Defensive Box Scores: Sacramento Kings 2004-05 Season

Ed has charted all kinds of details for every visible play of the Sacramento Kings 2004-05 season and assigned defensive responsibility for field goal attempts, free throws, and turnovers. Admittedly many instances require subjective evaluation, and frequently the credit/blame is split between two players or even allocated to the "Team" as a whole.

Explanations: (all stats reflect assigned responsibility to a player).
FGM - Field Goals Made
FGA - Field Goals Attemped
eFG - Effective Field Goal % (adjusts for 3-Pt shots made)
FTM - Free Throws Made
FTA - Free Throws Attempted
T/O - Forced Turnovers (whether actual steals, charges taken, pressed bad passes, travels induced, etc.)
Pts - Points Allowed
RTG - a rough "points per 100 possessions" allowed number for a specific defender.

Please note the RTG is not currently adjusted by the quality of the opposing player guarded, although this is likely to happen in the future!

Kings player defensive performance (through 1/30/2005)

Player	FGM	FGA	FG%	eFG	FTM	FTA	T/O	Pts	RTG
Daniels	4	17	.235	.235	6	7	3.5	14	60
Mobley	43	110	.391	.418	16	20	20.5	108	77
Ostertag	66.5	188	.354	.354	61.5	88	15.5	194.5	81
House	9	24.5	.367	.388	8	11	3	27	84
Jackson	43	117	.368	.408	44.5	57	25.5	140	84
Martin	25	60	.417	.454	10.5	16	7.5	65	87
Webber	199.5	438.5	.455	.468	85.5	122	80	496	87
Miller	311.5	698.5	.446	.461	113.5	169	104.5	758	87
Songaila	115.5	279.5	.413	.431	80.5	101.5	37	321.5	90
Christie	120	270.5	.444	.503	36	48	46.5	308	91
Stojakovic	174.5	401.5	.435	.482	74.5	103	59	461.5	91
Bibby	193	441	.438	.496	72	96	73.5	509.5	92
Evans	48	115.5	.416	.465	25.5	31.5	15	133	92
Team	49	108	.454	.500	21	27	11.5	129	99
Barnes	71.5	140.5	.509	.573	40	50	19.5	201	111
Bradley	4	5	.800	.800	5	6	0	13	175

Note: We are missing data from certain games where coverage was incomplete --
e.g. cutaways, pre-emptions from over-run broadcasts, etc.

It's interesting to compare the individual defensive "box score" data to the influence on overall team defense a player has when he is on the court

Player Team Defense Effect
(Points Allowed per 100 possessions)
Click on the player's name for in-depth statistics.

Player	On Court Defense	Off Court Defense	Team Net Defense
Songaila	102.3	107.7	-5.4
Christie	103.0	108.0	-5.0
Ostertag	102.4	106.3	-3.9
Miller	105.0	107.7	-2.7
Mobley	104.6	105.9	-1.3
Bibby	105.4	106.3	-0.9
Daniels	105.2	105.7	-0.5
Jackson	106.2	105.5	+0.7
Stojakovic	106.1	104.4	+1.7
Barnes	107.5	105.2	+2.3
Martin	107.7	105.3	+2.4
Evans	109.7	104.6	+5.1
House	110.7	105.3	+5.4
Webber	107.9	101.6	+6.3
Bradley	120.1	105.4	+14.7

Analysis: While on/off numbers have their issues (such as the raw versions do not adjust for the other players on the court at the time, nor are they taking into account the game state -- clutch vs garbage time, etc), there are some clear differences in how a player gets rated by the "defensive box score" approach to what that player seemingly contributes to the "greater defensive good" of the team defense. In particular a guy like the recently traded Doug Christie, long a player with an excellent defensive reputation, shows up as the second best on the Kings in team influence, yet was mediocre perhaps on the box score level. Certainly the 'box score' data does not capture how often a player simply deters his opponent from taking a shot, or even denies him the ball in the first place, and the team overall defense also gets at things like boxing out on rebounds and so forth.

Another good case is Chris Webber, who shows up in the middle of the team on the box score scheme, but is basically the worst in team effect if you ignore the seldom seen Michael Bradley. It's likely that when Webber is out there without Miller or Ostertag alongside that he can't provide the interior defensive presence that is lacking. Which gets to a point our friend Dean Oliver always raises -- Basketball is a game about roles.

For another deeper cut, we'll break down the box score data by contested versus uncontested shots:

Kings player defensive performance: Open vs Contested shots

	Open Shots						Contested Shots
Player	FGM	FGA	eFG	T/O	Pts	RTG	FGM	FGA	eFG	FTM	FTA	T/O	Pts	RTG	Con%
Daniels	1.5	4	.375	0	3	75	2.5	13	.192	6	7	3.5	11	56	82.8%
Miller	139	200.5	.727	0	291.5	145	167.5	486	.353	113.5	169	104.5	456.5	69	76.6%
Ostertag	30.5	58	.526	0	61	105	35	129	.271	61.5	88	15.5	131.5	73	75.6%
Songaila	57	91.5	.645	0	118	128	54.5	184	.313	80.5	101.5	37	195.5	74	74.1%
Webber	120.5	192.5	.645	0	248.5	129	76	241.5	.323	85.5	122	80	241.5	65	65.8%
Evans	25.5	49	.571	0	56	114	22.5	66.5	.387	25.5	31.5	15	77	81	65.8%
Barnes	40.5	61.5	.752	0	92.5	150	30.5	78	.433	40	50	19.5	107.5	91	65.6%
Team	29	44	.750	0	66	150	19.5	61.5	.333	21	27	11.5	62	73	65.6%
Stojakovic	105	176.5	.673	1	237.5	133	69.5	224	.334	74.5	103	59	224	69	64.6%
Jackson	30	63.5	.516	0	65.5	103	13	53.5	.280	44.5	57	25.5	74.5	73	61.6%
Martin	18.5	28.5	.728	0	41.5	145	6.5	31.5	.206	10.5	16	7.5	23.5	51	61.4%
Bradley	3	3	1.000	0	6	200	1	2	.500	5	6	0	7	159	59.5%
Christie	77	147.5	.597	0	176	119	43	123	.390	36	48	46.5	132	69	56.1%
Bibby	130	246.5	.609	1	300	121	63	194.5	.353	72	96	73.5	209.5	68	55.3%
House	7	15.5	.484	0	15	96	2	9	.222	8	11	3	12	73	51.4%
Mobley	34	69	.522	0	72	104	9	41	.244	16	20	20.5	36	51	50.2%

There's all kinds of intriguing numbers you could create from the above: things like Free Throws per contested shot, Turnovers per contested possession, and so on. It's clear that big men give up fewer open shots on a percentage basis where they are assigned responsibility for the outcome from Ed, and how often a player contests a shot may not be a key indicator of individual defense either it seems -- playing good help defense may yield more open shots to 'your man' when the ball gets passed.

As it stands, measuring the value of an individual on the defensive front remains a work in progress...we'll have more to say on the subject in the near future!

For more data from Ed's incredible work on the charting front, see:

 - Production by Play Type (Team/Individual Player)
 - Open/Contested Shots (Offense/Defense)