View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8152 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 11/19/14 3:12 pm ::: UConn v. Stanford: Player Efficiency |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 11/19/14 4:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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: 11105
Back to top |
Posted: 11/20/14 12:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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: 8152 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 11/20/14 2:00 pm ::: Re: UConn v. Stanford: Player Efficiency |
Reply |
|
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: 8152 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 11/20/14 2:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 11/20/14 2:55 pm ::: Re: UConn v. Stanford: Player Efficiency |
Reply |
|
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: 8152 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 11/20/14 5:30 pm ::: Re: UConn v. Stanford: Player Efficiency |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 11/20/14 6:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 11/20/14 8:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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 |
Posted: 11/20/14 10:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
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.
|
|
|
|