tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609450545815012880.post2133138420456422480..comments2023-10-26T02:21:09.121-06:00Comments on Hoya Prospectus: Analysis: Floriani gets analyticalBrian Lernerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00844052204506883915noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609450545815012880.post-50132456007804822422007-03-23T09:56:00.000-06:002007-03-23T09:56:00.000-06:00To the first comment: agreed. When I noted the pa...To the first comment: agreed. When I noted the pace/minutes adjustment, I pointed out the same thing. It's a crude, unadjusted metric, and the only one of those for which I have much affection is +/-.<BR/><BR/>Recent/notable years in Georgetown history, not adjusted for pace and not including TOs (numbers from <A HREF="http://www.hoyabasketball.com/rosters.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>:<BR/>Ewing, 1981-82: .874<BR/>Ewing, 1982-83: 1.046<BR/>Ewing, 1983-84: 1.000<BR/>Ewing, 1984-85: .979<BR/>Mourning, 1990-91: .922<BR/>Mutombo, 1990-91: 1.007<BR/>Mourning, 1991-92: 1.195<BR/>AI, 1995-96: 1.137<BR/>Victory Page, 1996-97: 985<BR/>Sweetney, 2000-01: .971<BR/>Sweetney, 2001-02: 1.092<BR/>Sweetney, 2002-03: 1.23<BR/>Bowman, 2003-04: .841Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609450545815012880.post-84407102633284789532007-03-23T09:30:00.000-06:002007-03-23T09:30:00.000-06:00Re: anonymousI certainly agree that PPWS is a bet...Re: anonymous<BR/><BR/>I certainly agree that PPWS is a better measure of scoring efficiency, and Adj. Off. Eff. is better still for offense as a whole. I think Ray was looking for a stat that accounts for the whole offensive performance (not just scoring) but that could be easily calculated on the fly (e.g. during halftime).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Re: hoya90<BR/><BR/>Actually, two adjustments were made: first, I changed the scaling to account for the difference between NBA and G'town possessions (60/92), then changed the scaling again to account for the minutes difference (48/40). So, the scale was actually increased due to fewer minutes, but after it had been lowered to account for 2/3 as many possession opportunities.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thank you both for your comments!Brian Lernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00844052204506883915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609450545815012880.post-62962773441093138892007-03-23T04:10:00.000-06:002007-03-23T04:10:00.000-06:00Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but if the form...Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but if the formula itslef is a ratio in which minutes played is the denominator, why does it make any sense to reduce the scale because there are fewer minutes played in the ncaa?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609450545815012880.post-45214453639068079332007-03-23T03:47:00.000-06:002007-03-23T03:47:00.000-06:00Points is an imperfect metric because the formula ...Points is an imperfect metric because the formula doesn't subtract missed shots, which obviously carry an opportunity cost (though less of an opportunity cost than turnovers). You'd prefer, for instance, someone who scored 10 a night with 1.25 PPWS than someone who scored 20 on 0.8 PPWS, since on the extra 17 possessions his teammates would probably produce enough points to more than make up the difference. Similarly, you'd prefer someone who in 10 possessions shot 3-of-10 than someone who shot 3-of-3 and turned it over 7 times as long as your team's OR% was greater than 0.<BR/><BR/>In short, tempo-freeing the stat by adjusting for possessions instead of minutes is good, but ideally you'd also adjust for offensive efficiency and quality of opposition (our boys' average opponents have Adj DEff of 88.1, Vandy's of 94.3, so you could come up with a reasonable rubric that didn't say the kid from Jackson State is the best offensive player in the country by making some adjustment that way).<BR/><BR/>Go Hoyas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com