Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts: 1439
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-09-23 09:10 PM - Post#357164
In response to Go Green
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 . . .
|
