Select "print" from your browser's "File" menu.

Back to Post
Username Post: Individual efficiency stats 2007-2014
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
05-25-14 01:32 PM - Post#170572    

I offer for discussion the individual efficiency statistics for the years 2007-2014.

Instead of using the ORat, I offer the more transparent box score metrics by Hollinger, the Game Score (GS), and by Berri, the Win Score (WS) as adjusted in 2011 to reduce the weight of defensive rebounds. Key among the differences between the two metrics – GS rewards “shot creation” while WS penalizes inefficient shooting and tends to slightly favor big men because of the value WS places on rebounding.

These numbers are for regular season, conference games only. The numbers are adjusted to account for differences in tempo among the teams. For example, in 2014, Columbia averaged 61.5 possessions per 40 minutes while Penn averaged 67.4 possessions per 40 minutes. The league average was 64.2 possessions. So Penn numbers (WS and GS) are reduced by a factor of 64.2/67.4 and Columbia numbers are increased by a factor of 64.2/61.5. Those adjusted numbers are shown as Adj WS and Adj GS. Those columns should be used to compare players on different teams. While this makes comparison of players within a season more accurate, it makes comparisons between seasons slightly harder since the league average of possessions varies from year to year.

In addition to looking at the raw totals for WS and for GS, you may also wish to look at the per 40 minute numbers, WS/40 and GS/40. Perhaps these numbers identify underutilized players, or just those players who are unable to stay on the court for longer periods of time.

Among the other categories listed in the spreadsheet are true shooting percentage (TS%) and pure point rating, a superior version of the assist/turnover ratio.

Individual box score metrics, whether the ORat the Win Score or the Game Score are debatable for many reasons. These are not the team efficiency numbers I kept for Penn prior to my retirement so I have no personal stake in them. They are offered to advance the discussion.

Reminder: Box score metrics measure only those numbers which appear in a box score. There is no positive (or negative) score for (1) boxing out so that a teammate pulls down a rebound (or failing to do so), (2) going to the right spot on the floor and setting a good screen (or failing to do so), or (3) spotting and executing a good entry pass to initiate the offense (or failing to do so). Even more importantly there is no box score number for playing good on-the-ball defense (or for failing to do so).

You can select the year by clicking on the appropriate box at the bottom of the spreadsheet. Within any particular year you can rank the players by category by utilizing the drop-down menu to the right of the category heading.


penn nation
Professor
Posts 21081
05-25-14 04:44 PM - Post#170574    

It also looks like you've only included those who averaged at least 10 minutes/game.

Not that Hicks doesn't deserve a low rating (he certainly does), but I'll bet most of the 10-15 min/game players who are ranked near him (at least for last year) would be ranked a lot lower if they had to play the bulk of the game (29 min/g) like he did.
UPIA1968
PhD Student
Posts 1116
UPIA1968
05-25-14 07:34 PM - Post#170576    

Thanks for the hard work. Very well done. The numbers for Hicks are very revealing. They remind us of the high standards of even Ivy League college ball. It is not enough to just have dribbling skills. One must have court awareness and shooting skills as well, not to mention rebounding and defensive skills. Brian Grandieri had the broad set of skills even though he could only dream of Hicks' quickness on the ball.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 4894
05-28-14 07:23 PM - Post#170625    

Interesting. Weisz and Cook are ranked higher than I thought they'd be even though I thought both had good seasons. Bray came out #1 or #2 in all of DI in some efficiency measures during the season, so his placement is not surprising.

The limitations of these box score numbers are illustrated by Saunders coming in below Rivard and Mondou-Missi, when the latter were pretty dependent on the attention Saunders drew. Not to mention Saunders's defensive presence.
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3988
05-28-14 08:10 PM - Post#170627    

Spieth was 7th, I was surprised he wasn't higher. I think he might move up.
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-12-15 08:18 PM - Post#185747    

The individual efficiency statistics have been updated in several categories and now include this most recent season (excluding the playoff games of 2015 and 2011). Results are available back to the 2006-07 season.

Please review the post at the top of this thread for explanations of some of the categories and the overall limitations of box score metrics.




penn nation
Professor
Posts 21081
03-12-15 08:40 PM - Post#185754    

Hicks is a one trick pony (volume scorer) who sometimes didn't get that trick to work this year, or at least the scoring part of the equation.

Sad how he's regressed (significantly) from the middle of the pack after his first season.

