now if a player makes 6 of 10 two points shots with no fouls but has 10 turnovers in the process that is extremely inefficient, He is 60% shooting but it took him 20 positions to make 6 shots. That 60% shooting just turning into 30%...
i'll let durvasa fight the "extra possessions" battle (he's right), but the main problem with your formula as i see it is that it disproportionately rewards people who don't shoot much (per minute they play). a defensive specialist like battier or hayes or a big man who is just in there to rebound and play defense, can have a significant portion of their shots erased by steals and blocks and offensive rebounds because they shoot so little whereas someone like kevin martin will have significantly less subtracted from his shot total. so even if kevin martin is very efficient, he could actually lose to someone like battier or hayes just because the denominator in the formula for battier or hayes will be inordinately small (or in the extreme case durvasa provided, it could be negative).
Francis I can't explain to you how badly wrong you are. By battier making that steel, block, and rebound he is giving kevin martin an extra opportunity to score. This formula is all about efficiency and not about the TOTAL. I'm sorry that a negative sign scare you. All its saying is that the possessions he added is more than the possessions that he used. It makes complete sense.
It won't add up. Suppose you have A-team versus B-team. A-team gets the ball stolen from B team. B team gets the ball, goes the other direction, and scores 2 points. According to your first sentence: A-team had 1 possession, and scored 0. B-team had 1 possession, and scored 1. But based on your definition of possession in the second sentence, A-team had 1 total possession (turnover), and B-team had 0 total possessions (attempted shot - steal).
Suppose you player A had an efficiency 2, player B had an efficiency of -3, player C had an efficiency of 0, and player D had an efficiency of - 1. Can you rank them in order of most efficient to least efficient?
Close but no. The one player in B team would have a -1 in the possession. Which means that that person that stole the ball used one less possession to score whatever points he scored. The possession added would be denoted as as a -1 in the points/position which would make the player more efficient. Makes sense to me guys...
You wrote: "I'm defining position as a shot (Field goal attempt) or a turnover (that that individual player has made), simple as that" B-team attempted 1 shot and had 0 turnovers. That means, as a team, B-team had 1 possession. This is the correct way to look at it. But if you use your formula for individual player possessions, it will not add up to 1 possession. It will add up to 0 possessions. This does not make sense. It is impossible for a team to scored 2 points with 0 possessions. That would come out to an infinite efficiency, which is obviously absurd.
If its -3 (3pts/-1 positions) That means he scored 3 pts and had 2 possesions added if a 3 pointer 3pts/(1 shots-2 steels/OR, et)=-3 or shot 2 times and had 3 possesions added if two pointer. So (2 possessions used)- (3 possessions added). And for -1, let say (1 point/-1) so scored 1 point and added 2 possesions, 1 point/(1 shot-2 added) So it would be -3 -1 0 2 the higher the absolute value the more efficient they are and when it is negative they added more possessions than they used.
That is if the person that stole the ball also shot the ball so he shot one time (possible scoring) with using 0 possitions. Shot 1 time - added 1 position = 0 or if he did not shoot the ball then he is at -1 possession. This means that shot 0 - added possesion -1 = -1
Also any formula on this earth that has a variable in the denominator will fail at one point or another. I challenge you to find it otherwise.
You just ranked the players (in terms of efficiency) as: B, D, C, and A. But player A could have attempted 10 2-pointers, made all of them, and he'd have an efficiency of 2. Player C could have taken the same shots and missed all of them and have an efficiency of 0. So how can player C be more efficient than player A?
for what you want you have to include the 48 min. along with the times we get regular possessions ball 24 sec clock + the time we get to score the ball + turnovers + fg att. and made + 3pt fg att. and made + fg pct. + asst. TO ratio + off rebounds and the negative variable of steal - blocks - offensive fouls - def reb of the other team i think the free throws can't be count at the end i see this just predicting the offense cuse they're to much varibles
so if there is a 0 in the denomenator that means that he essentially scored without using an possession. He added as many possessions as he used.
yes even if he made all of them and has an efficiency of 2 this means that it took him five possessions to shoot 10 times, which is excellent. but if player c missed all of them he regained all of those possessions back by steeling the ball, etc. So this means he made up for those missed shots by getting the ball back.
Sure, this will never result in infinite efficiency: points scored / (FGA + 0.5*FTA - OREB + TOV) At worst, you could have 0 / 0, which is undefined. But by your formula, a team could in theory score an arbitrary number of points with 0 possessions and consequentially have infinite efficiency. That doesn't make much sense to me.
First, like I said fg% is very misleading. Would you rather have a guy that made 5 of 5 with 10 turn overs or a guy that made 2 of 5 with 10 steels? That is a possession difference of 20. 48 minutes has nothing to do with it. Giving fouls leads to a higher chance of the other team scoring, so what you could do is what I mentioned earlier as well as normalize the number of fouls given to a particular player with respect to the league average. So if someone was guarding shaq it is not fair to penalize him the same per foul as someone would be guarding, a crappy offensive player. What you could do is (average points w/foul)-(average points w/o foul)*Number of fouls*(number of fouls that player draws during the game)/(average number of fouls the league draws per person per game) and subtract the above equation from the number of points that player committed the foul.
Who said player C stole the ball? He could have just missed 10 shots, and had an efficiency of 0. Reread my initial question.
when the efficiency is 0 that means he used 0 possessions to score his points. When it is negative, that means he gave the team possessions and still scored his points, when it is positive, that means he used team possessions to score his points (which is just fine). Out of curiosity, what is the 0.44 for?
