Re: Efficiency measurement is bogus

[Jim Meninno <jim_meninno@hotmail.com>]

>From: Ryan Falcone <FalconeR@nvg.com>
>
>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.

Ryan, I don't understand your complete rejection of the concept of  scoring 
efficiency.  FG% ignores ability to get to the line and hit free throws and 
three pointers.  Points per game or minute depend heavily on the number of 
shots a player takes.  The idea of scoring efficiency is to evaluate how 
many points a player generates, on average, when a play ends in him taking a 
shot.  It's not a great stretch to conclude that the player who generates 
more points should be given more plays.  It would astound me if coaching 
staffs did not make these kinds of calculations, given the computer systems 
they now have.  And, I'm sure it goes beyond efficiency for players. I'm 
sure certain plays are more likely to generate more points than others and 
the coaches will use that to determine how often to run which plays.  I do 
admit, though, that it is very difficult to find the statistics necessary to 
make a true efficiency calculation in the newspaper.  Primarily because 
shots missed due to fouls are not counted as attempts.


>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?

Here you contradict yourself, becaue FG%, which you claim is a superior 
measure, has exactly the same flaws.  Obviously, the significance of either 
of these statistics increases with the degree to which the player is 
involved in the offense.

I won't get into your personal tirade against Alex, other than to say I 
thought it was uncalled-for.

Jim


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com