Hopefully with the plethora of PGs next season his turnovers can decrease.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 4894
03-12-15 08:47 PM - Post#185755    

Thanks Stu.

Number in the Top 20:
Harvard 5
Princeton 4
Yale 3
Columbia 3
Brown 2
Dartmouth 2
Cornell 1
Penn 0

PU and Columbia are the outliers in terms of correlation with record. Bad D strikes again.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2801
03-12-15 10:03 PM - Post#185762    

But, 7 Tigers in top 30, five of whom are underclassmen. Looks nice for the future
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-12-16 03:37 AM - Post#204268    

The individual efficiency statistics have been updated and now include this most recent season (excluding the playoff games of 2015 and 2011). Results are available back to the 2006-07 season.

You can select the year by clicking on the appropriate box at the bottom of the spreadsheet. Within any particular year you can rank the players by category by utilizing the drop-down menu to the right of the category heading.

Please review the post at the top of this thread for explanations of some of the categories and the overall limitations of box score metrics.


Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts 1536
03-12-16 11:56 AM - Post#204278    

Wow, Sears and Sherrod at #1 and #2 and Mason at #46???
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-12-16 12:04 PM - Post#204279    

Makai Mason at #45 (the #1 ranked player appears on row 2) is one of the great mysteries of this evaluation.

I welcome the thoughts of anyone who would like to speak to why Mason is perceived as having performed better than his numbers seem to warrant.

I have my own theory which I will share in due course. Hint: Look at the 2012 rankings.


Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts 1536
03-12-16 04:27 PM - Post#204294    

For reasons I can't figure out, I can access your stats off of your post three posts up but not the one at the beginning of this string that contains your explanations of the stats.
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-12-16 04:45 PM - Post#204295    

Here is a working link explaining Hollinger's Game Score. The other explanatory links are working for me.



UPIA1968
PhD Student
Posts 1116
UPIA1968
03-17-16 09:40 PM - Post#204857    

Great work Stu. Thanks!
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-05-17 10:59 PM - Post#225181    

The individual efficiency statistics have been updated and now include this most recent season (excluding the post-season tournament, and the playoff games of 2015 and 2011). Results are available back to the 2006-07 season.

This season's results are limited to those who played at least 140 minutes in league games.

You can select the year by clicking on the appropriate box at the bottom of the spreadsheet. Within any particular year you can rank the players by category by utilizing the drop-down menu to the right of the category heading.

Please review the post at the top of this thread for explanations of some of the categories and the overall limitations of box score metrics.
SomeDartmouthStudent
Freshman
Posts 68
03-08-17 09:59 PM - Post#225777    

In an effort to both praise your efforts and bump this up because I think it is relevant- great job Stuart.
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-06-18 09:19 PM - Post#251141    

The individual efficiency statistics have been updated and now include the 2017-18 season. Results are available back to the 2006-07 season (excluding post-season tournament and playoff games).

This season's results are limited to those who played at least 140 minutes in league games.

You can select the year by clicking on the appropriate box at the bottom of the spreadsheet. Within any particular year you can rank the players by category by utilizing the drop-down menu to the right of the category heading.

Please review the post at the top of this thread for explanations of some of the categories and the overall limitations of box score metrics. An updated explanation of the Hollinger Game Score is available.


Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-11-19 02:06 AM - Post#280582    

The individual efficiency statistics have been updated and now include the 2018-19 season. These conference-only results are available back to the 2006-07 season (excluding post-season tournament and playoff games).

This season's results are limited to those who played at least 126 minutes in league games.

Some thoughts with respect to this year's numbers.

1. Box score metrics like this can only evaluate players based on numbers that are compiled. There is no number that reflects an individual's on the ball defense. There were five top defenders in the league this season. In alphabetical order they were, Justin Bassey, Obi Okolie, Trey Phills, Myles Stephens and Antonio Woods. These numbers underrate those defenders.

2. Box score metrics place a high value on rebounding. Therefore, they favor interior players over perimeter players. Players should be compared to others playing the same position.

3. For those reasons, this chart may be flawed for purposes of determining the player of the year or for first-team honors.


You can select the year by clicking on the appropriate box at the bottom of the spreadsheet. Within any particular year you can rank the players by category by utilizing the drop-down menu to the right of the category heading.

Please review the post at the top of this thread for explanations of some of the categories and the overall limitations of box score metrics. An updated explanation of the Hollinger Game Score is available.



