Man, that's going to be tough. Good Luck!
ACE: Need your help - suggestions for basketball UFR
I don't know if it will be harder than a football UFR. For football, we chart every play, offense and defense. Many games, that's over 120 plays.
Basketball games are shorter, especially Big Ten basketball games. You won't have to chart every pass, just every possession.
there are so many more bball games though and not much time in between.
Oh, on a per-game basis, there's no comparison—I still have no idea how Brian does the football UFRs each week and actually manages to write, you know, other stuff. There's just far fewer things to look for—and fewer types of plays—in hoops. The only thing that makes a regular hoops UFR difficult is the sheer number of games.
Oh, good call, I didn't even think about that number of games part. Then yes, that will be a major pain for you.
Since blocks would show up in the stats.
For shots - knowing the type of defense (zone, man)
Title - Full Court Press
Full Court Press is the leader in the clubhouse right now. I like that a lot.
And yes, I should've mentioned that I'll have a similar format to football UFRs in terms of listing time, score, and type of defense, as well as noting the personnel on the floor. Any other suggestions for what should be charted for every play are very much welcome.
AABGWOCAR= Actual Analysis of a Basketball Game Without Crying About the Refs; Pronounced aab-gwoh-car.
A Maizin' Compilation
Call it The ACE (Assessing Culpability & Execution)
Well played. I'm not actually narcissistic enough to use this, but well played.
i think your first category - shot selection is most important. as a companion to shot selection, you should see what alternatives there were (i.e. the movement of the rest of the players, other players open for better shots, passing lanes, shot clock considerations, etc.)
good luck, this is a tough undertaking.
I think the shot selection is the most important too and maybe the most difficullt thing to track.
Especially hard for our team because we shoot lots of 3s. Sometimes I'm not sure if that was the best shot or if the team should have worked it around more or to the inside.
Ace, sorry this is off the topic. DO YOU HAVE A FACEBOOK? or atleast a picture somewhere.
I do have a Facebook, though I prefer to keep that private—I hope no one takes offense to this, but I don't accept friend requests from people I don't know (the internet doesn't count), mostly for privacy/security reasons. Facebook is pretty much the last internet outpost I have with some modicum of privacy.
You can find my picture on Twitter, though my avatar photo is actually around four years old. I've been trying to upload an avatar for here, but I still run into the old pair of error messages every time I try to do this. Help would be appreciated if you've found a workaround. Trust me, I'm not trying to hide or anything.
Totally understand. I was just curious because I do not want to referrence you just as "Ace", but hopefully one day we can meet in person. Go blue.
Not sure why you put it in quotes, considering it's his real name. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure his actual name is Ace Anbender. Yeah his folks were cool like that.
"Basketball UFR" actually is a perfect name. Brian has said that UFR is the calling card of the blog, the central, main thing that it does around which most of the football analysis revolves. Therefore I think this is a thing where you should stick to the brand.
I think with turnovers, you should look for the actual culprit instead of who the turnover is assigned to. For example, if Trey Burke throws a beautiful pass at Jordan Morgan in position for an easy bucket, but Morgan's not paying attention and it sails out of bounds, Burke will get the turnover but really it's Morgan's fault. Same if, say, a screener sets a poor screen and the dribbler goes where the defense isn't supposed to be, but gets stripped because a defender got around the bad screen. Turnover culpability could be a thing.
An off-ball chart would be huge. I mean, theoretically that's 80% or more of a player's time spent on the court. If a guy is a lazy screener, or great at defensive positioning when his man doesn't have the ball, that's important to know.
I would love to see a metric that gave us a player's true +/- impact. I think basketball +/- is a lousy stat that needs work, but it would take UFR-level drilldown to make it happen. A point scored is a point scored, IME, but a metric that gave a player's defensive value - points added for a block, points taken away for a crappy defensive play, that kind of thing - that would be a great thing.
Agree 100% re: branding - no need to get overly cute/quirky with what I would consider the meat & potatoes of this site. Leave that for the gravy.
