Thanks for the ATTEMPTED ass kicking but give me some time to look up more stats for this and you'll see that this could be useful.
So can you answer my question again? Order the player A, B, C, and D from best to worst efficiency when, according to your formula, they have efficiencies of 2, -3, 0, and -1 respectively.
i am actually quite right. your denominator is essentially: offensive possessions used - (defense + rebounding possessions "created") this is completely biased in favor of defense (and rebounding), especially good defensive players who are poor offensive players and thus have limited offensive roles. don't you see that? to a very large degree, the players who get the most shots are the most efficient scorers and the players who get the least are the least efficient scorers, which is why the coach divides the shots up the way he does. but you punish this fact, by giving high usage offensive players very big denominators and low usage offensive players very small denominators. a numerical example to prove this point: player A and player B are both starters who play 36 minutes per game for their team. both players record 2 steals and 1 offensive rebound per game. to use your terminology, they "create" possessions at the same rate. however, player A is a significantly better offensive player than player B. player A takes 15 shots (all 2 pointers) and makes 60% of them and scores 18 points. player B, because of his inefficiency, takes only 6 shots (all 2 pointers) and makes 40% of them and scores 4.8 points. so they appear to be equal in terms of "creating" possessions and player A is obviously far superior in scoring and scoring efficiently and so should be rated higher. but here is what the formula gives. player A = 18/(15-2-1) = 18/12 = 1.5 PPP player B = 4.8/(6-2-1) = 4.8/3 = 1.6 PPP that shouldn't be but it is, because player B gets to subtract his equal defense/rebounding contributions from a substantially smaller offensive number. he actually makes up for a 20% shooting differential because this is how math works the closer you get to zero in the denominator. negative signs don't scare me, but as durvasa has pointed out, the formula gives room for not only positive and negative signs that don't indicate which is better than the other, but also absolute values that have no comparative value. a person who actually got enough OREB and STLS could actually keep making their negative denominator bigger and thus make the absolute value of their efficiency smaller than someone with fewer OREB and STLS. your best bet for a big number is to cancel our your shots with the other factors and get your denominator as close to zero as possible. no matter how many points you score, your PPP will be huge. so while i always appreciate people trying to come up formulas and to advance sports statistics (i've toyed around with efficiency formulas before), you will have to significantly tweak this to not only more equitably account for offense and defense, but to give some comparative value to the numbers generated.
Good point durvasa, when the values are 0 or infinity it is harder to scale the players. But quick question, which player would have that value for the season? Can you find him for me? It would be -3, -1, 2. - Scored 3 points per possession added - Scored 1 point per possession added - scored 2 points per possession used - scored 0 points per possession used or added - if it was 0 for possession added i would put him between -1 and 2 - if it was 0 for possessions used I would put him in the bottom.
Before I read the rest let me say this. The offensive minded people have smaller denomenators but larger nominators. Ahaaa!!! . Im not claiming it to be perfect but its not bad.
I personally think this stat is too complicated to be judged effectively (at least by us). My favorite is offensive efficiency - Efficiency=total points/FGA(including foul shots) This makes up for three pointers as well as getting fouled. I bet Kevin Martin would have a pretty good efficiency rating.
That is a good point francis. But the fact of the matter is he scored more points per possession. He is more efficient in the role that he was given. I am not trying to argue that he will be just as efficient if he shot more or he is a better player but he was more efficient in the role that he was given. Its all about finding that balance of the OPTIMAL overall efficient of the team. And to me this shows that adelman is doing a great job finding the right roles for the right players ie. chuck hayes, jefferson.
That is basically what TS% is. We can think of FG% as a very basic "points per attempt" stat, scaled by 0.5, where every attempt is assumed to be worth 2-points, and free throws are completely ignored: FG% = FGM / FGA = 0.5 * ( 2*2FGM / 2FGA) where we assume: FGM = 2FGM (2-point field goals made) FGA = 2FGA (2-point field goals attempted) eFG% improves on that by distinguishing 2-pointers from 3-pointers: eFG% = 0.5* ( 2*2FGM + 3*3FGM) / (2FGA + 3FGA) = (FGM+0.5*3FGM)/FGA where we assume: FGM = 2FGM + 3FGM FGA = 2FGA + 3FGA And TS% goes one step further, by also adding in free throws: TS% = 0.5*(2*2FGM + 3*3FGM + FTM) / (2FGA + 3FGA + trips to the line not including and-1 or technicals) = 0.5*(PTS)/(FGA+0.44*FTA) where we assume: PTS = 2*2FGM + 3*3FGM + FTM FGA = 2FGA + 3FGA 0.44*FTA roughly equals "trips to the line not including and-1 or technicals".
For example, tevor ariza and aaron brooks are damn good players. If you see ariza play a better role his points per possession will go up and I promise you, if aaron brooks passes the ball a few more times a game we will be one hell of a team. Why do you think Chuck Hayes and Battier have not been traded? They are efficient, they are not the best in the offense but the do NOT hurt the team. They still make the team better.
If you're a player that can't do anything but be efficient in an extremely limited role, that is putting more pressure on the other 4 players to do more to compensate for your lack of activity. So that could have a negative impact on overall team efficiency.
That is why every player doesn't play 40 minutes per game. And the time that they are playing they are creating possessions for the team and giving the scorers more opportunity. You guys are claiming that I'm outweighing the defense over the offense; I think the defense should have more weight than it does now. How about the scorers, they are putting a burden on the defense by not defending. By scoring 110 pts in a game doesn't mean you will win. Anyway, durvasa I really enjoyed our discussion but I gotta sign out. I'll check the forum later on today to see what bashing points you have left to throw at me
"Please feel free to correct it and add input. Maybe we can all come up with something that really makes sense. How cool would it be to have our very own effective clutch fans formula!!" If I knew you'd take my posts as bashing rather than constructive criticism (which I thought was what you were after), I wouldn't have bothered.
I'm sorry for the comment I guess there is a fine line between constructive criticism and bashing and I might have misinterpreted your motivation.
That's cool that a stat already exists for that. I don't like all of it like that it counts technical foul points for example. I also think that turnovers (and possibly assists) should be included into this stat so the stat can reflect the chances of making a good play each time you touch the ball.
All these equations are pretty cool. But there is never 1 universal equation that tells who is the best or who matches up the best. Even with research you never get enough information with just one experiment or one instrument. You need several data points from many sources to come up with a good conclusion.
i know what youre trying to say. youre adding an additional statistical category for a player........ it's just that it doesnt take away from his horrible field goal percentage. i would like him to at least shoot 40, preferably 41-42, add with his free throws
This "points per possession" stat is a stat that's been hashed and re-hashed on statistical discussion boards forever. Head over to APBRMetrics and you'll find some old threads on this. The very reason why it's so difficult to come up with an accurate way to arrive at this metric is in part due to the fact that the stats available to the common man in boxscores stink. This has led to approximation formulas such as the ones durvasa posted for what a possession can be quantified or at least estimated as being. The 0.44 you were wondering about is nothing more than a number John Hollinger came up with in the past to account for and 1's, technicals, etc. It was based on historical data. Of course, theoretically, this coefficient should change, but people consider it a close approximation year-to-year. I think Dean Oliver also arrived at something similar in his works. If you read Oliver's Book "Basketball on Paper", you'll see he references the coefficient as "0.4". Here's a thread on the APBRMetrics forum to help you understand : http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=2442&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
