East Tennessee St.17-16

SouthernCoach: Brooks Savage

17-16NET#177

Net Rtg, on the floor minus off it. Players with 100 possessions each way

Players

Columns

ON/OFF Difference

How the team's numbers change with each player on the floor. Ranked against every qualifying player in Division I.

	Possessions			Efficiency			Four Factors				Opponent

Quimari Peterson	1,692	415	80.3%	−14.410	−2.040	+12.54	−5.78	+6.192	−1.976	−5.622	+7.82	−1.736	+0.966	+1.838
Jaden Seymour	1,668	438	79.2%	−3.040	−1.840	+1.242	+3.282	−1.042	+2.418	−2.936	+1.732	+4.186	−3.210	−10.792
Ebby Asamoah	1,619	487	76.9%	+4.266	+3.066	−1.256	−0.248	+0.658	−2.986	+0.756	−2.070	−0.150	−1.134	+0.744
Jadyn Parker	1,410	696	67.0%	−0.350	+1.256	+1.542	+1.464	+2.874	+2.714	−8.312	−2.574	−3.520	−3.012	−11.392
Karon Boyd	1,352	754	64.2%	+12.790	−0.746	−13.496	−3.718	+8.598	+2.318	+4.778	−8.698	−0.546	+1.372	−1.860
Allen Strothers	628	1,478	29.8%	−3.638	−4.230	−0.552	−1.040	+0.758	+0.344	−2.836	+0.742	+8.398	−2.814	+0.944
Gabe Sisk	545	1,562	25.9%	−2.342	+2.864	+5.124	+2.174	−4.814	+0.244	+4.878	+1.534	−2.330	−0.936	−4.272
Maki Johnson	473	1,634	22.4%	+2.962	+6.582	+3.530	+4.288	−1.934	−1.572	+1.762	+2.426	+1.162	+0.762	+14.02
Tyler Rice	388	1,719	18.4%	+7.978	+2.062	−5.878	+4.088	−7.96	+0.736	+9.994	−3.078	−6.46	+4.496	+2.038
DJ Hughes	318	1,788	15.1%	+4.868	+6.782	+1.938	+1.364	+1.666	−3.288	+2.968	+5.28	+1.868	+2.384	+5.222
Braden Ilic	223	1,883	10.6%	−11.616	−12.76	−1.256	−3.718	−9.42	+0.146	−2.738	+1.336	−0.050	+3.994	+8.510
Justice Smith	215	1,891	10.2%	−9.420	−8.414	+1.044	−4.712	−5.710	−2.884	−1.742	+2.128	−1.438	+3.088	+9.010

Player ON

What the team did while each player was on the floor.

	Possessions			Efficiency			Four Factors				Opponent

Quimari Peterson	1,692	415	80.3%	-3.540	106.144	109.542	46.1%28	39.9%82	18.4%36	32.9%58	52.3%40	66.1%36	19.8%68	38.0%24
Jaden Seymour	1,668	438	79.2%	-1.344	106.144	107.448	47.8%34	38.6%80	19.2%30	33.2%58	51.1%46	67.3%42	18.9%64	35.5%30
Ebby Asamoah	1,619	487	76.9%	0.346	107.146	106.848	47.1%32	39.0%82	18.1%38	34.0%62	50.3%48	66.4%38	19.3%66	37.8%26
Jadyn Parker	1,410	696	67.0%	-0.844	106.846	107.646	47.6%34	39.8%82	19.6%28	31.2%54	50.0%54	65.3%34	18.6%62	34.2%34
Karon Boyd	1,352	754	64.2%	3.954	106.244	102.360	45.8%26	41.8%88	19.6%28	35.5%64	47.8%62	66.3%38	20.1%70	37.0%28
Allen Strothers	628	1,478	29.8%	-3.240	103.538	106.848	46.4%30	39.4%82	19.0%32	31.9%56	51.3%46	72.4%66	17.7%54	38.3%24
Gabe Sisk	545	1,562	25.9%	-2.342	108.550	110.838	48.7%38	35.2%68	18.9%34	37.5%70	51.9%42	64.7%32	18.9%64	34.6%32
Maki Johnson	473	1,634	22.4%	1.648	111.556	109.942	50.3%46	37.4%76	17.6%42	35.2%64	52.7%38	67.3%42	20.1%70	48.7%12
Tyler Rice	388	1,719	18.4%	5.756	108.148	102.460	50.5%48	32.2%56	19.3%30	42.1%78	48.3%60	61.3%22	23.2%86	39.3%22
DJ Hughes	318	1,788	15.1%	3.452	112.258	108.744	48.2%36	40.2%84	16.0%52	36.3%66	55.3%26	68.0%46	21.6%78	42.1%18
Braden Ilic	223	1,883	10.6%	-11.028	95.120	106.150	43.8%20	30.4%50	18.8%34	31.4%54	51.9%42	66.4%38	23.0%86	45.3%14
Justice Smith	215	1,891	10.2%	-9.132	98.928	108.046	42.9%18	33.8%64	16.2%52	32.3%58	52.7%38	65.1%34	22.3%82	45.8%14