1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts 2260
1LotteryPick1969
03-11-19 11:27 AM - Post#280620    

Thanks for this.

Aririguzoh's high rating surprises me, even after watching him play all year. But good for him.

Any particular reason why Llewellyn's rating is so low?
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-11-19 12:57 PM - Post#280631    

<<Any particular reason why Llewellyn's rating is so low?>>

The Win Score (WS, column G) represents a total of the Shooting Efficiency (column U) plus the efficiency number for everything else (rebounds, turnovers, etc . . .)

Gabe Llwellyn (-44.5) and Desmond Cambridge (-59) had very poor shooting efficiencies. Gabe's +17 on everything else still left him at -27.5. Desmond's +21 on everything else still left him at -38. A similar fate befell Gabe Stefanini (+35 on everything else) and Quinton Adlesh (+25.5 on everything else).

On the other hand, if you are Matt Morgan with a shooting efficiency of +70, you can get away with being only +5.5 on everything else.

Or you can be Jordan Bruner, +8.0 on shooting and +78.0 on everything else.

penn nation
Professor
Posts 21081
03-11-19 01:28 PM - Post#280638    

Thank you for this. I always look forward to this spreadsheet when you release it.

AJ looks like the leading candidate for POY. As mentioned in another post, if his FT shooting improves he will be completely unstoppable and a runaway leader next year.
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts 2260
1LotteryPick1969
03-11-19 02:17 PM - Post#280647    

  • Stuart Said:
Gabe Llwellyn (-44.5) and Desmond Cambridge (-59) had very poor shooting efficiencies. Gabe's +17 on everything else still left him at -27.5. Desmond's +21 on everything else still left him at -38.



Thanks. Helps me interpret.

You threw me for a while. Gabe Lewullis is now fixing bones in Allentown. I hope he is +infinity.
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-11-19 02:29 PM - Post#280650    

I apologize to Jaelin for getting his name wrong.

I probably was also thinking of Dr. Gabe Lewullis who used to be a fixture of the summer basketball leagues, well into his middle age years.


Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-09-20 03:53 PM - Post#303825    

The individual efficiency statistics have been updated and now include the 2019-20 season. These conference-only results are available back to the 2006-07 season (excluding post-season tournament and playoff games).

This season's results are limited to those who played at least 140 minutes in league games.

Some thoughts with respect to this year's numbers.

1. Box score metrics like this can only evaluate players based on numbers that are compiled. There is no number that reflects an individual's on the ball defense. There were five top defenders in the league this season. In alphabetical order they were, Justin Bassey, Obi Okolie, Trey Phills, Myles Stephens and Antonio Woods. These numbers underrate those defenders.

2. Box score metrics place a high value on rebounding. Therefore, they favor interior players over perimeter players. Players should be compared to others playing the same position.

3. For those reasons, this chart may be flawed for purposes of determining the player of the year or for first-team honors.


You can select the year by clicking on the appropriate box at the bottom of the spreadsheet. Within any particular year you can rank the players by category by utilizing the drop-down menu to the right of the category heading.

Please review the post at the top of this thread for explanations of some of the categories and the overall limitations of box score metrics. The specifics of the Hollinger Game Score are available.

penn nation
Professor
Posts 21081
03-09-20 03:59 PM - Post#303828    

So you're sayin' we should be debating AJ vs Knight instead of AJ vs Atkinson?
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts 2260
1LotteryPick1969
03-09-20 06:24 PM - Post#303851    

Thanks.

Looking at this through Princeton goggles, I'm surprised how high Friberg and Desrosier rank.
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-18-22 04:55 PM - Post#339539    

In a day or two I will be posting the efficiency numbers for the 2022, 14-game, Ivy season. Because the rankings are so unusual, I want to state the following.

The formula for calculating the WS (win score) was created by David Berri, not by me. I do not have a personal stake in these numbers. I will defend them because I enjoy being argumentative.

Berri places a high value on rebounds and shooting percentage. Not surprisingly, the top two players in this year’s rankings are good rebounders with high shooting percentages.

Because rebounds are highly valued, interior players tend to score higher than perimeter players.

Each turnover is weighted at negative 1. Each turnover committed during a game is as if the player scored 1 fewer point. Players with fewer turnovers are rewarded by these numbers.

This does not purport to rank the “best” players or those players most deserving of first-team honors. One fan described the value of these numbers saying, “If I already had two stars on my roster, I would draft a player from the top of this list to get the rebounds, and not commit turnovers.”

