Quote from: JeffRookie2 on February 10, 2008, 10:42:34 PM

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to this, but your arguement that Rose's rather pedestrian 36.1% from behind the arc (as of today) makes up for his terrible overall % and free throw % is laughable. Maybe you are unfamiliar with penalty shots and the fact that 3-point shooters are rarely fouled? I like how your stats dont include points from foul shooting. Using your own criteria of points per shot, (including points from free throws) here is the ranking of every player in the nescac who has taken 100 shots or more this season:

JeffRookie,

I think your stat, which includes foul shots rewards the player who takes the most foul shots that are not counted as attempts.  Correct me if I am wrong, but if a player gets fouled on a shot, the player is not get credited for taking the shot unless he makes the basket.  Of course if the player wanted to pad your statistic he would be best served to miss the shot and have the opprtunity to score 2 points without having the shot go in his statistic.  A player who shot  5 times and was fouled each time,  made 1 of the baskets despite being fouled but made all 9 foul shots would have the statistical line : 1-1,  9-9 ,   11 points       Your stat: 11 points per shot

The player who shot 5 times but made all 5 baskets while he was fouled and made the following 5 foul shots would have the following statistical line:  5-5,  5-5,  15 points     Your stat:  3 points per shot

Which is better?   11 points/ shot  & 11 points scored or 3 points / shot and 15 points scored. (same number of times the player tried to score)

Your stat rewards those who score without taking a statistically recorded shot.  Those who miss the basket when they are fouled (as opposed to those who make the basket), those that get fouled in non-shooting situations after the 1 and 1 bonus is in effect ,  shooters of technical files.

I respect the thought process you gave to my post and time you spent doing the statistical analysis.  My statistic (without fouls) was more a reflection of shooting accuracy.  In my opinion your statistic is not as good a representation of  the accuracy of a shooter.  My point was that a 3 point shooter can miss more often and still be as effective as others who shoot less. 

Do you appreciate that your statistic including foul shots has some unintended distortions.  To eliminate some of the distortion I think you have to add the attempted shot which was rewarded with the opportunity to make foul shots but was not necessarily counted as a statistical shot.  Getting to the foul line is important in basketball but it does not necessarily mean a player can shoot well from the field.


Thanks for you reply

Quote from: JeffRookie2 on February 02, 2008, 09:21:48 PM
Omissions, yes, but not omissions without consideration. I dont think any of those players stand much of chance of making all-nescac. if i wanted to include every good player in the nescac, the list of omissions would have been a lot longer than the ones you site.

As for Rose, he is shooting a .365 clip from the field, and yet shoots enough to be the second leading scorer on the team. To give you an idea of how bad that is, there is not a single player on amherst who shoots worse than 40% from the field, and only Pat Sullivan on your Jumbos team has a worse shooting % than Rose, and he has the good sense not to shoot very much. Rose also shoots under 70% from the line and is not a particurally good rebounder. He is also a terrible defender, although this is not entirely his fault, as he plays out of position at the 4. Yet, despite all of this, some people not only seem to think he is good, but a contender for an all-conference spot.

In fact, Colby, Bowdoin, Bates, and CC all do not have a single player with more than 50 shots with a fg% as bad as Rose's.

The only players in the entire NESCAC with a significant # of shots (again, over 50) with a worse shooting % than rose are:

Andrew Harris, Pat Hasiuk, Ian Fels, Kevin Scura, Jeremy Kaminer.

By that logic, Rose barely misses 1st team All-Cant-Shoot-Straight. And yet, he takes more shots than anyone else on his team, and the 5th most of anyone in the NESCAC (Pierce, Wholey, Choice, Taylor--all of whom shoot at least .430)

Is that a persuasive arguement?

This was a persuasive arguement before 1987 (before there was a 3 point shot).   However your arguement does not recognize the reward the game gives to the 3 point shot. 

Would you rather have a 3 point shooter who averages 36% take more shots in a game or an inside the arc player averaging 52% take more shots?   ( The 3 point shooter will score 108 points on 100 shots.  The 52% shooter will score 104 points on 100 shots).

If you take into account the effect of the three point shot and look at scoring efficiency of some of the players mentioned the raw shooting pecentage is a very weak arguement.  (stats as of this morning):

245 points on 261 shots -  93.9 points/100 shots        (Adam Choice)
217 points on 236 shots -  91.9 points/100 shots        (Robert Taylor)
225 points on 231 shots -  97.4 points/100 shots        (Bryan Wholey)
208 points on 215 shots -  96.7 points/100 shots        (Chris Rose)
163 points on 167 shots -  97.6 points/100 shots        (Andrew Harris)



When it comes to putting points on the scoreboard, Chris Rose is certainly as proficent as some of the other players that have been mentioned for all conference honors.