Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts: 1445
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-09-23 08:10 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 . . .
|
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts: 1445
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-09-23 09:07 PM - Post#357168
In response to Stuart Suss
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: 1445
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-23-23 07:47 PM - Post#357363
In response to Stuart Suss
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: 1445
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-10-24 01:51 PM - Post#364973
In response to Stuart Suss
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: 2326
Age: 74
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-11-24 09:05 AM - Post#365016
In response to Stuart Suss
Thanks for this.
I also enjoy reviewing names and data from previous years.
|
|