I agree completely, it needs to be called UFR if it's going to be a basketball UFR.
bUFR! I'd read it!
Examining free throws made and missed as a quotient of a player's contribution seems like it would be useful. Driving to the lane and getting fouled is great, but if you can't make a free throw, it's tantamount to a turnover. And this team is obviously going to have trouble making free throws.
Also, it would be good to account for "hustle plays" like diving for loose balls, tipping out rebounds, taking charges, and general harassment, especially on the defensive end. Someone needs to keep track of all the charges Novak takes.
I feel like the most useful thing you can work on is devising a concise and vivid way to account for individual defensive contribution beyond blocks and steals. I know Stu is our best defender, in part because he's tasked with defending the opposing team's best player every night, but I don't really know why he's so good, what makes him good. If you can somehow put numbers on that, I would really appreciate it.
Ideas for UFR Titles:
Basketball 20/20 (as in "hindsight is ____")
Notes From The Block
The Intangibles Inquiry
The Back Screen
The Backdoor Cut
The Posterization of Zack Novak
Distributing the Rock
Sounds like a great idea! Smotrycz would've gotten a minus one billion last night.
what's wrong with missing layups? jacking up 3s w/ 30 second on the shot clock?
To me he just looked a tad bit slower than he did last year. Maybe that is from the mass he cultivated in the offseason. I have faith in him to get into the flow and use his bigger frame to have a more complete game this season.
I don't know if we (meaning you) have any contacts on the staff that could share how they grade out games.
The thing that I like about the football UFR is that I feel our coaches could be using the same material. Or end up with similar results.
What about "A Beilein to the Truth" - you know, as it would presumably take one directly to what transpired during the game. Like a beeline. It's a pun. Not sure if there are issues with using a coach's name or not. Plus its easily abbreviated as BTTT.
If you can decipher my rambling:
Passes that lead to assists (aka hockey assists).
Assign bad pass turnovers to the player who threw the sloppy pass, not the fingertips of the intended recipient.
Pick/roll defense. Did players switch when they were supposed to? Did somebody not fight through the screen? Was the pick not called out?
Grade a player negatively for giving up and-1s when a harder foul would have been necessary.
If a player is double teamed does he look for the open man or does he force a play?
Keep an eye out for guys cheating in the passing lanes and getting burned.
Credit charges! Also, if you could, point out any unnecessary flops that compromised the defense.
Failure to box out leading to missed rebounds and/or cheap offensive putbacks. Conversely, successful boxouts that paved the way for somebody to snatch up an easy rebound or drew an over the back would be nice.
I'll think of more.
Is there anyway you could just calculate each player's player efficiency rating (PER) as John Hollinger does for the NBA. I believe these rankings could give a great estimation to quantify a player's worth each game and also look a how that number changes over the course of a season. I believe that this could save a lot of time as I am sure all of the data can just be plugged into some Excel spreadsheet after each game to generate the PER value.
I love advanced basketball stats, but KenPom does such a good job with them, and the point of these posts would be to try to quantify the stuff that doesn't show up in any box score—much like how Brian's UFR is supposed to complement, not replace, advanced statistical measures and also your own impressions of the game.
Also, while season-long PER ratings are very significant, doing a rating for an individual game will have a lot of noise and probably wouldn't tell us too much beyond the obvious 'did he play well?' anyway.
This would be incredible if you could pull that off, and IME would allow MGoBlog to overtake UMHoops for best comprehensive Michigan basketball coverage. If you only did it for one game a week come Big Ten season, that might be a more reasonable approach than attempting every single game (IME that would require having a 2nd person do all of one side of the ball).
Rate shot quality, along with docking points if there was a better shot or passthe player could have taken or made. Consider the player taking the shot; an extreme case is if a poor 3-point shooter is the one taking the shot, and using poor form to do so. Consider also the circumstances, like dealing with fast-break opportunities vs half-court sets.
