|
Post by spider on Feb 26, 2021 16:18:34 GMT -5
I have tried to come up with a simple formula for rating performance based on easily available box scores. I realize that misses things and I also wonder whether some aspects should be weighted differently. Anyway, it is plus one for every point rebound block assist and steal and minus one for every missed shot turnover and foul. Paige has had 4 games in the 30’s and 10 in the 20’s and worst of 9. Olivia 9 games in 20’s and worst of 4. Christyn 3 games in 20’s and worst of -6. E 5 games in 20’s and worst of-5. Aaliyah 2 in 20’s and worst of -1. Aubrey 2 in 20’s and worst of 1. Star of game Paige 9.5 times, Olivia 4, Christyn 1, E 3.5, Aaliyah 1, Aubrey 1. Creighton game Olivia 24 Nika 22 Paige 20 Christyn 16 E 10 Aubrey 10 Aaliyah 9 Mir 1.
|
|
|
Stats
Feb 26, 2021 18:46:40 GMT -5
swash likes this
Post by bulkey on Feb 26, 2021 18:46:40 GMT -5
This may or may not be an accurate assessment.
But I really don't think (sorry, absolutely nothing personal intended here) disaggregating individual performances so clinically is good for the game. Basketball is the quintessential team game, and a great deal depends on team need at any point. Baseball analytics are one thing, because of the nature of the game. But sports in which everyone is doing the same thing simultaneously create misleading analytics, I think.
On the great U. of Cincinnati men's teams of the early 60s, there was Tony Yates, who couldn't do anything really well...except being obviously essential to their back-to-back championships against OSU's Jerry Lucas, Havlicek and Larry Siegfried.
For his 4 year career, he averaged 7.7 points, 3.5 ribbies and 3.2 assists. Yet, he is now in the Ohio Basketball Hall of Fame. A great, great, great player. How/why would we want to evaluate him by statistics? Coaches knew how important he was to the team.
|
|
|
Stats
Feb 26, 2021 20:49:59 GMT -5
via mobile
bulkey likes this
Post by swash on Feb 26, 2021 20:49:59 GMT -5
I think you are both getting at a similar theme. Stats can only help us to a point. Even the latest, advanced versions cannot fully convey the impact of a player's or even a team's performance.
My favorite example is 26 assists on 32 baskets. We know that terrible teams cannot replicate those numbers. But that's only one slice. That awesome blowout of MSST in the "piranhas on a roast" game was an absolute destruction of a very good team, had a much lower percentage of assists IIRC ... because there were a million breakaway layups. Although UCONN makes more assists in a running game than most teams, a steal and breakaway doesn't need a pass to make it better. But a stat doesn't know the difference.
We all know there's more to the story, but numbers can help us compare and even to point out when things aren't as bad as they might seem.
|
|
|
Stats
Feb 26, 2021 20:51:21 GMT -5
swash likes this
Post by semper on Feb 26, 2021 20:51:21 GMT -5
Still, it's kinda interesting. A box score is something we all look at. The assists tell you alot!
|
|
|
Post by spider on Feb 27, 2021 20:20:33 GMT -5
Creighton game: Aaliyah 39 Paige 28 Christyn 18 Evina 11 Olivia 8 Aubrey 6 Nika 6 Piath 2
|
|
|
Stats
Feb 28, 2021 8:29:01 GMT -5
via mobile
bulkey likes this
Post by spider on Feb 28, 2021 8:29:01 GMT -5
Sorry I meant Butler
|
|
|
Stats
Feb 28, 2021 10:30:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by swash on Feb 28, 2021 10:30:59 GMT -5
No lashes this time . You need a name for your stat, and we can watch how well it describes the games we watch. Maybe we can get some NICE updates from davidinnaples, too.
|
|