Because WS numbers are cumulative, the more minutes you play, the higher your score will be. Therefore, I also offer the WS/40, the win score per 40 minutes. That category also identifies those players who were potentially underutilized.

Box score metrics like this can only evaluate players based on numbers that are compiled. There is no number that reflects an individual's on the ball defense. A player who boxes out so that his teammate gets a rebound or who sets a screen behind which his teammate scores is a player who receives no credit in these numbers.

Inefficient shooting is punished. Shooting efficiency is defined as points scored minus shot attempts. Two free throw attempts are considered one shot attempt. If a player attempts 16 field goals and four foul shots, that is considered 18 shot attempts. 18 points scored on those 18 shot attempts is considered a shooting efficiency of zero (breakeven).

There are no bonus points for degree of difficulty. If the shot clock is running out, a player who blows by his defender, then spins around the help at the basket at lays it in gets credit for only one basket. If the player rises up above his defender and buries a contested shot, he gets credit for only one basket. Creating one’s own shot receives no extra credit.

The raw win score represents a total of shooting efficiency plus everything else. Everything else consists of rebounds plus assists plus blocked shots plus steals minus turnovers minus personal fouls (with the designated weights for each category).

When the chart is published, you will find the player who had a shooting efficiency of 21.5, but who was a negative 8 on everything else for a total WS of 13.5. You will find the player who had a shooting efficiency of negative 7, but who was a plus 55.5 on everything else for a total WS of 48.5.

It goes without saying that this is a team game. In 2019, Harvard tied Yale for the regular season title. No Harvard player was ranked in the top 15. But, Harvard had 5 of the top 26 ranked players and 8 of the top 38. Teams that “spread the wealth” win games, even if they do not produce highly ranked players.

Later this weekend, I will post a link to the numbers. I will be intrigued by your comments.



Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-20-22 09:58 PM - Post#339677    

I offer the individual efficiency statistics for the 2021-22 Ivy season.

Please review the preceding post which explains some of these numbers and their limitations.

I previously noted that you will find the player who had a shooting efficiency of 21.5, but who was a negative 8 on everything else for a total WS of 13.5. You will find the player who had a shooting efficiency of negative 7, but who was a plus 55.5 on everything else for a total WS of 48.5.

Additionally, you will find the player who had a shooting efficiency of negative 12, but who was a plus 67 on everything else for a total WS of 55.

And for those of you who were comparing players based on their assist to turnover ratio, I offer the better alternative, the pure point rating found at the right end of the chart.

You should be able to sort the rankings based on any column heading and to look at the rankings back to 2007.

LocalTiger
Masters Student
Posts 406
03-21-22 11:49 AM - Post#339700    

Thanks for all the work and the helpful admission that this data,
as all data, has limitations in drawing real world conclusions.
A few observations:
1) All 5 members of the second team All Ivy are in the top 15
here, including Gainey at 1, Wrighrt at 4 and Choh at 5.
Only two of the first teamer scored as high with Tosan at 3
and Kirkwood at 11. As you said, front court players will score better
in general on these metrics, and three guard made first team-
Llewellyn at 22, Dingle at 29 and Swain at 44.
2)Following your suggestion that pure point rating is a better basis for comparing playmaking efficiency, both Tosan and Llewellyn fare
much better than Dingle (which was the argument).
3). As a Princeton fan, I am happy to see our top 6 players in the top
25 here, but Yale fans could certainly question the predictive value of these metrics. Their best guys seem undervalued here.
4). In general, these metrics seem to favor a role player who does his
job and knows his limits over a player who tries to be a difference maker for his team. I am not sure what to do about that, but it is an observation.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 32680
03-21-22 12:20 PM - Post#339703    

Efficiency is only an ideal stat as long as you have teammates who can do what you do well enough to draw away double coverage. No way Penn is 9-5 in the League (and the Dartmouth loss was without him) without Jordan Dingle. Frankly, I don't think there was a single player in the League with as much impact on the results as Dingle. When you take 1/3 of the possession time, there usually is a reason for it.
LocalTiger
Masters Student
Posts 406
03-21-22 08:26 PM - Post#339720    

Your opinion is strongly held, but the logic is a little hard to follow.
You think Slajchert is the best rookie, and that Penn's returning talent
should win the League next year. But those same players are so
offensively challenged that Dingle has no choice but to play inefficiently.
Which is it?
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-21-22 09:01 PM - Post#339727    

May I respectfully request that Local Tiger and Palestra 38 move the debate about the quality of Jordan Dingle's teammates to another thread.