I look forward to seeing what you come up with for the Maui Invitational, and how it could evolve over time.
I'd think it feasible to do an analysis of highlight standard packages so he wouldn't have to watch every play of every game but could still provide insight as to why such and such a high/lowlight came to be.
You're talking about basketball picture pages right?
I think it'll be important to track shots created. For example, give Trey Burke a point for a well-executed drive and kick that results in an open jump shot, even if that shot isn't made. Likewise, account for open shots that players create for themselves (e.g. Tim Hardaway creating an open step-back jumper for himself) vs. shots that fall into players' laps (from something like the above-mentioned drive and kick).
It seems like we are going to play a lot of different guys this year and that Beilein is still experimenting with putting guys together in different combinations and putting guys like Novak at different positions. I think some sort of detailed +/- analysis by lineup grouping might be interesting, especially with this team. Do we defend better or accomplish more on the glass if we go big? Do we score more if we go small and does that make up for any losses defensively? Does it help to have Burke and Stu on the floor at the same time to give us more ball handlers?
Might be neat and might contain some of the other stuff you would have focused on and allow you to save a little time (seriously, this sounds like it could ruin a person's life if you did it in too much detail).
On defense, I think it would be good to keep track of shots altered. You could tally especially effective close-outs on the perimeter, as well as interior shots that are missed out of intimidation (this will probably be more relevant next year; looking at you, Mitch McGary).
For the record, I think a basketball UFR is a
terrific tremendous idea.
is understating the undertaking here. While there are theoretically "plays" and Coach B obviously has a scheme, a lot of basketball is instant on court decision making and isn't amenable to a UFR-type analysis.
This sounds like it may be more of a sabremetrics or stats-that-really-matter type approach, which will be awesome in its own right. Outside the Box, perhaps?
I think if you do it, the obvious thing is to chart each possession the way Brian charts plays. But one major change would be that I think you'd have to list offensive and defensive possessions consecutively. The flow of the game is such that doing an offense UFR and a defense UFR would be confusing. I'd suggest highlighting Michigan possessions in blue (a la current UFR), and opponent possessions in whatever their main color is.
Yeah, I think the unit of analysis has to be a "possession", and possession resets with every change in possession (duh) and every shot attempt.
Lots of good suggestions already here. Like Brian scores Denard on the zone reads, you'll need to have a metric of "shoot or pass" (or shoot or pass or dribble).
I look forward to your Maui trial run -- after you do it you'll have a sense of what you like/don't like to follow, and then you'll get reaction-posts as opposed to "anything in the ether" posts.
That should be the title. Just sayin.
A good pass that leads to free throws and a pass that leads to a pass for an assist, IE a skip pass. Another thing that might be hard to track but helps you win games is getting a 50-50 ball.
Make it an MgoBlog institution.
Upon further review (i.e., a quick chat with Brian), we're going with UFR. So yeah, MGoBlog institution it is.
Call it the Buffer
But I like a few ideas from above:
Adjusted Shooting Percentage ideas (Quanitfying shot selection. Do all the end-of-shotclock-desperation-throws need to count in shooting percentage? Same idea that Denard's End of half hail-mary is an INT... but not an important "miss".)
I'm a former basketball player, so I know more about schematics here than I do about football. I'm not sure what the end result of what you want to do is here. The numbers that traditionally tell you who is being effective (points, rebounds, assists, steals, charges, FT %) are pretty straightforward.
Further, unless you specifically know the play calls, how are you going to judge who is doing what correctly? On defense, if you aren't sitting in the pre-game planning session and don't know how, for example, Beilein plans to defend Sullinger (perhaps switching possession to possession), how can you judge it beyond the cosmetic and the known (FG %, blocks, etc.)
I'm just not sure you want to go down the road of deeming who is playing well and who is not based upon what you think you're seeing, as opposed to what the coaches and players actually know they're to be doing. Despite what it might look like, basketball is an exceedingly complex game of technique and precision.
