Re: Efficiency - reply -Reply

[Alex Wang <awang@mit.edu>]

> >>> Jim Meninno <jim_meninno@hotmail.com> 06/09/99 11:24am >>>
> Ryan, why is it so difficult to see?  A player that shoots 45%, but rarely 
> hits threes and rarely goes to the line is less efficient offensively than a 
> 42% shooter who does hit a lot of threes and goes to the line a lot 
> (although it would be better if he hit a few more of those).  I think that 
> was the original point, although I could be wrong after the amount you
> two 
> have written on the subject.  Why you singled this one statement out as 
> being completely irrelevant is beyond me.
> 
> Jim <<<
> 
> Your point is crystal clear, Jim, but the example you've chosen for
> illustrative purposes is not entirely apropos of where the disconnect
> between Alex's position and mine was.

If this point truly is crystal clear to you, then I don't have anything
further to say. I am not proposing "scoring efficiency" as a magic tool
for coaches to use to fill their rosters because they have superior access
to data - video which their dutiful assistants spend hours classifying
and processing. It's simply an approximate measure of scoring efficiency
that I feel is better than FG%. If it's too much to bear, then adjusted
FG%, taking into account three pointers, is still superior to FG%.

Ryan also writes:
>             There was nothing for me to refute.  Let he without sin cast the
> first stone, no?  I'm not sure whether to construe your non-dignification
> as being tantamount to acknowledgement of my original claim of
> hyperbolic hypocrisy.  Jim Meninno admonished me for being to harsh in
> my post yesterday, so apologies to both the list and Alex.

I accept your apology. And when I didn't choose to respond to your personal 
attack, you shouldn't interpret that as an acceptance of guilt. Since 
4you seem to know your biblical references, you should remember "Turn 
the other cheek."

Alex