By posting these efficiency statistics, I was hoping to start another discussion. Local Tiger, Palestra 38 and others are welcome to join that discussion.

Jordan Dingle ranks 28th (Row 29 is the 28th ranked person as Row 2 is the first ranked person). Azar Swain ranks 43rd. Yet, the coaches unanimously voted each of them to the 1st team, All Ivy. Most fans would have voted identically. Jaelin Llewellyn, who was also voted to the first team (not unanimously) ranked 21st.

As I have acknowledged, box score metrics like this are unable to count non box-score aspects of the game, playing defense, boxing out, setting screens and the like.

My question: What are these efficiency numbers failing to count that produced such shocking rankings for Dingle and for Swain?

palestra38
Professor
Posts 32680
03-21-22 09:36 PM - Post#339734    

They were very young, and return everyone consequential. The teams that won won with veteran talent, almost all of which is gone. Plus, Penn had no big men of note until the playoff game. I think you'll see the efficiency ratings increase dramatically next year for Penn. But I think these ratings are almost meaningless when it comes to individual excellence since they penalize those who dominate possession time, an utterly meaningless distinction. Look at shooting percentage for true excellence. If a guard shoots over 50% from 2, he is very hard to defend. 3 point shooting really is as much of a team factor as individual--you have to have teammates who can get you the ball while you are open--it's very very hard to create your own 3. The evidence that Dingle was the best player in the League was his shooting percentage from 2, when he almost always was subject to a double team. Jordan Dingle shot 56.5% from 2 in the League this year, and 85% from the line. Those are numbers of an unstoppable player. His 3 percentage was a bit lower than one would like, but as I said, many were taken out of necessity. To compare, Brendan Barry shot 36% from 2, Choh, 47%, Kirkwood 47%, Llewellen 49%, Swain, 47%. Only Gabbidon and Tosan were comparable from 2, and both had far more help and shot few 3s.
penn nation
Professor
Posts 21081
03-21-22 10:10 PM - Post#339743    

Dingle and Swain have impressive scoring stats, but it takes an awful lot for them to produce them.

Swain had 479 FG attempts this year and Dingle was next at 445. #3 was Llewellyn all the way down at 376. Dingle was only 14th in overall FG% while Swain was 18th. They were 13th and 14th, respectively, in 3 pt shooting as well.

  • Stuart Suss Said:
May I respectfully request that Local Tiger and Palestra 38 move the debate about the quality of Jordan Dingle's teammates to another thread.

By posting these efficiency statistics, I was hoping to start another discussion. Local Tiger, Palestra 38 and others are welcome to join that discussion.

Jordan Dingle ranks 28th (Row 29 is the 28th ranked person as Row 2 is the first ranked person). Azar Swain ranks 43rd. Yet, the coaches unanimously voted each of them to the 1st team, All Ivy. Most fans would have voted identically. Jaelin Llewellyn, who was also voted to the first team (not unanimously) ranked 21st.

As I have acknowledged, box score metrics like this are unable to count non box-score aspects of the game, playing defense, boxing out, setting screens and the like.

My question: What are these efficiency numbers failing to count that produced such shocking rankings for Dingle and for Swain?




SRP
Postdoc
Posts 4894
03-21-22 10:15 PM - Post#339745    

Stuart, how is this different from the usual problem of not correcting for usage (which some used to call the "Kobe Bryant problem)?

Suppose you think about an offensive possession as exploiting opportunities to score or assist. These opportunities are of different quality, and a better player can score or assist more often at a given level of opportunity quality.

Opportunities arrive with a degree of randomness for any given player. A player who only shoots or makes an assist-type pass with great opportunities, and hence has very high efficiency, could well be less productive than one who is intrinsically better at any opportunity quality level but who also uses more-plentiful, lower-quality opportunities.