This is a point of view I very much understand, but unfortunately, it's not like I can be in the pre-game meetings—you could point to the exact same issue for football UFR. I know basketball is complicated, and I don't know everything that Beilein wants his guys to do out there, but there are still things that can be pointed out based on a general knowledge of the sport.
These posts will be tweaked and altered over time, much like the football UFRs, as I learn more about which metrics work best and which ones either don't provide good information or are simply superflous. I'm always open to suggestions and input, especially from players/coaches with a deeper understanding of the game. I just don't think it makes sense to scrap the idea entirely because I'm not a player or coach—as long as my limitations are acknowledged, and people understand that this is a tool for analyzing the game, and not the be-all-end-all of game breakdowns, then I think it can be very valuable.
Wouldn't basketball be the same as football in the way you can infer on what's suppose to happen. If you have a high football IQ you understand what is suppose to happen on a given play while watching the game. Now I don't have a great basketball IQ but why can't you do the same? I can look at basketball games and understand who messed up where and who was out of position and so on, so I would imagine people with a much better IQ can deliver a product like Ace is saying. Or am I totally off base here?
Let me give you an example:
Pretend Michigan is running a base 1-4 high offense. They run this offense through an entire cycle and end up with 12 seconds to go on the shot clock. After this, Burke resets the team, goes into a high-low post set, utilizes a screen-roll, and gets a 15-foot jumper which misses. The opposition gets the rebound.
Based on what I just wrote, a "results-based charting service" would look at this, possibly see three missed screens (of course, do we know the picker was supposed to screen, or just shadow screen and drop, etc.), maybe see two rebounders and ding them for not getting what looks to be an offensive rebound for the taking.
Of course, the decision on who/how/why to screen depends on not only the offensive player but also the defender and the defense being played. Also, your decision to go for the boards isn't objective, it's subjective (how many fouls, who are you defending, what's the lead, etc.) Finally, what's the defensive playcall - 1-3-1, 2-3, matchup based on where the ball is, press, box and 1, triangle and 2, zone-to-man after 2 passes?
I'm not saying someone can't do this. Best of luck to Ace - I tried doing one half of a Gopher game a couple years back and I quit after five minutes of game action. What I'm saying is that without knowing more information the ground, this becomes an exercise where the analyst is creating facts to fit a story/theme.
As a dude who's played a lot of b-ball, I'll tell you it's complicated. The reason is that there are a lot of open-ended plays. It's like an option in football, but instead of reading one defender, then bitching or going, you're reading multiple dudes, then it's three passes later than someone scores. Difficult, but not terribly complicated right?
Well, what happens when it's a mis-read? Or, rather, you THINK it's a mis-read? Is it the ball-handler's fault for not reading the options, is it his teammate's fault for not being in the correct position, or is it some combination? Adding to that, what happens when the play gets derped up, yet THJ just dunks on a fool because the D derped-up worse? Is that a +3 for "dunking on a fool" or a -1 for "WTF, run the damn play?"
Also, one play leads to another quite often, and plays can sometimes not develop. For instance, if I'm supposed to run a play where I pass to the big on the block, yet my defender goes "I don't want to defend you" and I drive by for a score, then how do you rate the big? I mean, he ran his part of the play, but he didn't really add anything USEFUL to the offense, so?...
In summary, it's a complicated picture. Yes, it can be done. This is why there are coaches and assistants. (My last head coach's previous job was to do just this for the Cavs.) While it can be done, it requires a LOT of video, and a very good understanding of things. IE, why do people drive to the hoop. (And I'm not talking about "because it was open." I want to know WHY it was open. And again, that's complicated.)
Michigan is playing Ohio State and playing man-to-man defense. The coaches have told the players that, when OSU runs a certain play, one guy is supposed to leave his man and double Sullinger. This assignment only applies on this one play (and maybe only when certain personnel are running it for OSU). The Michigan defender who should double does not, for some reason, and another defender tries to make up for it, running to double Sullinger but arriving late and being ineffective.
