Re: Efficiency - reply -Reply -Reply

[Ryan Falcone <FalconeR@nvg.com>]

>>> Alex Wang <awang@mit.edu> 06/09/99 02:03pm >>>
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%. <<<

                Since the two of you have had your final say, I'll express mine
before moving on.  I'm glad that you've finally categorized your efficiency
measurement as what it is--a relatively interesting tidbit of information
that gives an approximation of players' scoring efficiency.  If it helps you
conceptualize individual players' offensive "worth," then so be it. 
HOWEVER, it is no more than a way to synthesize various offensive
categories into a singular meta-analytical rating.


>>>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 <<<
 
              Personal attack?  Sorry that you perceive challenges to your
opinions as being "attacks."  My ostensible "apology" was more for the
possibility that my post would be interpreted as being harsh / uncalled for
(in the words of Jim Meninno), it certainly wasn't an act of repentance. 
The bible is certainly not a strong suit of mine, sorry to say.  I'd be happy
to carry out this discussion off-list, if need be, for I think that we've
inundated our fellow members with more than enough on this particular
topic.

Ryan