Tulsa: The "Efficiency" rating tells the story

[Big Mick]

If you disagree, do tell?

 

[trisailin]

I think what you're saying is that Williams shouldn't be playing? She played far more minutes then all those below her.

I think you've attempted to reduce the game to only what is on a stat sheet. There are many more things that impact a game than what shows on a stat sheet.

 

[Big Mick]

I think what you're saying is that Williams shouldn't be playing? She played far more minutes then all those below her. .......

I think you missed the salient point there, trisailin

 

[TheFarmFan]

What I see is a freshman combo guard who’s far more effective than a senior forward...

 

[uconnfan68]

View attachment 50062

If you disagree, do tell?

What’s the algorithm? I though Molly played well.

 

[Big Mick]

What’s the algorithm? I though Molly played well.

The formula:
good = Pts + Ast + Blk + Stl + Reb
baad = To + Pf + (p2A - p2M) + (p3A - p3M)
efficency = good - bad

Molly's numbers:

The Calculation:
7 (good) = 2 +0 + 0 + 3 + 2
4 (baad) = 1 + 0 + (2 - 0) + (1 - 0)
3 (efficiency) = 7 - 4

So, Bent's efficiency is 3

Now:
If we look at Williams for example - her numbers were very badly hurt because she went 4 from 10 from the field; for -6 points. But, she was a big contributor: 3 for 4 from 3pt range; 5 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal and 11 points.

By comparison, Adebayo, Irwin and bent rarely shoot (1 or 2 per game) and so their efficiency can look good just because of that (i.e. 2 rebounds and a steal is a +3 efficiency); while not contributing very much.

 

[cohenzone]

Your formula doesn’t cover anything but measurable stats. Doesn’t measure box outs, running down loose balls and other hustle plays. Bent played well for her minutes for example. She will never rate very high on that scale. Obviously she doesn’t have a major impact on the outcome no matter how well or poorly she plays.

p If Olivia has 10 rebounds, 3 blocks, a steal and goes 7-10 from the floor she will get a big efficiency rating. But suppose they lose by one and her three misses were wide open layups in the last minute and suppose in the same game Irwin had 1 rebound and went one for two from the floor, her one being a 3 with 40 seconds left that cut the deficit to one, she stole the inbounds and fed ONO who blew the go ahead bunny. Measurable s clearly don’t tell the whole story.

 

[Dokey]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics
Stats say Anna and Meg played well—duh.

 

[Big Mick]

Your formula doesn’t cover anything but measurable stats. Doesn’t measure box outs, running down loose balls and other hustle plays. Bent played well for her minutes for example. She will never rate very high on that scale. Obviously she doesn’t have a major impact on the outcome no matter how well or poorly she plays.

Exactly the point

p If Olivia has 10 rebounds, 3 blocks, a steal and goes 7-10 from the floor she will get a big efficiency rating. But suppose they lose by one and her three misses were wide open layups in the last minute and suppose in the same game Irwin had 1 rebound and went one for two from the floor, her one being a 3 with 40 seconds left that cut the deficit to one, she stole the inbounds and fed ONO who blew the go ahead bunny. Measurable s clearly don’t tell the whole story.

Sooo - In your theoretical situation: LIV already has a double-double (10 rebounds and 14 points), 3 blocks and a steal...then, you have Irwin hitting a 3, stealing the inbound pass, and feeding LIV for a bunny that she misses.

You're joking, right!

 

[Wilderness]

CW and Ania had most minutes. Geno is looking at his team much as some here. Get CW on track and Ania integrated.

 

[stamfordhusky]

The formula:
good = Pts + Ast + Blk + Stl + Reb
baad = To + Pf + (p2A - p2M) + (p3A - p3M)
efficency = good - bad

Molly's numbers:
View attachment 50072

The Calculation:
7 (good) = 2 +0 + 0 + 3 + 2
4 (baad) = 1 + 0 + (2 - 0) + (1 - 0)
3 (efficiency) = 7 - 4

So, Bent's efficiency is 3

Now:
If we look at Williams for example - her numbers were very badly hurt because she went 4 from 10 from the field; for -6 points. But, she was a big contributor: 3 for 4 from 3pt range; 5 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal and 11 points.

By comparison, Adebayo, Irwin and bent rarely shoot (1 or 2 per game) and so their efficiency can look good just because of that (i.e. 2 rebounds and a steal is a +3 efficiency); while not contributing very much.