If you don't know the defensive rule that the coaches applied, you probably mark the doubling defender down for being late and ineffective. But he's not the one who deserves blame on the play.
I'm not sure basketball is well suited to a quantified system that gives individual player grades, especially not when an outsider is doing the grading.
Why not do something like what NBA Playbook does? That's a terrific website.
Ball Pressure-I think it is very important to consider how much pressure we put on the ball defensively.This would be very similar to the pressure metric in the UFR. Putting good pressure on the person with the ball makes it harder for him to make plays for anyone else. Tipped passes or hard pressure that leads to a steal could be pluses while allowing easy passes into the post or allowing good shooters to take easy shots would be minuses.
First of all, you've got a decision: do you want to make it based off athleticism, technique, or both? For instance, at 3:27 2nd half of last game THJ makes a catch that's purely athletic. Technique-wise this is a poor play, athletic-wise this is a great play. My guess is you want to lean more towards technique, with a few allowances for great athleticism (for instance, making an amazing dunk, after screwing up the play.)
So, you want to know more than just regular stats. Obviously, advanced stats are a good place to start. However, I've got a few additional stats that I watch, based off our team's goals in each game.
Assists: they suck as a stat. What happens when I pass to my teammate for an alley-oop and he DROPS THE FRIGGIN BALL! (yes, this did happen. There was no one else near. It was a good pass. I want my damn assist.)
Assisted Shots: are a good stat. It shows how many times you give people wide open shots, which you directly control. How I measure this is assisted shots (wide open shots) are the denominator. Then, the amount of MADE assisted shots is the numerator. IE, if Novak misses an assisted shot by Burke, Burke gets a 0/1 AS. If then Morgan dunks an AS by Burke it's 1/2. You get what I'm saying? Of course you do, you graduated from UM.
Rebounds: suck as a stat. Yes, you control whether you've boxed your man out. No, you don't control whether the ball comes your way, nor whether your derp teammate standing next to you has boxed his man out. Nor can you control getting screwed on a switch as a 5'10 guard against a 6'10 giant/leviation/behemoth. (This happened also. I got put-back-dunked on. I was mad.) So...
Box-outs: number of men boxed out after each missed shot. For instance, if Burke boxes out that behemoth then Burke gets a 1/1. If Novak misses his man, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE BALL COMES TO HIM, that's a 0/1. Add these totals up and you've got X/5. For the whole game, this should be a good indicator on whether we're keeping up on the boards. It's better than pure rebounds, rebound %, etc because the players each control whether they get that stat.
On plays: They're super-hard to read in basketball unless you know what you're looking for. Kinda like FB, but much more free-form. This gets especially true when the game speeds up and when the shot clock is winding down. I watch every game and even I don't know all the plays that we use. (Granted, I don't watch for every play). So, it's pretty hard to know which play is happenning, especially since multiple plays commonly happen on one possession. Obviously, you'll want to look for the hand signal of the ball-carrier, but this makes it harder as you then have to pause and slowly watch the OFF-BALL players go through their progressions. And even then, the play usually goes awry as something else opens up. So, unless you're watching multiple games, you're not going to know many of the plays fully. This leads to the problem of "how do you tell whether someone did their job in the play". I really don't have an answer for that besides "watch a shit-load of plays, yo".
Random other poop: Our team needs scorers. But scorers don't just score points. They go through progressions in a play, in a game, and over a year. The important point is to notice in which positions they score. For instance, Burke is a shooter (if he drives, he will dish against better opponents.) But, more specifically, when he's left in an iso play, he'll drive and look for the lay-up. THJ is a scorer (both shooter and driver). But, most of his drives are off isos and screens from the man in the 5 position (Morgan, Horford, or Smot). So, a good measure for how active offensively THJ and Burke are is "how many isos are called" and "# of screen/rolls with the 5".
I don't know if any of this is going to be used. I do hope it's been a help. The main points are:
1.) You aren't gonna know many of the plays if you don't watch a lot, bro.
