|
Post by Big D on Nov 18, 2009 0:10:37 GMT -6
Saw this on the Butler board and thought it was interesting. The NBA calculates player efficiency with the following formula: Efficiency = [(Pts+Reb+Ast+Blk+Stl) – (Missed FG+Missed FT+TO)] / Games Played Since players play different amounts of minutes, it's better to calculate efficiency per minute so you can get a rough idea of how efficient each player is when they play their respective minutes. So we have this: Efficiency = [(Pts+Reb+Ast+Blk+Stl) – (Missed FG+Missed FT+TO)] / Minutes Played Of course, this is clearly not a perfect formula...it's just meant to give a rough idea of efficiency...who's making good use of their time on the floor. It doesn't take into account hustle plays, how many times a defender lets his man drive around him for an easy bucket, etc. But all of that requires me to give up enjoying UIC games to track each play. Not gonna happen. This formula allows you to use just the boxscore. So, if it doesn't become too much of a pain, I'll do efficiency for each Flame for each game and for the season. I'll probably add a minimum minutes per game requirement at some point... UIC vs UIS (and season) edit: messed up on the number entry....fixed (i think).
|
|
|
Post by axaguy on Nov 18, 2009 9:33:17 GMT -6
Ahhhhh a Butler thing...............interesting. Can chart consistancy and performance with this but what number is good? Based on minutes played, the figures will change each game with each player but what number represents a good number?? Like a .300 batting average or 100 quarteback rating?? Is a 1.0 better or worse that a .5???
|
|
|
Post by Big D on Nov 18, 2009 10:01:38 GMT -6
Well, it's more of an NBA thing than a Butler thing....someone from the Butler messageboard just decided to use the formula to analyze Butler players...so I thought it might be interesting to see where our guys stand.
Clearly, the higher the eff/min number, the better. Not sure what the ideal number is, but basically, eff/min broadly determines the positive contribution per minute played. Any point, rebound, assist, block, or steal is considered a positive. Any missed shot or TO is considered a negative. So, the higher the eff/min, the more that player is doing good than bad while on the court. Don't just look at it as just an individual rating, but look at each player's rating compared to the others.
Not sure if that answered the question, but again, it's not perfect....just gives an idea of who is providing the most positive contributions while on the floor (with respect to the factors taken into account by the formula).
|
|
|
Post by circle70 on Nov 18, 2009 10:02:16 GMT -6
As a stats geek myself, I like the Efficiency Ratings. While the individual game ones are nice, the more useful ones will be the cummulative numbers.
So far as what is a good rating for a player, that's not as important as how the players rank amongst themselves. We know our players will not be as efficient as players on winning teams, but we need to know who the highest rated players are on our team--who deserves more playing time, and more importantly, I think, for the future, how the players rank by class.
As I alluded to in another post, I hope that the top of the rankings is made up of mostly of non-seniors. I know that players having elligibility remaining after this year are not a lock for coming back next year (heaven knows, as has been mentioned by others, too many don't) but at least it offers some hope for improvement.
|
|
|
Post by chicolbball on Nov 18, 2009 10:20:00 GMT -6
I'm a big fan of Efficiency Ratings because I think they provide useful information about which players played the best in a certain system for a certain game. You can't use these across teams, but they provide good insight into things that have been previously mentioned like playing time and rotations. BBState actually calculates efficiency for each game for every player in the NCAA. It's very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by goflames31 on Nov 18, 2009 16:57:58 GMT -6
I think this will be a great asset to the debates that will ensue and I want to thank you for taking the time to do this. Should be very interesting, as a stats person myself.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Nov 18, 2009 17:00:48 GMT -6
Thanks as well to you Big D. It should be very interesting to see how the ratings change as the season progresses.
|
|
|
Post by Big D on Nov 18, 2009 22:21:07 GMT -6
UIC vs CMU Season (2 games)
|
|
|
Post by axaguy on Nov 18, 2009 23:35:41 GMT -6
Big D, Thank you for doing the stats for the rating. I'll wait for 5 games to be played and evaluated before I examine the stats. It's too early with a young team to judge, yet. But even with the numerical comparisons, you need to have seen the team in action, personally, as well, to draw any conclusions from the numbers. For example, Harding grades out well, so far, but will not, ever, see significant minutes.....
|
|
|
Post by longtime on Nov 19, 2009 0:19:08 GMT -6
Hey Big D, Thanks for running the numbers on this! It will interesting to follow as the games add up!
|
|
|
Post by Big D on Nov 23, 2009 23:37:29 GMT -6
UIC vs ISU Season (3 games)
|
|
|
Post by I'm In The Front Row on Nov 24, 2009 10:38:18 GMT -6
Based on this, we should have Jimmy Harding starting...couldn't hurt.
|
|
|
Post by circle70 on Nov 24, 2009 12:10:42 GMT -6
Based on this, we should have Jimmy Harding starting...couldn't hurt. Big D--I also appreciate the fact that you are doing this. Suggestion: to eliminate the "Harding Effect" maybe after about 5-10 games, when a tighter rotation is set, you could drop the players that average < 5 minutes per game?
|
|
|
Post by Big D on Nov 28, 2009 22:33:43 GMT -6
UIC vs SIU Season (4 games) I'll probably have a 5-minute/game requirement starting next game.
|
|
|
Post by Big D on Dec 3, 2009 23:29:30 GMT -6
UIC vs UWM Season (5 games) * 5 min/per game minimum
|
|