Efficiency measurement is bogus

[Ryan Falcone <FalconeR@nvg.com>]

>>> Alex Wang <awang@mit.edu> 06/04/99 04:55pm >>>
My measure of efficiency is (roughly) points per shot, weighing free
throws.  It is not "contrived" to promote specific players and is certainly
superior to measures such as FG%. The problems with it are that good
free throw 
shooters get a bonus, because they tend to get extra free throws in
special 
late game situations that don't relate to their offensive ability; it 
doesn't factor in three point plays; it doesn't factor in turnovers and
assists. 

Your anti-Walker hyperbole doesn't prove anything. I could create equally
"true" Mercer hyperbole: "He is the personification of inefficiency with 
his constant contested 18 footers, blind half reverse prayer layups, and 
inability to get to the line." <<<


Alex:

I'm perplexed by your quixotic insistence on championing this
meaningless "efficiency" measurement.  In an era of sports where
EVERY relevant statistic derivable is measured (for verification, watch
the next baseball game to find out about how so-and-so bats with a
runner on second, two outs, facing a left hander, on Tuesday nights
with the sun in his eyes), I find it odd that in the 100+ years of basketball,
a methodology that is "...certainly superior to measures such as FG%"
has never been calculated until you invented it.  

The answer is that "efficiency" (as defined by you) is an irrelevant
measurement.  In basketball, there already is a methodology for
determining how "efficient" a player's scoring is as a function of the
number of shots he takes--it's called FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE.  If one
wants to perform a more complex analysis--say, to determine points
scored as a function of floor time, then Points Per Minute can be
determined.  The same obviously holds true for other important statistical
categories that aren't directly related to a players scoring ability, such as
rebounds per game / per minute and assists per game / per minute.  

The reason that your measurement is absolutely contrived is that it
includes certain performance measures without accounting for the
correlative worth of other basketball performance indicators.  Quick
Alex:  using your efficiency measurement, interpret Dennis Rodman's
"efficiency."  Does the fact that he always seems to go 2-3 from the
field, scoring almost all of his points either in transition or on putbacks,
verify that he is a more "efficient" scorer than Gary Payton or Antoine
Walker?  If so, what does that prove?  The answer: no one cares. 
Rodman is assessed for his relative scoring ability, and his offensive
aptitude can be determined by assessing existing measurement tools
such as field goal percentage and points per game.

Furthermore, your insinuation that I engage in "hyperbole" is laughable,
given that YOUR primary tactic in rebutting consists of first developing
wildly exaggerated interpretations of others' posts and then "defeating"
these exaggerations with the comparative rationality of your positions. 
Over time, I've come to find your devotion to the "straw man" maneuver
vis a vis the Celtics' List to be as frustratingly tiresome as it is frivolously
absurd.

Finally, on an unrelated note, I heard Bob Ryan on WEEI over the
weekend, and he mentioned that after crunching the numbers, he was
ready to proclaim Walter McCarty the most efficient praying mantis in the
NBA.

Ryan