Re: Efficiency measurement is bogus

[Alex Wang <awang@mit.edu>]

> 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.  

Seriously Ryan, why don't you tell me what Paul Pierce's FG% is on fast
breaks then? Or what Walker's 3pt FG% from the left side of the court is 
when the shot is contested, vs. when he is open? These are "relevant 
statistics" but are certainly not available to anyone but obsessed coaches 
like Pitino or video freaks. Why is FG% used? Because it's easily measured.

> 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.  

I gave several examples of why field goal percentage is flawed as a measure
of efficiency. How about this, do you prefer when a player takes 20 three
pointers a game and hits 9, or 20 two pointers a game and hits 10? 
Field goal percentage is clearly no good here. At the very least, you 
want "adjusted field goal percentage" to account for three pointers,
weighing three pointers as 1.5*two pointers. Guess what? It's not a
"commonly used stat." That doesn't make it automatically bad. 

> 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.  

Points per minute doesn't say anything about efficiency.
 
> 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.

Rodman's efficiency is measured better by my efficiency rating and points
per game than field goal percentage and points per game. I never said it
was a magic number that summarizes a person's offensive ability into one
number but I stand by my assertion that it is a superior measure than FG%.
I mean, FG% doesn't even take into account a player getting fouled and
going to the line. How do you explain how it is a good measure of efficiency
then? By your own comments, isn't it "absolutely contrived" also?

> 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 frivolou
 *sly
> absurd.

This is your refutation of my "insinuation" of hyperbole? Wow.
I'm not going to continue this type of discussion.

> 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
>