Change Ad Consent Tulsa: The "Efficiency" rating tells the story | The Boneyard

Tulsa: The "Efficiency" rating tells the story

-
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
536
Likes
1,032
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

The all knowing Mick
Joined
May 27, 2016
Messages
185
Likes
499
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:
1579493574610.png


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.
 
Last edited:

cohenzone

Old Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
16,135
Likes
18,076
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.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
1,275
Likes
2,562
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
Stats say Anna and Meg played well—duh.
 

Big Mick

The all knowing Mick
Joined
May 27, 2016
Messages
185
Likes
499
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!
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
65
Likes
217
CW and Ania had most minutes. Geno is looking at his team much as some here. Get CW on track and Ania integrated.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,639
Likes
1,507
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.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,639
Likes
1,507
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.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,639
Likes
1,507
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.
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
142
Likes
443
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

Old Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
16,135
Likes
18,076
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.
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
299
Likes
260
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 all knowing Mick
Joined
May 27, 2016
Messages
185
Likes
499
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?
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
536
Likes
1,032
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.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
257
Likes
496
Reminds me of that song by Styx about the robot. This would be great if they were....robots.
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
412
Likes
627
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)

1579560941464.png
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
1,358
Likes
2,702
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.
 

Top