[外絮] ISOLATION SCORING
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=248305
火箭論壇的分析
ISOLATION SCORING, Statistical analysis of LIN vs HARDEN and the top 50
scorers ISO rankings
every corner of the internet has an opinion on ISO ball it seems. Who is
efficient at this particular shot and who is really really bad and should be
getting ridiculed for their continued shot selection which is hurting their
team. First lets look at the battle between Harden vs Lin
James Harden VS Jeremy Lin
Both terrific offensive players who have shown to be proven scoeres when
required, the debate between Harden and Lin in relation to isolations is
intriguing. so who is statistically better?
http://ppt.cc/ByBQ
(harden's data is in the white rows shown before Lins data in the grey rows)
Thats right, they are exactly the same on PPP (points per possession),
interesting after the hot start got off to at the start of the year Lin got
off to and the sluggish start James got off to, that the data still shows
both players converting at .97 PPS ranking them 17th in the league in
qualified players.
Although harden has almost 4x the amount of shots and only converting on
36.6% of shots for Harden to still be converting at a rate of .97 is
exceptional when compared to other notable players in the league.
簡單說
在ISO的表現上 Lin跟 Harden目前為止幾乎是同樣出色
聯盟球員中同樣排名17
http://ppt.cc/3Rsa
also the table above shows Houston as a whole performance in the isolations.
We rank middle of the pack at 16th and have a PPP of .81 which are both below
out 2 primary ball handlers.
然而火箭整體在ISO的表現只能算是中下 排名16
(總體攻擊表現倒是排名第3)
How the Top 50 scorers perform in isolations. note (lin does not qualify for
this list)
Im sure before you look at the graph i created you already have some wild
guesses, for instance "rudy gay will be inefficient" and from creating this
their wasnt really that many concerns. The biggest surprise to me was Lebron
only boasting a PPP on isolations of .85 which compared to the average for
percentage of isolations he takes is below average.
http://ppt.cc/PQL7
- Harden is above the average for the amount of shots taken. note even though
Parsons takes only 7.4% of his shots been isolations but converts them at a
terrible .54 PPP. Perhaps its the small sample size and will be interesting
to watch his stats.
- also secondly although dwight qualifies for the top 50 scorers he has only
taken 2 isolation plays for the year which equates to .5% of his total shots
and has not made one.
- if you would like to know where Lin would be on this graph then he would be
positioned just to the left of Dragic which like James Harden is above league
average
- Rudy gay is Rudy Gay, he takes the most ISO's for the amount of shots he
takes and is terribly inefficient
- Eric Bledsoe is ranked no.1 by synergy sports at 1.32 PPP as Wesley
Matthews 1.5PPP has not taken enough attempts.
高富帥在ISO上的表現非常差,PPP只有.54 (儘管有可能有小樣本偏差)
(ISO在他的攻擊手段中只佔了7.4%)
上面那張圖是前五十得分手的圖 Lin的分數跟出手次數都很低所以不會上榜
如果想知道他在上面那張ISO圖會排名哪裡 根據出手數量還有效率會在Gragic左邊
Rudy Gay ISO最多 但是效率頗差
目前ISO最強的是太陽的Bledsoe 1.5PPP領先群雄
(難怪太陽今年這麼強 一個水準以上的抓雞跟第一名的布雷獸...)
Conclusion
Whether it frustrates you or not, just think about it, it could be a whole
lot worse if we didn't have efficient scores like Harden and Lin. Also note
that Harden has improved his isolation scoring from .93 PPP to this years .97
even with his slow start to the year. Things are looking up Clutchfans, we
are coming
結論 如果沒有哈登跟Lin這兩個高效單打得分手的話會頗慘的
(好像廢話 可是其他不重要懶得翻)
=====================================
重點節錄
1.哈登跟Lin兩個人的ISO很強 不過哈登的ISO比重非常大 Lin就不是很高
2.火箭整體ISO的表現上不怎樣 只有聯盟中游水準
(上面那分析不曉得有沒有扣掉Lin跟哈登 沒有的話那頗慘的...雖然也只限ISO的部分)
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 134.208.32.48
