Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="UcMiami, post: 2055718, member: 199"] The concept of NISE seems to be an average shooter is going to make 50% of their twos, 33% of their threes and 100% of their free throws (which is the only slightly harsh assessment) and the result will be a NISE score of 0. A positive NISE means an above average shooter and a negative score means a below average scorer. A poor FT shooter who gets fouled a lot is going to get seriously penalized - I think I would prefer it if the formula was FGA + 0.75xFTA as that is closer to an average percentage. It does not reward three point shooters - Napheesa with her very positive score is not a three point shooter, but she shoots a very high percentage on 2 point shots and that is what is driving her score. And I am not surprised by Gabby's score - she shoots .550 overall, doesn't shoot threes and shoots a fair number of FTs at a regressing .671 - she comes out with a positive score so she is 'above average' but just barely AS A SCORER. Her game is more reflected by the Naples PPM of 1.00 which takes into account all the other things she is doing. My issue with that calculation is that it over emphasizes scoring - while blocks and steals and rebounds can be justified as being worth 50% of baskets since good teams only score 50% of their possessions, assists are by definition resulting in baskets (good passes where the shooter misses don't get counted as assists in US scoring.) An improvement to the formula might be to count 2x on assists to credit them as equal to points. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,557

Messages: 4,401,200

Members: 10,213

Latest member: illini2013