2.) A lot of stats suck. Use that brain of yours to figure out which common stats do, and throw them out. Try to use ones that each player actually controls.
3.) Please, friggin, please don't just say "THJ scored because he beat his man off an amazing dribble." Know the footwork (was the defender leaning left? How high was his butt?) and incorporate it. The players do.
Oh, and uh, good luck.
P.S. I am a basketball nerd. I keep these stats for fun (I am a lonely, lonely person). I would be willing to assist in helping a UFR for basketball in the future. In fact, I would be enamored with the idea. Since you should know my email, if you want me to research this stuff further, shoot me an email. Otherwise, I just hope this helped.
Buy out UMHoops
Teach Dylan to write with a little more flair
My concern is that where football has a lot of straight forward assignments, i.e., scrape over the top, block this guy, cut this back, etc., basketball is much more free-wheeling.
For example, let's say Jordan Morgan sets a nasty screen on THJ's defender, freeing up THJ for a wide open 18-footer. Morgan would be +1'd. But then THJ has the shot rim out. There was no benefit to Michigan on that play minus the screen.
It seems Brian has a value to each play and the +/- portion of the UFR reflects that. An 80-yard run gets so many pluses. A 4th and 1 play action on the road in blistering wind gets the opposite in minuses.
As someone who played and coached and now obsesses over advanced basketball stats, let me know if you need any help.
+ for good entry pass to the low block, direct assist for a basket, direct assist leading to two free throws, denying the wing pass that starts the offense, denying an entry feed, steal, making a shot, taking a charge
- for ignoring man in the post with position, turnover, getting beat off the dribble and breaking down the D, getting called for a charge, missing a layup, going iso when the situation doesn't call for it
Big Men -
+ for solid box-out leading to a rebound, offensive rebound, block, help defense leading to a contested miss, man defense leading to a contested miss, pick freeing up another player for an easy basket
- for dropping an easy pass for a basket, giving up an offensive board, not showing well on a screen-and-roll, failing to maintain help on a drive
It's going to be a challenge Ace. Good luck.
UFR seems to come from when the NFL first started having replay and the ref would always come back the field and say "Upon further review..." Now they seem to just say whatever the hell they want, but usually "after review..."
I don't know what the basketball version of this is. Is there any standard saying for when a play is reviewed? I think they just make a hand/arm signal.
That is a long way of saying I think you should stick with UFR.
Also, I believe other Michigan/other schools' sites have done something similar. Maybe you could try researching the college bball blogosphere to get some resources, so UFRs are somewhat consistent. I'm sure some nerd at Duke is coming up with something to help you. I wouldn't suggest looking at MSU blogs, though.
I think this idea is great and it will definetely help us all understand how our team is developing! Looking forward to it.
A quick concern: A count on ESPN's play-by-play showed about ~100 posessions total from the W. Illinois game. I feel if you break it down by possession is may be A LOT of work. Have you thought about breaking it down another way? Maybe like minute or two minute intervals? Or team and media timeouts? And then between those breaking everything down?
If you want the points to mean something, you need to be consistent with how they are given out. Maybe the best would be to create a certain number of points per offensive or defensive possession and then just figure out how to split them up based on what happened.
This isn't like football where you can get many results of different value to the final outcome except maybe a bit of magnification of value down the stretch.
Maybe something like this would work:
Assign something like an expected value for a possession - like +1
Offence - +1 for 2 points scored, +2 for 3 points scored, 0 for a single point (FT), and -1 for a possession with no points.
Defense - +1 for a stop, 0 for a single point, -1 for a basket given up, -2 for a 3 pointer
Then the rest is giving credit or assigning blame by judging all the factors involved. If you don't want to put it on a specific player for a great shot by an opponent, you can create a TEAM category which can also be given the point hit. But likely, it would be better to just spread the points evenly among the players on the court.
This way, by evolving a consistent assignment of points, you can determine how much each player is contributing to a final result. Big wins will have a bigger plus result and losses will be the opposite.