Player OFF

What the team did while each player sat.

	Possessions			Efficiency			Four Factors				Opponent

Quimari Peterson	1,692	415	80.3%	11.066	108.048	97.172	51.7%54	33.8%64	20.3%24	38.5%70	44.5%76	67.7%44	18.9%64	36.2%28
Jaden Seymour	1,668	438	79.2%	1.750	107.948	106.250	44.6%22	39.7%82	16.9%46	36.2%66	49.4%54	63.2%26	22.1%82	46.1%14
Ebby Asamoah	1,619	487	76.9%	-3.940	104.138	108.046	47.2%32	38.4%80	20.9%22	33.3%60	52.3%40	66.5%38	20.5%74	37.2%26
Jadyn Parker	1,410	696	67.0%	-0.546	105.642	106.150	46.2%28	37.1%74	17.0%46	39.4%72	52.5%40	68.8%50	21.6%78	45.5%14
Karon Boyd	1,352	754	64.2%	-8.832	106.946	115.828	49.5%42	33.3%58	17.2%44	30.8%52	56.3%22	66.8%42	18.8%62	38.9%24
Allen Strothers	628	1,478	29.8%	0.446	107.746	107.348	47.4%34	38.6%80	18.7%34	34.7%62	50.6%48	64.1%30	20.4%74	37.4%26
Gabe Sisk	545	1,562	25.9%	-0.146	105.742	105.852	46.6%30	40.0%82	18.7%34	32.7%58	50.4%48	67.1%42	19.8%70	38.8%24
Maki Johnson	473	1,634	22.4%	-1.344	105.040	106.350	46.2%28	39.3%82	19.1%32	33.5%60	50.3%48	66.2%38	19.5%68	34.7%32
Tyler Rice	388	1,719	18.4%	-2.142	106.144	108.246	46.4%30	40.1%84	18.6%36	32.2%56	51.3%44	67.7%44	18.8%62	37.3%26
DJ Hughes	318	1,788	15.1%	-1.444	105.442	106.848	46.9%32	38.6%80	19.2%30	33.4%60	50.0%50	66.2%38	19.3%66	36.9%28
Braden Ilic	223	1,883	10.6%	0.548	107.848	107.248	47.5%34	39.8%82	18.7%34	34.1%62	50.6%48	66.4%38	19.2%66	36.8%28
Justice Smith	215	1,891	10.2%	0.346	107.346	107.048	47.6%34	39.5%82	19.0%32	34.1%62	50.6%48	66.6%38	19.3%66	36.8%28

How to read this

An on/off split is not a rating of the player. It is what the team did with him on the floor and with him off it, which also carries whoever replaced him, whoever he played alongside, and who the opponent had out there at the time. Two players on the same team can trade the same minutes and both look good, or both look bad, for reasons neither controls.

Players need 100 possessions both on and off the floor to appear. Both sides, not either: a starter who never sits has no off-court sample, and his difference would be the team measured against nothing.

In ON/OFF Difference, percentage columns are shown as points of difference, and each row is ranked against every qualifying player in Division I (3,787 of them) rather than against team ratings: a +7 net rating is a good lineup, a +7 net swing is an enormous one. Player ON and Player OFF are ranked against Division I five-man units instead, because those are ordinary team rates.

Sorting any of the three tables reorders all three, so a player stays on the same line throughout.

East Tennessee St.ETSU17-16

ON/OFF Difference

Player ON

Player OFF

East Tennessee St.17-16