※ ghghfftjack:轉錄至看板 Rockets 12/16 20:37
推
12/16 20:38, , 1F
12/16 20:38, 1F
推
12/16 20:42, , 2F
12/16 20:42, 2F
推
12/16 20:47, , 3F
12/16 20:47, 3F
推
12/16 20:48, , 4F
12/16 20:48, 4F
推
12/16 20:54, , 5F
12/16 20:54, 5F
※ 編輯: ghghfftjack 來自: 134.208.32.48 (12/16 20:55)
→
12/16 20:56, , 6F
12/16 20:56, 6F
推
12/16 21:05, , 7F
12/16 21:05, 7F
推
12/16 21:21, , 8F
12/16 21:21, 8F
推
12/16 21:22, , 9F
12/16 21:22, 9F
推
12/16 21:25, , 10F
12/16 21:25, 10F
推
12/16 21:34, , 11F
12/16 21:34, 11F
推
12/16 21:34, , 12F
12/16 21:34, 12F
→
12/16 21:50, , 13F
12/16 21:50, 13F
→
12/16 21:52, , 14F
12/16 21:52, 14F
推
12/16 22:02, , 15F
12/16 22:02, 15F
推
12/16 22:03, , 16F
12/16 22:03, 16F
推
12/16 22:07, , 17F
12/16 22:07, 17F
推
12/16 22:07, , 18F
12/16 22:07, 18F
推
12/16 22:08, , 19F
12/16 22:08, 19F
→
12/16 22:08, , 20F
12/16 22:08, 20F
→
12/16 22:08, , 21F
12/16 22:08, 21F
→
12/16 22:08, , 22F
12/16 22:08, 22F
推
12/16 22:13, , 23F
12/16 22:13, 23F
推
12/16 22:13, , 24F
12/16 22:13, 24F
推
12/16 22:13, , 25F
12/16 22:13, 25F
→
12/16 22:14, , 26F
12/16 22:14, 26F
→
12/16 22:15, , 27F
12/16 22:15, 27F
→
12/16 22:17, , 28F
12/16 22:17, 28F
→
12/16 22:18, , 29F
12/16 22:18, 29F
推
12/16 22:31, , 30F
12/16 22:31, 30F
推
12/16 22:34, , 31F
12/16 22:34, 31F
→
12/16 22:36, , 32F
12/16 22:36, 32F
推
12/16 22:43, , 33F
12/16 22:43, 33F
推
12/16 22:46, , 34F
12/16 22:46, 34F
→
12/16 22:47, , 35F
12/16 22:47, 35F
→
12/16 22:48, , 36F
12/16 22:48, 36F
推
12/16 22:48, , 37F
12/16 22:48, 37F
→
12/16 22:49, , 38F
12/16 22:49, 38F
→
12/16 22:49, , 39F
12/16 22:49, 39F
→
12/16 22:50, , 40F
12/16 22:50, 40F
→
12/16 22:50, , 41F
12/16 22:50, 41F
推
12/16 22:51, , 42F
12/16 22:51, 42F
→
12/16 22:52, , 43F
12/16 22:52, 43F
推
12/16 22:53, , 44F
12/16 22:53, 44F
→
12/16 22:54, , 45F
12/16 22:54, 45F
→
12/16 22:55, , 46F
12/16 22:55, 46F
推
12/16 22:56, , 47F
12/16 22:56, 47F
→
12/16 22:56, , 48F
12/16 22:56, 48F
→
12/16 22:56, , 49F
12/16 22:56, 49F
推
12/16 22:58, , 50F
12/16 22:58, 50F
→
12/16 22:59, , 51F
12/16 22:59, 51F
→
12/16 23:00, , 52F
12/16 23:00, 52F
→
12/16 23:00, , 53F
12/16 23:00, 53F
→
12/16 23:00, , 54F
12/16 23:00, 54F
→
12/16 23:01, , 55F
12/16 23:01, 55F
→
12/16 23:01, , 56F
12/16 23:01, 56F
→
12/16 23:02, , 57F
12/16 23:02, 57F
→
12/16 23:03, , 58F
12/16 23:03, 58F
→
12/16 23:03, , 59F
12/16 23:03, 59F
→
12/16 23:04, , 60F
12/16 23:04, 60F
→
12/16 23:04, , 61F
12/16 23:04, 61F
→
12/16 23:05, , 62F
12/16 23:05, 62F
→
12/16 23:06, , 63F
12/16 23:06, 63F
→
12/16 23:06, , 64F
12/16 23:06, 64F
→
12/16 23:07, , 65F
12/16 23:07, 65F
→
12/16 23:08, , 66F
12/16 23:08, 66F
→
12/16 23:09, , 67F
12/16 23:09, 67F
→
12/16 23:09, , 68F
12/16 23:09, 68F
推
12/16 23:13, , 69F
12/16 23:13, 69F
→
12/16 23:13, , 70F
12/16 23:13, 70F
推
12/16 23:22, , 71F
12/16 23:22, 71F
→
12/16 23:23, , 72F
12/16 23:23, 72F
→
12/16 23:24, , 73F
12/16 23:24, 73F
→
12/16 23:25, , 74F
12/16 23:25, 74F
→
12/16 23:27, , 75F
12/16 23:27, 75F
推
12/16 23:27, , 76F
12/16 23:27, 76F
→
12/16 23:27, , 77F
12/16 23:27, 77F
→
12/16 23:28, , 78F
12/16 23:28, 78F
推
12/16 23:30, , 79F
12/16 23:30, 79F
→
12/16 23:33, , 80F
12/16 23:33, 80F
→
12/16 23:35, , 81F
12/16 23:35, 81F
推
12/16 23:35, , 82F
12/16 23:35, 82F
→
12/16 23:35, , 83F
12/16 23:35, 83F
→
12/16 23:36, , 84F
12/16 23:36, 84F
推
12/16 23:43, , 85F
12/16 23:43, 85F
→
12/16 23:43, , 86F
12/16 23:43, 86F
推
12/16 23:44, , 87F
12/16 23:44, 87F
→
12/16 23:45, , 88F
12/16 23:45, 88F
→
12/16 23:46, , 89F
12/16 23:46, 89F
推
12/17 00:18, , 90F
12/17 00:18, 90F
ISO不完全等於切入 假若沒意外你說的 總板那個是說CP切入命中率高
※ 編輯: ghghfftjack 來自: 134.208.32.48 (12/17 00:20)
推
12/17 00:36, , 91F
12/17 00:36, 91F
→
12/17 00:36, , 92F
12/17 00:36, 92F
推
12/17 10:15, , 93F
12/17 10:15, 93F