In the end, you get something similar to a + / - charting, but you will be making more specific assignments of value rather than just being on the court.
Just want to say thanks to everyone for their input—I'll be taking all of this into consideration when I put the initial UFR together (it probably won't be up next week, since it's OSU week, but early the following week is the goal). If I didn't get to your comment, it's not because I didn't read it, only that there were so many comments (and for that, I thank you all again).
I'll keep checking in on this thread, so keep the suggestions coming if you're so inclined. I really appreciate all of the input.
Is a hockey UFR possible in the future? If you can tackle basketball (IMO the hardest part of doing this for a sport other than football is breaking down the beginning and ending of plays consistently, there aren't cut and dry plays in hockey or basketball like football) hockey should be possible as well.
Obviously if you're doing basketball and recruiting you wouldn't have the time, and Brian's swamped too, I'm sure, but has there been discussion of getting one going after you get basketball up and running?
We haven't discussed hockey stuff yet, but that one could be a lot more difficult to do than football and hoops. First of all, there's the issue of plays—football's obviously clear-cut, while hoops has definite possessions. Hockey... not so much. The bigger issue is with TV. To do these, you really need to go over (and over and over) game tape, and hockey just isn't televised that much at this point.
There's also the issue that many, many more people care about football and hoops than hockey, and we all have only so many hours in the day—the time it would take to put together could probably be better spent on other things related to the blog. Maybe it's possible down the road, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a hockey UFR coming out any time soon.
a college basketball coach I knew pretty well said one of the most telling stats he focused on was points per possession. Now I haven't attempted to keep track of that stat in many years, but I remember the number .85 pts/possession as being a benchmark number. I'd be curious to see if that number is still accurate and if the stat itself is relevant. Obviously it's a good way to get a gauge of how a team compares to others in terms of possession efficiency, but the benchmark number may be way off.
Tim used to do them on Varsity Blue. See if they are still in google cache. I don't know how to check cache. I did them for my son's teams using that format and they were really helpful.
especially, I would be interested in seeing average time of possesion. At least in basketball, the mark of a good defense is running down the shot clock low and often. So I think average time of possession (minus those with offensive rebounds) would be a good benchmark.
Steals. A team which causes a lot of TOs would be penalized by this system.
IE, every turn over you force on D makes this TOP lower, even though you did a good thing.
The assassin metric - those moments in games where someone (usually THJ last year) just turned into an assassin for about five minutes late in the game - I remember a couple of games last year where THJ basically stepped on their throat, threw them in a box and put the final nail in. Try to measure who tries to be that assassin and how successful they are - I.e. Burke may try to go off and finish them off but miss the shots, turn the ball over, etc. Or on another occasion go off and make a steal, a couple of threes, and a couple of great assists to put a team away. This would shed light on who is going to try to step up and who we actual want to step up. And to determine/track whether the team is finding a killer instinct.
And you can call it the GTFOMC metric
one thing that definitely should be kept track of is when a player does a good job boxing his man out, even if he doesnt grab the rebound.
Since you will have so much time to evaluate each game, turnovers should be reported as an absolute number and as a percentage of touches.
I would suggest a minimal table of requisite information for each possesion followed by a list of plus minus contributions on an as-appropriate basis for each play. Trying to score everyone in a number of different areas on each possession would be tediuous and produce a hard to read table.
So each possession might start with a header row with Off/Def, clock time, generic play type, possession result, and the game score following possession.
This would be followed with 0-? rows of +/- scores for individual players as appropriate. This could consist of Player name, score +/-, score category (e.g. hustle, passing, shot selection, ... could be quite a few categories), and a brief specific comment.
An optional general comment on the possession could follow, comparable to the description field of the football UFR.
Summary tables could add up all the plus minuses and break out by category.
Anyway, that is one implementation I would suggest. Of course, I am also looking at this from the perspective of how to turn it into an enhanced version with linked video, so I may have specific biases :)