I think you missed the salient point there, trisailinI think what you're saying is that Williams shouldn't be playing? She played far more minutes then all those below her. .......
What’s the algorithm? I though Molly played well.
What’s the algorithm? I though Molly played well.
Exactly the pointYour 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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.The "Efficiency" rating simply measures productivity.
Basically if you have a low efficiency rating, you are not contributing much.
Below are examples with 2 variables: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?