RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

UConn v. Stanford: Player Efficiency

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8151
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/14 3:12 pm    ::: UConn v. Stanford: Player Efficiency Reply Reply with quote

Efficiency = ((Pts + TReb + A + Stl + Blk) - ((FGA - FGM) + (FTA - FTM) + TO))

Stewart - 21
Chong - 19
Stokes - 11
Lewis - 9
Tuck - 9
Nurse - 5
Jefferson - 2

Thompson - 16
Orrange - 15
Kai Johnson - 14
B. Samuelson - 11
K. Samuelson - 9
Roberson - 5
Kay Johnson - 4
McCall - 4
Green - 0
Greenfield - (-1)

UConn's efficiencies total 76 and Stanford's total 77. Will the winning team always have a higher totaled efficiency?

Tara played three more players than Geno, who kept two McDonald's A-A's sitting on the bench.
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32326



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/19/14 4:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Eff always favors offensive players...and can be misleading. But still interesting.



_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11102



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/20/14 12:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
Eff always favors offensive players...and can be misleading. But still interesting.


"favors offensive players" is understating it substantially. There's a lot of debate about steals and blocks, in the sense that some players get those stats by neglecting more fundamental defensive principles.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8151
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/20/14 2:00 pm    ::: Re: UConn v. Stanford: Player Efficiency Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Efficiency = ((Pts + TReb + A + Stl + Blk) - ((FGA - FGM) + (FTA - FTM) + TO))


UConn's efficiencies total 76 and Stanford's total 77. Will the winning team always have a higher totaled efficiency?


I posted the efficiencies because I happened to be looking at an APBRmetric box score, but my real interest is the question I asked, since I know there are experienced APBRmetricians on this site.

I guess there are two questions.

Will the efficiency formula applied to the team as a whole always be the same as the sum of the individual player efficiencies?

Will the efficiency of the winning team (calculated either way) always be greater than that of the losing team?
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8151
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/20/14 2:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
myrtle wrote:
Eff always favors offensive players...


"favors offensive players" is understating it substantially.


I don't know what this means. If there are two players and all else is the same except points scored, why shouldn't the better scorer be considered more efficient. Scoring points is the object of the game.

I would understand this objection better: the formula favors post players over guards.
CompSci87



Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Posts: 812
Location: Palo Alto, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/20/14 2:55 pm    ::: Re: UConn v. Stanford: Player Efficiency Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Efficiency = ((Pts + TReb + A + Stl + Blk) - ((FGA - FGM) + (FTA - FTM) + TO))

Will the efficiency formula applied to the team as a whole always be the same as the sum of the individual player efficiencies?


No, for the somewhat subtle reason that there are "team rebounds" that don't count for any individual player, but do count for the team.

Quote:

Will the efficiency of the winning team (calculated either way) always be greater than that of the losing team?


Obviously not. Winning depends only on points, while the formula includes a lot of other stats. The efficiency of the winning team will usually be higher, but not always.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8151
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/20/14 5:30 pm    ::: Re: UConn v. Stanford: Player Efficiency Reply Reply with quote

CompSci87 wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
Efficiency = ((Pts + TReb + A + Stl + Blk) - ((FGA - FGM) + (FTA - FTM) + TO))

Will the efficiency formula applied to the team as a whole always be the same as the sum of the individual player efficiencies?


No, for the somewhat subtle reason that there are "team rebounds" that don't count for any individual player, but do count for the team.

Quote:

Will the efficiency of the winning team (calculated either way) always be greater than that of the losing team?


Obviously not. Winning depends only on points, while the formula includes a lot of other stats. The efficiency of the winning team will usually be higher, but not always.


Thanks.

On the totaling issue I knew there was something the individual stats didn't account for, but team rebounds slipped my mind.

The answer to the other question seemed logical to me, but it's hard to find a game where the winning team doesn't have a positive eff margin. I scanned a few teams from last year, and in the rare occasions where it happens, the reversed margin is very small.
linkster



Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5408



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/20/14 6:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There was an article last season about a new digital technology that goes beyond the usual stats. I can't find it now but in essence it involved using overhead video to track an entire play. The author made a very valid point that assists are only awarded to the player who passed to a scorer while in many cases it's the previous pass that was more instrumental. Many times it's a well timed screen that leads to an easy layup but these contributions never make it to a box score.

I'll continue to search but maybe someone else read the piece?


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32326



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/20/14 8:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

That's like a hockey assist. But there are many other things that don't show up in the box - like screens that result in a score or tipped balls or just getting back on defense to prevent a fast break.



_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
willtalk



Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Posts: 1088
Location: NorCal


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/20/14 10:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

linkster wrote:
There was an article last season about a new digital technology that goes beyond the usual stats. I can't find it now but in essence it involved using overhead video to track an entire play. The author made a very valid point that assists are only awarded to the player who passed to a scorer while in many cases it's the previous pass that was more instrumental. Many times it's a well timed screen that leads to an easy layup but these contributions never make it to a box score.

I'll continue to search but maybe someone else read the piece?


It is a lot easier to recognize which player is in the most optimum position to score rather than recognizing the one player would be in the best position to make the next pass. This is similar to chess where a master will make moves to set up other moves which will follow. To be able to see moves before they happen is a skill that can not be taught rather an ability one is born with. It is also applicable to RB in football where the runner can not just see their best immediate option but the one that follows that. It is also a major part of the game of soccer.

In basketball that is a skill that is not recognizable by the general fan. They tend to focus on the pass before the score so they would not recognize a player/point guard who was operating on that next level.

Interestingly I have always perceived basketball and other sports as a microcosm of life upon which the afore-mentioned principles play a very important part. Recognition in that area first requires an awareness of the existence of and then the discernment of the developing patterns which are necessary for predictive cognition. Unfortunately, as they are about basketball, most people are totally oblivious about life as well.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin