at a lot for any basketball team is simply minutes per game.  To me it's an indication of how the coach values the importance of the various players.  I'm pretty sure this metric only includes games in which the player actually played, even if available.  I'd rather have it include zero minutes played if the player is available for a given game.  So it can be skewed a bit.  It's fun to compare what the coach thinks with what I think.

[M T]

+/- per 40 minutes for conference games (missing Washington game, fromStatbroadcast)
Wilson 21.0
Belibi 18.3
Lexie 20.0
Williams 15.6
Jones 19.3
Agnes 24.0
Jana 32.9
Jerome -12.8
Prechtel 26.5
Brink 23.6
Lacie 22.5
Jump 27.1

Agnes only had 10 minutes playing time so her value would have a wide confidence interval.
Jerome has not been effective but everyone else has.
This doesn't adequately take into account the quality of the opponents.

Other than Jerome, the lowest is Kiana! 
Such a well respected player has had the 2nd lowest +/- per minute.  To me that's a sign of how good this team is.
Or how well the game plan works for getting the most of each player.

[M T]

+/- per 40 minutes for conference games (missing Washington game, fromStatbroadcast)
Wilson 21.0
Belibi 18.3
Lexie 20.0
Williams 15.6
Jones 19.3
Agnes 24.0
Jana 32.9
Jerome -12.8
Prechtel 26.5
Brink 23.6
Lacie 22.5
Jump 27.1

Agnes only had 10 minutes playing time so her value would have a wide confidence interval.
Jerome has not been effective but everyone else has.
This doesn't adequately take into account the quality of the opponents.

Other than Jerome, the lowest is Kiana! 
Such a well respected player has had the 2nd lowest +/- per minute.  To me that's a sign of how good this team is.
Or how well the game plan works for getting the most of each player.

[Hulk01]

Agree that minutes per game is a telling statistic.

I wish for a stat that measured true defensive disruptiveness--in a man-to-man defense the ability to minimize the other player's effectiveness in her team's offensive scheme.  Anna Wilson and Lexie Hull have done that consistently this year;  Anna's defense on Aari McDonald and Paopao were keys to those Stanford wins.

[Hulk01]

Agree that minutes per game is a telling statistic.

I wish for a stat that measured true defensive disruptiveness--in a man-to-man defense the ability to minimize the other player's effectiveness in her team's offensive scheme.  Anna Wilson and Lexie Hull have done that consistently this year;  Anna's defense on Aari McDonald and Paopao were keys to those Stanford wins.

[TheFarm07]

Minutes per game:

Belibi                  20.1
Brink                  15.7
Emma-Nnopu      6.9
La. Hull              18.4
Le. Hull              25.3
Jerome              6.3
Jones                 27.9
Jump                 15.8
Prechtel             11.4
Van Gytenbeek    9.0
Williams             31.3
Wilson                21.2

[TheFarm07]

Minutes per game:

Belibi                  20.1
Brink                  15.7
Emma-Nnopu      6.9
La. Hull              18.4
Le. Hull              25.3
Jerome              6.3
Jones                 27.9
Jump                 15.8
Prechtel             11.4
Van Gytenbeek    9.0
Williams             31.3
Wilson                21.2

[teejers1]

Minutes per game:

Belibi                  20.1
Brink                  15.7
Emma-Nnopu      6.9
La. Hull              18.4
Le. Hull              25.3
Jerome              6.3
Jones                 27.9
Jump                 15.8
Prechtel             11.4
Van Gytenbeek    9.0
Williams             31.3
Wilson                21.2

MPG as a stat is "telling" insofar as it gives you the best indicator of who Tara likes to play (i.e., has confidence in their play).  Ki and then Jones and then Lexie is exactly what all of us would have thought in season to date (also matches "indispensable" nature, certainly for first two names).  Think we all expect Brink's MPG to increase.  The rest?  Who knows.  I have my guesses but am done speculating here on PT front.

[teejers1]

Minutes per game:

Belibi                  20.1
Brink                  15.7
Emma-Nnopu      6.9
La. Hull              18.4
Le. Hull              25.3
Jerome              6.3
Jones                 27.9
Jump                 15.8
Prechtel             11.4
Van Gytenbeek    9.0
Williams             31.3
Wilson                21.2

MPG as a stat is "telling" insofar as it gives you the best indicator of who Tara likes to play (i.e., has confidence in their play).  Ki and then Jones and then Lexie is exactly what all of us would have thought in season to date (also matches "indispensable" nature, certainly for first two names).  Think we all expect Brink's MPG to increase.  The rest?  Who knows.  I have my guesses but am done speculating here on PT front.

[Hulk01]

Tara must feel better about Prechtel and Van Gytenbeek after their Oregon performances. 