For example, being able to dribble by a primary defender and challenge a help defender with a 40% success rate could be more valuable than only being able to hit an uncontested layup at an 80% rate if the former opportunity occurred more than twice as often. (Coaches and teams that can manufacture more great opportunities are rightly lauded, but that just changes the absolute numbers, not the principle that a high-usage player who is relatively good at available opportunities may be worth more than one who has to, or chooses to, wait for very good ones to come by.)
LocalTiger
Masters Student
Posts 406
03-21-22 10:20 PM - Post#339749    

I was trying to have that discussion. As I said,
the All-Ivy second team was generally more highly rated
on these numbers than the first. Some of that, as you
pointed out, reflects a bias for inside players, or at least strong rebounders (Wright). It also struck me, however, that role
players like Friberg and Martz score better than their teams' stars.
you had cautioned that the numbers are better in comparing players
at the same position. Perhaps, I would add, if they play similar roles
in terms of offensive burden. On that basis, comparing Llewellyn,
Dingle and Swain ( and perhaps Lilly) by these metrics does tell us something about their overall effectiveness.
I am surprised Swain does not score higher, and the low ranking of Yale players overall is the biggest puzzle to me.
iogyhufi
Masters Student
Posts 679
03-21-22 10:40 PM - Post#339754    

The usage issue is very real — Bart Torvik tries to control for that with his PORPAGATU! stat (what a mouthful). Link to an explanation: https://www.bigtengeeks.com/new-stat-porpagatu/

In that metric, the coaches' choices are largely vindicated: Tosan is rated 4.4, Dingle 3.7, Wright 3.3, Kirkwood 3.3, Swain 3.0, Llewellyn 3.0.

The one thing I think that's hard to capture with any metric is the particular abilities of the other players on the floor. For example, the reason that Swain's production in the ILT was so impressive to me is that Yale almost always had two complete non-threats to shoot on the court at all times. That shrinks the paint for drivers and makes it easier to give help defense or send double teams. Matt Painter showed exactly what I mean after Azar burned Purdue for those early 11 points: he started icing every ball screen Swain tried to use, knowing that the players who were being left open weren't likely to make him pay for so doing. In my mind, this should be a credit to both Swain and Kirkwood, since they both played on teams that had a lot of minutes taken up by players who weren't major concerns for opposing defenses.
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts 6391
03-23-22 06:39 PM - Post#339809    

Maybe because I am a little older, I view this as the Dominique Wilkins problem. The year he tore his Achilles, I believe the Hawks offensive and defensive efficiency improved statistically (at least in the unsophisticated way we measured these things back then) once he got hurt. Yet the Hawks lost more. There are situations (often outcome determinative ones) where having a high usage player who can get his own shot is more important than the efficiency stats can pick up.

Of course, I say this from memory without looking up whether it is actually true. Hopefully nobody goes back and proves me wrong.
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts 1124
03-24-22 09:29 AM - Post#339821    

  • SomeGuy Said:
Maybe because I am a little older, I view this as the Dominique Wilkins problem. The year he tore his Achilles, I believe the Hawks offensive and defensive efficiency improved statistically (at least in the unsophisticated way we measured these things back then) once he got hurt. Yet the Hawks lost more. There are situations (often outcome determinative ones) where having a high usage player who can get his own shot is more important than the efficiency stats can pick up.



Plenty of people on this Board insisted that Dartmouth was a better team without Evan Boudreaux for the same reason.

Yeah. You betcha...

Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
07-09-23 09:10 PM - Post#357164    

This is the first post regarding the efficiency numbers for the 2023, 14 game, Ivy regular season. This post usually appears in March. However, as suggested in my post earlier in this thread, dated March 18, 2022, I have come to question the validity of the David Berri (WS) formula.

As critics have claimed, Berri overvalues rebounding. In my judgment, Berri also undervalues points scored.

One alternative which has appeared in my annual table is the Hollinger (GS) formula. Hollinger's formula reduces the value of rebounds. Berri assigns a weight of 1.0 for each offensive rebound; Hollinger assigns a weight of 0.7. Berri assigns a weight 0.5 for each defensive rebound; Hollinger assigns a weight of 0.3.

Hollinger gives a slightly higher weight both to an assist and to a blocked shot (0.7) compared to Berri (0.5). They both give a weight of NEGATIVE 1.0 to a turnover. There is a consensus that a turnover is more harmful than an assist is valuable. That is why I recommend the pure point rating as shown in my table, instead of a raw assist to turnover ratio. The pure point rating weights an assist at 0.67 and gives a weight of NEGATIVE 1.0 to a turnover.

While the pure Hollinger (GS) formula gives more value than Berri to points scored, it does not, in my opinion, sufficiently punish inefficient shooting. Pure Hollinger rewards someone for scoring as long as his two point shooting percentage is at least 29.2% or his three point shooting percentage is at least 20.6%. That does not seem correct to me.

