Five "Coaching Factors" Summary
|
Factor
|
Winner
|
Edge
|
Top Players
|
| Physicality | NEW ORLEANS | +7 wins | Sharpe +5, Avdija +5, Bey +5 |
| Playing Hard | PORTLAND | +4 wins | Sharpe +22, Queen +21, MurphyIII +18 |
| Decision Making | NEW ORLEANS | +2 wins | Holiday +18, Queen +15, MurphyIII +10 |
| Shotmaking | PORTLAND | +6 points | Avdija +4, Holiday +2, Camara +2 |
| Referee Effects | NEW ORLEANS | +2 wins | Hawkins +1, R.WilliamsIII +1, Sharpe +1 |
- Raw Physicality Wins - Queen 32, Avdija 25, MurphyIII 24, Sharpe 23, Bey 21
- Physicality Suffered per 36 — Clingan 38.0, Fears 29.1, R.WilliamsIII 26.3, Queen 26.1, Matkovic 24.0
- Playing Hard Wins per 36min - Sharpe 26.8, Matkovic 26.7, Peavy 26.6, Queen 26.1, Clingan 22.3
- Decision Making poor decisions - Fears 7, Holiday 4, Camara 3
- Shotmaking own shots - PORTLAND +3, NEW ORLEANS -3
- Shotmaking per 36 leaders — Avdija +4.1, Matkovic +2.7, Sharpe +2.4, Bey +2.1, Holiday +2.0
- Obvious Referee Argues: Portland 7, New Orleans 6.
High argue players: Camara 3, Avdija 3, Queen 2.
- Roland Hard Play leaders - Queen 34, Sharpe 28, MurphyIII 26, Avdija 25, Bey 23
- RHP per 36 leaders (min 10 min) — Sharpe +34.2, Queen +32.5, Peavy +30.5, Matkovic +29.3, Avdija +25.6
Team Physicality Summary
Winner: NEW ORLEANS
| Team | RPR* | Wins | L/D | L2+ | Falls | KD |
| NEW ORLEANS | 359.8 | 148 | 19 | 39 | 14 | 18 |
| PORTLAND | 344.4 | 141 | 19 | 41 | 18 | 14 |
Tracking over forty types of contact, aggression, and resilience
Header notes:
RPR = "Roland Physicality Rating" (in development), Wins = a Physicality play that is deemed a 'win', L/D = Losses/Defeats (non-intentional fouls and soft plays), L2+ = level 2 or higher force physicality plays, Falls = player hits the ground, KD = Knockdowns: causes opponent to hit the ground
Notable Team Physicality Details
| Category | Winner | Top Player |
| Drives: | Portland +9 | Sharpe +7 |
| Ball Pressure: | Portland +3 | Jones +3 |
| Bumps & Grabs: | New Orleans +1 | Fears +2 |
| Rebounding: | New Orleans +16 | MurphyIII +6 |
| At Rim: | Portland +1 | Sharpe +6 |
| Postups: | -tie- | Avdija +1 |
| Screens: | New Orleans +7 | Matkovic +5 |
| Create/Contain: | New Orleans +1 | Bey +2 |
| Level 2+ Wins: | Portland +3 | Avdija +4 |
"Net Knocks" - Queen +5,
R.WilliamsIII +3
Knockdowns - Queen 5,
Jones 3
Falls -
Camara 5,
Sharpe 5
Head-to-Head Physicality
Queen +6 vs Clingan
Sharpe +5 vs Queen
Avdija +4 vs Fears
Player Physicality Stats
PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS
| | Physicality | Playing Hard
Wins | Knock
Downs | Roland
Hard Play
Score |
| Player | Wins | Net Wins |
| Sharpe | 23 | +5 | 22 | 3 | 28 |
| Avdija | 25 | +5 | 19 | 2 | 25 |
| Holiday | 21 | +1 | 17 | 2 | 19 |
| Camara | 15 | -6 | 17 | 1 | 11 |
| R.WilliamsIII | 15 | +3 | 6 | 3 | 10 |
| Clingan | 18 | -11 | 17 | 2 | 7 |
| Murray | 8 | -3 | 9 | 0 | 6 |
| Grant | 6 | +3 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
| Cissoko | 6 | +0 | 4 | 1 | 4 |
| Reath | 2 | +1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Rupert | 2 | -5 | 2 | 0 | -3 |
NEW ORLEANS PELICANS
| | Physicality | Playing Hard
Wins | Knock
Downs | Roland
Hard Play
Score |
| Player | Wins | Net Wins |
| Queen | 32 | +5 | 27 | 5 | 34 |
| MurphyIII | 24 | +5 | 20 | 2 | 26 |
| Bey | 21 | +5 | 17 | 2 | 23 |
| Fears | 19 | -2 | 15 | 2 | 14 |
| Jones | 14 | +3 | 9 | 3 | 13 |
| Matkovic | 10 | +1 | 10 | 0 | 11 |
| Peavy | 6 | +1 | 9 | 1 | 10 |
| Hawkins | 3 | -2 | 6 | 1 | 4 |
| Alvarado | 11 | -3 | 6 | 1 | 3 |
| Looney | 7 | -4 | 6 | 1 | 2 |
| Missi | 1 | -2 | 1 | 0 | -1 |
Physicality as a Foundation—Not Yet a Final Word
Right now I don’t have the sample size to make bold statements. Working with a team — and able to eventually pull similar tracking for every game of the season using Hawkeye data — would allow for two full seasons of analysis! This dataset raises more questions than answers perhaps.
- Why are the “Playing Hard” wins seemingly so significant? (the team with the better game score has won over 80% in our sample of games). Are there compounding effects when multiple PH stars are in the game together?
- Should teams put more emphasis on the Hard Play guys in roster construction? (And shout-out to all the important UNDRAFTED hustle players in the Finals: Dort, Caruso, McConnell — watch for the next Vegas Summer League breakouts!)
- How far can a team go with solid decision making? Currently this is tracking as an 80% predictor of who wins.
- Will other teams seek to up their ball pressure/swipes at the ball seeing the OKC success and runaway turnover edge numbers? Is this a skill that can be coached up, or does OKC have players who are especially well suited to the job?
- Can we identify player archetypes — like Sabonis — who challenge certain players like an Yves Missi? Is there consistency in head-to-head physicality dominance?
- Shai’s performance in the playoffs was masterful but how dependent is he on current officiating? His go-to “clear out space for a jumper with his forearm shove” never got whistled for an offensive foul or a travel in the finals. How can players maximize the referee effects in their favor?
We don’t have those answers yet, but the tagging framework is built to find them.
What Kind of Physicality Wins?
Early tracking data reveals some trends in what actually moves the needle:
- Winning the “Playing Hard” effort count won the game 85% of the time!
- The better “Decision Making” team is running an 80% win rate.
- Physicality Wins: 72% game win rate.
- Bumps / pushes / grabs / get-frees: 67% win rate.
- At Rim physicality: 64% win rate.
- Ballhandler Pressure / Swipes at Ball: 63% win rate. A key OKC weapon.
Some areas like falls and knockdowns aren’t seemingly predictive, but may become more meaningful with more nuance as larger datasets emerge.
The early takeaway? Smart, sustained pressure and toughness in key actions — not just brute force — tend to correlate with winning. These are the building blocks of tactical physicality.
FOR MORE INFO or QUESTIONS:
Roland Beech
831-402-8663
roland.beech@gmail.com
www.82games.com