 

[stamfordhusky]

There are problems with thismodel. There are better efficiency models available. To name one problem, in the above if a player shot 10-20 on threes, it would produce the same "bad" deductions as shooting 10-20 on twos. Or further, if a player shot 10-20 on threes for 30 points, the player would have exactly the same efficiency ranking as one who shot 15-25 on twos (30 points) - even though 10-20 on threes is a better effective FG pct than 15-25 on twos.

Also if two players have exactly the same stats - except that one goes 5-5 from the line while the other goes 5-25, they would get identical efficiency rankings.

Etc.

 

[stamfordhusky]

There are problems with this model, as it is very simplistic. There are better efficiency models available. To name one problem, in the above if a player shot 10-20 on threes, it would produce the same "bad" deductions as shooting 10-20 on twos. Or further, if a player shot 10-20 on threes for 30 points, the player would have exactly the same efficiency ranking as one who shot 15-25 on twos (30 points) - even though 10-20 on threes is a better effective FG pct than 15-25 on twos.

Also if two players have exactly the same stats - except that one goes 5-5 from the line while the other goes 5-25, they would get identical efficiency rankings.

Etc.

 

[Littlemin]

Statistics make for very interesting bar talk, the eye test is the only way to make an informed decision regarding players efficiency, a better word being contribution, positive or negative. Just my opinion.

 

[cohenzone]

Exactly the point





Sooo - In your theoretical situation: LIV already has a double-double (10 rebounds and 14 points), 3 blocks and a steal...then, you have Irwin hitting a 3, stealing the inbound pass, and feeding LIV for a bunny that she misses.

You're joking, right!
[/
No. Obviously the game isn’t close without Liv’s performance. It’s a hypothetical that says your metric in isolation says nothing about how the game played out in key moments. Suppose the person Liv is guarding scores 35 points and that’s why UConn is behind. Read the men’s board and see what means something to fans in close losses to good teams. Your metric ignores how well a player played defensively, too. Kelly Faris would’ve regularly looked unimpactful on your measure, which is interesting but not determinative of a players worth.

 

[VaConnFan11]

CW's +/- of 42 was second only to Anna's 50.

I like the +/- numbers because, to me, it tells me how the team as a whole plays with you on the court. In blowouts the number can get a little skewed. I pay more attention to them in close games.

 

[Big Mick]

The "Efficiency" rating simply measures productivity.

Basically if you have a low efficiency rating, you are not contributing much.

@stamfordhuskty raised this "if two players have exactly the same stats - except that one goes 5-5 from the line while the other goes 5-25, they would get identical efficiency rankings."

That is not possible; show me that math with their individual numbers?

 

[trisailin]

The "Efficiency" rating simply measures productivity.

Basically if you have a low efficiency rating, you are not contributing much.

I completely disagree. It does NO SUCH THING. At best, it ONLY measures offensive things - and doesn't do a very good job at that. It does NOTHING on the defensive end. It doesn't begin to account for TEAM. It is the epitome of "I". It doesn't begin to account for if the others on the floor are better because you are in the right spot (or whether you got them into the right spot). Many times in the UCONN offense, the person who got the assist ONLY got that assist because the person who sent the ball their way, sent it to the right spot. Geno recognizes that TEAM wins games. Sadly, many fans somehow think stats win games.

 

[Urshurak]

Reminds me of that song by Styx about the robot. This would be great if they were....robots.

 

[maccca3232]

The "Efficiency" rating simply measures productivity.

Basically if you have a low efficiency rating, you are not contributing much.

@stamfordhuskty raised this "if two players have exactly the same stats - except that one goes 5-5 from the line while the other goes 5-25, they would get identical efficiency rankings."

That is not possible; show me that math with their individual numbers?

Below are examples with 2 variables:
FG (A is 15/25 from 2 or B is 10/20 from 3)
FT (A is 5/25 and B is 5/5)

eFG% shows the impact of mix between shots taken from 2 and 3.
TS% shows the impact of mix between all shots (2, 3 or FT)

 

[Steelerone]

I started at the top of this post and by time I got to the middle I asked my wife for a glass of warm milk and a benadryl. I'm not sure if every team in professional football and baseball combined uses as many analytics as the boneyard. What ever happened to "She's too slow", "She can't handle the ball", "She's a ball hog", or just plain "She just can't shoot". You can have all the personality in this world but in Geno's world the above can be found sitting on the bench.