Therefore, I have adjusted the pure Hollinger formula. As I have adjusted the formula, a scorer will be punished if his two point shooting percentage is less than 50% or if his three point shooting percentage is less than 35.3%. Those numbers are close to the Division 1 averages.

To be continued . . .
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
07-09-23 10:07 PM - Post#357168    

With the adjustments described in my post from earlier today, here are the Efficiency Numbers for the 2023 Ivy League regular season.


The change I have made from the Berri (WS) formula to and adjusted Hollinger (GS) formula has not made significant changes in the rankings for prior seasons:

2007: Mark Zoller remains #1 and Ibby Jaaber remains #2

2008: Mark McAndrew moves from #2 to #1. John Baumann moves from #3 to #2. League leading rebounder, Travis Pinick, drops from #1 to #4.

2009: Matt Mullery remains #1. Drew Housman jumps from #4 to #2.

2010: Jeremy Lin jumps from #3 to #1. Zack Rosen jumps from #13 to #3. Jeff Foote drops from #1 to #2.

2011: Kareem Maddox moves from #2 to #1. Keith Wright moves from #1 to #2.

2012: Brian Barbour, the second leading scorer in the league, jumps from #12 to #1. Chris Wroblewski jumps from #5 to #2. Rob Belcore drops from #1 to #4.

2013: Ian Hummer remains #1. T.J. Bray moves from #2 to #3. Wesley Saunders moves from #3 to #2.

2014: T.J. Bray remains #1. Justin Sears remains #2.

2015: Justin Sears remains #1. Rafael Maia remains #2.

2016: Brandon Sherrod remains #1. Justin Sears remains #2.

2017: Steven Spieth jumps from #3 to #1. Myles Stephens moves from #1 to #2. Sam Downey moves from #2 to #3.

2018: Trey Phills remains #1. Matt Morgan jumps from #5 to #2. A.J. Brodeur moves from #2 to #3.

2019: A.J. Brodeur remains #1. Richmond Aririguzoh remains #2.

2020: A.J. Brodeur remains #1, Chris Knight remains #2

2021: No Ivy League basketball season

2022: Jaylan Gainey remains #1. Dame Adelekun remains #2. Tosan Evbuomwan moves from #3 to a tie with Adelekun at #2.

2023: Dame Adelekun remains #1. Paxson Wojcik remains #2. Tosan Evbuomwan moves from #5 to #3. Chris Manon jumps from #8 to #4. Jordan Dingle jumps from #13 to #5. The leading rebounder in the league, Nana Owusu-Anane drops from #4 to #12.

Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
07-23-23 08:47 PM - Post#357363    

I have bumped this post from two weeks ago. Usually there are at least a few comments about players whose rankings are perceived to be surprisingly high or low.

Here are the Efficiency numbers from the 2023 Ivy regular season.

Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts 1439
03-10-24 02:51 PM - Post#364973    

The efficiency numbers from the 2024 regular Ivy League season are available.

I invite readers to scroll back in this thread to view my two posts from July 9, 2023. In those posts I explain the changes I have made to the manner in which these numbers are calculated.

Caden Pierce has record high numbers in both the Adjusted GS and Adjusted WS. These numbers go back to the 2007 season.

In fairness to some other stars of the past, these are cumulative numbers. That is, they increase with each minute that you play. If you sort the chart on a per 40 minute basis (GS/40 or WS/40), and then look back to prior years, you can see those who had comparable numbers to Caden Pierce, but did not play as many minutes.
Dame Adelekun (2022 and 2023)
Brandon Sherrod (2016)
Justin Sears (2014)
Steve Mondou-Missi (2013).

The Cornell stars are represented better by the per 40 minute numbers since Brian Earl limited the minutes of his starters.

Clark Slajchert is represented better by the per 40 minute numbers to account for the six games he missed.

And, as always, these rankings are based upon only those numbers that appear in a box score. There are many attributes one can demonstrate on (or off) the court that don't show up in a box score. The most important of those attributes is on the ball defense. A good defensive ball player is underrated on this chart and a bad defensive ball player is overrated.

1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts 2260
1LotteryPick1969
03-11-24 10:05 AM - Post#365016    

Thanks for this.

I also enjoy reviewing names and data from previous years.



Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved.
Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.691 seconds.   Total Queries: 15   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 06:47 AM
Top