The issue with Prechtel's future playing time, of course,
is tied to Belibi's and Brink's.

[Hulk01]

Tara must feel better about Prechtel and Van Gytenbeek after their Oregon performances. 

The issue with Prechtel's future playing time, of course,
is tied to Belibi's and Brink's.

[qwerty49]

+/- per 40 minutes for conference games (missing Washington game, fromStatbroadcast)
Wilson 21.0
Belibi 18.3
Lexie 20.0
Williams 15.6
Jones 19.3
Agnes 24.0
Jana 32.9
Jerome -12.8
Prechtel 26.5
Brink 23.6
Lacie 22.5
Jump 27.1

Agnes only had 10 minutes playing time so her value would have a wide confidence interval.
Jerome has not been effective but everyone else has.
This doesn't adequately take into account the quality of the opponents.

Other than Jerome, the lowest is Kiana! 
Such a well respected player has had the 2nd lowest +/- per minute.  To me that's a sign of how good this team is.
Or how well the game plan works for getting the most of each player.

With respect, I think this stat is interesting but somewhat misleading because we are so deep that our reserves are generally way better than our opponents' reserves.  I think this stat tends to reflect who is doing well during garbage time, when the opponents are not too motivated.  Just my opinion but I don't think +/- per 40 min holds much water.

[qwerty49]

+/- per 40 minutes for conference games (missing Washington game, fromStatbroadcast)
Wilson 21.0
Belibi 18.3
Lexie 20.0
Williams 15.6
Jones 19.3
Agnes 24.0
Jana 32.9
Jerome -12.8
Prechtel 26.5
Brink 23.6
Lacie 22.5
Jump 27.1

Agnes only had 10 minutes playing time so her value would have a wide confidence interval.
Jerome has not been effective but everyone else has.
This doesn't adequately take into account the quality of the opponents.

Other than Jerome, the lowest is Kiana! 
Such a well respected player has had the 2nd lowest +/- per minute.  To me that's a sign of how good this team is.
Or how well the game plan works for getting the most of each player.

With respect, I think this stat is interesting but somewhat misleading because we are so deep that our reserves are generally way better than our opponents' reserves.  I think this stat tends to reflect who is doing well during garbage time, when the opponents are not too motivated.  Just my opinion but I don't think +/- per 40 min holds much water.

[M T]

+/- per 40 minutes for conference games (missing Washington game, fromStatbroadcast)
...
This doesn't adequately take into account the quality of the opponents.
...

With respect, I think this stat is interesting but somewhat misleading because we are so deep that our reserves are generally way better than our opponents' reserves.  I think this stat tends to reflect who is doing well during garbage time, when the opponents are not too motivated.  Just my opinion but I don't think +/- per 40 min holds much water.

What would hold water?
Not shooting percentage as that is offense only.
Not blocks as that is defense only and depends on playing time (and quality of opponent).
Not points/game as that depends directly upon playing time which varies wildly from player to player and neglects defense or role on the court (play maker).
Not points/40min as that neglects defense.
Not +/- because that again depends directly upon playing time.

Please suggest what would hold water for you.

I'd love to find a way to compare the relative value of a post, a defender, a sharpshooter, and a play maker from the same team.
(This does NOT work to compare players on different teams.)
+/- per 40 minutes is the best way I know of but maybe you've got something better.

[M T]

+/- per 40 minutes for conference games (missing Washington game, fromStatbroadcast)
...
This doesn't adequately take into account the quality of the opponents.
...

With respect, I think this stat is interesting but somewhat misleading because we are so deep that our reserves are generally way better than our opponents' reserves.  I think this stat tends to reflect who is doing well during garbage time, when the opponents are not too motivated.  Just my opinion but I don't think +/- per 40 min holds much water.

What would hold water?
Not shooting percentage as that is offense only.
Not blocks as that is defense only and depends on playing time (and quality of opponent).
Not points/game as that depends directly upon playing time which varies wildly from player to player and neglects defense or role on the court (play maker).
Not points/40min as that neglects defense.
Not +/- because that again depends directly upon playing time.

Please suggest what would hold water for you.

I'd love to find a way to compare the relative value of a post, a defender, a sharpshooter, and a play maker from the same team.
(This does NOT work to compare players on different teams.)
+/- per 40 minutes is the best way I know of but maybe you've got something better.

[BostonCard]

This is the fundamental problem with any summary statistic; any simple number that tries to summarize a larger dataset.  The problem is not the statistic itself (which, after all, is just derived from a mathematical operation), but rather its interpretation.  All the statistics put forward tell us a little bit about the contributions of individual players in this team sport, but all will also miss subtleties or be biased, and it is just important to be aware of the limitations, not to automatically disqualify them because they have some limitation.

BC

[BostonCard]

This is the fundamental problem with any summary statistic; any simple number that tries to summarize a larger dataset.  The problem is not the statistic itself (which, after all, is just derived from a mathematical operation), but rather its interpretation.  All the statistics put forward tell us a little bit about the contributions of individual players in this team sport, but all will also miss subtleties or be biased, and it is just important to be aware of the limitations, not to automatically disqualify them because they have some limitation.

BC

[qwerty49]

+/- per 40 minutes for conference games (missing Washington game, fromStatbroadcast)
...
This doesn't adequately take into account the quality of the opponents.
...

With respect, I think this stat is interesting but somewhat misleading because we are so deep that our reserves are generally way better than our opponents' reserves.  I think this stat tends to reflect who is doing well during garbage time, when the opponents are not too motivated.  Just my opinion but I don't think +/- per 40 min holds much water.

What would hold water?
Not shooting percentage as that is offense only.
Not blocks as that is defense only and depends on playing time (and quality of opponent).
Not points/game as that depends directly upon playing time which varies wildly from player to player and neglects defense or role on the court (play maker).
Not points/40min as that neglects defense.
Not +/- because that again depends directly upon playing time.

Please suggest what would hold water for you. 

I'd love to find a way to compare the relative value of a post, a defender, a sharpshooter, and a play maker from the same team.
(This does NOT work to compare players on different teams.)
+/- per 40 minutes is the best way I know of but maybe you've got something better.

I don't have an answer, largely for the reasons BC cited above.  This is like pushing a piece of string.  I don't believe the "magic stat" you describe exists.  I actually think +/- is the best of all evils here.  Yes, it reflects playing time, but playing time is also in itself a reflection of value, and of matchups, at least in the coaching staff's eyes.

[qwerty49]

+/- per 40 minutes for conference games (missing Washington game, fromStatbroadcast)
...
This doesn't adequately take into account the quality of the opponents.
...

With respect, I think this stat is interesting but somewhat misleading because we are so deep that our reserves are generally way better than our opponents' reserves.  I think this stat tends to reflect who is doing well during garbage time, when the opponents are not too motivated.  Just my opinion but I don't think +/- per 40 min holds much water.

What would hold water?
Not shooting percentage as that is offense only.
Not blocks as that is defense only and depends on playing time (and quality of opponent).
Not points/game as that depends directly upon playing time which varies wildly from player to player and neglects defense or role on the court (play maker).
Not points/40min as that neglects defense.
Not +/- because that again depends directly upon playing time.

Please suggest what would hold water for you. 

I'd love to find a way to compare the relative value of a post, a defender, a sharpshooter, and a play maker from the same team.
(This does NOT work to compare players on different teams.)
+/- per 40 minutes is the best way I know of but maybe you've got something better.

I don't have an answer, largely for the reasons BC cited above.  This is like pushing a piece of string.  I don't believe the "magic stat" you describe exists.  I actually think +/- is the best of all evils here.  Yes, it reflects playing time, but playing time is also in itself a reflection of value, and of matchups, at least in the coaching staff's eyes.

[martyup]

This is the fundamental problem with any summary statistic; any simple number that tries to summarize a larger dataset.  The problem is not the statistic itself (which, after all, is just derived from a mathematical operation), but rather its interpretation.  All the statistics put forward tell us a little bit about the contributions of individual players in this team sport, but all will also miss subtleties or be biased, and it is just important to be aware of the limitations, not to automatically disqualify them because they have some limitation.

BC

This suggests that what is needed is a statistical index for an individual's performance in a team sport.  

In statistics and research design, an index is a composite statistic - a measure of changes in a representative group of individual data points, or in other words, a compound measure that aggregates multiple indicators. Indexes - also known as composite indicators - summarize and rank specific observations.

Come on, this is a Stanford sports board.  Who is going to step up and be the creator of the "_____  Index."

[martyup]

This is the fundamental problem with any summary statistic; any simple number that tries to summarize a larger dataset.  The problem is not the statistic itself (which, after all, is just derived from a mathematical operation), but rather its interpretation.  All the statistics put forward tell us a little bit about the contributions of individual players in this team sport, but all will also miss subtleties or be biased, and it is just important to be aware of the limitations, not to automatically disqualify them because they have some limitation.

BC

This suggests that what is needed is a statistical index for an individual's performance in a team sport.  

In statistics and research design, an index is a composite statistic - a measure of changes in a representative group of individual data points, or in other words, a compound measure that aggregates multiple indicators. Indexes - also known as composite indicators - summarize and rank specific observations.

Come on, this is a Stanford sports board.  Who is going to step up and be the creator of the "_____  Index."